In this paper, I will analyse and consider the title of Mr. Portal's statement and reply, as to the words "the Hebrew is the Basis."

Firstly, as to the words "The Hebrew." The 'definite article "the" confines what it is applied to, to one, thus confines the words "The Hebrew" to mean one language, and not more, thus only the Hebrew and placing the word "only" before his position, will not alter, but, to unlearned readers, will more clearly shew the expression of the writer; so that, enlarging the words of the propounded erroneous position, but not altering the sense or meaning, it will read, "Only the Hebrew is the basis of the Science of Correspondences."

A question arises as to what Mr. Portal wishes to be understood as included under the name "Hebrew." For the Divine Word does not comprise all the Hebrew language, as is evident from the other books, considered by the Jews as forming parts of their Bible. The truth of this remark may be ascertained in a few minutes, by turning to a Hebrew Lexicon or Concordance. If, therefore, by the expression "the Hebrew" in the title, is intended only so much of the Hebrew as is contained in the literal sense of the Word, then the title of his statement is "erroneous," one reason being, because, in the literal sense of the Word, all the Hebrew language is not found, and his expression, "the Hebrew," includes all. And if the expression "the Hebrew" is intended to include all the Hebrew language, then the expression is equally "erroneous," because the spiritual sense of the Word, as far as the Hebrew is concerned, only rests upon that part of the Hebrew language which is used in the letter of the Word; and, consequently, not upon that portion of it that is not part of the letter.

Secondly, as to the words "the basis." Here again the definite article "the," confines "the basis" to mean one basis and not more: and placing the word "only" before the word basis, will not alter, but, to unlearned readers, will more clearly shew, the expression of the writer; thus again enlarging the words of the propounded erroneous position, but not altering the sense or meaning, it will read thus, The Hebrew is the 'only' Basis of the Science of Correspondences."

66

It will be remarked, that in order to shew the title of the statement was erroneous, it was observed in the answer, "E. S. occasionally refers to words in the Syriac, Arabic, and Greek, and draws the spiritual signification of words from their natural import in such languages; but surely no one will therefore say, that the science of correspondence is based upon such languages." Upon this passage, Mr.

Portal replies, that he equally makes "use of Syriac and Arabic roots, from the well known fact, that all the Semetic languages are connected in their roots ;" and he continues, "thus, on the supposition that the Hebrew is the basis of the science of correspondences, we are forced partly to grant the same honour to the Chaldee, the Syriac, the Ethiopian, and probably to the Sacred language of Egypt; as, (observes Mr. Portal,) I have endeavoured to prove elsewhere."

Gentlemen, I feel assured, that every reader considering this part of the reply, will agree with me, that he has in fact, though not in words, abandoned the accuracy, and, consequently, by implication, acknowledges the erroneousness of his position," that the Hebrew is the Basis of the Science of Correspondences." Inasmuch as Mr. Portal considers, that the Hebrew is the basis, or one of the bases, it is left in a state of uncertainty, which it is, and thus the title of this statement and reply is shewn by himself to be erroneous.

The title of the statement and reply, to have been consistent with Mr. Portal's views, should have been as follows: "The Hebrew is the Basis, or one of the Bases of the Science of Correspondence." But had the title been thus, I should have maintained it was erroneous. I extract from the answer the following sentences, as containing views deemed accurate on the subject of the Hebrew. "I consider the science of correspondence wholly distinct from the Hebrew language. I admit that this language is a kind of adaptation to the science of correspondence, if I may be allowed the expression, and a medium for perpetuating it, and consequently for unfolding it." Again, it was remarked in the answer, "It is admitted, that E. S. occasionally refers to the meaning of a word in the Hebrew, and from it draws the spiritual signification; but it is not from such circumstance a legitimate conclusion, that the science of correspondence at large, or throughout, is based upon the Hebrew language."

it

Mr. Portal in support of his erroneous position, states in his reply, that, "in a great number of words, the Hebrew exhibits the effect of which the science of correspondences is undoubtedly the cause: whence may be inferred, that the Hebrew is the basis, or one of the bases, of the science of correspondences," &c. Now, instead of the science of correspondence being the cause of the number of words in the Hebrew, truth appears to be the cause; for E. S. in A. C. 7236, in explaining what makes good so various, states it is truth: and observes, for when truth is conjoined, it qualifies good. The reason why truth

"I beg to take this opportunity of requesting a reference to the title of this work, and to the bookseller in England from whom it may be purchased."

is so manifold and various that it can communicate so great variety to good, is, because truths are innumerable, and interior truths are in a different form to exterior truths, and because the fallacies of the external senses adjoin themselves, and also the falses which are of concupiscences since, therefore, truths are so innumerable, it may be manifest, that by conjunctions so many varieties exist, that it is impossible in any case that one thing should be the same with another. This is clear to him who knows, that from twenty-three various [letters], by diverse conjunctions, the expressions of all languages can exist, yea, with perpetual variety, if there were thousands of languages: what then may we suppose to be the case arising from thousands and myriads of varieties, as are the varieties of truth! This also is confirmed by the common maxim, many men many minds, that is, there are as many diversities of ideas as there are men.

