, 1860-02-25
Only two or three more remarks:

t"V VI kAkVE A4ul t GE1llAt Az
!. The paper given by Mr. Wolcott is not the
one advocated By him before the Consolation Of
Rhode Island, When was before that body, and
the adoption Of which terminated the cores
pondence with the General Assembly. Why has
he given another paper, with which Ind notl-
ing to do, and to which my remarks Ind no re-.
ference!
2. Tie polite Invitation received to he pres.'
ent ut his installation, which, had l been in the
city, should hare accepted, justified me in The
conclusion that his views had undergone q
change. Would not the same moral principles
which constrained him to refuse Christian ccr-
rcspondcnce with The Presbyterian Church,
ollgc him 10 refuse to hold Christian and min.
isterial fellowship with me-knowing, rs he
knew, that hold the sameprinciples which the
Church holds:
3. The same ministers whose moral principles,
according to Mr. Wolcott, forbid them to assa'l
the characters Of others on slight grounds, did
recently publish IN odious aud injurious charge
against myself, designed and adapted to destroy
my influence; and when proof was demanded,
they main.aioed digniGed silence. Mr. VOL
colt, l regret 10 say, is one Of them! And he
knows that my Lectures were called forth By
the charge. Of pro-slareryism, repeatedly made'
end made by dim and las brother sdi:ors in Iaeir
poper, in which they were careful never to allow
their readers to see word OF my reply! 1t is
sad to see such discrepancy between prettssioa
and practice. y. L. RICE.
Letter from Rev. Nr. Patton.
Editors Press anl Tribune:
llY unfortunate sermon on the death Of John
Brown appears to hare sorcly disturbed my
ministerial brother, the Rev. Dr.. 1.ice- He call
not digest it. I prepared the discourse FOR
those who had advanced beyond the elements
Of Christian morality, mud in whose minds it
was no longer question whether it be q sin to
caattelize the image Of God.
Either am very ambiguous in my uttesan-
ces, or DR.. Rice rather dull at apprehending my
mcauiug. {IIe does not succeed very well in
spelling my n@me.) When be first did me the
honor to notic= my sermon-wlich was in the
first number, think, Of his paper-Le took 10
exceptions whatever 10 its positions, perhaps
from want Of words to express his horror at its
worse than Papal or Mohammedan DOCTRINE
His uttcrance ouly served him to attempt joke
By complete Misrepresentation Of my meaning !;
he interpreting Of protested abolitonists what it
was self evident that meant to affirm Of the
entire North, in n sentence which regret that
he did not also think to quote in his Sc Lectures
'on Slasery," in his letter to your paper, as it
would have disproyed his unjust charge.
Nobody knows better than Dr.. Rice how to
appreciate the injustice Of quoting part Of
whasan arthor snys, ,omitting his qualiGcations;or
Of giving his general principles without noticing
his application Of them; or Of using lypotheti-
cal OF conditional statements as though they
were absolute; or Of bringing together distant
portions Of u discourse, SO as to sustain charge
made. by using word in one sense or applca.
tion, {thc word martyr" or "princip'es, fo1
instauce,) By quotation in which the word is
used in nh entirely different sense. Yes, l}r.
abolitonist or thickheaded Shareholder should
charge him in j Southern community with
being au auti-s!avery man, and should quote in
proof the eight propositions on page Il Of his
recent lectures, in which ccrtain general state
ments arc made; Withholding, however, all DR.
Rice's subsequent remarks and explanations
in which he 50 ingcniousl5 contr1yes to receive
back to his fellowship, under the guise Of ex
ceptions, those who seemed to be excluded b,
his rule: hope 10 nlaa, North or South, vii
do him such injustice. lie ought to be allowed
the full benefit Of both parts Of bis doctrine
that slavery IL uunpesfjnnah1yn ornat ayjt nuf