LETTER OF
The GOSPEL TRUTH CHARLES G. FINNEY
1871
To Charles Albert Blanchard
2 November 1871
[MS in the Finney Papers, microfilm, roll 6, #2139. Copy of a letter in the handwriting of Rebecca Finney]
Finney had received the following letter from Charles A. Blanchard:
Wheaton Oct. 27. 1871
Rev. C. G. Finney
My dear brother,
Philo Carpenter, Esq. has
to day read to my father and myself a letter
from you wherein you "bitterly and personally" re-
proach the Editor of the Cynosure, and remark
that the Cynosure must be reformed before it can
reform others. Along with this rather insulting re-
mark, comes an insinuation, that, under other
hands the paper could accomplish much more
for the cause.
On account of this letter I beg leave to
call your attention to a few facts: and first,
That when the secret lodges were undermining
the liberties of Americans, and the religion of
Christ, the alarm was not sounded from Oberlin
but from Illinois. It is true that Clark, Burrell,
Cross, Morgan and other brethren, and above all
yourself have done noble work, but this does not
alter the fact that organized opposition to the
[page 2]
secret orders commenced west of Ohio. and second,
That when the paper was called for Oberlin was
asked, by one of its Professors to lead the movement
and take the paper but Oberlin declined, the Prof.
writing that "we shall resign that honor to Wheat-
on: and third,
That the paper has lived and grown in spite
of the world, the flesh and the devil, to a
circulation of over five thousand, receiving the
heartfelt "God-speeds" of the same kind of men
who were the first to follow you to Christ, and
the opposition, secret or open, of the same sort of
D.D.'s, and Profs. who threw their whole weight
against Finney and Holiness and God, and fourth
That when the open enemies are beginning
to give way; when the denominational papers
have been compelled to say a little for God's
own truth; when the secular papers are begin-
ning to throw off the muzzles of secretism;
and finally when a great misfortune should
have stilled the tongue and stopped the pen
of slander, of envy or of malice: The man
who has kept the fires burning when his
[page 3]
brethren were asleep; who started the paper
they lacked strength or courage to start, this
man is struck, and struck in the dark,
and in the back by a brother in Christ!
If you believe one half that you have said
in the letter referred to, you have sinned in not
warning in the spirit of Christ your brother who
was going wrong. But at such a time, in such a
way, to attack a paper which has contended as
best it could for principles you profess to love; to
it
seek to draw it from the one who startedto a place
or able
where there is no one who has been willingto
take any responsibility for it, and to seek to put
it into the care of strangers; this is past belief.
Did I not know you[r] earnest work for the Mas-
ter; your long and faithful fight with sin; your
elevated christian character, I should say that
the author of such a letter was a trickster and
a coward. Nor can I now think that my own
ce
C. G. Finney, whose name I have reverenced sin
I breathed prairie air, could have written such
a letter unless he had been (unconsciously) in-
fluenced by a small ambitious spirit, which
[page 4]
seeks to obtain from strangers a place for
which his best friends most thoroughly
know his complete unfitness.
It seems to me that a confession is
due from yourself to Prest. Blanchard and
also a Christian reproof if you think him
to be wrong. Hoping and knowing that
you will put this matter, before Him who
has so abundantly blessed your labors and
that we may both be drawn nearer to Him by this affliction
I am your servant in Christ Jesus
C. A. Blanchard
Finney's reply is as follows:
Copy
Oberlin 2nd Nov. 1871
My Dr. Br. Blanchard,
Yours of the 27th ult is rec'd.
I will reply in the order of your letter 1st "bitterly & personally"
reproached &c. My Br. is there no difference between an earnest,
and a bitter protest? is there no difference between a personal attack
in a public newspaper & writing of an error of a person in a
private letter? and especially when the letter is written to an official
respecting the duties of his office. Br. C. is the most influential, as I sup-
pose, of the committee that controls the organ of the national society
I supposed that I should write to him as the man to correct the
error of which there is so much complaint. You regard the suggestion
that the Cynosure needs reforming, as an "insult." You must be aware
my Dr. Br. that this is the opinion of many of the best, & most devoted
friends of the paper, & the opinion of Br. Carpenter & other members
of the committee. Why then am I accused of insulting you or your
Father by suggesting to the proper person the necessity which we
have all along felt in common? My Dr. Br. your letter has led me to
fear that your resentful tendencies, & those of your dear Father have
deterred your nearest friends & associates in the work, from telling
you plainly what they think. I musts confess my Dr. Br. that it
is dangerous to a sensitive mind to be frank & honest with
you &endash; I am driven to this conclusion by your letter to me,
the like of which, I have never before rec'd to my recollection.