I would here, willingly for the present, have ceased remarking on this part of the reply; but I consider myself bound to state, that Mr. Portal was under an error when he wrote, "Mr. Knight imagines that Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic, are different languages," Mr. Portal meaning to intimate they were only dialects, that is, subdivisions of a language. I knew, that the Hebrew, Syriac, with others, were and are spoken of as "dialects." But it does not from this circumstance follow, that the members of the New Church, are, as Mr. Portal seems to intimate, to regard them as one language. Indeed, the differences among them are so great, that in my judgment, they ought to be considered distinct; and the partial connexion of the roots does not convince me to the contrary. Moreover, the Ancient Church was spread throughout Asia and Africa (Coronis 39); and surely Mr. Portal will consider it probable, that in these quarters of the globe, and during the continuance of that Church, the science of correspondence was known to many persons speaking distinct languages. Are we, however, to consider the science of correspondence as based upon them all? clearly not.

I was greatly surprised to find, that Mr. Portal inclined to consider what he terms "the sacred language of Egypt," to be a basis of the science of correspondences. By this sacred language of Egypt, I apprehend, is intended either the Coptic, or the science of correspondence, or the hieroglyphics. The Coptic was the ancient language of Egypt, before Greek letters were imported into it, and by which importation it was altered. The Coptic is a language admitted by the learned to be distinct from the Hebrew. Thus, by so inclining towards the Coptic, Mr. Portal gives, as it were, another ground for his title's

being erroneous. I feel compelled to suppose, that the Coptic is meant, because I cannot imagine that Mr. Portal intended to say, that the science of correspondence was based upon itself. Here it may be remarked, that the Pentateuch, or Five Books of Moses, is considered to contain many Coptic words. But whether I am right as to the meaning of the expression, the "Sacred language," or whether by it is meant the hieroglyphics of the Egyptians, it is clear that E. S. did not consider any thing the Egyptians were principled in as a basis of the science of correspondences; for he observes (Heavenly Doctrine, New Jerusalem, towards the end of n. 51), that the science of correspondence flourished among the Eastern nations and in Egypt, and that thence [came] their hieroglyphics: (and see S. S. 20; T. C. R. 201; and D. P. 255.)

And now a few words as to the Greek. I called Mr. Portal's attention to the Greek as a distinct language; and I am disappointed by the following remarks immediately and in continuation of the extract from his Reply set out above :-" Moreover, when Swedenborg rests an explanation upon the Greek, he shews us, that in order to arrive at the understanding of the spiritual sense, it is useful to be acquainted with the original language of the New Testament, as, in order to thoroughly understand Swedenborg, it appears to be indispensable to be acquainted with Latin." [?]

Upon this I observe, the object E. S. had in resorting to and explaining a Greek word is one thing; what I called attention to it for is another. My object was to shew that if the science of correspondence was based upon the Hebrew, the Hebrew was not the only basis; for that upon Mr. Portal's views the Greek was equally a basis. This is what Mr. Portal should have answered; instead of which he has remarked that "by quoting a Greek word to explain the literal sense, it seems to us that the modern apostle has not destroyed the specific character which he assigns to the Hebrew in the before cited passages." Gentlemen, I have only to mention upon this last citation, that I never assumed or said that E. S. had destroyed the specific character he assigned to the Hebrew; and therefore, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Portal's conclusion has nothing to do with the subject; and I may state that E. S. no where assigns the specific character of the Hebrew to be the basis of the science of correspondence.

But Mr. Portal observes, that in objecting to the title of his article, I acknowledge I do not understand the meaning he attaches to it, and mentions that the article "basis" in the Dictionaries of Beyer and Nicholson might have informed me. In answer, I beg Mr. Portal to notice that it is a rule with the English nation "that words in com

mon occurrences are to be taken in their ordinary and popular signification, unless a writer declares to the contrary:" and I ask, whether readers are to consult either Latin or English dictionaries to enable them to discover the meaning of a writer, when the words used have a plain signification. Gentlemen, it is greatly to be regretted that, in general, writers are not more accurate as to their expressions. Your pages from time to time manifest sufficient evidence of misunderstandings of readers from the want of precision in writers to justify this observation. However, I have referred to Beyer and Nicholson, and do not find any authority for the position that "the Hebrew is the basis of the science of correspondences." It is clear to me that the expressions, "Hebrew," "basis," and "science of correspondences," are used by Mr. Portal in some uncommon senses; and it is his peculiar views of these terms that cause my remarks. I have bestowed great labour to comprehend his views, and I do not believe that even now I understand his notions of such expressions.

I had prepared observations on the expression, "the science of correspondences" in the title of the Statement and Reply; but as the insertion of the whole would trespass too much on your pages, I have detached and will arrange them as a separate article for your next publication. In due time I will answer every remark of Mr. Portal in support of the title to his papers; and I am thoroughly satisfied his positions noticed and objected to in the answer will be shewn to be without foundation, and consequently, as I have asserted, erroneous.

66

Permit me to state, I lament that writers consider remarks made on their papers personal to themselves, and a difference of sentiment as involving a breach of gentlemanly conduct on the part of individuals anxious for the truth, and therefore stepping forward to prevent misconceptions. Of this class of writers I am sorry to have to consider Mr. Portal. In several places of his Reply he considers my observations as an "attack;" and in another place speaks of me as his opponent;" elsewhere as carrying a position "beyond legitimate bounds to make a system appear absurd;" as endeavouring to produce a proof that his " searches are of no value;" and invites to a free and honest discussion. Surely there was not any need to consider the observations as evidence of my taking an offensive attitude towards a gentleman and a scholar, and of whom I had not any other knowledge than furnished in your pages! That gentleman's idea as to any intended offence to him personally is imaginary.

I remain, dear Sirs, yours faithfully,

Burton-upon-Trent, Jan. 21, 1842.

JAMES KNIGHT.