Testimony of Hon. John T. Stuart--Testimony of Col. James
H. Matheny--Stuart's Disclaimer--Matheny's Disclaimer--
Examination and Authorship of Disclaimers, Including the
Edwards and Lewis Letters.
Besides his own testimony concerning Lincoln's unbelief, Colonel Lamon
cites the testimony of ten additional witnesses: Hon. Wm. H. Herndon,
Hon. John T. Stuart, Col. James H. Matheny, Dr. C. H. Ray, Wm. H.
Hannah, Esq, Mr. Jas. W. Keys, Hon. Jesse W. Fell, Col. John G. Nicolay,
Hon. David Davis and Mrs. Mary Lincoln. The testimony of Mr. Herndon
having already been presented, the testimony of Mr. Stuart and Colonel
Matheny will next be given. This testimony was procured by Mr. Herndon
for the purpose of refuting the erroneous statements of Dr. Holland.
Hon. John T. Stuart, who was for a time a member of Congress from
Illinois, was the first law partner of Lincoln. He says:
"Lincoln went further against Christian beliefs and doctrines and
principles than any man I ever heard: he shocked me. I don't remember
the exact line of his argument--suppose it was against the inherent
defects, so called, of the Bible, and on grounds of reason. Lincoln
always denied that Jesus was the Christ of God--denied that Jesus was
the son of God, as understood and maintained by the Christian church.
The Rev. Dr. Smith, who wrote a letter, tried to convert Lincoln
from Infidelity so late as 1858, and couldn't do it" (Lamon's Life of
Lincoln, p. 488).
Col. James H. Matheny was one of Lincoln's most intimate friends, and
was for many years his chief political manager. He testifies as follows:
"I knew Mr. Lincoln as early as 1834-7; know he was an Infidel. He and
W. D. Herndon used to talk Infidelity in the Clerk's office in this
city, about the years 1837-40. Lincoln attacked the Bible and the
New Testament on two grounds: first, from the inherent or apparent
contradictions under its lids; second, from the grounds of reason.
Sometimes he ridiculed the Bible and the New Testament, sometimes seemed
to scoff at it, though I shall not use that word in its full and literal
sense. I never heard that Lincoln changed his views, though his personal
and political friend from 1834 to 1860. Sometimes Lincoln bordered on
Atheism. He went far that way and shocked me. I was then a young man,
and believed what my good mother told me. Stuart and Lincoln's office
was in what is called Hoffman's Row, on North Fifth street, near the
public square. It was in the same building as the Clerk's office, and on
the same floor. Lincoln would come into the Clerk's office, where I and
some young men--Evan Butler, Newton Francis and others--were writing or
staying, and would bring the Bible with him; would read a chapter, argue
against it. Lincoln then had a smattering of geology, if I recollect it.
Lincoln often, if not wholly, was an Atheist; at least, bordered on it.
Lincoln was enthusiastic in his Infidelity. As he grew older, he grew
more discreet, didn't talk much before strangers about his religion; but
to friends, close and bosom ones, he was always open and avowed, fair
and honest; but to strangers, he held them off from policy. Lincoln used
to quote Burns. Burns helped Lincoln to be an Infidel, as I think; at
least he found in Burns a like thinker and feeler.
"From what I know of Mr. Lincoln and his views of Christianity, and from
what I know as honest, well-founded rumor; from what I have heard his
best friends say and regret for years; from what he never denied when
accused, and from what Lincoln has hinted and intimated, to say no
more, he did write a little book on Infidelity, at or near New Salem, in
Menard county, about the year 1834 or 1835. I have stated these things
to you often.
"Judge Logan, John T. Stuart, yourself, know what I know, and some of you
more.
"Mr. Herndon, you insist on knowing something which you know I possess,
and got as a secret, and that is, about Lincoln's little book on
Infidelity. Mr. Lincoln _did_ tell me that he _did write a little book
oil Infidelity_. This statement I have avoided heretofore; but, as you
strongly insist upon it--probably to defend yourself against charges of
misrepresentations--I give it to you as I got it from Lincoln's mouth"
(Life of Lincoln, pp. 487, 488).
The evidence of Stuart and Matheny, as recorded in Lamon's work, having
been presented, it is now proper to state that this evidence has, in
a measure, been repudiated by them. Dr. Reed, in his lecture, produced
letters from them disclaiming in part or modifying the statements
imputed to them. Dr. Reed says: "I have been amazed to find that the
principal persons whose testimony is given in this book to prove that
their old friend lived and died an Infidel, never wrote a word of it,
and never gave it as their opinion or allowed it to be published as
covering their estimate of Mr. Lincoln's life and religious views."
