Charles Chiniquy: The Meta-Denominational And Protestant Presbyterian

By Jason Zuidema

[Jason Zuidema [Ph.D. McGitt University) is a full-time lecturer in Christian Spirituality in the Department of Theological Studies at Concordia University in Montreal, Quebec.]

I. Introduction: Chiniquy’s Presbyterianism Revisited

In the posthumously compiled Forty Years in the Church of Christ, Charles Chiniquy relates that 15 April 1860 would be a date not to be forgotten by the French believers in St. Anne, for it was on this date that they chose to link themselves officially with the American Presbyterian Church.[1] Having existed as the independent Eglise Catholique Chretienne for almost two years, the congregation now affiliated itself with an existing Protestant denomination by which it could be supported and protected. Although his link with this particular Presbyterian denomination soured after a little over two years, Chiniquy joined forces with a sister Presbyterian body in Canada in which he remained for the rest of his life.

However, more needs to be said about Chiniquy’s relationship to Presbyterianism in the years following his controversial conversion. No one during his lifetime or after would doubt his commitment to Presbyterianism in general, but when we look closely at the sources, we note that Chiniquy’s was a certain type of Presbyterianism which was not shared by all of his fellow Presbyterian Church members. It is not that his faith and practice were entirely anti-Presbyterian, but, rather, he was allowed a substantial amount of leeway in his work of combating “Romanism” and promoting the evangelization of French Canadians.

Many Protestants viewed Chiniquy as a tremendous asset to French Canadian evangelization. Born in 1809 in Kamouraska, a small village along the south shore of the St. Lawrence River north-east of Quebec City, Chiniquy pursued theological studies at the College of Nicolet and entered the priesthood in 1833. He soon gained a reputation as a fiery preacher and leading crusader in the temperance movement in Quebec in the 1840s.[2] In 1851, Chiniquy was sent to be priest of a French-speaking immigrant community in rural Illinois where he had almost constant conflict with his ruling bishops in Chicago. This conflict finally resulted in his excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church, a very controversial conversion, and his affiliation with the Presbyterians.

Although certain aspects of the idiosyncratic nature of Chiniquy’s Presbyterianism have been considered by historians, a more complete picture has not yet been drawn. Actually, relatively little has been said about many aspects of Chiniquy’s life and thought from 1860 to 1899 (besides Chiniquy’s own writings on the subject, of course). Marcel Trudel, whose contribution to Chiniquy studies was to provide the first relatively well-documented biography of Chiniquy—a Chiniquy whom he painted as an inveterate liar—spent only the last few dozen pages of his book on this period and, again, to prove that Chiniquy was still an inveterate liar.[3] More recent contributions dealing with this period of Chiniquy’s life have helped nuance Trudel’s judgment. Although Paul Laverdure highlights the anti-catholic nature of Chiniquy’s texts, including the idea borrowed from Richard Hofstadter’s comments on Puritanism that Chiniquy’s writings are in some measure Protestant “pornography”[4] his analysis reveals many important details of Chiniquy’s positive contributions to the Presbyterian cause.

Most helpful is Richard Lougheed’s significant monograph on Chiniquy’s controversial conversion. Although the bulk of the work deals with the events surrounding Chiniquy’s conversion in the 1850s, several chapters deal especially with Chiniquy’s life as a Protestant.[5] Lougheed examines a great deal of new original sources and paints a much richer and more balanced portrait of Chiniquy than either Trudel or Laverdure.

This said, however, Lougheed’s book also leaves us with unanswered questions which speak to the heart of the present article. First, the second half of chapter 4 notes the events surrounding Chiniquy’s affiliation with the American Presbyterian Church and, subsequently, the Canadian Presbyterian Church. Next, chapter 5 examines the anti-Catholicism of Chiniquy by saying that it had both “evangelical” roots and goals. Finally, chapter 6 makes of Chiniquy a champion of a “Protestant” cause. Considering Lougheed’s presentation, the question arises as to the link that exists between the “evangelical” roots and goals of chapter 5, the “Protestant” cause of chapter 6, and the explicitly “Presbyterian” affiliation mentioned previously in chapter 4.

Although other examples could be considered, the present article will consider five instances in Chiniquy’s life and writing that shed light on this atypical Presbyterianism. Many details can be found in his major printed books, but other manuscripts and articles will also be considered.[6] Finally, we will gather these ideas together to address their significance in his time and after his death.

II. An Atypical Presbyterian

1. Becoming Presbyterian

Chiniquy writes of joining the American Presbyterian Church in both Fifty Years in the Church of Rome and Forty Years in the Church of Christ. The treatment in Fifty Years is quite cursory simply noting that for fear of seeming sectarian Chiniquy and his congregation at St. Anne opted to join the Presbyterians especially because they seemed to be the “branch of the vine which was nearest, if not identical with that of French Protestants, which gave so many martyrs to the Church of Christ.”[7] In both his major works Chiniquy particularly notes the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre of Huguenots by Catholics in 1572. Hence, Chiniquy appreciated French Protestants not simply because they were French, but also because they were a persecuted minority.[8] His link was not only a theological bond to French Reformed teaching, but also an emotional attachment to French Reformed suffering.

