what St. Paul says, 'and now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.''

From the day of his leaving Springfield to assume the duties of the Presidency, when he so impressively asked his friends and neighbors to invoke for him the guidance and wisdom of God, to the evening of his death, he seemed ever to live and act in the consciousness of his responsibility to that God, and with the trusting faith of a child, he leaned confidingly upon His Almighty Arm. He was visited during his administration by many Christian delegations, representing the various religious denominations of the Republic, and it is known that he was relieved and comforted in his great work by the knowledge that the Christian world were praying for his success. Some one said to him, one day, “no man was ever so remembered in the prayers of the people, especially those who pray 'not to be heard of men,' as you are." He replied, "I have been a good deal helped by just that thought."

The support which Mr. Lincoln received during his administration from the religious organizations, and the sympathy and confidence between the great body of Christians and the President, was a source of immense strength and power to him.

I know of nothing revealing more of the true character of Mr. Lincoln, his conscientiousness, his views of the slavery question, his sagacity and his full appreciation of the awful trial through which the country and he had to pass, than the following incident stated by Mr. Bateman, Superintendent of Public Instruction for Illinois.

On one occasion, in the Autumn of 1860, after conversing with Mr. Bateman at some length, on the, to him, strange conduct of Christian men and ministers of the Gospel supporting slavery, he said:

"I know there is a God, and that He hates injustice and slavery. I see the storm coming, and I know that His hand is in it. If He has a place and work for me—and I think He has-I believe I am ready. I am nothing, but Truth is everything. I know I am right, because I know that Liberty is right, for Christ teaches it, and Christ is God. I

have told them that a house divided against itself cannot stand; and Christ and Reason say the same; and they will find it so.

"Douglas don't care whether slavery is voted up or down, but God cares, and humanity cares, and I care; and with God's help I shall not fail. I may not see the end; but it will come, and I shall be vindicated; and these men will find that they have not read their Bibles right.'

"Much of this was uttered as if he was speaking to himself, and with a sad, earnest solemnity of manner impossible to be described. After a pause, he resumed: Does n't it appear strange that men can ignore the moral aspect of this contest? A revelation could not make it plainer to me that slavery or the Government must be destroyed. The future would be something awful, as I look at it, but for this rock on which I stand, (alluding to the Testament which he still held in his hand,) especially with the knowledge of how these ministers are going to vote. It seems as if God had borne with this thing (slavery) until the very teachers of religion had come to defend it from the Bible, and to claim for it a divine character and sanction; and now the cup of iniquity is full, and the vials of wrath will be poured out.' After this the conversation was continued for a long time. Everything he said was of a peculiarly deep, tender and religious tone, and all was tinged with a touching melancholy. He repeatedly referred to his conviction that the day of wrath was at hand, and that he was to be an actor in the terrible struggle which would issue in the overthrow of slavery, though he might not live to see the end."

The place Mr. Lincoln will occupy in history, will be higher than any which he held while living. His Emancipation Proclamation is the most important historical event of the nineteenth century. Its influence will not be limited by time, nor bounded by locality. It will ever be treated by the historian as one of the great land-marks of human progress.

He has been compared and contrasted with three great personages in history, who were assassinated,-with Cæsar, with William of Orange, and with Henry the IV. of France. He was a nobler type of man than either, as he was the product of a higher and more Christian civilization.

The two men, whose preeminence in American history will not hereafter be questioned, are Washington and Lincoln. Lincoln was as pure as Washington, as modest, as just, as

patriotic; less passionate by nature, more of a democrat, with more faith in the people, and more hopeful of the future. Washington will be the representative man of the era of Independence; and Lincoln, that of universal liberty. The cardinal ideas of Lincoln's policy, were national Unity and Liberty. That the portion of the earth called the United States should continue the home of one national family, recognizing the brotherhood of man, was his grand aim. This great family, with a continent for a homestead, universal liberty, restrained and guided by intelligence and Christianity, was his sublime ideal of the future. For this he lived, and for this he died.

This right was exercised by Mr. Lincoln from the beginning of the war, and was never very seriously questioned.

On this point Mr. Whiting says:

"Any section of this country, which, having joined in a general rebellion, shall have been subdued and conquered by the military forces of the United States, may be subjected to military government, and the rights of citizens in those districts are subject to martial law, so long as the war lasts. Whatever of their rights of property are lost in and by the war, are lost forever. No citizen, whether loyal or rebel, is deprived of any right guaranteed to him in the Constitution by reason of his subjection to martial law, because martial law, when in force, is Constitutional law. The people of the United States, through their lawfully chosen Commander-inChief, have the constitutional right to seize and hold the territory of a belligerent enemy, and to govern it by martial law, thereby superseding the local government of the place, and all rights which rebels might have had as citizens of the United States, if they had not violated the laws of the land by making war upon the country.

