this saying is uncertain, and if he had, we doubt whether his wisdom and prudence, in his then critical circumstances, would have allowed him to make such an allusion. What leads me to conclude, that Paul, by the lion, referred to his persecutors the Jews, are the following things.

1st. They actually went about like a lion to devour him, and at the time he wrote was in bonds from their persecutions. Nero, nor no other Roman magistrate sought after Paul or troubled him, until stirred up by the Jews. He was even obliged to appeal to Cæsar to be delivered from their hands. 2d. In Psalm xxii. 13, 21. where Christ and his enemies are spoken of, the persecuting Jews are expressly compared to a lion and a roaring lion. If Paul compared them to this, he had the example of David for it. To this Psalm probably Paul alluded in the passage before us. 3d. To understand the apostle by the lion, referring to the persecuting Jews, renders its usage uniform in the New Testament, but to understand it of a fallen angel, is at variance with its entire usage throughout the Bible. It is agreeable to the fact, that the Jews went about as a roaring lion, but it is contrary to all facts and experience, that a fallen angel ever did this. But Peter adds, "whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world." Who ever doubted, that the "affictions" of Christians in the apostolic age arose from the persecuting Jews? Compare verse 10. and va rious other parts of the Epistle. But was a fallen angel in various places at the same time afflicting them? Besides, how could they resist steadfast in the faith an invisible spirit? It was with wicked men they had to contend, and from whom they suffered. See 1 Peter iv. 12. i. 7. The word devil we have seen signifies a slanderer or false accuser. Peter

then says in this passage-" your adversary the slanderer or false accuser goeth about as a roaring lion." That this referred to men, no one we think can doubt who reads chap. ii. 12, 15, 20. iii. 15-17. and iv. 4. of this epistle. Nor will any one dispute, that the words o' antidikos umon diabolos may be rendered thus; "the adversary your false accuser," or, "your adversary the false accuser." The whole epistle, is a comment on this view of the passage, nor would any one have ever thought of a fallen angel, had the word diabolos been rendered false accuser as it is in some other places. Common sense, and common Scripture usage of words, lead us to no other interpretation. It should be remembered, that Peter was a Jew, and was familiar with the meaning of the terms satan and devil. Jesus had called him satan and Judas a devil'; and could there be any impropriety in calling the persecutors of Christians "your adversary the devil?” And on account of their ferocious cruelty comparing them to a roaring lion walking about seeking whom they might devour.

Is it objected to this view of the passage-" the persecutors of Christians in Peter's day were many, but here he speaks of them as one." This objection has no force, for it is well known, that in Scripture the singular is frequently put for the plural and the reverse. Besides, all know, that when many are spoken of collectively they are considered as one, and especially when they act in unison about any object. The persecutors of Christians were indeed many, but never did many act more in unison about any object than they did in opposing Christians and Christianity. They were one, and unwearied in their exertions to obtain their object.

Is it further objected-" Peter speaks emphatically of the devil, as if he was a real being, for he calls him the devil?" Answer; the word diabolos here is without

the article, therefore this objection is of no force. Even if it had been used, the objection would derive little or no force from it, for it was very natural and proper for Peter to speak of the persecutors of Christians in this emphatic manner.

John viii. 44. "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do: he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it." As this is perhaps the strongest text in proof that the devil is a fallen angel, we shall give it a particular consideration. It is then said, "ye are of your father the devil." If the devil was the father of the unbelieving Jews whom our Lord here addressed, it is plain they were his sons. or children. The question then is, what devil was their father? Professor Stuart shall inform us. In his letters to Dr. Miller, p. 95-99. he thus writes:

"The word son was a favourite one among the Hebrews; and was employed by them, to designate a great variety of relations. The son of any thing, according to oriental idiom, may be either what is closely connected with it, dependant on it, like it, the consequence of it, worthy of it, &c. But this view of the subject must be explained, by actual examples from the Scriptures. The following I have selected from the Old and New Testaments.

