Paris
triangle, from which the information was obtained, as regards the
ritual itself, there is obviously no such connection, except the
fantastic and arbitrary rule that initiation is imparted exclusively to
persons possessed of Masonic degrees. It is patent that such an
institution is not Masonic, though it possesses some secrets of Masonry.
The Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia, as we have seen, is an association
based upon precisely the same regulation, but it has no official
position. Should a circle of Catholic priests conspire for the formation
of a society dedicated to black magic and the celebration of the Satanic
mass, that would not be the Church diabolising. No institution, and no
society, is responsible for the unauthorised acts of individual members.
At the same time, if it should be advanced by hostile criticism that the
invention of rituals is easy, and that the literary antecedents of Leo
Taxil are not precisely of that kind which would lead any cautious
person to place blind confidence in his unchecked statements, I am
compelled to say that I should find considerable difficulty in
challenging such a position.

Mgr. Meurin, the next witness, deserves, by his position and ability,
our very sincere respect; compared with the octogenarian sentimentalism
of Jean Kostka, the violence of Signor Margiotta, and the paste-pot of
M. de la Rive, one breathes _a pleine poitrine_ in the altitudes of
ecclesiastical erudition, artificial as their eminence turns out; the
art sacerdotal does not concern itself with preposterous narratives, so
that it disputes nothing with the art of Bataille; it has never stood in
need of conversion, and hence is exempt from the hysterical ardours and
languors of Diana Vaughan. But the archbishop's interpretation of
Masonry is based upon another interpretation of Kabbalistic literature,
which can be accepted by no person who is acquainted therewith, and
would have scarcely been attempted by himself if he had known it at
first hand. In the matter of Palladian Masonry, he can tell us only what
he has learned from Ricoux.

It is agreed upon all sides that we dismiss Dr Bataille. He does not
disclose the name and nation which he adopted during his Masonic career,
and hence the persons whom he states that he met are, with one
exception, not in a position to contradict him, because they are not in
a position to identify him. The personality of the one exception is not
particularised, but may