Of the twenty Christian witnesses whose testimony is given in Chapter I., ten admit that, during a part of his life, Lincoln was an unbeliever, or Infidel. Of the remaining ten, not one denies the fact. It is conceded, then, that he was once an Infidel. Now, it is a rule of law that when a certain state or condition of things is once proven to exist, that state or condition is presumed to continue to exist until the contrary is proven. If Lincoln was, at one time, an Infidel, it is fair to assume that he remained an Infidel, unless it can be shown that he changed his belief and became a Christian. This Dr. Reed attempts to do.
His lecture, under the caption of "The Later Life and Religious Sentiments of Abraham Lincoln," will be found in Scribner's Monthly for July, 1873. The evidence presented by Lamon had placed Dr. Holland in a most unenviable light. As Reed's lecture reaffirmed the claim made by Holland, and brought forward fresh evidence to substantiate the claim, it was naturally regarded by many Christians as a vindication of Holland's position, especially by those who had not read Lamon's work. Holland was particularly pleased at its opportune appearance, and cheerfully gave it a place in his magazine.
Reed's individual testimony proves nothing. He does not profess to know, from personal knowledge, what Lincoln's religious views were. The object of his lecture was to invalidate, if possible, the testimony of those who affirmed that he died an Infidel, and to present, in addition to what had already been presented by Holland, the testimony of those who affirmed that during the last years of his life he was a Christian. To answer his witnesses is to answer his lecture.
The Rev. Dr. Smith affirms that he converted Lincoln to a belief in "the divine authority and inspiration of the Scriptures." It was imperative that he should, for, said he, "It was my honor to place before Mr. Lincoln arguments designed to prove the divine authority and inspiration of the Scriptures." As a matter of course, "the result was the announcement by himself that the arguments in favor of the divine authority and inspiration of the Scriptures were unanswerable." Consequently, "Mr. Lincoln did avow his belief in the divine authority and inspiration of the Scriptures."
Impressed with a deep sense of the gravity and importance of his work, he declares that "It is a matter of the last importance not only to the present but to all future generations of the great Republic, and to all advocates of civil and religious liberty throughout the world that this avowal on his part,... should be made known to the public," coupled with the more important fact, of course, that it was Dr. Smith who did it. It is to be regretted that his waiting until after Lincoln's death to announce it, prevented the convert's Christian friends from tendering their congratulations and extending the hand of fellowship. It is possible that he counseled Dr. Smith not to divulge the secret for fear it might injure his political prospects. Certain it is, his neighbors were ignorant of this remarkable change. When Holland canvassed Springfield, in 1865, eager to obtain a morsel of evidence upon which to base his claim that Lincoln was a Christian, he failed to catch even the faintest whisper regarding this alleged conversion.
When Dr. Smith's letter was made public, the Christians of Springfield generally smiled, but said nothing, while unbelievers laughed outright and pronounced it the acme of absurdity. Dr. Reed read it to his audience and tried to look serious.
Concerning this claim, Lincoln's biographer, Colonel Lamon, says:
"The abilities of this gentleman to discuss such a topic to the edification of a man like Mr. Lincoln seem to have been rather slender; but the chance of converting so distinguished a person inspired him with a zeal which he might not have felt for the salvation of an obscurer soul. Mr. Lincoln listened to his exhortations in silence, apparently respectful, and occasionally sat out his sermons in church with as much patience as other people. Finding these oral appeals unavailing, Mr. Smith composed a heavy tract out of his own head to suit the particular case. 'The preparation of that work,' says he, 'cost me long and arduous labor;' but it does not appear to have been read. Mr. Lincoln took the 'work' to his office, laid it down without writing his name on it, and never took it up again to the knowledge of a man who inhabited the office with him, and who saw it lying on the same spot every day for months. Subsequently Mr. Smith drew from Mr. Lincoln an acknowledgment that his argument was unanswerable—not a very high compliment under the circumstances" (Life of Lincoln, p. 498).
The gentleman whom Colonel Lamon refers to as testifying that Lincoln did not read Dr. Smith's book was Lincoln's partner, Mr. Herndon. In his lecture on "Lincoln's Religion," Mr. Herndon says:
"Mr. Lincoln received a book from Dr. Smith on Infidelity. He placed it on our law table. He never opened it—never read it to my knowledge."
If Dr. Smith had converted Lincoln, as claimed, is it not reasonable to suppose that he would have joined Dr. Smith's church? Had he been converted would the clergymen of Springfield have denounced him as an Infidel in 1860? Again, if Dr. Smith's book was so effective as to convert from Infidelity to Christianity as great a mind as Lincoln, why have we not heard more of it? Why has it not been used to convert other Infidels? Was its vitality as an evangelizer exhausted in converting Lincoln?
Mr. Reed was a trifle more successful than Dr. Holland in obtaining witnesses; for while Holland was able to secure but one witness in Illinois, Reed was able to summon two—Ninian Edwards and Thomas Lewis.
The testimony of Mr. Edwards, providing that he was the author of the letter accredited to him, can only be accounted for on the following supposition. Being a believer in Christianity himself, he considered Lincoln's Infidelity a grave defect in his character, and was vexed to see that this controversy had given it such wide publicity. To assist in removing this stain, as he regarded it, from his kinsman's name, he allowed to be published over his signature a statement which, unless his memory was very treacherous, he must have known was untrue.