"By martial law, loyal citizens may be for a time debarred from enjoying the rights they would be entitled to in time of peace. Individual rights must always be held subject to the exigencies of National safety.

"In war, when martial law is in force, the laws of war are the laws which the Constitution expressly authorizes and requires to be enforced. The Constitution, when it calls into action martial law, for the time changes civil rights, or rights which the citizen would be entitled to in peace, because the rights of persons in one of these cases are totally incompatible with the obligations of persons in the other. Peace and war cannot exist together; the laws of peace and of war cannot operate together; the rights and procedures of peaceful times are incompatible with those of war. It is an obvious but pernicious error to suppose that in a state of war, the rules of martial law, and the consequent modification of the rights, duties, and obligations of citizens, private and public, are not authorized strictly under the Constitution. And among these rights of martial law, none is more familiar than that of seizing and establishing a military government over territory taken from the enemy; and the duty of thus protecting such territory is imperative, since the United States are obligated to guarantee to each State a republican form of government. That form of government having been overthrown by force, the country must take such steps, military and civil, as may tend to restore it to the loyal citizens of that State, if there be any; and if there be no persons who will submit to the Constitution and laws of the United States, it is their duty to hold that State by military power, and under military rule, until loyal citizens shall appear there in sufficient numbers to entitle them to receive back into their own hands the local government."

A still more severe rule of belligerent law is laid down in relation to enemy's property and enemy's slaves, and the right of seizure of ALL property situated in the enemy's country when necessary for military purposes, and there "are no limits to the war making power of the President, other than the law of Nations, and such rules as Congress may pass for their regulation."

"Against all persons in arms, and against all property situated and seized in rebellious districts, the laws of war give the President full belligerent rights; and when the army and navy are once lawfully called out, there are no limits to the warmaking power of the President, other than the law of nations, and such rules as Congress may pass for their regulation.

""The Statute of 1807, chap. 39,' says a learned judge, 'provides that whenever it is lawful for the President to call forth the militia to suppress an insurrection, he may employ the land and naval forces for that purpose. The authority to use the army is thus expressly confirmed, but the manner in which they are to be used is not prescribed. That is left to the discretion of the President, guided by the usages and principles of civilized war."

The right of the President, as a question of law, to emancipate the slaves of any belligerent portion of the United States, was a question of great interest early in the conflict; and was widely discussed by the press, and in Congress. Mr. Lincoln, as we have seen, early came to the conclusion, that as Commander-in-Chief, he possessed that right, and he exercised it.

The argument upon the legality of such exercise is very clearly and ably stated by Mr. Whiting. He says:

"The liberation of slaves is looked upon as a means of embarrassing or weakening the enemy, or of strengthening the military power of our army. If slaves be treated as contraband of war, on the ground that they may be used by their masters to aid in prosecuting war, as employees upon military works, or as laborers furnishing by their industry the means of carrying on hostilities; or if they be treated as, in law, belligerents, following the legal condition of their owners; or if they be deemed loyal subjects having a just claim upon the government to be released from their obligations to give aid and service to disloyal and belligerent masters, in order that they may be free to perform their higher duty of allegiance and loyalty to the United States; or if they be regarded as subjects of the United States, liable to do military duty; or if they be made citizens of the United States, and soldiers; or if the authority of the masters over their slaves is the means of aiding and comforting the enemy, or of throwing impediments in the way of the Government, or depriving it of such aid and assistance in successful prosecution of the war, as slaves would and could afford, if released from the control of the enemy or if releasing the slaves would embarrass the enemy, and make it more difficult for them to collect and maintain large armies; in either of these cases, the taking away of these slaves from the ‘aid and service' of the enemy, and putting them to the aid and service of the United States, is justifiable as an act of war. The ordinary way of depriving the enemy of slaves is by declaring emancipation."

As Mr. Lincoln himself held, it belongs exclusively to the President to judge when the exigency arises in which he has authority to emancipate slaves:

"The Constitution confers on the Executive, when in actual war, full belligerent powers. The emancipation of enemy's slaves is a belligerent right. It belongs exclusively to the President, as Commander-in-Chief, to judge whether he shall exercise his belligerent right to emancipate slaves in those parts of the country which are in rebellion. If exercised in fact, and while the war lasts, his act of emancipation is conclusive and binding forever on all the departments of Government, and on all persons whatsover.

"IS LIBERATION OF ENEMY'S SLAVES A BEILIGERENT RIGHT? "This is the chief inquiry on this branch of the subject. To answer it we must appeal to the law of nations, and learn whether there is any commanding authority which forbids the use of an engine so powerful and so formidable-an engine