The Rev. Dr. Miner, Pastor of the First Baptist Church of Springfield,

who was intimately acquainted with Mr. Lincoln, and visited him

and his family in Washington previous to his death, has left most

interesting testimony in reference to Mr. Lincoln's religious

sentiments, confirmatory of what has been given, and which is preserved

in the archives of the University of Chicago. Dr. Miner sums up his

impressions of Mr. Lincoln as follows: "All that was said during that

memorable afternoon I spent alone with that great and good man is

engraven too deeply on my memory ever to be effaced. I felt certain

of this fact, that if Mr. Lincoln was not really an experimental

Christian, he was acting like one. He was doing his duty manfully,

and looking to God for help in time of need; and, like the immortal

Washington, he believed in the efficacy of prayer, and it was his

custom to read the Scriptures and pray himself." And here I would

relate an incident which occurred on the 4th of March, 1861, as told

me by Mrs. Lincoln. Said she: "Mr. Lincoln wrote the conclusion of

his inaugural address the morning it was delivered. The family being

present, he read it to them. He then said he wished to be left alone

for a short time. The family retired to an adjoining room, but not so

far distant but that the voice of prayer could be distinctly heard.

There, closeted with God alone, surrounded by the enemies who were

ready to take his life, he commended his country's cause and all

dear to him to God's providential care, and with a mind calmed with

communion with his Father in heaven, and courage equal to the danger,

he came forth from that retirement ready for duty."

With such testimony, gathered from gentlemen of the highest standing,

and much more that I could add to confirm it, I leave the later life

and religious sentiments of Abraham Lincoln to the dispassionate and

charitable judgment of a grateful people. While it is to be regretted

that Mr. Lincoln was not spared to indicate his religious sentiments by

a profession of his faith in accordance with the institutions of the

Christian religion, yet it is very clear that he had this step in view,

and was seriously contemplating it, as a sense of its fitness and an

apprehension of his duty grew upon him. He did not ignore a relation

to the Christian church as an obsolete duty and an unimportant matter.

How often do we hear him thanking God for the churches! And he was fast

bringing his life into conformity to the Christian standard. The coarse

story-telling of his early days was less indulged in in his later life.

Hon. Isaac N. Arnold, and Mr. Carpenter, as well as Mr. Lincoln's

physician at Washington, Dr. Stone, all testify that "while his stories

and anecdotes were racy, witty, and pointed beyond all comparison,"

yet they "never heard one of a character needing palliation or

excuse." His physician, Dr. Stone, testifies that "Mr. Lincoln was the

purest-hearted man he ever came in contact with."

His disposition to attend the theater in later life (if to anyone it

seems to need apology) was not so much a fondness for the playhouse

as a relief from his mental anxiety, and an escape from the incessant

pressure of visitors at the White House. "It is a well-known fact,"

says Dr. Miner, "that he would not have been at the theater on that

fatal night, but to escape the multitude who were that evening pressing

into the White House to shake hands with him. It has been said that

Mrs. Lincoln urged her husband to go to the theater against his will.

This is not true. On the contrary, she tried to persuade him not to

go, but he insisted. He said, 'I must have a little rest. A large and

overjoyed, excited people will visit me tonight. My arms are lame

by shaking hands with the multitude, and the people will pull me to

pieces.' He went to the theater, not because he was interested in the

play, but because he was care-worn and needed quiet and repose. Mrs.

Lincoln informed me that he seemed to take no notice of what was going

on in the theater from the time he entered it till the discharge of

the fatal pistol. She said that the last day he lived was the happiest

of his life. The very last moments of his conscious life were spent

in conversation with her about his future plans, and what he wanted

to do when his term of office expired. He said he wanted to visit

the Holy Land and see the places hallowed by the footprints of the

Saviour. He was saying there was no city he so much desired to see as

_Jerusalem_; and with that word half spoken on his tongue, the bullet

of the assassin entered his brain, and the soul of the great and good

President was carried by angels to the New Jerusalem above."

APPENDIX V

TWO HERNDON LETTERS CONCERNING LINCOLN'S RELIGION

BRIEF ANALYSIS OF LINCOLN'S CHARACTER

SPRINGFIELD, ILL., Sept. 10, 1887.

J. E. REMSBURG, Oak Mills, Kansas.

FRIEND REMSBURG: Today I send you Speed's lecture on "Lincoln," which

you can keep till I send for it--and this will probably be never.

It is a very poor lecture if the lecture contains his knowledge of

Lincoln, and, I guess it does. It shows no insight into Lincoln at all,

though it is well enough written. It is said that Speed had a world of

influence over Lincoln. This may be so, and yet I never saw it. It is

said by Nicolay and Hay that Lincoln poured out his soul to Speed. Bah!

Nonsense! Probably, except in his love scrapes, Lincoln never poured

out his soul to any mortal creature at any time and on no subject. He

was the most secretive, reticent, shut-mouthed man that ever existed.

You had to _guess_ at the man after years of acquaintance and then you

must look long and keenly before you _guessed_, or you would make an

ass of yourself.

You had to take some leading--great leading and well-established--fact

of Lincoln's nature and then follow it by accurate and close analysis

wherever it went.

This process would lead you correctly if you knew human nature and

its laws. Lincoln was a mystery to the world; he loved principle,

but moved ever just to suit his own ends; he was a trimmer among

men, though firm on laws and great principles; he did not care for

men; they were his tools and instruments; he was a cool man--an

unsocial one--an abstracted one, having the very quintessence of the

profoundest policies. Lincoln's heart was tender, full of mercy, if

in his presence some imaginative man presented the subject to him.

"Out of sight, out of mind" may truthfully be said of Lincoln. If I am

correct, what do you think of the stories afloat about what Lincoln

said in relation to his religion, especially said to strangers? I

send you two "Truth-Seekers" which you will please read where I speak

of Lincoln in three letters, pages marked at the top. You will learn

something of Lincoln's nature in those three letters of mine--two of

them on Lincoln's religion, and one to a minister. Please read them.

There are some quotations in these letters which I have never had time

to send you as I recollect it. They are good things--one on Laws of

Human Nature and one on the Pride-Haughtiness of Christians. Lincoln

delivered a lecture in which these quotations are to be found. I heard

him deliver it.

W. H. HERNDON.

P. S.--Mr. Speed was my boss for three or four years and Lincoln,

Speed, Hurst, and I slept in the same room for a year or so. I was

clerk for Speed. Speed could make Lincoln do much about simple

measures, policies, not involving any principle. Beyond this power

Speed did not have much influence over Lincoln nor did anyone else.

A CARD AND A CORRECTION

I wish to say a few short words to the public and private ear. About

the year 1870 I wrote a letter to F. E. Abbott, then of Ohio, touching

Mr. Lincoln's religion. In that letter I stated that Mr. Lincoln was

an infidel, sometimes bordering on atheism, and I now repeat the same.

In the year 1873 the Right Rev. James A. Reed, pastor and liar of this

city, gave a lecture on Mr. Lincoln's religion, in which he tried to

answer some things which I never asserted, except as to Mr. Lincoln's

infidelity, which I did assert and now and here affirm. Mr. Lincoln

was an infidel of the radical type; he never mentioned the name of

Jesus except to scorn and detest the idea of miraculous conception.

This lecture of the withered minister will be found in Holland's Review

[_Scribner's Monthly_]. I answered this lecture in 1874, I think, in

this city to a large and intelligent audience--had it printed and sent

a copy to Holland, requesting, in polite language, that he insert it

in his Review as an answer to the Reed lecture. The request was denied

me, as a matter of course. He could help to libel a man with Christian

courage, and with Christian cowardice refuse to unlibel him.

Soon thereafter, say from 1874 to 1882, I saw floating around in the

newspaper literature, such charges as "Herndon is in a lunatic asylum,

well chained," "Herndon is a pauper," "Herndon is a drunkard," "Herndon

is a vile infidel and a knave, a liar and a drunkard," and the like.

I have contradicted all these things under my own hand, often, except

as to my so-called infidelity, liberalism, free religious opinions,

or what-not. In the month of October, 1882, I saw in and clipped out

of the Cherryvale _Globe-News_ of September, 1882, a paper published

in the State of Kansas, the following rich and racy article; it is as

follows:

"_Lincoln's Old Law Partner a Pauper_

"Bill Herndon is a pauper in Springfield, Ill. He was once worth

considerable property. His mind was the most argumentative of any

of the old lawyers in the State, and his memory was extraordinary.

For several years before Lincoln was nominated for the Presidency,

Herndon was in some respects the most active member of the firm,

preparing the greatest number of cases for trial and making elaborate

arguments in their behalf. It is said that he worked hard with Lincoln

in preparing the memorable speeches by the man who afterward became

President, during the debates between Lincoln and Douglas in 1858, and

in constructing the Cooper Union address delivered by Lincoln a short

time before the war. Herndon, with all his attainments, was a man who

now and then went on a spree, and it was no uncommon thing for him

to leave an important lawsuit and spend several days in drinking and

carousing. This habit became worse after Lincoln's death, and like

poor Dick Yates, Herndon went down step by step till his old friends

and associates point to him as a common drunkard."

There are three distinct charges in the above article. First, that

I am a pauper. Second, that I am a common drunkard, and third, that

I was a traitor or false to my clients. Let me answer these charges

in their order. First, I am not a pauper. Never have been and expect

never to be. I am working on my farm, making my own living with my own

muscle and brain, a place and a calling that even Christianity with its

persecution and malignity can never reach me to do much harm. I had, it

is true, once a considerable property, but lost much of it in the crash

and consequent crisis of 1873, caused in part by the contraction of the

currency, in part by the decline in the demand for the agricultural

products which I raise for sale, in part by the inability by the people

to buy, etc., etc., and for no other reasons.

Second, I never was a common drunkard, as I look at it, and am not

now. I am and have been for years an ardent and enthusiastic temperance

man, though opposed to prohibition by law, by any force or other

choker. The time has not come for this. It is a fact that I once, years

ago, went on a spree; and this I now deeply regret. It however is in

the past, and let a good life in the future bury the past. I have not

fallen, I have risen, and all good men and women will applaud the deed,

always excepting a small, little, bitter Christian like the Right Rev.

pastor and liar of this city, to whom I can trace some of the above

charges. In my case this minister was an eager, itching libeler, and

what he said of me is false--nay, a willful lie.

Third, I never was a traitor or untrue to my clients or their

interests. I never left them during the progress of a trial or at other

times for the cause alleged, drunkenness. I may have crept--slid--out

of a case during the trial because I had no faith in it, leaving Mr.

Lincoln, who had faith in it, to run it through. My want of faith in a

case would have been discovered by the jury and that discovery would

have damaged my client and to save my client I dodged. This is all

there is on it, and let men make the most of it.

Now, let me ask a question. Why is all this libeling of me? I am a

mere private citizen, hold no office, do not beg the people to give me

one often. My religious ideas, views, and philosophy are today, here,

unpopular. But wait, I will not deny my ideas, views, or philosophy for

office or station or the applause of the unthinking multitude. I can,

however, answer the above question. It, the libeling, is done because

I did assert and affirm by oral language and by print that Mr. Lincoln

was an infidel, sometimes bordering on atheism, and yet he was among

the best, greatest, and noblest of mankind; he was a grand man. Why do

not the Christians prove that Mr. Lincoln was an evangelical Christian

and thus prove me a liar? One of my friends, for whom I have great

respect, says, that "Mr. Lincoln was a _rational_ Christian because he

believed in morality." Why not say Lincoln was _rational_ Buddhist,

as Buddhism teaches morality? Why not say Lincoln was _rational_

Mohammedan? By the way, let me say here, that I have a profound respect

for an earnest, manly, and sincere Christian or an Atheist, a profound

respect for an earnest, manly, and sincere Infidel or theist or any

other religion, or the men who hold it, when that belief is woven into

a great manly character to beautify and greaten the world.

