If any man had originally been endued with power, as with other faculties, so that the rest of mankind had discovered in themselves an _innate necessity_ of obeying this particular person; it is evident that he and his descendants, from the superiority of their nature, would have had a claim upon men for obedience, and a natural right to command: but as the right to empire is _adventitious_; as all were originally free; as nature made every man's body and mind _his own_; it is evident that no just man can be consigned to _slavery_, without his own _consent_. Neither can men, by the same principles, be considered as lands, goods, or houses, among _possessions_. It is necessary that all _property_ should be inferiour to its _possessor_. But how does the _slave_ differ from his _master_, but by _chance_? For though the mark, with which the latter is pleased to brand him, shews, at the first sight, the difference of their _fortune_; what mark can be found in his _nature_, that can warrant a distinction? To this consideration we shall add the following, that if men can justly become the property of each other, their children, like the offspring of cattle, must inherit their _paternal_ lot. Now, as the actions of the father and the child must be thus at the sole disposal of their common master, it is evident, that the _authority_ of the one, as a _parent_, and the _duty_ of the other, as a _child_, must be instantly annihilated; rights and obligations, which, as they are sounded in nature, are implanted in our feelings, and are established by the voice of God, must contain in their annihilation a solid argument to prove, that there cannot be any _property_ whatever in the _human species_.