Affiliating with the Presbyterians was no choice out of the blue—Chiniquy had been meeting many different Protestant church leaders during the preceding months gathering support for the work in St. Anne.[9] In Forty Years, Chiniquy describes the happenings that predated the official Presbyterian affiliation of 15 April 1860 in more detail. Most important for us is a speech to a large interdenominational crowd gathered at the Sansom Street Church in Philadelphia. When Chiniquy had finished his speech speaking of the needs and opportunities in his community, George Stuart, a banker by trade and an evangelical leader who had welcomed Chiniquy at the meeting that night, asked him why he did not simply join an existing denomination so as to secure stable funding.[10] Chiniquy’s response denotes, depending on one’s own perspective, either a broad-minded Protestant ecumenism or a simplistic reductionism. As a new convert from Catholicism he remarked that Protestant denominationalism was a “frightful scandal” which made him “unspeakably sad.”[11] When confronted with the Episcopal Church and her dissenters, the Old and New School Presbyterians, the Roman Catholic-looking Lutherans, the fiery Methodists, Chiniquy writes that he was terribly confused. He exclaimed.

Oh! dear Christian friends, why are you not one? Your divisions, your animosities, your quarrels are a terrible stumbling-block to us. When will come the happy day when the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Methodists and the Congregationalists, etc., will embrace each other and forget their differences at the dear Saviour’s feet! . . . My heart is sad when you invite me to join one of your denominations. For I want to join them all.[12]

This reaction would typify Chiniquy’s attitude for the rest of his career (indeed, he is recalling and, certainly, agreeing with this sentiment writing thirty years after the fact). In these remarks we find the basis for his broad-ranging work with representatives from all denominations. Yet, we also see a downplaying, if not outright condemnation of denominational distinctives. Chiniquy seems to think that these “differences” are clearly secondary and can actually be “forgotten” at the Savior’s feet. In any case, Mr. Stuart was satisfied with Chiniquy’s reticence to join a denomination and still held a collection for Chiniquy’s famine-ravaged confreres at St. Anne.[13]

Despite this earlier passionate refusal to join a denomination in Philadelphia, Chiniquy, as we have noted, did join the American Presbyterians in 1860.14 Yet, his joining was rather atypical of Presbyterian procedure. At a meeting of the presbytery of Chicago Chiniquy had been interviewed and was encouraged to join on the normal condition that he adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith.15 At this Chiniquy balked. The moderator tried to persuade him by explaining that new members had to subscribe to the Westminster standards, but Chiniquy would not subscribe to anything more than Scripture. His reasoning again denotes how he understood what he was doing. Three citations from a rather long speech are particularly revealing:

When we ask you to grant us the honour and privilege to become Presbyterians, it is not in a narrow, sectarian sense of the word, it is the large, broad sense of Christianity. We do not want to press only the Presbyterians to our breasts, we want to press all those who love and serve our Saviour Jesus Christ, and look upon Him as their only hope and their only Saviour, by whatsoever name they may be called.[16] Allow me to tell you that after reading many of the books published by the most learned men of your different denominations, we have come to the conclusion that your differences are more in appearance than reality.[17] 

Evidently there are some varieties of views between the many different denominations which form the Church of Christ. But so long as Jesus, and Jesus alone, the Son of God and the Saviour of the world, is their only home, their only refuge, their only life, and His Gospel their only rule of faith, we want to press them all to our hearts as our brethren on earth, and our co-citizens in heaven.[18]

The three of these quotes note certain ideas which Chiniquy had already made clear in Philadelphia, but now with direct reference to the Presbyterians. First, there was no peculiar doctrinal reason that Chiniquy wanted to join the Presbyterians more than other denominations. In fact, as the second quote notes, Chiniquy makes the striking claim that these doctrinal differences were more in appearance than reality. Second, even though he would become Presbyterian in name, he clearly wanted to continue to work with all denominations who preached his kind of gospel.[19]

In an extraordinary move, one which no doubt gave great weight to Chiniquy’s recent Roman Catholic past, the Presbyterian Assembly allowed him to forgo the requirement to sign onto the Westminister Confession and join by submitting to Scripture alone.[20] Chiniquy and his congregation members viewed this as a victory and rejoiced at this acceptance.[21] As noted above, although the relationship with the American Presbyterian Church would go sour after about two years, Chiniquy would join with the Presbyterians of Canada with whom he would remain for the rest of his life.[22]

2. Putting The Protest Into Protestant

Although Chiniquy downplayed many of what he considered to be “differences in appearance,” there was one issue that was of primordial importance: defeating Rome. Chiniquy did this by preaching Scripture, but also by exposing the doctrine of Rome as what he would consider damnable and diabolical error. Some might simply call it “anti-Catholicism,” but this would be to misunderstand Chiniquy.[23] He did not simply want to be anti-Catholic, but “pro-freedom.” He wanted to promote what he saw as the freedom that comes with the truth of the gospel. For example, in the dedication of Fifty Years he states: “In those pages you will not learn to hate the Roman Catholics. No! But you will learn to be more than ever watchful in guarding the precious treasures of freedom bestowed upon you by your fathers.”[24] A reader of Chiniquy might not agree with his version of freedom and truth, but to make him simply into a hate-monger would be to misrepresent his self-understanding As he had experienced in his own life, he wanted to leave Rome, to be sure, but also be driven to the “Church of Christ.” Richard Lougheed correctly notes that Chiniquy’s anti-Catholicism was not simply a version of political nativism, but one which wanted earnestly to evangelize Catholics.[25]

This over-riding goal resonated with great hoards of listeners, as the popularity of his speaking tours attests, but also created interesting, if not ironic, links for a “Presbyterian.” Chiniquy spoke before and corresponded with admirers from all over the globe. He was invited to speak by Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, and many other non-ecclesiastical, pro-Protestant groups in North America, Western Europe, and even Australia.[26] We have already noted that Chiniquy’s reasoning for working among all these groups is that they all represented the same Church of Christ, that is, if they were bound with him to combat the Church of Rome.

