Ohio History Journal
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
RUSSELL D. PARKER
The Philosophy of Charles G. Finney:
Higher Law and Revivalism
As it related to the antislavery crusade
in the United States, the "higher law" doc-
trine involved an insistence that
slavery was contrary to the principles upon which
the nation was established, in that
there were rules of right existing in the public
mind prior to the framing of the
Constitution. These rules were expressed in the
Declaration of Independence, the true
basis of government. In American history
the doctrine derives its importance from
the refusal of the Supreme Court and
southern states' righters to recognize
the Declaration of Independence or the Pre-
amble of the Constitution as a part of
fundamental law. In its most common appli-
cation, as an appeal to conscience to
justify violation of human legislation, "higher
law" thinking should be viewed in
context with certain other individualistic phe-
nomena of mid-nineteenth century
America-Arminianism in religion, Romantic-
ism in literature, and Transcendentalism
in philosophy-as a significant factor in the
agitation pattern that drove the
sections to civil war.'
An early contributor to the fashioning
of a "higher law" doctrine as an instrument
in antislavery agitation was Charles G.
Finney, whose role has been obscured by at-
tention to his evangelistic activities.
The purpose of this paper is threefold: first, af-
ter laying a necessary background, to
set forth Finney's "higher law" philosophy
contained in resolutions presented to
the Ohio Antislavery Society in 1839; second,
to examine his philosophy in the context
of other "higher law" expressions, espe-
cially in the tense decade preceding the
outbreak of civil war; and, finally, to weigh
a charge leveled at Finney by
contemporaries and present-day critics alike that his
preoccupation with revivalism
compromised an activist posture on his part beyond
initial lip-service to the principle of
"higher law."
Most Americans, regardless of their views
on slavery, venerated the Constitution;
challenges to the institution of slavery
were generally effective only at those points
where the Constitution did not apply or
where its meaning lacked certainty. Such
points were to be found in provisions
pertaining to the interstate slave trade, obliga-
tions to return fugitives, and slavery
in the territories. By 1839, Charles G. Finney
1. Stanley M. Elkins, Slavery; A
Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life (Chicago,
1968), 142, 150. See Elkins,
"Slavery and Ideology," in Ann J. Lane, ed., The Debate over
Slavery; Stan-
ley Elkins and His Critics (Chicago, 1971), 361, where the author defends-and
compromises somewhat-
his indictment in the earlier work of a
rampant individualism and anti-institutionalism that characterized
the antislavery crusade in the three
decades prior to the Civil War.
Mr. Parker is Associate Professor of
History at Maryville College.
142
|
|
|
(1792-1875) was preaching that no human legislation
could set aside the law of God. That Finney gave one of the first comprehensive
expressions of the "higher law" doctrine as it pertained to antislavery is
better understood when his legal back- ground is taken into account. He entered law study in
1818 in New York and stud- ied Bible informally in conjunction with his major
interest.2 He was converted in 1821, began preaching immediately thereafter in the
western portion of the state and was soon in great demand. He was licensed in 1824
by the Presbyterian church and admitted to the Oneida Presbytery. Although he
affirmed at that time a belief in the Westminster Confession of Faith, creedal basis
for the Presbyterian and Con- gregational churches since its promulgation in 1647,
he later renounced the Con- fession3 and became "the embodiment
of a deep and widespread religious dis- content. .. ." He was also convinced of man's instrumentality in evangelism; revivals could be worked up as well as prayed down.4
Finney introduced into evan- gelism several innovations-systematic visitation, the
"anxious seat," the "mourner's bench," women's prayer meetings, daily prayer
meetings-which became the stock and trade of later revivalists.5 These
"new measures" were indicative of his faith in human instrumentality for conversions. Finney's theology was a refinement of an earlier
doctrine of Nathaniel W. Taylor. Taylor, a Calvinist revisionist (Congregational) of
the Yale Divinity School, sought to cut the ground from under Unitarianism, which had
been making dangerous in- 2. Timothy L. Smith, Revivalism and Social Reform:
American Protestantism on the Eve of the Civil War (Nashville, 1957), 156; James E. Johnson,
"Charles G. Finney and a Theology of Revivalism," Church History, XXXVIII
(September 1969), 343. 3. Charles G. Finney, Memoirs of Reverend Charles
G. Finney, Written by Himself (New York, 1876), 42. 4. William G. McLoughlin, Jr., Modern Revivalism:
Charles Grandison Finney to Billy Graham (New York, 1959), 37, 72. 5. Finney, Memoirs. 143 |
144
OHIO HISTORY
roads into the membership of the
Presbyterian and Congregational churches.
These two denominations had been bound together in a
cooperative program by the
Plan of Union of 1801.
