FINNEY'S FIGHT AGAINST THE MASONS
by CHARLES
C. COLE, JR.
Assistant Dean, Columbia College,
Columbia University
Mention antimasonry and the historian
and scholar think
immediately of the famous Morgan affair
of 1826. The story of
the abduction of William Morgan, a
bricklayer of Batavia, New
York, after he had published a book
revealing the secrets of
Freemasonry is a familiar one in
American history. The result-
ant wave of ill-feeling against Masons
which culminated in the
rise of a national political party
strong enough to poll 128,000
votes in 1830 is too well known to need
retelling here.1 Few,
however, are aware that a similar
campaign was launched on a
lesser scale and with less serious
results shortly after the Civil
War under the leadership of that
colorful evangelist Charles
Grandison Finney.
Charles Finney (1792-1876) played a
varied and active role
in early nineteenth century American
history. Noted principally
for his extensive work in conducting
religious revivals throughout
the country from 1826 until the Civil
War, Finney also threw
himself into the antislavery and
temperance movements as well
as other reform activities of the day.
He became interested in
the cause of education in the West,
joined the faculty of Oberlin
in 1835, and later became its
president. Highly individualistic
and something of a rebel at heart,
Finney stirred up a number of
religious issues among his fellow
Presbyterians and Congrega-
tionalists, aided in the Free Church
movement in New York City,
1 The best short account of the early
antimasonic campaign is found in Alice
F. Tyler, Freedom's Ferment (Minneapolis,
1944), 351-358. For a contemporary view,
see Henry Brown, A Narrative of the
Anti-Masonick Excitement, in the Western
Part of New York, During the Years
1826, '7, '8, and a Part of 1829 (Batavia,
N. Y.,
1829). Also useful are Charles McCarthy,
The Antimasonic Party: A Study of
Political Antimasonry in the United
States, 1827-1840 (American Historical Associa-
tion Annual Report, 1902, I, Washington, 1903, pp. 365-574), and Milton W.
Hamilton,
"Anti-Masonic Newspapers,
1826-1834," Papers of the Bibliographical Society of
America, XXXII (1938), 71-97.
270
Finney's Fight Against the
Masons 271
and with Asa Mahan of Oberlin
elaborated his religious theories
of perfectionism.2
This nineteenth century revivalist had
a remarkable faculty
for precipitating disputes, causing
crises, and contributing to con-
troversies. Early in his career, he and
Lyman Beecher, noted
New England evangelist, crossed verbal
swords over the heads of
a group of converts while engaged in
carrying on a revival in
Boston.3 At other times Finney disputed
with Asahel Nettleton,
Horace Bushnell, and other religious
notables of the time. Even
in his travels to England, he left
controversy and dissension in his
wake. One of his English
correspondents, in commenting on
Finney's style of preaching, expressed
the views of his compatriots
when he declared that "the system
is not adapted to England. My
own opinion is that it is not adapted
to any place." 4
Finney's reputation for getting into
disputes, therefore, was
well founded. Prior to the Civil War he
had carved for himself
no small niche in nineteenth century
religious history. The age
of threescore and ten, however, found
Finney still contemplating
new worlds to conquer, and shortly
after the end of the Civil War
he joined his last great crusade, the
drive against secret societies.
The spirit of the times was ripe for
just such a campaign.
The animosities fired by the war sought
other outlets now that the
Confederacy had been destroyed, and one
outlet that seemed to
present itself was an attack against
secret societies. As one of
Finney's correspondents put it, "I
believe that the secret of all our
failures in the late war . . . is due to
the order of Masons." 5
Church bodies expressed their concern
with what appeared to be
a rising tide about to engulf them.
Typical was the following
resolution passed by the Second
Congregational Church in Ober-
2 Although inadequate, the most complete
biography of Finney is George
Frederick Wright, Charles Grandison
Finney (Boston and New York, 1891). For
Finney's relationship with Oberlin, see
Robert S. Fletcher, A History of Oberlin
College (2 vols., Oberlin, 1943).
3 Charles G. Finney, Memoirs of Rev.
Charles G. Finney, (New York, 1876),
315-316.
4 M. Robinson to Finney, February 4,
1859, in the Finney Papers in the
Oberlin College Library, Oberlin, Ohio.
All the letters quoted below are in this
collection.
5 Ellen T. Beaumont to Finney, April 13,
1868.