It may be that Lincoln did change his views in regard to some historical or doctrinal point connected with Christianity, and informed Mr. Edwards and other friends at the time of the fact. He might have changed his opinions on a hundred theological questions without having in the least changed his views in relation to the main or fundamental doctrines of Christianity. An admission concerning some trivial question connected with Christianity has been tortured to convey the idea that he accepted the whole system.
A prominent and respected citizen of Springfield, a gentleman whose name has, as yet, not been mentioned in connection with this controversy, had a conversation with Mr. Edwards relative to this subject, soon after Reed's lecture was published, and, as the result of that conversation, he writes as follows: "Mr. Edwards was not as good a witness on oral examination as he was in print."
The letter of Mr. Edwards is dated Dec. 24, 1872. On Jan. 6, 1873, the letter of Thomas Lewis was written. After two weeks of arduous labor, Reed, it seems, succeeded in finding one witness in Springfield who was prepared to corroborate the testimony of Edwards—Thomas Lewis.
In a lecture on Lincoln which appeared in the State Register, of Springfield, Mr. Herndon disposed of this witness as follows:
"Mr. Lewis's veracity and integrity in this community need no comment. I have heard good men say they would not believe his word under any circumstances, especially if he were interested. I hate to state this of Tom, but if he will obtrude himself in this discussion, I cannot help but say a word in self-defense. Mr. Lincoln detested this man, I know. The idea that Mr. Lincoln would go to Tom Lewis and reveal to him his religious convictions, is to me, and to all who know Mr. Lincoln and Tom Lewis, too absurd."
The introduction of this Lewis as a witness demonstrates the paucity of evidence to be obtained on this side of the question among Lincoln's neighbors. Reed, living in a city of twenty thousand inhabitants, many of them the personal friends of Abraham Lincoln, after a vigorous search for evidence, is able only to present this pitiable apology.
I have reason to believe that the letters of Edwards and Lewis were drafted, not by the persons whose signatures they bear, but by the Rev. J. A. Reed.
We come next to the testimony of Noah Brooks. Mr. Edwards, supported by Mr. Lewis, states that Lincoln was converted soon after Dr. Smith located at Springfield, and about the time of his son Eddie's death. Dr. Smith came to Springfield in 1848, and Eddie died toward the close of the same year. Dr. Smith, in his letter, does not state when Lincoln's conversion took place, but it is understood from other sources that he claimed that it occurred about the year 1858. Mr. Brooks, in his letter to Dr. Reed, says: "Speaking to me of the change which had come upon him, he said, while he could not fix any definite time, yet it was after he came here [Washington], and I am very positive that in his own mind he identified it with about the time of Willie's death."
Willie's death occurred in February, 1862, nearly fourteen years after the death of Eddie, and four years after Smith claimed to have converted Lincoln. Thus it will be seen that these witnesses nullify each other. The testimony of each is contradicted and refuted by the testimony of the other two. Mr. Edwards says that Lincoln was converted in 1848. This is contradicted by the testimony of both Smith and Brooks. According to Dr. Smith his conversion happened about 1858. This is contradicted by the testimony of both Edwards and Brooks. Mr. Brooks is quite positive that it took place about the time of Willie's death, in 1862. This, in turn, is contradicted by the testimony of both Edwards and Smith. If Mr. Edwards is right, both Dr. Smith and Mr. Brooks are wrong. If Dr. Smith is correct, both Mr. Edwards and Mr. Brooks are incorrect. If Mr. Brooks has stated the truth both Mr. Edwards and Dr. Smith have stated falsehoods.
The testimony of these witnesses does not strengthen Reed's case, but weakens it. The testimony of two of them is self-evidently false, and this is a sufficient reason for doubting the truthfulness of the third. Had the evidence of neither Edwards nor Smith been invalidated by the evidence of the others, the fact that Lincoln is so generally conceded to have been an unbeliever up to the time that he became President, would render it unworthy of consideration. The testimony of Brooks alone demands notice. Did Lincoln change his belief after he left Springfield and went to Washington? The evidence upon this point is decisive.
The man who stood nearest to President Lincoln at Washington—nearer than any clergyman or newspaper correspondent—was his private secretary, Col. John G. Nicolay. In a letter dated May 27, 1865, Colonel Nicolay says:
"Mr. Lincoln did not, to my knowledge, in any way change his religious ideas, opinions, or beliefs from the time he left Springfield to the day of his death."
In a letter to his old friend, Judge Wakefield, written after Willie's death, he declared that his earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation, and the human origin of the Scriptures, had become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and he did not think he should ever change them.
After his assassination Mrs. Lincoln said: "Mr. Lincoln had no hope and no faith in the usual acceptance of these words." His lifelong friend and executor, Judge David Davis, affirmed the same: "He had no faith in the Christian sense of the term." His biographer, Colonel Lamon, intimately acquainted with him in Illinois, and with him during all the years that he lived in Washington, says: "Never in all that time did he let fall from his lips or his pen an expression which remotely implied the slightest faith in Jesus as the son of God and the Savior of men."
