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 a.s.sist 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 [Was.h.i.+ngton], 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 Was.h.i.+ngton? The evidence upon this point is decisive.

The man who stood nearest to President Lincoln at Was.h.i.+ngton--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 a.s.sa.s.sination 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 Was.h.i.+ngton, 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 G.o.d 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 a.s.sert 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 Was.h.i.+ngton, 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 a.s.sures 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 Was.h.i.+ngton, he believed in the efficacy of prayer." The comparison is happily drawn. Lincoln probably did believe as much in the efficacy of prayer as Was.h.i.+ngton; that is to say, he did not believe in it at all, in the evangelical sense. There is no evidence that Was.h.i.+ngton 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 Was.h.i.+ngton engaged in prayer, p.r.o.nounces 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 d.a.m.nation), 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 a.s.surance to a.s.sert that he was a rigid Calvinist!

When he died Dr. Gurley, being Mrs. Lincoln's pastor, delivered the funeral oration in Was.h.i.+ngton. 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 a.s.sa.s.sination 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 inst.i.tutions 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 circ.u.mstance 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 a.s.serted that Mr. Bateman in private conversations acknowledged it to be in part untrue, and announced his readiness to substantiate his a.s.sertions 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.

CHAPTER IV. REVIEW OF CHRISTIAN TESTIMONY--ARNOLD AND OTHER WITNESSES

Arnold's "Life of Lincoln"--Claims Concerning Lincoln's Religious Belief--Address to Negroes of Baltimore-- Carpenter--Hawley--Willets--Pious Nurse--"Western Christian Advocate"--Illinois Clergyman--Barrows--Vinton--Simpson.

With the Christian ma.s.ses 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 superst.i.tion. 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 Emanc.i.p.ator'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 Was.h.i.+ngton." 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 Was.h.i.+ngton's, a more charitable reason than those suggested might be a.s.signed for his statements concerning the former.

Was.h.i.+ngton, like Lincoln, has been claimed by the church; yet, Was.h.i.+ngton, 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.