I did not know until now, that you claimed infallibility in the
conduct of that paper. I am made sad my Dr, Br. by this claim
as it forbids all hope of improvement, which I know the best &
warmest friends of the paper have hoped & longed to see. I did
not write to your dear Father, because I supposed, indeed knew
that he was well aware of the views of many of the readers of the
paper, and needed no expostulation from me. I love & revere
your dear Father. I love the paper, but have so often met with the
objection alluded to, that I have been unable to do much for its
circulation. I paid for it one year, for Br. Morgan, hoping that he
[page 2]
would continue it, but he will not take it, for the reason alluded
to. This is the case with a large number of my personal acquaintances
2nd I love & honor your dear Father for the heroism he manifested
in taking charge of the paper, & for his able & fearless exposure of
iniquity, & especially of secretism. The conduct of the paper be-
longs to him as long as he will so abstain form personal altercation
as not to alienate friends & multiply & strengthen enemies. I was
not aware that any suggestion had ever been made, or any
thought entertained by any one of publishing the paper here, until Br.
Hart wrote after the fire to his son, that Br. Cook had lost all &
"the Cynosure is dead". In casting in my mind what was to be done
it seemed to me, that possibly it might be published here, if Br.
Hart, who has been associated with it from the first, could
come here & conduct it. Before I had mentioned it, I believe,
more than to one person, Br. Carpenter, in a letter to me said
"some friends here have thought the Cynosure might be
published at Oberlin. What would the friends there think of it?"
He can, if he pleases, show you my reply. Since writing
that letter, I have become convinced that no one here, or at
least, very few would favor its publication here. As to myself
nothing short of a command of God would induce me to sustain
any other relation to the paper than I have sustained. The thought never
entered my mind, until you suggested it. But my Dr. Br. you
have such satisfaction with the conduct of the paper, that you
cannot conceive why I should want it reformed; for any other reason
than that I wanted to be its editor. How, my Dr. Br. do you account
for the desire of your committee & for the very general desire for
its reformation? Do they all wish to be editors?
3rd The paper has lived and grown & other papers are being established
to advocate the same cause, but would some at least of these papers
have been needed, or ever existed had the Cynosure been free from that
element that has repelled so many? I am happy to know & to say that much
has been done: that your dear Father has done much &endash; & much of what
[page 3]
he has done has been well done: but some things he has done
have done the cause & the paper much harm, & if I may judge
from what I know within the circle of my acquaintance
I should say that but for the error in question, the Cynosure
ere this
wouldhave had hundreds, if not thousands more readers than it has. I
know that there is such a class of opposers, as you mention, and I wish
all just occasion of complaint to be denied them. But are you not
aware that there is a large class of real friends, who will not justify
the personal assaults of the Cynosure ?, and will not take it, lest by so doing
they should appear to approve its course? I can assure you, that Prof. Morgan
is only a representative of this class, and the class is large. My Dr. Br. if you
and your dear Father have not often been told of this, I fear, from
this letter to me, that it is because the friends fear your resentments,
and that, if they are faithful to you, they shall be denounced in the
Cynosure as enemies to the cause. But, if the friends have been faithful
to you, and your Father, as I have supposed, and have frankly de-
clared the views which I know them to hold, why am I assailed, as
in this letter to me? If the friends of the cause are to be turned upon in
this manner, for attempting, by the proper means, and through the ap-
propriate channel, to correct so notorious, and grievous a fault,
what shall we do? I have always justified on all occasions your Father's
course, as far as I conscientiously could. He has had no truer friend
than myself. I have repeatedly asserted in defence of him, that we need
a Luther in this reform, who will use strong language, and strike
hard blows, and that mild, tame language, and gentle patting
are out of place, in this battle of secretism, but bitter, personal thrusts
are a great fault in a reformer. They deform rather that reform.