These charges, and I do not know how many more, nor of what kind, have

been scattered broadcast all over the land, and have gone into every

house, have been read at every fireside till the good people believe

them, believe that I am nearly as mean as a little Christian, and all

because I told the truth and stand firm in my conviction. Respectfully,

W. H. HERNDON.

November 9, 1882.

[Privately printed by H. E. Barker, Springfield, 1917, edition limited

to 75 copies.]

APPENDIX VI

THE IRWIN ARTICLE WITH LETTERS CONCERNING LINCOLN'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF

Another Valuable Contribution to the History of the Martyr

President.--Was Abraham Lincoln an Infidel?--A Painstaking

Examination of the Case by An Old Acquaintance.--Important Testimony

of Contemporaneous Witnesses.--History of the Famous Manuscript of

1833.--Mentor Graham Says It Was a Defence of Christianity.--The Burned

Manuscript Quite a Different Affair.--The Charge of Infidelity in 1848,

Said to Have Been Disproved at the Time.--Letter of Hon. Wm. Reid, U.

S. Consul at Dundee, Scotland.

By B. F. IRWIN

PLEASANT PLAINS, ILL., April 20, 1874.

EDITOR STATE JOURNAL: For some time, I believe, in 1870 there has

been a constant and continued effort upon the part of the Hon. W. H.

Herndon, Springfield, Ill., to convince and prove to the world that

Abraham Lincoln lived and died an infidel. He has succeded, as I

suppose, in proving that proposition to his own entire satisfaction and

probably to the satisfaction of some others. The last effort I have

noticed upon the subject was Herndon's reply to the Rev. J. A. Reed, in

a lecture delivered in the court house in Springfield, some months ago.

A few days after that lecture was delivered, I was urgently requested

by a prominent minister of the gospel and friend of Lincoln's (and also

a lady friend now residing in Kansas) to review that speech. I promised

each of those persons I would do so at the proper time. That time has

now arrived, and I propose noticing a few points in the address of Mr.

Herndon,

"THE RELIGION OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN"

also a point or two in his Abbott letter and I think I will be able to

show that Mr. Herndon, himself, never knew or understood really what

the faith of Lincoln was or what the

RELIGIOUS BELIEF OF LINCOLN

was. I wish it now and here understood that Mr. Herndon's candor or

veracity I do not call in question. Nor will I designedly say anything

to offend him. He and I have been for twenty-five years good personal

friends, and I hope that friendship may continue. Mr. Herndon has a

right to prove Mr. Lincoln an infidel if he can. I claim the same right

to prove that

LINCOLN WAS NOT AN INFIDEL

if I can. If Mr. Lincoln was an infidel, as Herndon says, it is proper

for the world to know it. If he was not an infidel the charge is wrong

and a slander, for infidelity in the nineteenth century is no honor to

any man, dead or alive.

Mr. Herndon, in his speech, uses this language: "One side of this

question can be proved. It is admitted on all hands that Lincoln once

was an infidel; that he wrote a small book, or essay, or pamphlet

against Christianity, and that he (Lincoln) continued an unbeliever

until late in life." Herndon further says: "It is a rule of law, as

well as a rule of common sense, that when a certain state or condition

of affairs is once proved to exist, the presumption is, that it still

exists until the contrary is proved." Now I stand by that proposition

as a true one. Will Mr. Herndon do so? But

HE IS WOEFULLY MISTAKEN

in his statement that "all admit that Lincoln was once an infidel." I

have never yet heard one single man express the belief that Lincoln was

an infidel, either early or late in life, while I am confident I have

heard one hundred different persons express astonishment at Mr. Herndon

writing and publishing Lincoln to the world an infidel. Mr. Herndon, it

is true, did have opportunities and advantages over others in knowing

Mr. Lincoln's religious opinions. But other men had some opportunities

as well as Mr. Herndon, and to them I shall have to appeal, for I do

not claim to personally know anything about Mr. Lincoln's religious

faith. Though personally acquainted with Lincoln for twenty-five years,

and often in his office, I never heard him say a word on the subject

of Christianity or religious belief. Hence, my opinion of Lincoln's

faith or belief is based on the testimony of those who do know, who had

it

FROM LINCOLN HIMSELF;

and I believe them, for the weight of testimony is certainly against

Mr. Herndon. The Scriptures of Truth lay it down as a Divine rule, that

the evidence of two or three witnesses is better than one. Common law

lays down the same rule, borrowed from Divine authority, and our courts

are governed by it in their decisions.

Mr. Herndon, in his

REPLY TO MR. REED,

says, "He is talking to establish the truth of a controversy between

those who hold that Lincoln was a disbeliever, and those who hold that

he died a Christian (a believer in Christ)" and then says: "If I fail

to establish my point it will be because of the manner and method of

presenting the facts." I have read that lecture carefully over, and I

fail to find any proof of Herndon's proposition that Lincoln ever was

an infidel or an unbeliever. The nearest I see to it, is the

STATEMENT OF J. H. MATHENY

He uses this language, substantially: "Mr. Lincoln's earlier life is

his whole life and history in Illinois up to the time he left for

Washington City. He (Lincoln) was, as I understand it, a confirmed

infidel." Now, Matheny fails to tell us how he got that understanding.

Did he get it from Lincoln? He don't say so, and the reason he don't

say so doubtless is, he got it from some other source--probably from

Herndon. But clearly, to be of any weight as evidence, he must have

that understanding from Mr. Lincoln himself. Mr. Matheny may have some

time in life heard Lincoln use some of the

ARGUMENTS OF TOM PAINE,

or advance infidel ideas, and still not be an infidel. I have heard an

official member of the Methodist Church in this town advance as strong

infidel sentiments as Tom Paine ever did, and you would insult the

man to say he was an infidel. So any Christian may use the language or

advance some of the sentiments of Tom Paine and be far from an infidel.

Lincoln may have done all that, and still not be an infidel. I do not

believe Mr. Lincoln ever was an infidel, and I can truly state and

say just what Matheny said. I understood Lincoln was an infidel, but

I never believed the statement true. Matheny understood it: in other

words, he had heard it but knew nothing about the facts in the case. I

have seen Mr. Matheny since, and he states that he

NEVER HAD IT FROM LINCOLN

that he was an infidel, and he never believed it.

If Mr. Herndon is in possession of the evidence, in writing or

otherwise, to prove that Lincoln was an infidel, either earlier or

later in life, he ought to bring forward the proof to sustain his

proposition: for he has long since learned that the statement alone

fails to satisfy the public mind that Lincoln ever was an infidel. Mr.

Herndon in his

ABBOTT LETTER

truly says the charge of infidelity was made against Mr. Lincoln when

he was a candidate for Congress in 1848; and then adds: "Mr. Lincoln

did not deny the charge, because it was true." The charge of infidelity

was made against Lincoln at that time, and I suppose Lincoln made no

public denial of the charge, for the reason that the canvass was being

made on political grounds, and not religious faith or belief. This much

was said at the time, as I well remember to be the facts in the case.

About the time of building the flatboat on the Sangamon River in 1830,

when Lincoln was quite a young man, a

RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY

was the topic in which Lincoln took a part; and in the argument Lincoln

used the language that, according to the history of the case, in the

New Testament, Christ was a bastard and his mother a base woman. This

he may have used at the time, as young men sometimes do use vain

language, and seventeen years afterward, when he was a candidate for

Congress against

PETER CARTWRIGHT

a Methodist preacher, that vain remark was remembered, and Tom Paine

having used similar language, Lincoln was published in some of the

papers as an infidel. The above was the explanation published at the

time, and the charge of infidelity did no harm. Had Lincoln been known

as an infidel, or believed to be one at that time, I am certain he

would have been beaten badly by Cartwright in the canvass.

Again, Mr. Herndon, in his Abbott letter (I believe it is), says: "It

is not to be found in print that Lincoln ever used the word Christ." In

fact, Herndon says, "he never did use it, only to deny Christ as the

son of God." Now that statement may be true, that he did not use the

term Christ: but if Mr. Herndon will examine the speeches of the public

men of this nation, I believe I am safe in saying that Mr. Lincoln used

and

QUOTED MORE SCRIPTURE

than any man in the nation; and that he quoted the parables and

language of Christ oftener than any public man living. Not only did

Lincoln quote Scripture, but he used it as being of Divine authority,

and applicable to the affairs of earth. Mr. Herndon gives us to

understand that Lincoln did not believe the New Testament Scriptures to

be any more inspired than Homer's songs, Milton's "Paradise Lost," or

Shakspeare. If Herndon is correct, it seems strange Lincoln made no use

of those books. On the 16th of January, 1858,[74] as a foundation for

an argument, he used the language of Christ

"A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND,"

in reply to Douglas. In the same campaign he four times used the

parables of Christ; in his second inaugural address--"woe unto the

world because of its offenses"--Christ's language, again.

But I need not multiply quotations. His speeches, proclamations, and

messages are so full of quotations of scripture, always the language

of Christ himself, that if an angel of light should proclaim it

trumpet-tongued from the skies, that Lincoln was an unbeliever in

Christ, I could not believe it. He could not have been an infidel

without being a base hypocrite; and I don't believe a more honest man

lived on earth.

THE EVIDENCE

Now I will take up some evidence on the question being discussed. Mr.

Herndon has said that, in Lincoln's early life, he wrote

A PAMPHLET

book, or manuscript against Christianity. I propose to show that the

manuscript written by Lincoln was

IN FAVOR OF CHRISTIANITY

To do so, I will offer the evidence of Mr. Graham, who knew Lincoln

when he was a boy in Kentucky, with whom Lincoln boarded some two

years; and if any man on earth ought to know Lincoln's religious faith

or belief, that man is Mentor Graham, who was intimate with Lincoln

from the time he came to Illinois to the time he left for Washington

City. I will give the letter in full.

STATEMENT OF MR. GRAHAM

PETERSBURG, ILL., March 17, 1874.

B. F. IRWIN:

SIR--In reply to your inquiries, Abraham Lincoln was living at my

house in New Salem, going to school, studying English grammar and

surveying, in the year 1833. One morning he said to me, "Graham, what

do you think about the anger of the Lord?" I replied, "I believe

the Lord never was angry or mad and never would be; that His loving

kindness endurest forever; that He never changes." Said Lincoln, "I

have a little manuscript written, which I will show you"; and stated

he thought of having it published. Offering it to me, he said he had

never showed it to anyone, and still thought of having it published.

The size of the manuscript was about one-half quire of foolscap,

written in a very plain hand, on the subject of Christianity and a

defense of universal salvation. The commencement of it was something

respecting the God of the universe never being excited, mad, or

angry. I had the manuscript in my possession some week or ten days. I

have read many books on the subject of theology and I don't think in

point of perspicuity and plainness of reasoning, I ever read one to

surpass it. I remember well his argument. He took the passage, "As in

Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," and followed

up with the proposition that whatever the breach or injury of Adam's

transgressions to the human race was, which no doubt was very great,

was made just and right by the atonement of Christ.

As to Major Hill burning the manuscript, I don't believe he did, nor

do I think he would have done such a thing. About the burning of a

paper by Hill, I have some recollection of his snatching a letter from

Lincoln and putting it into the fire. It was a letter written by Hill

to McNamur. His real name was McNeal. Some of the school children

had picked up the letter and handed it to Lincoln. Hill and Lincoln

were talking about it, when Hill snatched the letter from Lincoln and

put it into the fire. The letter was respecting a young lady, Miss

Ann Rutledge, for whom all three of these gentlemen seemed to have

respect. Yours truly,

MENTOR GRAHAM.

Now the next point I wish to notice is Mr. Herndon's statement, in

his Abbott letter, that Lincoln, in 1846, was charged with being an

infidel. Herndon says he [Lincoln] did not deny the charge, because it

was true. As I have before stated, I admit the charge was made, and I

think at the time there was no public denial by Lincoln, for the reason

that the canvass was made on political grounds, and not religious faith

or belief. Nevertheless, the charge was denied, as the following letter

will show.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS MOSTILLER

PLEASANT PLAINS, ILL., April 28, 1874.