Alluding to Stuart's evidence, he says: "Mr. Lamon has attributed to
Mr. Stuart testimony the most disparaging and damaging to Mr. Lincoln's
character and opinions--testimony which Mr. Stuart utterly repudiates,
both as to language and sentiment." Regarding Matheny's testimony,
he says: "Mr. Matheny testifies that he never wrote a word of what is
attributed to him; that it is not a fair representation of either his
language or his opinions, and that he never would have allowed such an
article to be published as covering his estimate of Mr. Lincoln's life
and character."
The following is the disclaimer of Mr. Stuart:
"Springfield, Dec. 17th, 1872.
"Rev. J. A. Reed:
"Dear Sir--
"My attention has been called to a statement in relation to the
religious opinions of Mr. Lincoln, purporting to have been made by
me, and published in Lamon's 'Life of Lincoln.' The language of that
statement is not mine; it was not written by me, and I did not see it
until it was in print. I was once interviewed on the subject of Mr.
Lincoln's religious opinions, and doubtless said that Mr. Lincoln was in
the earlier part of his life an Infidel. I could not have said that
'Dr. Smith tried to convert Lincoln from Infidelity so late as 1858,
and couldn't do it.' In relation to that point I stated, in the same
conversation, some facts which are 'omitted in that statement, and which
I will briefly repeat. That Eddie, a child of Mr. Lincoln, died in 1848
or 1849, and that he and his wife were in deep grief on the account That
Dr. Smith, then pastor of the First Presbyterian church of Springfield,
at the suggestion of a lady friend of theirs, called upon Mr. and Mrs.
Lincoln, and that first visit resulted in great intimacy and friendship
between them, lasting till the death of Mr. Lincoln, and continuing with
Mrs. Lincoln till the death of Dr. Smith. I stated that I had heard at
the time that Dr. Smith and Mr. Lincoln had much discussion in relation
to the truth of the Christian religion, and that Dr. Smith had furnished
Mr. Lincoln with books to read on that subject, and among others one
which had been written by himself, sometime previous, on Infidelity;
and that Dr. Smith claimed that after this investigation Mr. Lincoln
had changed his opinions, and became a believer in the truth of the
Christian religion; that Mr. Lincoln and myself never conversed upon
that subject, and I had no personal knowledge as to his alleged change
of opinion. I stated, however, that it was certainly true that up
to that time Mr. Lincoln had never regularly attended any place of
religious worship, but that after that time he rented a pew in the First
Presbyterian church, and with his family constantly attended the worship
in that church until he went to Washington as President. This much I
said at the time, and I can now add that the Hon. Ninian W. Edwards, the
brother-in-law of Mr. Lincoln, has, within a few days, informed me that
when Mr. Lincoln commenced attending the First Presbyterian church he
admitted to him that his views had undergone the change claimed by Dr.
Smith. I would further say that Dr. Smith was a man of great ability,
and on theological and metaphysical subjects had few superiors and
not many equals. Truthfulness was a prominent trait in Mr. Lincoln's
character, and it would be impossible for any intimate friend of his
to believe that he ever aimed to deceive, either by his words or his
conduct.
"Yours truly,
"John T. Stuart."
Col. Matheny's disclaimer is as follows:
"Springfield, Dec. 16th, 1872.
"Rev. J. A. Reed:
"Dear Sir--
"The language attributed to me in Lamon's book is not from my pen. I
did not write it, and it does not express my sentiments of Mr. Lincoln's
entire life and character. It is a mere collection of sayings gathered
from private conversations that were only true of Mr. Lincoln's earlier
life. I would not have allowed such an article to be printed over my
signature as covering my opinion of Mr. Lincoln's life and religious
sentiments. While I do believe Mr. Lincoln to have been an Infidel in
his former life, when his mind was as yet unformed, and his associations
principally with rough and skeptical men, yet I believe he was a very
different man in later life, and that after associating with a different
class of men and investigating the subject, he was a firm believer in
the Christian religion.
"Yours truly,
"Jas. H. Matheny."
This disclosure startles you, my dear reader. But be patient. I will
show you that this apparently mortal thrust of Dr. Reed's was made, not
with a lance, but with a boomerang.