"Taylorism" or the "New Haven theology" denied that
God is the author of sin and repudiated
the doctrine of election. Man was viewed
as responsible for his own sin;
salvation depended upon his free agency to accept or
reject. Unitarians charged, with some
logic, that this was a denial of the peculiar-
ities of Calvinism-an open Arminian, if
not Unitarian position. Some Congrega-
tionalists likewise held that this was a
radical departure, not-as Taylor claimed-a
more acceptable and convincing
explanation of Calvinist doctrines. The implicit
incursion on Presbyterian orthodoxy
obliged Finney to acknowledge conversion to
Methodism or to relegate sanctification
to natural ability. With some modification
he chose the latter course and became
associated with the "holiness" or "per-
fectionist" movement, a dominant
strain in American Protestantism for a quarter of
a century.6 According to
Finney, "entire sanctification" consisted in "perfect obe-
dience to the law of God, and as the law
requires nothing more than the right use of
whatever strength we have . . . a state
of entire sanctification is attainable in this life,
on the ground of natural ability."7
The root of contention was the
Calvinistic insistence upon man's depravity and
inability to save himself. Finney's
theology proposed that moral depravity consists
of self-love, while its opposite is
holiness, the product of "disinterested ben-
evolence." The latter will
sacrifice the interest of the individual for the greater pub-
lic interest.8 Repudiation of the Calvinist
system-election, predestination, in-
ability-had the effect of releasing a
mighty impulse toward social reform, rendering
Christianity a practical affair, and
encouraging Christians to work as well as be-
lieve.9 Finney led the way in
applying evangelical insight into the social evil of
slavery-to a realization that the lot of
the slave was as worthy of Christian consid-
eration as business honesty.
Abolitionist zeal was fed by the doctrine that outward
perfection revealed inward grace; out of
the revivalistic spirit the abolition crusade
emerged, a combination of the concepts
of personal responsibility for salvation and
natural-rights humanitarianism. Since
slavery was an obstacle to the attainment of
human perfection, it must be swept
aside.10
Three early converts to Finney's
preaching played critical roles in his later agoniz-
ing over agitation of the slavery issue.
At a revival meeting in Utica in 1825, Theo-
dore Dwight Weld was converted and
became his protege and associate. Weld en-
6. Roy A. Cheesebro, "The Preaching
of Charles G. Finney" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale
University, 1948), 349, 361, considers
Finney's theology a sort of amalgam of Taylorism, Wesleyan teach-
ing, "New School" theology and
his own perfectionist thought derived from Bible study.
7. Charles G. Finney, Lectures on
Systematic Theology (Oberlin, 1846), 407. John Opie, "Finney's Fail-
ure of Nerve: The Untimely Demise of
Evangelical Theology," Journal of Presbyterian History, LI (Sum-
mer 1973), 157, 160, 173, takes the
position that Finney cut the nerve of evangelical theology when he
adopted entire sanctification, since
that action destroyed the "paradox" between individual free will and
the unmerited gift of divine grace.
Consistent with his debatable contention that Finney's effectiveness
as an evangelist was ended by 1835. Opie
does not take account of his developing caution regarding the
doctrine of perfection; Finney came to
stress growth rather than crisis of experience. See Finney, Mem-
oirs, 349-351; Lectures on Systematic Theology, 3,
500; Lectures on Revivals of Religion (New York,
1868), 401, 410, 416, 429-433. This
elaboration is critical if the considerable influence of Finney in shap-
ing the Awakening of 1857-58 is
acknowledged.
8. Finney, Lectures on Systematic
Theology, 450, 537.
9. William W. Sweet, Religion in the
Development of American Culture, 1765-1840 (New York, 1952),
284.
10. Nelson R. Burr, A Critical
Bibliography of Religion in America (James W. Smith and A. Leland
Jamison, eds., Religion in American
Life, IV, Princeton, 1961), 683.
Charles Finney 145
tered the abolitionist ranks with a
vigor in 1834 when he became a lecturer for the
American Antislavery Society. Following
closely Finney's methodology in the area
of evangelism, he organized a nucleus
for antislavery activity at the community
level. Weld hit the lecture trail with
abolition as his theme and gained the doubtful
distinction of being the most mobbed man
in America." During an 1830 meeting
in New York City, Lewis Tappan, a Boston
Unitarian visiting his brother Arthur, a
wealthy dry goods merchant, was
converted. The Tappans subsequently lent their
considerable moral and financial support
to myriad benevolent and abolitionist ef-
forts. Arthur Tappan helped maintain
William Lloyd Garrison's outspoken Liber-
ator, established in 1831, and was elected president of the
American Antislavery
Society when it was organized in 1833.
After differences with Garrison, the broth-
ers were among the founders of the rival
American and Foreign Antislavery Society
(1840). They were also associated with
the American Tract Society, American Bible
Society, and American Home Missionary
Society. While these benevolent bodies
would have preferred a more compromising
line on the issue of antislavery, they
were obliged to pursue an activist
policy because they coveted the funds the Tap-
pans and other infiltrating
abolitionists could supply.12 The Tappans secured Chat-
ham Street Chapel in New York-with
Finney as pastor-to serve as a convention
site for various benevolent societies,
and the New York Evangelist was founded as a
vehicle for Finney's views and an
extension of his Great Revival.13
A crucial action on Finney's part was
his break with the Presbyterian church. He
had just published what was perhaps his
most significant work, Lectures on Revivals
of Religion (1835), when Professor Albert Dod, in a scathing review
contained in the
Princeton Seminary organ, Biblical
Repertory and Theological Review, accused him
of heresies and invited him to leave the
church.14 Finney did so in March 1836; he
gave up his Chatham Street Chapel
pastorate (Second Free Presbyterian Church) to
become pastor of the Congregational
Tabernacle in New York City, where Lewis
Tappan was a dominant force.
