Certain considerations regarding the nature of matter lead us, however, to the conclusion that, apart from its properties, it has characteristics which depend not so much upon its atomic constituents as upon their arrangement. From this we may argue that inasmuch as we are all compounded of the same cosmic elements, differences of character and temperament are due to the ascendancy of one over other of those elements in individuals. This, so far as the personality is concerned, may well be true, but because material atoms have no emotions, aspirations, hopes and fears, and no moral sense, they cannot be said to acquire such by mere conglomeration. To carry the argument further, therefore, we should have to derive our atoms from something rather more spiritual than the hydrogen base, the “happy hunting-ground” of the physicists. So far as the planets’ action on our organisms is concerned, it may be that the brain cells, infilled as they are with a nervous pabulum, are capable of responding to the more subtle vibrations of the ether. But the immaterial parts of us must respond to immaterial stimuli, and we know that there are other than merely physical effects due to planetary influence. And whereas matter is continuous of matter throughout the entire universe, mind is continuous of mind, and spirit of spirit. Thus it is that “Soul to soul strikes through a finer element of its own.” We must therefore recognize that there may be a supra-cosmical as well as an intra-cosmical planetary action, and this follows from the argument that, matter being the ultimate expression of Spirit, the material planets have their spiritual counterparts. However, to come to the practical side of the argument for and against the subject, I may deal with some of the more weighty objections which have been lodged against it. First, there is the argument of coincidence which is used to explain away the fact of successful prediction. This in cool logic is no argument at all, for the only coincidence that is shown is that of the prediction and the subsequent course of events. Now if there were a single prediction which in human judgment could not have been otherwise foretold but by the application of some commonly-called “occult” knowledge, this would suffice to confirm the claim that foreknowledge is scientifically possible. But what do we mean by coincidence. If apples falling from a tree pursued different directions, some falling direct to the earth and some in the contrary direction towards the sky, while others went off at a tangent, it may be called a coincidence that one should fall in the direction previously determined upon and named. But if all the apples tend in the same direction and fall along the lines of the earth’s radial magnetism direct towards its centre, then we may posit a law of attraction.