When Reed made his assault upon Lamon's witnesses, all stood firm but
two--two old Springfield politicians whose political aspirations had not
yet become extinct--John T. Stuart and James H. Matheny.
These men had been among the first to testify in regard to Lincoln's
unbelief. His Christian biographers had misrepresented his religious
views; they believed that the fraud ought to be exposed, and they
were ready and willing to aid in the work. Their testimony exhibits a
frankness that is truly commendable. They knew that lying was a vice,
but they did not know that truth-telling was a crime. They had yet
to learn that the church tolerates murder more readily than the
promulgation of a truth that is antagonistic to her creed. But this fact
they were destined to learn. Lamon's work had scarcely been issued
from the press before he was anathematized and his book proscribed. The
merciless attack that had already been commenced upon Herndon portended
danger to them. Nor had they long to wait. In December, 1872, they were
approached by Reed and his coadjutors. They were informed that the idol
which their ruthless iconoclasm had helped to break must be repaired.
They were given to understand that if they repented of the part they had
performed and recanted, peace would be their portion here and endless
bliss hereafter; but that if they did not, endless misery would begin on
Jan. 1, a.d. 1873.
The situation was critical. They did not like to tell the world that
they had borne false witness against the dead, nor did they, any more
than Galileo, wish to wear a martyr's crown. A compromise was finally
effected. It was incidentally ascertained by Reed that their evidence as
presented by Lamon was not originally given in the shape of a letter or
a written statement, but orally. A happy thought suggested itself--one
worthy of the unscrupulous theological pettifogger that he is. The
thought was this: "Say to the public, or rather let me say it for you,
that you did not _write_ a word of the testimony attributed to you."
Just as a witness in court might point to the stenographer's report of
his testimony and say, "I did not write a word of that."
In addition to this, Mr. Stuart, in endeavoring to explain away, as far
as possible, the obnoxious character of his testimony, declared that
some things which he did say at the time his testimony was given had
been omitted; while something he did not say was inserted. They were
both trivial matters, hardly worthy of notice, even if true, and having
no especial bearing upon the case. But they served an admirable
purpose in enabling Reed to say that the testimony adduced by Lamon was
"abridged and distorted."
Stuart's disclaimer, then, divested of its misleading verbiage, contains
but two points. In the first place, he says: "I could not have said that
'Dr. Smith tried to convert Lincoln from Infidelity so late as 1858,
and couldn't do it.'" This sentence, like everything else in these
disclaimers, is cunningly worded and intended to deceive. One would
naturally suppose the idea he intends to convey is that he never
declared that Dr. Smith tried to convert Lincoln and couldn't do it.
This, it has been ascertained, is not his meaning. What he means is
this: "I could not have said that 'Dr. Smith tried to convert Lincoln
from Infidelity, _so late as_ 1858, and couldn't do it.'" His denial
is a mere quibble about a date. He did undoubtedly say just what he is
reported to have said. But admitting a doubt, and giving him the benefit
of this doubt, by throwing out the disputed date, the passage is not
less damaging than it was before: "Dr. Smith tried to convert Lincoln
from Infidelity, and couldn't do it." But let us omit the entire
sentence, and the testimony of Mr. Stuart that remains, about which
there is no dispute, that portion of his testimony which he admits to be
correct--is as follows:
"Lincoln went further against Christian beliefs and doctrines and
principles than any man I ever heard; he shocked me. I don't remember
the exact line of his argument; suppose it was against the inherent
defects, so called, of the Bible, and on grounds of reason. Lincoln
always denied that Jesus was the Christ of God--denied that Jesus was
the Son of God, as understood and maintained by the Christian church."
In the second place, Mr. Stuart complains that the rumors concerning Dr.
Smith's attempted conversion of Lincoln which he had mentioned to Mr.
Herndon at the time of giving his testimony, were omitted. They were,
and very properly, too. Mr. Stuart, or any other good lawyer, would have
omitted them. Mr. Herndon desired him to testify about what he _knew_,
and not about what he had _heard_, especially as he was going to
headquarters in regard to these rumors. He wrote to Dr. Smith himself
about them, received his testimony, and gave it to the public.
Stuart affects to believe that this story, which Ninian Edwards is
dragged around by Reed to verify, may possibly have been true. But in
the same sentence, he refutes this idea, and refutes the claim itself,
by saying: "I had no personal knowledge as to his alleged change of
opinion." Stuart was a family connection of Lincoln, and if Lincoln had
been converted, he, as well as every other person in Springfield, would
have known it.
