This method of illustrating the periodic law in the classification of elements is, in the words of Mr. Crookes, proposed by Professor Emerson Reynolds, of Dublin University, who ... “points out that in each period, the general properties of the elements vary from one to another, with approximate regularity until we reach the seventh member, which is in more or less striking contrast with the first element of the same period, as well as with the first of the next. Thus chlorine, the seventh member of Mendeleef's third period, contrasts sharply with both sodium, the first member of the same series, and with potassium, the first member of the next series; whilst on the other hand, sodium and potassium are closely analogous. The six elements, whose atomic weights intervene between sodium and potassium, vary in properties, step by step, until chlorine, the contrast to sodium, is reached. But from chlorine to potassium, the analogue of sodium, there is a change in properties per saltum..... If we thus recognize a contrast in properties—more or less decided—between the first and the last members of each series, we can scarcely help admitting the existence of a point of mean variation within each system. In general the fourth element of each series possesses the property we might expect a transition-element to exhibit.... Thus for the purpose of graphic translation, Professor Reynolds considers that the fourth member of a period—silicon, for example—may be placed at the apex of a symmetrical curve, which shall represent for that particular period, the direction in which the properties of the series of elements vary with rising atomic weights.”
Now, the writer humbly confesses complete ignorance of modern Chemistry and its mysteries. But she is pretty well acquainted with the Occult Doctrine with regard to correspondences of types and antetypes in nature, and to perfect analogy as a fundamental law in Occultism. Hence she ventures on a remark which will strike every Occultist, however it may be derided by orthodox Science. This method of illustrating the periodic law in the behaviour of elements, whether or not still a hypothesis in Chemistry, is a law in Occult Sciences. Every well-read Occultist knows that the seventh and fourth members—whether in a septenary chain of worlds, the septenary hierarchy of angels, or in the constitution of man, animal, plant, or mineral atom—that the seventh and fourth members, we say, in the geometrically and mathematically uniform workings of the immutable laws of Nature, always play a distinct and specific part in the septenary system. From the stars twinkling high in heaven, to the sparks flying asunder from the rude fire built by the savage in his forest; from the hierarchies and the essential constitution of the Dhyân Chohans—organized for diviner apprehensions and a loftier range of perception than the greatest Western Psychologist ever dreamed of, down to Nature's classification of species among the humblest insects; finally from Worlds to Atoms, everything in the Universe, from great to small, proceeds in its spiritual and physical evolution, cyclically and septennially, showing its seventh and fourth number (the latter the turning point) behaving in the same way as is shown in that periodic law of Atoms. Nature never proceeds per saltum. Therefore, when Mr. Crookes remarks on this that he does not “wish to infer that the gaps in Mendeleef's table, and in this graphic representation of it [the diagram showing the evolution of Atoms] necessarily mean that there are elements actually existing to fill up the gaps; these gaps may only mean that at the birth of the elements there was an easy potentiality of the formation of an element which would fit into the place”—an Occultist would respectfully remark to him that the latter hypothesis can only hold good, if the septenary arrangement of Atoms is not interfered with. This is the one law, and an infallible method that must always lead one who follows it to success.
We refer those who would regard the statement as an impertinence or irreverence levelled at accepted Science, to Dr. James Hutchinson Stirling's work As regards Protoplasm, which is a defence of a Vital Principle versus the Molecularists—Huxley, Tyndall, Vogt, and Co.—and request them to examine whether it is true or not to say that, though the scientific premisses may not be always correct, they are, nevertheless, accepted, to fill up a gap or a hole in some beloved materialistic hobby. Speaking of protoplasm and the organs of man, as “viewed by Mr. Huxley,” the author says: “Probably then, in regard to any continuity in protoplasm of power, of form, or of substance, we have seen lacunæ enow. Nay, Mr. Huxley himself can be adduced in evidence on the same side. Not rarely do we find in his essay admissions of probability, where it is certainty that is alone in place. He says, for example: ‘It is more than probable that when the vegetable world is thoroughly explored we shall find all plants in possession of the same powers.’ When a conclusion is decidedly announced, it is rather disappointing to be told, as here, that the premisses are still to collect [!!].... Again, here is a passage in which he is seen to cut his own ‘basis’ from beneath his own feet. After telling us that all forms of protoplasm consist of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen ‘in very complex union,’ he continues: ‘To this complex combination, the nature of which has never been determined with exactness [!!], the name of protein has been applied.’ This, plainly, is an identification, on Mr. Huxley's own part, of protoplasm and protein; and what is said of one, being necessarily true of the other, it follows that he admits the nature of protoplasm never to have been determined with exactness, and that even in his eyes the lis is still sub judice. This admission is strengthened by the words, too, ‘If we use this term (protein) with such caution as may properly arise out of our comparative ignorance of the things for which it stands’ ” ... etc. (pp. 33 and 34, ed. 1872, in reply to Mr. Huxley in Yeast).
This is the eminent Huxley, the king of physiology and biology, who is proven playing at blind man's buff with premisses and facts! What may not the “smaller fry” of Science do after this!
Every scholar is aware, of course, that the Chaldeans claimed the same digits (432), or 432,000, for their Divine Dynasties as the Hindûs do for their Mahâyuga, namely 4,320,000. Therefore has Dr. Sepp, of Munich, undertaken to support Kepler and Wilford in their charge that the Hindûs borrowed them from the Christians, and the Chaldeans from the Jews, who, it is claimed, expected their Messiah in the lunar year of the world 4,320!!! As these figures, according to ancient writers, were based by Berosus on the 120 Saroses—each of the divisions meaning six Neroses of 600 years each, making a sum total of 432,000 years—they would appear to be peremptory, remarks De Mirville (Des Esprits, iii. p. 24). So the pious professor of Munich undertook to explain them in the correct way. He claims to have solved the riddle by showing that “the saros being composed, according to Pliny, of 222 synodial months, to wit, 18 years 6/10,” the calculator naturally fell back on the figures “given by Suidas,” who affirmed that the “120 saroses made 2,222 sacerdotal and cyclic years, which equalled 1,656 solar years.” (Vie de Notre Seigneur Jésus Christ, ii. p. 417.)
But Suidas said nothing of the kind; and, even supposing he had, he would prove little, if anything, by such a statement. The Neroses and Saroses were the same thorn in the side of uninitiated ancient writers as the apocalyptic 666 of the “Great Beast” is in that of the modern, and the former figures have found their unlucky Newtons, as have the latter.