B. F. IRWIN:

SIR--In regard to your inquiry, just received, of what I heard Lincoln

say about a charge of infidelity made against him when a candidate

for Congress in 1847, or '48, it was this. I was present and heard

Josiah Grady ask Lincoln a question or two regarding a charge made

against Lincoln of being an infidel, and Lincoln unqualifiedly denied

the charge of infidelity, and said, in addition, his parents were

Baptists, and brought him up in the belief of the Christian religion;

and he believed in the Christian religion as much as anyone, but

was sorry to say he had or made no pretensions to religion himself.

I can't give his exact words, but would make oath anywhere that he

positively denied the charge made against him of infidelity. That

was the first time I ever heard of the charge of infidelity against

Lincoln.

Grady did not say that he would not vote for Lincoln if he was an

infidel; but my understanding from Grady was, that he would not vote

for Lincoln if he was an infidel, and Grady did, as I suppose, vote

for him. I understood him that he should.

Respectfully,

THOMAS MOSTILLER.

MENARD COUNTY, ILL.

The next evidence I shall offer is that of Isaac Cogdal, an intimate

friend of Lincoln's from the time Lincoln came to Salem, Menard County,

to the time he left for Washington City, and I will let Cogdal speak

for himself.

STATEMENT OF ISAAC COGDAL

April 10, 1874.

B. F. IRWIN: Yours received making inquiries about what I heard

Lincoln say about his religious belief, is this, as near as I can

tell it and recollect. I think it was in 1859, I was in Lincoln's

office in Springfield, and I had a curiosity to know his opinions or

belief religiously; and I called on him for his faith in the presence

of W. H. Herndon. At least Herndon was in the office at the time.

Lincoln expressed himself in about these words: He did not nor could

not believe in the endless punishment of any one of the human race.

He understood punishment for sin to be a Bible doctrine; that the

punishment was parental in its object, aim, and design, and intended

for the good of the offender; hence it must cease when justice is

satisfied. He added that all that was lost by the transgression of

Adam was made good by the atonement: all that was lost by the fall was

made good by the sacrifice, and he added this remark, that punishment

being a "provision of the gospel system, he was not sure but the world

would be better off if a little more punishment was preached by our

ministers, and not so much pardon of sin." I then, in reply, told

Mr. Lincoln he was a sound Universalist, and would advise him to say

but little about his belief, as it was an unpopular doctrine, though

I fully agreed with him in sentiment. Lincoln replied that he never

took any part in the argument or discussion of theological questions.

Much more was said, but the above are the ideas as advanced by Lincoln

there.

Respectfully yours,

ISAAC COGDAL.

The next witness I shall offer on the subject is Jonathan Harnett, of

Pleasant Plains. Mr. Harnett is here. I shall now furnish a statement

over his signature, as he is present and dictates as I write.

DICTATED STATEMENT OF JONATHAN HARNETT

Mr. Harnett says, that in 1858, a short time after he came to Illinois,

he had a curiosity to see Lincoln and went into his office. There were

several others in that he did not know; that religious faith seemed

to be the subject of conversation. After some time was spent in the

controversy, it seemed to be Lincoln's time, and in a few words he

heard Lincoln condense into a small space greater thoughts and larger

ideas, and sounder logic, than he ever heard brought into so small

space. Lincoln, he says, covered more ground in a few words than he

could in a week, and closed up with the restitution of all things to

God, as the doctrine taught in the scriptures, and if anyone was left

in doubt in regard to his belief in the atonement of Christ and the

final salvation of all men, he removed those doubts in a few questions

he answered and propounded to others. After expressing himself,

some one or two took exceptions to his position, and he asked a few

questions that cornered his interrogators and left no room to doubt

or question his soundness on the atonement of Christ, and salvation

finally of all men. He did not pretend to know just when that event

would be consummated, but that it would be the ultimate result, that

Christ must reign supreme, high over all, The Saviour of all; and the

supreme Ruler, he could not be with one out of the fold; all must come

in, with his understanding of the doctrine taught in the scriptures.

[The above statement since writing it has been read to Mr. Harnett and

indorsed by him.]

The next evidence I shall offer is Erasmus Manford, of Chicago. About

1850, he had a debate in Springfield, Ill., with Mr. Lewis. In his

book, "Twenty-five Years in the West," page 219, he says: "I remember

well seeing Mr. Lincoln then punctually every day and night. He often

nodded his head to me when I made a strong point." Does that look as

though Lincoln was an infidel? Manford was discussing the proposition

of the restitution of all things to God which is manifested in Christ

Jesus our Lord. Manford gives the quotation, chapter, and verse,

and Lincoln nods assent to the position. That nodding assent to the

restitution agrees precisely with Mr. Harnett's statement of Lincoln's

position in his presence seven or eight years afterward. Everyone

understands that nodding assent to the argument of a speaker is an

indorsement of what is said, and about equivalent to speaking it

yourself. Manford so understood it: so anyone would understand it.

My next and last witness is W. H. Herndon. In his Abbott lecture in

1870, Herndon says that Lincoln's belief was, that

ALL WOULD BE SAVED,

or none. That remark he frequently or often made; that agrees with

Harnett's statement that he believed all would be saved. When a man

believes all men will be saved, he can then be logical and say all will

be saved or none, and not otherwise. In the same letter, Mr. Herndon

says Mr. Lincoln held that God had a fixed punishment for sin and no

means could bribe him to remit that punishment. That evidence agrees

with Cogdal's statement that sin was to be punished, but not endlessly.

Both Herndon and Cogdal agree in the statement that Lincoln believed

that if our ministers would preach punishment and not so much pardon

the world would be benefited by it.

I am now through with the evidence I shall offer at this time, though I

could add the evidence of a dozen more to the same purport. I think I

have clearly proved that

LINCOLN WAS A UNIVERSALIST

in 1833; that he wrote a manuscript on that subject then; that in 1847

he

DENIED THE CHARGE

of infidelity; that in 1850-58-59 he was still a Universalist. If this

be true when was he an infidel? But to get a clear understanding of

the case, Universalism and infidelity are as far apart as the poles.

Universalism maintains that there is one God, whose nature is love

revealed in our Lord Jesus Christ. This Lincoln certainly believed,

infidelity denies it. Universalism maintains that Christ was the Son

of God; infidelity denies it. Universalism maintains that the Old and

New Testament Scriptures contain a record of God's revelation to man;

infidelity denies it, and says the New Testament is no more inspired

than Homer's songs, Milton's "Paradise Lost," or Shakspeare. My

authority for the infidel view is W. H. Herndon, in his letter.

Before closing, I wish it distinctly understood that if I could show

that

LINCOLN WAS NOT AN INFIDEL

without showing him a Universalist, I would do so; that I am not trying

to bolster up Universalism on Lincoln's faith, as I do not claim to be

a Universalist myself.

There are many points in Mr. Herndon's lecture and letter that I might

notice, but as I am only trying to show that

HERNDON IS WRONG

in his understanding of Lincoln's religious belief, I shall not notice

them, as they do not concern me or the question in dispute.

Mr. Herndon, in his lecture and letter both, says Mr. Lincoln wrote a

manuscript against Christianity. Mr. Graham,

LINCOLN'S TEACHER

at the time, testifies that he had the manuscript in his possession

eight to ten days, read it two or three times carefully and it was

in favor of Christianity and universal salvation. Mr. Mostiller says

Lincoln flatly denied infidelity in 1847, and he would swear to it. Mr.

Harnett heard Lincoln on the atonement in 1858. Mr. Cogdal testifies

to the same in 1859. The character of all these men for truth and

veracity is as good as any man in Sangamon or Menard County. Harnett

and Mostiller are both Methodists, differing politically. Graham and

Cogdal are both Universalists, and agree politically. Mr. Herndon in

his letter says the manuscript was burned by Sam Hill. Mr. Graham

explains it was a letter in regard to a lady,

MISS ANN RUTLEDGE,

that Hill burned. It seems to me Mr. Herndon has got the manuscript

and letter confounded, and shot off hand without taking aim at the

right object. My friend Herndon, at the close of his lecture, derives

consolation from the fact that a true history can be written free from

the fear of fire and stake. Friend Herndon, if your life is certainly

not in danger some true spirit will

DRAG THE TRUTH

out to the light of day.

But hear the closing words of Herndon's lecture; "Now let it be

written in history and on Mr. Lincoln's tomb he died an unbeliever."

Mr. Herndon is in a hurry about it. Be patient, William; wait for the

unfolding of events. The decree has long since gone out; those words

will never be inscribed on

LINCOLN'S TOMB,

nor written in history. When my friend, W. H. Herndon, dies, if he

wishes a monument on a small scale placed over his grave with the

inscription, "Here lies W. H. Herndon, a man who in life held that the

New Testament Scriptures were no more inspired than Homer's songs,

Milton's Paradise Lost, or Shakspeare," or if he desires it, add

"Munchausen's Travels," I will not, for one, object to the inscription.

As regards Mr. Herndon's own belief, he leaves no room for doubt.

B. F. IRWIN.

From the Illinois _State Journal_, Saturday Morning, May 15, 1874.

MORE TESTIMONY

Letter from the Hon. Wm. Reid, U. S. Consul at Dundee, Scotland.

(Dundee, Scotland, Correspondence [March 4, 1874] Portland [Oregon]

_Oregonian_).

The _Weekly Oregonian_ of January last arrived and I am grieved to

see in it opened afresh that controversy over Lincoln's religious

views. Being well conversant with the affairs of the Lincoln family,

knowing Mrs. Lincoln personally, having been in correspondence with

that lady, and having also been of some assistance in a work entitled

"Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln," I may be permitted to speak with

some knowledge of the facts.

Lincoln, when 16 years of age,

IN THE BACKWOODS OF WESTERN INDIANA

heard a sermon by a traveling Presbyterian minister--the Rev. Dr.

Smith--(afterwards of the First Presbyterian Church of Springfield,

Illinois) then a minister of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church.

The subject was: "Is there no Balm in Gilead? Is there no Physician

there?" The sermon was delivered at the village of Rockfort, four

miles from the small farm of Thomas Lincoln, Abraham's father. There

was a great revival on that occasion. Always a deep thinker, even

when a boy, Lincoln was seriously impressed. Adopting his own words,

he remembered the sermon for more than twenty years afterwards. Book

after book he then read on the authenticity of the Scriptures, and was

satisfied. Many years after delivering that sermon Dr. Smith removed to

Springfield, Illinois.

This same Dr. Smith, I spent two years with here at Dundee, and

attended him to his death in 1871. He was the bosom friend of Lincoln,

and the friend and dearly beloved pastor of the Lincoln family.

Some years after Dr. Smith happened on a Sabbath day, in his church at

Springfield, to re-deliver his sermon (delivered, I think, eighteen

years previous). "Is there no Balm in Gilead? Is there no Physician

there?" Lincoln, always a regular attendant, was there and was much

startled. When the congregation had gone, he sought the preacher. "Dr.

Smith," said he, "was it you who preached that sermon when I was a boy

at Rockfort?" "Yes." "Well," said Mr. Lincoln, "I have never forgotten

that sermon, and never will." I need not narrate what then passed

between them. Sometime after this a discussion arose in Springfield, as

to the credibility of the Scripture. Knowing Lincoln's well-balanced

mind, his studious and deep-thinking nature and downright honesty,

a gentleman, anxious to have his views, asked if he believed the

Scriptures were strictly true. Lincoln answered: "I have investigated

that matter thoroughly, as a lawyer would do, examining testimony, and

I hold that the arguments in favor of the credibility, inspiration, and

Divine authority of the Scripture are unanswerable."

At an annual meeting of the Presbyterian Church of Springfield, or

rather of the Bible Society of that church, Lincoln delivered a long

address on the same subject--the authenticity of the Scriptures. An

able address it was. His arguments are too lengthy for me to narrate.

For seven years, down to the day of his departure for Washington to

ASSUME THE DUTIES OF THE PRESIDENCY,

he was a member of that congregation, and took part and aided in all

benevolent undertakings in connection with the church. Were I allowed

to unfold to the public what is sacred, that which I know of Mr.