He states that Dr. Smith's first visit to Lincoln was "at the suggestion
of a lady friend." To have avoided another glaring contradiction in the
evidence of his witnesses, Reed should have had Major Stuart state that
this "lady friend" was Thomas Lewis. As it is, the account given by
Stuart of Dr. Smith's first visit and acquaintance with Lincoln is
entirely at variance with the account given by Mr. Lewis in his letter,
quoted in chapter I.
Mr. Stuart evidently entertained no very kind opinion of Colonel Lamon's
work, and this made him all the more disposed to accede to Reed's
demands. His position on the slavery question, for a time, was one
which, in the light of subsequent events, he had no reason to be proud
of, and Lamon in narrating the acts of Lincoln's life found it necessary
frequently to refer to this. Such passages as the following were
calculated not only to make him offended at Lamon, but jealous of
Herndon: "John T. Stuart was keeping his eye on Lincoln, with the view
of keeping him on his side--the totally dead conservative side." "Mr.
Lincoln was beset by warm friends and by old coadjutors, and besought to
pause in his anti-slavery course while there was yet time. Among these
there was none more earnest or persuasive than John T. Stuart, who was
but the type of a class.... But Mr. Herndon was more than a match for
the full array against him. An earnest man, instant in season and out
of season, he spoke with the eloquence of apparent truth and of real
personal love" (Life of Lincoln, pp. 374, 352).
Colonel Matheny was not prepared to deny the correctness of a single
statement in his testimony, but was forced to modify its bearing as a
whole. He was made to say: "It does not express my sentiments of Mr.
Lincoln's entire life and character." Now, anyone who reads his evidence
cannot fail to observe that he did intend to cover Lincoln's entire
life and character. There is not in it the slightest intimation that he
referred merely to a part of his life. Indeed, there is one statement
in his evidence which utterly precludes such an assumption. He expressly
says: "I never heard that Lincoln changed his views, though his personal
and political friend from 1834 to 1860." But Reed must have a sufficient
portion of his life reserved in which to inject the story of his alleged
conversion; and so Matheny's offense was condoned on the condition that
he retain the earlier part of Lincoln's life for his testimony to
rest upon, and concede the remainder to Reed for "The Later Life and
Religious Sentiments of Lincoln." This division of Lincoln's life is
quite indefinite, but Reed would have us believe that Colonel Matheny's
evidence relates wholly to that portion of his life anterior to
1848, when Dr. Smith began the task of Christianizing him. Matheny's
disclaimer is dated Dec. 16, 1872. On Dec. 9, 1873, he made the
following explanation, which was published in a Springfield paper:
"What I mean, in my Reed letter, by Mr. Lincoln's earlier life, is his
whole life and history in Illinois. In Illinois, and up to the time he
left for Washington, he was, as I understand it, a confirmed Infidel.
What I mean by Mr. Lincoln's later life, is his Washington life, where
he associated with religious people, when and where I believe he thought
he became a Christian. I told Mr. Reed all this just before signing the
letter spoken of. I knew nothing of Mr. Lincoln's investigation into the
subject of Christianity."
He says that his evidence "is a mere collection of sayings gathered from
private conversations." It is doubtless true that he had many private
conversations with Mr. Herndon on this subject; but his published
testimony was all given at one sitting, and more, _he signed that
testimony_. Every word attributed to him in Lamon's work, and repeated
in this chapter, originally appeared above his signature.
The concluding words of his disclaimer are as follows:
"While I do believe Mr. Lincoln to have been an Infidel in his
former life, when his mind was as yet unformed, and his associations
principally with rough and skeptical men, yet I believe he was a very
different man in later life; and that after associating with a different
class of men, and investigating the subject, he was a firm believer in
the Christian religion."
These words, as modified by the following, constitute a most remarkable
statement:
"In Illinois, and up to the time he left for Washington, he was, as I
understand it, a confirmed Infidel. What I mean by Mr. Lincoln's
later life, is his Washington life, where he associated with religious
people."
Colonel Matheny confines Lincoln's Infidelity to that portion of his
life "when his mind was as yet unformed," and affirms that this portion
comprised all the years preceding his removal to Washington in 1861.
