"[1] But such
a statement is only possible with respect to the latest days of alchemy,
when there WAS a science of chemistry, definite and generally credited.
The science of chemistry, it must be remembered, had no growth
separate from alchemy, but evolved therefrom. Of the days before
this evolution had been accomplished, it would be in closer accord
with the facts to say that theology, including the doctrine of man's
regeneration, was in the position of "a definite and generally
credited branch of science," whereas chemical phenomena were veiled
in deepest mystery and tinged with the dangers appertaining to magic.
As concerns the origin of alchemy, therefore, the argument
as to suitability of language appears to support my own theory;
it being open to assume that after formulation--that is,
in alchemy's latter days--chemical nomenclature and theories were
employed by certain writers to veil heterodox religious doctrine.
[1] PHILIP S. WELLBY, M.A., in _The Journal of the
Alchemical Society_, vol. ii. (1914), p. 104.
Another recent writer on the subject, my friend the late Mr ABDUL-ALI,
has remarked that "he thought that, in the mind of the alchemist at
least, there was something more than analogy between metallic and
psychic transformations, and that the whole subject might well be
assigned to the doctrinal category of ineffable and transcendent Oneness.
Pages:
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193