Lincoln's inner life during the four years he was President, his memory

would be revered by all Christians for his entire dependence during

that eventful period upon God's guidance, and not on himself. Truly no

man thought less of himself and of his nothingness without God. This is

exemplified in his public life. When assuming the Presidency, what did

he say? Speaking of the contrast of his time to Washington's:

"I feel that I cannot succeed without the same Divine Aid which

sustained him [Washington], and on the same Almighty Being I place my

reliance for support. And I hope that you, my friends, will all pray

that I may receive that Divine assistance, without which I cannot

succeed, but with which success is certain."

If an infidel, then is it possible that Abraham Lincoln could be an

honest man as the world knows he was--and make that assertion? Is it

necessary for me to say more? If so, let me remind you of his words

(1) To that zealous

LADY OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMISSION

during the war, in answer to her views of religion:

If what you have told me is really a correct view, I think I can say

with sincerity that I hope I am a Christian.

(2) To the Philadelphia Church Conference in 1864: Allow me to attest,

in response to your address, the accuracy of its historical statements;

indorse the sentiments it expresses, and thank you in the Nation's name

for the sure promise it gives. God bless the Methodist Church, God

bless all the churches, and blessed be God who giveth us, in this our

great trial, churches!

(3) To the Cabinet on the emancipation of the slaves:

"I made a solemn vow before God that if General Lee were driven from

Pennsylvania, I would crown the result by declaring freedom to the

slaves."

(4) On the same subject [slavery] remember he said: "Whatever appears

to be God's will, I will do."

ONE MORE FINAL PUBLIC ACT

and I am done. At Baltimore he was presented by the negroes of that

city with a copy of the Scriptures. In reply, Lincoln said:

"In regard to the great Book, I have only to say, it is the best gift

which God has given to man. All the good from the Saviour of the world

is communicated to us through this Book. But for that Book we could not

know right from wrong. All those things desirable to man are contained

in it."

It may appear unnecessary for me to repeat Lincoln's

PUBLIC EXPRESSIONS OF RELIGION

in conjunction with what I have issued to the world for the first time,

as to his religious life in private before he was President, but as

my object is to connect his private and public religious expressions

together, and bring them down from the time he was sixteen years old to

his death, and to show that he was, for these thirty years,

UNIFORMLY A CHRISTIAN MAN,

you will pardon my repeating in part what the whole world already

knows. Take Lincoln's expressions altogether as above quoted by me,

and I submit you will find not only an absence of the slightest doubt

of religion on his part, but an entire reliance on God alone for

guiding himself and the events of the world. And yet that foolish

man, Herndon, will say--and I am sorry to see a small portion of the

American press will repeat--that Abraham Lincoln was an Infidel.

Marvelous! I am proud to think I have in my possession--as a reward for

a few insignificant services done by me on account of Mrs. Lincoln--the

great and Martyred President's psalm book, which he used while at the

White House, and I shall retain it as a proud memento for my family, of

"Lincoln the Good--the Saviour of his Country."

A word before I close, as to Mrs. Lincoln. She is a lady of great

merit, and spite of Herndon's mad expression to the contrary, was

dearly loved by the President, as his letters to her will show, and one

does not wonder at it, as her love and regard for him to this day is

even greater than tongue can tell. If the American people understood

Mrs. Lincoln as well as I do, they would respect her equally as they

did Lincoln.

Yours truly,

WILLIAM REED,

United States Consul, Dundee, Scotland.

From the Illinois _State Journal_, Saturday Morning, May 15, 1874.

WHY LINCOLN APPOINTED HIM

Reading (Pa.) _News_

The Rev. James Shrigley who is well known here, was appointed by

President Lincoln a hospital Chaplain during the war. Pending his

confirmation by the United States, a self-constituted committee of

the Young Men's Christian Association called on the President to

protest against the appointment. After Mr. Shrigley's name had been

mentioned the President said: "Oh, yes, I have sent it to the Senate.

His testimonials are highly satisfactory, and the appointment will, no

doubt, be confirmed at an early day."

The young men replied: "But, sir, we have come not to ask the

appointment, but to solicit you to withdraw the nomination, on the

ground that Mr. Shrigley is not evangelical in his sentiments." "Ah!"

said the President, "that alters the case. On what point of doctrine is

the gentleman unsound?" "He does not believe in endless punishment,"

was the reply. "Yes," added another of the committee, "he believes that

even the rebels themselves will finally be saved, and it will never do

to have a man with such views a hospital Chaplain."

The President hesitated to reply for a moment, and then responded with

an emphasis they will long remember: "If that be so, gentlemen, and

there be any way under heaven whereby the rebels can be saved, then for

God's sake let the man be appointed!"

He was appointed.

From the _Daily Illinois State Register_, Friday, April 29, 1881.

APPENDIX VII

"THE CHRISTIAN'S DEFENCE"

THE debate out of which this volume grew was held at Columbus,

Mississippi, in the spring of 1841, between Rev. James Smith and Mr.

C. G. Olmsted. Mr. Olmsted, the author of a work entitled, "The Bible

Its Own Refutation," was a resident of Columbus. Dr. Smith visited

this city during the winter of 1839-1840, and finding the young men

of the place to be very largely under the influence of Mr. Olmsted,

he delivered a series of lectures, especially addressed to the young

men of the place, on "The Natures and Tendencies of Infidelity," and

another upon, "The Evidences of Christianity." While these lectures

were in progress, Dr. Smith was approached by a committee, who

sympathized with Mr. Olmsted's views, and who, with the sanction of Mr.

Olmsted, brought a written challenge to Dr. Smith to meet Mr. Olmsted

in a public discussion of the whole ground at issue between them. Dr.

Smith accepted on condition that he have time for adequate preparation.

He communicated with friends in Great Britain, who procured and sent

to him the latest and best material bearing on the subject. His

book contains reproductions of the supposed Zodiac at Denderah, and

a colored reproduction from the monuments of Egypt of brickmakers,

believed to be Israelites. The researches of Rawlinson were made

available to him, and a considerable body of additional literature.

Because Dr. Smith's book has been spoken of slightingly by men who

never saw it and who had the vaguest possible notion of its content,

and because the book itself is so excessively rare that in the nature

of the case few readers of this volume can have access to it, I have

copied the Title Page, a portion of the advertisement, and the whole of

the very full Table of Contents.

We need not concern ourselves with the question whether Dr. Smith's

line of argument is that which probably would be found most cogent

if a similar debate were to be held at the present day. Sources of

information are now available, of which neither Dr. Smith nor his

opponent could possibly have had any knowledge. But any reader of this

chapter analysis will be compelled to testify that a book which covered

the ground of this outline and did it with logical acumen and force

of reasoning, is not to be spoken of now in terms other than those of

admiration for the industry and earnestness of the author, and the

cogency of the conclusions which he deduced from his premises. One is

prepared to believe from the testimony included in a number of letters

that are reprinted in the advertisement and in the preface that these

lectures produced a profound impression upon those who heard this

discussion.

The more carefully these lectures are examined, the more probable does

it appear that in form and method they would have been likely to make,

what they appear to have made, a very strong impression upon Abraham

Lincoln. It must have been evident to him that Dr. Smith was familiar

with both sides of the question, and Lincoln can but have admired the

courage and ardor with which he went into a discussion so fully in

keeping with methods which Abraham Lincoln himself enjoyed and which

later he employed in his great debate with Douglas. We can well believe

that he spoke with the utmost sincerity when he told Dr. Smith that he

counted the argument unanswerable, and stated to his brother-in-law,

Hon. Ninian W. Edwards, and his associate at the bar, Mr. Thomas Lewis,

that these lectures had modified his own opinion.

NOTICES OF THE DEBATE WHICH LED TO THE PUBLISHING OF THE CHRISTIAN'S

DEFENCE

From the _Southwestern Christian Advocate_, Columbus, Miss., 1841

MR. EDITOR--I have thought that a concise account of this debate might

not be unacceptable to your readers. It is a mortifying fact, that

this city has become FAMOUS--or rather INFAMOUS for the prevalence of

deism and atheism among her citizens. This has been produced in a good

degree by the efforts of an old gentleman by the name Olmsted. Since

his residence here, which has been for about four years, he has been

untiring in his exertions to sow the seeds of moral death in this

community. He has organized his converts into a band, that operates

systematically. He has written a book, which is not exceeded by TOM

PAINE'S _Age of Reason_, for scurrility and ridicule. The old gentleman

is as artful as the old DESTROYER himself; by which means he has

obtained an immense influence over the minds of the young men of this

place.

The circumstances which gave rise to the debate were as follows:

The Rev. James Smith, during a visit in this city, delivered a few

discourses on the dangerous tendencies of infidelity, addressing

himself particularly to the youth. This induced a committee of infidel

gentlemen to address a written challenge to Mr. S., to meet their

champion, Mr. O., in a public debate. Mr. S. by the advice of many

intelligent friends of truth, accepted the challenge. The time arrived,

and the discussion commenced. All was anxiety and interest. The house

was crowded, even the aisles and windows, with attentive hearers. They

arranged to speak alternately, one, two hours each night, and the other

a half hour; so the debate continued two hours and a half each night.

From the representation of Mr. O's talents, learning, and preparation,

we were made to tremble for the results; but we were not a little

disappointed to find the old gentleman fall far below his fame....

He asserted that the Jews did not believe in a future state of

existence, until after the Babylonish captivity; that they borrowed

their doctrines of the immortality of the soul from the nations among

whom they were dispersed--that the Jews believed in a plurality of

gods--that St. Paul was the author of Christianity--that Christianity

encourages polygamy. To prove this last position, he quoted Paul's

directions to Timothy: "Let a bishop be the husband of one wife." And

to crown the mass of absurdities, he endeavored to prove that the

blessed Jesus was a base impostor.

We found Mr. Smith well prepared for the contest. He had his arguments

systematically arranged--had written them all, and read them well.

He proved to a demonstration, the GENUINENESS, AUTHENTICITY and

INSPIRATION of the Old Testament Scriptures. His arguments were

interesting and convincing. His arguments on the New Testament were

equally happy, and if possible, more convincing. The conclusion of

every inquirer after truth, must have been, that the champion of

deism was signally defeated, and his cause left bleeding on the field.

I doubt not but the defeat would have been more complete, had Mr. S.

omitted some of his personal allusions, and had he suppressed his

natural inclination to sarcasm. Indeed his blasts of sarcasm were truly

WITHERING. His opponent, finding that he could not cope with him in

this respect, retreated, and took shelter under the sympathies of his

audience.

Yours, &c.,

ONE OF THE HEARERS.

THE

CHRISTIAN'S DEFENCE

CONTAINING

A FAIR STATEMENT AND IMPARTIAL EXAMINATION

OF THE

LEADING OBJECTIONS URGED BY INFIDELS

AGAINST THE

ANTIQUITY, GENUINENESS, CREDIBILITY AND

INSPIRATION

OF THE

HOLY SCRIPTURES;

ENRICHED WITH COPIOUS EXTRACTS FROM

LEARNED AUTHORS.

BY JAMES SMITH.

"The Christian Faith,

Unlike the tim'rous creeds of pagan priests,

Is frank, stands forth to view, inviting all

To prove, examine, search, investigate;

And gave herself a light to see her by."

--_Pollock's Course of Time_, B. iv.

"If I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is

that which I desired; but if slenderly and meanly, it

is that which I could attain unto."--2 _Maccabees_ xv, 38.

TWO VOLUMES IN ONE

CINCINNATI:

STEREOTYPED AND PUBLISHED BY J. A. JAMES

1843

CONTENTS

VOLUME I

ON THE CREDIBILITY, ANTIQUITY, AND GENUINENESS OF

THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES

CHAPTER I

The nations of the earth are indebted to the Jews for the

Bible.--Taylor's assertion, that no such nation as the Jewish

ever existed. Its confutation. The Jews and Christians

hold the Old Testament to be a revelation from God.

