Colonel Matheny, in his explanatory remarks, says: "I _believe_ he _thought_ he became a Christian;" and in almost the next breath says, "I knew nothing of Mr. Lincoln's investigation into the subject of Christianity." Can anything be more unreasonable than this? Colonel Matheny knowing that Lincoln was a confirmed Infidel--an Infidel when he went to Washington--knowing nothing about his having afterward investigated Christianity--knowing that he had no time for such an investigation, and yet believing that Lincoln thought he became a Christian! Why did he not mention this when he gave his testimony? The fact is, he did not believe that Lincoln became a Christian; but with an orthodox club raised above his head, he found it very convenient to _profess_ to believe it. As Mr. Reed has endeavored to prove that Lamon and Herndon did not faithfully report the evidence of Stuart and Matheny, it is but just that Mr. Herndon, who took down their testimony, be permitted to speak in his own defense. In his Springfield lecture, delivered in Major Stuart's town, if not in his presence, referring to Stuart's testimony, he says: "Mr. Stuart did not write the note and no one ever said he did. What is there stated was the substance of a conversation between Mr. Stuart and myself about Mr. Lincoln's religion. I took down in a note in his office and in his presence his words and ideas as I did in other cases. The conversation spoken of took place in Mr. Stuart's office, and in the east room. Mr. Stuart does not deny that the note is substantially correct. He simply says he could not have said that Dr. Smith tried to convert Mr. Lincoln, and couldn't do it. I well remember that he did use this language. It seemed to do him good to say it.... It seems that Mr. Stuart had heard that Mr. Lincoln and Dr. Smith had much discussion about Christianity, but he failed to hear of Mr. Lincoln's conversion, or anything like it, and well might he say, _as he did_, that 'Dr. Smith tried to convert Mr. Lincoln, _but couldn't do it_.'" Any charitably disposed person, knowing the general good character of both men, instead of crying "Fraud!" as Reed has done, will readily conclude that Mr. Herndon was mistaken, or that Mr. Stuart had forgotten just what he did say, and is it not more reasonable to suppose that the latter gentleman, in the lapse of six years, should have forgotten some things he said, than that Mr. Herndon, who recorded them the moment they were uttered, should be mistaken? Alluding to Colonel Matheny's evidence, in the same lecture, Mr. Herndon says: