We place the history of these people immediately after the Weigelians, because it unfolds in the same period when Weigel’s writings became widely known, and many [Rosicrucians] were said to have emerged from them — though without foundation, as has already been demonstrated. Yet this history can be presented all the more thoroughly and clearly here, the more certainly the origin and beginning of this matter have been ascertained through diligent investigation of many circumstances.

As for the name, the poet [i.e., the author of the Fama] chose that it should be called the Fraternity of the Praiseworthy Order of the Rosy Cross, as he immediately placed it on the title of the Fama Fraternitatis. Some indeed have derived it from the supposed founder of this order, “Rosicross”; but Robert Fludd explains the symbolic meaning: they call themselves after the cross because one cannot follow Christ without the inner and mystical cross, which is sprinkled with the rose-colored blood of Christ — from which they are called brothers, that is, sons, prophets, and friends of God.¹ Thereby the other conjecture also falls away, that the name derives from the well-known seal and coat of arms of Luther, in which there was a heart on a rose and on the cross a crucifix, according to the words:

“The Christian’s heart on Jesus leans, When with a red cross it appears.”

The time when these writings actually came to light is reported differently. The most reliable account, however, is that already around the year 1610, and even earlier, there were writings of such authors, Paracelsists, and alchemical tracts. For David Mederus wrote in 1616 that already five years prior, the Fama Fraternitatis and Confessio had been printed and circulated in five languages.² Hence some place the beginning in the year 1612,³ while others erroneously say 1617⁴ — even though the aforementioned Fama already appeared in 1615 at Frankfurt and elsewhere.

As for the origin itself, some have tried in vain and falsely to trace it back to Tauler, the author of the German Theology, and to Luther himself, who supposedly commended it, as well as to Weigelius, who wrote about it — claims soon refuted by their own inconsistency.

Others have approached the matter with more plausible conjecture: that it was merely a bare poem or fiction, invented by one or more idle and cunning heads of similar orders, devised with strange circumstances to make fools of and deceive the world.⁵ To this conjecture they afterwards found so much confirmation, even in the Fama itself — for example, in the preface it is expressly stated:

“Whether these things may seem somewhat strange to someone, and many may hold them for such — that it is only a blind philosophical extract, and no true history, as was published and issued by the Fraternity of the Rosy Cross — yet it will sufficiently appear from the Confessio that there is more in the recess than one supposes, and everyone, provided he is not an ignoramus, can easily perceive and understand what is meant by these things at the present time.”⁶

In these words, the objection that the brotherhood is a poem is not removed, but rather confirmed — and at the same time it is tacitly indicated that other secret intentions lie hidden beneath it, which the ignoramuses do not perceive, and thus would be thundered against.

Michael Brelerus, author of Mysterii Iniquitatis Pseudo-Evangelicae, also wrote soon after in the year 1621:

“So much is still known about these disguised brothers, and I exhort and warn them that they should not further trouble themselves publicly with the investigation of the same. For these written testimonies (Fama Fraternitatis) come from three distinguished men, who, through this ingenious poem, wanted to lure others — of whom it was said that they possessed the Philosophers’ Stone — and to find out whether the rumor was true or false. And this is not merely a conjecture, but the thing itself; and what others write against it is pure lies.”⁷

But so that we may have closer information about this and find the authors themselves, we will present the writings of the Lutheran theologian, D. Johann Valentin Andreae, and thereby see that he was the most distinguished inventor and last abbot of this fraternity — as the old and in such matters well-experienced Friedrich Breckling has also called him in a letter from Holland not long ago.

From this it becomes clear that the Rosicrucians, with their teachings and writings, originated from a distinguished Lutheran theologian — namely, the renowned Doctor and Author of the Formula Concordiae, Jacob Andreae’s grandson (whose orthodoxy and praises we have seen above). This Andreae wrote around the same time many sharp satirical writings against the common heathens and papists, and saw not only this, but also the true wisdom and godliness, which he thoroughly established against the false learnedness that made itself known. In this he corresponded with many clever and godly people of his time, and without doubt, with the knowledge of some trusted friends, brought forth the aforementioned Fama and Confessio. His intention he himself made known to the world in the Menippus (1617), when he writes of these invented brothers:

“That all true Christians belong to their order, and that they should order everything according to the rules of Christ; it was, however, only a ludibrium [mockery/play] of the Curiosorum [curious ones], thereby mocking those who, instead of seeking the simple way of Christ, let themselves be pleased by an artificial and unusual one.”⁸

Another conjecture at the time was that the brothers would be some good pious people, or else a zealous preacher who, under such a guise, sought to urge people to repentance and true godliness.⁹ Andreae himself writes about this in the Mythologia, where he speaks the truth simply:

“As a disguised person [he played] a witty game among the learned, he would begin such a thing, especially at a time when everyone is looking for something new: a heap of writings pro and con have sprung up, and I have not without amusement watched how new persons always came onto the stage. He also gives the reason why he did not continue such writings: because the whole theater was filled with all kinds of quarrels over opinions, and they mostly fight with suspicion, conjecture, scolding, and slandering; I have withdrawn from it so as not to recklessly plunge myself into danger.”¹⁰

Footnotes for §3: 

⁸ Menippus Sive Dialogorum Satyricorum Centuria Inanitatum Nostratium Speculum, Cap. XII, p. 30–31.
⁹ Auctor der wolvermeynten Defension deren Teutschen Gesellschaft, p. A 3.
¹⁰ In Althea Exule, p. 329.

Elsewhere, he clearly indicates what he holds regarding those who, through these writings, have attached themselves to the fraternity. The wonderful brotherhood, he writes, which now performs comedies throughout all of Europe, has recently also, against Libavius (a great enemy of the Rosicrucians), come to Freystadt, and aroused all kinds of spectators with their trumpet sound.

First, there were some pious people among them, who were well-acquainted with the errors of the human fable and, being weary of them, therefore sought a mitigation herein. Next, there were some wretched fellows, who had either lost their knowledge or their money, and thought to regain it here; for the unfortunate alchemists dreamed of something good, who otherwise were lame and blind laborers. Also, the gout-ridden and others afflicted with desperate diseases believed they could drive away their time and pain thereby. Finally, there were also many deceivers, who, with all sorts of invented riddles and alleged great secrets, wanted to wheedle the lords and make the Aurum potabile.¹¹ With which description he then shames those who, with this comedy of the fraternity, had betrayed their foolishness.