Why do the statements of these witnesses, Smith, Edwards, and Brooks, not agree respecting the date of Lincoln's conversion? When their testimony was given, Smith was in Scotland, Edwards was in Illinois, and Brooks was in New York.
If he was converted, why was the fact not revealed before his death? Why did these men wait until he died to make these statements to the world? Simply because the dead can make no reply.
Had Lincoln been converted, the news would have been wafted on the wings of lightning from one end of the continent to the other. It would have been published in every newspaper; it would have been proclaimed from every pulpit; it would have been a topic of conversation at every fireside. When Henry Wilson, a man of far less note than Lincoln, was converted to Christianity, the fact was heralded all over the land.
Lincoln's home was twice visited by death during his lifetime, and both occasions have been seized upon to assert that he experienced a change of heart. The death of a beloved child is no common sorrow, and the womanly tenderness of Lincoln's heart made it doubly poignant to him. "When death entered his household," says his friend, George W. Julian, "his sorrow was so consuming that it could only be measured by the singular depth and intensity of his love." That Mr. Edwards and Mr. Brooks did each observe a change in the demeanor of the grief-stricken father, following the sad events referred to, is not improbable. But a manifestation of sorrow is no proof of a theological change.
Three of Reed's witnesses remain—three clergymen—Dr. Sunderland, Dr. Miner, and Dr. Gurley. Dr. Sunderland is a man of distinction. He has had the honor of praying for the United States Senate and officiating at the marriage of a President. Yet, distinction is not always the badge of honesty. W. H. Burr, a literary gentleman, of Washington, writing to a Boston paper in 1880, paid the following tribute to Dr. Sunderland's veracity: "He can probably put more falsehood and calumny in a page of foolscap than any priest out of prison."
Mr. Sunderland called upon the President in 1862. In his letter to Reed he says: "For one half hour [he] poured forth a volume of the deepest Christian philosophy I ever heard." Notwithstanding ten years had elapsed since that visit, he proceeded to give from memory a verbatim report of Lincoln's remarks. The report is too long to reproduce in this work, and even if correct, would add but little to the weight of Christian evidence already presented. It is merely an ethical discourse, and aside from a few indirect admissions in favor of Christianity for which Sunderland doubtless drew upon his imagination, there is nothing that Paine or any other Deist might not with propriety have uttered. Those who wish to peruse Mr. Sunderland's letter will find it in Scribner's Monthly for July, 1873.
Dr. Miner, like Dr. Sunderland, had a quiet chat with the President, and what was said he assures us is too deeply engraved on his memory ever to be effaced. But, unlike Dr. Sunderland, he does not favor us with a transcript of it. He does not repeat a word that was uttered. He states, however, that, "If Mr. Lincoln was not really an experimental Christian, he was acting like one." But how does an experimental Christian act? If he behaves himself, if he is intelligent and honest, his actions are not materially different from those of a good Freethinker. Dr. Miner did not believe that Lincoln was an experimental Christian, and in his article there is an implied admission that he knew nothing about his religion.
He says that, "Like the immortal Washington, he believed in the efficacy of prayer." The comparison is happily drawn. Lincoln probably did believe as much in the efficacy of prayer as Washington; that is to say, he did not believe in it at all, in the evangelical sense. There is no evidence that Washington believed in prayer, no proof that he ever uttered a prayer. That story about his praying at Valley Forge is as truly a myth as the story about the hatchet. The Rev. E. D. Neill, an eminent Episcopal minister, and a relative of the person who is reported to have seen Washington engaged in prayer, pronounces it a fiction.
Dr. Gurley is represented as saying: "I considered him sound not only on the truth of the Christian religion, but on all its fundamental doctrines and teachings." This, remember, is from a Calvinistic standpoint. Lincoln, then, not only accepted Christianity, but its most ultra variety—Calvinism. He believed in original sin, predestination (including infant damnation), particular redemption, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. Because he sometimes went with his wife to the Presbyterian church, of which she was an adherent, the priests of this denomination have the contemptible assurance to assert that he was a rigid Calvinist!
When he died Dr. Gurley, being Mrs. Lincoln's pastor, delivered the funeral oration in Washington. In that oration Dr. Gurley did not affirm that Lincoln was a Christian, a thing he would not have failed to do had it been true. Long after Lincoln's death, Dr. Gurley, if Reed has correctly reported him, makes a statement that he had not the courage to make over his dead body.
A reputable Christian gentleman, of Springfield, who desires to have his name withheld from the public, declares that Dr. Gurley knew and admitted that Lincoln was a disbeliever in Christianity.
It is quite probable that Gurley did not state in full what Reed reports him to have stated. A man who can take up his pen and at one sitting indite a score of falsehoods and misrepresentations, as Reed, on a subsequent occasion, is shown to have done, can not be relied upon for accuracy as a reporter.
The reader has doubtless not failed to notice the introduction of a claim by Reed to the effect that Lincoln at the time of his assassination was intending to unite with the church. That the idea was suggested by Reed is shown by the fact that no less than three of these witnesses, including Reed, allude to it. Reed says: "While it is to be regretted that Mr. Lincoln was not spared to indicate his religious sentiments by a profession of his faith in accordance with the institutions of the Christian religion, yet it is very clear that he had this step in view." Dr. Gurley is made to say: "It was his intention soon to make a profession of religion." Mr. Brooks says: "I absorbed [the porosity of some of these witnesses is remarkable] the firm conviction that Mr. Lincoln... was seriously considering the step which would formally connect him with the visible church on earth."
