los] may mean a "hired servant," just as well as a
slave; and he would have us to believe this, too, not upon the usage of
Greek writers, but upon his mere assertion! We look for other evidence;
and we intend to pin him down to proof, ere we follow him in questions
of such momentous import as the one we have in hand.

Why is it, then, we ask the candid reader, if the term in question mean
"a hired servant," as well as a slave, that no such application of the
word is given? If such applications be as abundant as our author asserts
they are, why not refer us to a single instance, that our utter
ignorance may be at least relieved by one little ray of light? Why
refer us from assertion to assertion, if authorities may be so
plentifully had? We cannot conceive, unless the object be to deceive the
unwary, or those who may be willingly deceived. An assertion merely,
bolstered up with a "See note," here or there, may be enough for such;
but if, after all, there be nothing but assertion on assertion piled, we
shall not let it pass for proof. Especially, if such assertion be at war
with truth, we shall track its author, and, if possible, efface his
footprints from the immaculate word of God.

If the term [Greek: doulos] signifies "a hired servant," or "an
apprentice," it is certainly a most extraordinary circumstance that the
best lexicographers of the Greek language have not made the discovery.
This were the more wonderful, if, as Mr. Barnes asserts, the word "is
often used in these senses" by Greek writers. We have several Greek
lexicons before us, and in not one of them is there any such meaning
given to the word. Thus, in Donnegan, for example, we find: "[Greek:
doulos], a slave, a servant, as opposed to [Greek: despotes], a master."
But we do not find from him that it is ever applied to hired servants or
apprentices. In like manner, Liddell and Scott have "[Greek: doulos], a
_slave_, _bondman_, strictly one born so, opposed to [Greek:
andrapodon]." But they do not lay down "a hired servant," or "an
apprentice," as one of its significations. If such, indeed, be found
among the meanings of the word, these celebrated lexicographers were as
ignorant of the fact as ourselves. Stephens also, as any one may see by
referring to his "Thesaurus, Ling. Graec., Tom I. art. [Greek: Doulos],"
was equally ignorant of any such use of the term in question. Is it not
a pity, then, that, since such knowledge rested with Mr. Barnes, and
since,