For Chiniquy, combating Rome was not simply a matter of speculative theology or ivory-tower philosophy. In Chiniquy’s view, Rome, as the modern Babylon and a tool in the hand of the devil, did not simply hold distorted ideas, but represented all that corrupted humanity and kept it in misery.[27] Romish priests were schemers and drunkards—enemies of true civilization.[28] Roman schools were antithetical to true knowledge and scientific progress.[29] The Roman hierarchy stifled all true liberty and democracy.[30] The dastardly invention of the confessional perverted Roman priests and degraded all Catholic women.[31]

Hence, a major reason Chiniquy was attracted to Protestantism was that it protested against Rome. It bothered him tremendously that many Protestants and, more importantly for our purposes, Presbyterians did not share this over-riding concern to protest against the schemes and errors of Rome.[32] This is perhaps the most important point he wants to make to other “faithful ministers of the Gospel” in dedicating his book Fifty Years to them.[33] Why was there no longer any protest in Protestantism? “Why so? Because modern Protestants have not only forgotten what Rome was, what she is, and what she will forever be: the most irreconcilable and powerful enemy of the Gospel of Christ; but they consider her almost a branch of the church whose corner-stone is Christ.”[34] Many pastors and leaders who shared this desire to vigorously protest noted their disgust of fellow Protestants who were on friendly terms with Catholics.[35]

This concern to protest meant that Chiniquy cultivated relationships with people who had ideas not typical of the Presbyterian churches with which he was affiliated and repulsed those who were leaders. For example, in November 1883, Chiniquy received a letter from a certain Edwin A. Sherman, a Freemason, along with a copy of Sherman’s recently published “The Engineer Corps of Hell,” which was obtainable by “private subscription” alone and dedicated to Chiniquy.[36] Sherman was interested in the inner workings of the Roman, and especially, Jesuit, conspiracy to rule the world. Chiniquy appreciated the book and for the next several months he and Sherman exchanged letters on this subject. In a post-script to his December 1883 letter, Sherman asks the rather unorthodox, but, one surmises, essential question:

PS. In your dedication of your book in which my name may occur, please refer to me as an ‘Eminent Freemason’ of that Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry which has done so much for the regeneration of Italy, France and other Countries in overturning the rule of the Papacy abolishing the temporal power of the Pope, and securing the freedom of conscience. 

By so doing you will receive the encouragement and support of no less than three millions of Freemasons throughout the globe and especially in our own country which has one fourth of the whole. 

I want particularly to recommend your book to them, for you will have more true financial support from them than anyone else, for they are of the ‘Household of the Faithful’ indeed.[37]

In the latter half of the nineteenth century it was not uncommon for Presbyterians to be, or be affiliated with, members of secret societies, but it did say something about Chiniquy’s priorities and interests. And, indeed, the English edition of Chiniquy’s famous Fifty Years in the Church of Rome was dedicated first to Colonel Edwin A. Sherman, then to the Orangemen of the world, to the liberty-loving people of the United States, to all “faithful ministers of the Gospel,” and to the “bishops, priests, and people of Rome.”[38]

While he sustained relationships such as that with Sherman, he criticized acknowledged Presbyterian leaders. Two such cases are important examples. When Chiniquy was crusading in Nova Scotia in 1873, he spoke at St. Matthew’s Presbyterian Church in Halifax where George Munro Grant was pastor. Grant was already an important Canadian Presbyterian leader and would subsequently become principal of Queen’s College in Kingston, Ontario. Grant was not known to be particularly theologically conservative, but he was an important and influential voice in Presbyterian circles of his day.[39] Before speaking, Chiniquy talked with Grant’s church members and found out that Grant was not one to speak of the “evils of Romanism.” Later, on completion of his speech, Grant thanked him, but noted Chiniquy’s rather unconcilatory words towards Catholics and said that he would be glad if Chiniquy were silenced.[40] Chiniquy, for his part, rose and had the nerve to take an informal poll among those present to see who wanted to follow the advice of Grant. As Chiniquy tells the story all voted that he continue to speak.[41]

