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.