Simultaneously he was prevailed upon by John J.
Shipherd, a missionary with
Congregational ties who had founded a colony and a
college (1834) in Ohio's Western Reserve
thirty miles southwest of Cleveland, to be
an instructor in theology. Finney was to
come to Oberlin and the Tappan brothers
would finance the venture.15
Coincidentally, and conveniently, a
student exodus from Lane Seminary in Cin-
cinnati supplied the new theologian with
a host of eager listeners. At Lane in early
1834, the students had applied to
President Lyman Beecher for permission to hold
discussions on the subject of slavery.
He gave his enthusiastic permission, but when
an adverse reaction developed his ardor
cooled. In his absence the exectuive com-
mittee of the seminary's board of
trustees resolved to abolish the students' anti-
slavery society, censor the students
involved, and assume the summary power of dis-
missal-Theodore Weld was marked for
expulsion. With Beecher still in absentia,
11. Benjamin P. Thomas, Theodore
Weld; Crusader for Freedom (New Brunswick, 1950), 14-18; Hazel
C. Wolf, On Freedom's Altar; The
Martyr Complex in the Abolition Movement (Madison, 1952), 54-56.
12. Clifford S. Griffin, "The
Abolitionists and the Benevolent Societies, 1831-1861." Journal of Negro
History, XLIV (July 1959), 195-216; Louis Filler,
"Liberalism, Anti-Slavery, and the Founders of the In-
dependent." New England Quarterly,
XXVII (September 1954), 296; Lewis
Tappan, The Life of Arthur
Tappan (New York, 1870), 164-165, 175.
13. L. Tappan to Finney, March 16, 22;
April 11, 19, 1832. Finney Papers, Oberlin College Library.
14. McLoughlin, Modern Revivalism, 83,
fn. 34.
15. Finney, Memoirs, 333-334;
Finney to George Whipple and Henry B. Stanton, January 18, 1835,
Finney Papers. He agreed to come to
Oberlin on the twin conditions that the trustees leave internal
regulation of the school to the
discretion of the faculty and that there should be no color discriminiation.
146 OHIO HISTORY
the whole board in the fall of 1834
approved the executive committee action, and a
large part of the student body soon
moved to the more favorable climate of Ober-
lin.16 That community was at
first hostile to the openly abolitionist atmosphere of
the college and its practice of
admitting Negroes, but soon Oberlin College became
a station for the Underground Railroad,
and the attitude of the townspeople
changed from hostility to sympathy. This
development may be in part attributed to
exposure to the "Oberlin
Doctrine," Finney's brand of Taylorism. When Lyman
Beecher headed a Western Reserve
campaign to squelch the doctrine, the commu-
nity reacted defensively and formed a solid
front in support of Finney.17
In 1835 Charles G. Finney was elected a
vice president of the Ohio Antislavery
Society at its first annual meeting.
Chosen chairman at the fourth anniversary
meeting in 1839, he offered to the group
nine resolutions which highlighted the ses-
sion and gave voice to his "higher
law" convictions. The resolutions were "explana-
tory of the ground assumed by
Abolitionists, in regard to the political bearings of
the slave question...."18
A consideration of other resolutions
adopted by the convention is useful to an un-
derstanding of the mood of the society
and of the thinking of many other similar
groups. Delegate Robert Hanna resolved
that "the church of Christ in the United
States is responsible in great measure
for the present existence of slavery in this
country, and that we cannot but regard
any branch of the church that will refuse to
bear testimony against it, as false to
her sacred vows, and in league with the dark
spirit of slavery." James G.
Birney, who would be presidential nominee of the Lib-
erty party a year hence, proposed that
the society support politically "those only
who, being of good moral character, are
known to be favorable to human rights,
and to the abrogation of all
distinctions in right founded on color." Another resolu-
tion by Birney held that "all plans
of gradual emancipation are inadequate, as
means for the abolition of slavery in
the United States."19
Legislators, state and federal, were
praised or condemned depending upon their
stated positions in recent controversies
related to slavery. The purposefulness of
the delegates is evident in a proposed
resolution that failed adoption: "Resolved,
that slavery, having . . . placed itself
under the protection of the General Govern-
ment, and thereby involved the whole
Union in one common guilt and disgrace, we
not only claim a right to interfere with
it by moral means, but also claim, that the
Constitution of the United States, if
necessary should be so amended as to enable
the national legislature to legislate
for its abolition."20
The resolutions, as they evolved, do not
demonstrate a disposition to take the ex-
treme ground that eastern abolitionists
assumed soon thereafter-to condemn the
federal Constitution in outright fashion
or to enter into a covenant to violate federal
law by positive action-but the
implication was present in the Ohio society's rheto-
ric, and the Oberlinites in their
Underground Railroad activities experienced few
qualms at positive violation. By and
large, the adopted resolutions called for self-
examination on the part of Christians
confronted by a proslavery system.21
16. Gilbert H. Barnes, The
Anti-Slavery Impulse, 1830-1844 (New York, 1964), 65-72.
