“It is,” says a respectable writer, “impossible to entertain sentiments of true friendship, towards those whom we are in the practice of maligning every day.” Milner, in his Church History, says, “Satire and invective are plants of rapid growth in the malignant soil of human nature.” Rev. Mr. Jenkins, in his remarks on the Report submitted to the Senate of the United States, on the petitions presented to Congress, praying that the mails might not be transmitted through the country on the Sabbath, says, “They who are honestly concerned to preserve the sanctity of the Sabbath, can cherish no other than sentiments of heart-felt kindness towards the author of this report. Their disagreement with him on a subject of such vital and enduring interest, would prove it the offspring of some of the very lowest principles which govern human conduct, were it to lead them to return railing for railing.” Some attempt to justify harsh language from the example of Luther. But besides the change in the times and the style of controversy, it ought to be recollected that Luther himself _condemned_ what they adduce as a _justification_ for the use of such language. “In my books of a polemical nature,” said he, “I avow, that I have been more violent and bitter than suits my religion and my robe.” The distinguished Christian poet, Cowper, in a letter to Rev. John Newton, said, “No man was ever scolded out of his sins. The heart, corrupt as it is--and because it is so--grows angry if it be not treated with some management and good manners, and scolds again. A surly mastiff will perhaps bear to be poked, though he will growl even under that operation, but if you touch him roughly, he will bite. There is no grace that the spirit of self can counterfeit with more success than a religious zeal. A man thinks he is fighting for Christ, and he is fighting for his own notions. He thinks that he is skilfully searching the hearts of others, when he is only gratifying the malignity of his own; and charitably supposes his hearers destitute of all grace, that he may shine the more in his own eyes by the comparison. When he has performed this notable task, he wonders that they are not convicted. He has given it to them soundly, and if they do not tremble and confess that God is in them of a truth, he gives them up as reprobate, incorrigible, and lost forever. But the man that loves me, if he sees me in an error, will pity me, and endeavor calmly to convince me of it, and persuade me to forsake it. If he has great and good news to tell me, he will not do it angrily and in much heat and discomposure of spirit. It is not therefore easy to conceive on what ground a minister can justify a conduct which only proves that he does not understand his errand. The absurdity of it would certainly strike him, if he were not himself deluded.”