of charlatanry in Religion as everywhere else. "Whether it be a proposition or a pill, swallowing and not questioning" is what the charlatan demands. Both the fat livelihood and the self-parading glory of the Charlatan Priest depend upon "unquestioning faith" in his fundamental proposition. That proposition accepted "blindly," all the rest follows-of course!

Grant the premise and all the conclusions must follow: there is no escaping them. Antichrist, in all its forms the world over, begins ever with an "incomprehensible mystery" which it forges into a fundamental or sine qua non dogma: this dogma once accepted becomes a yoke -then follow whips of Logic and goads of Consistency, compelling all the rest. This is the method of priestcraft in all the Religions and in all the sectarian forms of each religion. Sharp as a serpent (but not as "harmless as a dove") each sectarian, churchman, champion-of-the-faith, or whatever else he may be called, invariably says, as his first word: "I can do nothing with you until you accept on faith" (that is blindly) "my fundamental proposition." This accepted and the yoke of the sect, church, faith, whatever it may be, inevitably follows. Thereafter it will be "hard to kick against the pricks," -as the Voice said to Saul, who was inwardly and secretly rebelling against the whips and goads of Pharisaism, whose hard and heavy yoke of Dogmatic Consistency he had, from youth up, been compelled to bear.

Still sounds, as earnestly and as pitifully as ever, the voice of Jesus-the same that spoke to Saul on the way to Damascus " Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

A timely illustration of the reliableness of Tradition is before us at this date. The "Diamond Anniversary" of Queen Victoria has called forth such endless spurious reports of her sayings and doings-told and retold, printed and reprinted as evidences of her supreme goodness, wisdom,

greatness, and glory-that "she no longer attempts to refute or deny them," considering it to be a hopeless task.

"If they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?" In these omniscient days of the Printing Press and of Argus-eyed Historic Records and Criticisms, spurious Traditions are even more widely received and believed than are verifiable Facts. What then must have been the case increasingly as we go backward through the centuries! What is any Tradition worth unless it be historically verified —especially any Tradition of such imaginative and credulous ages as were those which produced and "handed down" the Mishna and Targums, the Apocryphas and Hagiographas, the infallible creeds and essential doctrines of "orthodox Christianity, Judaism, Mohammedism, Buddhism, and all the other forms of traditional religious faith. "And even now is the axe laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor; and he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire."

LXXVII.-CREDULITY AND ROME, OR FAITH AND

REASON WHICH?

For sixteen centuries the doctrine of the "Triad" in its Christianized form has been sustained, chiefly from the word Elohim in the Old Testament and from the passage known as that of The Three Witnesses in the New Testament. This last was long called, by some of its chief supporters, the "main peg upon which the doctrine hung" or the "corner-stone upon which it was built." Since the Revised Version has joined with all honest or honorable Biblical Scholarship to reject this New Testament passage as spurious, the still persistent defenders of the doctrine have fallen back upon the name Elohim-a name now clearly proved to be a a relic of polytheism which was permitted to survive for a time in the oldest of the Old Testament writings.

"In Amos K. Fiske's work, entitled 'The Myths of Israel,' the Elohist portion of the text of Genesis is distinguished from the Jahoist by being printed in different type, while in the Polychrome Bible the composite authorship is indicated by the four or five separate colors.

"Referring to the Elohist text, the Rev. A. H. Sayce, the greatest living authority on the Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, in 'The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments,' writes as follows:

"The word Elohim takes us back again to the pre-Israelitish age of Canaan. Elohim is a plural noun, and its employment in the Old Testament as a singular has given rise to a large amount of learned discussion, and, it must also be added, of a learned want of common sense.

If the Hebrew word Elohim had not once signified the plural "gods," it would never have been given a plural form, and the best proof of this is the fact that in several passages of the Old Testament the word is still used in a plural sense. Indeed, there are one or two passages, as, for example, Gen. i., 26, where the word, although referring to the God of Israel, is yet employed with a plural verb, much to the bewilderment of the Jewish rabbis and the Christian commentators who followed them. It is strange how preconceived theories will cause the best scholars to close their eyes to obvious facts. What can be plainer than the existence of a persistent polytheism among the bulk of the people, and the inevitable traces of this polytheism that were left upon the language and possibly the thoughts of the enlighted few?'

