LETTER OF
The GOSPEL TRUTH CHARLES G. FINNEY
1873
To the Editor of The Examiner and Chronicle
28 March 1873
[Ms in the handwriting of Mrs. Rebecca Rayl Finney, in the Finney Papers, Addendum, Microfilm, roll 8]
1
Oberlin March 28th 1873.
Editor of the Examiner & Chronicle,
Dear Brother, I have seen
three articles in your paper criticizing my notices of the revival in
Governeur in 1825. I am truly sorry, that I offended my Baptist brethren
by what I wrote, for I have labored much with them in revivals of
religion with them, in many places, and with that single exception,
so far as I recollect, without any sectarian friction springing up, that
hindered the blessed work. I have often found them amongst my most
earnest co-laborers. I do not think that I have received, with that single
exception, more opposition from them, than from other denominations. I
am no sectarian; as the churches wherever I have labored, can testify.
I have read carefully and repeatedly the articles in your paper, to
which I have referred, and, not for my own sake, but in
deference to the feelings of my Baptist brethren, I beg leave to
make a short reply. First. My Baptist brethren regard my statements
as falsifying history. 1st They accuse me of representing the moral state
of society in the village of Governeur as worse than it was. I said
in my first article, that a member of the Presbyterian church had
informed me at Brownsville, that his church had no pastor, and
that "the state of society was highly irreligious." I did not say, that
it was a "God forsaken place." But what I did say has given offence
In ref Secondly, I have within the last year, seen two persons of
unquestionable veracity, who lived in Governeur at the time
I was there, who spoke freely of the state of society before the
revival, and represented it as much worse than I had supposed.
Of course, this was in, and immediately around, the village. Thirdly, In
the articles in your paper, I find enough from which to infer
as much as I had asserted, at least. I had spoken of some young
men's banding themselves together to resist the revival. Mr. Putnam
the present pastor, says "In talking with one man he said to me,
"Well, now, I suppose I was one of those young men, to whom
Mr. Finney referred. I was in those days, a very wild boy,
[page 2]
2
and said with others, that I did not want the religion that Finney
preached. He was such an over bearing man, such an egotistical
man, that we determined not to have anything to do with him
or his meetings." Now did not this justify what I said? Was not
this banding together to resist the revival? But, after a sentence
or two he adds, "But as for us young men banding together
there is no truth in it." So he both affirms, and denies, what I
said. The then pastor, Rev. Noah Barrell, writes of one of these
young men, "It was the custom of the young men, to have a
ball, on the fourth of July. And in June, the work of the Spirit
was so general, that the most hardened young men resolved to
have a dance, and one was so desperate as to swear that
he would have one more dance, if he danced over hell."
Do not these sayings of these young men, seem to justify the state-
ment, made by the member of the Presbyterian church, that
society in the village, was in a highly irreligious state?
Again, Mr. Putnam writes "I have questioned old men &
women who remember Mr. Finney's preaching, and all about
the meetings he held here. None have told me that the things he
states in his article are all true. Observe; that revival was in
1825, nearly fifty years ago. It could not be reasonably ex-
pected that persons now living there would verify all the
facts that I related. Several of those facts, they may
never have heard of. And if they had, I submit, that
they would not be as likely, as I should, to remember them.
Mr. Putnam continues, "They say there was opposition, but
not by Baptists, any more than by others;" This may have
been true, without its coming to my knowledge. But I
do not recollect to have heard of opposition from
Presbyterians. It is certainly well known, that opposition to
my labors as an Evangelist, has not been confined to the
Baptists. But I did not think it necessary or in point, to
[page 3]
3
say this, in that article. I had said in my article, that
some of the Baptists had joined the Presbyterian church
at our communion after the public discussion of the
question of baptism. Mrs. J. H. K. says that "this
is an untruth." This is also affirmed by Mr. Barrell, as
you represent, in his letter to you. If the church records,
of both churches, made at that time, justify this denial, then
it is plain that my memory is at fault, and I am
happy to stand corrected. I have made no inquiry as regards
the records of those churches. But, My Dear Brother, is it wonder-
ful, that after nearly half a century, we should disagree in our
remembrance of facts, and does good sense and charity,
allow us to make those questions of fact, occurring
so long ago, questions of veracity? I regard them
simply as questions of memory. I have no suspicion
that any of the brethren who now differ with me in regard
to those facts, are guilty of lying. I suppose that each of us,
will continue to believe that his version of the facts, is the
true one. But, surely, it is a unreasonable, as it is uncharit-
able to suspect, or accuse each other of lying. I have had
occasion to know, that untruth, even in witnesses under
oath, in regard to matters of memory, is more frequently
a mistake, than an intentional falsehood. In the com-
munications from Governeur, it is denied that Mr. Hervey
D. Smith was ever an infidel. I said he was a Deist. This
fact, was not perhaps generally known at Governeur, as I had
supposed, or, if it had been known, it may have been forgotten.
Men often conceal their private religious views, even from
their own wives. And but for the fact, that Mrs Smith her-
self, told me at the time that he was a Deist, and
that since, when I informed her, of the substance of my
conversation with him, when he was converted, as I related
[page 4]
4
as I related in my article, she took no exceptions to
my representing him as a Deist, but on the contrary, ap-
peared to take the deepest interest in my report, I might
suppose that he had never revealed his skepticism to
her. I have not the least suspicion that any one there, uttered a
known untruth, in denying that Mr. Smith was a skeptic.
