I could go on multiplying and expanding instances to show that Occultism is no vain delusion, but enough has been shown in support of my contention, and in opposition to Dr. Chatley's "dissent." Océultism has not increased real knowledge one whit, and yet Roser Bacon, an Occultist, was the first after the Dark Ages who tried to usher im the age of learning, and only failed through the antagonism of the Church!
If Occultism has not been of greater benefit to modern science it is because the latter closes its eyes to truth except when it emerges from its own narrow quarter—it is no fault of Oceultisi. Occultism has ever been the precursor of "orthodox" scientific investigation, and is day by day being vindicated by fresh findings. The greatest discoveries' of our day are but recrudescenses of occult teachings, and these "discoveries" could have been made earlier—and humanity benefited more—did_ scientists but stand ready to investigate truth from whatever corner it made its appearance: Yet there will always be Chatleys whé will discreetly Jock the other way when their pet theories are in danger of being overthrown. Truth is sometimes a "poor relation," and when she calls in old-fashioned country garb, they are "not at home" to receive her.
Your readers will perhaps be more impartial, and can judge for themselves as to whether Oceultism has.in part been vindicated or not. Can the above facts be disposed of with a wave of the hand, meagre and incomplete though they be? What say you, Dr. Chatley? '"Baseless dreams''? T am, ete., A. Boma
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.