GREIGSVILLE, March 15th, 1853.

FRIEND DOUGLASS:—You doubtless noticed a passage in Dr. Parker's letter to the New York Observer, dated July 31, as published in H. W. Beecher's expose, as follows: "She (Mrs. Stowe) justifies herself by saying the language was imputed to me in American journals, and not denied by me, when she knows that they were abolition newspapers, which I did not suppose were believed in this country, where their character was known." I have italicised the part of the sentence to which I desire to call the attention of your readers, which contains, as I apprehend, a libel, by implication of the most foolish, palpable, and wicked character, wholly inexcusable in any man, but especially in one who stands before the public in the capacity of a minister of Christ. Among partizan and corrupt politicians, who make no professions of piety, or pretensions to honesty, a charge that abolition newspapers are not believed where their character is known, would not be worth noticing, nor even the ink that might be shed upon the the subject; but when it comes from one who makes high pretensions and claims to be super-orthodox—a pattern of morality, par excellence, it is too bad—it is beneath the dignity of a minister of Christ.
Now, I aver that there is not a more truthful journalism than that of the abolition papers of this country. It is seldom that they have made misstatements, and when they have done so, (and who is not sometimes mistaken?) they have, as far as my observation extends, been prompt to make correction when pointed out to them. But why this wanton attack upon that portion of the press which advocates a cause, upon the success of which rest the hopes of an oppressed and dying world? Or does Mr. Parker believe in "getting the world converted" and leaving slavery and oppression to take care of themselves, "having no evils that are not equally inseparable from depraved nature in other lawful relations," and are therefore to be let alone, and all agencies used for their overthrow to be slandered out of existence? Has he not learned that "it is hard to kick against the pricks?" that it is hard to fight against God?" that if he fall on this stone he will be broken? In other words, he has not yet learned that the cause of abolition is the cause of God, and must prevail as certainly as it is that He has said, "For the sighing of the poor, and the crying of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord?"
Yours for truth and liberty,
THOMAS P. BOYD