LETTER OF
The GOSPEL TRUTH CHARLES G. FINNEY
1868
To A. Ritchie, Corresponding Secretary
of the Western Tract and Book Society
10 November 1868
[Ms in Finney Papers, # 1967. Copy in the handwriting of Rebecca Finney.]
In July 1868, the Rev. A. Ritchie of the Western Tract and Book Society in Cincinnati had approached George Clark of Oberlin with a view to getting Finney's lectures on Freemasonry published. Negotiations followed, until Finney received the following letter:
Cincinnati, Nov. 5th 1868
Rev C. G. Finney
Dear Bro
At a meeting of our Board this
P.M. the following resolution
was passed "That the Sec. write
to Pres. Finney and inform him
that the Comm of Pub. will with
pleasure examine any Mss
which he may please to submit
for its consideration but that
our Constitution prevents agreement
to publish before examination"
I would add that I was very
much surprised at the conclusion
you draw from my last letter.
I understand the 2d Church to
hold that while it is opposed
to secret socs and ready at
[page 2]
all times to denounce them
yet it is not prepared to say
that every member of such Socs
should be summarily turned
out of the Church, and that
in no case should such an
one be received. This makes
a distinction between men and
the system. We think such
a distinction ought to be made.
Send me your letters complete
and if we do not publish
then condemn but until
then we regard condemnation
as unjust to us
Yours
A Ritchie
Finney also received a letter from Jonathan Blanchard, the president of Wheaton College, dated Marietta, Ohio, November 7, 1868, in which he wrote:
I called at the Cincinnati Tract Room yesterday and write at the Request of Br. Ritchie that he wishes almost he had not written just as he did and wants your Manuscript for the Book right away and he has no doubt or thought but that it will be all right, only he thought as the United Presbyterian Churches are full of Masons, he did not want them all turned out in a flock the first afternoon.
Finney's reply to Ritchie is as follows:
Oberlin 10th Nov. 1868.
My Dear Brother Ritchie,
Yours of the 5th is rec'd.
The resolution of your committee is
well enough, but as they have al-
ready decided committed themselves to the
opinion that persistent & instructed free-
masons should be received to the church
& as this is opposed to my own views &
to those of our churches, & as in publishing
on the subject, I propose to expose &
refute the position to which your committee
have beforehand committed themselves, it
is of no use to undertake the publication
through them. Of course, I concede to them
the right which I claim for myself, to
hold & publish their own views, but
after informing me, through you, that
they shall not publish that which sus-
tains the position of the first church
it is useless to send them my man
[page 2]
-uscript simply to be rejected. If I
publish further upon the subject,
I tell you frankly, that it is my pur-
pose to show that no man who
takes & adheres to the such horrid
oaths to commit such horrid crimes
as freemasons do, has a right to be
in the church of God. I do not hold
as you seem to suppose that all free-
masons should be "summarily turned
out of the church" without labor ex-
postulation, instruction & reproof.
But I do maintain that, if after due
instruction & labor, they still avow
their adherence to the oaths principles &
practices of freemasonry that they should
be excluded. I hold the same in relation
to candidates for admission. I do not
believe that any candid man can read
and understand the oaths & principles
of freemasonry & then affirm that an
intelligent & adhering mason should
belong to Christ's church. When we
[page 3]
began the discussion of the subject, we
found to our surprise that we had three
Royal Arch masons in our church. One
of them went over to the Episcopalians with-
out asking for a letter. Another, did
not deny having taken the oath belonging
to that degree, but denied its obligation.
The third denies that he ever took the
oath & affirms that any man who would
adhere to that oath or to the oath of the
master's degree, should be excluded
from the church. I have not found
a man who would say that any one who intelligently
adheres to these oaths, should be allowed a place in
Christ's church. But my object in writing was
simply to say two things. 1st That I had no thought
of condemning your committee- The condemnation was on
the other side. You informed me that they had prejudged our
case without a hearing, & condemned our position 2nd I
intended to say that it is of no use to send my numbers
there, because your committee have already condemned
them, by expressing an opinion through their
secretary. God bless you & them, My Dr. Br.
C. G. Finney
Finney received the following reply from Ritchie in Concinnati:
Cin. Nov. 11 1868
Pres. C. G. Finney
Dear Bro
I have no wish to annoy you by my letters
and yet I so value your approbation that I
am not willing to stand in a false position
1st I was so anxious that your Book should
pass our Comm that I suggested the only
point on which there was likely to be a diff
-iculty. It was not the act of the Comm. at all.
2d None of our Comm. as far as I know believe
that persistent and instructed masons
should be received and kept in the Church.
Indeed we would not advocate the receiving
of even teachable and partially informed
masons. All that I feel it a duty to do
in present circumstances is to refrain
from condemning those churches who tolerate
[page 2]
or receive the latter class with a
view to instruction & reform.
I might add that during a Pastorate
of twelve years I never received a
single member of any secret Soc.
A very near friend of mine formerly
a member of our Comm. received in
the same period twelve and succeeded
in every case in getting them to
leave the Lodge - He claims still
that he has done more for the
cause than I did. I am not
prepared to condemn him, much
less would I condemn President
Finney's plan for on that plan
I always acted. I need not tell
you that we need much wisdom
in dealing with such a system
of iniquity. I shall still expect
your Mss I doubt whether
the difference between us amounts
to anything after all at least
you will see that it is of a negative kind.
Yours A Ritchie
The following was received from Jonathan Blanchard in a letter dated Cincinnati, Nov 12. 1868:
Dear & Beloved Brother --
I have but a moment to write-- Do my dear brother send your Manuscript to Brother Ritchie --carefully and prayerfully revised as you surely will. The only difficulty with Brother Ritchie is that he is perfectly simple hearted and honest-- and does not wish to say one thing to one man & another to another -- And as "while men slept" (yourself among them) the devil hath sowed his secret tares in the Churches he (Ritchie) does not want to jerk up wheat and tares together -- But do send your Manuscript without delay --
Finney then received the following from J. A. Bingham, the General Agent of the Western Tract and Book Society:
Mallet Creek Nov 25, 1868
Rev. C. G. Finney
Dear Bro:
I expected to find on
my arrival in Cincinn-
ati your Book nearly or
quite ready for delivery. Of
course I am disappointed
that the copy is not
furnished. What does it
mean? The Soc. is ready -
and has been. The form
of passing through the
hands of the publishing
Board, being the first, &
only thing after Mss. recd
no other delay, as I un-
derstand it, will prevent
[page 2]
expeditious issue. The people
want that Book, I want
it -- and wish to put
it in the hands of others.
Is the Tr. Society to have
the copy? Are we to
have the Book for
the public good? If not
we must hurry up
Dr. Morgan's report
Yours truly
J. A. Bingham
Further negotiations took place, and Finney eventually got his Mss off to them towards the close of the year.
Footnotes:
See letters of Ritchie to George Clark, 17 July and 28 August, and to Finney, 7 August 1868, in Finney Papers.
See Ritchie to Finney, 4 December 1868, and letter from Ritchie dated December 29, 1868, in the Calendar of the Finney Papers, acknowledging receipt of the Ms.