Thus during the first fifty-two years of Lincoln's life, "his mind was
as yet unformed." His enviable reputation as one of the foremost lawyers
of Illinois was achieved while "his mind was as yet unformed;" when his
friends sent him to Congress "his mind was as yet unformed;" when he
made his Bloomington speech, "his mind was as yet unformed;" when he
delivered his famous Springfield speech, "his mind was as yet unformed;"
when he conducted his masterly debates with Stephen A. Douglas, "his
mind was as yet unformed;" when he prepared and delivered that model of
political addresses, the Cooper Institute address, "his mind was as yet
unformed;" when at the Chicago Convention he outstripped in the race for
Presidential nominee such eminent leaders as Seward and Chase, "his mind
was as yet unformed;" when he was elected Chief Magistrate of this great
nation, "his mind was as yet unformed."
It was only by leaving Illinois and going to Washington that he was
thrown into religious society. Washington politicians are noted for
their piety, you know. According to Matheny et al., New Salem was a
second Sodom, Springfield a second Gomorrah and Washington a sort of New
Jerusalem, inhabited chiefly by saints.
Neither in Matheny's letter, nor in his interpretation of this letter,
is there a word to indicate that he recognized the fact that Lincoln
went to Washington to assume the office and perform the duties of
President. On the contrary, the whole tenor of his remarks is to the
effect that he believed the people sent him there on account of his
wickedness, and while "his mind was as yet unformed," to attend a reform
school, and that subsequently he entered a theological seminary, and
there died.
The most amusing feature of Matheny's letter is that he unwittingly
certifies that his own character was not good. He declares that Lincoln
was an Infidel because his associations were "with rough and skeptical
men;" but that after removing to Washington and "associating with a
different class of men" he became a Christian. Now, it is well known
that one of the most conspicuous of his "rough and skeptical" associates
in Illinois was James H. Matheny.
Colonel Matheny, in his explanatory remarks, says: "I _believe_ he
_thought_ he became a Christian;" and in almost the next breath says,
"I knew nothing of Mr. Lincoln's investigation into the subject of
Christianity." Can anything be more unreasonable than this? Colonel
Matheny knowing that Lincoln was a confirmed Infidel--an Infidel when
he went to Washington--knowing nothing about his having afterward
investigated Christianity--knowing that he had no time for such an
investigation, and yet believing that Lincoln thought he became a
Christian! Why did he not mention this when he gave his testimony? The
fact is, he did not believe that Lincoln became a Christian; but with
an orthodox club raised above his head, he found it very convenient to
_profess_ to believe it.
As Mr. Reed has endeavored to prove that Lamon and Herndon did not
faithfully report the evidence of Stuart and Matheny, it is but just
that Mr. Herndon, who took down their testimony, be permitted to speak
in his own defense. In his Springfield lecture, delivered in Major
Stuart's town, if not in his presence, referring to Stuart's testimony,
he says:
"Mr. Stuart did not write the note and no one ever said he did. What is
there stated was the substance of a conversation between Mr. Stuart and
myself about Mr. Lincoln's religion. I took down in a note in his office
and in his presence his words and ideas as I did in other cases. The
conversation spoken of took place in Mr. Stuart's office, and in the
east room. Mr. Stuart does not deny that the note is substantially
correct. He simply says he could not have said that Dr. Smith tried to
convert Mr. Lincoln, and couldn't do it. I well remember that he did use
this language. It seemed to do him good to say it.... It seems that
Mr. Stuart had heard that Mr. Lincoln and Dr. Smith had much discussion
about Christianity, but he failed to hear of Mr. Lincoln's conversion,
or anything like it, and well might he say, _as he did_, that 'Dr. Smith
tried to convert Mr. Lincoln, _but couldn't do it_.'"
Any charitably disposed person, knowing the general good character of
both men, instead of crying "Fraud!" as Reed has done, will readily
conclude that Mr. Herndon was mistaken, or that Mr. Stuart had forgotten
just what he did say, and is it not more reasonable to suppose that the
latter gentleman, in the lapse of six years, should have forgotten some
things he said, than that Mr. Herndon, who recorded them the moment they
were uttered, should be mistaken?
Alluding to Colonel Matheny's evidence, in the same lecture, Mr. Herndon
says:
"The next gentleman introduced by Mr. Reed is Col. James H. Matheny. He
is made to say, in a letter addressed to Mr. Reed, that he did not write
the statement in Lamon's 'Life of Lincoln.' I do not claim that he did.
