it is evident that sapien of sapientia is the same as sophia, since it cannot be said to differ from sofia; then the account given of the Greek word for knowledge will apply to sapien. As to the concluding part of sapientia, that is, tia, in the analysis it ia, it stands in apposition to sapien, and literally means, "God the one;" hence it serves as the definition or explanation of sapien.

The French word for wisdom, sagesse, means, when thus analysed, esse-sage, "the being wise; but sage itself, which is the radical part of this word, is composed of is-o-ig, in which we still discover so, so that in the beginning this word appears to have been in all languages the word for knowledge. The ig in is-o-ig may have gone as an article before so, and have afterwards fallen behind; or, if we count the e in sage as not superfluous, and make, in consequence, the analysis to be is-oig-o, the ig-o, which is equal to ig-e, stands in apposition to is-o, and serves to define it. Sage might be even analysed thus, is-ea-ig, "being the first high one;" but no matter how we consider it, the meaning must be ever the same. The French word savoir is still, when radically considered, the same as sophia and sapientia, since, analysed, it is is-o-ivo-ir. Here is-o-iv does not differ from the analysis of soph or sap, and the o-ir is still "God being," or "God one," or "the double one," so that, like the endings of the other words, it stands in apposition to is-o-iv. The other French word connaître, no matter how we write it, as it means "the thing con"

(être con), is, we see, the same as ken, con, and know, explained above. The Latin word sagire does not, when closely considered, differ from sagesse, for the reason that ire (to go), with which it ends, does not differ from esse (to be), with which sagesse ends, since to go and to be have the same meaning. When we consider sagesse as being composed of two parts only, sage-esse (sage être), wise to be, any body, one would think, might thus far discover its etymology, for this much at least appears to lie on the very surface; yet lexicographers, from their not having any more than any body else the least knowledge of this divine science, have not even known this much. They suppose that sagesse is derived from sagire, and they consider both these words as belonging to two different languages; which, if true, will go to prove that the Latin word esse and the Latin word ire are not two Latin words. For sagesse differs from sagire just as much as esse differs from ire, but no more. And sagesse is as strictly derived from sagire (and not from sage-esse) as esse (to be) is derived from ire (to go), but not more so. Surely it is not extravagant to anticipate that children eight or nine years old will, some short time hence, be able, with a very slight knowledge of this science, to show that sagesse, sagire, and all words that end so, are composed of two significant parts; such as sage esse and sage ire.

But why should I wonder at the etymology of so simple a French word as sagesse being unknown,

since that of all such infinitives as connaître, naître, paraître, &c. are equally unknown; yet they do not end with a foreign word such as esse, but with its literal translation, être, the word of all others the most frequently used.

Thus no matter how we consider wysed, or the parts of which it is composed, we find that it ever implies wisdom. It is really astonishing how the same letter can be made to have meanings so differ ent; there is in such a happy contrivance something very mysterious and wonderful; and if they were not divine beings (as I am often tempted to believe they were) who have laid the foundation of this science, man's mind must have surely degenerated since the distant times when letters and words were first made; for it is not easy to conceive how human wisdom, even the greatest on record, could have contrived any system for the composing of rational speech so logical and simple as the one which, unknown to ourselves, we have always had.

Thus we have seen that these letters, A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z, give the following words, ea ib ic id ef guis; ik il im en op eque er is thew, eke is wysed; of which the meaning is, "This first book is had of the Jews: it opens the mind, and it is good breeding and wisdom."

In which few words we have the history of the alphabet, since we are told whence it comes; and we have also its eulogy, since it is said to open the mind, and be good breeding and wisdom; and, in

this enumeration of the advantages inseparable from an acquaintance with this first book, which is the key to every other knowledge, we read a forcible exhortation, calling upon all men to make letters a study. It were difficult to say more in so short a space.

The inquiry into which I now enter is one of great interest, since by it is shown what men first understood by the ideas being, animal, trinity, truth, eternity, &c.; and the knowledge by this means acquired, when coupled with that of previous inquiries, allows us to see clearly the fundamental principles of man's first religion.

፡፡

We have already seen that by the juncture of an and im, or male and female, and another word, namely, al, the entire name animal has been made. Here an is for the male kind, and im for the female; and the analysis of the former is oin, which means one;" and that of the latter is iv, which means "double one." Hence the male is signified by one, and the female by two, both of which numbers when added together make three. As the radical part of animal is anim, we hence see that this word is equal to three. Let us now examine the name Being. Of this word the radical part is be; for ing, of which we shall see the analysis farther on, is here synonymous with thing, so that be-ing or ing-be may be fairly rendered by the thing be. In the word Be we have two letters, and in the beginning their order must have been eb, in which word e is the Greek epsilon (). But each of these letters

66

stands in apposition to the other, and serves to define the other; so that we might make a proposition of them, thus, " is B;" that is, "e is equal to B." B is, we know, composed of these parts, 13, and of these, C; but when we connect thus, e, there is a little i in the middle, by which both these parts (E) are put together, thus . Hence may be analysed thus io; by which we see that it is equal to the parts that compose B, since these are also io. Then the sole difference between and B is one of size, and when we admit the latter to be equal to one, the former may be distinguished from it by being called the little one; hence B may be represented by IO, and by 10.

From thus seeing that

in eb the one character stands in apposition to the other, we cannot say that the radical part of this word is composed of more than one character, and hence we reduce the word for being to a single sign, namely, or B, in which, as has just been shown, there are three parts. We have seen in anim that the male kind is signified by one, and the female kind by two; and in B or the same thing occurs, since here the I is for the male kind, and these two parts 3 for the female kind; and when we consider them thus separately, we may not only perceive that they are equal to three, since one and two make three; but that we have by joining them together thus, the figure 3. From this it is evident that the radical words for animal and being have exactly the same meaning. And what ought this lead us to suspect? That notwithstanding their apparent