We do not quote this as an argument. If his postulate be true concerning the “law within himself,” he needs no argument; his opinion is enough: his feeling, his “sense of duty” governs the matter. But, while his disciples “reverence and follow” their “sense of duty,” by obeying a law within themselves, and, according to their conscience, “own the sun and stars,” may not those who believe the Bible to be the word of God, who “reverence and follow” it, as their “sense of duty,” and obey it as a law within themselves, according to their conscience, own slaves? But Dr. Channing continues—“The highest intelligences recognise their own nature, their own rights, in the humblest human being. By that priceless, immortal spirit which dwells in him, by that likeness of God which he wears, tread him not in the dust, confound him not with the brute.” And he then gravely adds—“We have thus seen that a human being cannot rightfully be held and used as property. No legislation, not that of all countries or worlds, could make him so. Let this be laid down as a first, fundamental truth.” Such were his opinions. We view them, if not the ravings, at least the impressions, of fanaticism. When counsellor Quibble saw his client Stultus going to the stocks, he cried out, “It is contrary to my sense of justice; to the laws of God and man; no power can make it right!” _Yet Stultus is in the stocks!_ But what shall we say of him who makes the sanction of his own feelings the foundation of his creed, of his standard of right? What of him, who, in his search for truth, scarcely or never alludes to the Bible as the voice of God, as the Divine basis of his reasons, as the pillar on which argument may find rest? Has some new revelation inspired him? Has he heard a voice louder and more clear than the thunder, the trumpet from the mount of God? Has he beheld truth by a light more lucid than the flaming garments of Jehovah? Or has he only seen a cloud, not from the top of Sinai, but from the dismal pit of human frailty? ------------------ LESSON V. Dr. Channing’s second proposition is: “Man has sacred rights, the gifts of God, and inseparable from human nature, of which slavery is the infraction;” in proof of which he says, vol. ii. p. 23—“Man’s rights belong to him as a moral being, as capable of perceiving moral distinctions, a subject of moral obligation. As soon as he becomes _conscious_ of a duty, a kindred _consciousness_ springs up, that he has a _right_ to do what the sense of duty enjoins, and that no foreign will or power can obstruct his moral action without crime.” Suppose man has rights as described; suppose he feels _conscious_, as he says; does that give him a right to do wrong, because his sense of duty enjoins him to do so? And may he not be prevented from so doing? Was it indeed a crime in God to turn the counsels of Ahithophel into foolishness?