272 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
lin: "This church hereby expresses
its conviction that the Institu-
tion of Free Masonry is wrong and
opposed to the spirit of the
gospel,--particularly because of its
stringent secresy [sic]."6
Local churches were not the only bodies
to pass such resolutions.
Methodist conferences, Presbyterian
synods, and Baptist unions
expressed opinions on the subject. The
Church of the United
Brethren went so far as to favor
excluding those connected with
secret societies from church
membership.7
To others a connection between Masonry
and politics seemed
particularly dangerous. Charles B.
Glenville, who wrote a paper
on the actions of Masons in the United
States government, asserted
it was "next to impossible for
anyone to gain a nomination for
office unless he belongs to some secret
society--much less could
he be elected."8 The most
significant illustration of this senti-
ment was expressed in a convention that
was held in the city hall
in Aurora, Illinois, in October 1867 by
a group that called them-
selves simply "Christian
men."9 This group issued a call for a
national meeting to be held in
Pittsburgh in 1868 and laid plans
for the formation of a National
Christian Association. The prin-
cipal figure behind this movement was
Jonathan Blanchard (1811-
1892), a Presbyterian minister and
president of Wheaton Col-
lege.10 At the height of the
antimasonic campaign, Blanchard
and Finney were to rival each other in
the intensity of their cru-
sading enthusiasm.
Into such an atmosphere Finney launched
his attack. Using
the columns of the Independent, a
New York weekly religious
paper, as his sounding board, Finney in
April 1868 began a se-
ries of articles designed to expose and
condemn Freemasonry.
"It is high time," he
announced at the beginning of his first ar-
6 Copied from the Lorain County News,
Extra (Oberlin, Ohio), December 27,
1867, in Finney Papers.
7 Religious Telescope, XXXII (1868), 252.
8 Charles B. Glenville to Finney, June
11, 1868.
9 The Anti-Masonic Scrap Book (Chicago, 1883), 2.
10 Blanchard
followed the pattern of the evangelistic reformer of Calvinist
tradition, taking an active part in the
temperance and abolitionist movements. He
was president of Knox College for twelve
years, of Wheaton for twenty-two, and at
various times edited a number of
religious papers. See John W. Bailey, Knox Col-
lege (Chicago, 1860).
Finney's Fight Against the
Masons 273
tide, "that the Church of Christ
was awake to the character and
tendency of Freemasonry." 11
Explaining his motives for writing
on the subject, Finney continued:
"Forty years ago, we supposed
that it was dead, and had no idea that
it could ever revive. But,
strange to tell, while we were busy in
getting rid of slavery, Free-
masonry has revived, and extended its
bounds most alarmingly." 12
The evangelist explained to his readers
his connection with
the society, confessed that in his
youth he had been a third degree
Mason, had become secretary of the
lodge at Adams, New York,
but that after his religious experience
in 1821 he realized he had
been converted "from Freemasonry
to Christ." He finally forced
his resignation in spite of the
opposition of the lodge members.
Recalling his initiation almost forty
years later, he declared, "Its
oaths appeared to me to be monstrously
profane and barbarous,"
and he now considered the institution
"highly dangerous to the
state, and in every way injurious to
the Church of Christ." 13
It is interesting to note, however,
that in spite of Finney's
early withdrawal from membership in the
society, he had a con-
siderable influence among Masons in New
York state. A fellow
evangelist recognized this and in a
letter requesting Finney to
come help him lead a revival at New
Lebanon, New York, wrote
in these words: "Many of the band
of opposers here are Masons,
and you might have an influence over
them which I cannot, and
could not, even if I possessed your
talents." 14
The second installment of Finney's
attack retold the story of
William Morgan's murder and the
subsequent spirit of opposition
to the society. In the third, Finney
considered how the public
was to know what Freemasonry really was
and denied that the
eulogistic books or "the oral
testimony of adhering Masons" gave
accurate pictures of the institution's
character. Only from "the
published and oral testimony of those
who have taken the degrees;
and, afterward, from conscientious
motives, have confessed their
11 Independent, XX, No. 1010 (April 9, 1868), 1.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Daniel Nash to Finney, March 8, 1827.
274 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
error, and have publicly renounced
Masonry" could the truth be
known.15 That narrowed the
field of authorities considerably!
