Abraham Lincoln: Was He a Christian?. John E. Remsburg
Lincoln—it is quite probable that he did not to the extent represented by Holland. Bateman doubtless exaggerated the affair, and Holland magnified Bateman's report of it. In an article originally published in the Index, and subsequently quoted by Lamon, Lincoln's law partner, Mr. Herndon, says:
"I doubt whether Mr. Bateman said in full what is recorded there. I doubt a great deal of it. I know the whole story is untrue—untrue in substance, untrue in fact and spirit. As soon as the [Holland's] 'Life of Lincoln' was out, on reading that part here referred to, I instantly sought Mr. Bateman and found him in his office. I spoke to him politely and kindly, and he spoke to me in the same manner. I said substantially to him that Mr. Holland, in order to make Mr. Lincoln a technical Christian, made him a hypocrite; and so his 'Life of Lincoln' quite plainly says. I loved Mr. Lincoln, and was mortified, if not angry, to see him made a hypocrite. I cannot now detail what Mr. Bateman said, as it was a private conversation, and I am forbidden to make use of it in public. If some good gentleman can only get the seal of secrecy removed I can show what was said and done. On my word, the world may take it for granted that Holland is wrong—that he does not state Mr. Lincoln's views correctly" (Lamon's Life of Lincoln, p. 496).
In a lecture on "Lincoln's Religion," delivered in Springfield in 1874, alluding to the same subject, Mr. Herndon says:
"My notes of our conversation bear date December 3, 12, and 28, 1865. Our conversations were private, I suppose. However, I can say this much: that Mr. Bateman expressly told me Mr. Lincoln was, in the conversation related in Holland, talking politics and not religion, nor Christianity, nor morals, as such. I have persistently dogged Mr. Bateman for the privilege of publishing my notes, or to give me a letter explaining what Mr. Lincoln did say, so that I might make known the facts of the case. Mr. Bateman has as stoutly refused."
Dr. Bateman finally permitted Mr. Herndon to make public a letter, marked "confidential," which he had written Mr. Herndon in 1867. In this letter Bateman says:
"He [Lincoln] was applying the principles of moral and religious truth to the duties of the hour, the condition of the country, and the conduct of public men—ministers of the gospel. I had no thought of orthodoxy or heterodoxy, Unitarianism, Trinitarianism, or any other ism, during the whole conversation, and I don't suppose or believe he had."
Had Lincoln made the confession he is reported to have made, this would have suggested to Mr. Bateman the idea of his admitted orthodoxy as well as his reputed heterodoxy. Had Lincoln declared that "Christ is God," this would have suggested to him the idea of Trinitarianism. It will be seen, even from this letter, that instead of talking theology and professing a belief in Christianity, he was talking politics and denouncing the intolerance and bigotry of Christian ministers.
Dr. Bateman privately asserts that he was not correctly reported, that Holland's version of the interview "is colored." It is to be regretted that he had not the courage to state this fact to the public, and his plea, "My aversion to publicity in such matters is intense," is a poor apology for refusing to do so.
As previously intimated, this story is probably founded on fact and has an element of truth in it. Lincoln and Bateman had a political interview, and the object of this interview was the examination and discussion of the list of Springfield voters. This list revealed the fact that twenty out of twenty-three clergymen and a very large majority of the church-members of Springfield were opposed to Lincoln. The significance of this fact Dr. Holland and Dr. Bateman have apparently overlooked. Why was the church opposed to him? It must have been either because it was opposed to the Republican party, or because he was personally objectionable to the members of that party. His political principles were the principles of his party, his ability was conceded, and his moral character was above reproach. It is fair to assume that the political sentiment of the Christians of Springfield was substantially the political sentiment of Northern Christians generally. Now, was the Northern Church overwhelmingly in favor of the extension of slavery? Were eighty-seven per cent, of Northern Christians Democrats? Or did the Christians of Springfield oppose Lincoln because he was an Infidel?
Holland makes Bateman affirm that Lincoln "drew from his bosom a pocket New Testament." It is generally believed by Lincoln's friends that he did not have a New Testament, that the only book used in the interview was the book containing the list of Springfield voters. One of them says: "The idea that Mr. Lincoln carried the New Testament or Bible in his bosom or boots, to draw on his opponents in debate, is ridiculous." It is possible, however, that there was a New Testament in the room, and that Lincoln used it to enforce an argument. Indeed, there is internal evidence in the story, aside from the declaration of Bateman, that such was the case. The central idea in his political creed—the keynote of his campaigns, both in 1858 and in 1860—was contained in that memorable passage, "'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' This government can not endure permanently half slave and half free." The figure quoted was a familiar and powerful one, and Lincoln recognized its force in dealing with the masses. It was taken from the New Testament, and from the words of Christ himself. That he should use it against those Christians who were acting contrary to this well-known truth, is not strange. Immediately after the declaration, "Christ is God," he is reported as saying: "I have told them that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and Christ and reason say the same." This furnishes a solution to the whole story. This shows what he was doing with a New Testament. In connection with this, nothing is more natural than that he should exclaim: "Christ teaches it, and Christ is [their] God!" That he was terribly in earnest, that he was deeply agitated and pained to learn that his Christian neighbors were opposed to him, is not improbable. Thus the incidents of a simple political interview that were natural and reasonable have been perverted to make it appear that he was a Christian. A mere reference to the New Testament and Christ have been twisted into an acknowledgment of their divinity. Bateman himself admits that Lincoln said: "I am not a Christian." Why not accept his statement, then? Why then distort his words and in the face of this positive declaration attempt to prove that he was a Christian? Bateman reports him as modifying the statement by adding: "God knows I would be one." Yes, "God knows I would be one were I convinced that Christianity is true, but not convinced of its truth, I am an unbeliever." Lincoln is also reported to have said that in the light of the New Testament "human bondage can not live a moment." But he did not utter these words. He did not utter them because they are untrue, and none knew this better than himself. He knew that in the light of this book human bondage had lived for nearly two thousand years; he knew that this book was one of the great bulwarks of human slavery; he knew that there was not to be found between its lids a single text condemning slavery, while there were to he found a score of texts sustaining it; he knew that that infamous law, the Fugitive Slave law, received its warrant from this book—that Paul, in the light of its earliest teachings, had returned a fugitive slave to his master.
In this story Lincoln is charged with the grossest hypocrisy. He is declared to have professed a belief in Christ and Christianity, and when Bateman observed that his friends were ignorant of this, he is made to reply: "I know they are. I am obliged to appear different to them." Now, to use Lincoln's own words, "A sane person can no more act without a motive than can there be an effect without a cause," and what possible motive could he have had for such conduct? Supposing that he was base enough to be a hypocrite, what could induce him to lead the world to suppose he was an Infidel if he were not? In the eyes of the more ignorant and bigoted class of Christians, Infidelity is a more heinous crime than murder, and an Infidel is a creature scarcely to be tolerated, much less to be intrusted with a public office. Freethinkers generally detest the dogmas of Christianity as thoroughly as Christians possibly can the principles of Freethought. But free thought and free speech are the leading tenets of their creed. They recognize the fact that we are all the children of circumstances, that our belief is determined by our environments, and while they reject Christianity, they have nothing but charity for those who conscientiously profess it. They may repudiate a bigot, but will not oppose a man merely because he is a Christian. If Lincoln were an Infidel, discretion might urge a concealment of his views; if he were a Christian, policy would prompt him to give it as wide a publicity as possible, especially when he rested under the imputation of being a disbeliever. Had he changed his belief and become a convert to Christianity, a knowledge of the fact would not have lost him the support of his friends, even though some of them were Freethinkers; while it would have secured