TABLES OF TRINITY 39 



Crime ; iSth, Reward of Virtue ; iQth, Conquest of Folly ; 

 20th, Heaven; 2ist, Immortality. 



I stared at the tables as you see them now. Although I 

 conceived the comparison the moment I first looked at Table 

 II. when I saw it lying in front of me that Sunday evening, 

 yet at first the full significance did not dawn on my mind; 

 in fact, it has only become apparent to me as I have steadily 

 tried to work it out step by step, and I still feel that I am, 

 as the title of this treatise implies, only beginning to com- 

 prehend a very little of what it may lead up to in abler hands 

 than mine ; in fact, I am still only beginning to take a cursory 

 glance through the portal of evolution and that it will take 

 years of study to get to the doorstep or inside the door. 



One of the first things that struck me was, why did it 

 not contain the first two stages of evolution, when it contained 

 all the rest, and more besides, even to the end of time ? Why 

 were not the stages No. i, Disintegration, and No. 2, Affinity, 

 also down as marriages of God's Trinity. Then it suddenly 

 flashed into my logical mind that these two might be divorces, 

 not marriages, of the Trinity, and if so, what other inter- 

 pretation could there be of their significance than that to bring 

 about creation God had divorced or withdrawn twenty of the 

 twenty-one attributes of the Trinity, and had thus divided 

 his infinity into two parts Infinity and Finity. For, logically, 

 he could not have divided it into two finite parts, for that would 

 have destroyed His Infinity. Then how was He to produce 

 the Universe and yet be logical ? For it stands to reason that 

 being infinitely wise, he must be perfectly logical. (Note : I 

 am endeavouring to take the reader as near as possible, step 

 by step, along the lines of argument I followed when I rea- 

 soned this out.) 



Now, for argument's sake, what would be the result if we 

 presume that God the Son is the female gender of God ? For 

 this reason, and the better to impress this upon the reader, 

 and it is essential or he will not be able to follow some of the 

 arguments adduced, I shall henceforth use the expression, 

 " God the Mother " instead of " God the Son." Please do 

 not think, dear reader, that in doing so I intend to be the 

 least disrespectful ; nothing is further from my mind. I may 

 here take the opportunity of stating what will be more fully 

 demonstrated in its place, when we are dealing with the first 