By the first week in May, Finney had
warmed up to his sub-
ject, and his weekly articles had
almost doubled in length. In the
May 7 issue he took a new tack,
questioning the society's claims
to great antiquity. After refuting the
society's assertions of great
age, the crusader addressed himself
principally to young men,
declaring: "You have been
deceived. You have been imposed
upon, as I was imposed upon. You have
been made to believe a
lie. They have drawn your money from
you under false pretenses
that some very ancient mysteries were
to be revealed to you." 16
In the sixth installment Finney
launched into a diatribe
against the claims of benevolence made
by the society. "The
benevolence so much boasted by
Freemasons is a sham," he de-
clared, "and the morality of the
institution is opposed to both law
and Gospel." Again bringing the
Masonic oaths under attack, he
asserted that Freemasonry enjoins only
partial benevolence and
added, "Freemasonry, at the best,
is but a mutual insurance com-
pany." 17
And so the articles continued. In the
May 21 issue Finney
wrote of the society as a false
religion; the following week he
spoke of it as a "fatal
delusion," as "a system of gross hypoc-
risy"; in the ninth installment he
examined the argument that great
men in the past have been Masons.
Finney reached the peak of his attack
in the tenth install-
ment, in which, after quoting from the
Masonic oath, he asserted,
"The candidate swears to keep a
secret of which he has at present
no knowledge." 18 To Finney what
was particularly obnoxious was
that the initiate had to promise to
assist a fellow member whether
he was right or wrong and to promise
political preferment to Royal
Arch Masons in preference to another of
equal qualifications. "Is
that right?" he asked, and
continued:
15 Independent, XX,
No. 1012 (April 23, 1868), 2.
16 bid., No. 1014 (May 7, 1868), 2.
17 bid., No. 1015
(May 14, 1868) 2.
18 Ibid., No.
1020 (June 18, 1868), 2.
Finney's Fight Against the
Masons 275
No wonder that Masons seize upon all the
offices, and are so apt to have
everything in their own way. And here we
see what is the real use to
which Masonry is appropriated in this
country. It is to seize on all
lucrative offices, and to control the
government by this secret combina-
tion.19
In the conclusion of the article Finney
revealed his political
bias by commenting on the most pressing
issue then before the
nation, the trial of President Johnson.
He mentioned a letter he
had received from a devoted follower
suggesting that because he
was a High Mason, Andrew Johnson could
not be convicted be-
fore the senate and that Jefferson
Davis, for the same reason,
would go free. "Let the country
ponder this," he warned. "Let
the Church of God look to it." 20
The articles continued for two more
installments, and after
the twelfth, which appeared in the July
2 issue, they were ab-
ruptly discontinued. In his writings
Finney borrowed heavily
from published antimasonic materials,
particularly from David
Bernard's Light on Freemasonry.21 On the whole, the articles
shed little new light on the subject of
Freemasonry (although they
do reveal much about the personality of
their author!). They are
unoriginal, repetitious, verbose
diatribes containing an elderly
man's harsh invective.
What makes much more interesting
reading than Finney's
articles, however, is the
correspondence between the author and
the acting editor of the Independent,
Oliver Johnson. As early as
April 23, when only three of Finney's
lengthy installments had
been printed, Johnson expressed concern
over the nature and scope
of Finney's attack. "I am afraid
you are going into the subject
of Freemasonry far deeper and at much
greater length than is
compatible with the various and
pressing demands upon our
space," Johnson wrote. He added
that it was the paper's policy
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid. Similar
charges were contained in several letters Finney received
shortly thereafter. See especially
Robert T. Conant to Finney, June 20, 1868.
21 This familiar work was one of the
bibles of the crusaders. First published as
Light on Masonry in Utica in 1829, it was revised by the author in 1858
and sub-
sequently ran through fifteen editions
by 1873.
276 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
to print only articles that were
complete in themselves and that in
Finney's case this rule had been
suspended. "But I must beg you
to put your pen under some
restraint," he warned. "Otherwise
we may be compelled to stop before you
get to the end." 22
Finney lost no time in replying,
reminding Johnson that when
the editor, Theodore Tilton, promised
to print whatever Finney
would write on the subject, he
understood it was to be a series of
articles. "I had no idea of how
many numbers would be re-
quired," continued Finney.
I did not intend & so I suppose Br.
