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_.
We may consider also, as a farther confirmation, that it is impossible, in the nature of things, that _liberty_ can be _bought_ or _sold_! It is neither _saleable_, nor _purchasable_.

For if any one man can have an absolute property in the liberty of another, or, in other words, if he, who is called a _master_, can have a _just_ right to command the actions of him, who is called a _slave_, it is evident that the latter cannot be accountable for those crimes, which the former may order him to commit.

Now as every reasonable being is accountable for his actions, it is evident, that such a right cannot _justly_ exist, and that human liberty, of course, is beyond the possibility either of _sale_ or _purchase_.
Add to this, that, whenever you sell the liberty of a man, you have the power only of alluding to the _body_: the _mind_ cannot be confined or bound: it will be free, though its mansion be beset with chains.

But if, in every sale of the _human species_, you are under the necessity of considering your slave in this abstracted light; of alluding only to the body, and of making no allusion to the mind; you are under the necessity also of treating him, in the same moment, as a _brute_, and of abusing therefore that nature, which cannot otherwise be considered, than in the double capacity of _soul_ and _body_.
But some person, perhaps, will make an objection to one of the former arguments.