common right in this respect merely, but not that there is an essential equality of right in any available sense in which we are accustomed to understand the phrase.
For if so, it will follow that brutes have an essential equality of rights with men, and that both men and brutes have an essential equality of rights with angels.
This is not pushing the argument too far in either direction.
For brutes, in a sense well defined by Dr. Wayland
himself, have rights.
No one but a moral
brute would deny the right of his fellow-creature — the brute — to appropriate an accessible bucket of refreshing water to slake his burning thirst.
Nothing is more certain than that brutes, men, and angels have a common right to appropriate the advantages with which God has endowed them.
Brutes could not have lower, and angels could not have higher, rights in this respect.
But surely it cannot be said that this common right confers on brutes, men, and angels, essential equality of rights in any practical sense whatever; for then it will follow that brutes, men, and angels have an equal right to social and political equality — a bold and reckless absurdity.
We admit that one man has a common right with each and all other men in the respect stated; but not that they have common rights in other respects.
The common right to use our “advantages