17. Finney, Memoirs, 337,
343-345, 353.
18. Report of the Fourth Anniversary
of the Ohio Anti-slavery Society (Cincinnati, 1839), 5.
19. Ibid., 6, 7.
20. Ibid., 14.
21. John L. Thomas, The Liberator;
William Lloyd Garrison, A Biography (Boston, 1963), 220-221;
226-227, 387; Ralph Korngold, Two
Friends of Man; The Story of William Lloyd Garrison and Wendell
Phillips and Their Relationshp with
Abraham Lincoln (Boston, 1950),
145-146, 239.
Charles Finney 147
Since Finney's resolutions (which were
all adopted) are basic to the "higher law"
argument, they should be considered in
their entirety except where repetitious.22
The first asserted the right of the
society to discuss freely the political character and
influence of slavery: "Religion
cannot be separated from politics and government,
insomuch as our conformity or
non-conformity to the law of our country, must have
a moral and religious character."
His second resolution was based on the
premise that society was justified in exam-
ining the moral character of the laws:
Resolved, That for the following obvious reasons, we regard it,
as a well settled principle of
both common and Constitutional law, that
no human legislation can annul, or set aside, the
law or authority of God.
a. The most able writers on elementary
law, have laid it down as a first principle, that
whatever is contrary to the law of God,
is not law.
b. Where a bond, or other written
instrument, or anything else, is of immoral tendency,
Courts of law have refused to recognize
it as legal and obligatory.
c. The administration of oaths, or
affirmations, in Courts of justice, is a recognition of the
existence and supreme authority of God.
d. The Constitution of this State
expressly recognizes the axiom, that no human enact-
ment can bend the conscience, or set
aside our obligations to God.
e. The grand instrument on which the
federal Government is founded recognizes the
same truth-that rights conferred by our
Creator as inalienable, can never be cancelled, or set
aside by human enactments.
f. The administration of oaths, or
affirmations, in all the departments of the general and
state governments, is a recognition of
the truth, that God's authority is supreme.
Theodore Weld's efforts had made the
Ohio society one of the fastest growing
antislavery agencies in the nation.23
The mood of the society and Finney's resolu-
tions must be considered in context with
the direction of Ohio politics. The third
resolution referred to Ohio's long
standing "Black Laws," particularly a statute of
1804 that regulated free Negroes coming
into the state and an 1807 law that in-
creased the restrictions, including the
requirement of a $500 surety bond, and pro-
hibited them from giving testimony in
court cases involving white persons.24 While
the laws were not rigidly enforced, they
were obnoxious to abolitionists. The issue
had come to debate in the recent 1838-39
session of the state legislature resulting
from the problem of fugitive slaves from
Kentucky. Tensions heightened and in
February 1839, a state fugitive slave
law more harsh than the 1793 federal law was
passed.25
The resolutions relating to this
deteriorating situation stated: "Resolved, That we
do not consider ... the Black Laws of
Ohio ... as obligatory upon the citizens of this
22. Report, Ohio Antislavery Society,
17-19.
23. Barnes, Anti-Slavery Impulse, 238.
24. Salmon P. Chase, ed., The
Statutes of Ohio and of the Northwestern Territory.... from 1788 to 1833
. . (Cincinnati, 1833), 393-394, 555-556.
25. Francis P. Weisenburger, The
Passing of the Frontier, 1825-1850 (Carl Wittke, ed., The History of
the State of Ohio, III, Columbus, 1941), 381-382. The state of Kentucky
initiated action by sending com-
missioners to Governor Wilson Shannon
with a request for legislation. Despite opposition in the senate
led by Benjamin Wade, a state law was
passed which in its broad outlines resembled the federal law of
1850. Earlier (January 1838), the lower
house had adopted resolutions rebuking the abolitionists. Their
petition campaign and efforts to
interfere with slavery by congressional action, the resolutions, stated.
were disruptive of union. These defeats,
coupled with losses in the fall elections of 1839 (Wade was un-
seated), and the lack of Whig assurances
in 1840 doubtless led Ohio abolitionists to support the Birney
candidacy. See ibid. 378-383.
148 OHIO
HISTORY
State, inasmuch as its requisitions are
a palpable violation of the Constitution of this
State, and of the United States, of the
common law and of the law of God." The
fourth resolution asserted obedience to
Ohio's Black Laws "highly immoral"; the
fifth resolved that "no man, by any
promise or oath, or resolution, can make it right,
or lawful, for him to do that which is
contrary to the law of God."
Numbers six and seven applied to the
taking of oaths: "Resolved, That an oath or
affirmation, to support any human
constitution or government is obligatory no fur-
ther than the principles of that
constitution or government are in accordance with
the law of God. Resolved, That an
oath or affirmation to support the Constitution
and law of this State and the United
States is obligatory because, and as far as, those
constitutions and laws are consistent
with each other, and with the law of God, and
no farther."
The eighth deemed it imperative that all
citizens inquire into the moral character
of federal state laws and the subject of
slavery. Finally, the Christian duty was un-
derscored; "Resolved, That
we deem it highly improper, for Christians to decline
acting on the subject of slavery and
emancipation, on account of the political char-
acter and bearings of these questions,
because we cannot innocently suffer a legal
enactment to crush our brother, when the
means of prevention are peaceable, and
within our power."