One might argue that Grant was a “liberal” and hence naturally against Chiniquy, but what about Charles Hodge? Here Chiniquy’s comments are even more striking. Certainly modern theologians and historians do not recognize Hodge as a liberal![42] Yet, Chiniquy devotes a whole chapter in Forty Years to the “deplorable and false liberality in high Protestant quarters with respect to the Church of Rome”—a chapter devoted to denouncing the implications of certain of Hodge’s opinions on Romanism. Chiniquy notes that Hodge was a man of “powerful intellect” and “undoubted piety,” but that on this point he was about to “perish on the rocks of Sylla.”[43] What angered Chiniquy the most were comments by Hodge to the effect that in the Catholic Church there was “truth enough” to save a man’s soul and that the Catholic Church is at least better than atheists or infidels.[44] Chiniquy’s point is that this is absolutely not true. In fact, Chiniquy argues that the Catholic Church is even worse than the athiests or infidels.[45] There is nothing of value in the Catholic Church—everything is perverted. Chiniquy argues that the Pope in Rome renews the modern rebellion of Lucifer. As such, Chiniquy has these words for Hodge and his kind: “And the Protestants who build the church of this modern Lucifer, like those who approve them, may be honest and learned but they are mistaken men. They give help and comfort to the enemy. They are of those for whom Christ said on the cross: ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ “[46] A liberal and Lucifer’s helper! Chiniquy was not one to mince words—even when his foe was a fellow, and renowned, Presbyterian.

3. The Faith Of Abraham Lincoln

The intimate relationship of Abraham Lincoln and Chiniquy has been studied and, with a few exceptions, generally rejected by historians since the time of Chiniquy.[47] The present essay will not enter into this grand debate except to note how Chiniquy describes the faith of Lincoln. This is so interesting for it gives Chiniquy’s view, whether or not it is based more on his impressions than on historical realities, of Lincoln’s religion and, more generally outstanding men of faith.[48] This in turn will help us judge Chiniquy as Protestant and Presbyterian. In his long chapter on Lincoln and, most controversially his claim that the Jesuits were directly behind Lincoln’s assassination, Chiniquy describes Lincoln’s wisdom and faith. Chiniquy asks, “What was the secret to Lincoln’s success?”

The secret of this was, that Lincoln had spent a great part of his life at the school of Christ, and that he had meditated his sublime teachings to an extent unsuspected by the world. I found in him, the most perfect type of Christianity I ever met. . . . Professedly he was neither a strict Presbyterian, nor a Baptist, or a Methodist; but he was the embodiment of all which is more perfect and Christian in them. His religion was the very essence of what God wants in man. It was from Christ himself, he had learned to love his God and his neighbor, as it was from Christ he had learned the dignity and the value of man.[49]

What is so striking in this passage is that Chiniquy sets up Lincoln as one who was meta-denominational. Somehow Lincoln was able to get above all the petty infighting among Protestants to reach the heart of Christianity. The real issue in Chiniquy’s description is that Lincoln also suspected that the Pope and “his perfidious Jesuits and their blind and blood-thirsty slaves” were the real enemies of America. The Confederate leaders were no doubt a problem, but they are not the ultimate problem, Chiniquy’s Lincoln argues. The real problem was the Roman Church. With this Chiniquy is perfectly in agreement.[50] Historians can question Chiniquy’s Lincoln, but it is nonetheless interesting to note that this Lincoln is in many ways a model for Chiniquy.

4. The Curious Case Of Re-Baptism

Perhaps the clearest affront to Chiniquy’s Presbyterianism was his re-baptism at a Methodist camp meeting in St. Anne on 12 August 1873.[51] Chiniquy writes that he had been pondering this question of baptism for some time, but that it was only on this occasion that he felt compelled to seek baptism immediately Two previous instances were important in his reflection. First, when he had affiliated himself with the Presbyterians in Chicago in 1860, they had, according to him, asked him if he and his congregation members would like to be baptized.[52] He noted that the Reformers of the sixteenth century had not required this and that he did not feel it was necessary at this point. Subsequent to this, when he came close to losing his life during the riots at Antigonish in 1873,[53] the Rev. Goodfellow was shocked that he had not been re-baptized and exclaimed, “You die! and you are not yet baptized!”[54] Again, he did not seek baptism at this time, but promised Goodfellow that he would consider the topic more deeply.

All his reflection came to a head at this Methodist camp meeting. Chiniquy is clear that his reasoning was not because of emotional manipulation or a rejection of infant baptism; rather it was because he became aware that the baptism he had received as a child was invalid. This point is important: Chiniquy is not arguing for believer’s baptism here—had he been baptized a child of Protestant parents there would have been no problem. His logic was that as the mass is a false sacrament, so Catholic baptism is also.[55] Chiniquy’s conscience was afflicted. His reasoning led him to believe that he was not baptized and, thus, was going against a command of God. He knew that he could be baptized by his Presbyterian brethren, but that would take time. He needed to act now! Hence, he approached the “respectable” Methodist minister and said:

Mr. Foster, I am a Presbyterian minister, connected with the noble Canada Presbyterian Church, and I hope that nothing will ever break the ties so sweet and so blessed which unite me with that Church. If I were among them, to-day, I would ask them to baptize me, and they would grant me that favour; but I am far away from them. And I must be baptized to-day! I was baptized by a priest of Rome, the thirtieth of July, 1809; and till this day I sincerely believed that my baptism was valid. But I was mistaken.[56]

The Methodist minister found no problem with this and proceeded to baptize Chiniquy.

