Ebenezer Burr to Frederick Douglass, March 10, 1859

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 spectacles 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 daring a task in the face of an assembly of British Christians, who long ago gladly consented to pay their share of the £20,000,000 wherewith to purchase the national exemption from all further complicity in the sin of slavery, and one could not help admiring the effrontery and dexterity with which he handled the polluted thing, and how glibly and approvingly he enumerated the excuses which slaveholders 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 retained 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 apologized 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 supposed the parties to be sincere—and he was always glad to satisfy 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 could 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 throughour her colonial dependencies? What right has Dr. McLean, or any man, to chide us as individuals or as churches, with a view to repress 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 instances 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 not less criminal 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 encompassed the question, and bespoke our indulgence and sympathy in behalf of our Christian 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 proprietors should spend their lives in planting thorns in their dying pillows, and that the readiest way to obtain relief would be to extract 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 opportunity of seeing him, and urging my objections. 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 example of Daniel and his companions in obeying 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 "servants."— This enquiry showed me that he was a slaveholder

in heart, though he said he was not in fact, nor was any slave in his church. It appeared 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 cutthroats, 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 tendencies, and we are all heartily sorry for it, whilst the churches feel greatly scandalized— No one seems to know anything of his antecedents, 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.