that the less said about his religious views the better, he promptly replied: "Oh, never mind; I'll fix that." And he did. With dramatic embellishments, he presented to the delight of the orthodox world the now famous, or rather infamous, Bateman interview.

The publication of this story produced a profound sensation among the personal friends of the dead President. It revealed to them the unpleasant fact, assuming Holland's account to be correct, either that Newton Bateman, who had hitherto borne the reputation of being a man of veracity, was an unscrupulous liar, or that Abraham Lincoln, whose reputation for honesty and candor, long anterior to 1860, had become proverbial, was a consummate hypocrite; and loath as they were to believe the former, they rejected with disdain the latter.

Referring to this story, Lamon, in his "Life of Lincoln," says:

"There is no dealing with Mr. Bateman except by a flat contradiction. Perhaps his memory was treacherous or his imagination led him astray, or, peradventure, he thought a fraud no harm if it gratified the strong desire of the public for proofs of Mr. Lincoln's orthodoxy" (Life of Lincoln, p. 501).

While Bateman undoubtedly misrepresented Lincoln in his account of their conversation—for it is not denied that he had an interview with 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