In the chapter devoted to this baptism the reader clearly senses that Chiniquy knows it will create controversy with his fellow Presbyterians. Rather than apologize for his rash action he goes on the offensive. First, he reiterates that he has come to the conclusion that the Roman Catholic baptism cannot be a true sacrament. Second, he notes that he had no choice in the matter—God motivated him to do it:

An apology is unnecessary regarding such a solemn and sacred action. My baptism was an affair between my God and me alone—my only regret was that I had postponed it so long, and that uncontrollable and providential circumstances had prevented me from being baptized by one of our Presbyterian brethren. But it was the will of God that in this, as well as in many other things of my life, I could not do my own will, but I had to do His will. The ways of God are not the ways of men.[57]

Finally he notes that this re-baptism has had fortuitous results—it gave him a dual denominational nationality of sorts.[58] It allowed him to be on the “inside” with both infant baptizers and believer baptizers:

Since that time it was my privilege to attend, as a deputy, the admirable (I might say the marvelous) meetings of the Evangelical Alliance in New York. There the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Baptists, and the Episcopalians have pulled down, I hope forever, the walls of division which Satan has raised up among the children of God. They have all eaten of the same bread, and they have all sat at the same table, that it might be said of them: ‘They are one bread, one body, one heart, one Church.’ . . . And the whole world has blessed the sublime spectacle of that unity. Our dear Canada Presbyterian Church, which has tasted of the delicious fruit of that perfect unity, through her representation at the Evangelical Alliance in New York, will not find fault with her weakest child, if, in one of the most blessed hours of his life, he has thought that there is no more difference or division among the Methodist and the Presbyterian Churches of this land of exile than there will be when, around the throne of the Lamb, they will sing together the eternal Alleluia.[59]

Like Abraham Lincoln, Chiniquy was now a sort of meta-denominational figure. For any other Presbyterian pastor such a rash action would lead to disciplinary action, but for Chiniquy it was not only acceptable, but laudable in the highest degree. As the above lines suggest, he felt his rebaptism showed his largesse and ability to see the true bonds which linked Protestants together. Some sort of action against him was begun by his fellow Presbyterians, but nothing official came of it.[60]

5. Supporting The “Heretics”

A last indication of Chiniquy’s curious relationship with Presbyterianism was his defense of several prominent Presbyterians suspected of heresy. In a first case, Chiniquy wrote indignantly that certain Presbyterians in Pennsylvania were evidencing a very “narrow spirit” by proceeding with the excommunication of George H. Stuart. Stuart, a banker and an early worker with the Young Men’s Christian Association, had helped Chiniquy raise funds for the famine-ravaged Kankakee settlers when Chiniquy came to Philadelphia seeking funds in 1858.[61] Chiniquy was disgusted that these Presbyterians would spend their time going after “the great, the good, the sincere Christian George Stuart.”[62] Although the exact nature of the charges against Stuart to which Chiniquy was referring is not known, contemporary sources suggest for us that they stem from Stuart’s seeming over-friendliness with other Protestant groups.[63] Although Chiniquy was not alone in his support of Stuart, it is to be noted that he mentions only Stuart’s personal qualities and not his ecclesiological or doctrinal convictions.

A second case was Chiniquy’s defense of the Presbyterian clergyman D. J. Macdonnell from heresy charges in 1875. Macdonnell was the minister of St. Andrew’s Church in Toronto who was charged of heresy after questioning the Westminster Confession’s treatment of double predestination in a sermon and the nature of damnation.[64] Chiniquy took up his pen to clarify his comments about Macdonnell in an article reprinted in the Montreal Witness on 18 June 1876.[65] Chiniquy clearly defends the reality of hell, but writes that the nature of the sufferings and the number of the damned can be discussed. He clearly distanced himself from the implications of Macdonnell’s thought, but because of his friendship with Macdonnell, wanted to give him another chance.[66]

Laverdure mentions that when Chiniquy “weakly defended” Macdonnell, he himself was branded as the “Canadian Heretic!”[67] Unlike his defense of Stuart where many shared his critique, this time even closer supporters, like D. H. Mac Vicar, were quite vocal of their call for Macdonnell’s discipline.[68] The issue was resolved in the ensuing years, but still tested the newly formed Presbyterian Church in Canada and those who had personal relations with Macdonnell.[69]

By looking at these two cases, one can see the implication that Chiniquy was willing to downplay confessional loyalty for the sake of missionary goals.

III. Conclusion

The preceding examples allow us to support several general conclusions. First, Chiniquy held a Presbyterian denominational affiliation more for spiritual and missional reasons than strict confessional or church order reasons. Although he respected his fellow Presbyterians, he was not one to spare criticism of those who were not forcefully preaching what he considered to be biblical religion or protesting vigorously against what he considered to be the anti-biblical Roman religion. In fact, in many of his comments and actions he showed himself to model a certain meta-denominational attitude, one that downplayed confessional and church orderly particulars and highlighted the common vocation of pulling poor and weak brothers from what he considered the pit of Popery. As Richard Lougheed suggests, Chiniquy can, therefore, be considered more helpfully an evangelical and Protestant, rather than simply a Presbyterian.[70]

That he held this attitude of a meta-denominational, protestaxit was clear; that he was allowed to hold it always caused controversy. Yet, secondly, because of his usefulness in the cause of bringing attention to the work of French Canadian evangelism, he was given a great deal of room in which to work. In defending Chiniquy one pastor in Nova Scotia stated: “We are far from saying that Mr. Chiniquy’s modes of procedure are always what we or our brethren would adopt. But he knows thoroughly the people with whom he has to deal, and adapts his treatment accordingly.”[71] Prophetic types like Chiniquy were allowed to function on a plane higher than the normal confession- and church order-bound Presbyterian.

