Bishop White declares that Washington was not a communicant, as claimed by some, and intimates that he was a disbeliever. The Rev. Dr.
Abercrombie, whose church he attended while he was President, said: "Washington was a Deist." The Rev. Dr. Ashbel Green, chaplain to Congress during his administration, said: "Like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist."
Arnold presents the following as the basis of Lincoln"s religion, and proofs of his Christianity: "(1) Belief in the existence of G.o.d, (2) in the immortality of the soul, (3) in the Bible as the revelation of G.o.d to man, (4) in the efficacy and duty of prayer, (5) in reverence toward the Almighty, and (6) in love and charity to man."
1. "Belief in the existence of G.o.d." This does not prove a belief in Christianity. The Jew believes in the existence of G.o.d; the Mohammedan believes in the existence of G.o.d; the Deistic Infidel believes in the existence of G.o.d.
2. "Belief in the immortality of the soul." That he believed in the immortality of the soul is a claim that cannot be clearly established; and even if it could, would not confirm the a.s.sumption that he was a Christian. Deists, many of them, believe in the doctrine of immortality.
Paine believed in immortality; Voltaire believed in immortality.
3. "Belief in the Bible as the revelation of G.o.d to man." This, if true, would be evidence of his Christianity; but, unfortunately for Mr.
Arnold"s claim, Lincoln did not entertain this belief.
4. "Belief-in the efficacy and duty of prayer." This, in the orthodox sense of these terms, is not true; and if it were, would not furnish conclusive evidence that he was a Christian. Jews pray; Mohammedans pray; Buddhists pray; some Deists pray. Franklin believed in the efficacy and duty of prayer, and Franklin was an Infidel.
5. "Belief in reverence to the Almighty." This does not demonstrate a belief in Christianity, for all Deists believe in reverence to the Almighty.
6. "Belief in love and charity to man." When it can be shown that only Christians believe in love and charity, then will it be time to affirm that Lincoln was a Christian.
Arnold confounds Christianity with Deism. In the following words he admits that Lincoln was simply a Deist: "Not orthodox, not a man of creeds, he was a man of simple trust in G.o.d."
When the subject of Lincoln"s belief was once mentioned to Mr. Arnold, he said: "Lincoln was a rational Christian because he believed in morality." With equal propriety one might say of an upright Christian, "He is a rational Freethinker because he believes in morality."
"His reply to the Negroes of Baltimore," he says, "ought to silence forever those who charge him with unbelief." This alleged reply of Lincoln was as follows:
"In regard to the Great Book I have only to say that it is the best gift which G.o.d has given to man. All the good from the Savior of the world is communicated to us through this book. But for this book we could not know right from wrong. All those things desirable to man are contained in it" (Lincoln Memorial Alb.u.m, p. 340).
The writer of this was in Washington when the colored deputation from Baltimore presented the President with a $500 Bible. The papers mentioned the fact at the time, but no such speech as Lincoln is said to have made appeared in the reports. About two months later, this apocryphal version of his remarks on the occasion referred to, made its appearance.
The first two sentences contained in this speech (the only part of it that Arnold has quoted), Lincoln, if a Christian, might have uttered.
They are words that any intelligent Christian might, from his standpoint, with propriety affirm. We are familiar with these claims.
We are also familiar with the claims embodied in the last two sentences.
They are repeatedly made. But they are made only by very ignorant persons, or by clerical hypocrites who try to impose upon the ignorance and credulity of their hearers. Had Lincoln been a Christian he would not have used these words, because he was too intelligent to believe them, and too honest to pretend to believe them.
Concerning this speech, Lincoln"s partner, Mr. Herndon, thus vigorously, yet truthfully, remarks:
"I am aware of the fraud committed on Mr. Lincoln in reporting some insane remarks supposed to have been made by him, in 1864, on the presentation of a Bible to him by the colored people of Baltimore. No sane man ever uttered such folly, and no sane man will ever believe it.
In that speech Mr. Lincoln is made to say: "But for this book we could not know right from wrong." Does any human being believe that Lincoln ever uttered this? What did the whole race of man do to know right from wrong during the countless years that pa.s.sed before this book was given to the world? How did the struggling race of man build up its grand civilizations in the world before this book was given to mankind? What do the millions of people now living, who never heard of this book, do to know how to distinguish right from wrong? Was Lincoln a fool, an a.s.s, a hypocrite, or a combination of them all? or is this speech--this supposed--this fraudulent speech--a lie?"
