Solemn Historical Dissertation on the Rosicrucians

of these men, if he had had suitable ones, for he is otherwise entirely devoted to naming and praising innocent men who hold to the orthodoxy—men from whose reputation he could take nothing away unless he were willing to lie manifestly—unless where their words seem capable of being twisted in some way to his own patronage, or where he can establish his own opinions with those same testimonies, or serve his own bad cause. Second, even if I were to grant to Arnold in the highest degree that there were some who called Luther the founder of the Fraternity, I would still not easily believe that this had ever entered the minds of men of sound judgment, since they are not unaware that Luther praised Tauler only in his earliest years, not because he was without all fault, but because he was less corrupt than others, and at the time he commended him, there was no better ascetic writer who could be commended. As for the Theologia Germanica, it has been shown by others to the point of Arnold's confusion that it was commended by Luther when he was still laboring under certain Papist remnants, but in the progress of time, he was taught better things. Therefore, there is no reason for Arnold to flatter himself so magnificently here and elsewhere on account of this commendation of mystical theology made by Luther.

VI. Second, § 22, Arnold observes that Blessed Arndt, a theologian no less famous for the sanctity of his life and purity of morals than for his learning, is held by some to be the author of this Fraternity. To demonstrate this, he produces the Antwort auf Corvini Schreiben / p. E. Reply to Corvinus's Writing, p. E. of Hermann Rathmann, that famous minister among the people of Gdansk in Prussia, where he stirred up so many disturbances. I do not wish now to inquire, as I lack a copy of this response, whether Arnold examined the words of Rathmann well, since it is not alien to his mind and custom to mutilate the words of writers. But even if these words were truly at Rathmann’s, one could still doubt whether Corvinus had asserted this. For that Rathmann says these things is not enough, as he was an enemy of D. Johann Corvinus. But I will assume that Corvinus even said this, yet I ask whether he spoke these things publicly or privately. If he said these things privately, perhaps in a conversation which, as the chief pastor of the primary church in Gdansk, he had with Rathmann, he should have preferred to keep silent about it rather than to proclaim it. But I will grant even this, that Corvinus said those things, since Breler also, in his Mysterio Iniquitatis Mystery of Iniquity, p. 100, shows that by some the Blessed Arndt is referred to among the Rosicrucians, and it is otherwise established that Arndt was called a heretic by Corvinus (against whom, however, others have sufficiently sharpened their pens on this very account, as Arndt’s innocence and the sanctity of his life and morals are not obscurely manifest). Was it therefore fitting for Arnold to broadcast that accusation as a public scandal, especially since he cannot deny (which perhaps Corvinus, whom I do not wish to defend, was looking at) that Blessed Arndt held the chemical philosophy in high regard with the Rosicrucian Brothers, and mentioned Paracelsus himself from time to time with praise? Indeed, Arndt himself does not deny that he took pleasure in reading the books of Weigel, as well as the Theologia Germanica, which my preceptor—and at the same time a patron to be perpetually honored with the highest religious devotion of the soul—the Magnificent D. Wernsdorf, showed for his own theological candor in his Dissertation on Arndt’s Books on True Christianity. It is further evident from Arndt’s booklet on the Mystery of the Incarnation, p. 34, that he does not entirely reject the philosopher’s stone, as Arnold himself admits in the place cited. But it is so far from the case that I would immediately count Arndt among the Rosicrucians for that reason—as he never professes his name among them, nor, as far as is known to me, openly praises the institutes and counsels of this Society—that I would rather rank him among the chief lights of our Church, and I believe he never had any commerce with this sect. Nor does Arnold speak ill in this place, § 22, when he says that other aids were known to Arndt by which he might restrain the morals of men and correct their vices, provided that Arnold applied that to others who flourish with the praise of true doctrine, and provided that, as we shall see a little later, he makes Johann Valentin Andreae, the Würtemberg theologian, the author of this sect. He is not far from including Arndt himself in this Society because a singular friendship existed between Arndt and this excellent man. And certainly, if Johann Valentin Andreae