I had not known, until the question was sprung upon me here, that your
dear Father had done so much in Illinois to rebuke this iniquity.
I love & honor him for this, and would as soon cut off my right hand
as deprive him of any honor or advantage to which he is entitled for his
courage and faithfulness. You may rest assured of this, that in my anxiety
to reform the Cynosure, I have not, & never had, so much as a thought or
[page 4]
desire to gain profit, honor, or anything else for myself, nor have I
said, written, or done anything from a spirit of rivalry, unfriendliness,
or opposition to your dear Father. You speak of the "time" and the "way"
of attacking the paper. But, my Bro. what time could be more appropriate
than when our paper, with many others is under the rebuke of Providence?
Is not this, the time to consider, and put away, the faults of our paper?
As to the "way", what way is open to us, save through the committee
that controls the paper, and employs the editor? Is not this both the
time & the way, to press the question of reform? I say again, that
I judged it not my business, or my duty to undertake the reform-
ation of the editor, as that is the duty of the committee that em-
ploys him. I have no wish to have the present editor superseded if
this cause of complaint can be removed. Nay, I should strongly pro-
test against his removal. But, unless it can be removed, I should
say, with sadness, he should give place to some one else. I have
not a friend or relative on earth, of whom, under the circumstances
I would not say the same. You think I owe to Pres.t Blanchard a
confession. Of what? Have I done him a wrong, in privately
expressing my own opinion of his course in managing the paper,
to the person whose business it is, to see that the paper is wisely
edited? I expressed my views, and what I know to be the views
of many, to the proper authority. What else should I have done? I was
aware that the editor was well apprised of these protests against his
conduct of the paper, and that he failed to reform. Now, I know,
from your letter that you regard any suggestion of the necessity of
reform as an "insult". My Dr. Br. does this invite, or even brook, criti-
cism, or expostulation? I fear, my young Friend, that, if this is
to be your course you will not often learn the real opinions of your
best friends, with regard to yourself. Do not call this letter a "bitter attack"
on yourself or your Father. I have written every line, in tender sadness & with
much misgiving as to the future of our paper. With love to your Dear Father, God bless you evermore C. G. Finney.
Finney then received the following letter from Charles Blanchard:
Wheaton Nov 29 1871
Prest. C. G. Finney,
My dear Brother,
Your kind letter of 2d inst,
reached me via Mr. Carpenter some time since and
should have been answered ere this, had not my work
prevented.
It is my desire just to correct one
error, caused by my obscurity in the first letter
addressed to you on this subject. It never occur-
red to me that you wished to edit the Cynosure.
I thought that you would never consent to oc-
cupy such a position under any circumstances
imaginable. What did I mean? That you were
influenced by the desires of one, whose anti masonry
never troubled the world until he came to live
on a movement thus far conducted (under God)
by a man whom he has steadily striven to sup-
plant. He has written to you endeavoring to damage
my father before this time and it is unnecessary
to call him by name.
You are sad to learn that I claim infallibility
for my father in his conduct of the paper. This
is a mistake caused by my writing or your
imagination. No such claim has been or will
be made. I have yet to see a paper or a man perfect-
[page 2]
ed. We may in some future period have men
who are so thoroughly one with God, that they will
not fail in wisdom or falter in execution. At present
a large portion of the world is engaged in finding
fault with the rashness of those who actively oppose
the world's evils, and the minority are criticising
the well fed, well dressed majority who do nothing
at all in that direction. Both are right and both
are wrong. Christ is the only perfectly wise, perfectly
fearless one the race ever saw, and we have crucified
Him between two thieves.
Again you think I dislike to be reproved.
Again you are mistaken. I have heard much
backbiting; little honest, christian reproof. Those
who have come to me with the latter, are my
friends "because they tell me the truth." Men who
will tell another his faults between the two alone,
in the spirit of meekness are so scarce, as to be
valuable; men who are ready to tell your neigh-
bor of your faults are so common as to be a drug
in the market.
But is there no difference between
a letter to an influential man, and an article
in the editorial columns of a reform paper?