Finally, he has also made the finale of the comedy itself quite clear, and certainly showed us and taught from this action to the world; namely, when he already in the year 1619 published a book under the title of the Babylonian Tower, or Turris Babel & Judiciorum de Fraternitate Roseæ Crucis chaos. Here he introduces 3 persons speaking, whose names are Fama, Obstinatus, and Resipiscens.¹²

Fama speaks: “One has mocked the people long enough; we want now to free them from the doubtful hopes, to raise up the fallen, to bring the scattered back together, to heal the sick. Well, you mortals, you may no longer wait for any brotherhood. The comedy is now played; the Fama has now performed its role, and again withdrawn.”

Fama says: “Now enough of this game. So many curious or even foolish people have come together with each other, and because you have not fallen for it, we will now stop.”
Obstinatus asks: “What shall we do now?”
Resipiscens answers: “What else but that we become wiser? So much our hitherto errors have been.”
Obstinatus: “Should we then pretend to be wise before mortals?”
Resipiscens: “So says the Fama.”
Obstinatus: “Should these simple and modest people be deceived? Should we speak falsely of such signs and credible things?”
Resipiscens: “So says the Fama.” Whereupon he [the author] lays his judgment on those who came forth with writings about it, which he wants to mention last.¹³

Footnotes for §4: 

¹¹ Manipulo VI, n. 13, p. 290.
¹² Cap. XXV, p. 69.
¹³ Ibid.

From these his own words it is at least certain that he knew exactly the origin of this poem. His ingenious mind and the love for truth and wisdom, also for the general improvement of Christendom, do not allow us to doubt that he himself was the author of the thing. Therefore, even then, some compared the Rosicrucian writings with his Menippus and other satirical writings, and concluded without doubt from the similarity of style and genius overall.

The disguised Irenaeus Agnostus, a secret enemy of the Rosicrucians, has also betrayed Valentinum Andreae, stating that he wrote his Turbo under the name Andreae de Valentia, and that he was a stipendiary in Tübingen.¹⁴ With this he presumably wanted to embroil him openly in this dispute with names, from which, however, the other wisely guarded himself.

From these circumstances and the above, it is first of all to be seen how badly and shamelessly so many Orthodox applied their religious zeal, since they fought so fiercely against a Non-Entity and a mere poem of a Lutheran theologian himself. Which, moreover, turned out all the more unfortunately, as we shall soon see clearly, that the most important accusations, which they brought against the Rosicrucians, did not concern these, but rather their enemies, the Orthodox themselves — as those who, under the name of the Rosy Cross and in its ruin, wrote the most dangerous and malicious things into the world.

But the zeal of the Orthodox was so great that they would have rather brought the supposed Rosicrucians at once to gallows and wheel, if they had only had the power. One of them made this epigram about them as a true saying:

‘Res est insignis fratrem Crucis esse Rosæq;Sed vereor, fiat ne Rosa forte Rota
Et crux : debetur quia mors ceu furibus atra : Es Rosa : nam redoles suave καὶ ἀλύφραντον’.

(“It is a noble thing to be a brother of the Cross and of the Rose; / But I fear, lest the Rose perhaps become a Wheel [of torture], / And the Cross: for a grim death is owed to them as to thieves. / You are a Rose: for you smell sweetly, / And [yet you are] unanointed.”)

Another wished for them that they would be visibly swallowed up by the earth, or turned into pillars of salt, or burned by fire from heaven, or torn apart by lions, etc.¹⁵ He warned against everything that is Christian, noble, and honest, as if from the Rosicrucian bat-mice, as from the devil himself.¹⁶ Libavius counted them among the main heretics, and did not want to let them pass as orthodox at all.¹⁷ As he, along with others, held this fraternity to be more than true, and not fictional, he therefore sought all the more eagerly and laboriously against them, of which more will follow soon.¹⁸

Footnotes for §5: 

¹⁴ In Clypeo Veritatis, p. B. 2.
¹⁵ Apud Himmelium Anti-Enthus. l. c.
¹⁶ Christianus Gilbertus im Theologischen Wächterhörnlein, p. 52.
¹⁷ Ibid., p. 127.
¹⁸ Im Bedencken von der Fama. Cap. IIX., p. 52. seqq. 60. & Henric. Neuhusius in Admonitione de Fratribus Roſ. Crucis, p. 6. 48. & alibi.

The opponents of that era, along with their successors, have thus far erred greatly by holding this poem to be an actual society. Accordingly, they formed all sorts of slanderers, enthusiasts, and crackpots [Grillenfesser], and used the name ‘Rosicrucian’ almost as a term of abuse to defame others. In doing so, however, they have only too blatantly prostituted themselves and, as it were, tacitly admitted that the heresies they claimed to find scattered throughout the world were in fact concentrated within the Rosicrucians themselves.

We intend, however, to provide a detailed account of this matter: first of all by recounting the circumstances worthy of note at its outset, and then by showing what else transpired under this name. To this end, I shall first cite the judgment of a more recent writer, who also believed that certain individuals were indeed involved:

“Yet one can clearly perceive that those honest people (whoever they may have been) intended something far different and better with their genuine and true writings than is commonly attributed to them.”¹⁹

It is also probable that many a person of art, rank, and office was involved in such an undertaking — more than one might guess. But it was inconvenient for truth and time that one could not make all the circumstances and true aim [scopum] of this work known to the world. This, however, has given enough to the wise and prudent in God to understand: Mundus interea voluit decipi. Et quid animus ad lyram? (“Meanwhile the world wished to be deceived. And what is the mind to the lyre?”)²⁰

If, however, the true and sincere Fratres R.C. (for we speak not here of false brothers, of whom many wicked ones were found, deceiving people with such pretense) had revealed [themselves] more openly with their intentions, or had become professors at public universities to teach the alchemical art of metal transmutation — which is still so eagerly sought after — along with its underlying principles and other secret matters, and had thus brought gold and silver into the world openly, they would undoubtedly have won many adherents among the learned in Germany and gained a better repute.²¹

But God ordained this neither then nor today. Consequently, they were forced to endure slander from their enemies, especially from certain greedy and ambitious prelates, who wrote them off as Rosicrucian fanatics, fantasists, enthusiasts, crackpots, and the like. Another has nonetheless confessed that their profession agreed with the Holy Scriptures and the prophets, and cited their prophecy.²²

Footnotes for §6: 

¹⁹ Wahremund Freyburger, Gelehrtenbecher, Chil. S. §.293, p.418.
²⁰ Ibid., p.419.
²¹ §.295, p.420; Kuhlmann, neubeg. Böhm., c.XXI, p.379.
²² Noted in margin.