I wrote it in the court house--this hall--in Mr. Matheny's presence, and
at his dictation. I read it over to him and he approved it. I wrote it
all at once as he spoke it to me; it is not made up of scraps--'a mere
collection of sayings gathered from private conversations, that were
only true of Mr. Lincoln's earlier life.' I say that this statement
was written all at one time and place, and not at different times and
places. Let any critic, any man of common sense, read it and he will
say: 'This was all written at once.' I appeal to the manner--the close
connection of words and ideas in which it runs--word with word, sentence
with sentence, and idea with idea, for the proof that it was made at one
sitting. Mr. Matheny has often told me that Mr. Lincoln was an Infidel.
He admits this in his letter to Mr. Reed. He never intimated in that or
any other conversation with me that he believed that Mr. Lincoln in his
later life became a Christian."
In a letter dated Sept. 14, 1887, Mr. Herndon writes:
"I acted in this matter honestly, and I will always abide by my notes
taken down at the time. I was cautious--very careful of what I did,
because I knew that the church would damn me and prove me false if it
could. I stood on the exactness of truth squarely."
I have thus far assumed that Stuart and Matheny really wrote the letters
of disclaimer addressed to Reed. Mr. Reed states that he is "amazed
to find" that they did not write the statements attributed to them
by Lamon. The reader is by this time sufficiently familiar with this
reverend gentleman's methods that he will _not_ be "amazed to find" that
Stuart and Matheny did not write these disclaimers. I now affirm that
James H. Matheny did not write a word of the letter purporting to have
been written by him. _It was written by the Rev. J. A. Reed!_ We have
not the expressed declaration of Mr. Stuart that this is true of the
letter imputed to him, but there is other evidence which makes it
clearly apparent that this letter was also written by Mr. Reed.
Nor is this all. I shall now endeavor to show that the greater part of
the evidence presented by Reed, in his lecture, was composed and written
by himself. Let us take the four letters credited respectively to
Edwards, Lewis, Stuart, and Matheny. I shall attempt to demonstrate the
common origin of these letters, first, by their form; secondly, by the
language of their contents.
The different forms employed in epistolary correspondence are numerous,
far more numerous than generally supposed. To illustrate: four hundred
letters, written by as many different persons, and all addressed to the
same person, were, without examination, divided into one hundred parcels
of four letters each. They were then examined in regard to the form
employed by the writer. The heading, the address, the introduction, and
the subscription were noted--no attention being paid to the body of the
letter, or the signature. In not one of these one hundred parcels were
found four letters having the same form. The heading of these letters
exhibited nine different forms; the address, fourteen; the introduction,
eight; and the subscription, eleven.
Again, nearly every writer employs certain idioms of language that are
peculiar to him, and which reveal his identity, even though he tries to
conceal it.
Let us now institute a brief analysis of the four letters under
consideration. Errors will be noticed, not for the purpose of reflecting
upon the literary attainments of the writer, but solely with a view
of discovering his identity. These are mostly of a trivial character,
confined to marks of punctuation, etc.; and it is a recognized fact that
a majority of educated persons, including many professional writers, are
more or less deficient in the art of punctuation. In proof of the common
authorship of these four letters, the following reasons are submitted:
1. In all of them we recognize a stiff formality--a studied effort to
conform to one ideal standard.
2. All of them were written at Springfield, Ill., and all omit the name
of the state.
3. In each of them, the day of the month is followed by the suffix,
"th." This, if not wholly improper, is not common usage. Had these
letters been written by the four persons to whom they are ascribed, at
least three of them would have omitted it.
4 In all, but one, the address is "Rev. J. A. Reed," and in the
exception the writer merely substitutes "Jas." for "J."
5. In each of them the address is followed by a colon instead of a
comma, the proper mark to use. Had they been written by four persons, it
is possible that a part, or even all, would have made an error, but it
is highly improbable that all would have made the _same_ error.
6. In these letters, the introductory words are uniformly "Dear
Sir"--the most common form of introduction, and the one that a writer,
in drafting a letter addressed to himself, would most naturally employ.
7. In every instance, the introduction is followed by a dash instead of
a colon--a uniformity of error, again.
8. In the subscription, the term, "Yours truly," is invariably used,
except in the Lewis letter, which concludes with "Yours, etc."
9. The Edwards letter and the Lewis letter begin with the same idea,
expressed in nearly the same words. Edwards is made to say, "A short
time after the Rev. Dr. Smith," etc.; and Lewis--"Not long after Dr.