Arnold would have his readers believe that this speech is genuine.
And yet it is plainly evident that he himself does not believe it.
He mutilates it by omitting the more orthodox portion of it--the very portion he would have retained had he believed it to be genuine. The first part would suffice to serve his purpose; the remainder he knew was too incredible for belief and would stamp the whole as a fraud.
Arnold says: "The veil between him and the supernatural was very thin."
Yes, so thin that he easily saw through it and recognized the greater part of it to be a sham.
"His faith in a Divine Providence began at his mother"s knee, and ran through all the changes of his life." I do not desire to charge Mr.
Arnold with plagiarism, but the foregoing recalls the following much admired pa.s.sage to be found in Holland: "This unwavering faith in a Divine Providence began at his mother"s knee, and ran like a thread of gold through all the inner experiences of his life" (Life of Lincoln, pp. 61, 62).
There is much in Arnold"s biography, aside from the above, to suggest that Holland"s work formed the basis and model of his own. While more accurate in the main than Holland"s "Life," Arnold"s "Life" is in some respects equally unreliable, and less readable.
Adverting to the many fraudulent stories that have been circulated concerning Lincoln, in an address delivered in London, Mr. Arnold said: "The newspapers in America have always been full of Lincoln stories and anecdotes, some true and many fabulous." Unfortunately for the cause of truth, Mr. Arnold has himself recorded some of these fabulous stories, not because he deemed them authentic, but because they agreed with his preconceived prejudices, or the prejudices of those whom he wished to please.
Mr. Carpenter says: "I would scarcely have called Mr. Lincoln a religious man, and yet I believe him to have been a sincere Christian."
In a letter, Mr. Herndon makes the following correction in regard to his friend Carpenter"s statement:
"Mr. Carpenter has not expressed his own ideas correctly. To say that a man is a Christian and yet not a religious man is absurd. _Religion_ is the generic term including all forms of religion; _Christianity_ is a specific term representing one form of religion. Carpenter means to say that Mr. Lincoln was a religious man but not a Christian, and this is the truth."
It is unfortunate that while in many cases we have several words to express the same idea, the same word in many cases is employed to express different ideas. Ideas thus become confused. If the terms _morality, religion, and Christianity_, were always used in their legitimate sense--used to express the ideas of which they were the original signs--much trouble and ambiguity would be avoided. As it is, they are promiscuously used as interchangeable terms. Many use the word _religion_ and even _Christianity_ when they mean morality. Mr.
Carpenter uses the word _religious_ in its proper sense, and the word _Christian_ to mean a _moral man_. The following examples will serve to ill.u.s.trate the various forms employed to express the thought now under consideration:
"I would scarcely have called Mr. Lincoln a religious man, and yet I believe him to have been a sincere Christian."--_Carpenter_.
"I would scarcely have called Mr. Lincoln a Christian, and yet I believe him to have been a truly religious man."--_Herndon_.
I would scarcely have called Mr. Lincoln a religious man, and yet I believe him to have been a truly moral man.--_Author_.
We all desire to express substantially the same thought. I do not wish to dictate to Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Herndon what words they shall employ to convey an idea, but this explanation is essential to a proper understanding of the question in dispute and will help to reconcile much of the apparently conflicting testimony presented in this work.
As Lincoln was in a certain sense a Deist, the religious element was not entirely wanting in him, and hence the statement of Mr. Herndon that he was a religious man is, in a degree, true.
The basis of Carpenter"s work was a series of articles contributed to the New York _Independent_. When it was decided to publish these in book form, to swell them into a volume of the desired size, to his personal reminiscences he added many of the stories pertaining to Lincoln then going the rounds of the press. Although he was as it were a member of Lincoln"s household six months he failed to hear from Lincoln"s lips a word expressing a belief in Christianity. These apocryphal stories, and these alone, contain all the evidences of Lincoln"s alleged piety to be found in Carpenter"s book. And his admission that Lincoln was not a religious man disproves them.
Mr. Hawley professed to believe that Lincoln was a Christian, but he had no personal knowledge of the fact, although his neighbor for many years.
The only reasons he was able to adduce upon which to predicate his belief were the Bateman story and his farewell speech on leaving Springfield. The former has been exploded, the latter proves nothing.
During all the later years of his life Lincoln generally refrained from expressing his anti-Christian opinions, except to friends who shared his views. This silence, in connection with his sterling moral character, might lead some of his Christian neighbors to suppose that he was a believer, the more especially as Christians are generally ignorant of the extent of unbelief, and are loath to believe that a person, unless he openly avows his disbelief, can be an Infidel.