This dernier resort of an argument has been repeated respecting nearly every notable person who has died outside of the church. Soon after the publication of Reed's lecture, the New York World contained the following pertinent answer to this stale fabrication:
"It is admitted by Mr. Reed and everybody else that Mr. Lincoln was a working Infidel up to a very late period of his life, that he wrote a book and labored earnestly to make proselytes to his own views, that he never publicly recanted, and that he never joined the church. Upon those who, in the face of these tremendous facts, allege that he was nevertheless a Christian lies the burden of proof. Let them produce it or forever hold their peace. In the mean time it is a sad and puerile subterfuge to argue that he would have been a Christian if he had lived long enough, and to lament that he was not 'spared' for that purpose. He had been spared fifty-six years and surrounded by every circumstance that might soften his heart and every influence that might elevate his faith. If he was at that late, that fatal hour standing thus gloomily without the pale, what reason have we to suppose that he intended ever to enter?"
Reed speaks of "the poverty of his early religious instruction," apparently forgetting that he was raised by Christian parents. His father was a church-member, his mother was a church-member, and his stepmother was a church-member. Reed states, also, that the books he read were all of an anti-religious character. Holland, on the contrary, declares that better books than those he read could not have been chosen from the richest library. The fact is, Abraham Lincoln did not become an Infidel to Christianity from a lack of knowledge respecting its claims. He thoroughly examined its claims, and rejected them because he found them untenable.
One important feature of this subject Reed has either inadvertently omitted or purposely ignored, and that is in regard to the validity of the Bateman story. As the result of previous controversy this evidence had been rendered valueless. Lincoln's partner had declared it to be false, had asserted that Mr. Bateman in private conversations acknowledged it to be in part untrue, and announced his readiness to substantiate his assertions if Mr. Bateman could be prevailed upon to permit the publication of his notes of these conversations taken at the time. If Mr. Herndon's affirmations were true, it destroyed the testimony of Holland and Bateman; if untrue, it challenged Mr. Bateman to reaffirm the statements recorded by Holland, and allow the seal of privacy to be removed from his conversations on the subject. Why did Mr. Reed not rehabilitate this damaged evidence? Did he forget it? No, it is plainly evident that he did not dare to attempt it.
In reviewing this Calvinistic coterie of witnesses (they are all Calvinists, and nearly all Presbyterians), one is struck with the formidable display of theological appendages. What an imposing array of D.D.'s! Rev. J. A. Reed, D.D.! Rev. James Smith, D.D.! Rev. Byron Sunderland, D.D.! Rev. Mr. Miner, D.D.! Rev. Mr. Gurley, D.D.! It was a desperate case—divinity was sick and needed doctoring. The doctors of divinity were accordingly called in, and prescribed "The Later Life and Religious Sentiments of Abraham Lincoln," after which it was supposed that divinity would recover. He may be better, but it is painfully apparent that some of these D.D.'s are themselves sadly in need of a doctor.
With the Christian masses whose minds have become warped by the bigoted teachings of their clerical leaders, nothing affects the reputation of a man so much as his religious belief. Public men who are disbelievers are fully cognizant of this, and generally refrain from expressing sentiments that would tend to alienate those upon whom the retention of their positions depends. Biographers understand this, too, and are likewise aware that a dead Infidel is as cordially hated as a live one. They know that a cold reception awaits their works unless they are able to clothe the characters of their subjects in the robes of popular superstition. Mr. Arnold realized this when he wrote his "Life of Lincoln." He had been most forcibly reminded of the fact by the fate of two biographies of his own subject which had already appeared—Holland's and Lamon's. Holland's work by catering to popular prejudice, regardless of truth, had been financially a success; Lamon's work by adhering to truth, regardless of popular prejudice, had been financially a failure.
Determined to profit by these examples, and intimidated by the threats and entreaties of those who had resolved to secure for Christianity the influence of the Great Emancipator's name, Arnold dare not give the facts regarding Lincoln's religious belief. Nor is it to be presumed that he desired to. He had previously appeared as a special pleader for the popular faith.
He affirms that "No more reverent Christian than Lincoln ever sat in the Executive chair, not excepting Washington." The fact is, when Arnold wrote his biography of Lincoln, no very reverent Christian ever had occupied the Executive chair. Previous to the installation of Gen. B. H. Harrison no real orthodox Christian communicant had held the office of President.
If Mr. Arnold knew no more about Lincoln's religion than he appears to have known about Washington's, a more charitable reason than those suggested might be assigned for his statements concerning the former. Washington, like Lincoln, has been claimed by the church; yet, Washington, like Lincoln, was a Deist. This is admitted even by the leading churchmen of his day. Three of the most eminent divines of his age, and the three to whom he was most intimately related in a social way, were Bishop White, Rev. Dr. Abercrombie, and Rev. Dr. Ashbel Green. Bishop White declares that Washington was not a communicant, as claimed by some, and intimates that he was a disbeliever. The Rev. Dr. Abercrombie, whose church he attended while he was President, said: "Washington was a Deist." The Rev. Dr. Ashbel Green, chaplain to Congress during his administration, said: "Like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist."
