and, that the predicted blessing was to be shed upon persons of all ages, classes, and conditions—­upon old men and young men—­upon sons and daughters—­and upon man-servants and maid-servants.  But, under the interpretation of those, who, like Professor Hodge and yourself, confine the meaning of doulos and doule to a species of servants, the prophecy would have reference to persons of all ages, classes, and conditions—­excepting certain descriptions of servants.  Under this interpretation, we are brought to the absurd conclusion, that the spirit is to be poured out upon the master and his slaves—­but not upon his hired servants.

I trust that enough has been said, under this my first head, to show that the various senses in which the words despotes and doulos are employed, justify me in taking the position, that whenever we meet with them, we are to determine, from the nature of the case, and from the connexion in which they are used, whether they refer to servitude in general, or to a species of it.

2d.  The confinement of the meaning of the words in question supposes, what neither religion nor common sense allows us to suppose, that slaveholders and slaves, despots and those in subjection to them, were such especial favorites of the Apostles, as to obtain from them specific instructions in respect to their relative duties, whilst all other masters and servants, and all other rulers and subjects, throughout all future time, were left unprovided with such instructions.  According to this supposition, when slavery and despotism shall, agreeably to Professor Hodge’s expectations, have entirely ceased, there will be not one master nor servant, not one ruler nor subject in the whole earth, to fall, as such, under the Apostolic injunctions.

3d.  You admit that there were hirelings, in a community of primitive believers; and I admit, for the moment, that there were slaves in it.  Now, under my interpretation of the Apostolic injunction, all husbands, all wives, all parents, all children, and all servants, in this community, are told their respective duties:  but, under yours, these duties are enjoined on all husbands, all wives, all parents, all children, and a part of the servants.  May we not reasonably complain of your interpretation, that it violates analogy?

Imagine the scene, in which a father, in the Apostolic age, assembles his family to listen to a letter from the glowing Peter, or “such an one as Paul the aged.”  The letter contains instructions respecting the relative duties of life.  The venerable pair, who stand in the conjugal and parental relations, receive, with calm thankfulness, what is addressed to themselves;—­the bright-eyed little ones are eager to know what the Apostle says to children—­a poor slave blesses God for his portion of the Apostolic counsel;—­and the scene would be one of unmingled joy, if the writer had but addressed hired servants, as well as slaves.  One of the group goes away to weep, because the Apostle had remembered the necessities of all other classes of men, and forgotten those of the hireling.  Sir, do you believe that the Apostle was guilty of such an omission?  I rejoice that my side of the question between us, does not call for the belief of what is so improbable and unnatural—­and, withal, so dishonoring to the memory of the Apostle.