vable in the body of the earth might perhaps have occurred in the period designated as the "beginning," which he supposes to have been a period altogether prior to the six days of creation, and one that might have extended over millions of years. This concession, however, to a mistaken notion is unworthy of the learned Dean's character as a philosopher, as being in itself totally untenable. The word translated "day" is constantly used throughout the Scriptures as applied to indefinite periods of time (Prideaux, Connexion, &c., sub anno A.C. 428), and the clear meaning of the first and second verses of the first chapter of Genesis shows, that the period indicated comprehended part of the first age, or day of the world.
The more scrutinously we look into the exact interpretation of the Hebrew text, the more delighted we find ourselves to observe how beautifully exact was the information conveyed, as suited either to the limited ideas of former times, or the more accurate researches of modern science. Thus, in the original we find it stated, that in the beginning God created not simply "the heavens and the earth," but, as Bellamy has more correctly rendered it, "the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth." (The Holy Bible, newly translated, by John Bellamy, 1818.) The word אֵת, eth, twice repeated in this verse, should, as he justly argues, be thus translated; and as he had no theory to indulge in with regard to this passage, as he had upon too many other parts of the Mosaic history, there may be the less hesitation in accepting his version of it. It is certain that this word must be similarly interpreted in other parts of the Scriptures; and as in regard to this passage he states he has the authority of the Syriac version, and also of the Paraphrase of Onkelos, both of the highest character, in his favour, there cannot be any reasonable doubt on the subject. The earlier Hebraists not having rightly understood the meaning of the word, have endeavoured to explain it as a sign of the accusative case. This acceptation of it, however, in the present instance, Bellamy controverts, for reasons into which it is unnecessary now to enter; the only object here being, to show the expediency of reading the original Hebrew by the light of modern knowledge, and so learn the wonderful provision made in it to meet the understandings of all ages. The phrase by this light may receive its true meaning, and guide us to the equally significant value of other passages, in which it is passed over by Bellamy himself, as well as in our other versions. The passages more particularly referred to, among others, are those in which it is stated that "God made two great lights;" and again, "God formed man of the dust of the ground." The latter was perhaps paraphrased in the Apo-