Arnold presents the following as the basis of Lincoln's religion, and proofs of his Christianity: "(1) Belief in the existence of God, (2) in the immortality of the soul, (3) in the Bible as the revelation of God to man, (4) in the efficacy and duty of prayer, (5) in reverence toward the Almighty, and (6) in love and charity to man."
1. "Belief in the existence of God." This does not prove a belief in Christianity. The Jew believes in the existence of God; the Mohammedan believes in the existence of God; the Deistic Infidel believes in the existence of God.
2. "Belief in the immortality of the soul." That he believed in the immortality of the soul is a claim that cannot be clearly established; and even if it could, would not confirm the assumption that he was a Christian. Deists, many of them, believe in the doctrine of immortality. Paine believed in immortality; Voltaire believed in immortality.
3. "Belief in the Bible as the revelation of God to man." This, if true, would be evidence of his Christianity; but, unfortunately for Mr. Arnold's claim, Lincoln did not entertain this belief.
4. "Belief-in the efficacy and duty of prayer." This, in the orthodox sense of these terms, is not true; and if it were, would not furnish conclusive evidence that he was a Christian. Jews pray; Mohammedans pray; Buddhists pray; some Deists pray. Franklin believed in the efficacy and duty of prayer, and Franklin was an Infidel.
5. "Belief in reverence to the Almighty." This does not demonstrate a belief in Christianity, for all Deists believe in reverence to the Almighty.
6. "Belief in love and charity to man." When it can be shown that only Christians believe in love and charity, then will it be time to affirm that Lincoln was a Christian.
Arnold confounds Christianity with Deism. In the following words he admits that Lincoln was simply a Deist: "Not orthodox, not a man of creeds, he was a man of simple trust in God."
When the subject of Lincoln's belief was once mentioned to Mr. Arnold, he said: "Lincoln was a rational Christian because he believed in morality." With equal propriety one might say of an upright Christian, "He is a rational Freethinker because he believes in morality."
"His reply to the Negroes of Baltimore," he says, "ought to silence forever those who charge him with unbelief." This alleged reply of Lincoln was as follows:
"In regard to the Great Book I have only to say that it is the best gift which God has given to man. All the good from the Savior of the world is communicated to us through this book. But for this book we could not know right from wrong. All those things desirable to man are contained in it" (Lincoln Memorial Album, p. 340).
The writer of this was in Washington when the colored deputation from Baltimore presented the President with a $500 Bible. The papers mentioned the fact at the time, but no such speech as Lincoln is said to have made appeared in the reports. About two months later, this apocryphal version of his remarks on the occasion referred to, made its appearance.
The first two sentences contained in this speech (the only part of it that Arnold has quoted), Lincoln, if a Christian, might have uttered. They are words that any intelligent Christian might, from his standpoint, with propriety affirm. We are familiar with these claims. We are also familiar with the claims embodied in the last two sentences. They are repeatedly made. But they are made only by very ignorant persons, or by clerical hypocrites who try to impose upon the ignorance and credulity of their hearers. Had Lincoln been a Christian he would not have used these words, because he was too intelligent to believe them, and too honest to pretend to believe them.
Concerning this speech, Lincoln's partner, Mr. Herndon, thus vigorously, yet truthfully, remarks:
"I am aware of the fraud committed on Mr. Lincoln in reporting some insane remarks supposed to have been made by him, in 1864, on the presentation of a Bible to him by the colored people of Baltimore. No sane man ever uttered such folly, and no sane man will ever believe it. In that speech Mr. Lincoln is made to say: 'But for this book we could not know right from wrong.' Does any human being believe that Lincoln ever uttered this? What did the whole race of man do to know right from wrong during the countless years that passed before this book was given to the world? How did the struggling race of man build up its grand civilizations in the world before this book was given to mankind? What do the millions of people now living, who never heard of this book, do to know how to distinguish right from wrong? Was Lincoln a fool, an ass, a hypocrite, or a combination of them all? or is this speech—this supposed—this fraudulent speech—a lie?"
Arnold would have his readers believe that this speech is genuine. And yet it is plainly evident that he himself does not believe it. He mutilates it by omitting the more orthodox portion of it—the very portion he would have retained had he believed it to be genuine. The first part would suffice to serve his purpose; the remainder he knew was too incredible for belief and would stamp the whole as a fraud.
Arnold says: "The veil between him and the supernatural was very thin." Yes, so thin that he easily saw through it and recognized the greater part of it to be a sham.
"His faith in a Divine Providence began at his mother's knee, and ran through all the changes of his life." I do not desire to charge Mr. Arnold with plagiarism, but the foregoing recalls the following much admired passage to be found in Holland: "This unwavering faith in a Divine Providence began at his mother's knee, and ran like a thread of gold through all the inner experiences of his life" (Life of Lincoln, pp. 61, 62).
There is much in Arnold's biography, aside from the above, to suggest that Holland's work formed the basis and model of his own. While more accurate in the main than Holland's "Life," Arnold's "Life" is in some respects equally unreliable, and less readable.
