A NONDESCRIPT DIVINE.

17 Wilton Terrace, New North Road,

London, Eng., March 10, 1859.

To the Editor of the Douglass' Monthly.

SIR:—Of all the specimens of inconsistenty
I have met with, of all the deplorable spec
tacles of the dereliction of duty by men of
note and standing, of all the instances of the
voluntary abandonment of the cause of truth
on the part of its avowed advocates, of all
the traitorous attempts to sacrifice principle at
the shrine of a miserable, mischievous and
merciless expediency, there is perhaps none
that would exceed or even equal in perversity
and shamelessness the special pleading which
it was recently my lot to witness from a Rev.
McLean, D. D., of Philadelphia, U.S., who, upon
the occasion referred to, appeared as the palliator of the crime of crimes, and the apologist
of the vile perpetrators of that crime, whom
he designed as his Christian brethren and
sisters, who were placed in the unfortunate
position of slave proprietors. The Doctor
was a bold man to propose to himself so dar
ing a task in the face of an assembly of Brit
ish Christians, who long ago gladly consented
to pay their share of the £20,000,000 where
with to purchase the national exemption from
all further complicity in the sin of slavery,
and one could not help admiring the effron
tery and dexterity with which he handled the
polluted thing, and how glibly and approvingly he enumerated the excuses which slave
holders in our own colonies were ever wont to
urge when the voice of Christian philanthropy
threatened the destruction of their craft. Sir,
if the Rev. Doctor had been specially re
tained and prompted by the Father of Lies
in accomplishing his task, I do not think he
could have succeeded better. But what did
he say? Well, in the first place, he apolo
gized for alluding to the subject at all, by
stating that it was in consequence of some
communications he had received, (among
which was a letter from the writer of this,)
and the anxiety which had been manifested to
ascertain his views—he the parties
to be —and he was always glad to sat
isfy enquirers on this subject, and would at
once say that he was as great a friend to freedom as any one present.

The Doctor did not—perhaps he felt he not—declare himself as great an enemy to slavery as any one present—a statement which would have been more direct, and saved himself a deal of time and trouble in his elaborate attempt to satisfy his enquirers. Why, sir, there is not a man in the United States,
slaveholder or otherwise, who would not make
a similar announcement to this; but none of
them understands whereof he affirms, unless
he is equally ready to act as the avowed enemy
of slavery. He then expressed his surprise at
the unwarranted expectations of many that
the American Revivals would have the effect
of extinguishing slavery. I candidly confess
that I was simple enough to suppose that the
spread of real religion, of vital godliness,
would have a direct bearing on the institution
of slavery, as well as on all other forms of sin,
personal, social, and public—nay, that Christianity only was capable of grappling with the
Demon, and wresting its trembling victims
from its grasp.

The Doctor then reminded us that ours was
a slaveholding country once, and that many
excellent Christians, among whom he mentioned

the Rev. George Whitfield, of blessed memory, were slaveholders, and yet they did much
good in their day. But, may it not be asked,
Is sin less sinful because our country was once
guilty of it? and does not the Doctor know
that it was the philanthropy and religion of
the country which first of all liberated the
slave that touched her soil, and finally, after
long continued efforts, and at a vast expense,
procured emancipation for the slave through
our her colonial dependencies? What right
has Dr. McLean, or any man, to chide us as
individuals or as churches, with a view to re
press our hatred of slavery and our hostility
to its abettors, on the ground that it was once
recognized by the law of the land? and if
here and there might be found solitary in
stances of Christians who held slaves, even
this ought not to be urged by a Christian
minister to palliate the offence, but rather as
warnings lest we too should fall after the same
example of inconsistency and unbelief. For,
while a man-stealing is a sin—under the old law
a capital crime—and under
the Christian dispensation, the present holder
of slave property can have do better title to
it than a crime the commission of which was,
by Divine appointment, punishable with death.
Indeed, the present slaveholder is, in the whole
chain of sequences resulting in the last state
of the bondman, the most responsible and the
most guilty, for it appears to me quite obvious
that the purchases or a slave in the open
market, is the man that offers the best price
for the human commodity, and presents
therefore to the original dealers the strongest
inducements to bring such commodities to
market.

The Doctor then claimed the kind consideration of his audience for the slaveholder, on
account of the many difficulties that encom
passed the question, and bespoke our indulgence and sympathy in behalf of our Chris
tian brethren who were in the unfortunate position of proprietors, by picturing to our
imaginations their deep sorrow and anxiety
on a dying bed, by reflecting on the possible
distribution of their slave property. It struck
me, sir, that it was a great pity that proprie
tors should spend their lives in planting
thorns in their dying pillows, and that the
readiest way to obtain relief would be to ex
tract the thorn at once by liberating the
slaves, concerning whom they profess such
deep concern.

After hearing this unsatisfactory statement
of the Doctor's views, I took an early oppor
tunity of seeing him, and urging my objec
tions. The Doctor recapitulated the several
points of his public reply, recounted every
fallacy in due course, like a Papist his beads,
adding that in some parts of the States the
law requires the man who liberates his slaves
to maintain them afterwards, whether they
worked or played—as though he did not know
the Divine law is paramount and peremptory,
and may not be set aside by human legislation. As soon as I referred him to the ex
ample of Daniel and his companions in obey
ing God rather than man, at all hazards, and
to the teaching of Christ as to our dealing
with difficulties, even though equivalent to the
cutting off a right hand or plucking out a
right eye, he enquired, in a triumphant tone,
what a man was to do in the case of his father
bequeathing him a number of "."—
This enquiry showed me that he was a slaveholder

in , though he said he was not in
, nor was any slave in his church. It ap
peared plain enough what the Doctor would
do in such a case. Of course, I replied that
if the son were a Christian man, he could not
consistently accept the stolen property, and
that the idea of property in man is abhorrent
to Christianity, and nowhere recognized in
Scripture. He then called the blacks cut
throats, and dwelt on this stale and exploded
argument.

Now, sir, allow me to say, that though this
Rev. apologist for slaveholders appeared in
our pulpit, and in several other pulpits, it was
only through ignorance of his pro-slavery ten
dencies, and we are all heartily sorry for it,
whilst the churches feel greatly scandalized—
No one seems to know anything of his ante
cedents, and the only credentials he presents
are Presbyterian ones. The Secretary of the
British and Foreign A. S. Society knows
nothing of him, nor Prof. Finney, nor does
Miss Julia Griffiths. I hope, sir, you will take
good care to let his friends at home know
something about him. But especially do not
let him appeal to his reception among us as
our endorsement of his abominable views of
slaveholding.

Apologizing for the length of this letter, I
remain, Yours, respectfully,

EBENEZER BURR.