Smith."
10. Omitting the introductory sentence in the Stuart letter, which is
merely the expansion of an idea used in writing the Matheny letter on
the preceding day, the Stuart and Matheny letters begin with the same
idea. Stuart says: "The language of that statement is not mine; it was
not written by me." Matheny says: "The language attributed to me... is
not from my pen. I did not write it." Reed himself uses substantially
the same language that is ascribed to them. Had their statements, as
published in Lamon's work, been forgeries, or grossly inaccurate, they
might have used the language quoted above. Under the circumstances they
would not have used it. Major Stuart and Colonel Matheny were lawyers,
not pettifoggers.
11. These prefatory sentences of Stuart and Matheny both begin with the
same words--"the language."
12. In both the Edwards and Lewis letters, reference is made to a
theological work which Dr. Smith is said to have written. The writer of
neither letter is able to state the name of the book; Dr. Reed is unable
to state the name of it; Dr. Smith himself does not mention the name of
it; but he does plainly state that it was a work on the Bible. For "the
business he had on hand," however, it suited Reed's purpose better to
give a semi-erroneous impression of its character, and so he affirms
that it was a work on "the evidences of Christianity." Curiously
enough, in the Edwards letter and again in the Lewis letter, the book is
described as a work on "the evidences of Christianity."
13. The Edwards letter reports Lincoln as saying: "I have been reading
_a work of Dr. Smith on the evidences of Christianity_." The Lewis
letter represents him as saying that "He had seen and partially read
_a work of Dr. Smith on the evidences of Christianity_" Here are ten
consecutive words in the two letters identical.
14. Mr. Reed, in his lecture, never once uses the word "Christianity,"
except as above noticed to describe Dr. Smith's book; he always uses the
words "the Christian religion"--employing this term no less than seven
times. This usage is not common. An examination of various theological
writings shows that "Christianity" is used twenty times where "the
Christian religion" is used once. Yet in these letters the word
"Christianity" is not to be found, except in the same sense as used
by Dr. Reed, while "the Christian religion" occurs in each of the four
letters.
15. "The truth of the Christian religion" is a favorite phrase with
Reed, occurring three times in his lecture. This phrase also occurs
three times in these letters--once in the Edwards letter, and twice in
the Stuart letter.
16. Reed has much to say about Lincoln's "life and religious
sentiments;" in fact, his lecture is entitled, "The Later Life and
Religious Sentiments of Abraham Lincoln." In the Matheny letter, too, we
find "Mr. Lincoln's life and religious sentiments."
17. The words "earlier" and "later" are frequently used by Reed in
connection with Lincoln's life. The same words are used in the Stuart
and Matheny letters, and in the same connection.
18. The Stuart letter is, for the most part, devoted to the narration of
"some facts" which Mr. Stuart is said to have presented to Mr. Herndon,
beginning with this: "That Eddie, a child of Mr. Lincoln, died in 1848
or 1849," etc. Now, Mr. Stuart well knew that, during all this time, Mr.
Herndon was the intimate associate of Lincoln and thoroughly familiar
with every event in his history. The "facts" given in this letter are
not such as Mr. Stuart would have communicated to Mr. Herndon, but they
are such as Mr. Reed would naturally desire to place before the public.
19. Nothing in Dr. Reed's career has excited his vanity more than
the fact that he was pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of
Springfield--the church which Lincoln once attended. Consequently, the
"First Presbyterian Church" is a conspicuous object in his lecture,
and nowhere is it more conspicuous than in these letters. In the Stuart
letter it appears three times, and the writer never fails to state that
it was the "First Presbyterian Church"--the church of which Dr. Reed was
pastor.
20. According to the principle of accretion, if two articles or letters
are written on the same subject, the second will usually be longer than
the first. This is true of these letters. The Lewis letter, relating
to Smith's reputed conversion of Lincoln, was written after the
Edwards letter relative to the same subject, and is longer. The Stuart
disclaimer, which is the longer of the two, was written after the
Matheny disclaimer.
From the foregoing, is it not clearly evident that these four letters
were all written by the same person? If so, then knowing that Dr. Reed
wrote one of them, the Matheny letter, does it not necessarily follow
that he wrote them all?
In the Gurley testimony, such expressions as "the Christian religion"
and "the truth of the Christian religion," together with the Reed story
concerning Lincoln's intention of making a profession of religion,
reveal the authorship of this testimony also.