But concerning, first, their writings (we speak now of this poem as if it were a true history, and understand by the “Rosicrucians” the true authors of such writings), one can readily observe the great distinction between them, since most were fabricated under their name to their own detriment. The very first, from which the greatest outcry arose, were the Fama and Confessio; which appeared in the year 1615 in Frankfurt in German — “Fama Fraternitatis, Die Fama oder Entdeckung der Brüderschafft des löblichen Ordens des Rosen Creuzes, etc.” — and at the same time in Marburg and Danzig; as well as in the year 1616 in Kassel in Latin, in 4to, together with the Consideratione Secretioris Philosophiæ.

They have appealed to the impulse and revelation of the Spirit of God, and have not only ascribed to their so-called “Father” a higher discovery than all previous revelations, but also claimed it was dictated by the Spirit of God, so that He has opened special secrets in nature, just as they write in the Confession:

“The Lord JEHOVAH, who turns the course of Nature, has revealed what previously could be attained only with great toil and unceasing labor; [revealed it] to those who might otherwise not esteem it or even think of it, while to others who desire it, He offers it freely.”²³

And another wrote to them:

“What an absurd claim it would be if you, O enlightened Theosophers, say: You wish, ante finem mundi [before the end of the world], to declare and explicate the Lumen Gratiæ [Light of Grace] through the Lumen Naturæ [Light of Nature], so that human reason may here be illuminated by a great light, and God’s Word be given approval and steadfast faith — especially since Christ Himself says: ‘There is nothing hidden,’ Luke 12:2, 3.”²⁴

They have also said much about the ministry of angels: “God sends the holy angels to those who are still, humble, and few in words, that they may commune with them; but the useless chatterers He casts into the wilderness.”²⁵

Footnotes for §7: 

²³ Confess., p. 44 & 54.
²⁴ Helias Tertius or Urtheil von der Brüdersch., p. 75.
²⁵ Concil., p. 77.

And in this they have been approved and supported by others who wrote in a similar vein. Thus one wrote:

“In the school of the Holy Spirit, all is substantial; and one must judge spiritual things spiritually, not according to reason or rationally, as Tauler and the German Theology teach.”²⁶

Another also demonstrated in a whole chapter the Light of Grace, which indeed belongs only to the reborn, and complained first about the fleshly learned, who maliciously label every revelation and prophecy as an Anabaptist enthusiasm. Then he cites the judgment of a Professor of Theology from Saxony, which reads as follows:

“One must not immediately laugh off as a fool anyone who says that a revelation or vision from God has happened to him, nor judge him according to the flesh, whoever he may be, or from wherever, or of whatever age, teaching, or standing he may be. For even to the servants and maidservants in the New Testament, prophetic foretellings are promised (Joel 2; Acts 2). One should not require them to work miracles to prove their calling; for one does not read of all prophets that they worked miracles. Rather, one should follow the rule found in Deuteronomy 18.”

He then proves this Light of Grace both from Scripture (Psalm 25, Joel 2, Wisdom 6) and from Luther’s Catechism and his exposition of the Third Article — namely, that the Holy Spirit must call through the Gospel and enlighten with His power. Furthermore, he describes the stages of illumination:

1. The first is inspiration and impulse of God, by which one is moved to do something by God (especially in Christianity, Rom. 8:14).

2. The second is divine dreams.

3. The third is prophetic visions, which are presented as in a mirror to a purified and God-consecrated soul, when the bodily senses are withdrawn from external things and drawn inward, and the mind, freed from bodily service, is occupied solely in contemplating the visions presented.

He also cites words from Luther’s Church Postil on the Gospel of St. Stephen, stating that God sends various preachers into the world, also prophets who preach from the mere impulse of the Holy Spirit, who have not received it from Scripture or through human agency.²⁷

Footnotes for §8: 

²⁶ M.A.O.T.W. in Fratre Crucis Rosata, p. 31.
²⁷ Joseph. Stellat, in Pegaso Firmamenti, cap. VI, p. 5 seqq.

With these words of Luther, he compares the Confession of the Rosicrucians, as if they had written: “It is indeed evident that even to this day, the beloved God and Father teaches, admonishes, and visits the human race in manifold ways and means.”

Finally, he concludes that no one may set goal or measure to the infinite wisdom and omnipotence of God. And since the prophecies of the Rosicrucians are also confirmed by [their] outcome, one must let them pass. He reminds us that from such a Light of Grace, the true Cabala or prophetic illumination also arises.²⁸

Another of their defenders expressed the nature of illumination as follows:

“Now you might ask, my dear friend: ‘Where should one seek and find Christ, who makes souls blessed?’”²⁹

Their Prophecies

What Stellatus above mentioned regarding the Rosicrucian prophecies was applied by a Lutheran preacher himself to the transformation of the Roman Empire. Another Lutheran writer later interpreted it as fulfilled in the German War [Thirty Years’ War], citing their words about the “Lion who was to come from the North” and the “strong child who was to be born” as referring to the King of Sweden, Gustavus Adolphus (who liberated the Lutherans from the Papists). These were held as fulfilled, but it is not now the time to speak further of them.³⁰

Footnotes for §9: 

²⁸ I.c.p.F. (Likely In loco citato, pagina Following — see prior context)
²⁹ Theophil. Schweighart, Pandora Sextæ Ætatis, §1, Speculo Gratiae, p. 43–44.
³⁰ Vid. Fama & Conf., p. 69, 89, 90; & Conf. David Mederi Indic. Theolog. von der Fama u. Conf., p. 5; & Anonymi Dreyfaches Paßport des Mitternächtigen Post-Reuters, p. 27.

In particular, the following appears in their Confession regarding the use and authority of Holy Scripture:

‘We exhort everyone to diligent and perpetual reading of the Holy Bible. For whoever knows that he has found favor with God shall make a proper way to come to our Fraternity. For just as this [Bible] is the sum and content of our rule, so that there should be no book in the world which is not grasped and accepted by it; thus those are almost equally and nearly related to us who make that one book, the Holy Bible, the rule of their life, the goal and purpose of all their studies; indeed, the compendium of the whole world. Not that they should always have it in their mouths, but rather that they should know how to apply its true meaning to all times and ages of the world and to judge by it. For our use is not to exploit and vulgarize Holy Scripture in such a way that, since an innumerable multitude of interpreters is found, some draw it to their opinion, while others slander it and maliciously compare it to a wax nose, which the Theologians, Philosophers, Physicians, and Mathematicians can twist as they please. Against these we publicly confess that from the beginning of the world no more excellent, better, more wondrous, and more wholesome book has been given to men than precisely the Holy Bible. Blessed is he who possesses it; more blessed is he who reads it diligently; but most blessed is he who studies it, and whoever understands it rightly; for he is most like and nearest to God‘.