Yet, this loose approach to denominational affiliation was not entirely his creation. Rather, Chiniquy also profited from the larger culture of trans-denominational revivalism. This revivalism had already found root in most Protestant communities around the world.[72] Further, he was able to profit from the many inter-denominational Protestant and Evangelical societies prevalent in the nineteenth century. These societies helped him build an international reputation and in turn profited from his personality to further their own causes.

In the end, it is no wonder that Chiniquy can be claimed by so many Protestant groups and individuals after his death.[73] Although he was always denominationally a Presbyterian, his relationships with others were not always “typical” of a Presbyterian. Indeed, it is for this reason that one of his sons-in-law, Samuel Delagneau, a Baptist pastor, claimed in 1909 that Chiniquy was much more than a Presbyterian. True, he said, Chiniquy joined the Presbyterians and was baptized by the Methodists, but if one looks back to his conversion, arguably the most important moment in his life, one sees that he was influenced most directly by the Baptist pastors Narcisse Gyr and Theodore Lafleur coming from Quebec. Hence, argued Delagneau, Chiniquy was nominally a Presbyterian, sacramentally a Methodist, but fundamentally a Baptist![74]

Notes

1. Charles Chiniquy, Forty Tears in the Church of Christ (Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1900), 190.
2. On Chiniquy’s temperance work see Jan Noel, “Dry Patriotism: The Chiniquy Crusade,” Canadian Historical Review 71 (June 1990): 189-207; Jean-Patrice Ares, “Les campagnes de temperance de Charles Chiniquy: Un des principaux moteurs du reveil religieux montrealais de 1840” (M.A. thesis, Universite du Quebec a Montreal, 1990).
3. Marcel Trudel, Chiniquy (Trois-Rivieres: Editions du Bien Publique, 1955). Pages 223-92 deal with this period of Chiniquy’s life, but contain several lengthy excurses, hence, deal with it relatively briefly. See also Trudel’s recent short biography, Chiniquy: Pretre catholique: ministre presbyterien (Montreal: Lidec, 2001), 35-55.
4. Paul Laverdure, “Charles Chiniquy’s The Priest, the Woman and the Confessional: Protestant ‘Pornography’?” Canadian Society of Presbyterian History (1984—1985): 59-71; Laverdure, “Religious Invective of Charles Chiniquy, Anti-Catholic Crusader, 1875-1900” (M.A. thesis, McGill University 1984), 38; Laverdure, “Charles Chiniquy: A Wandering Life,” in Called to Witness: Profiles of Canadian Presbyterians; A Supplement to “Enduring Witness/Vol. 3 (ed. John S. Moir; Hamilton, Ont.: Committee on History, The Presbyterian Church in Canada, 1991), 33-44; Laverdure, “Charles Chiniquy: The Making of an Anti-Catholic Crusader,” CCHA [Canadian Catholic Historical Association], Historical Studies 54 (1987): 39-56.
5. Richard Lougheed, The Controversial Conversion of Charles Chiniquy (Toronto: Clements, 2009), 107-28; Lougheed, “A Major Stimulus for Both Quebec Ultramontanism and World-Wide Anti-Catholicism: The Legacy of Chiniquy,” The Canadian Society of Presbyterian History (1994): 36-55; Lougheed, “Le Luther de Canada: La conversion de Charles Chiniquy comme modele evangelique,” La Revue Farel 3 (2008): 23-37.
6. See especially Fifty Tears in the Church of Rome (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1886); and Forty Tears in the Church of Christ Somewhat less important for the present article, but still helpful is The Priest, the Woman and the Confessional(31st ed.; Chicago: Adam Craig, 1887). An excellent archival source of documents by and about Chiniquy is the recently digitized Chiniquy Collection, edited by Allan Pequegnat of Elliot Lake, Ontario (www.chiniquy.ca). This collection contains more than 10,000 personal letters, photographs, documents, books, news clippings, and artefacts by, from, or about Chiniquy.
7. Fifty Tears, 819.
8. Fifty Tears, 868, 695, 703; Forty Tears, 192, 205, 273, 483 (among others).
9. See Caroline B. Brettell, “From Catholics to Presbyterians: French-Canadian Immigrants in Central Illinois” American Presbyterians 64 (Fall 1985): 285-98. Also, Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, 224-25.
10. See below for more on George Stuart and Chiniquy.
11. Forty Years, 121.
12. Forty Tears, 122- In reading Chiniquy’s Fifty Tears, we get the impression that he had already been wrestling with these kinds of frustrations for several years. See Fifty Tears, 483.
13. Forty Tears, 125.
14. See Brettell, “From Catholics to Presbyterians,” 294.
15. The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession, in the Calvinist theological tradition. Although drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly largely of the Church of England, it became and remains the “subordinate standard” of doctrine in the Church of Scotland, and has been influential within Presbyterian churches worldwide.
16. Forty Years, 191.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid., 192.
19. See Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, 274-76.
20. Lougheed writes: “Chiniquy and the congregations insisted on an important concession— that they would swear allegiance only to the Bible, rather than to the Westminster Confession” (Controversial Conversion, 118). One notes the lengths to which Protestant groups would go to welcome this former Catholic priest into their denomination.
21. Forty Years, 193.