Adverting to the many fraudulent stories that have been circulated concerning Lincoln, in an address delivered in London, Mr. Arnold said: "The newspapers in America have always been full of Lincoln stories and anecdotes, some true and many fabulous." Unfortunately for the cause of truth, Mr. Arnold has himself recorded some of these fabulous stories, not because he deemed them authentic, but because they agreed with his preconceived prejudices, or the prejudices of those whom he wished to please.
Mr. Carpenter says: "I would scarcely have called Mr. Lincoln a religious man, and yet I believe him to have been a sincere Christian."
In a letter, Mr. Herndon makes the following correction in regard to his friend Carpenter's statement:
"Mr. Carpenter has not expressed his own ideas correctly. To say that a man is a Christian and yet not a religious man is absurd. Religion is the generic term including all forms of religion; Christianity is a specific term representing one form of religion. Carpenter means to say that Mr. Lincoln was a religious man but not a Christian, and this is the truth."
It is unfortunate that while in many cases we have several words to express the same idea, the same word in many cases is employed to express different ideas. Ideas thus become confused. If the terms morality, religion, and Christianity, were always used in their legitimate sense—used to express the ideas of which they were the original signs—much trouble and ambiguity would be avoided. As it is, they are promiscuously used as interchangeable terms. Many use the word religion and even Christianity when they mean morality. Mr. Carpenter uses the word religious in its proper sense, and the word Christian to mean a moral man. The following examples will serve to illustrate the various forms employed to express the thought now under consideration:
"I would scarcely have called Mr. Lincoln a religious man, and yet I believe him to have been a sincere Christian."—Carpenter.
"I would scarcely have called Mr. Lincoln a Christian, and yet I believe him to have been a truly religious man."—Herndon.
I would scarcely have called Mr. Lincoln a religious man, and yet I believe him to have been a truly moral man.—Author.
We all desire to express substantially the same thought. I do not wish to dictate to Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Herndon what words they shall employ to convey an idea, but this explanation is essential to a proper understanding of the question in dispute and will help to reconcile much of the apparently conflicting testimony presented in this work.
As Lincoln was in a certain sense a Deist, the religious element was not entirely wanting in him, and hence the statement of Mr. Herndon that he was a religious man is, in a degree, true.
The basis of Carpenter's work was a series of articles contributed to the New York Independent. When it was decided to publish these in book form, to swell them into a volume of the desired size, to his personal reminiscences he added many of the stories pertaining to Lincoln then going the rounds of the press. Although he was as it were a member of Lincoln's household six months he failed to hear from Lincoln's lips a word expressing a belief in Christianity. These apocryphal stories, and these alone, contain all the evidences of Lincoln's alleged piety to be found in Carpenter's book. And his admission that Lincoln was not a religious man disproves them.
Mr. Hawley professed to believe that Lincoln was a Christian, but he had no personal knowledge of the fact, although his neighbor for many years. The only reasons he was able to adduce upon which to predicate his belief were the Bateman story and his farewell speech on leaving Springfield. The former has been exploded, the latter proves nothing.
During all the later years of his life Lincoln generally refrained from expressing his anti-Christian opinions, except to friends who shared his views. This silence, in connection with his sterling moral character, might lead some of his Christian neighbors to suppose that he was a believer, the more especially as Christians are generally ignorant of the extent of unbelief, and are loath to believe that a person, unless he openly avows his disbelief, can be an Infidel.
According to Mr. Willets, Lincoln, during the war, had an attack of what he thought might be a "change of heart." He consulted a pious lady in regard to it and requested her to describe to him the symptoms attending this theological disease. She defined "a true religious experience" as "a conviction of one's own sinfulness and weakness, and personal need of the Savior for strength and support." She said that "when one was really brought to feel his need of divine help, and to seek the aid of the Holy Spirit for strength and guidance, it was satisfactory evidence of his having been born again." Lincoln replied that if what she had told him was "a correct view of this great subject," he hoped he was a Christian. But was this a correct view of it? I was not aware that conviction constituted conversion. We have been taught that conviction is but a preliminary step toward conversion. If Lincoln relied upon this as a true exposition of this doctrine, the genuineness of his conversion may well be questioned.
It is to be regretted that Mr. Willets did not give the name of his informant. As it is, we do not know whether to credit "a lady acquaintance of his," or himself, with the invention of a first-class fiction.
In regard to the story of the "Pious Nurse," we have not even a clergyman to vouch for its authenticity. We do not know the name of this witness; we do not know whom she communicated the story to; we do not know when nor where it made its first appearance. We only know that for years it has been floating through the columns of the religious press, a companion-piece to Washington's devotional exercise at Valley Forge.
"History," said Napoleon, "is a set of lies agreed upon." Of the many lies agreed upon by Christian writers in making up the history of Lincoln, none has become more thoroughly established than the one originally published by the Western Christian Advocate. It has been incorporated into the works of a score of historians and biographers, and is almost universally accepted as a historical fact.
