abbalah for the key of its mysteries; that the
Kabbalah is magical, idolatrous, and essentially diabolical; that
Freemasonry, considered as a religion, is therefore a judaized
devil-worship, and considered as a political institution, it is an
engine designed for the attainment of universal empire, which has been
the dream of the Jews for centuries.

My readers will be inclined to consider that such a hypothesis, though
it may square with the Satanism of Adriano Lemmi, who, as we shall see,
is accused of circumcision, can hardly be brought into harmony with the
universal Masonry of Albert Pike, as the latter was neither Jew nor
Judaiser. But common hatred of the Catholic Church is, in the opinion of
Mgr. Meurin, a sufficient bond to identify the interests of both
parties. Let us start, therefore, with the archbishop's own hypothesis,
which he compresses into a single sentence: "To encircle the brow of the
Jew with the royal diadem, and to place the kingdom of the world at his
feet--such is the true end of Freemasonry." And again: "The Jewish
Kabbalah is the philosophical basis and Key of Freemasonry." Once more:
"The end of Freemasonry is universal dominion, and Freemasonry is a
Jewish institution."

Accepting these statements as points that admit of being argued with
deference to the rules of right reason, let us establish in turn two
positions which do not admit of being argued because they are evident in
themselves: (a) Where the significance of symbols is uncertain, it is
easy to interpret falsely; (b) When a subject is obscure and difficult,
no person is qualified to speak positively if his knowledge be obtained
at second-hand. Now, have we good reason to suppose that Mgr. Meurin is
possessed of first-hand knowledge, and is consequently in a position to
interpret truly upon the difficult subject he has undertaken, namely,
the esoteric doctrines of the Kabbalah? If not, we are entitled to
dismiss him without further examination. As a fact, in this preliminary
and essential matter the archbishop can stand no test. The antiquity of
the Kabbalah is necessary to work his hypothesis, and he assumes it as
if unaware that its antiquity had ever been impugned. There may be much
to be said upon both sides of this hotly-debated question, but there is
nothing to be said for a writer who seems ignorant that there is a
question. And hence my readers will in no way be astonished to learn
that his information is obtained at second