general enmity against each other; but the Hebrew words, if truly interpreted, denote, that some one person should descend from the woman, who should capitally conquer and subdue the great enemy of mankind. If I were forced to allow, that we have now so far lost the perfect understanding of the idiom of the Hebrew tongue, as not to see that the words here used by Moses must carry this restrictive sense; yet from the Septuagint version of the place it appears, that when that translation was made, the Hebrew words were known to have that meaning." The Septuagint version of the passage is thus: Καὶ εχθραν θησω ανα μέσον σε καὶ ανα μέσον της γυναικός, καὶ ανα μέσον το σπέρματος σε και ανα μέσον το σπέρματα αυτής. ΑΥΤΟΣ σε τηρησει κεφαλην καὶ συ τηρήσεις αυτό Πτερίαν i. ε. And I will put enmity between thee and between the woman, and between thy seed, and between the seed of her; HE shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. The point to be observed in this translation is; that it does not say IT shall bruise thy head, the pronoun does not refer to the word seed; but it is HE shall bruise, the pronoun being personal, and masculine, not agreeing with the word wippa, seed, which is neuter; but denoting some one person to be the seed, and that he should bruise the head of the enemy here spoken of. Had the Greek interpreters thought the text meant that the woman's seed or offspring in general were here intend

The Septuagint translation of the books of Moses was made about 277 years before Christ, about A. M. 3727. See Archbishop Usher's Annals. Prideaux's Connect. part ii. book i.

σπερμα,

ed, they would have said avrò, to agree with owigua, as we say IT in our English; but they more correctly rendered the place avros, HE, apprehending some one particular person to be here intended, and not the offspring of the woman in general.

But may it not be said that the avròs here used is a mistake; that the Septuagint did perhaps not take the true meaning of the Hebrew expression; that they should have written not avros, but avro, IT, not HE? I answer, we, who believe the scriptures, have the authority of St. Paul to assure us, that the Septuagint version is most judiciously right in this particular; that apostle having remarked a similar and subsequent expression to that which is here used, that God therein spake, not of seeds, as of many, but of seed, as one, and hereby intended CHRIST.* Thus absolutely certain therefore are we, that the Septuagint translators have, in the peculiarity of the pronoun avros, given us the true meaning of the text; for we have an inspired apostle testifying, that they have therein given us what was really the mind of God. But I would consider in the next place, whether the Hebrew text does not speak the very same thing.

The Hebrew words here used are, hua yeshuph ka rosh, which signify not IT, but he himself shall bruise thee in the head." The Hebrew text may not, at first

σπερμα

sight, appear so remarkably to point out what the Greek version clearly intimates; for, in the Hebrew, the word (seraa) seed, is masculine, not neuter, as the word oua in the Greek; therefore the pronoun hua, in the Hebrew, does not, like avros in the Greek, directly vary in gender from the noun to which it should be referred. But we should here consider that the Hebrew pronoun hua, is specifically restrictive; to intimate what is said to belong to some one person, or one thing; and thus the Septuagint took the place as meaning, not of seeds, as of many, but of one.

I do not say that the pronoun hua, in Hebrew, may never be used, where in Greek, or in other languages, we would use a neutral pronoun, IT in English, illud in Latin, or auto in Greek; but, I think, where hua is used, it naturally speaks the thing intended in the singular number, and not referring to a noun of multitude as plural. Thus, Leviticus x. 3. Hua asher dibber Jehovah, we say, this is that the Lord spake, which, I think, is deficient of the true emphasis expressed in the Hebrew. The words were designed to shew the error of Nadab and Abihu's offering strange fire, which the Lord commanded them not, i. e. had not commanded them; and they should be translated, this is the one thing, or the thing itself which the Lord spake. The words were intended to lay down one special or specific rule, which was the principle in all the laws given; they strictly required one thing only, namely, nothing to be done, but what God directed, to sanctify HIM, and him only, in them that come nigh him. We may, I think,

.הוא אשר רבר יהוה 4

a

b Levit. x. 9. as above.

more.

8

put in itself, him or herself, in the singular number where hua is used; and thus in the text before us, hua. jesuphka rosh cannot mean it, her seed shall bruise thee in the head, taking the word seed as a noun of multitude to intend many; for in such case the Hebrew language would have been, they shall bruise thee in the head; but hua jesuphka, if we rightly translate the He brew, must be he himself, intending one person and no Thus the translators of the Septuagint rendered the place, without inspiration, and before any prophet or apostle had directed any such interpretation, by being only true masters of the Hebrew tongue, so as not to lose or vary from the precise meaning of a very signi ficant expression in it. But I must still remark, that if I should be judged wrong in all I have here said of the Hebrew expression, the authority of St. Paul will still remain, to give us the true meaning of the place; for, in that the apostle, an inspired writer, informs us, that in the word seed, was intended, not many, but one, and that one, Christ; God has not left himself without a witness to us, what was the intention of the words before.us spoken to our first parents.

-Ant if what St. Paul explains to be the meaning of the word spoken to our first parents, was the real intention of God's purpose in them, we must admit, that God, when he caused Adam and Eve to hear the words from him, caused them so far to know the intention of the words spoken, as not to imagine from them, that he designed an idle and insignificant war, between Eve, and her children, and the serpents; but he promised them hua, him, one person of her seed, although he did not

N 2

tell them who that one person was, who was to be the captain of our salvation, the conqueror here foretold to subdue him, who had deceived them.

And this was all they could possibly as yet know of this matter, no more than this being, as I have said, told them: Who the particular person promised was ; what the warfare he should accomplish; who the very enemy was, to be conquered by him; when, and where, and in what manner he should appear; none of these things can be said to have been discovered to them: and therefore, as Joseph and Mary, when our Saviour, upon coming home with them from the temple, said to them, Wist ye not that I must be about my father's business? understood not the saying which he spake unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart; so our first parents did not understand the whole meaning of what God here intended; but they carefully treasured up the words in their hearts; formed hopes from them, the extent of which they could not as yet determine. They preserved the words, to have their children know them; to the intent that they also might shew their children the same, that future generations might see the whole of what God had spoken, and observe what might farther arise in fulfilling it.

We who live in these last days of the world, unto whom, in the gospel, the kingdom of God is come, may plainly see what that purpose of God is, which was hid from ages, from the foundation of the world: but is now made more manifest. We may see Jesus

< Heb. ii. 10. d Luke ii. 49, 50.

• See Colloss. i, 26.