22. Brettel, “From Catholics to Presbyterians,” 293-95.
23. See Laverdure, “Religious Invective,” 21-26 and passim; Lougheed, “A Major Stimulus,” 36-40.
24. Fifty Years, 4.
25. Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, 135.
26. In his later years, Chiniquy refuted a certain “Kentucky Ben” who wrote that no respectable Protestant would have dealings with him. In his refutation he notes that he gave many lectures, received much money, met innumerable people, and his books had been printed over a million times. All this to prove that obviously some respectable Protestants had dealings with him. See Forty Tears, 405-16.
27. Fifty Years, 153.
28. One example: when Chiniquy announced to his congregation in 1856 that he was expecting envoys from Bishop O’Regan who would deliver the letter of his excommunication, he told his flock not to be afraid of them for these men were simply pawns of the evil bishop and they would probably be drunk! The excommunication was invalid not only because it was not signed but, Chiniquy says, “That act was also a nullity, for being brought by three priests who were not mentis compos, from their actual state of drunkenness. And again, it was a nullity, from the evident falsehood which was its base” [Fifty Tears, 641).
29. Ibid., 96.
30. The Priest, Woman and Confessional, 160-65 and 190; Fifty Tears, 689.
31. “Those who have any knowledge of history and philosophy know very well that the moral degradation of the woman is soon followed everywhere by the moral degradation of the nation, and the moral degradation of the nation is very soon followed by ruin and overthrow. The French nation had been formed by God to be a race of giants. They were chivalrous and brave; they had bright intelligences, stout hearts, strong arms and a mighty sword. But as the hardest granite rock yields and breaks under the drop of water which incessantly falls upon it, so that great nation had to break and to fall into pieces under, not the drop, but the rivers of impure waters which, for centuries, have incessantly flowed in upon it from the pestilential fountain of the confessional” [The Priest. Woman and Confessional, 131). Chiniquy’s comments on women and the confessional are treated in a recent masters thesis, Steve Gyr, “Charles Chiniquy et le confessionnal: La cle du catholicisme que-becois” (Th.M. thesis, Universite Acadia, 2009).
32. To “wake up” his fellow Protestants to what he saw as the dangers of Catholicism he wrote the little tract ‘Sound the Alarm!’ An Appeal to Protestants in 1869. This four-page tract, reprinted from an article in Christian Times of 30 April 1869, warned Protestants that the time for “talking about” Catholicism was finished and doing something about it ought to begin. Interestingly, Chiniquy quoted a Catholic priest as saying that division among Protestants was the major reason the Catholics were in the ascendant in Protestant areas. See McGill University, McLennan Library, Rare book room, MS 825, c. 1/11.
33. Fifty Years, 5.
34. Ibid.
35. Several examples: Rev. Burns, a pastor in Nova Scotia, told Chiniquy in 1862, “The Protestant who does not protest against Rome is unworthy of the name. . . . The very life-blood of the Protestant faith oozes out when there is no protesting” [Forty Tears, 287). On Burns see also Chiniquy :A Presbyterian Minister Approves. The Romanists Condemn and Persecute” (Chiniquy Collection. 02.002). A. E. Schouten, the organizer of Chiniquy’s trip to Holland in 1897, noted with disgust that the so-called Calvinist, Abraham Kuyper, had gone so far as to join forces with Catholics in the country’s elections (A. E. Schouten to Charles Chiniquy 22 July 1897 [Chiniquy Collection, 07.090]). See also Schouten’s letter of 5 June 1897 for a similar critique (Chiniquy Collection, 07.114).
36. Edwin A. Sherman, The Engineer Corps of Hell; or Rome’s Sappers and Miners (S an Francisco: n.p.. 1883).
37. Edwin A. Sherman to Charles Chiniquy, 29 December 1883 (Chiniquy Collection, 07.166)
38. Fifty Years, 3-6.
39. On Grant’s theological bent while in Nova Scotia see Donald Barry Mack, “George Monro Grant: Evangelical Prophet” (Ph.D. diss., Queen’s University, 1992), 136-50.
40. Grant’s more irenic approach to Roman Catholicism would eventually win the day in Canadian Presbyterian circles, thereby effectively undermining the work of those like Chiniquy. See Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, 21&-11; Richard Strout, “The Latter Years of the Board of French Evangelization of the Presbyterian Church in Canada” (M.A. thesis, Bishop’s University 1986), 53.
41. Forty Years, 295-302.
42. On Hodge, David Wells remarks: “It was the stout consistency of Hodge’s theology and the rigorous defense he gave of it that earned him an almost oracular standing among Old Schoolers” [David F. Wells, “Charles Hodge,” in Reformed Theology in America [ed. David F. Wells; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997]), 39. See also David Calhoun, Princeton Seminary: Faith and Learning, 1812—1868 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994), 103-24; Mark Noll, ed., The Princeton Theology, 1812-1921 (Grand Rapids, Baker, 2001), 107-10; J. W Stewart and J. H. Moorhead, eds., Charles Hodge Revisited: A Critical Appraisal of His Life and Work (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
43. Forty Years, 265.
44. Ibid., 266.
45. Comments to this effect are also seen in The Priest, Woman and Confessional, 161.
