slavery. In 1840, it was moved in the General Conference of the Methodist body, by the Rev. Dr. Few of Georgia, and the resolution was adopted, "that it is inexpedient and unjus→ tifiable for any preacher to permit coloured persons to give testimony against white persons in any state where they are denied that privilege by law." This, be it remembered, is no law of the state; we mean, that this particular resolution which we have now quoted was not enacted in any secular assembly-such as the British House of Parliament, for example; an assembly formed of men of all kinds of religion, or of no religion at all, amongst whom the religious principle and high sense of duty of the few is overpowered perhaps, and rendered of no effect, through the sordid self-interest of the many,—but it is the decree of a professedly religious assembly; it is a canon of ecclesiastical discipline proposed and passed in a synod of Christian-we should have said, of Protestantministers; and it is designed to regulate the internal management of their own religious communion, a communion which embraced at that time no less than 80,000 persons of this very class, who were thus denied the right to testify against any white brother or sister who might grievously oppress and injure them. How eloquent a commentary on the texts which we have so often referred to, as to the abolition under the new law of the degrading distinctions between bond and free, and the equality before God of all mankind! With what spiritual unction must these ministers of the Gospel, on their return home to their coloured congregations, armed with the necessary authority to promulgate this decree of the synod,-with what unction must they have held forth upon the endearing relations of Christian brotherhood, choosing for their text, perhaps, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them!". If our readers were not weary of listening to the details of these atrocious decrees, passed by nominally Christian bodies, we could mention others of a similar kind; others, we mean, in which the same principle of subserviency of the divine to the human law is more or less distinctly acknowledged; such as, from the polygamy-loving Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, that "it is the duty of the Board to prosecute the work of saving souls, without attempting to interfere with the civil condition of society any faster than the consciences of the people become enlightened." It is not, then, the duty of the Christian Church to take the lead to rebuke the evil ways of the world, and to guide them into better courses, but only to be faithful in following the world, in keeping pace with its moral improvement.

What power has such a Church as this to contend with any social evil of real magnitude? If these are the religious -bodies to which the slaveholders in the United States for the most part belong, what chance is there of the abolition, or even the mitigation of slavery being brought about in a healthy and peaceable way as the natural fruit of true Christian principles? Manifestly none. Protestant Christianity is the ally of the master, and the most cruel oppressor of the slave.

But it will be said, that though it is true that all these enormities have been committed by certain sections of the most important Protestant bodies in America, yet they have been met by very vehement protests on the part of other portions of the same bodies; so that it is not fair to lay to the charge of all what was really the act of some only, and was indignantly repudiated by others. We are well aware that there is a certain difference of opinion among the members of the various Protestant communities of America upon this subject, as indeed upon every other; but we observe this very significant phenomenon in these variations, viz. that though ostensibly of a moral character, they are co-extensive with certain territorial divisions, and seem to take their colouring, not from the higher religious tone of this or that individual, so much as from the accidental circumstance that his local habitat is at a certain convenient distance from the evil he protests against. It was very keenly and justly observed by one of the Presbyterian doctors who took part in the debates of the synod of 1843, that "the memorials which asked the Assembly to act in some way against slavery came not from those who were suffering under the evils of slavery, but from men in the free states.' Those who lived at a distance from the evil, to whom it was not in any way a practical question, saw clearly enough, as they imagined, the wickedness of slavery; whilst of those who lived and laboured in the midst of it, the moral vision was far from being so acute. Just so those patrons of polygamy in the lands of the heathen protest most loudly against the patrons of slavery at home; and vice versa, slaveholders, and supporters of slaveholders in the states, are perfectly scandalised at what they consider the immoral licenses in the matter of matrimony tolerated by the missionaries abroad; but where each man's daily work lies, there precisely he becomes blind to the particular evil which he ought to combat

he silently acquiesces in it, or even actively promotes it. Meanwhile the authorities who preside over both parties, the prudential committees of the respective bodies, very prudently enforce silence upon all, and give scope to any and every irregularity rather than run the risk of " disturbing the peace of

