illustrative of a cardinal truth in genuine religion, that Christ-according to his own peremptory statement, had to go to the Father for the Comforter, a circumstance which is positive proof that he did neither himself possess the Spirit, denominated the Comforter here, nor could bestow him without application to the Father; that, therefore, the Comforter, the Holy Ghost or the Spirit of truth, all signify the same gifts or graces, is derived primarily from God alone; and that Christ, as well as the least of his followers, had to look up to God, "the Father of lights, from whom cometh every good and perfect gift," for the needful blessings and encouragement in his benign reformatory enterprise. It is only further necessary to observe in this place, that in mentioning the punitive functions, attributed by Christ to the Spirit, John, xvi. 8-11, that he promised should succeed him, and that—in some degree at least, might supply his place among his bereft disciples, he formally and emphatically reiterates the important fact, that the Comforter or Holy Ghost, etc., proceeds exclusively from the Father! The issue in the case is therefore briefly summed up in the proposition, that Christ positively lays no claim whatever to being one of the primordial sources of the being, hypostasis or Godhead of the Holy Ghost! How then could the orthodox creed-makers have overlooked this momentous fact? Clearly only in this reprehensible way: they were determined, in spite of history and common-sense, to metamorphose Christ into a God, and then-by an easy transition, elevate the Holy Ghost to the same sublime rank, by tracing his paternity-by Divine efflux or emanation, called in orthodox language, procession, both to the Father

and to the Son. What wretches thus to trifle with sacred things, and to make Gods where only man and grace are taught or needed! Is this piety, is this worthy of the Christian name and faith, to foist gigantic falsehoods into the religion of Christ, and then, priest-like, to declare them on pain of damnation, to be truths necessary to be believed to our salvation? Ah, it is a great thing to be honestly resolved and able to say with the Wise King, Proverbs, viii. 7, that our "mouths shall speak truth!"

I shall conclude this chapter, by a reference to the fact, that the Athanasian Creed teaches that the different persons in the Trinity, are incomprehensible, and yet, in spite of such teaching, trinitarians glibly tell us all about their distinct relations and functions in the Godhead. They hesitate not to describe with minute precision and extraordinary unction, the part which each assumes either in the administration of human affairs, or in the government of the world; how one came from the other, and how he could not have come from him in any other way; how another had to have a two-fold origin, as a derivation from a single source, is not to be thought of, it being incompatible with orthodoxy; how the right faith is to be defined and understood; and how " we must believe rightly," according to Athanasian views, if we would be saved, etc. I am inclined to believe that I will stand but a poor chance to share the blessings of this orthodox Athanasian heaven, and, therefore, naturally under the circumstances, turn to some other source for relief.

CHAPTER III.

The Gestation and Birth of the Godman, Jesus Christ, together with the Levitical Ceremonies of Purification, in Relation to Maternity.

GESTATION or pregnancy, is the term in Physiology, which is applied to the period that intervenes in the mammalia between impregnation and the bringing forth of the young. More briefly stated, it may be defined to be "the act of carrying young in the womb from conception to delivery." In the human race, about forty weeks is the usual period of gestation, but this specification is liable to deviations depending on the peculiar idiosyncrasies in individual cases. A writer in Chambers's Encyclopædia, makes some pertinent and instructive remarks on this subject, as may be seen from the following quotation: "The average duration of gestation in the human female," says he, "is comprised between the 38th and the 40th week after conception. It is comparatively seldom that the actual date. of conception can be fixed with positive certainty; but among the few cases of this kind on record, Rigby mentions one in which natural labor came on in 260 days, and Reid mentions another in which it did not commence until the lapse of 293 days. Here then, we have an unquestionable range of 33 days; and many apparently authentic cases are on record, in which a longer period of gestation than in Reid's case, has been observed."

Here then in the hypothetical incarnation of the second person in the Trinity, we find a God in organic union with

humanity, and therefore appearing in the character of Godman, enclosed during a period of nine months or about forty weeks, in the womb of a woman, and, besides, in a state of utter helplessness, dependent for his health, growth, and fetal maturity, on the care, the nourishment, the existence of a frail, perishable creature, figuring as mother to the infant-Godman.* The incarnate Son of God, first a mere microscopic speck, grows and continually advances in strength and maturity until his birth. Even after this decisive period, this wonderful child, still continues to require the nurture and succor of twenty or more years before all the parts of his body and mind shall have attained completion and his being assumed the perfect form.

St. Luke informs us in verses forty and fifty-two of the second chapter of his history of the Gospel, that the Divine babe-according to orthodox teaching, "Grew and waxed in spirit; that he was filled with wisdom; that he increased in stature and in favor with God and man ;" and that the "grace of God was upon him." These words no doubt state a fact, but the question is relevant, can the grace of God be bestowed upon God? If "Jesus Christ our Lord" is God, he was self-sufficient, and needed no extraneous grace. If he is God, I remark again, it could not be said of him that "he grew and waxed in spirit," or that he "was filled with wisdom." These striking facts all unite to prove that the writer of this part of Scripture, in which

*The orthodox of the ultra type, emphatically call her the Mother of God. In the Form of Concord, the fact is thus set forth: "Therefore we believe and teach that Mary did not conceive and bare a mere human being, but the very Son of God, and that she is hence really the Mother of God, and should be so called."

he narrates incidents in the infantile life of Christ, did not recognize in him a Godman, but simply a well-endowed, promising child of a purely human species!

Are we then to believe that the second person in the Trinity-God the Son, was less a God when he existed in an embryonic state of being in the womb of the virgin, than he was when he left it? and again less a God during his childhood than in his juvenile and riper adult years? Can a God, legitimately entitled to the august and holy namean infinite being, be shut up within the narrow limits of the womb of a woman, and yet his Godhead remain unimpaired? Nay, can a God grow or be more a God in the future than in the past or the present? Besides, it may be reasonably further asked, what became of the second person in the Trinity, while the same person was—as appears from the orthodox creed, incarnate and dwelled among men? Evidently he ceased to exist and to act as a component part of the Godhead, which was thenceforth reduced to two persons, and could consequently be no longer contemplated and adored as a triune Divinity! Alas, to such sad straits, inconsiderate, vain and presumptuous orthodoxy reduces itself!

Perhaps these difficulties will be met by the trite saying "that with God nothing is impossible." In reply, I will only add that this vulgar saying, deemed invincible by its advocates, is false and cannot, therefore, be of any weight in this case; for it has pleased the Creator so to constitute the work of his hands, that some things are now as impossible to him as they are to any of his most imbecile creatures. Thus, for example, it is morally impossible that he should call white black or black white; or to consider right