Bro. Barrell's recollection of the facts, differs widely, from
my own. He states that the revival commenced in the Bap-
tist church, before my arrival at Governeur. Of this he is
better informed no doubt, than I am. I do not recollect ever to
have heard of it. He says also, that Mr. Barrell & Mr.
Nash agreed to have meetings in the two churches at dif-
ferent hours, and thus mutually to assist each other.
Of this, I do not recollect to have ever heard. But it does
not come into my heart to accuse him of any misrepresentation.
my
He also says, that on ^ first interview with him, I denoun-
ced the neglect of my people to introduce me to him before, as
shameful, and said the devil was in it. Now, I suppose
that I am as well convinced that this is a mistake, as
he is, that it is true. But I have not the least suspicion
that he states other, than what he believes to be true. What he
states of our interview in the Presbyterian church, differs
widely, from my recollection of the interview. I had stated
that, in that interview he promised to defer the open-
ing the doors of the church, for the reception of new members
until the revival had spent its strength. as I thought the
introduction of the question of baptism, would create still
further division between the two churches, and grieve the Holy
Spirit, thereby putting an end to the revival. I stated, that
they soon after opened the door of their church, and that a
highly sectarian Baptist minister came in, and lectured repeatedly
as I understood, upon the subject of baptism, and that they
[page 5]
5
continued to lecture and baptize, as I understood, from
day to day. And this as I stated, and verily believed
was that which stirred up so much sectarian feeling,
grieved the Spirit, and for the time arrested the
revival. Bro. Barrell is represented by you as saying
"The only discussion about baptism, grew out of the
action of a leading member of the Presbyterian
church, Mr. Joel Keyes, who having made up his
mind that he was in the wrong church proposed to
meet at his own house, as many ministers and
members of his church, as should be appointed, to
discuss the question of baptism. Accordingly three
ministers and Mr. Nash argued the case, from the
Presbyterian standpoint, and Mr. Keyes & his wife,
who was a Baptist, from the Bible standpoint." This
he says, "resulted in Mr. Keyes and three others go-
ing over from the Presbyterian to the Baptist church.
Of this discussion, I do not recollect to have ever heard be-
fore. If the going over of those members, is matter of record
made at that time, it is of course true. But I have
not the slightest recollection, of ever having ever
heard of it. He does not say who the three Presbyterian
ministers were, who, together with Bro. Nash argued
the question. Bro. Barrell, you represent, as further
affirming that in his private interview with me
I said that I had no doubt "but that immersion was
the primitive mode of baptism, &c." I have not the
least doubt that this is according to his recollection,
however he came by the idea, and I have just as
little doubt that it is wholly a mistake. The
discussion of the subject of baptism My public dis-
of the subject of baptism
cussion, ^ that followed this private interview was my first
[page 6]
6
public teaching upon that subject. On that occasion
I explicitly maintained that immersion was not the original
mode of baptism, and have ever since maintained it,
as the many whom I have taught both as pastor, and
Professor of Theology, can testify. I then taught, and
have always taught, that I did not regard the mode
of baptism, as essential to the validity of the ordinance,
and hence, my practice has been to allow converts
to choose their own mode of baptism, and I have
administered it in various forms. You say that
I had pretty thoroughly considered that question before I
joined the church, and had still further examined it,
during my Theological studies, and though I may be
mistaken, yet I have never seen cause to change my
opinion. You say, "Mr. Barrell further states that during
this revival, no other Baptist minister was present, save
on one occasion, and that, if Mr. Finney's letter
has reference to this occasion, his statements are
false, and cruel." To this I can only ask, is it
possible, that Bro. Barrell and the people of
Governeur have forgotten that Elder Freeman,
(whom I had known, before he came to Governeur
in this revival,) came there and lectured on baptism
as I stated in my article? It is certainly possible
that Bro. B It is very likely, that neither Bro. Barrell
nor any one now living was present, and will
remember elder Freeman's rising in the congregation
on the last day of the discussion, and saying that
he should want to answer me; as I related , but
I can no more doubt, that it all occurred, as I
related, than I can doubt my existence.
Now these discrepancies of memory, after the lapse of
[page 7]
nearly half a century are not strange. I have
frequently heard honest men, under oath, differ as
widely in their remembrance of facts, of much more
recent date that these, without the least suspicion that
they said anything that they did not really believe.
Bro Barrell and I shall probably continue to the day
to believe each other
of our death, ^ to be at fault in our memory of the
facts in question. Still, I trust we both have too
much good sense, and charity, to suspect each
other of wilful misrepresentation. We are old
men, and I trust we shall soon meet, where
we shall remember the facts alike. In the meantime
I hope that all parties to this misunders I trust that
all of us, between whom, is any discrepancy of
memory, of the facts in this matter, will re-
member that our disagreements are not at all
strange, considering that the facts occurred nearly
half a century ago. Perhaps this article is too
long, yet I have condensed as much as is con-
sistent with perspicuity, and have noticed
only the main points of disagreement.