"The son of eight days, i.e. the child that is eight days old; the son of one hundred years, i.e. the person who is one hundred years of age; the son of a year, i.e. a yearling; the son of my sorrow, i.e. one who has caused me distress; the son of my right hand, i.e. one who will assist or be a help to me; son of old age, i.e. begotten in old age; son of valor, i.e. bold, brave; son of Belial, [lit. son of good-for-nothing,] i.e. a worthless man; son of wickedness, i.e. wicked; son of a murderer,

i.e. a murderous person; son of my vows, i.e. son that answers to my vows; son of death, i.e. one who deserves death; son of perdition, i.e. one that deserves perdition; son of smiting, i.e, one who deserves stripes; son of Gehenna, i.e. one who deserves Gehenna; son of consolation, i.e. one fitted to administer consolation; son of thunder, i.e. a man of powerful, energetic eloquence or strength; son of peace, i.e. a peaceable man; son of the morning, i.e. morning star; son of the burning coal, i.e. sparks of fire; son of the bow, i.e. an arrow; son of the threshing floor, i.e. grain; son of oil, i.e. fat; son of the house, i.e. domestic or slave; son of man, i.e. man, as it is usually applied; but perhaps in a sense somewhat diverse, in several respects, as applied to the Saviour.

"Such is the wide extent of relation, similarity, connexion, &c. which the term son is employed to designate in the Hebrew, and in the Hebrew idiom of the New Testament; a latitude far greater than is given to it in the Occidental languages; and which no one, who is not conversant with the Hebrew, can scarcely estimate in an adequate manner.

"In collecting and translating these idioms, I have, of course, followed the phraseology of the original languages to which they belong, and not our English version; which not unfrequently paraphrases them, in order to render them intelligible to the English reader.

"Nor are the Hebrew of the Jewish Scriptures and Hebrew-Greek of the New Testament, the only languages which exhibit this latitude of construction in respect to the word son. The same idiom runs through all the Shemitish languages. In the Syriac version of the Scriptures, made, as is most probable, not long after the death of the apostles, and in a language which approximates nearest of all to the vernacular dialect of the Jews in our Saviour's time, the

word in question is used in a still greater latitude. The following instances are collected from this version.

"A son of trade, i.e. quotexvos, or one of the same trade, fellow workman; son of a great family, i.e. a nobleman; son of my yoke, i.e. my companion; son of foster-fathers, i.e. σuvτgopos, an associate in education or pupilage; son of flesh, i.e. a relative; son of adultery, i.e. a person of illegitimate birth; son of his day, i.e. a contemporary; son of his hour, i.e. forthwith, immediately; son of the neck, i.e. a collet; sons of inheritance, i.e. heirs; sons of the place, i.e. dwelling to-gether; sons of the city, i.e. fellow citizens; sons of the tribe i.e. members of the same tribe; sons of the people, i.e. Gentiles; sons of the company, i.e. fellow travellers; sons of my years, i.e. my equals in age; sons of the nobles, i.e. free-men; sons of Crete, i.e. Cretans; sons of idols, i.e. idolaters.

"To these idioms, taken from the Syriac version of the Scriptures, may be added others belonging to the language; e.g. the son of secresy, i.e. privy counsellor; son of the oaks, i.e. of noble progeny; the son of similitude, i.e most like; son of heresy, i.e. a heretic; son of nature, i.e. of the same nature; a son of two portions, i.e. one who receives a double portion of inheritance; son of the leopards, i.e. Bacchus; son of dividing, i.e..one who divides the inheritance with another; son of the month, i.e. of the same month; son of the year, i.e. a contemporary; son of opinion, i.e. one holding the same sentiments.

"Besides these, most of the instances already adduced above from the Hebrew idiom, are found in the Syriac; together with other cases of a similar kind, which I forbear to cite.

"In the Arabic language, the idiom in question is still more striking; because we have the language in much fuller extent than in the Syriac or the Hebrew.