"The tablets of Tel el-Amarna (1887) show very clearly how it was possible that a word which formerly signified 'gods' could come to signify the one Supreme Deity."

There would now seem to be left no infallible authority for this doctrine of the "Triad in its Christianized form" other than that of infallible Councils. But infallible Councils essentially imply an infallible Church; and an infallible Church essentially implies an infallible head of the Church, which is Papacy. So that, so far as this particular doctrine

is concerned, it is now and henceforth "Rome or Reason -there is no other alternative.

Accept "Rome" and this matter, like all others pertaining to fact as well as to faith, is already closed and settled. You are forbidden to ask questions, you must not think; all that you may say is, "I believe."

"The Holy Office and Supreme Infallibility of the Vatican "has just now promulgated an Edict forbidding absolutely any further investigation of the question as to whether the "text of the three heavenly witnesses" is authentic or an interpolation. Whether it is an integral part of the original Epistle or not, taught in the Bible or not, it is an integral part of the teachings of the Infallible Church-and that ends the matter. For the future no Roman Catholic must call it into question, or investigate it except as an Infallible Truth. This is logical and inevitable-from the standpoint of an Infallible Church, as also from the standpoint of Infallible Councils, or of Infallible Creeds, or of Infallible Tradition or of essential and binding "Orthodoxy of any sort. All these roads lead to Rome. Whoever resolutely walks in either of them should "leave all hope behind"; and the quicker he reaches Rome the better. Accept any claim of Inerrancy, whether it be creed, or book, or Pope and you are already within the territory of the Vatican. And from it there is no ultimate escape or consistent appeal except to Reason. At last the time has come, and the twentieth century will fully reveal it, when, for all honest people there can be but two Churches-the Church of Rome and the Church of Reason; or rather, the Church of Credulity dictated and compelled by Rome and the Church of Faith directed and constrained by Reason. Which of these will be chosen by all the intelligently honest is not a matter of doubt. For that intelligence which is noble enough to be honest will never submit to the suppression of investigations with reference to any question beneath the sun.

LXXVIII.-EVOLUTION OF THE TRIAD AS AN EXPLANATION OF GOD.

The conception of God as a Triad probably originated from its analogy to the human family-father, mother, and child (or children). We trace this in the most ancient Hindoo teachings, and the symbol was constantly in use by Plato, Philo, the Cabalists, and the Gnostics. The human family is three in one, hence the divine family or the "Godhead" must be, or probably is, three in one. So they reasoned, and fourth-century theologians accepted their reasoning.

Elaborating this analogy the Triad came to be the common explanation of almost everything. Among the Chaldean and all later Astrologers it explained the Universe. Sun, Earth, and Moon-Source, Product, and Reflectorwere the three in one of the Universe. For these there were three symbols, united to form a fourth: the Circle, the Cross, the Half-circle, and these three (Sun, Earth, and Moon) as One symbolized by the "mystery-planet," Mercury, whose symbol was all three combined (

half-circle
circle

cross

·).

Of all Astrology and of all its resulting Occultism "the entire symbology is built on these signs, and their arrangement conveys at once the whole of the hidden meaning. The Sun is the centre of our system; its symbol is the Circle, which is the sign of perfection. It represents spirit -the highest condition we are capable of understanding. Behind it is the Logos of our system. His Essence, pouring out life upon His children, is indicated by the dot always placed in the centre of the circle. In manifestation, energy works from the centre to the periphery. This essence is the WILL in us, or, the spirit in motion. In all Astrological calculations the Sun is the centre. It represents the I, or Individuality in humanity. The Cross represents the Earth, or matter. In form it is two straight lines athwart each other, producing four acute angles, and expressing duality as opposed to the Unity exhibited by the circle. In these two