Abraham Lincoln: Was He a Christian?

by John E. Remsburg

"Jas. H. Matheny."

This disclosure startles you, my dear reader. But be patient. I will show you that this apparently mortal thrust of Dr. Reed's was made, not with a lance, but with a boomerang.

When Reed made his assault upon Lamon's witnesses, all stood firm but two—two old Springfield politicians whose political aspirations had not yet become extinct—John T. Stuart and James H. Matheny.

These men had been among the first to testify in regard to Lincoln's unbelief. His Christian biographers had misrepresented his religious views; they believed that the fraud ought to be exposed, and they were ready and willing to aid in the work. Their testimony exhibits a frankness that is truly commendable. They knew that lying was a vice, but they did not know that truth-telling was a crime. They had yet to learn that the church tolerates murder more readily than the promulgation of a truth that is antagonistic to her creed. But this fact they were destined to learn. Lamon's work had scarcely been issued from the press before he was anathematized and his book proscribed. The merciless attack that had already been commenced upon Herndon portended danger to them. Nor had they long to wait. In December, 1872, they were approached by Reed and his coadjutors. They were informed that the idol which their ruthless iconoclasm had helped to break must be repaired. They were given to understand that if they repented of the part they had performed and recanted, peace would be their portion here and endless bliss hereafter; but that if they did not, endless misery would begin on Jan. 1, a.d. 1873.

The situation was critical. They did not like to tell the world that they had borne false witness against the dead, nor did they, any more than Galileo, wish to wear a martyr's crown. A compromise was finally effected. It was incidentally ascertained by Reed that their evidence as presented by Lamon was not originally given in the shape of a letter or a written statement, but orally. A happy thought suggested itself—one worthy of the unscrupulous theological pettifogger that he is. The thought was this: "Say to the public, or rather let me say it for you, that you did not write a word of the testimony attributed to you." Just as a witness in court might point to the stenographer's report of his testimony and say, "I did not write a word of that."

In addition to this, Mr. Stuart, in endeavoring to explain away, as far as possible, the obnoxious character of his testimony, declared that some things which he did say at the time his testimony was given had been omitted; while something he did not say was inserted. They were both trivial matters, hardly worthy of notice, even if true, and having no especial bearing upon the case. But they served an admirable purpose in enabling Reed to say that the testimony adduced by Lamon was "abridged and distorted."

Stuart's disclaimer, then, divested of its misleading verbiage, contains but two points. In the first place, he says: "I could not have said that 'Dr. Smith tried to convert Lincoln from Infidelity so late as 1858, and couldn't do it.'" This sentence, like everything else in these disclaimers, is cunningly worded and intended to deceive. One would naturally suppose the idea he intends to convey is that he never declared that Dr. Smith tried to convert Lincoln and couldn't do it. This, it has been ascertained, is not his meaning. What he means is this: "I could not have said that 'Dr. Smith tried to convert Lincoln from Infidelity, so late as 1858, and couldn't do it.'" His denial is a mere quibble about a date. He did undoubtedly say just what he is reported to have said. But admitting a doubt, and giving him the benefit of this doubt, by throwing out the disputed date, the passage is not less damaging than it was before: "Dr. Smith tried to convert Lincoln from Infidelity, and couldn't do it." But let us omit the entire sentence, and the testimony of Mr. Stuart that remains, about which there is no dispute, that portion of his testimony which he admits to be correct—is as follows:

"Lincoln went further against Christian beliefs and doctrines and principles than any man I ever heard; he shocked me. I don't remember the exact line of his argument; suppose it was against the inherent defects, so called, of the Bible, and on grounds of reason. Lincoln always denied that Jesus was the Christ of God—denied that Jesus was the Son of God, as understood and maintained by the Christian church."

In the second place, Mr. Stuart complains that the rumors concerning Dr. Smith's attempted conversion of Lincoln which he had mentioned to Mr. Herndon at the time of giving his testimony, were omitted. They were, and very properly, too. Mr. Stuart, or any other good lawyer, would have omitted them. Mr. Herndon desired him to testify about what he knew, and not about what he had heard, especially as he was going to headquarters in regard to these rumors. He wrote to Dr. Smith himself about them, received his testimony, and gave it to the public.

Stuart affects to believe that this story, which Ninian Edwards is dragged around by Reed to verify, may possibly have been true. But in the same sentence, he refutes this idea, and refutes the claim itself, by saying: "I had no personal knowledge as to his alleged change of opinion." Stuart was a family connection of Lincoln, and if Lincoln had been converted, he, as well as every other person in Springfield, would have known it.