But concerning their religion, they confess this:

‘We can be suspected by no one of any heresy or evil undertaking against the worldly government, seeing that we condemn the blasphemy of both the Orient and the Occident (that is, of Mohammed and the Pope) against our Lord Jesus Christ. And further: So that every Christian may know what people we are in faith and trust, we confess our knowledge of Jesus Christ, as it has arisen brightly and clearly in these last times, especially in Germany, and is still today (excluding all enthusiasts, heretics, and false prophets) maintained, defended, and propagated in certain and designated lands. We also enjoy two Sacraments, as instituted, with all the phrases and ceremonies of the first renovated Church‘.³¹

From these and other of their words, some have extensively proven that they were no so-called Sacramentarians or Calvinists; but rather true Lutherans, although others will by no means acknowledge them as such.³²

Footnotes for §10: 

³¹ Conf., p. 74–75.
³² Ibid., p. 55.
³³ Fama, p. 45.
³⁴ Anonym. Auctor Famæ remissæ ad Fratr. Ros. Crucis, p. B3 seqq.

That they were, nevertheless, pious and God-fearing souls, someone wished to prove in the following manner, addressing them directly:

That you are God-fearing appears sufficiently from the following:

1. Because you prefer the Bible to all other books and esteem it as your highest treasure, and you exhort others to read it unceasingly.

2. Because you testify: “Vos decretum esse, ut Fraternitatis vestræ numerus hoc tempore augeatur” [“That it is decreed that the number of your Fraternity be increased at this time”]. Likewise: “Vos Dei Spiritu actos alios ad palatia vestra vocare” [“You, moved by the Spirit of God, call others to your dwellings”].

3. Because your devout, spiritual, and highly enlightened father, in whose footsteps you tread, left behind his grave, which he prepared for himself during his life, adorned with such beautiful spiritual sayings, as these are: “Jesus mihi omnia” [“Jesus is my all”]; “Granum pectori Jesu insitum” [“A grain grafted into the breast of Jesus”]; “Ex Deo nascimur, in Jesu morimur, per Spiritum reviviscimus” [“We are born of God, we die in Jesus, we revive through the Spirit”].

4. Because you fulfill God’s command with a cheerful spirit, undertaking nothing without it.

5. Because you do not boast of gold-making, nor of a thousand other even better arts, but rejoice that your names are written in the Book of Life.

6. Because you condemn those books and figures which have appeared under the chemical name to the contempt of the Gloria Dei [Glory of God], and refuse to communicate their catalog.

7. Because you confess for your knowledge Jesus Christ, as He has arisen brightly and clearly in these last times, especially in Germany, and enjoy two Sacraments, as instituted, with all phrases and ceremonies of the first renovated Church; you enjoy Christ, the Son of God, and the sole Mediator between God and men, confessing and loving Him in purity and truth; practicing a pure, unadulterated Christian philosophy, and living and walking as befits and is proper for a human being.

8. Because you curse with mouth and heart the horrible and abominable blasphemies which both the Turk and Pope pour out terribly against our Lord and Savior Jesus, and prophesy to the Roman Impostor his deserved reward and downfall, namely that the same is now before the door.

9. Because you end your Fama quite Christianly, and conclude with these words: “Sub umbra alarum tuarum JEHOVAH” [“Under the shadow of your wings, JEHOVAH”].

10. Because you claim nothing that has not also been claimed by other holy and wise men of God in the Old and New Testament.

Without this, and since you presume to pervert the Gospel of Christ, I would, with St. Paul, much rather help to curse you than seek your friendship and burden my conscience. However, one need not fear this at all, as Julianus de Campis proves in his send-letter or report.

Footnotes for §11: 

¹ Helias Tertius, f. Urtheil oder Meynung von dem Orden der Brüdersch., p. 4, 5, 6.

That which seemed most dangerous and suspicious to many, and through which the controversy in these writings was chiefly kindled and sought out, was that appended to the Confessio was a Discourse on the General Reformation of the Whole World. In it, not only were general follies, errors, abuses, and corruptions presented, but all sorts of counsel for improvement were brought to light; and in particular, the previously used methods and inadequate means of reformation were pointed out and rejected, as can be seen at length in that writing itself.

This, I say, found disfavor with many—both Theologians and Jurists, as well as Physicians—who did not hesitate to resist it with hand and foot so fiercely, as if the feared reformation were already at their throats.

The Theologians complained that the doctrine of Christ could not be improved, although every single one wished to occupy himself with the trivialities of reforming. They feared that from the Rosicrucians a general upheaval (Aufruhr) might arise. They discoursed so shamefully about all sorts of defects: the servile running about of notaries, the boastful pretensions of advocates, the secret practices of judges, the deceptions of apothecaries, the cheating of tailors, etc.

The Physicians likewise, along with the Theologians, took it ill that through a General Reformation everything might be brought back to the first state of Adam or Solomon; indeed, that Paradise itself should be restored. It had the appearance as if the Fraternity were a kind of Anabaptists who wanted to reform everything and purify it completely.

[The Critics argued:] “Reformation would indeed be a fine thing if the world had not, on account of sin, vanity, and disorder, necessarily fallen into the curse. And in this opinion it must also remain. Therefore they denied outright that any improvement was to be hoped for, or even possible, and threatened: ‘Whoever wants to start this, an iron reformation shall be set against him.’”

The Ministerium Ecclesiasticum and the other estates already had their certain laws and orders, according to which reformations were carried out, and whatever other objections there were.

Footnotes for §13: 

¹ Christ. Gilbertus Theolog., Wächterbriefl., p. 29.

² Ibid., p. 54.

³ Andreas Libavius, Bedencken von der Fama und Confessio, cap. I, p. 17.

⁴ Cap. II, p. 18. cap. XXXV, p. 216. ⁵ Ibid. cap. II, p. 21.

In particular, it displeased the Theologians; they took it ill when the slightest thought of an improvement in their profession was conceived. Especially since, from the Rosicrucians’ general confession, a necessary General Reformation [was implied].