T. understood, to merely snap a
percussion cap on the subject. I think
Br. Tilton understood that I
intended to ventilate the subject so
thoroughly as to check it & if
possible cure so great and rapidly
growing an evil. . . . Rely upon it,
this is the next great question of
reform to which the church and the
nation will be forced to attend. . . .
I have 15 numbers completed &
have supposed I should not need to
write much more.23
At the conclusion of his letter Finney
alluded to pressure on
the Independent from its readers
who were Masons, to which John-
son was quick to retort, making it
clear that the paper was not
flinching because of anyone's
hostility. "You can have no con-
ception of the pressure upon our
columns. My pigeon-holes are
stuffed with grand articles from
eminent writers, many of whom
have waited for weeks, and some for
months.... I must beg you
not to go further than is absolutely
necessary." 24
Finney was not convinced and wrote his
New York friends
about his editorial difficulties. If
any man could, Lewis Tappan
would tell him the whole story.
"You ask if a certain person is
afraid of the Masons," wrote
Tappan. "I think he is more afraid
of losing subscribers. It is, I am
sorry to say, a money-making
concern. I read your articles with
interest." 25
Another inquiry from the Oberlin
crusader brought encour-
aging words from the editor himself.
"Write your full mind on
22 Oliver Johnson to Finney, April 23,
1868.
23 Finney to Oliver Johnson, April 25,
1868.
24 Oliver Johnson to Finney, April 29,
1868.
25 Lewis Tappan to Finney, April 30,
1868.
Finney's Fight Against the
Masons 277
the subject. Pour the hottest shot you
can forge. Spare not."
But, Tilton quickly added, don't write
so much that people will get
tired reading the articles. The Independent
has no room to print
a book on the subject! "I have now
printed four articles. I will
print six more, making ten in all.
After that the ax must fall."26
The same week that Tilton's letter
arrived, Finney received
one from the assistant editor as well.
Johnson was a bit caustic
in his comments on Finney's style.
"Your method of writing is
the one of all others least adapted to
the newspapers." And as
for Finney's offer to relieve them by
making each installment
longer, Johnson had all he could do to
restrain himself. "Now
that is the one thing not to be
thought of for a moment!"27
Johnson's letters continued to arrive
at regular intervals with
apparently no influence upon Finney's
productive pen. One dated
May 18 pleaded with him again to stop
writing such long articles.
Another, dated June 11, announced that
no more than twelve
numbers were to be printed. Finney
complained bitterly, but the
patient Tilton refused to continue the
rambling discourses. "I
would not complain," counseled
Jonathan Blanchard. "It was a
bold act to print your articles and
must have cost them 50 thou-
sand dollars."28
Finney's articles in the Independent
had no sooner appeared
than scores of letters commenting on
his campaign converged upon
Oberlin. "I have just finished reading your article on Free-
masonry," wrote one Harold
Wheatkeep. "I pray God you may
be 'spared' until you complete the
contemplated series." The
writer added he had long thought that
Freemasonry was a great
evil and assured Finney that for
conducting the present struggle,
"none are better qualified than
yourself."29 Some of his corre-
spondents were not content merely to
express their support in his
drive but engaged in dire prophecies
regarding Freemasonry. "I
have long felt that unless something
should stay the progress of
26 Theodore Tilton to Finney, May 2,
1868.
27 Oliver Johnson to Finney, May 6,
1868.
28 Jonathan Blanchard to Finney, July 4,
1868.
29 Harold Wheatkeep to Finney, April 14,
1868.
278 Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
it," one wrote, "it will end
in revolution in this Country."30 Others
supplied additional information about
Masons and their influ-
ence, with the hope of providing their
hero with additional am-
munition. The octagenarian philanthropist Lewis Tappan re-
minded him, "I too was a
renouncing mason, & can testify to all
you have said of the folly &
iniquity of Freemasonry."31
Some of Finney's supporters gained
space in the Independent
to champion the cause. Typical was an
article by the Rev. Daniel
Kimball, who, on the pretext of
recounting old revival anecdotes
about Finney, inserted the following:
"It is gratifying that he is
still bearing his testimony against the
encroachments for [sic]
Masonry. His testimony accords with my
own observation of the
institution sixty years ago, when all
its active supporters were,
without exception, hostile to practical
religion."32
What pleased Finney more than the
letters of support were
the notices about the articles that
cropped up in other papers and
the offers he received from various
church publishing houses wish-
ing to print his articles in pamphlets
and periodicals. "They are
already copied by the political press
more extensively than I had
anticipated," he wrote his
reluctant New York editor, adding that
he was sure the future numbers would
interest the public even
more.33 By 1870 articles
against Masonry had appeared in a
number of religious periodicals, the
principal of which were the
Religious Telescope, American
Wesleyan, Earnest Christian,
American Baptist, Reformed
Presbyterian, Christian Statesman,
Free Methodist, and Congregationalist.