their Church." Moreover, it is to be observed that the protesting party have not, as far as we know, proceeded in any one instance really to break off from all communion with those who think differently from themselves on these matters. In the Presbyterian community certain local associations have ventured to address letters of remonstrance and friendly rebuke to the General Assembly; and the General Assembly, knowing their contents, have voted unanimously not to receive them! By this clever device, the northern churches relieve their consciences by testifying, the southern churches hold on to their slaves, and Christian fellowship goes on as before. The result is briefly described thus: "the local congregational associations cut off all connexion with the General Assembly 'as such,' but retain fellowship with the churches composing it: a singular operation in spiritual surgery." In the Methodist community there has been a more formal separation between the northern and southern churches, and it is sometimes stated that slavery was one of the principal elements in the dispute which engendered this schism. We do not know accurately. all the particulars of the case, but there would certainly seem to be considerable exaggeration in this statement; for we find, first, that it was not the northern and anti-slavery churches who seceded from the southern and slave-supporting churches, but vice versâ; and secondly, several slave-states are retained in the northern division, so that the northern conference has still upwards of 4000 slaveholders, and about 30,000 slaves. We cannot therefore admit these empty protests and quasi-schisms as really absolving any portion of the Protestant churches in America from the guilt of indirectly, yet most powerfully, upholding the existing system of slavery in all its horrors. We repeat, then, the assertion with which we began, and which we think we have now sufficiently proved, viz. that Protestantism, as it exists in the United States, is the one chief obstacle to the mitigation and final abolition of slavery in that country; by deliberately sanctioning the sin of adultery among the slaves, when committed in obedience to the will of the master, it ignores, and, as far as its influence extends, annihilates all social relations among them, and so renders an amelioration of their lot in this respect more difficult, if not impossible; while by sanctioning in its churches and in the internal regulations of its discipline the degrading distinctions of caste, it stimulates and perpetually keeps alive the very root and principle of the whole institution.

IMPORTANT DISCOVERY OF FATHER SECCHI

RELATIVE TO THE INSCRIPTION ON THE CHAIR OF

ST. MARK AT VENICE.

A VERY interesting discovery has lately been made at Venice by Father Secchi, of the Society of Jesus. This learned Orientalist was induced to visit Venice in order to examine the public libraries, with a view to obtain materials for an historical work upon the Council of Florence, on which he is engaged; and his search has brought to light so many inte resting manuscripts connected with this subject, that his stay has been protracted far beyond his original intention. But in another and an unexpected way his residence in that city has been productive of good, and subservient to the cause of divine truth. It is unnecessary for us to remind our readers of the interest which attaches to the chair preserved in the treasury of St. Mark's Church at Venice, and which tradition declares to be the identical chair of the Evangelist St. Mark; since this most interesting relic, as well as the chair of St. Peter, preserved in the same city, has recently been made the subject of controversy before the English public.

For the sake of clearness, however, it may be well to call to their recollection that of the two chairs preserved at Venice, one claims to be that of St. Mark, and another is asserted to be the original chair of St. Peter brought_from Antioch. The latter is preserved in the church of St. Peter, and upon the back of it appears an inscription in Cufic characters which is universally admitted to be Mahometan, and which Father Secchi informs us contains a verse from the Koran inculcating the duty of prayer for the dead. Of course there is some difficulty in accounting for such an inscription in such a position. It appears at first sight as though it must necessarily overthrow the claims of this relic to be considered authentic; and the difficulty seems increased tenfold when we are informed that in the Basilica of S. Lorenzo at Rome there exists another ancient chair, which is also said to be the chair of St. Peter from Antioch. We are still further informed that "it is beyond dispute" that the original chair of the Apostle, long revered at Antioch, was, together with numerous other relics of remote antiquity, broken to pieces and destroyed when that city fell into the power of the Mahometans. One would have thought that so many solid blows must long since have entirely demolished the pretensions of the chair

which is to be seen in the church of St. Peter at Venice. Nevertheless, ecclesiastical traditions have very often a vitality about them which can stand a good deal of critical and controversial hammering. And in the present instance the truth seems to be we speak on the authority of Father Secchi, both here and throughout the whole of this article-that neither the chair at Venice nor the chair in the Basilica of S. Lorenzo at Rome, pretends, excepting only in a loose and colloquial way of speaking, to be the chair of Antioch; but that in both there exists a considerable fragment of the original chair, which must have been once broken up and divided; and that what was wanting in each instance to make a complete structure was made up of such materials as chanced to come most readily to hand. An examination of these several relics will shew in each case a particular portion composed of Phrygian marble, differing from the other marbles that have been made use of to complete the monuments. In the case of the chair at Venice, it is probable that the beauty of the arabesque pattern, which perhaps was not known to contain any inscription, was the sole cause why the headstone of a Mahometan grave should have been selected as a suitable ornament to form the back of an episcopal chair.

Having said thus much in order to avoid confusion, and to answer by anticipation objections that would otherwise be raised, we proceed to speak more particularly of the chair of St. Mark. It is upon this chair that the inscription occurs which is to be the subject of the present article, and which has never been hitherto explained in any satisfactory way. It has remained an enigma for the last two centuries, when it was first brought to light by the decay of the external covering (of wood inlaid with ivory) in which the marble chair had been enclosed. Many meanings have since been suggested, but apparently without any good foundation to support them; and none of them has gained any thing at all like universal credence. Father Secchi believes that he has now set this controversy at rest, by an interpretation which embodies a doctrine as well as records a fact, and which possesses an interest not alone for the city and the see of St. Mark, but for the whole Church of Christ. It is to this learned Father that we are indebted for the brief outline which we are about to lay before our readers; those who require a more exact and critical account must wait for the publication of a work which he is now engaged upon, and which will enter at length into all the various questions involved.

The first notice which occurs in history of the chair of St. Mark is in the account of the martyrdom of St. Peter of