Without doubt there is a difference between two
things that are unlike, from all which it does
not follow that a personal attack cannot be
made in more than one way, and that the
[page 3]
latter might be more damaging than the former.
The whole force of my letter turned on
this one point: between christians the law is: "Go
and tell him his fault," not his neighbor, but
him! According to my understanding that word
was violated, when the letter complained of was
written. It is not pertinent to the case to say that it
was supposed some one else had done his duty in the
matter, the command is a plain one and admits
of no exceptions. Nor is it a sufficient answer
to say that others do the same thing, a dozen's
wrongs dont make one right.
Of course the Cynosure is to be criticised,
justly by friends, and unjustly by pretended friends
who are the worst enemies it can have. You will
observe this in regard to the latter class: they will
condemn Masonry in conversation with decided
antimasons and in all other places will be as whist
as the historical "Three blind mice."
You mention Prof. Morgan's opposition. Now I respect
this Professor and think very highly of him as a
man, but what has he done as a Reformer? The
answer is, I suppose, he is not a Reformer by na-
ture. Granted. Then it is not to be expected that
he will earnestly sustain a Reform paper.
He meets in Council with a large number
[page 4]
of Freemasons: Does he say a word wise or other
wise about secret associations? You say; "Free
masonry is a system of gross hypocrisy" Amen!
"Masonic oaths are a conspiracy against God and
man." Just so, the Prof. assents, now what is he to
do about it? Why, we must go and commune with
supporters of a system of gross hypocrisy, with con-
spirators against God and man, and take for
Secretary of our National council a man who "can-
not be believed under oath."
You are my venerable and dear brother credited, I
know not how justly, with the statement that, "Hell
held jubilee when General Assembly met." What do you think
they did down there, when, in a church that will not
receive masons, masons communed with the con-
gregational churches of North America?
Call an Institution a system of "gross hypocrisy,"
"a conspiracy against God and man" and then
give its adherents the Royal Right Hand of Christian
fellowship and seats at the Lord's Table, this is what
our conservative brethren wish to do; and this is the
strongest bulwark of secret associations to day.
When the wise opponents of these societies start
a paper conducted judiciously, I will support it as
best I can; as long however as they content them-
selves with taking a paper you pay for, and find-
ing fault with men whom they leave to bear the
burden alone, I shall think if I do not say, "Oh Woe
[page 5]
unto you
^ Scribes and Pharisees Hypocrites."
Do not misunderstand me. It is not be-
cause I think the paper faultless that I write
thus, but because the men of whom I speak
do not give as a rule, a moment of time, a
cent of money or even (apparently) a passing
thought to a subject like this.
The churches are dying of dry rot, D.D.'s are
joking about the Back parts of Congregationalism,
sinners are going to Hell, and christians (?)
are ha ha ing about such a low attempt at
wit as the one refered to, while a Congregational
Council permits the Lion's skin to slip way down from
its extremely long ears as it brays out an endorse-
ment of the Treaty of Washington!
On reflection I do not think I addressed
you with the respect due to one so much older
and better than my self, in a former letter, for
this I ask pardon, the facts are their own apol-
ogy.
Should you reply to this please address me
at 25 N. Clinton St. Chicago. If you want to have
Mr. Carpenter read the letter I will mail it to
him after reading. I make this request as I do
not care to receive correspondence through a
third party.
Very Respectfully Yours
Chas. A. Blanchard.
Footnotes:
See Finney to Philo Carpenter, October 25, 1871, Finney Papers, Microfilm, roll 6, #2136.
This word is in Finney's handwriting.
Philo Carpenter.
Still, silent.
This was the National Council of the Congregational Churches of the United States that had just been held in Oberlin.
Dr. Alonzo H. Quint.
Finney had stated in one of his lectures on the revival of religion in Chatham Street Chapel in 1835: "These things in the Presbyterian church, their contentions and janglings are so ridiculous, so wicked, so outrageous, that no doubt there is a jubilee in hell every year, about the time of the meeting of the General Assembly." (Lectures on Revivals of Religion by Charles Grandison Finney, edited by William G. McLoughlin [Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1960], p. 291.)