Finney's inclination toward peaceable
means goes far to explain his later refusal
to push the "higher law"
application to the limits that some of his colleagues advo-
cated. In his Lectures on Systematic
Theology, a collection (1846) of his addresses
to theological students, Finney further
developed his "higher law" doctrine. It was
a theology of his own making, concerned
with moral government and with the vol-
untary nature of sin and holiness. He
held that there could be no rule of duty ex-
cept the moral law, or the law of
nature; God would accept nothing short of full
obedience. Christian love, which
rendered such obedience possible, involved will-
ingness, liberty, intelligence, virtue,
disinterestedness, impartiality and universality.26
Human government he recognized as part
of the moral government of God, in-
dispensable to securing the highest good
of the universe. But the rights of such gov-
ernment were limited: "The end of
government is the highest good of human
beings, as part of universal good. ...
No legislation can have any authority that has
not the highest good of the whole for
its end. ... All legislation and all con-
stitutions not founded upon this basis,
and not recognizing the moral law as the only
law of the universe, are null and void,
and attempts to establish and enforce them
are odious tyranny and usurpation."
Christians were bound to disobey human gov-
ernments when moral obligations were
violated-"when human legislation con-
travenes moral law, or invades the
rights of conscience." The author spoke specifi-
cally of slavery, although his lectures
were generally abstract, as unlawful due to its
"selfish" nature; "no
legislation, or anything else, can make it right."27
The chorus of "higher law"
advocates hit a climactic pitch in the 1850's, princi-
pally in response to the federal
fugitive slave law enacted as a component of the
Compromise of 1850. That compromise
sought a disposition of the Mexican ces-
sion and settlement of other continuing
sectional problems. In the course of debate
on the several compromise measures,
Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster sug-
26. Charles G. Finney, Lectures on
Systematic Theology, ed., J. H. Fairchild (Whittier, California,
1946), X, 115-117, 135-145.
27. Ibid., 221, 223, 227.
Charles Finney 149
gested that it would be abrasive to set
restrictions on slavery in the western terri-
tories, since nature would rule out its
extension to that region. William H. Seward,
Senator from New York, responded that
"there is a higher law than the Con-
stitution, which regulates our authority
over the domain.... There is no human
enactment which is just, that is not a
re-enactment of the law of God."28 Thus the
"higher law" theme gained
national currency a decade after Finney's pro-
nouncements.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, "high
priest" of Transcendentalism, a theory of moral in-
tuition which summoned the initiate
before his soul for judgment, said of the Fugi-
tive Slave Law of 1850, "This
filthy enactment was made in the nineteenth century
by people who could read and write. I
will not obey it, by God!"29 Since Transcen-
dental doctrine held that "the
method is nothing; the spirit is all," Emerson could
refer in 1859 to John Brown, apprehended
in a violent attack upon the South to fo-
ment insurrection, as "the saint .
.. whose martyrdom . . . will make the gallows as
glorious as the cross."30 Henry
David Thoreau, Emerson's disciple and an out-
spoken nonconformist in his own right,
considered Brown a "Transcendentalist
above all."31 Theodore
Parker, fiery Unitarian minister with Transcendental associ-
ations,32 sounded a radical
note in speaking of the federal law: "I tear the hateful
statute of kidnappers to shivers; I
trample it under my feet. I do it in the name of
all law; in the name of justice and of
man; in the name of the dear God."33 It is sig-
nificant that Parker applauded, and
directly supported, Brown's venture.
"Higher law" reactions to the
Fugitive Slave Law were not limited to the Boston
area. Henry Ward Beecher, highly
influential Brooklyn minister and son of Lyman
Beecher, took an uncompromising stand:
"I disown the act. I repudiate the obliga-
tion." Regarding the fugitives, he
would "shelter them, conceal them, or speed
their flight, even though the
consequences be grave."34 Beecher pledged his wealthy
Plymouth Church to contribute
twenty-five Sharp's rifles-they came to be called
"Beecher's Bibles"-to a group
of antislavery colonists heading to Kansas from the
East.35 The Oberlin College
community called for repeal of the law and admon-
ished the individual to utilize his
intellectual and moral faculties to determine where
his duty lay. If, after such
consideration, he was led to disobey the law, "he must
act accordingly and submit peacefully to
the penalty, if he cannot honorably evade
it."36
Although the pages of the Oberlin
Evangelist abound with such direction, the
voice of Charles G. Finney was muted
beyond his presentation of resolutions to the
Ohio Antislavery Society in 1839. The
explanation lies in Finney's willingness to
look to revivalism, as opposed to
agitation, for the answer to the slavery problem.37
28. Congressional Globe, 31
Cong., 1 sess., Appendix, 265, 266.
29. Quoted in Leonard W. Levy,
"Sims' Case; The Fugitive Slave Law in Boston in 1851," Journal of
Negro History, XXXV (January 1950), 60.
30. Quoted in C. Vann Woodward, The
Burden of Southern History (New York, 1960), 54.
