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 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.