Not all the reaction, obviously, was
favorable. Some of the
letters Finney opened that spring spoke
out against his accusations
and criticized him severely for the
stand he had taken. Masons
wrote to defend their society; old
friends penned notes warning
him
against hurting the cause of religion; strangers addressed
themselves to him, questioning his
sanity, suggesting he was in his
30 Isaac J. Gilbert to Finney, April 13,
1868.
31 Lewis Tappan to Finney, April 24, 1868.
32 David Kimball, "Rev. Charles G.
Finney," Independent, XX, No. 1015 (May
14, 1868), 6.
33 Finney to Oliver Johnson, April 25,
1868.
Finney's Fight Against the
Masons 279
dotage, and asking him how much money
he was receiving for his
articles. One ardent Mason from
Connecticut commenced a
lengthy correspondence with him
defending his group to the end
and declaring, "There is nothing
that I can now recall in the Obli-
gations or Oaths of the Three Degrees
that is in violation of my
Christian Duties or Obligations any
more than would be the Oath
required in a Court of Law."34
Some of the letters asserted that the
society would prosper
in spite of his attack. As Charles
Raymond put it, "The numbers
are said to be increasing faster than
ever before-and I hardly
think you can do more to prevent it
than you could stop the Flow
of the Ohio River by taking in your
Hands sand from the shores
and casting it into the River."35
Putting it less politely, another
Mason, after calling him "a man
guilty of the basest falsehoods,"
added, "If you for one moment
think you can destroy or injure
Masonry you must be a most egregious
fool."36
A few helpful individuals recommended
other areas for Fin-
ney's energies, suggesting
"evils" more serious than Freemasonry.
"Romanism to me looks far more
formidable," warned Charles F.
Raymond.37 "Odd Fellowship
is not any better than Free-
masonry," added another.38
Finney did not answer all these
letters, but in his eighth in-
stallment he publicly acknowledged the
many communications he
had received from Masons accusing him
of lying and misrepre-
sentation. "To such, I say,"
wrote Finney, "Wait, gentlemen,
until you are better informed upon the
subject, and you will hold
a different opinion."39
The Masonic Monthly quickly rose
to the challenge and ad-
vised Masons in Oberlin to have nothing
to do with those who op-
posed them. Earlier this organ had
dismissed the drive against
them with a few sarcastic sentences.
"It is ever the same old story
34 Charles F. Raymond to Finney, April
13, 1868.
35 Charles F. Raymond to Finney, April
14, 1868.
36 E.
O. Lindley to Finney, April 29, 1868.
37 Charles F. Raymond to Finney, April
13, 1868.
38 Alex Cochran to Finney, July 16,
1868.
39 Independent, XX, No. 1018 (June 4, 1868), 2.
280 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
revived, the same stale catalogue of
complaints." The editor,
however, added significantly,
"There is at least some partial jus-
tification for the demonstrations of
the churches against Ma-
sonry."40
While the Oberlin evangelist was
penning his shafts, others
were more active in the campaign. Led
by Blanchard, the "Chris-
tian men" who in October 1867 had
laid plans for a great national
convention were hard at work rounding
up delegates. In due time
Finney received his invitation: "I
hope you are to be present, and
that the West is to be largely and ably
represented."41
The convention got under way at
Pittsburgh the evening of
May 5. Some 170 delegates met for two
days, listening to speeches
and passing resolutions.42 After
electing Bishop David Edwards
of Ohio president, a plan was approved
for establishing "a na-
tional Christian organization opposed
to all secret societies, in
order to save the Church of Jesus
Christ from being depraved by
their influence; and also to redeem the
administration of justice
from perversion and our republican
government from corrup-
tion."43
The major addresses were made by
President James H. Fair-
child of Oberlin and by Blanchard. The
convention unanimously
agreed to start and support a paper
that would be a sounding
board for their pet peeve. The last
major resolution passed be-
fore the convention adjourned, called
for the churches "to exclude
from the fellowship of the church all
persons who persist in ad-
hering to these secret orders."44
Belittling the meeting, the Ma-
sonic Monthly summed up the convention's work in these words:
"It is likely that we have heard
the last of President Blanchard.
the modern Peter the Hermit, and his
new crusade." The mag-
azine did not overlook Finney in its
account of the proceedings.