31. Ibid.
32. The theory is offered by H. Shelton
Smith, "Was Theodore Parker a Transcendentalist?" New
England Quarterly, XXIII (September 1950), 351-364, that-his claims to the
contrary notwithstanding-
there is some doubt as to Parker's
Transcendental pedigree. Smith finds Parker's philosophy founded on
three bases: instinctive intuition of
God, right, and immortality.
33. Theodore Parker, The Slave Power,
ed. with notes by James K. Hosmer (Boston, 1911), 340.
34. Quoted in Oberlin Evangelist, October
23, 1850.
35. Paxton Hibben, Henry Ward
Beecher; An American Portrait (New York, 1927), 159.
36. Oberlin Evangelist, October
23, 1850; April 14, 1852.
37. McLoughlin, Modern Revivalism, 111-112.
150 OHIO HISTORY
His conviction was consistently
maintained and had been expressed in unmistakable
terms even before his "higher
law" statement. By the late 1830's the Great Revival
had run its course, and, with its
passing, the antislavery impulse was altered. It no
longer expressed itself in a benevolent
effort to bring slaveholders to repentance for
their sins. There developed a
"hatred of the sinner as well as of his sin, a sectional
hostility toward slavery and the
South." Churchmen of that section, no longer con-
tent to merely deny that slavery was a
sin, reacted by contending that it was a posi-
tive good. This, in turn, provoked
"in the North a denunciation of slavery more in
the spirit of anger than of love."38
This denunciatory spirit, Finney felt,
would fast carry the nation into civil war.
He had confided to Weld in 1836,
"Nothing is more manifest to me than that the
present movements will result in this
[civil war] unless your mode of abolitionizing
the country be greatly modified. How can
we save our country and affect the
speedy abolition of slavery? This is my
answer .... Now if abolition can be made
an append[a]ge of a general revival of
religion all is well... just as we made temper-
ance an appendage of the revival in
Rochester."39
Finney characterized the leading
abolitionists of that day as "good men but there
are but few of them wise men.
Some of them are reckless. Others are so denuncia-
tory as to kill all prayer about it.
There is very little confidence and concert among
many of our abolitionists .... I tell
you again that unless we can have such an ex-
tensive Revival of religion as to soften
the church and alarm the world we are all
among the breakers."40 It was
obviously his belief that with an awareness of sin,
abolition would come peaceably and
naturally.
That Finney's opinion was not shared by
all his associates is quite apparent from
a consideration of correspondence
bearing on methodology to be employed by
Oberlin in combatting slavery. One of
those being sent out as lecturer by the col-
lege complained to Weld that "Mr.
Finney is making a strong effort to have us
Evangelize instead of abolitionizing [sic]."41 Weld, an early leader in Finney's
"Holy Band," did not share his
mentor's sentiments, although he was quick to de-
fend him against the petty criticism of
Lewis Tappan. Tappan was convinced that
Finney was a coward, afraid to strike
hard at slavery. Weld understood and re-
spected Finney's position, which he
explained in November 1835 to Tappan:
The truth is Finney has always been in
revivals of religion. It is his great business, aim and
absorbing passion to promote them. He has never had hardly [sic] anything
to do with Bible,
Tract, missionary, Education,
Temperance, moral Reform and anti slavery societies. The
three last he has joined and has
decidedly committed himself before the public in favor of
their principles, and taken a bold and
high stand with reference to them at the Communion
table. Finney feels about revivals of
religion and the promotion of the church and ministry
in doctrines and measures, just as you
and I do about anti slavery.
Tappan nevertheless was vindictive and
withdrew financial support from the Ober-
lin Theological Department.42
Finney was determined not to be drawn
into the cause of abolition "to make it a
38. Barnes, Anti-Slavery Impulse, 161-163.
39. Finney to Weld, July 21, 1836, in
Gilbert H. Barnes and Dwight L. Dumond. eds., Letters of Theo-
dore Dwight Weld, Angelina Grimke
Weld, and Sarah Grimke, 1822-1844 (New
York, 1934), I, 318-319.
40. Ibid., 319-320.
41. Sereno W. Streeter to Weld, July 20,
1836, ibid., 317. See William T. Allen, Sereno W. Streeter, J.
W. Alvord and James A. Thome to Weld,
August 9, 1836, ibid, 327.
42. Weld to L. Tappan, November 17,
1835, April 5, 1836. ibid., 242-243, 289.
Charles Finney 151
hobby or divert the attention of the
people from the work of converting souls."43
He advised Oberlin students to permit
nothing to divert them from revivalism;44 a
careful institutional historian reports
that Finney's interest "in social reform, in
worldly matters generally, was always
secondary and subordinate to his main pur-
pose-to save souls for Christ."45
Finney eventually assumed the presidency
of Oberlin (1851-65), a tenure marked
by prolonged absences in the cause of
revival. And in the fall of 1857, on the heels
of economic depression, an urban revival
swept the land. It posed a contemporary
challenge to the total philosophy of
Finney, who was instrumental in laying a
groundwork for the Awakening.46 He
was one of the leading lights of the national
Pentecost, which took him to Boston, a
center of marked coldness as compared to
Philadelphia or New York. A
correspondent to the New York Observer reported
that Bostonians held no aversion for
revivals or evangelists, but that there was a "dis-
trust of the soundness of Mr.
