point of the citadel of truth have all these resources of opposition and error been marshalled with more ingenuity, or urged with greater vehemence, or hurled with more dexterity and bitterness, than against the Mosaic history of creation and the deluge, and the testimony of inspiration respecting the final conflagration of our system.

And such has, sometimes, been the fancied success of these assaults, that a loud shout of triumphant exultation has rung through Christendom, as though the impregnable walls of that citadel had been battered down; and the champions of truth have, sometimes, turned pale, and felt the anchor of their hope giving way, and trembled for the consequences, and have, under the influence of such fear, sometimes made unnecessary and unjustifiable concessions, and thereby, in a measure, weakened the positions, which they should have maintained unflinchingly, without one single iota of compromise, keeping ever before them, in characters bright as the pencillings of the sunbeam. “Truth is mighty and will prevail.”

With unlimited confidence in the immovable stability and everlasting endurance of this great proposition, I shall proceed, in a series of six or seven lectures, to defend the truth of the Mosaic history of creation and the deluge from the assaults which have been made upon it, as well as the testimony of inspiration respecting the final conflagration and re-formation of our system; and shall attempt to show, wherein injury has been sustained by the zealous but ill advised and misdirected efforts of the champions of revelation.

That we may proceed understandingly and systematically to the performance of our task, I will first mark out the whole field of controversy, and define its boundaries, and reconnoitre the precise position of our adversaries, and describe their armor, and the weapons in which they trust for offensive and defensive warfare.

Marshalled in two grand divisions, the enemies of revelation are arrayed in hostility to the Mosaic history of the origin of the earth, the deluge, and the prophecy respecting the conflagration and re-formation of our globe, mainly upon the ground, or within the field of reason and science, and upon that ground or within that field we shall meet them.

The champions of a rank and bold infidelity head one division. They utterly deny both the authenticity and literality of Genesis and the Bible generally, because, as they affirm, it is inconsistent with reason -because there are discrepancies in the account of creation itself, which can not be satisfactorily explained and reconciled, and because it conflicts, as they affirm, with all the known facts of science and Geology.

The advocates of the dreamy phantasies of Swedenborg head the other division, and, although apparently discarding the bold assumptions of infidelity, as untrue, they are, nevertheless, equally enemies of the truth, and inculcate a less open and reckless, but more subtle and dangerous infidelity, inasmuch as its plausible sophistries are much better calculated to mis

lead and deceive the unwary. They admit, it is true, that Genesis is authentic, but yet entirely fritter away its truth, by denying its literality. They affirm that there was no such creation and deluge, as a literal construction of the history would indicate, but that the first eleven chapters of Genesis is an allegory, incomprehensible to the mass of mankind-that the key to this allegory was lost to the world at the confusion of tongues that Frederick Emanuel Swedenborg has found it, a special revelation having been made to him respecting it, and that he and his initiated followers can alone unlock the hidden arcana of its mysteries.

It is, furthermore, worthy of record and remembrance, that the champions, who head this division of the forces of error, use precisely the same arguments against the literality of Genesis, that the champions, who head the other wing of opposition to truth, do against its authenticity. And wherein, then is the difference in reality, between them? There certainly is none, except that the infidelity of Swedenborgianism is the subtlest and most dangerous of the two.

I will here give a brief outline of their argument, both against the authenticity and literality of Genesis, and then attempt to show that their reasoning is false and inconclusive.

They affirm that there are discrepancies in the Mosaic account of creation itself, which cannot be reconciled, inasmuch as it is said that light was created upon the first day, whereas the sun was not, according to the same account, created until the fourth day, and

they, therefore, affirm that the whole history is unphilosophical, since light could not exist before the sunthat, if the record of the six days creation be intended to be regarded as literal, the world is not, according to that history, but about six thousand years old, which, as they affirm, conflicts with the known and acknowledged facts of Geology, by which it is proved to be myriads of ages more, that it is contrary to every principle of reason and philosophy to suppose that the deluge should so overflow the whole earth, as to submerge it beneath the water fifteen cubits below the tops of the highest mountains, and that the entire history is, therefore, altogether unworthy of belief, if regarded as anything but an ingenious allegory.

Now, in my answer to these objections of Swedenborgianism and infidelity, I shall assume the proposition, that the history contained in the first eleven chapters of Genesis is both authentic and literal, and that, if the original Hebrew be properly construed and understood, that history does not conflict at all with the known and acknowledged facts of Geology, nor with any sound principle of reason or philosophy.

I am aware that, in thus assuming that the history is both authentic and strictly literal, I object to certain admissions, which have been made by the champions and defenders of the Mosaic account. But, in justification of such a course, I have reasons to urge, the validity of which forcibly impress my own mind. I think those admissions have been very incautiously and injudiciously as well as unjustifiably made, and have, in many cases, materially weakened the defence of

those champions, and unnecessarily given their opponents the decided advantage in the discussion.

It is a settled principle of interpretation, I believe, and one perfectly correct, that, in an apparent narration of facts, if there be nothing preceding it, or in the narration itself, which indicates a figure, a parable or an allegory, it is uniformly to be regarded as literal. Any other rule would inevitably introduce complete confusion and perplexing uncertainty into the medium for the conveyance of thought or of intellectual impressions from mind to mind, and every man, however wild and crazy in his notions of things, would accominodate the language to his own mental vagaries, and build upon it his own peculiar fabric of mysticism, having his own peculiar key to unlock its meaning.

It is, then, I say, an established rule of interpretation, that every statement, purporting to be a statement of facts, should be construed literally, according to the comprehension of unsophisticated minds, unless the narrator intimates by either the text or context, that he is uttering or writing parables or allegories.

Now let us apply this rule to the matter under discussion. There is no indication whatever, in the Mosaic account of creation, of any thing but a plain, straight forward narrative of events, which actually and literally transpired, exactly in the order in which they were described. Any other hypothesis would create confusion in our ideas—would send the honest enquirer after truth afloat upon a dark and wild ocean