Infidels hold this to be untrue. How the question at issue

is to be settled. The frame of mind necessary to an impartial

examination of the subject.--Objections of the

Atheistical Infidel against the claims of the Bible as a

divine revelation. Mr. Olmsted's misrepresentation of the

position of the advocates of Revelation. The questions at

issue between the Christian and Atheist. That between

the Christian and the Deist 1

SECTION I.--Confutation of the theory of the materialist.

Confutations of the positions of the two classes of

Atheists 6

SECTION II.--Hume's argument to prove that Polytheism

was the first religion of mankind. Its confutation 23

SECTION III.--Of the style of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Example from Mr. Olmsted, showing the necessity

of understanding its nature. The Scriptures speak the language

of appearances, but strictly philosophical 40

CHAPTER II

Mr. Olmsted's assertion concerning the requisitions of the advocate

of Revelation in examining the credibility of the

Mosaic writings. Its falsehood. His allegation that the

first sentence in the Bible contains a falsehood. The confutation

of his argument. His objection to the credibility

of the Mosaic narrative of the creation founded on the

statement that the world was made in six days. Vindication

of the Mosaic narrative.--Infidel objection to the

Mosaic narrative founded on the zodiacs in the temples of

Latapolis and Tantyra. Its fallacy.--Dr. Keith's proofs

of the truthfulness of the Mosaic narrative of the creation 48

SECTION I.--Mosaic account of the creation confirmed

by tradition. The Hindoo account; that of Ovid; the

Phenician; the Egyptian; that of Plato.--The heathen

tradition concerning the first man. Division of time into

weeks, a confirmation of the Mosaic narrative 75

SECTION II.--Paine's and Olmsted's objection on account

of the narrative of the fall of man. Their confutation.

The Mosaic narrative of the fall of man confirmed

by heathen traditions; by the universality of serpent worship;

by the condition of mankind; by the opinions of the

heathen philosophers concerning the corruption of human

nature; by the belief of the Brahmins; by the opinions of

the classical mythologists, and by the universal practice of

animal sacrifice.--The account of the translation of Enoch

confirmed by the Grecian fables.--The longevity of the

antediluvian patriarchs confirmed by heathen traditions.--Mosaic

account of man of gigantic stature confirmed by

the Greek and Latin poets 85

CHAPTER III

Objection to the Mosaic narrative of the deluge, because contrary

to the philosophy of Nature. Its fallacy.--The truth

of the narrative confirmed by the fossil remains of animals.

--Objection founded on the size of the ark. Shown

to be fallacious.--Objection founded on certain marks of

antiquity said to exist in the lava of Mt. Etna. Mr.

Horne's confutation of the argument.--Objection on account

of the differences in color, existing among mankind.

Its fallacy. Dr. Good's argument, confirmatory of the

Mosaic narrative.--Objections founded upon the supposed

antiquity of the eastern nations. Confutation of the objection.

--Objections founded on the condition of America

when discovered by Columbus. Proofs that two distinct

races of men immigrated into America from Asia. The

present Indians, of the same race with the tribes of

northern Asia. The ancient Mexicans and Peruvians,

originally proceeded from the same stock with the nations

of southern Asia 100

SECTION I.--Mosaic account of the deluge confirmed by

Pagan history. Its memory incorporated with almost every

part of the heathen mythology. Noah claimed by all the

heathen nations as their founder, and worshiped by them as

a god. Saturn, of the Greeks and Latins, Menu of the

Hindoos, and Noah identical. The Hindoo account of the

deluge. The Chinese and Grecian accounts. The ark mentioned

by heathen historians. Plutarch's notice of the dove

which was sent out of the ark. The heathens carried their

deities in an ark. Ancient medals commemorative of the

deluge. American traditions of that calamity. Summing

up of the argument 125

SECTION II.--Confirmation of the Mosaic representation

of the origin of families and nations. Testimony of

Sir W. Jones.--Confirmation of the Mosaic accounts of

the tower of Babel.--Of the destruction of Sodom and

Gomorrah. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, known to the ancient

heathens. Mr. Olmsted's attempt to invalidate the

Mosaic account of the condition of the Israelites in Egypt.

The confutation of his argument.--His argument to invalidate

the truth of the Mosaic narrative of the exode of

the Israelites from Egypt and the circumstances attending

it. Vindication of the Mosaic narrative.--Explanation of

the design of the miraculous interposition in behalf of the

Israelites. The fitness and tendency of each of the plagues

inflicted upon the Egyptians. Confutation of Mr. Olmsted's

allegation that Moses extorted permission for the

Israelites to leave Egypt, by false pretentions. Vindication

of the Mosaic account of the hardening of Pharaoh's

heart. Mr. Olmsted's supposition that the Israelites were

a horde of rude barbarians, in behalf of whom there was

no divine interposition. The fallacy and absurdity of his

supposition 135

SECTION III.--Collateral testimony confirmative of the

Mosaic account of the exode of the Israelites from Egypt,

their sojourn in the wilderness, and settlement in Canaan.

Curious discovery confirmatory of the Mosaic narrative.

Trogus' account of the origin of the Jews. The account of

their origin by Apion, an Egyptian writer. Manetho's account

of the shepherds who retreated from Egypt to Judea.

Tacitus' account of the origin of the Jews. Artapanus'

relation concerning Moses. Janes and Jambres, the Egyptian

magicians, well known to heathen writers. Strabo's account

of Moses. The account of the Heliopolitans concerning the

passage of the Red Sea. A similar tradition by Diodorus.

The inhabitants of Corondel to this day preserve the remembrance

of the passing of the Red Sea by the Israelites.

The names of different places passed by the Israelites

during their sojourn in the wilderness confirm the Mosaic

narrative. The writer of the Orphic verses speaks of

Moses and the tables of the Laws. Didorus Siculus notices

Moses. Dionysius Longius makes honorable mention of

Moses. Accuracy of the Mosaic narrative of the sojourn

in the wilderness confirmed by Laborde. The tomb of

Aaron on Mount Hor, confirms the truth of the Mosaic

narrative. Summing up of the argument from collateral

testimony. A very conclusive evidence of the truth of the

Mosaic history quoted from Dr. Keith.--The history of the

Israelites subsequent to the settlement in Canaan corroborated

by profane writers. Curious discovery, illustrative

of the Scriptural account of the war carried on by

Pharaoh-Necho against the Jews and Babylonians.--Confutation

of the objection founded by Infidels upon the supposed

sterility of the soil of Palestine. Forcible testimony

to the credibility of the Old Testament Scriptures afforded

by the present condition of the Jews 159

CHAPTER IV

Efforts of Infidels to show that the books of the Old Testament

are forgeries of comparative modern date. Their

objections considered. Curious discovery illustrative of the

antiquity and exactness of the Mosaic writings. The utter

impossibility of the books being forgeries proven.--Mr.

Olmsted's argument to prove that the book of the law was

forged by Ezra. Confutation of his argument. Proofs

that the law could not have been forged by Daniel nor by

any of the captives in Babylon; that it could not have been

forged by Isaiah. A forgery could not have been effected

after the revolt of the ten tribes. It could not have been

forged by David; nor by Saul: nor by any of the Judges

who preceded Samuel. The law existed in Joshua's time.

Joshua could not have forged the law. The impossibility

of practicing a fraud upon the Israelites during a sojourn

in the wilderness.--The books of the Pentateuch have internal

marks, which demonstrate that they were written

by Moses. The book of Genesis included by the Jews in

the book of the law. Evidences of its antiquity and genuineness.

--Profane testimony to the genuineness of the

Mosaic writings. Objection on the ground that although

Moses wrote a book called the book of the law, we have

no evidence that it was the book now current in his name.

The objection considered and answered 193

SECTION I.--Objection of Infidels against the books of

Judges, Kings, and Chronicles, because they are anonymous.

The objection answered.--The objections against the genuineness

of the other books of the Old Testament. In effect

answered in the foregoing arguments.--Mr. Paine's argument

to prove that the Mosaic writings are spurious,

founded upon the style. Confutation of his argument. His

argument founded on the passage "Now the man Moses

was very meek," etc. Its confutation.--His argument

founded on the statement that Abraham pursued the four

kings unto Dan. Its fallacy.--His argument founded on

what is said of the descendants of Esau. The argument

considered, confuted.--His argument founded on the passage

"The children of Israel did eat manna until they came

to a land inhabited," etc. Its fallacy. His argument founded

on what is said concerning Og's bedstead. The argument

confuted.--The argument founded on the record of the

death of Moses being contained in the books attributed to

him. The argument confuted.--The evidence adduced

establishes the genuineness and credibility of the books.--Objection

that Moses must have borrowed the history of

the creation from the traditions which obtained in his time.

Reply to the objection.--The question, Whence did Moses

derive the materials of his history? Answered by Mr.

Horne.--Objections on the ground that no dependence is to

be placed in the present text of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Its fallacy 227

CHAPTER V

A number of objections necessarily omitted, stated and answered.--Mr.

Olmsted's argument to prove that the author

of the book of Genesis was a polytheist. Its confutation.--His

argument to prove that the author of the book of

Genesis believed God to be a corporeal being. Its confutation.

Objections founded on the statements concerning

Cain. Their fallacy.--Cavil of Infidels at the curse pronounced

by Noah upon Canaan. Its unreasonableness.

Objections founded on the cause assigned for the diversity

of languages. Vindication of the Scriptural account.--Objection

founded on the conduct of Lot. Its fallacy.--Objection

founded on the misconduct of Abraham. Consideration

of the objection as applied not merely to Abraham,

but also to Jacob and David.--Objection on the ground that

God is represented as commanding Abraham to sacrifice

Isaac. Vindication of the Scriptural account of that affair.

--Objection, on the ground that circumcision was first

practiced by the Egyptians. Its fallacy.--Objection

founded on the representation given by Moses of the works

of the Egyptian magicians during the plagues in Egypt.

Mr. Farmer's satisfactory reply 250

SECTION I.--Infidels assert that the pillar of cloud and

fire is a fiction. The assertion considered and answered.--The

assertion that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea at

Suez. Vindication of the Scriptural account. Assertion

that the tremendous scene upon Sinai was a cheat. Its

fallacy. Olmsted's objection founded on the length of time

the Israelites were in the wilderness. Explanation of the

design of the dealings of Jehovah with the Israelites.

Vindication of the dresses, rites, and customs enjoyed by

the ceremonial law. Objection founded on the repeated

apostacies of the Israelites. The objection considered and

answered. The objection founded on the treatment of the

Moabites and the Midianites. Considered and answered.--Objection,

on the ground that the Israelites were commanded

to exterminate the Canaanites. Considered and

answered.--Assertion that the Old Testament Scriptures

sanction adultery and murder. Its falsehood.--Assertion

that Jehovah kept false prophets, and violated his promises.

Mr. Horne's answer.--Objection founded on the speaking

of Balaam's ass. Considered and answered. Mr. Paine's

objection on the ground that the sun is represented as

standing still upon Mt. Gibeon. Vindication of the Scriptural

account of that miraculous event. Dr. Clarke's very

satisfactory reply to the objection. Objection founded on

the passage, "Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord, and

he brought the shadow ten degrees backward by which it

had gone down on the dial of Ahaz."--Objection founded

on what is said of the Witch of Endor. Considered and

answered 275

VOLUME II

THE GENUINENESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES

CHAPTER I

The books of the New Testament written by eight Jews.--Why

called New Testament? Infidels deny the genuineness

of the books.--Hold that the writers were impostors, and

the religion taught in them a fraud practiced upon mankind.