Nearly all the pious stories relating to Lincoln, while palpably false in the eyes of those who knew him, are yet of such a nature as to render a complete refutation of them extremely difficult. The story under consideration, however, is of a different character. Its truthfulness or falsity could at the time of its publication have been easily ascertained. If true, any member of Lincoln's cabinet could have verified it. I knew that it was untrue—at least I knew that a Cabinet meeting had never been transformed into a prayer meeting at Lincoln's suggestion. I finally resolved to demonstrate its falsity if possible. But a quarter of a century had passed away, and every member of Lincoln's Cabinet was dead save one, Hugh McCulloch, his last Secretary of the Treasury. With the aid of a friend, Mr. N. P. Stockbridge, of Ft. Wayne, Ind., an old acquaintance of Mr. McCulloch's, I succeeded in bringing the matter before this only surviving witness, and received from his pen, in February, 1891, the following prompt denial:
"The description of what occurred at the Executive Mansion, when the intelligence was received of the surrender of the Confederate forces, which you quote from the Western Christian Advocate, is not only absolutely groundless, but absurd. After I became Secretary of the Treasury I was present at every Cabinet meeting, and I never saw Mr. Lincoln or any of his ministers upon his knees or in tears.
"We were not especially jubilant over Lee's surrender, for this we had been prepared for some days. The time for our great rejoicing was a little earlier. After Sherman had commenced his celebrated march to the sea, and long and weary days had passed without any reliable reports from him, we were filled with anxiety and apprehension. It was when the news came that he and his army, in excellent condition, were in the neighborhood of Charleston, that our joy was irrepressible; not only because of their safety, but because it was an assurance that the days of the Confederacy were nearly ended. With Grant before Richmond in command of superior forces, and Sherman with the finest army in the world, ready to move northward, everybody felt that the war must be soon concluded, and that the Union was safe.
"We were, of course, happy when General Lee and his severely tried soldiers laid down their arms, but this, as I have said, was not unexpected. It was when our anxiety in regard to Sherman was succeeded by hopefulness and confidence that our joy became exuberant. But there was no such exhibition of it as has been published by the Advocate."
An "Illinois Clergyman" reports Lincoln as saying that when he left Springfield he was not a Christian, that when his son Willie died he was not a Christian, but that when he visited the battlefield of Gettysburg he gave his heart to Christ. Christians cite the testimony of this anonymous witness, seemingly unconscious of the fact that if true it refutes the testimony of every other Christian witness. If this statement be true what becomes of the testimony of Holland and Bateman? What becomes of the testimony of Reed's witnesses? The testimony of Brooks invalidated the testimony of every other witness; the testimony of this Illinois clergyman invalidates the testimony of Brooks itself.
Reed did not present this evidence, doubtless aware that his lecture already contained a sufficient number of discrepancies. He was thoughtful enough, however, to anticipate it. He had Dr. Gurley refer to Lincoln's conversion as taking place "after the death of his son Willie and his visit to the battlefield of Gettysburg." These events are referred to as if they occurred in close proximity to each other; whereas the death of Willie occurred during the first year of his administration, his visit to Gettysburg less than seventeen months before his assassination.
The passage quoted from Dr. Barrows contains six specific affirmations.
1. "In the anxious uncertainties of the great war, he gradually rose to the hights where Jehovah became to him the sublimest of realities, the ruler of nations."
Collect all the utterances of Abraham Lincoln, all the letters he ever wrote, all the speeches he ever delivered, all the state papers he gave to the public; and from this full store of words that fell from his lips and flowed from his pen, I challenge Dr. Barrows to produce one word expressing a recognition of Jehovah. Jehovah was to him, not "the sublimest of realities," not "the ruler of nations," but a hideous phantom. He recognized a God, but his God was not Jehovah, the God of Dr. Barrows.
2. "When he wrote his immortal Proclamation, he invoked upon it not only 'the considerate judgment of mankind' but 'the gracious favor of Almighty God.'"
When he wrote his immortal Proclamation he did not invoke "the gracious favor of Almighty God." This instrument, as drafted by Lincoln, contained no allusion to God. The paragraph containing the words quoted was drafted by Secretary Chase and inserted in the Proclamation at his urgent request after it was printed and ready for delivery.
3. "When darkness gathered over the brave armies fighting for the nation's life, this strong man, in the early morning, knelt and wrestled in prayer with Him who holds in his hand the fate of empires."
A "Christian lady from Massachusetts" (name unknown), and a Christian gentleman from New York (Noah Brooks), declare that Lincoln was accustomed to pray. This declaration is echoed by Arnold, and reechoed by Barrows. If true, is it not strange that a hospital nurse and a newspaper reporter were in possession of the fact while his most intimate friends were entirely ignorant of it?
4. "When the clouds lifted above the carnage of Gettysburg, he gave his heart to the Lord Jesus Christ."
This is the fifth time that Lincoln gave his heart to Christ. The above statement is the vital one in Dr. Barrows's testimony—the keystone in the arch comprising "the religious aspects" of Lincoln's Presidential career. The others, even if true, only prove a Theistic belief. This statement affirms that he became a Christian—a statement evidently based upon the anonymous story of the "Illinois clergyman." Between the original presented by the "Illinois clergyman" at large, and that presented by the Illinois clergyman from Chicago, however, a grave discrepancy appears. From the time that "the clouds lifted above the carnage of Gettysburg" to the time that Lincoln visited its cemetery, a period of twenty weeks had elapsed. Now, did Lincoln give his heart to Christ when the battle ended on the 3rd of July, as stated by the one, or not until he stood upon the battle-field on the 19th of November, as asserted by the other? This is a question that we leave for the Illinois clergymen themselves to decide.
