Referring to this story, Lamon, in his "Life of Lincoln," says:

"There is no dealing with Mr. Bateman except by a flat contradiction.

Perhaps his memory was treacherous or his imagination led him astray, or, peradventure, he thought a fraud no harm if it gratified the strong desire of the public for proofs of Mr. Lincoln's orthodoxy" (Life of Lincoln, p. 501).

While Bateman undoubtedly misrepresented Lincoln in his account of their conversation--for it is not denied that he had an interview with Lincoln--it is quite probable that he did not to the extent represented by Holland. Bateman doubtless exaggerated the affair, and Holland magnified Bateman's report of it. In an article originally published in the _Index_, and subsequently quoted by Lamon, Lincoln's law partner, Mr. Herndon, says:

"I doubt whether Mr. Bateman said in full what is recorded there. I doubt a great deal of it. I know the whole story is untrue--untrue in substance, untrue in fact and spirit. As soon as the [Holland's] 'Life of Lincoln' was out, on reading that part here referred to, I instantly sought Mr. Bateman and found him in his office. I spoke to him politely and kindly, and he spoke to me in the same manner. I said substantially to him that Mr. Holland, in order to make Mr. Lincoln a technical Christian, made him a hypocrite; and so his 'Life of Lincoln' quite plainly says. I loved Mr. Lincoln, and was mortified, if not angry, to see him made a hypocrite. I cannot now detail what Mr. Bateman said, as it was a private conversation, and I am forbidden to make use of it in public. If some good gentleman can only get the seal of secrecy removed I can show what was said and done. On my word, the world may take it for granted that Holland is wrong--that he does not state Mr. Lincoln's views correctly" (Lamon's Life of Lincoln, p. 496).

In a lecture on "Lincoln's Religion," delivered in Springfield in 1874, alluding to the same subject, Mr. Herndon says:

"My notes of our conversation bear date December 3, 12, and 28, 1865.

Our conversations were private, I suppose. However, I can say this much: that Mr. Bateman expressly told me Mr. Lincoln was, in the conversation related in Holland, talking _politics_ and not religion, nor Christianity, nor morals, as such. I have persistently dogged Mr.

Bateman for the privilege of publis.h.i.+ng my notes, or to give me a letter explaining what Mr. Lincoln did say, so that I might make known the facts of the case. Mr. Bateman has as stoutly refused."

Dr. Bateman finally permitted Mr. Herndon to make public a letter, marked "confidential," which he had written Mr. Herndon in 1867. In this letter Bateman says:

"He [Lincoln] was applying the principles of moral and religious truth to the duties of the hour, the condition of the country, and the conduct of public men--ministers of the gospel. I had no thought of orthodoxy or heterodoxy, Unitarianism, Trinitarianism, or any other ism, during the whole conversation, and I don't suppose or believe he had."

Had Lincoln made the confession he is reported to have made, this would have suggested to Mr. Bateman the idea of his admitted orthodoxy as well as his reputed heterodoxy. Had Lincoln declared that "Christ is G.o.d,"

this would have suggested to him the idea of Trinitarianism. It will be seen, even from this letter, that instead of talking theology and professing a belief in Christianity, he was talking politics and denouncing the intolerance and bigotry of Christian ministers.

Dr. Bateman privately a.s.serts that he was not correctly reported, that Holland's version of the interview "is colored." It is to be regretted that he had not the courage to state this fact to the public, and his plea, "My aversion to publicity in such matters is intense," is a poor apology for refusing to do so.

As previously intimated, this story is probably founded on fact and has an element of truth in it. Lincoln and Bateman had a political interview, and the object of this interview was the examination and discussion of the list of Springfield voters. This list revealed the fact that twenty out of twenty-three clergymen and a very large majority of the church-members of Springfield were opposed to Lincoln. The significance of this fact Dr. Holland and Dr. Bateman have apparently overlooked. Why was the church opposed to him? It must have been either because it was opposed to the Republican party, or because he was personally objectionable to the members of that party. His political principles were the principles of his party, his ability was conceded, and his moral character was above reproach. It is fair to a.s.sume that the political sentiment of the Christians of Springfield was substantially the political sentiment of Northern Christians generally.

Now, was the Northern Church overwhelmingly in favor of the extension of slavery? Were eighty-seven per cent, of Northern Christians Democrats?

Or did the Christians of Springfield oppose Lincoln because he was an Infidel?