The difficulties attending the examination of the claims

of the New Testament to genuineness and credibility.--How

the subject should be approached.--The denial of the

genuineness of the books of modern dates. Toland charged

with having betrayed his suspicion that the writings were

forgeries. The suspicion of an anonymous Italian.--Its

absurdity.--Gibbon acknowledges the genuineness of the

writings.--Volney lays it down as a clear case, that no such

person as Jesus Christ ever existed. His theory adopted,

defended, and extensively circulated by Taylor. His positions

defined in his manifesto.--His unblushing falsehoods

promptly met and refuted by English Divines. Hitherto

unanswered in this country.--His first and second propositions

taken up.--How the authorship which has no name

prefixed to it is to be ascertained. The rule applied to the

New Testament 3

SECTION I.--Marks given by Michaelis by which the

spuriousness of a book may be discovered.--How books

anciently found their way to the public. The congregations

before whom the original copies of the New Testament

were read, vouchers of their genuineness.--The ancient adversaries

of Christianity admitted the genuineness of the

writings. The testimony of Trypho, the Jew. The testimony

of Celsus. The writings of Celsus against Christianity

of great value in enabling the advocate of Revelation,

of the present day, to prove that Jesus Christ is the

son of God. The testimony of Porphyry. Testimony of

Hierocles, the philosopher.--Testimony of the emperor

Julian. Testimony of Taylor himself. The quotations

from the New Testament by the most virulent enemies of

Christianity of ancient times. Demonstrate the genuineness

of the writings.--The immediate disciples of the

apostles acknowledge the genuineness of the books. The

epistles of the Apostolic fathers. Their genuineness unquestionable.

These writings prove the genuineness of the

New Testament. The epistles of Barnabas written shortly

after the destruction of Jerusalem. Table illustrating that

the New Testament writings were extant when Barnabas

wrote, or, at least, that he was conversant with some of

the writers of the book. The epistle of Clement, when and

to whom written. Table exhibiting quotations from the

New Testament in the epistle of Clement. Writings of

Hermas; when written. Table exhibiting the quotations of

Hermas from the New Testament. Ignatius, when he

flourished. Table of his quotations from the New Testament.

Polycarp, the friend of the apostle John. Table of

his quotations from the New Testament. Summing up of

the testimony of the apostolic fathers.--Ignatius and Polycarp

seal their testimony with their blood.--Martyrdom of

Polycarp 13

SECTION II.--Papias ascribes two gospels to Matthew

and Mark. Testimony of Justin, of Irenaenus, of Tertullian,

of Clemens Alexandrinus. Table of quotations by

these witnesses. Testimony of Origen: His quotations

from the New Testament. Testimony of Eusebius and

Jerome.--Number and antiquity of the manuscripts of the

New Testament. An argument for the genuineness of its

books. Curious discovery which confirms the genuineness

of the New Testament writings.--The council of Laodicea

did not design to settle the Canon 67

CHAPTER II

ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE BOOKS.--Mr. Taylor's arguments

to prove that the writings of the New Testament are spurious.

Exposure of his dishonesty in quoting from Dr.

Lardner. Mr. P. Smith's refutation of his allegation that

the Scriptures were altered by the Emperor Anastasius.

Exposure of his dishonesty in quoting from Beausobre.

Refutation of his allegation that the Scriptures were altered

by Lanfranc. Refutation of his argument drawn from the

various readings. The passage of the Unitarian New

Version cited by Mr. Taylor in support of his allegation.

Dr. Bentley on the various readings. Gaussen on the

various readings. Tables illustrative of the various readings.

Trouble of Bengel about the integrity of the original

text. The success of his labors in sacred criticism 84

SECTION I.--Taylor's dishonesty in referring to the

works of Herbert Marsh, in support of his allegation that

the manuscript from which the received text was taken was

stolen from the librarian. Explanation of the story of the

sale of the manuscript to a skyrocket maker. Taylor's falsehood

in his pretended reference to Bishop Marsh, in support

of his allegation that for the principal passage in the book of

Revelation there was no original Greek. Notice of Mr.

Taylor's charge that the tendency of the New Testament is

immoral and wicked. J. J. Rousseau's testimony to the

morality of the Gospel. Exposure of Mr. Taylor's dishonesty

in quoting from Mosheim in support of his allegation

that ecclesiastical historians admit their inability to show

when or by whom the New Testament Scriptures were

written. Refutation of his allegation. The Apocryphal

books collected and published by Jeremiah Jones. Refutation

of Mr. Taylor's assertion what he terms the true and

genuine gospel. Refutation of Mr. Taylor's objection on

the ground of modernisms contained in some passages of

the New Testament, and the ignorance of the four evangelists

of the geography and statistics of Judea. The

summing up of the argument on the genuineness of the

New Testament Scriptures 107

CHAPTER III

CREDIBILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES.--The number

of the witnesses who testify to the facts detailed in the

New Testament. How the credibility of a historical book

is to be ascertained. The rule as applied to Christian

writings. Their genuineness proves their credibility. The

writers of the New Testament could not have falsified the

facts relative to Jesus Christ. The objection on the ground

that the Jews rejected the claims of Jesus Christ. Its confutation.

The conduct of the Jewish nation in rejecting

Christ accounted for. The conversion of many of the

Gentiles proves the credibility of the book. The character,

circumstances, and conduct of the men who testify of

Jesus prove their credibility. Difficulty to be surmounted

by those who maintain that the apostles and evangelists

were impostors. Summing up of the argument on the

credibility of the witnesses 125

SECTION I.--Collateral testimony of the truthfulness of

the writers of the New Testament. Testimonies to the

truthfulness of St. Matthew's statement concerning Herod

and Archalaus. Testimony to the truthfulness of the statement

of Luke concerning Herod, Tetrarch of Galilee, and

his brother Phillip, Tetrarch of Itruria. Testimony to the

truthfulness of the evangelists relative to Herod marrying

Herodias. Josephus corroborates Luke's account of the

death of Herod Agrippa. Testimonies of the truthfulness

of the statements in the Acts concerning Felix. A number

of notices, by profane authors, of Pilate, confirmatory of

the truthfulness of the evangelists. Testimonies to the

truthfulness of the evangelists in their statements of the

treatment of Jesus Christ upon trial and when crucified.

Testimonies confirming statements of the evangelists concerning

the burial of Jesus Christ. Notice taken of John

the Baptist by Josephus. What he says concerning Jesus

Christ. Notices of Jesus Christ from the ancient Jewish

Talmudical writings. Testimony of the heathen adversary

to the leading facts detailed by the evangelists. Summing

up of the argument 140

SECTION II.--The same ground retraced, and the objections

of Mr. Taylor considered and answered. Representation

of Taylor's third and fourth propositions. The

falsehood of Mr. Taylor's assertion that no such person as

Jesus Christ ever existed, proven by the testimony of

Tacitus, of Suetonius, of Martial, of Pliny the Younger.

Mr. Taylor's assertion that some, many, or all, of the

events related of Jesus Christ by the evangelists had formerly

been related of the gods and goddesses of Greece

and Rome. Its confutation to be found in any of the

Pantheons or mythological dictionaries. Exposure of the

malignity and falsehood of Mr. Taylor exhibited in his

attempt to identify Jesus Christ with the heathen idol

Crishna. Citations from Sir W. Jones concerning Crishna.

The testimony of Sir W. Jones impartial. The unreasonableness

and absurdity of Mr. Taylor's conclusions 164

SECTION III.--The last refuge of the infidel is to maintain

either that Jesus Christ was a mistaken enthusiast or

a wicked impostor. Mr. English's argument to prove that

Jesus was a mistaken enthusiast. Its confutation 181

SECTION IV.--Argument by Mr. Olmsted to prove that

Jesus Christ was a wicked impostor. Its confutation 190

CHAPTER IV

OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED.--The objections urged by

infidels of such a nature that, though numerous, to answer

one or two of each class is to answer all. Quotation from

Gaussen, explanatory of the nature and causes of the supposed

contradictions in the writings of the evangelists. Examples

by Gaussen. Explanation of the seeming contradictions

between the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.

Answer to the objection, that certain names occur in Luke's

list of the apostles, which do not appear in that of Matthew.

Answer to the objection on account of the seeming contradiction

in the title which was written over Jesus Christ

when on the cross. Answer to the objection founded on

the seeming contradiction in the different accounts of the

hour when Jesus Christ was suspended on the cross. Answer

to the objection urged against St. Luke when he says,

"It came to pass in those days, that there went out a

decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be

taxed. And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was

Governor of Syria." Answer to the objection founded upon

Jesus cursing the fig-tree. Answer to Taylor's assertion that

Romans 3:7 recommends telling lies for the glory of God.

His assertion that Jesus Christ was not crucified. Its confutation.

His assertion that "Paul and Barnabas did not

preach the same story." Its falsehood demonstrated. His

assertion that some preached a Christ who was not crucified.

Its falsehood. His assertion that Paul called the other

apostles false apostles and dogs. Vindication of the apostles

from this calumny. His assertions that Paul curses the other

apostles and recommends that they should be privately

assassinated. The falsehood of these accusations. The last

refuge of Mr. Taylor in asserting that Christianity had its

origin among the Therapeutae. Other infidels pretend that

the Essenes were the originators of Christianity. Watson's

account of the Essenes and Therapeutae 214

CHAPTER V

DIVINE AUTHORITY AND INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.--What

is to be understood by inspiration? None but an

atheist can deny its possibilities. The gift of inspiration

proved by the performance of supernatural works, and by

the foretelling of future events with preciseness. If these

signs accompanied the authors of the dispensations contained

in the Old and New Testaments, it must be admitted

that the Bible is a revelation from God. The performance

of miracles by the authors of these dispensations attests

their divine mission. A miracle defined. Mr. Hume's argument

against miracles. Lord Brougham's confutation of

the argument. Keith's demonstration of its fallacy. The

miracles of Moses, of Jesus Christ and his apostles accompanied

by evidences which cannot be brought to substantiate

any pretended fact whatever. Mr. Leslie's argument

in favor of this position. Mr. Olmsted's attempt to destroy

the force of Mr. Leslie's argument. Exposure of the

misrepresentations and falsehoods contained in Mr. Olmsted's

argument. Confutation of his argument 232

SECTION I.--Mr. Leslie's criteria applied to the miracles

recorded in the Scriptures. Applied to those of Moses; they

all meet in his miracles. Applied to those of Jesus Christ

and his apostles. Their number, their variety, and the

public manner in which they were performed, attest their

veracity. Miracles of Christ contrasted with those of impostors.

The pretended miracles wrought by Vespasian.

The pretended miracles of the Roman Catholics. Many of

them have been proved to be impostors. The object of

the miracles of Jesus attests their veracity. The great

miracle which lies at the foundation of Christianity, the

resurrection of Jesus Christ. The miracle examined.

Testimony of the evangelists, that Jesus during his life predicted

his death and resurrection. The prediction well

known to the Jewish rulers. The rulers took every necessary

precaution to put his pretensions to the test. The

crucifixion and death of Christ well attested. Precautions

that the body should not be removed until life was extinct.

The precautions of the rulers to prevent the body being

stolen out of the sepulchre. The whole question at issue

between Jesus and the Jewish rulers, suspended on the naked

fact, whether He did or did not rise again on the third

day. The Jewish rulers make their preparation on the

Sabbath to produce the body on the third day. On the

third day the body is missing. Different ways of accounting

for the fact. The disciples alleged that Jesus had

risen from the dead. Their testimony examined. The

Jewish rulers asserted that the disciples stole the body.

The allegation examined. Its falsehood demonstrated.

Subsequent conduct of the Sanhedrin confirms the testimony

of the apostles and evangelists. The adoption of the Jewish

mode of accounting for the fact accompanied with many

difficulties. An acknowledgment of the resurrection of

Jesus involves an acknowledgment of His divine mission.

Mr. Olmsted's objection on the ground that Jesus did not

show Himself publicly and ascend to heaven in the presence

of the whole nation. Its fallacious nature. The testimony

we have of the resurrection of Jesus Christ much more

satisfactory and convincing than that required by Mr.

Olmsted. Insuperable difficulties attending the denial of

the resurrection of Jesus Christ 279

CHAPTER VI

Divine authority of the Scriptures proved from prophecy and

its fulfillment. A prophecy defined. Mr. Watson's argument

in support of the possibility of prophecy. Criteria by

which true may be distinguished from false prophecies.

