In _Lev._ xxv. 44: “Both thy bond-men and bond-maids which thou shalt have shall be of the heathen, that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids.” Verse 45: “Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you which they beget in your land, and they shall be your possession.” Verse 46: “And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bondmen for ever.” And if we look at the first verse of this chapter, that the foregoing was announced by God himself to Moses from Sinai; and from which it would seem that God and Dr. Channing were of quite a different opinion on this subject. We know not what notion Dr. Channing may have entertained of “man’s indestructible rights.” But let us ask, what rights has he that may not be destroyed? The right to breath? Suppose, by his own wantonness, carelessness, or wickedness, he is submerged in water, what becomes of his right to breathe, since he can no longer exercise it? Can you name any right that, under the providence of God, may not be destroyed? Freemen have rights, but subject to alteration, and even extinction; slaves have rights, but subject to the same changes. There is no such thing as an “indestructible right” appertaining to any existence, save to the Great Jehovah! He must be an immortal God who can possess an _indestructible right_. We use the word “right” in Dr. Channing’s sense—just claim, legal title, ownership, the legal power of exclusive possession. You ask, has not man an _indestructible right_ to worship God? We answer, no! Man has no such right to worship God; such right would make him a partner. The worship of God is a _duty_ which man owes; the forbearance of which is forbidden by the moral law, by justice and propriety. Nothing can be forbidden or ordered touching an _indestructible right_; for such command, if to be obeyed, changes the quality of the right; or rather shows that it was not indestructible. Such arguments may seem to give great aid and beauty to a mere rhetorical climax, but, before the lens of analyzation, evaporates into enthusiastic declamation,—which, in the present case, seems to be addressed to the sympathies, prejudices, and impulses of the human heart. In his writings on slavery, in fact through all his works, we find a fundamental error, most fatal to truth. He makes the conscience the great _cynosura_ of all that is right in morals, and of all that is true in religion.