Here we find, besides many of the idioms already quoted, sons of the land, i.e. strangers; son of familiarity, i.e. intimate friend, son of moonshine, i.e. a night resplendent with moonbeams; son of the night, i.e. a dark night; son of misfortune, i.e. in trouble; son of the days, i.e. unfortunate; son of destroying, i.e. warlike; son of freedom, i.e. innocent; son of the way, i.e. a traveller; son of the sun, i.e. Aurora, or morning light; son of the clouds, i.e. rain, also coolness; son of time, i.e. a day and a night; son of the night, i.e. the moon; son of the day, i.e. a day.

"These are only a part of the instances which occur, of the idiomatic use of the word son in Arabic. More might easily be added; but I deem it unnecessary.

"The object of all the specimens which I have exhibited of the use of the term son, in the Shemitish languages, is to make it evident how very vague, indefinite, and extensive, the secondary significations of this word are; and how different the genius of the oriental languages, which thus employ it, is, from that of our own language, or from those of Europe in general.

"Every kind of relation or resemblance whether real or imaginary, every kind of connexion, is characterised by calling it the son of that thing to which it stands thus related, or with which it is connected."

The Professor adds on the same page, and it suits my purpose equally as it did his, by merely substituting son of the devil for the phrase son of God. "It will be remembered, however, that when we investigate the meaning of the phrase son of the devil, in the Scriptures, we are investigating the usus loquendi of a Shemitish dialect. This will of course be conceded, in regard to the phrase in the Old Testament; and I may add, that all critics are now agreed, that although the words of the New Testament are Greek,

the idiom is Hebrew." Mr. Stuart then tells us that "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." He adds, "every kind of relation or resemblance, whether real or imaginary, every kind of connexion is characterised by calling it the son of that thing to which it stands thus related, or with which it is connected." It is a plain case then, that if the Jews were of their father the devil, or sons of the devil, and if the term devil means a slanderer, our Lord only told them that they were "slanderous persons." Were they not closely connected with slander, depended on it, were like it, and worthy of it? Mr. Stuart, by the above remarks, forever settles the question, that neither here nor any where else, son of the devil refers to a fallen angel. I might here close my remarks, but I shall briefly notice what is further said in the passage, that we may see how it agrees with the view which he has given us. It is then said, "and the lusts of your father ye will do." Well, did not the Jews slander the Saviour? They certainly did. But it is said, "He was a murderer from the beginning." We have seen from the above quotation, that "son of wickedness," simply means "wicked;" and that "son of a murderer" signifies "a murderous person." That the Jews were murderous persons no one disputes. But, it will be said, how were the Jews murderous persons from the beginning of the world? This is not said. They are only said to have been "murderers from the beginning." The term arhes, here rendered the beginning, is used to express the beginning of our Lord's ministry and miracles, John viii. 25. vi. 44. xv. 27. xvi. 4. and ii. 11. 1 John i. 1. ii. 7, 13, 14, 24. and iii. 11. 2d. Epistle, verses 5, 6. In short, it is used to express the beginning of persons and things in a variety of ways. See Rev. i. 8. iii. 14. xxi. 6. and xxii. 13. Mark i. 1. Philip iv. 15.

Heb. ii. 3. Luke i. 2. 2 Thess. ii. 13. Acts xi. 15. Heb. vii. 3. Acts. xxvi. 5. Matth. xxiv. 8. Márk xiii. 8. Heb. iii. 14. Col. i. 18. In the following places it refers to the beginning of the world; Heb. i. 10. Matth. xix. 4, 8. and xxiv. 21. Mark x. 6. 2 Peter iii. 4. But let the reader notice, that in these texts some additional phrase or circumstance is introduced, showing that the beginning of the world is meant. We are not left to infer this, merely from the term beginning. Such are all the places where this word is to be found, except John i. 1. where it is said, "in the beginning was the Word." This forms no particular exception to its general usage. See the Unitarian and Trinitarian controversy respecting this text. The only other text which can be deemed an exception, is 1 John iii. 8. which will be considered afterwards. But it is not necessary to confine its sense to the beginning of the gospel dispensation, for the very same devil the Jews were of, had been from the beginning of the world; had deceived Eve, and led Cain to murder his brother Abel. The Jews had been "murderous persons" from the beginning of the gospel dispensation, as all will allow who have read the four Gospels. From our Lord's birth to his death they sought to slay him. In verses 37, 40. he accused the Jews of seeking to kill him; and this they did because his word had no place in them, verse 37. they abode not in the truth; there was no truth in them. They were of their father the devil. What this was, is explained verse 23. "Ye are from beneath,-ye are of this world." "And whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin," verse 24. And chap. iii. 31. our Lord told them, "he that is of the earth is earthy and speaketh of the earth." What was it then to be from beneath, of this world, and earthy? Was it not to judge after the flesh, or from their earthly corrupt principles and lusts? verse 15.

If the Jews had abode in the truth, or Christ's word had been in them, they would not have been murderous persons, or made God's law void through their traditions. Had they believed Moses, they would have believed in Jesus, for he wrote of him. John v. 45-47. Perhaps it will be said- Are not the Jews expressly distinguished from the devil who is called their father? Son and father must in this case be the same. Professor Stuart informs us above, and I think correctly, that "son of a murderer" is simply a Hebrew idiom for "a murderous person." The Jews were so, and they spoke a lie and were the fathers of it. What lie did they speak? They said, verses 39, 40. "Abraham is our father." They lied; for says our Lord to them-"if ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the

truth which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham." He adds, verse 41. "ye do the deeds of your father." What father? What they had seen or learned from their own evil lusts and passions; and this accords with the source from which all evil proceeds stated by James chap. i. 14, 15. and many other passages.

We have seen that the principle of evil was not only personified but deified. In this passage, and others, it is spoken of as a person or being. Eve's lust said to her, "ye shall not surely die," which was a lie. It is in the passage before us represented as the father of lies, and the lusts or desires of this father the Jews did. Lust from the beginning abode not in the truth, for it was by lust conceiving contrary to the commandment, the first deviation from truth was made, and the first lie told; and when lust said. "ye shall not surely die," it was not only a liar but the father it. From our mother Eve to the present day, all men who listen to the lies of their own lusts

contrary to God's commandments, have found that the ways of transgressors are hard. Men obeying the voice of their lusts, murder themselves, are led to murder others, and have turned the world into a Golgotha. The more effectually to deceive ourselves, while lust is the true cause of all the mischief, an imaginary being has been invented and believed in, to bear all the blame of it.

In concluding these remarks I would ask every candid man, Did our Lord mean to tell the Jews that they were of their father a fallen angel? and that the lusts of this fallen angel they would do? And did he mean, that this fallen angel was a murderer from the beginning? That this wicked being abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him? And that "when he speaketh a lie he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it?" Yes, all this is confidently asserted to be our Lord's meaning. But why should it be believed, until it is first proved, that an angel fell from heaven and became a devil? The belief of this is premature, until it is shown, that such a being really exists. To say he was a murderer from the beginning of the world, and refer to Gen. 3. will not do, for we have shown, that the serpent that deceived Eve was not a fallen angel; nor is such a being once mentioned in the Old Testament. Nor will it answer any better to refer to Cain's murder of Abel, for not a single hint is dropped, that the devil. or a fallen angel had any concern with it. Besides, when the Scriptures trace crimes to their source in plain language, they never refer them to the devil, but to lust within men, see James iv. 1-16. and i. 13-16. Matth. xv. 18-21.

1 John. iii. 8, 9, 10. "He that committeth sin, is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.