The prophecies of heathen oracles examined. Proved to

have been impostures. Contrast between the pretended predictions

of the heathen oracles and the prophecies contained

in the Scriptures. Mr. Paine's remarks in relation to the

manner in which future events would be communicated by

a true prophet. Mr. Olmsted's requisition and pledge if it

be met to acknowledge the truth of prophecy. Mr. Olmsted

met upon his own ground. Prophecy relative to the destruction

of Tyre. Its fulfillment proved by the infidel

Volney, and other competent witnesses. Mr. Olmsted,

from his own showing, is bound to believe that Ezekiel

was a true prophet of God. Table of quotations from the

prophecies of the Old Testament, and from Volney's writings,

showing that in spite of himself this infidel proves the

truthfulness of the seers of Israel. Mr. Olmsted's assertion

that the history of Isaiah is made up of scraps, and destitute

of order and meaning. The truth of the assertion tested.

Prophecy of Isaiah concerning Edom. Volney's testimony

of its fulfillment. Testimony of Mr. Stevens. Prophecy

of Jeremiah concerning the capital of Edom. Burchkhardt's

testimony of its fulfillment. Testimony of Captains Irby

and Mangles. Testimony of Mr. Stevens. The infidel

having been met on his own ground, and the fulfillment of

many prophecies proved by competent witnesses, it follows

that the seers of Israel were the true prophets of God 302

SECTION I.--The great theme of the Old Testament

prophets was the coming of the Messiah. The Christian

maintains that these prophecies found an accomplishment in

Christ. This denied by the Jew and the infidel. Mr. English's

argument to show that Jesus was not the Messiah.

First, on account of His genealogy, and, second, because the

prophecies of the Old Testament found no accomplishment

in Him. Mr. English's argument refuted in all its particulars.

Jesus proved to be the true Messiah. The Messiahship

of Jesus Christ being proved, it proves that the

Bible is a revelation from God. Closing address 324

APPENDIX

Starkie's confutation of Hume's argument on evidence 362

APPENDIX VIII

LINCOLN AND THE CHURCHES

By JOHN G. NICOLAY AND JOHN HAY

NOTE.--Some of the important material bearing upon Lincoln's religious

convictions which was collected by Nicolay and Hay and published in

the _Century Magazine_, has, through faulty indexing, been almost

lost. The words "churches" and "religion" are not in the thick index

in the tenth volume of their great work. Finding in the _Century

Magazine_ for August, 1889, an important article on this subject, I

searched in vain for any way of finding it in the book by means of the

index, and two librarians, working in separate libraries, searched

for it and reported to me that it was not in the book. I came to the

conclusion that in the editing of the work for its publication in

book form, the two former secretaries of the President had deemed

some of this matter too personal for their title, "Abraham Lincoln:

a History." But I have discovered the missing passage in the sixth

volume, pages 314-342. Its testimony is in full accord with that

subsequently given by Mr. Hay in the address delivered by him from

Mr. Lincoln's old pew, which is printed in the volume of John Hay's

addresses. The article in the _Century_ is so important that the first

and last portions of it will justify reprinting here. The omitted

portions relate to the relations of Mr. Lincoln and of the Government

to particular churches or denominations.

W. E. B.

IN a conflict which was founded upon the quickened moral sense of

the people it was not strange that the Government received the most

earnest support from the churches. From one end of the loyal States to

the other all the religious organizations, with few exceptions, moved

by the double forces of patriotism and religion, ranged themselves

upon the side of the Government against the rebellion. A large number

of pulpits in the North had already taken their places as tribunes

for the defense of popular freedom, and it was from them that, at

the menace of war, the first cry of danger and of defiance rang out.

Those ministers who had for years been denouncing the encroachments

of slavery did not wait for any organized action on the part of their

colleagues, but proclaimed at once in a thousand varying tones that

peace was "a blessing worth fighting for." The more conservative

churches were but little in the rear of the more advanced. Those who

had counseled moderation and patience with the South on account of

the divided responsibility for slavery which rested on both halves of

the nation speedily felt the sense of release front the obligations

of brotherhood when the South had repudiated and renounced them, and

rallied to the support of the insulted flag with an earnestness not

less ardent, and more steadily trustworthy, than that of the original

antislavery clergy. As the war went on, and as every stage of it gave a

clearer presage of the coming destruction of slavery, the deliverances

of the churches became every day more and more decided in favor of

the national cause and the downfall of human bondage. To detail the

thousand ways in which the churches testified their support of the

national cause, to give even an abstract of the countless expressions

of loyalty which came from the different religious bodies of the

country, would occupy many volumes; we can only refer briefly to a

few of the more important utterances of some of the great religious

societies.

In all the church conventions which met after the President's

preliminary proclamation of the 22d of September, 1862, that act of

liberation was greeted with the heartiest expressions of approval and

support.

As the national authority began to be reëstablished throughout the

States in rebellion, not the least embarrassing of the questions

which generals in command were called upon to decide was that of the

treatment of churches whose pastors were openly or covertly disloyal

to the Union. There was no general plan adopted by the Government for

such cases; in fact, it was impossible to formulate a policy which

should meet so vast a variety of circumstances as presented themselves

in the different regions of the South. The Board of Missions of the

Methodist Church sent down some of their ablest ministers, with general

authority to take charge of abandoned churches, and to establish

in them their interrupted worship. The mission boards of other

denominations took similar action, and the Secretary of War[75] gave

general orders to the officers commanding the different departments

to permit ministers of the gospel bearing the commission of these

mission boards to exercise the functions of their office and to give

them all the aid, countenance, and support which might be practicable.

But before and after these orders there was much clashing between

the military and the ecclesiastical authorities, which had its rise

generally in the individual temperaments of the respective generals

and priests. There was an instance in one place where a young officer

rose in his pew and requested an Episcopal minister to read the prayer

for the President of the United States, which he had omitted. Upon

the minister's refusal the soldier advanced to the pulpit and led the

preacher, loudly protesting, to the door, and then quietly returning

to the altar himself read the prayer--not much, it is to be feared,

to the edification of the congregation. General Butler arrested a

clergyman in Norfolk, and placed him at hard labor on the public works

for disloyalty in belief and action; but the President reversed this

sentence and changed it to one of exclusion from the Union lines.[76]

The Catholic Bishop of Natchez having refused to read the prescribed

form of prayer for the President, and having protested in an able

and temperate paper against the orders of the commanding general in

this regard, the latter ordered him to be expelled from the Union

lines, although the order was almost immediately rescinded. General

Rosecrans issued an order[77] in Missouri requiring the members of

religious convocations to give satisfactory evidence of their loyalty

to the Government of the United States as a condition precedent to

their assemblage and protection. In answer to the protestations which

naturally resulted from this mandate he replied that it was given at

the request of many loyal church members, both lay and clerical; that

if he should permit all bodies claiming to be religious to meet without

question, a convocation of Price's army, under the garb of religion,

might assemble with impunity and plot treason. He claimed that there

was no hardship in compelling the members of such assemblages to

establish their loyalty by oath and certificate, and insisted that his

order, while providing against public danger, really protected the

purity and the freedom of religion.

In the course of these controversies between secessionist ministers

and commanding generals an incident occurred which deserves a moment's

notice, as it led to a clear and vigorous statement from Mr. Lincoln

of his attitude in regard to these matters. During the year 1862 a

somewhat bitter discussion arose between the Rev. Dr. McPheeters of

the Vine Street Church in St. Louis and some of his congregation in

regard to his supposed sympathies with the rebellion. Looking back

upon the controversy from this distance of time it seems that rather

hard measure was dealt to the parson; for although, from all the

circumstances of the case, there appears little doubt that his feelings

were strongly enlisted in the cause of the rebellion, he behaved with

so much discretion that the principal offenses charged against him by

his zealous parishioners were that he once baptized a small rebel by

the name of Sterling Price, and that he would not declare himself in

favor of the Union. The difference in his church grew continually more

flagrant and was entertained by interminable letters and statements on

both sides, until at last the provost-marshal intervened, ordering the

arrest of Dr. McPheeters, excluding him from his pulpit, and taking the

control of his church out of the hands of its trustees. This action

gave rise to extended comment, not only in Missouri, but throughout

the Union. The President, being informed of it, wrote[78] to General

Curtis disapproving the act of the provost-marshal, saying, in a terse

and vigorous phrase, which immediately obtained wide currency, "The

United States Government must not, as by this order, undertake to run

the churches. When an individual in a church, or out of it, becomes

dangerous to the public interest he must be checked; but let the

churches, as such, take care of themselves." But even this peremptory

and unmistakable command did not put an end to the discussion. Taking

the hands of the Government away from the preacher did not quench the

dissensions in the church, nor restore the pastor to the position

which he occupied before the war; and almost a year later some of the

friends of Dr. McPheeters considered it necessary and proper to ask the

intervention of the President to restore to him all his ecclesiastical

privileges in addition to the civil rights which they admitted he

already enjoyed. This the President, in a letter[79] of equal clearness

and vigor, refused to do. "I have never interfered," he said, "nor

thought of interfering, as to who shall, or shall not, preach in any

church; nor have I knowingly or believingly tolerated anyone else to

so interfere by my authority"; but he continues, "If, after all, what

is now sought is to have me put Dr. McPheeters back over the heads of

a majority of his own congregation, that too will be declined. I will

not have control of any church on any side." The case finally ended by

the exclusion of Dr. McPheeters from his pulpit by the order of the

presbytery having ecclesiastical authority in the case.

In this wise and salutary abstention from any interference with the

churches, which was dictated by his own convictions as well as enjoined

by the Constitution, the President did not always have the support

of his subordinates. He had not only, as we have seen, to administer

occasional rebukes to his over-zealous generals, but even in his own

Cabinet he was sometimes compelled to overrule a disposition to abuse

of authority in things spiritual. Several weeks after he had so clearly

expressed himself in the McPheeters case, he found, to his amazement,

that the Secretary of War had been giving orders virtually placing the

army in certain places at the disposition of a Methodist bishop for the

enforcement of his ecclesiastical decrees. He addressed to Mr. Stanton

a note of measured censure,[80] which was followed by an order from the

War Department explaining and modifying the more objectionable features

of the former document. The Secretary explained that his action had

no other intention than to furnish "a means of rallying the Methodist

people in favor of the Union, in localities where the rebellion had

disorganized and scattered them."[81] This explanation was not entirely

satisfactory to the President, but he thought best to make no further

public reference to the matter. Scarcely was this affair disposed of

when a complaint was received from Memphis of some interference by the

military with a church edifice there. Mr. Lincoln made upon the paper

this peremptory indorsement: "If the military have military need of

the church building, let them keep it; otherwise, let them get out

of it, and leave it and its owners alone, except for the causes that

justify the arrest of anyone."[82] Two months later the President,

hearing of further complications in the case, made still another

order, which even at the risk of wearying the reader we will give,

from his own manuscript, as illustrating not only his conscientious

desire that justice should be done, but also the exasperating obstacles

he was continually compelled to surmount, in those troubled times,

to accomplish, with all the vast powers at his disposition, this

reasonable desire.

"I am now told that the military were not in possession of the

building; and yet that in pretended execution of the above they,

the military, put one set of men out of and another set into the

building. This, if true, is most extraordinary. I say again, if

there be no military need for the building, leave it alone, neither

putting anyone in or out of it, except on finding someone preaching or

practicing treason, in which case lay hands upon him, just as if he

were doing the same thing in any other building, or in the streets or

highways."[83]

He at last made himself understood and his orders respected; yet

so widespread was the tendency of generals to meddle with matters

beyond their jurisdiction, that it took three years of such vehement

injunctions as these to teach them to keep their hands away from the

clergy and the churches.

Lincoln had a profound respect for every form of sincere religious

belief. He steadily refused to show favor to any particular

denomination of Christians; and when General Grant issued an unjust and

injurious order against the Jews, expelling them from his department,

the President ordered it to be revoked the moment it was brought to his

notice.[84]

He was a man of profound and intense religious feeling. We have no

purpose of attempting to formulate his creed; we question if he

himself ever did so. There have been swift witnesses who, judging from

expressions uttered in his callow youth, have called him an atheist,

and others who, with the most laudable intentions, have remembered

improbable conversations which they bring forward to prove at once his

orthodoxy and their own intimacy with him. But leaving aside these

apocryphal evidences, we have only to look at his authentic public

and private utterances to see how deep and strong in all the latter

part of his life was the current of his religious thought and emotion.