46. Forty Years, 281.
47. For the majority opinion see Trudel, Chiniquy, 239-45; and Paul Laverdure, “‘The Jesuits did it!’ Charles Chiniquy’s Theory of Lincoln’s Assassination,” Canadian Society of Church History Papers (2001): 125-40. For a more moderate evaluation see Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, 125-27.
48. The literature on Lincoln’s faith is quite rich: William J. Wolf, The Almost Chosen People: A Study of the Religion of Abraham Lincoln (Garden City N.Y: Doubleday 1959); Allen C. Guelzo, Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003); William E. Barton, The Soul of Abraham Lincoln (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2005).
49. Fifty Years, 711.
50. Ibid., 696.
51. A partial hand-written account is in the Chiniquy Collection, 02-010. The printed version “Why Father Chiniquy was re-baptized” appeared first in November 1873 [Chiniquy Collection, 01.027) and again in Forty Tears, 246-56.
52. Forty Tears, 250. Although Chiniquy recounts this story one wonders at the actual question asked by the Presbytery. It has never been the practice of a Presbyterian or Reformed Church to re-baptize converted Catholics. Did the Presbytery formally ask him if he wanted baptism or some poorly informed individual member at Presbytery? Lougheed simply relates this detail without questioning it [Controversial Conversion, 124-25).
53. See the Statement and correspondence of the Pictou Presbytery, PCL.P, respecting the Antigonish riot [Victou. N.S.: W Harris, 1874). For a modern account see David Sutherland, “‘Father’ Chiniquy Comes to Halifax: Sectarian Conflict in 1870s Nova Scotia,” Royal Nova Scotia Historical Society Journal 10 (2007): 72-86. Sutherland uses many printed sources to give the most complete record to date of Chiniquy’s trip to Nova Scotia and its aftermath, but it is quite unfortunate that he did not use Trudel’s Chiniquy (only one reference on p. 84 n. 22) and Lougheed’s Controversial Conversion (an earlier, French edition of this book appeared in 1999) to temper his more general comments about Chiniquy’s life and work.
54. Forty Years, 251.
55. Ibid., 253.
56. Ibid., 255.
57. Ibid., 256.
58. Laverdure remarks that one could consider Chiniquy’s re-baptism as a type of “insurance” policy in case things did not work out with the Presbyterians and he had to jump ship over to the Baptists (Laverdure, “Charles Chiniquy: A Wandering Life,” 39). There is no evidence in Chiniquy’s writings that he considered it as such. Although he always spoke highly of the Baptists and loved working with them, he maintained that he was not a covert Baptist among the Presbyterians. For example, Chiniquy clearly noted this to the editor of The Standard in 1873. See Chiniquy’s letter to M. Smith, editor of The Standard, “Ste-Anne Kankakee Co., Ill,” 16 April 1873 (McGill University McLennan Library Rare book room, MS 825, c. 1/12). See also Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, 124-25.
59. Forty Years, 256.
60. See minutes of Canadian Presbyterian Church (1874): Appendix, 64.
61. See Forty Tears, ch. 9.
62. Chiniquy’s letter to M. Smith.
63. In a New York Times article of 9 January 1880 one reads: “In 1868 Mr. Stuart was suspended by the General Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church from his office as a ruling elder and his membership in the Church, on a charge of having sung hymns and communed with Christians of other Evangelical denominations.”
64. On the controversy and trial see J. F. McCurdy ed., Life and Work of D. J. Macdonnell, Minister of St. Andrew’s Church, Toronto. With a Selection of Sermons and Prayers (Toronto: William Briggs, 1897), esp. ch. 12; John S. Moir, “Macdonnell, Daniel James,” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography (online edition: Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000), http://www.biographi.ca/009004-l19.01-e.php?&id_nbr=6249&interval=25&&PHPSESSID=do9ttbbcg57qcgodeb tc2gpvr6; Joseph C. McLelland, “The Macdonnell Heresy Trial,” Canadian Journal of Theology 4 (1958): 273-84. See also Duff Crerar, ‘“Crackling Sounds from the Burning Bush’: The Evangelical Impulse in Canadian Presbyterianism before 1875,” in Aspects of the Canadian Evangelical Experience (ed. G. A. Rawlyk; Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press), 125-30; Michael Gauvreau, The Evangelical Century: College and Creed in English Canada from the Great Revival to the Great Depression (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press, 1991), 158-60.
65. “Rev. C. Chiniquy and the Macdonnell Case,” The Montreal Witness (27 June 1876): 1. This short letter was a reprint of that found in the Chicago Tribune several days earlier.
66. Ibid.
67. Laverdure, “Charles Chiniquy: A Wandering Life,” 39.
68. Moir, “Macdonnell.”
69. McLelland, “The Macdonnell Heresy Trial,” 276-84.
70. See Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, 129-35.
71. Forty Tears, 293. See also Theodore Lalleur’s comments of 1885 to this effect, as cited in Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, 162.
72. Lalonde suggests that the non-confessional approach to French-Canadian evangelism into which Chiniquy fit was an imported product of the Swiss reveil of the early nineteenth century Jean-Louis Lalonde, Des hups dans la bergerie: Protestants de langue francaise au Quebec, 1534—2000 (Montreal: Fides, 2002), 56, 81.
73. Lougheed, Controversial Conversion, ch. 10.
74. See ibid., 224.