[The Critics argued:] “If their multitude of theology students, with great seriousness, dispute their own ways and interpret everything, and with their pedantic mindset—although the Holy Spirit has neither spoken through them nor been considered by them—[do so] without any consideration that the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”

Likewise: “One sees today in all schools, yes even in the churches, so many articles of faith, Locos Communes and Distinctions, which are brought to light with the most unseemly and ridiculous gestures after the scholastic Logic or Disputier-Kunst [art of disputation]; will this be held as the highest art of knowledge? Will anyone say: The Brothers R.C. are better? They themselves answer with all apostolic humility: ‘We are god‑fearing, not of ourselves, but [we are god‑fearing] through God; it is not from us (as Aristotle says), but from God.’ They do not have a self‑forged religion; rather, they have the highest gift that God gave: Faith, which alone saves (as Paul himself testifies), as is pointed out in many places of Scripture. The Brothers do well to keep their faith purified from the surreptitiously introduced corruptions, especially of the supposed philosophy. They wish that the remaining use of the Peripatetic or Aristotelian philosophy in such high matters of faith and religion be left aside, and that the bare, pure, holy Scripture, or the manifold glossed Scripture formed from Aristotelian philosophy, which they also recognize pro norma controversiarum [as the rule for controversies] together with the Brothers, be used. Whoever now believes rightly with the Brothers, or lives rightly with all orthodox Christians, he also lives well with them. For where there is a pure Theology, there is right living, justifying faith, fervent love, hope, etc. They use in their writings rarely or not at all the philosophical terms, which we all too willingly bring into our Theology, [thinking them to bring] more benefit than hindrance.”

Footnotes for §14: 

¹ Einfältige und kurze antwort über die ausgegangene Fama, p. 3, 4.

² Fraternitatis Rosatæ Crucis Confessio recepta, p. 97, B.1. seqq. 7, &c.

Following this testimony concerning corrupted Theology, there are also found others who complain about the practice (praxi) and common life of the preachers—though unfortunately it is no secret that nothing is more important than this: when one enters the churches, one finds much evil and scandalous life, also among the clergy, who build up with one hand and tear down with the other, or who pass over in silence the manifold vices of their hearers. Should one not also lodge complaints with the city council—for who among them does not line his own pockets?—as well as about the open courts, where favor [is traded] for favor and violence for justice? Should one not complain about both—the churches as well as the schools, the seminary, the school in which all virtues should especially shine—but which is often stained with the most shameful vices? Which, even if those who teach in it are praised for their innocence and learning, yet it will be difficult for them to answer before God’s strict judgment that they have not strayed from the Christian community. No faculty in particular will I mention this time.

These and similar confessions attracted much hatred again toward the Rosicrucians, so that we see under the frequent specious pretexts and condemnations of the embittered preachers against them. Therefore these and similar counter-arguments came forth:

“The preaching office is, among these same [three], the highest of all three hierarchies and should not subject itself to any lay detractor of the three; God wanted to let no self-appointed intruder lay hold of this order. If the Rosicrucian brothers equally concerned only the political estates, preachers could tolerate it with patience. But since they attack religion itself and with religious contempt of the Word and sacraments cause offense, the Theologians must oppose this learning and faction with all seriousness.”¹

They carried it out with bitterness, because they found no other weapons—[being unable] to invoke the God-called doctrine—to call upon. The Lutheran/Papist/Calvinistic doctrine in several articles they sought to attack through unskilled masters; the ordinary Ministerium they despised.² Their adherents and defenders did not hold much to churches and sacraments, or at least in the church no one preaches to them; rather, they held these for lies and fables.³ They let it be heard that they could preach just as well and perform the divine service, etc. Therefore one had to fear that they would persuade the people and the authority in particular that no preacher was needed, and [that the Rosicrucians] would divide the parish goods among themselves.⁴

From this one sees that the clergy must not have been well-disposed in these matters; therefore they cried all the more eagerly: “Fire! Fire!” and blew the watch-horns, so that these masked brothers might not make an incursion and take land and people.

Footnotes for §15: 

¹ Confessio Recepta, l.c. p. D4.

² Christ. Gilbertus, im Wächterhörnlein wider das eingelegte feuer der selbst-gewachsenen neuen Propheten und Rosencreutz-Brüder, p. 27.

³ Ibid. præf. G. Voetius, Polit. Eccl. P. I. Lib. II. Tr. I. c. I., p. 120.

⁴ Gilb. l.c. p. 123.

Thus it was also generally unwelcome to the learned, what in the Fama among other things stated concerning common Philosophy: although this served the thoughtless and the worldly-wise little, and blasphemy, laughter, and scorn is ever more — also among the learned, pride and ambition were so high that they could not agree to come together, and from all that God in our century has richly bestowed, they could not compile a librum Naturæ or a regulam of all arts, but rather each part did much against the other; one remained with the old doctrines, and had to defend Pope, Aristotle, Galen, indeed whatever looked like any codex, against the clear light of God. Who without doubt themselves, if they lived [accordingly], would with great joy correct themselves; but here one is too weak for such a great work. And although in Theology, Physics, and Mathematics the truth is set forth, the old enemy still lets his tricks and grudges be seen in abundance, in that he through enthusiasts, strife, and vagabonds hinders and obstructs such a beautiful course.¹

Likewise in the further account concerning the condition of the Rosicrucian Brothers: ‘What happiness and unhappiness has the miserable philosophy caused only a short time ago; has not the miserable principle of Substance and Accident, never founded by themselves, awakened war in all churches and schools among the Flacians; what great evil it still causes today I would gladly relate, if time and occasion would permit, which would be so much the easier for me because I have been involved with it almost from youth and dealt with it; now that I am grown, I find it not only useless but harmful. For nothing is in these three disciplines, where one is at an impasse, or can reassure or satisfy his mind; it is all mere chatter about everything, and that in a sophistical way according to the art called Logic. Yet there is no rule in all of Logic that cannot be overturned with another source, and by means of this Logic others are overthrown and set up. Therefore everything under it is nothing; nothing is so good that Logic cannot make it evil; nothing is so evil that Logic cannot make it good. The worst is that the enemy has brought this evil weed even into the churches and schools‘.²

And then in Cruce absque cruce: ‘I merely noticed what our Theology and Philosophy has lacked until now: the former indeed, that one has gone more upon hearing than living, more upon the letter than the inner Spirit; the latter but, that it with Aristotle, Plato, and other heathen Philosophers never went with God and Nature in the same tone and harmony‘.³

Footnotes for §16: 

¹ Fama p. 13.

² M.A.T.W. Frater Crucis Rosatæ p. B. 4.

³ Vitus del Capo de la bona speranza p. A. 4.

