the ideal of a Doctor.  His text was John iii. 18:  “He that believeth on Him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”  His subject was, that “man is justly accountable to God for his belief.”  This truth he handled in a masterly manner, tossing about as with a giant’s arm Lord Brougham and the Universalists.  Notwithstanding my want of rest on the previous night, the absurd heaviness of the building, and the fact that the sermon—­which occupied a full hour—­was all read, I listened with almost breathless attention, and was sorry when he had done.

And who was this Dr. Plummer?  It was Dr. Plummer late of Richmond, in Virginia.  “Richmond,” says Dr. Reed, “is still the great mart of slavery; and the interests of morality and religion suffer from this cause.  Several persons of the greatest wealth, and therefore of the greatest consideration in the town, are known slave-dealers; and their influence, in addition to the actual traffic, is of course unfavourable.  The sale of slaves is as common, and produces as little sensation, as that of cattle.  It occurs in the main street, and before the door of the party who is commissioned to make the sale.”  And what was the conduct of this Doctor of Divinity in reference to this state of things?  He sanctioned it!  He pleaded for it!  He lived upon it!  He was once actually supported, either wholly or in part, by slave labour!  The church of which he was the pastor was endowed with a number of slaves.  These slaves were hired out, and the proceeds were given in the way of stipend to the Doctor!  Nor is this all.  A few years ago the slave-holders of the South were greatly alarmed by the vigorous efforts of the Abolitionists of the North.  It was about the time that the Charleston Post-office was plundered by a mob of several thousand people, and all the anti-slavery publications there found were made a bonfire of in the street; and where “the clergy of all denominations attended in a body, lending their sanction to the proceedings, and adding by their presence to the impressive character of the scene.”  On that occasion the clergy of the city of Richmond were not less prompt than their brethren of Charleston in responding to the “public sentiment."’ They resolved unanimously,—­

“That we earnestly deprecate the unwarrantable and highly improper interference of the people of any other State with the domestic relations of master and slave.

“That the example of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles, in not interfering with the question of slavery, but uniformly recognising the relations of master and servant, and giving full and affectionate instruction to both, is worthy the imitation of all ministers of the Gospel.

“That we will not patronise nor receive any pamphlet or newspaper of the Anti-slavery Societies, and that we will discountenance the circulation of all such papers in the community.