He continually invited and appreciated, at their highest value, the

prayers of good people. The pressure of the tremendous problems by

which he was surrounded; the awful moral significance of the conflict

in which he was the chief combatant; the overwhelming sense of personal

responsibility, which never left him for an hour--all contributed

to produce, in a temperament naturally serious and predisposed to a

spiritual view of life and conduct, a sense of reverent acceptance of

the guidance of a Superior Power. From that morning when, standing

amid the falling snowflakes on the railway car at Springfield, he asked

the prayers of his neighbors in those touching phrases whose echo rose

that night in invocations from thousands of family altars, to that

memorable hour when on the steps of the Capitol he humbled himself

before his Creator in the sublime words of the second inaugural, there

is not an expression known to have come from his lips or his pen but

proves that he held himself answerable in every act of his career to

a more august tribunal than any on earth. The fact that he was not

a communicant of any church, and that he was singularly reserved in

regard to his personal religious life, gives only the greater force to

these striking proofs of his profound reverence and faith.

In final substantiation of this assertion, we subjoin two papers

from the hand of the President, one official and the other private,

which bear within themselves the imprint of a sincere devotion and

a steadfast reliance upon the power and benignity of an overruling

Providence. The first is an order which he issued on the 16th of

November, 1864, on the observance of Sunday:

"The President, Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, desires and

enjoins the orderly observance of the Sabbath by the officers and

men in the military and naval service. The importance for man and

beast of the prescribed weekly rest, the sacred rights of Christian

soldiers and sailors, a becoming deference to the best sentiment of

Christian people, and a due regard for the Divine will, demand that

Sunday labor in the Army and Navy be reduced to the measure of strict

necessity. The discipline and character of the national forces should

not suffer, nor the cause they defend be imperiled, by the profanation

of the day or name of the Most High. 'At this time of public distress

[adopting the words of Washington in 1776] men may find enough to

do in the service of their God and their country without abandoning

themselves to vice and immorality.' The first General Order issued

by the Father of his Country after the Declaration of Independence

indicated the spirit in which our institutions were founded and should

ever be defended. 'The General hopes and trusts that every officer

and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier,

defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.'"[85]

The date of this remarkable order leaves no possibility for the

insinuation that it sprung from any political purpose, or intention.

Mr. Lincoln had just been re-elected by an overwhelming majority;

his party was everywhere triumphant; his own personal popularity was

unbounded; there was no temptation to hypocrisy or deceit. There

is no explanation of the order except that it was the offspring of

sincere conviction. But if it may be said that this was, after all,

an exoteric utterance, springing from those relations of religion and

good government which the wisest rulers have always recognized in their

intercourse with the people, we will give one other document, of which

nothing of the sort can be said. It is a paper which Mr. Lincoln wrote

in September, 1862, while his mind was burdened with the weightiest

question of his life, the weightiest with which this century has had to

grapple. Wearied with all the considerations of law and of expediency

with which he had been struggling for two years, he retired within

himself and tried to bring some order into his thoughts by rising

above the wrangling of men and of parties, and pondering the relations

of human government to the Divine. In this frame of mind, absolutely

detached from any earthly considerations, he wrote this meditation.

It has never been published. It was not written to be seen of men. It

was penned in the awful sincerity of a perfectly honest soul trying to

bring itself into closer communion with its Maker.

"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to

act in accordance with the will of God. Both _may_ be and one _must_

be wrong. God cannot be _for_ and _against_ the same thing at the

same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's

purpose is something different from the purpose of either party; and

yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the

best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that

this is probably true; that God wills this contest, and wills that it

shall not end yet. By His mere great power on the minds of the now

contestants, He could have either _saved_ or _destroyed_ the Union

without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And having begun, he

could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest

proceeds."

The following brief address by Mr. Lincoln appears never to have been

published. It was discovered, just as this book was going to press, by

Mr. Jesse W. Weik, who hastened to send it to me. It is the shorthand

report of a brief address delivered by Mr. Lincoln at a railroad

junction near La Fayette, Indiana, a few hours after he had left

Springfield on his way to Washington, Saturday, February 11, 1860.

W. H. B.

When I first came to the west some forty-four or forty-five years ago,

at sundown you had completed a journey of some thirty miles, which

you had commenced at sunrise; and you thought you had done well. Now,

only six hours have elapsed since I left my home in Illinois, where I

was surrounded by a large concourse of my fellow citizens, most all of

whom I could recognize; and I find myself far from home, surrounded

by the thousands I now see before me, who are strangers to me. Still

we are bound together, I trust, in Christianity, civilization and

patriotism, and are attached to our country and our whole country.

While some of us may differ in political opinions, still we are all

united in one feeling for the Union.

A CONDENSED BIBLIOGRAPHY

(The bibliographical notes which the author made while this work was

in preparation reached a total of several thousand. From these he at

first selected about five hundred titles, being practically a catalogue

of his own Lincoln library, a list of books about Lincoln which he

considered worth buying. But this also appeared much longer than was

needed for the purposes of this book, and he has therefore prepared

this shorter list of books bearing more directly upon the subject

matter of this volume, and for the convenience of such readers as are

unfamiliar with the literature of the subject he has added comments

upon some of the books or articles.)

I. LINCOLN'S OWN WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

_Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works._ Edited by John G. Nicolay and John

Hay. In Two Volumes. New York: The Century Company, 1894.

There is a larger edition in twelve volumes, with some additions, and

there are two other notable collections, both of them good. No one

of these, however, is entirely complete; and there are volumes such

as "The Uncollected Letters of Lincoln" edited by Gilbert A. Tracy

(Houghton Mifflin & Co., 1917) which supplement the "complete" works.

Very nearly everything which the reader requires, however, is in the

Nicolay and Hay work.

II. LIVES OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN

_Autobiography._ Facsimile Reproduction of Autobiographical Sketch

written by Abraham Lincoln for Jesse W. Fell in 1860. Published by his

daughters at Normal, Ill.

_The Autobiography of Abraham Lincoln._ Sketch furnished by him in 1860

to John Locke Scripps. New York: Francis D. Tandy Company, 1905.

This and the preceding item contain virtually all that Lincoln told the

public about himself.

_Life of Abraham Lincoln._ By John Locke Scripps. 1860. Tribune Tract

No. 6. Prepared from information given by Mr. Lincoln and read and

approved by him before publication.

"_The Wigwam Edition._" The Life, Speeches and Public Services of

Abraham Lincoln, Together with a Sketch of Hannibal Hamlin. New York:

Rudd and Carleton, 1860.

It disputes with Scripps the honor of being the first printed life of

Lincoln, and is of great interest as showing how little was known of

Lincoln in 1860 apart from the sketch which he had himself prepared.

_Life of Abraham Lincoln._ By J. Q. Howard, Cincinnati: Anderson, Gates

and Wright, 1860. With pictures of the Wigwam on the back and is as

rare and desirable as the real "Wigwam Edition."

_Life of Abraham Lincoln_ (of Illinois). With a Condensed View of his

Most Important Speeches; also a Sketch of the Life of Hannibal Hamlin

(of Maine). Authentic edition. By J. H. Barrett. Cincinnati: Moore,

Wilstach, Keyes & Co., 1860.

_Lives and Speeches of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin._ Life of

Lincoln by W. D. Howells. Life of Hamlin by John L. Hays. Columbus,

Ohio: Follett, Foster and Company, 1860.

_The Life and Public Services of Hon. Abraham Lincoln_: to which is

added a Biographical Sketch of Hon. Hannibal Hamlin by D. W. Bartlett.

Authorized edition. New York: Derby & Jackson, 1860.

_Life and Public Services of Hon. Abraham Lincoln of Illinois and Hon.

Hannibal Hamlin of Maine._ Boston: Thayer and Eldridge, 1860.

The above listed campaign biographies, all of them, except the Wigwam

Edition, based directly or indirectly upon the information furnished

first to Scripps, and then to other biographers, are all of remarkable

interest as showing what was then available to make a biography out

of, and what various biographers, under stress of the campaign and the

enterprise of publishers, were able to make out of it.

A list might be added of the 1864 campaign biographies, but for the

present purpose they are unimportant, as also are the first that

followed his death.

_The Life of Abraham Lincoln._ By J. G. Holland. Springfield, Mass.,

published by Gurdon Bill, 1865. By far the best life of Lincoln

published in the first few years after his death, and noted as

containing the Bateman interview, which gave rise to the controversy

concerning Lincoln's religion.

_Life and Public Services of Abraham Lincoln, Together With State

Papers._ By Henry J. Raymond. To which are added anecdotes and

reminiscences of Frank B. Carpenter. New York: Derby & Miller, 1865.

At the time of publication this was the best life of Lincoln in its

assembling of State Papers and important documents.

_The Life of Abraham Lincoln from His Birth to His Inauguration As

President._ By Ward H. Lamon. Boston: James R. Osgood & Company, 1872.

First attempt to give to the world the story of the "real" Lincoln and

a conspicuous example of the fate a man may suffer at the hands of his

friends. Invaluable in its material, but with shocking bad taste; and

said by Herndon to have been written by Chauncey F. Black.

Brings the narrative down to the time of Lincoln's inauguration and was

intended to have been followed by a second volume, but was received

with such disfavor that the concluding volume was never issued.

_Recollections of Abraham Lincoln 1847-1865._ By Ward Hill Lamon.

Edited by Dorothy Lamon. Chicago: A. C. McClurg and Company, 1895.

Second Edition of the Same, with Memoir of Ward Hill Lamon by his

daughter, Dorothy Lamon Teillard. Washington, D. C. Published by the

editor, 1911.

_Herndon's Lincoln: The True Story of a Great Life. Etiam in minimis

major._ The History and Personal Recollections of Abraham Lincoln. By

William H. Herndon, for twenty years his friend and law partner; and

Jesse William Weik, A.M. Chicago, New York and San Francisco: Belford,

Clarke & Co., publishers. London: Henry J. Drane, Lovells Court,

Paternoster Road. 3 volumes. 1889. Unexpurgated first edition.

_Abraham Lincoln: The True Story of a Great Life._ By William H.

Herndon and Jesse W. Weik, with an introduction by Horace White. In two

volumes. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1892.

_Abraham Lincoln: A History._ By John G. Nicolay and John Hay. In ten

volumes. New York: The Century Co., 1890. First edition.

_A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln._ Condensed from Nicolay and Hay's

_Abraham Lincoln: A History_. By John G. Nicolay. New York: The Century

Co., 1906.

_Personal Traits of Abraham Lincoln._ By Helen Nicolay. New York: The

Century Company, 1912.

_Abraham Lincoln._ By John T. Morse, Jr. In two volumes. American

Statesman Series. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin & Co., 1893. In

many respects the best short life of Lincoln.

_The Early Life of Abraham Lincoln._ Containing many unpublished

documents and unpublished reminiscences of Lincoln's early friends. By

Ida M. Tarbell, assisted by J. McCan Davis. New York: S. S. McClure

Co., Limited, 1896.

_The Life of Abraham Lincoln._ Drawn from original sources. By Ida M.

Tarbell. Two volumes. New York: The Doubleday & McClure Co., 1900.

_Abraham Lincoln._ An Essay. By Carl Schurz. Boston and New York:

Houghton Mifflin & Co., 1891.

_Lincoln the Leader: and Genius for Expression._ By Richard Watson

Gilder. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin & Co., 1909.

_Abraham Lincoln: The People's Leader in the Struggle for National

Existence._ By George Haven Putnam, Litt.D. New York and London: G. P.

Putnam's Sons, 1909.

_Lincoln, Master of Men: A Study in Character._ By Alonzo Rothchild.

Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1906.

_Honest Abe: A Study in Integrity._ By Alonzo Rothchild. Boston and New

York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1917.