In other such writings this matter is discussed at great length, partly regarding what is to be corrected in the old philosophy, and partly how true wisdom from God alone must be obtained through prayer and faith.¹ The famous Robert Fludd, in his apology for the Rosicrucians, dealt with this in the whole second part of De Impedimentis Scientiarum hodierno in scholis vigentium. In the first chapter he refuted Libavius with his old philosophy and medicine; in the second he showed the great deficiencies in all the sciences taught in the schools; in the third, especially in natural philosophy, medicine, and alchemy; in the fourth, the mathematical disciplines; in the fifth, ethics, economics, politics, jurisprudence, and theology. Concerning the latter he writes: “The controversies of theologians are the source of so many heresies and sects, each of whom is accustomed to twist Holy Scripture according to his own fantasy and opinion.” He then proves from 2 Cor. 3:6 that Scripture must be interpreted only by the Holy Spirit, through whose help alone all improvement must be accomplished.²

And over this and similar matters, the others again became so fearful that they feared: if the Rosicrucians were to make study so contemptible, the youth would soon throw their ABCs, Donatus, and primers into the fire and drive the teachers out of the schools. Indeed, if the Rosicrucians were to release their book in which a man could find whatever he wished or desired, it would finally come to a lack of preachers and all the crafts, because the cooks, tailors, shoemakers, and the like would no longer want to work — and such wretched fears.³

Footnotes for §17: 

¹ Josephus Stellatus in Pegaso Firmamenti Cap. I. & II.

² Robert Fludd, Tractatus Apologeticus P. II. c. I. seqq. impr. p. 138. 139.

³ Gilbertus de Spaignart l.c. p. 35. 36.

*

§23

On Other Untrue and Unbelievable Stories

Concerning other untrue and incredible stories, which some have published under their name in writings to be read, and which their opponents have so foolishly and carelessly cast forth: we desire shortly to prove that all these were sent forth to mock and injure the Brotherhood. For the present, however, we must suffer the defenders and spreaders of this matter first to tell their tale among themselves, that we may afterward distinguish the different writings one from another.

Here I must also remember that certain zealous persons have rendered Johann Arndt very suspect and embittered against the patron, or rather the originator, of the Rosicrucian writings, as if Johann Corvinus had already done this at Danzig. (d) But this cannot be proven by the slightest token, especially since the good man with spiritual zeal sought to help and preserve the will of God’s elect, and had friendship with D. Andreae and others, so that these could not have been enemies to him. We have seen above from his preface that he was of the true divine philosophy and secret wisdom. One may see also from his writings the humanity, not of a haughty spirit, but of one who treated of the rebirth and sanctification of man, comparing it unto the rebirth or transmutation of metals. (e) Even as D. Gerhard compared this Lapis Philosophorum with the essence of the Church, namely Christ. (f)

One observed also his Exercitationes upon the books of the Arabian Chymicus Geber concerning the sum of perfection, wherein is treated of metals and their mutation and perfection, as also of the stone itself; as well as the Analysis upon the Pater Practica of Lully, as it came forth at Tübingen. Therefore some have gathered from this that Johann Arndt was a lover of these things and of the Philosophia Adepta, which belongs not here. (g) For here are to be seen only the authors of the Rosicrucian writings and their defenders.

Footnotes for §23: 

(d) Apud Herm. Rathmannum Antwort auff Corvini Schreiben p. E. 3.

(e) p. 12. 11.

(f) Meditat. S. piet.

(g) Auctor Metallurgia Bechm. praf.

*

§24

On Other Lutheran Teachers Who Defended the Rosicrucians

Among other Lutheran teachers who have defended the Rosicrucians, not only the aforementioned Andreae, but also the Thuringian preacher David Meder, hath espoused this cause and called it a theological and pastoral fruit of Christ’s teaching. This man wrote in 1616, even before the Rosicrucians were generally known, and defended them against common received principles. He showed himself also to be a good Lutheran and earnest philosopher and theologian, as is witnessed by his book: Judicium Theologicum, or A Christian and Prudent Judgment on the Fama and Confession of the Brotherhood of the Laudable Order of the Rosy Cross: Whether a Christian Can Conscientiously Join This Fraternity. A Faithful and Well-Meaning Address to All Who Are Devoted to Natural Magic, as the Highest Wisdom Known According to God’s Will.

This writing was printed in 1617, and the author shrank not from defending the Rosicrucians against the Egyptians and Babylonians, who were accused of gold-making and alchemy, whereof the Apostles and Prophets were not ashamed. (h) He freely confessed also that many of our brethren had more hope of finding gold than they found. Nevertheless, this noble work was rejected by none, but rather commended.

The renowned Morhofius commended Michael Maier, Royal Count Palatine, Knight and Doctor of Medicine, as a highly learned man in Germany, who also undertook the defence of the Rosicrucians in an official writing. (i) This work, however, bore no name, and appeared only under the initials K.M.F., coming forth also in 1617, with the title: Silentium post clamores, that is: An Apology and Vindication Against Certain Unseemly Slanders That Have Been Cast Upon the Fraternity of the R.C., Desiring but Obtaining No Answer to Their Liking; Calumnies and Abusive Speeches Which Have Been Poured Out Against the Same: Together with a Full Declaration Wherefore the Aforementioned Fraternity Hath Hitherto Refrained from Answering Such Clamors Despite Urgent Entreaties, and from Revealing Itself to Everyone’s Request, Which the Entire Laudable Society Hath Considerately Weighed.

In this he had particularly demonstrated that not all secrets of nature are yet revealed, but that many more remain hidden. In particular, that the secrets of the Fraternity are indeed as they claim, and especially concerning their Universal Medicine, which had also been described long ago by the ancient Sages.

Whereupon he then legitimatized the circumstances of this society alongside their writings, and set forth also the reasons why they have not all been admitted into their society, as they claim; and finally severally refuted the objections and accusations against this matter. After this, he published also the laws of the Fraternity in Latin in the year 1618, wherein he presented divers considerate institutions of the same, and exposed and punished quite clearly the common faults and abuses among physicians. The title is this: THEMIS AUREA, that is, A Treatise on the Laws of the Fraternity of the R.C., in Which Their Agreement with Private Convenience, Public Utility, and the Necessary Cause of the Medical Art Are Unfolded and Demonstrated. Frankfurt, 8vo.

Footnote for §24: 

(h) Christ. Gilbertus l. c. p. 49/72.

(i) Lib. I.

§25

On Robert Fludd

The famous English physician and philosopher Robert Fludd [a Fluctibus] also composed sundry works in defence of these views. First, the Apologia compendiaria, Fraternitatem de Rosea Cruce suspicionis & infamiae maculis aspersam, veritatis quasi fluctibus abluentem & abtergentem. Leiden 1616. Then the Tractatus Apologeticus, integritatem Societatis de Rosea Cruce defendens. In which it is proved against the slanders of D. Libavius and others of the same sort, that the marvelous things offered to us by the Fraternity of the R.C. can be performed without wicked imposture of Magic, or the tricks and collusions of the Devil. 1617. And afterward the Summum Bonum, quod est verum verae Magiae, Cabalae, Alchymiae fratrum Ros. Cruc. verorum subjectum.