5. "When he pronounced his matchless oration on the chief battle-field of the war, he gave expression to the resolve that 'this nation, under God, should have a new birth of freedom.'"
This simple Deistic phrase, "under God," is the only utterance of a religious character to be found in that oration. When this speech was delivered, Lincoln, it is claimed, had experienced a change of heart, and consecrated himself to Christ. This address furnishes an overwhelming refutation of the claim. At the dedication of a cemetery, surrounded by thousands of graves, he ignores Christianity, and even the doctrine of immortality.
6. "And when he wrote his last Inaugural Address, he gave to it the lofty tone of an old Hebrew psalm."
This is true; and it is likewise true that in that document he made no more reference to Christianity than did the Hebrew psalmist who lived and wrote a thousand years before it had its birth.
The "Lincoln Memorial Album," in which Dr. Barrows's article appears, contains the offerings of two hundred contributors, twenty of them divines, and among them Lyman Abbot, Dr. Bellows, Theodore L. Cuyler, Eobert Collyer, Bishop Coxe, Dr. Crosby, Bishop Haven, Philip Schaaf, and Bishop Simpson. The work is prefaced with a biographical sketch of Lincoln, written by Isaac N. Arnold, in which he makes substantially the same statements regarding Lincoln's belief as those made in his "Life of Lincoln." Aside from this, Dr. Barrows is the only one of these two hundred memorialists who ventures to affirm that Lincoln was a Christian.
The story of Dr. Vinton, too absurd to demand serious consideration—apparently too incredible for belief—is yet believed by thousands. When such fabulous tales are told by men who are looked upon as the exponents of morality, and published in papers and periodicals that are presumed to be the repositories only of truth, it is not strange that such stories as Washington's Praying at Valley Forge, Ethan Allen and His Daughter, Don't Unchain the Tiger, Paine's Recanting, and a thousand and one other pious fictions of a similar character, have gained popular credence. To read the fabrications of this class pertaining to Lincoln alone, one would suppose that this astute statesman, this Chief Magistrate of a great nation, this Commander-in-Chief of two millions of soldiers, engaged in the most stupendous civil conflict the world has known, occupied the greater portion of his time in studying the Scriptures, poring over doctrinal sermons, participating in prayer-meetings led by pious nurses, and weeping upon the necks of clerical visitors.
Bishop Simpson's remarks have been presented, not because they furnish any proofs of Lincoln's reputed Christianity, but because he was one of the clergymen who officiated at Lincoln's funeral, and because his words on that occasion have been cited in support of this claim. But he does not assert that Lincoln was a Christian. He simply testifies to his belief and trust in God—to his Deistic faith—nothing more.
I am aware that in some of the published reports of his address there have been interpolated words intended to convey the idea that Lincoln accepted Christ. Bishop Simpson, I am sure, never authorized the insertion of these words. They express a claim he never made—a claim he certainly did not make on the day of Lincoln's interment.
In his funeral address at Washington, Dr. Gurley did not affirm that Lincoln was a Christian, or that he was intending to make a profession of religion. Bishop Simpson, in his oration at Springfield, made no mention of these claims, and Dr. Gurley and Bishop Simpson are known to have held a consultation before that oration was delivered.
This silence is conclusive evidence that these men knew that Lincoln was an unbeliever. Commenting on this notable omission, Mr. Herndon says:
"Bishop Simpson delivered the funeral oration, and in that oration there was not one word about Mr. Lincoln's Christianity. Bishop Simpson was Lincoln's friend; Dr. Gurley was Lincoln's pastor in Washington, Now these men knew or had reason to know, Lincoln's religion, and the world would have heard of his Christianity on the day of his burial if it had been known. But Simpson and Gurley are silent—dumb before the Christian world."
One of the most beautiful and exhaustive tributes ever paid to Lincoln, aside from the matchless tribute paid by Colonel Ingersoll, is that from the pen of Bishop Simpson which appears in the "Lincoln Memorial Album." In this tribute he does not make even the remotest allusion to Lincoln's religious belief. He appears to have heeded the advice tendered a less discreet Christian writer, and recognized the fact that, from his standpoint, the less said about the subject the better. Had all Christians acted as wisely and as honorably in this matter as Bishop Simpson, this controversy about Lincoln's religion would never have arisen.
I have now reviewed the testimony of these witnesses. Tested in the crucible of honest criticism, little remains of their statements save the dross of falsehood and error. I may be charged with unjust severity toward these witnesses, nearly all of whom are men of recognized respectability and distinction. But a majority of them have testified to what they know to be false, and against those who knowingly bear false witness no censure can be too severe. Thousands of Christian men and women, misled by this false testimony, honestly believe and contend that Lincoln was a Christian. Against these I have not an unkind word to offer. But I am resolved to disabuse their minds of this erroneous belief. Painful as the birth of an unwelcome idea is, they shall know the truth.