In times of tribulation, when the fury of party-strife overrode all other restraints, friendship has more than once proved its saving power by averting otherwise hopeless perils. Diagoras was thus saved from the rage of allied bigots, Demetrius from the dagger of a wily assassin, the elder Cato from the rancor of political rivals. Without the aid of a friend Cicero would never have survived the intrigues of Catiline. Epaminondas made the approval of friends the sole reward of his heroic life, and vanquished the enemies of his country by the enthusiasm of the “sacred legion” of mutually devoted and mutually inspiring friends. Mohammed the Second yielded to the prayer of a humble companion what he refused to the united threats of foreign embassadors, and Simon Bolivar, the liberator of South America, often confessed that he owed his triumphs to the counsel of private friends rather than to the suggestions of his official advisers. C.—PERVERSION. The blessing of friendship, “doubling the joys of life and lessening its sorrows,” could not fail to be specially obnoxious to the moralists of a creed that seeks to lure its converts from earth to ghostland, and depreciates the natural affections of the human heart. The gloomy antinaturalism of the Galilean prophet has been glossed over by the whitewashing committee of the revised Bible, but is too shockingly evident in the less sophisticated version of the original text to mistake its identity with the moral nihilism of the world-renouncing Buddha. The phil’adelphia, or “brother-love,” of the New Testament, is, in fact, merely a “fellowship in Christ”—the spiritual communion and mutual indoctrination of earth-renouncing bigots. With the joys and sorrows of natural friendship their prophet evinces no sympathy whatever. “I am come,” says he, “to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, ... and a man’s foes shall be those of his own household.” “He who hates not his father and mother, his brothers and sisters, cannot be my disciple.” “And the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son.” By that test of moral merit the obligation of natural affection counted as nothing compared with the duty of theological conformity. “Verily, I say unto you, there is no man that has left brethren or sisters or father and mother for my sake and the gospels’, but he shall receive a hundredfold,” etc. “He that loveth father and mother more than me is not worthy of me.” “And another of his disciples said unto him: Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him: Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead.” “For if you love them which love you, what reward have ye?” D.—PENALTIES OF NEGLECT.