Commenting on the selection of Oberlin
as the site for the next
40 Samuel Evans, "Revival of
Antimasonry," Masonic Monthly, V (1868), 17-18.
41 Amasa Walker to Finney, May 3, 1868.
42 The Masonic Monthly put the
date of the first meeting on May 6 and reported
less than one hundred in attendance. Masonic
Monthly, V (1868), 180.
43 Independent, XX, No. 1017 (May 28, 1868), 6.
44 Ibid.
Finney's Fight Against the
Masons 281
convention, it declared, "From the
well-known bigotry and intol-
erance of this place, we should say
that a better selection could
not have been made."45
The end of Finney's articles in the Independent
served only
to increase the agitation on both
sides. "I have just written to the
Editor to express . . . my sincere
regret," one friend announced
when the articles were finally cut
short.46 "Your letters have
moved the country and you have thereby
begun to roll the ball in
the right direction," Finney was
told.47 Many spoke of the "violent
opposition" set up against his
followers, and one Baptist minister
requested "documents to
circulate."48 Others agreed that there
was a "hungering & thirsting
for light on the subject" and urged
Finney to write more.49
The lines of criticism and condemnation
addressed to Finney
became more violent. Some went so far
as to include threats and
prophecies. "Set thy house in
order," wrote one correspondent,
"for thus Sayeth the Lord thou
Shalt die and not live. turn thy
face to the wall and weepe [sic] for
this year, thou Shalt die."50
Even the papers ran notices about
"the many anonymous letters
threatening him with assassination if
he did not desist from his
exposure of Freemasonry."51 And
the Masonic Monthly con-
tinued its defense of the institution.
As one writer put it, men-
tioning the December 1868 issue,
"The Editor gives you Oberlin
fanatics some notice."52
Offers to print more of Finney's
writings continued to pour
in. The columns of the American
Baptist were opened to him for
whatever he wrote devoted "to the
exposure of this mystery of
iniquity."53 The editor of the Religious
Telescope was just as
45 "S.R.N.," "The
'Blanchard' Antimasonic Convention," Masonic Monthly,
V (1868), 181.
46 James Vincent to Finney, July 4,
1868.
47 John G. Mix to Finney, December 19,
1868.
48 Benjamin T. F. Clark to Finney,
November 9, 1868.
49 Alex Cochran to Finney, July 16,
1868.
50 "BPZ" to Finney, May 5,
1868.
51 Lucia C. Cook to Finney, August 16,
1868.
52 A. Ward to Finney, June 30, 1868.
53 Nathan Brown to Finney, July 3, 1868.
282 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
solicitous.54 These
magazines, with smaller circulations than the
Independent, had much less to lose from accepting Finney's offer-
ings!
Meanwhile, others were providing
editorial ammunition to
carry on the campaign. The fiery
Jonathan Blanchard, laying
plans to launch the official organ of
the National Christian Associ-
ation, kept Finney informed.
I shall try and get our executive
committee together next week and
start a paper. I have thought of
beginning with a small dollar paper
once in two weeks. We have no money and
I have expended all I could
get as I go along. . . . I have thought
of this: "The American Christian
--Opposed to Secret Societies" for
a heading. Ask your brethren what
they think of it.55
By early summer he was able to write,
"Our new paper is to
be out in three or four weeks."56 Every two
weeks for the next
three years the Christian Cynosure published
abroad addresses
and articles against secret
societies. Its purpose was to devote
itself exclusively to further the ends
of the national organization,
"to meet this anti-Christ; to turn
back the inky flood of ignorance,
timidity and fear, which chloroforms
now the press, the pulpit
and the legislature of the United
States; in short, to tear off this
political, moral and religious shroud,
which . . . enfolds our en-
tire globe."57 At its peak, the
paper's circulation reached 5,000.
The paper was well received by the rank
and file. One of
Finney's followers expressed his support
in these words, "I am
heartily glad that the cause has now
got an organ of thought of
their own--a journal which cannot be
bought nor sold, bribed nor
browbeated, 'hoodwinked' nor
'cable-towed.'"58
In the meantime Finney was not
inactive. Elaborating on
his early articles over the winter of
1868-69, he wrote a book
which after considerable discussion was
finally published by the
54 William Dillon to Finney, July 4,
1868.