He dedicated also the second volume of his collected works to this Fraternity, and praised them as “those who are illuminated by the brightness of the uncreated light and moved by holy longing, and who are governed also by faith, religion, and charity.” What extraordinary gifts this writer had from God, even his detractors and opponents were forced to confess. Gassendus said of him, not without praise: “He was free in truth, and he made known also many things that have been hidden from all previous centuries.”¹

Others, though they called him a defender of superstitious arts, nevertheless confessed “that he discovered many excellent things in mathematics, applied much from the Kabbalists, from the doctrine of numbers, from the wonderful power of the Tetragrammaton, and from the Bible to natural things, and made a new system of physics, from which one may recognize his extraordinary intellect.”²

This is yet more evident from his books, such as the Philosophia Mosaica, in which the sacred and truly Christian wisdom and science of creation and the creature (whose basis or foundation is the one corner stone Jesus Christ) is accurately and clearly explained. Gouda 1638. fol. Utriusque Cosmi, majoris scilicet & minoris, Metaphysica, Physica atque Technica Historia. Oppenheim 1617. fol. Meteorologia Cosmica. Frankfurt 1626. Monochordum Mundi symphonicum. ibid, 1623. Medicina Catholica sive Mysticum Artis medicandi sacrarium. ib, 1629. Amphitheatrum Anatomiae. ibid. 1623. And others, which are generally condemned by the ignorant under the name of Rosicrucianism, but highly esteemed by lovers of true divine wisdom.

Footnotes for § 25:

¹ In Epist. Exercit. adv. Philosophiam Fludd. dedic.

² Morhofius Lib. I. Polyh. c. 7. p. 394-395. Conf. J. Jac. Boissardi via Doct. Vir. Freherus Theatr. Vir. Illustr. p. 1342.

Another Englishman, John Heydon, also published many writings in favor of the Rosicrucians, but all in English, and therefore they remained little known in Germany. One of these is said to be: Infallible Principles of the Rosicrucian Brethren for Knowing the Past, Present, and Future.

To these belong also the works published by the well-known mystic Julius Sperber under the title: ECHO der von Gott erleuchteten Fraternität des löblichen Ordens R.C. (Echo of the God-Enlightened Fraternity of the Praiseworthy Order R.C.), that is: An Exemplary Proof that not only what is offered in the Fama and Confessio of the Fraternity R.C. is possible and true, but that such marvelous works of God were already communicated to certain godly persons nineteen and more years ago, and were foretold in their private writings. Also included is: A Princely Magical Script and Treatise Dedicated to the Highly Praiseworthy Fraternity R.C., published in a German edition at Danzig, 1616, 8vo. At the end of the preface, the author’s name is given by the initials J.S.P., dated Danzig, 1615. The circumstances surrounding this work, as well as the author’s person and other writings, shall be discussed in detail elsewhere.

Some sources also attest that the theological professor Henricus Nollius—who later became a preacher in Darmstadt (as I find in a manuscript; see also his Theoria Philosophiae Hermeticae; he was previously Professor at Helmstedt)—likewise publicly defended the Rosicrucians.¹ His writings belong here insofar as he pursued Hermetic philosophy ex professo (as his explicit profession). Such are the aforementioned Theoria, which contain seven treatises: (1) Verus Hermes; (2) Porta Hermeticae Sapientiae; (3) Silentium Hermeticum; (4) Axiomata Hermetica; (5) De Generatione Rerum Naturalium; (6) De Regeneratione Rerum Naturalium; (7) De Renovatione (Danzig, 1617). Also his Sanctuarium Naturae or Physica Hermetica, published at Frankfurt, 1619; the Discursus Posthumus pro eadem, Jena, 1636; and likewise the Trias Scholastica Gnostica, Didactica & Metaphysica, Frankfurt, 1625.

Footnote for §26:

¹ Vid. Fridericus Brecklingius, Ancilator, p. C. 7, and in Pseudosophia Mundi, p. 16.

Concerning anonymous and pseudonymous authors

Shortly after the publication of the Fama, a certain writer under the name Julianus de Campis circulated a letter or report addressed to all who had heard rumors of the new brotherhood of the order called the Rosy Cross, or had learned of the matter through conversation.¹ In it, he appears to defend the cause, yet often renders it more suspect through a flimsy and superficial account, whereby many reckon him among the secret enemies of the Fraternity.

On the other hand, Josephus Stella (as he names himself), in his Pegasus Firmamenti or Introductio Brevis in Veterum Sapientiam, Magiam & Pansophiam, argued earnestly and sternly that common scholastic philosophy is worthless, and that the true wisdom of the ancients—especially that of the Hebrews—is to be sought elsewhere; and that without the light of the Holy Spirit, nothing valid can be attained in the higher arts.²

Furthermore, [Stella] argues that true wisdom must be attained through the Spirit of God, and in support thereof he cites the writings of Luther, praising them as is fitting.³

Florentinus de Valentia (who was presumably Valentinus Andreae himself) published Rosiam Florentem against the slanders of Menapius in the year 1616, and most wisely maintained the cause of the Fraternity. An anonymous Doctor of Medicine also wrote a judgment or opinion on the matter in the same year, which he entitled Helias Tertius and dedicated to the Brothers. In it, he calls them “chosen instruments of God” and “highly enlightened men, who, driven by the Spirit of God, increased their number, suppressed lies, and wanted to bring truth forth from darkness.” His arguments concerning the orthodoxy of the Brothers have been cited above; alongside these, he also sharply attacks heathen philosophy, while recommending and upholding true theology and Biblical wisdom.

Footnotes for §27:

¹ Julianus de Campis is probably a pseudonym.

² Josephus Stella is likely a pseudonym for a Rosicrucian sympathizer.

³ (n) Vid. Cap. II, p. 2; Cap. III, p. B. 4 & C. 5, etc. Cf. Brecklingius, Philosophia Mundi, p. 16.

Henricus Neuhufus of Danzig wrote in the year 1618 an Admonitio de Fratribus (Admonition Concerning the Brothers), wherein he first discusses the various rumors about the Rosicrucians—whether they exist, what kind of people they are, and what aims they have—but finally warns against them, arguing that they would confound the religions and introduce new sects.¹

Another, named Johannes Himmel, wrote a Mirror of Ambition, or a Refutation of the Newly-Appearing Sects, but proved himself to be the most unreasonable and biased of all, going so far as to say: “Even if the Rosicrucians had originated from the relics and bones of Luther himself, one would still have to abhor them as heretics.”²

Another, writing under the name Elias a Cruce, published in 1619 a Miraculum Artis, or Revelation of Many Secrets, which is likewise full of foolish and confused things; it appears, however, that he was led to this not through the writings of the genuine [Rosicrucians], but rather out of a zeal wherein he imagined these things came from the Rosicrucians themselves.