Finney's Theological sentiments ....
Especially on the
subject of Christian Perfection do our
pastors differ widely from Mr. Finney..."47
Finney preached in Park Street Church of
Boston (Congregational) in the winter
of 1856-57 and had on that occasion
sought a conference with Theodore Parker,
Unitarian "higher law"
advocate. He was denied an audience. In the winter of
1857-58, at the peak of the Awakening,
Finney was back in the Park Street Church,
acutely aware of the "mischievous
influence" of Parker's "harangues" at the Music
Hall. Parker represented the revival as
geared to draw attention from social re-
form, especially antislavery. The Park
Street Church mounted a prayer meeting in
March 1858, whereby "all the
evangelical denominations" agreed that wherever
they might be when the clock struck one,
they would pray "that God would either
convert Theodore Parker to the truth, or
in some way destroy his influence so that
sinners would no more stumble by reason
of his teachings."48 Parker was singularly
unmoved by the publicized efforts to
quiet his critical tongue and announced that
he would support violence to abolish
slavery.49
John Brown was in Boston in the spring
of 1858 meeting with the "secret six"--
Parker was among them-who nurtured him
and were privy in some degree to his
projected raid into the South. This
group voiced a concern that the revival was
turning men from the contemplation of
the "nation's great sin" to a consideration of
individual shortcoming. One historian of
the revival opines that the raid was set-
tled upon at this point to stimulate
antislavery fervor which seemed to be on the
wane.50 Later, at Oberlin in
September 1858, the celebrated Wellington rescue
43. Finney, Memoirs, 324.
44. Richard E. Day, Man of Like
Passions; A Dramatic Biography of Charles Grandison Finney (Grand
Rapids, Michigan; 1942), 170-173.
45. Robert S. Fletcher, A History of
Oberlin College from Its Foundation through the Civil War (Ober-
lin, 1943), II, 887.
46. Smith, Revivalism and Social
Reform, 45, 204.
47. New York Observer, May 14,
1857, quoted in Cheesebro, "The Preaching of Charles G. Finney,"
271.
48. Reminiscences of Rev. Charles G.
Finney. Speeches and Sketches at the Gathering of His Friends and
Pupils in Oberlin, July 28th, 1876 (Oberlin, 1876), 39-40; Theodore Parker, The
Collected Works of Theo-
dore Parker (London,
1876), 1II, 275-277.
49. Parker, Collected Works, XII,
176.
50. Russell E. Francis, "Pentecost:
1858. A Study in Revivalism" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The
University of Pennsylvania, 1948), 92,
124-125, 172. Such an analysis might be disputed, since the raid
was postponed at the instruction of the
committee. However, that delay must be considered tactical and
temporary.
152 OHIO HISTORY
erupted.51 Perhaps
significantly, Finney was in England conducting a revival.
Although the definitive biography of
Charles G. Finney is yet to be written, Wil-
liam McLoughlin has held his ministry to
critical scrutiny in Modern Revivalism;
Charles Grandison Finney to Billy
Graham (1959). He designates Finney
the father
of modern revivalism, then includes him
in a sweeping charge that "it is fruitless to
search for connections between modern
revivalism and social reform movements."
The essential function of revivalism
since 1825, argues McLoughlin, has been "its
effort to adjust the theological,
ethical, and institutional structure of Protestantism
to the changes in American
culture."52 Or, more
simply put, revivalists have re-
flected rather than shaped their times.
For all that, McLoughlin is ambivalent
in his treatment of Finney, acknowledging
in a footnote that he became
increasingly militant after 1839 due to his dis-
illusionment at the Presbyterian schism
of 1837-38.53 It is remarkable that Gilbert
H. Barnes, whose Anti-Slavery
Impulse, 1830-1844 (1933) brought attention to the
western focus of antislavery activity
and the role of Weld, Finney and others, settled
on that precise year as critical for a
different reason-Finney's Great Revival was
fading and with it the prospect of a
peaceable solution to sectional strife structured
on spiritual responsibility. McLoughlin
has written the introduction to a recent edi-
tion of The Anti-Slavery Impulse in
which he contends that Barnes exalted Weld and
Finney too much. Significant to this
paper, and quite contrary to Barnes' con-
clusion, he reckons that there was in
Finney's perfectionism "a strong element of es-
capism, an over-optimistic reliance upon
the Holy Spirit to perform the difficult task
of freeing the slaves."54
Timothy Smith, Revivalism and Social
Reform (1957), takes an entirely different
view of Finney. While he would agree
that revivalism since 1890 has been theolog-
ically obscurantist and socially
negative, it was not so in Finney's time nor in his
case. Smith makes much of the mass mind,
which has been neglected in research.