55 Jonathan Blanchard to Finney, May 11,
1868.
56 Jonathan Blanchard to Finney, July 4,
1868.
57 Anti-Masonic Scrap Book, 4.
58 James F. Layton to Finney, April 27,
1869.
Finney's Fight Against the
Masons 283
Western Tract and Book Society in
Cincinnati. The main argu-
ment of the book can be summed up in
one paragraph:
How can we fail to pronounce
Freemasonry an anti-Christian insti-
tution? . . . Freemasonry knows no mercy
. . . . Its oaths are profane. . . .
The penalties of these oaths are
barbarous and even savage. Its teach-
ings are false and profane. Its design
is partial and selfish. Its cere-
monies are a mixture of puerility and
profanity. . . . It is a false religion.
. . . It is a swindle. . . . It is a
virtual conspiracy against both Church
and State.59
Finney followed the book's reception
closely. "We have
sold about 1300 copies," his
editor wrote shortly after publica-
tion. "I think they are just
coming into notice."60 By the end of
August the small supply had been
exhausted, and by the end of
September total sales had reached
3,000.
Again the letters from supporters
flooded Finney. "I thank
you for the work so faithfully,
fearlessly, thoroughly & yet kindly
done," wrote a well-wisher.
"I hope it will have an unusual cir-
culation." "It is a sound
argument against them," wrote one
friend. "Your books are producing
their anticipated effect,"
added another.61
By summer 1870 the members of the
National Christian As-
sociation, having held their second
annual meeting in Chicago in
June, turned their attention to
building up state societies. Fin-
ney's presence at these state-wide
meetings was in demand. He
was urged to attend the convention
scheduled to meet in Syracuse
in November of that year. "We want
an address from you," he
was told. "Your expenses will be
paid by us. . . . You are known
throughout the state. You are loved in
Syracuse. You have an
influence no other man who takes your
position can have."62
Because of poor health Finney had to
decline, but some sixty
people representing ten religious
denominations attended the
59 Charles G. Finney, The
Character, Claims and Practical Workings of Free-
masonry (Cincinnati, 1869), 261-263.
60 A. Ritchie to Finney, June 24,
September 3, 21, 1869.
61 A. S. Stone to Finney, June 14, 1869;
A. S. Raymond to Finney, August 25,
1869; S. Jewett to Finney, January 18,
1870.
62 L. N. Stratton to Finney, August 22,
1870.
284 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
three-day meeting. The usual addresses
were made, the usual
resolutions passed. One of the climaxes
of the convention occurred
when Gerrit Smith, the old
philanthropist and reformer, made an
appearance, donated one hundred dollars
toward the expenses of
the meeting, and was made honorary
president of the society.63
Before adjourning, the convention drew
up a constitution creating
the New York State Christian
Association Opposed to Secret So-
cieties. It is interesting to note that
the assembly also passed a
number of temperance resolutions,
suggesting perhaps a close
affiliation between the two groups.
The movement continued through the
1870's. Annual meet-
ings of the National Christian Association
were held every year
until 1881. Tracts written by
Blanchard, Finney, and others were
circulated. Finney went on a lecture
tour to speak against the
Masons. Political action was even
considered. In June 1872 a
small group met at Oberlin and
nominated Charles Francis Adams
for president and J. L. Barlow for vice
president on a platform
the principal plank of which was
"to use this mild and safe cor-
rective of some of the abuses arising
from secret societies, from
the use of intoxicating liquors, from
casting the Bible out of the
schools and from allowing the public
desecration of the Sab-
bath."64 It was this
same group two years later that joined with
others at Syracuse to form the American
Party.65
As early as 1871 dissension and petty
jealousies appeared
among the antimasonic ranks.
Dissatisfaction centered particu-
larly around the policies of the
association's organ, the Christian
Cynosure, and with Blanchard's editorship. Finney felt that
Blanchard inserted his "personal
difficulties" too much in the
columns of the paper and that the
Finney forces suffered as a con-
sequence. "The paper must itself
be reformed or it cannot go far
in reforming others," he asserted.66
63 See Proceedings of the New York
Anti-Secret Society Convention, 1870
(n.p., 1870).