An unnamed author of the Fama Remissa also involved himself, but presented little more than a polemic against the Reformed [Calvinists], which he pursued in the manner of the previous spiteful pages; he would not acknowledge the Fraternity as legitimate until they candidly submitted to the Augsburg Confession.³

The so-called Theophilus Philaretus (who was a physician named Hoffmann, as noted in my copy) wished to behave neutrally in his Pyrrhone Clidensi Redivivo (Leipzig 1616), but raised so many doubts and objections that he seemed to consider the matter impossible and vain.

The other writers against them were: Radolph Brokoffer,⁴ Erasmus Strooffert in his Elucidario majore super reformationem totius mundi, F.R.C., Johannes Siverri (whom one Hojes Bilchipach, as he calls himself, refuted in an Examinatio of 1617), whom Florentinus de Valentia also mentions at the end of his Rosa florens. Also Eusebius Christophori filius in the so-called Speculum, and Melchior Rudolphus in the Arena, whom the aforementioned Elias a Cruce cites—to say nothing of others.

Notes for §33: 

¹ Henricus Neuhusius, Admonitio de Fratribus Rosae Crucis (1618).

² Johannes Himmel, Speculum Ambitionis, p. E. i.

³ Fama Remissa, p. H. 6.

⁴ Rodolph Brokoffer.

That many ungodly taunts and blasphemies were poured out on this account is lamented by Dr. Andreae himself in the judgment cited above;(j) therefore, he deemed it advisable to withdraw from writing, so that the slander might finally cease. Another complained at the time: “The Fraternity is so despised in towns and lands that some pastors devote entire sermons to them and paint them as devils; indeed, the Doctors at the universities call them diabolos incarnatos, incarnate devils — which grieved not a few sensible people not a little.”

And of this, there are still so many monuments preserved in writings, wherein these people are expressly called incarnati diaboli [incarnate devils]; item, a brood of basilisks that crept about the chief authors and promoters of the preachers, so that the latter feared such harm from them.

Item, they have been called “sixty-year-old youngsters and newly-hatched little letter-brothers, dull-hard and thick-headed Adelphoi, prophets fallen from heaven, fresh-baked Rosy-cakes, cross-spirits, cross-birds, loutish lads, stilt-brothers, willow-brothers, etc., lovers of the cross-graves, inutilia pondera terrae [useless burdens of the earth], squint-sighted, cross-crucifying horse-brothers, crossless traitors who thrust themselves forth as preachers and despise the theologians and preachers.”(k) (l)

In sum, thereby was also revealed the blindness and ungodly character of many would-be theologians, which the chief author of the matter, Dr. Andreae, reckoned among the injuries from which he would yet have recovered. We wish here to hear, in conclusion, his Bedencken [thoughts] on the whole affair, published already in the year 1619, which — had the others thoroughly considered it before their uninformed judgments — they might well have stayed at home with their own affairs; but their blind zeal and wonted inclination to stir up alarm prevented them.

Notes for §35: 

(j) Colloquium Rhodostaur. Append p. 4.

(k) Grickmann l.c. p. 16. 48. 50.

(l) Vid. Hifaias sub Cruce Mirac. Artis p. 22. 60. 67. 68. Gilbertus l.c. p. 61. 95. 108. 113. 124. &c. Grickmann Getreuer Eckhard p. 123.

His words are as follows:

“One must distinguish well and precisely the writings of the Rosicrucians; for some are manifestly wanton, some confused, some frivolous and cunningly composed, but some also pious and wise. In all one still finds something; some show the sum of the matter, others are manifestly false and deceitful. Whoever confuses all of this or takes it for one thing will surely be deceived: for in such a manner Christ would be rejected, the world approved, vanity praised, deceivers esteemed, and truth despised.

Now, though I let the society of the Fraternity itself go, I will nevertheless never forsake the true Christian brotherhood that smells of roses beneath the cross and keeps itself far from the world’s filth, confusions, follies, and vanities; rather, I would gladly join it with all pious, sincere, and sensible people. — Let us now live under Christ, who has prescribed for us abundantly what pleases him and serves our souls.

Meanwhile, we wonder:

1. at the weakness of the human mind, that it undertakes enormous things;

2. at the hidden resistance of men, which hides itself under the cover of reassurance, gnaws, and seeks every sort of outlet;

3. at the audacity of curiosity, which offers itself even to all unknown things as soon as there is praise to be gained;

4. at the shameless scribblers who, under false names, hatch every mischief and rage abroad in the hope that they will not be punished;

5. at the danger of idleness, whereby the mind takes up all manner of follies and fables and is drawn away from the true duty of man;

6. at the inventions of poverty, whereby it casts off hunger and disgrace and shuns no danger;

7. at the turbulent zeal of their many followers, and the rash boasting of those who are accustomed to pass judgment even upon the most unknown things and thereby make a show of themselves;

8. at the inconstancy of people, who so easily reject what is customary and take pleasure in whatever is new, no matter how monstrous;

9. at the growth of the smallest words and matters, so that a spark can become a fire;

10. at the inequality of our judgments even among those who seem to be completely united under one religion and one commonwealth, indeed under the same rules;

11. at the misery of the arts and sciences among those whom the common folk hold to be the greatest sages;

12. at the groundlessness of many reformations, which consist more in words than in deeds;

13. at the strife of truth with mere opinion, and its sufferings under curiosity, but its victory under simplicity;

14. at the slipperiness of trust, and the poor foundation of the greatest things in the world;

15. at the sparks of righteousness and piety in many, which lie buried and covered under common customs;

16. at the wounds of human society, which consist more in imagination than in necessity;

17. at the paradoxical things of the Kingdom of Christ, which stand directly opposed to the affairs and customs of the world.

This and similar things one could observe while this comedy was being played. Whether there are still Rosicrucian brothers or not (concerning which I am rather of the opinion that there are none), I am content to be a brother of Christ and of all true Christians. I will keep Christ’s religion, honour Christ’s polity, love Christian wisdom, choose such manners alone, and enjoy Christ’s roses. I will bear the cross of Christians, protect their order, follow their discipline. I will live and die as a Christian.”

Notes for §36: 

(m) Turris Babel sive Judiciorum de Fraternitate Rosaceae Crucis Chaos, num. 25, p. 69, seq.