Holland makes Bateman affirm that Lincoln "drew from his bosom a pocket New Testament." It is generally believed by Lincoln's friends that he did not have a New Testament, that the only book used in the interview was the book containing the list of Springfield voters. One of them says: "The idea that Mr. Lincoln carried the New Testament or Bible in his bosom or boots, to draw on his opponents in debate, is ridiculous."

It is possible, however, that there was a New Testament in the room, and that Lincoln used it to enforce an argument. Indeed, there is internal evidence in the story, aside from the declaration of Bateman, that such was the case. The central idea in his political creed--the keynote of his campaigns, both in 1858 and in 1860--was contained in that memorable pa.s.sage, "'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' This government can not endure permanently half slave and half free." The figure quoted was a familiar and powerful one, and Lincoln recognized its force in dealing with the ma.s.ses. It was taken from the New Testament, and from the words of Christ himself. That he should use it against those Christians who were acting contrary to this well-known truth, is not strange. Immediately after the declaration, "Christ is G.o.d," he is reported as saying: "I have told them that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and Christ and reason say the same." This furnishes a solution to the whole story. This shows what he was doing with a New Testament. In connection with this, nothing is more natural than that he should exclaim: "Christ teaches it, and Christ is [their] G.o.d!" That he was terribly in earnest, that he was deeply agitated and pained to learn that his Christian neighbors were opposed to him, is not improbable.

Thus the incidents of a simple political interview that were natural and reasonable have been perverted to make it appear that he was a Christian. A mere reference to the New Testament and Christ have been twisted into an acknowledgment of their divinity. Bateman himself admits that Lincoln said: "I am not a Christian." Why not accept his statement, then? Why then distort his words and in the face of this positive declaration attempt to prove that he was a Christian? Bateman reports him as modifying the statement by adding: "G.o.d knows I would be one."

Yes, "G.o.d knows I would be one were I convinced that Christianity is true, but not convinced of its truth, I am an unbeliever." Lincoln is also reported to have said that in the light of the New Testament "human bondage can not live a moment." But he did not utter these words. He did not utter them because they are untrue, and none knew this better than himself. He knew that in the light of this book human bondage had lived for nearly two thousand years; he knew that this book was one of the great bulwarks of human slavery; he knew that there was not to be found between its lids a single text condemning slavery, while there were to he found a score of texts sustaining it; he knew that that infamous law, the Fugitive Slave law, received its warrant from this book--that Paul, in the light of its earliest teachings, had returned a fugitive slave to his master.

In this story Lincoln is charged with the grossest hypocrisy. He is declared to have professed a belief in Christ and Christianity, and when Bateman observed that his friends were ignorant of this, he is made to reply: "I know they are. I am obliged to appear different to them." Now, to use Lincoln's own words, "A sane person can no more act without a motive than can there be an effect without a cause," and what possible motive could he have had for such conduct? Supposing that he was base enough to be a hypocrite, what could induce him to lead the world to suppose he was an Infidel if he were not? In the eyes of the more ignorant and bigoted cla.s.s of Christians, Infidelity is a more heinous crime than murder, and an Infidel is a creature scarcely to be tolerated, much less to be intrusted with a public office. Freethinkers generally detest the dogmas of Christianity as thoroughly as Christians possibly can the principles of Freethought. But free thought and free speech are the leading tenets of their creed. They recognize the fact that we are all the children of circ.u.mstances, that our belief is determined by our environments, and while they reject Christianity, they have nothing but charity for those who conscientiously profess it. They may repudiate a bigot, but will not oppose a man merely because he is a Christian. If Lincoln were an Infidel, discretion might urge a concealment of his views; if he were a Christian, policy would prompt him to give it as wide a publicity as possible, especially when he rested under the imputation of being a disbeliever. Had he changed his belief and become a convert to Christianity, a knowledge of the fact would not have lost him the support of his friends, even though some of them were Freethinkers; while it would have secured for him a more cordial support from the Republican side of the church, many of whom had been alienated on account of his supposed anti-Christian sentiments.

It is hard to believe that Lincoln was a hypocrite; but this story, if true, makes him not only a hypocrite but a fool. If he believed in Christianity there can be but one reason advanced for his desiring to keep it a secret--he was ashamed of it.

Holland, in trying to explain away the inconsistencies of this fabrication, repeatedly blunders. In one of his attempts he makes use of the following remarkable language:

"It was one of the peculiarities of Mr. Lincoln to hide these religious experiences from the eyes of the world.... They [his friends] did not regard him as a religious man. They had never seen anything but the active lawyer, the keen politician, the jovial, fun-loving companion in Mr. Lincoln. All this department of his life he had kept carefully hidden from them. Why he should say that he was obliged to appear differently to others does not appear; but the fact is a matter of history that he never exposed his own religious life to those who had no sympathy with it. It is doubtful whether the clergymen of Springfield knew anything of these experiences" (Life of Lincoln, pp. 239, 240).