64 Anti-Masonic Scrap-Book, 40.
65 The American Party was a short-lived
organization that ran candidates in
the 1876 and 1880 elections. The party
at no time polled more than .03 percent of
the popular vote.
66 Finney to Philo Carpenter, October
25, 1871.
Finney's Fight Against the
Masons 285
Blanchard's son quickly rose to his
father's defense and
castigated Finney for "bitterly
and personally" reproaching the
editor. While he recognized the
"noble work" Finney had done,
he reminded the evangelist that
"when the secret lodges were un-
dermining the liberties of America . .
. the alarm was not sounded
from Oberlin but from Illinois."
Continuing, the young Blan-
chard declared, "The man who has
kept the fires burning when
his brethren were asleep; who started
the paper they lacked
strength or courage to start, this man
is struck, struck in the dark,
and in the back by a brother in
Christ!"67
The rift widened with Finney's reply.
"I did not know until
now, that you claimed infallibility in
the conduct of that paper."68
The paper was temporarily discontinued,
came out again in
November 1871 in smaller form, and was
later changed to a
monthly magazine. Its fate was
symptomatic of the course of the
entire campaign. Before long, even
Finney's books were forgot-
ten. His more ardent supporters
reported that "no one had ever
heard of them. No bookstore when I
enquired knew anything of
them."69 By and large, the crusade
was a failure, and the period
after 1880 witnessed a marked increase
in fraternal orders.
A study of this obscure campaign in the
late 1860's suggests
several conclusions. First, the
antimasonic drive, although not
primarily the work of Finney, was aided
immeasurably by the
blows that that evangelist struck in
its behalf. He was the cata-
lytic agent stirring up deep-seated
emotions, reviving long-smol-
dering hatreds. And in his
denunciations against secret societies
we see the last efforts of an aging man
to whip up an emotional
antagonism to the level of a crusade.
Second, this was a grass roots
movement, national in its
scope, bridging sections and religious
sects, and gaining its great-
est support from the small town, the
isolated hamlet. Letters
praising Finney poured in from Mankato,
Minnesota, to Water-
bury Center, Vermont, from Tunkhannock,
Wyoming, to Mystic
67 C. A. Blanchard to Finney, October
27, 1871.
68 Finney to C. A. Blanchard, November
2, 1871.
69 Sarah A. Brown to Finney, June 28,
1874.
286
Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Quarterly
River, Connecticut, from Epworth, Iowa,
to Doe Run, Pennsyl-
vania. While New York City and San Francisco are
represented
among the two hundred letters touching
this subject in the Finney
Papers, the preponderant majority come
from places the size of
Osceola Mills, Pennsylvania, and
Randolph Station, Wisconsin.
In addition to its rural nature, the
campaign was supported
mainly by the elderly, who still
recalled the bitterness of the 1826
affair and to whom Finney represented
the paragon of righteous-
ness and spiritual perfection. Indeed,
some of those who experi-
enced the results of the Great Revival
engineered by Finney in
the 1830's took up their pens to relive
old memories.
Then too, this antimasonic sentiment
can be looked upon as
the last example of the quasi-religious
ultraism for which the
Middle Period was noted--a sentiment
strikingly out of keeping
with the broadening secularism and
materialism of the late 1860's.
It was the religious societies that
came to the fore to support the
movement and to pass resolutions
against secret organizations,
societies like the state Congregational
associations of Illinois,
Iowa, and Wisconsin, the Baptist
Association in Illinois, the Con-
ference of Congregational Ministers of
the South Presbyterian
Synod in Michigan, and the American
Missionary Association of
the United States.70 Just as
the earlier antimasonic impulse had
recruited members from religious
strongholds,71 so too did the
later antimasonic excitement.
Yet in a sense this campaign of
intolerance and vituperation
was perhaps symbolic of a post-war
period when antagonisms and
hatreds, so recently leveled against an
enemy in battle, took their
vent against a little known and
understood mystery which in 1868,
for Finney and those like him, happened
to be the secret society.
The wave of hysteria ran its course.
The antimasonic movement
gradually died, and Charles Grandison
Finney, his last lance
shattered, joined the other Quixotes,
enjoying at last, presumably,
his just reward.
70 Proceedings of the New York Anti-Secret Society
Convention, 1870, 6.
71 Tyler, Freedom's Ferment, 351.