220
EPILOGUE AND DEDICATION
determining factor of the same being Smith’s
defeat by Brown maximus behind the chapel,
after Brown’s interview with the Head-
Master.
We are most of us aware that cabinet
ministers, bishops, and dons resemble each
other in the important particular that all
are still schoolboys, and their differences
but the superficial one produced by greas-
ing, soaping, and withering them respec-
tively; so that it will meet with instant
general approval if I open this paper by
the remark that Christianity, as long as
it flourished, was content to assimilate
Paganism, never attacking it until its own
life had been sapped by the _ insidious
heresies of Paul.
Time passed by, and they bullied Manes
and Cerinthus; history repeated itself until
it almost knew itself by heart ; finally, at the
present day, some hireling parasites of the
decaying faith—at once the origin and the
product of that decay—endeavour to take
advantage of the ‘‘Greek movement” or
the ‘‘ Neo-pagan revival” in the vain hope
of diverting the public attention from the
phalanx of Rationalism—traitorously admitted
by Luther, and now sitting crowned and
inexpugnable in the very citadel of the faith
—to their own dishonest lie that Paganism
was a faith whose motto was ‘Carpe
diem,”? and whose methods were drink,
dance, and Studio Murder.2. Why is
Procopius cleaner than Petronius? Even
a Julian could confute this sort of thing;
but are we to rest for ever in negation?
No: a Robinson minimus ipse will turn,
and it is quite time that science was given
a chance to measure itself against bulk. I
shall not be content with giving Christian
apologists the lie direct, but proceed to
convict them of the very materialism
against which they froth. In a_ word,
1 ‘ Gather ye roses!’ is the masterpiece of a
Christian clergyman.—.4. ©.
2 A peculiarly gross «ase of psychonathic
crime which occurred in 1906.
to-day Christianity is the irreligion of the
materialist, or if you like, the sensualist;
while in Paganism, we may find the
expression of that ever-haunting love—
nay, necessity !—of the Beyond which tor-
tures and beautifies those of us who are
poets.
wavTa Kaapa rots Kafapots—and, while
there is no logical break between the appa-
rently chaste dogma of the Virgin Birth
and the horrible grossness of R. P. Sanchez
in his De Matrimonio, Lib. ii. Cap. xxi.,
“Utium Virgo Maria semen emiserit in
copulatione cum Spiritu Sancto,” so long
as we understand an historical Incarnation;
the accomplishment of that half of the
Magnum Opus which is glyphed in the
mystic aphorism ‘‘ Solve !” enables.an Adept
of that standing to see nothing but pure
symbol and holy counsel in the no grosser
legends of the Greeks. This is not a
matter of choice: reason forbids us to take
the Swan-lover in its literal silliness and
obscenity; but, on the other hand, the
Bishops will not allow us to attach a pure
interpretation to the precisely similar story
of the Dove.}
So far am JI, indeed, from attacking
Christian symbolism as such, that I am
quite prepared to admit that it is, although
or rather because it is the lowest, the best.
Most others, especially Hinduism and Bud-
dhism, lose themselves in metaphysical
speculations only proper to those who are
already Adepts.
The Rosicrucian busies himself with the
Next Step, for himself and his pupils; he
is no more concerned to discuss Nibbana
than a schoolmaster to ‘‘settle the doctrine
of the enclitic A#’’ in the mind of a child
who is painfully grappling with the declension
of Neavias, We can read even orthodox
1 Recently, a certain rash doctor publicly ex-
pressed his doubts whether any Bishop of the
twentieth century was so filthy-minded a fool.
They were, however, soon dispelled by tele-
grams from a considerable section of the entire
Benciz, couched in emphatic language.