What! had the clergymen of Springfield no sympathy with a religious life? A person can utter one falsehood with some degree of plausibility; but when he attempts to verify it by uttering another, he usually trips and falls. The above pa.s.sage is mere hypocritical cant. It carries with it not only its own refutation, but that of the rest of Holland's testimony also. It is the language of the man who is conscious of having stated a falsehood; conscious that there are others who believe it to be a falsehood. He knew that the personal friends of Lincoln all understood him to be a disbeliever. He knew that the church-members of Springfield all entertained the same opinion. He virtually says to these people: "It is true that Lincoln professed to be an Infidel, but he was not; he was a Christian. The fact has been kept a profound secret. Bateman and I have been the sole custodians of this secret, and we now give it to the world."

A Christian writer, apologizing for the absurd and contradictory statements of Holland and Bateman, says, "They aimed at the truth." I do not believe it. It is clearly evident that they aimed at a plausible lie. But in either case they made a bad shot.

In his "Life of Lincoln," Holland endeavors to convey the impression that Lincoln was always a devout Christian. He declares that even during the years of his early manhood at New Salem, "he was a religious man;"

that "he had a deep religious life." When Herndon and Lamon exposed his shameful misrepresentations he retreated from his first position, and in _Scribner's Monthly_ wrote as follows:

"What Abraham Lincoln was when he lived at New Salem and wrote an anti-Christian tract (which the friend to whom he showed it somewhat violently but most judiciously put in the fire) is one thing, and it may be necessary for an impartial historian to record it. What he was when he died at Was.h.i.+ngton with those most Christian words of the Second Inaugural upon his lips, and that most Christian record of five years of patient tenderness and charity behind him, is quite another thing."

He admits that Lincoln was an Infidel in Illinois, but would have us believe that he was a Christian in Was.h.i.+ngton. He refers to "those most Christian words of the Second Inaugural," and "that most Christian record of five years of patient tenderness and charity." In the Second Inaugural there is not a word affirming a belief in Christianity--not a word in reference to Christianity. He mentions G.o.d, and quotes from the Bible, but does not intimate that the Bible is G.o.d's word. That Christians have a monopoly of "patient tenderness and charity," can hardly be accepted. The history of the church does not confirm this a.s.sumption. Many Christians have possessed these virtues. So have the votaries of other religions. These attributes belong to good men everywhere, but they are the distinguis.h.i.+ng features of no particular creed.

Smarting under his exposure, with that whining cant so peculiar to the vanquished religionist, Holland finally sent forth this parting wail and virtually abandoned the whole case:

"The question is, not whether Abraham Lincoln was a subscriber to the creeds of orthodoxy, but whether he was a believing--that is to say, a truthful Christian man; not whether he was accustomed to call Jesus Christ 'Lord, Lord,' but whether he was used to do those things which Jesus Christ exemplified and enforced. He was accustomed, as we know well enough, to speak of an Almighty Father, of whom justice and mercy and sympathy with weak and suffering humanity were characteristic attributes. Who was it that revealed to man a G.o.d like this? Who was it that once 'showed us the Father and it sufficed us?' Whoever it was that made this revelation to mankind it was of him that this man, even though he knew it not, had learned, and it was in his spirit that he acted"

(Scribner's Monthly).

The concluding words of Dr. Holland's testimony, as quoted from his "Life of Lincoln," are as follows:

"Moderate, frank, truthful, gentle, forgiving, loving, just, Mr. Lincoln will always be remembered as eminently a Christian President; and the almost immeasurably great results which he had the privilege of achieving were due to the fact that he was a Christian President."

This prediction and this a.s.sumption are false, change one word and make them grandly true.

"Moderate, frank, truthful, gentle, forgiving, loving, just, Mr. Lincoln will always be remembered as eminently a Liberal President; and the almost immeasurably great results which he had the privilege of achieving were due to the fact that he was a Liberal President."

CHAPTER III. REVIEW OF CHRISTIAN TESTIMONY--REED AND HIS WITNESSES.

Reed--Smith--Edwards--Lewis--Brooks--Statements of Edwards, Smith, and Brooks Compared--Sunderland--Miner--Gurley-- Failure of Reed to Establish his Claims.

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 a.s.sume 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 fellows.h.i.+p. 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 canva.s.sed 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 p.r.o.nounced 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 circ.u.mstances" (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.