And what, in the course of Divine providence, is to become of him who buried his talent in the earth, and from whom it was taken away? “Blessed is that servant whom his Lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.” _Luke_ xii. 43, 44. “Jesus answered them, Verily I say unto you, whoever committeth sin is the servant (δοῦλος, _doulos_, _slave_) of sin.” _John_ viii. 34. “Behold for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves.” _Isa._ l. 1. “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” _Gen._ ix. 25. עֶֽבֶד עֲבָדִים _ebed_, _ebedim_, a most abject slave shall he be! ------------------ LESSON III. The second argument in support of his first proposition is, “A man cannot be seized and held as property, because he has rights;” to enforce which, he says—“Now, I say, a being having _rights_ cannot justly be made property; for this claim over him virtually annuls all his rights.” We see no force of argument in this position. It is also true that all domestic animals, held as property, have rights. “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib.” They all have “the right of petition;” and ask, in their way, for food: are they the less property? But his third argument in support of his first proposition is, that man cannot justly be held as property, on the account of the “essential equality of man.” If to be born, to eat, to drink, and die alike, constitutes an essential equality among men, then be it so! What! the African savage, born even a slave amid his native wilds, who entertains no vestige of an idea of God, of a future state of existence, of moral accountability; who has no wish beyond the gratification of his own animal desire; whose parentage, for ages past, has been of the same order; and whose descendants are found to require generations of constant training before they display any permanent moral and intellectual advancement; what, such a one essentially equal to such a man as Dr. Channing? The truth is, such a man is more essentially equal with the brute creation. We shall consider the subject of the equality in another part of our study, to which we refer. We, therefore, only remark, that the doctrine is a chimera. His fourth argument in support of the proposition is, “That man cannot justly be held as property, because property is an exclusive right.” “Now,” he says, “if there be property in any thing, it is that of a man in his own person, mind, and strength.” “Property,” he repeats, “is an exclusive right.”