According to Mr. Willets, Lincoln, during the war, had an attack of what he thought might be a "change of heart." He consulted a pious lady in regard to it and requested her to describe to him the symptoms attending this theological disease. She defined "a true religious experience" as "a conviction of one"s own sinfulness and weakness, and personal need of the Savior for strength and support." She said that "when one was really brought to feel his need of divine help, and to seek the aid of the Holy Spirit for strength and guidance, it was satisfactory evidence of his having been born again." Lincoln replied that if what she had told him was "a correct view of this great subject," he hoped he was a Christian.
But was this a correct view of it? I was not aware that conviction const.i.tuted conversion. We have been taught that conviction is but a preliminary step toward conversion. If Lincoln relied upon this as a true exposition of this doctrine, the genuineness of his conversion may well be questioned.
It is to be regretted that Mr. Willets did not give the name of his informant. As it is, we do not know whether to credit "a lady acquaintance of his," or himself, with the invention of a first-cla.s.s fiction.
In regard to the story of the "Pious Nurse," we have not even a clergyman to vouch for its authenticity. We do not know the name of this witness; we do not know whom she communicated the story to; we do not know when nor where it made its first appearance. We only know that for years it has been floating through the columns of the religious press, a companion-piece to Washington"s devotional exercise at Valley Forge.
"History," said Napoleon, "is a set of lies agreed upon." Of the many lies agreed upon by Christian writers in making up the history of Lincoln, none has become more thoroughly established than the one originally published by the _Western Christian Advocate_. It has been incorporated into the works of a score of historians and biographers, and is almost universally accepted as a historical fact.
Nearly all the pious stories relating to Lincoln, while palpably false in the eyes of those who knew him, are yet of such a nature as to render a complete refutation of them extremely difficult. The story under consideration, however, is of a different character. Its truthfulness or falsity could at the time of its publication have been easily ascertained. If true, any member of Lincoln"s cabinet could have verified it. I knew that it was untrue--at least I knew that a Cabinet meeting had never been transformed into a prayer meeting at Lincoln"s suggestion. I finally resolved to demonstrate its falsity if possible.
But a quarter of a century had pa.s.sed away, and every member of Lincoln"s Cabinet was dead save one, Hugh McCulloch, his last Secretary of the Treasury. With the aid of a friend, Mr. N. P. Stockbridge, of Ft. Wayne, Ind., an old acquaintance of Mr. McCulloch"s, I succeeded in bringing the matter before this only surviving witness, and received from his pen, in February, 1891, the following prompt denial:
"The description of what occurred at the Executive Mansion, when the intelligence was received of the surrender of the Confederate forces, which you quote from the _Western Christian Advocate_, is not only absolutely groundless, but absurd. After I became Secretary of the Treasury I was present at every Cabinet meeting, and I never saw Mr.
Lincoln or any of his ministers upon his knees or in tears.
"We were not especially jubilant over Lee"s surrender, for this we had been prepared for some days. The time for our great rejoicing was a little earlier. After Sherman had commenced his celebrated march to the sea, and long and weary days had pa.s.sed without any reliable reports from him, we were filled with anxiety and apprehension. It was when the news came that he and his army, in excellent condition, were in the neighborhood of Charleston, that our joy was irrepressible; not only because of their safety, but because it was an a.s.surance that the days of the Confederacy were nearly ended. With Grant before Richmond in command of superior forces, and Sherman with the finest army in the world, ready to move northward, everybody felt that the war must be soon concluded, and that the Union was safe.
"We were, of course, happy when General Lee and his severely tried soldiers laid down their arms, but this, as I have said, was not unexpected. It was when our anxiety in regard to Sherman was succeeded by hopefulness and confidence that our joy became exuberant. But there was no such exhibition of it as has been published by the _Advocate._"
An "Illinois Clergyman" reports Lincoln as saying that when he left Springfield he was not a Christian, that when his son Willie died he was not a Christian, but that when he visited the battlefield of Gettysburg he gave his heart to Christ. Christians cite the testimony of this anonymous witness, seemingly unconscious of the fact that if true it refutes the testimony of every other Christian witness. If this statement be true what becomes of the testimony of Holland and Bateman?
What becomes of the testimony of Reed"s witnesses? The testimony of Brooks invalidated the testimony of every other witness; the testimony of this Illinois clergyman invalidates the testimony of Brooks itself.