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 passed 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 ass, 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.