poses that the language of the sacred narrative should be so interpreted as to make it describe "a deluge of a limited extent, which swept away the remains of a self-destroying race, saving one family, which 'found grace in the eyes of the Lord.'" It would be foreign to the course of my argument to discuss this theory. To my own mind, it is an insuperable objection to it, to know that its inevitable tendency must be to weaken our confidence in the literal truth of the inspired narrative, while it fails to substitute its true spiritual meaning. If the reader would be gratified to find such an explanation of the Mosaic account of the deluge, as will satisfy every reasonable demand of the human understanding, I would most respectfully recommend him to examine the "Arcana Celestia," written by Emanuel Swedenborg. He will there find a full and, I hope, satisfactory explanation of this and many other subjects, which the unassisted wisdom of man has failed to explain. To give some general idea of the method of interpretation which is there applied to this portion of the word of the Lord, I will transcribe the following paragraph, which occurs in the explanation of the 6th chapter of Genesis, vol. 1, page 222:
"605. It is now treated concerning the formation of a new church, which is named Noah, and its formation is described by the ark, into which were received living things of every kind; but before the new church could exist, the man of the church, as is usual, must needs endure many temptations, which are described by the elevation, fluctuation, and delay of that ark on the waters of the flood; and at length, his becoming a true spiritual man, and being set at liberty, is described by the cessation of the waters, and other things which follow. It is impossible for any one to see these spiritual contents, who abides only in the sense of the letter, from this cause particularly, that all these things have an historical connection, and suggest an idea as of a history of events; but such was the style of writing