He also gives attention to the
post-millennial orientation of Finney, a popular con-
viction which motivated many to work for
Christ's kingdom on earth and the broth-
erhood of man.55 According to
Smith, the quest for personal holiness inherent in
revival measures became the common man's
Transcendentalism and the "drive
shaft" of reform. The evangelists,
Finney prominent among them, prepared the
way in theory and practice for the
social gospel.56
It is quite clear from the evidence that
Finney favored the role of revivalist over
that of political agitator. But he did
not retreat from politics, as is evidenced by the
Ohio Antislavery Society action. Nor did
he abstain from denouncing slavery from
the pulpit; the "abomination,"
he said, must be called by its proper name.57 If some
of his contemporaries felt he was soft
on slavery, others considered him an activist
51. Two federal commissioners and two
Kentucky claimants held an alleged fugitive in nearby Wel-
lington, Ohio. A crowd of local citizens
converged on the building and effected a rescue. The United
States District Court at Cleveland
brought indictments against thirty-seven Oberlin and Wellington citi-
zens. In retaliation, the Lorain County
Court of Common Appeals charged the claimants and deputy
marshals with kidnapping. The upshot was
a mutual cancellation of charges. See Oberlin Evangelist,
September 29, 1858; July 13, 1859.
52. McLoughlin, Modern Revivalism, 11,
523, 526.
53. Ibid., 112-113, fn. 94.
54. Barnes, Anti-Slavery Impulse, xxii,
xxvii, xxviii.
55. Smith, Revivalism and Social
Reform, 9, 46, 225-237. See also Fletcher, History of Oberlin
College,
1, 252-253.
56. Smith, Revivalism and Social Reform,
8, 204.
57. Finney, Lectures on Revivals of
Religion, 266.
Charles Finney 153
of the first rank.58 Holding
firmly to perfectionist convictions brought considerable
denominational censure and loss of
patronage. It is difficult to sustain, in full con-
text, that such a posture constitutes
what one recent author has termed a "failure of
nerve."59
Perhaps the great distinction of Finney
as revivalist was that in his most heated
denunciation of slavery there was
compassion. He could stigmatize the vice, but he
must do it in a spirit of love. Holding
such views, he could hardly abandon the
church as advocated by Garrison-the
church was the last hope of the world. Nor
would it have been consistent with his
philosophy to supply rifles for antislavery col-
onists to Kansas or to actively support
the guerilla forays of a John Brown.
If the Transcendentalist philosophy was
murky and the philosopohy of politicians
untrustworthy, the "higher
law" to Charles Finney was unmistakably the law of
God. "Entire sanctification,"
made available to the many through the medium of
revival, could bring all men to the high
state of morality which would demand that
God's "higher law" be
operative above the frail and imperfect statutes of the unre-
deemed.
58. David W. Bartlett, Modern
Agitators; Pen Portraits of Living American Reformers (New York,
1855), 157. Theodore Parker was also
included in this collection.
59. Opie. "Finney's Failure of
Nerve," 155-173.
RUSSELL D. PARKER
The Philosophy of Charles G. Finney:
Higher Law and Revivalism
As it related to the antislavery crusade
in the United States, the "higher law" doc-
trine involved an insistence that
slavery was contrary to the principles upon which
the nation was established, in that
there were rules of right existing in the public
mind prior to the framing of the
Constitution. These rules were expressed in the
Declaration of Independence, the true
basis of government. In American history
the doctrine derives its importance from
the refusal of the Supreme Court and
southern states' righters to recognize
the Declaration of Independence or the Pre-
amble of the Constitution as a part of
fundamental law. In its most common appli-
cation, as an appeal to conscience to
justify violation of human legislation, "higher
law" thinking should be viewed in
context with certain other individualistic phe-
nomena of mid-nineteenth century
America-Arminianism in religion, Romantic-
ism in literature, and Transcendentalism
in philosophy-as a significant factor in the
agitation pattern that drove the
sections to civil war.'
An early contributor to the fashioning
of a "higher law" doctrine as an instrument
in antislavery agitation was Charles G.
Finney, whose role has been obscured by at-
tention to his evangelistic activities.
The purpose of this paper is threefold: first, af-
ter laying a necessary background, to
set forth Finney's "higher law" philosophy
contained in resolutions presented to
the Ohio Antislavery Society in 1839; second,
to examine his philosophy in the context
of other "higher law" expressions, espe-
cially in the tense decade preceding the
outbreak of civil war; and, finally, to weigh
a charge leveled at Finney by
contemporaries and present-day critics alike that his
preoccupation with revivalism
compromised an activist posture on his part beyond
initial lip-service to the principle of
"higher law."
Most Americans, regardless of their views
on slavery, venerated the Constitution;
challenges to the institution of slavery
were generally effective only at those points
where the Constitution did not apply or
where its meaning lacked certainty. Such
points were to be found in provisions
pertaining to the interstate slave trade, obliga-
tions to return fugitives, and slavery
in the territories. By 1839, Charles G. Finney
1. Stanley M. Elkins, Slavery; A
Problem in American Institutional and Intellectual Life (Chicago,
1968), 142, 150. See Elkins,
"Slavery and Ideology," in Ann J. Lane, ed., The Debate over
Slavery; Stan-
ley Elkins and His Critics (Chicago, 1971), 361, where the author defends-and
compromises somewhat-
his indictment in the earlier work of a
rampant individualism and anti-institutionalism that characterized
the antislavery crusade in the three
decades prior to the Civil War.
Mr. Parker is Associate Professor of
History at Maryville College.
142
(614) 297-2300