Solemn Historical Dissertation on the Rosicrucians

into suspicion, and so that he might not lack the colors and arguments by which he could excuse these Brothers themselves—however much they are adversaries of uncorrupted truth—and commend them as if they were innocent in doctrine and life. For since he painted Paracelsus to us in his Haeresiologia history of heresies far differently than we read in other historical accounts that he truly was, and yet he saw that Theophrastus was hailed by Morhof—with whom he elsewhere proudly agrees, because he feels more mildly about men of this flour—in Vol. II, Book I, Chapter XV, not only as an almost illiterate innovator in theology and philosophy, but also as the father of recent enthusiasts who made a kind of mixed chaos out of theology and philosophy, Arnold did not wish to trace the origins of these little brothers back to that man, lest he and the associates of the errors and vices of Paracelsus should seem the same to anyone, for the defense of whom it would perhaps be a much more difficult matter to undertake. Therefore, in order to be able to excuse them better, he deemed it to his advantage to ascribe their origin to a Lutheran theologian, so that the memory of the malice of the orthodox—who are occupied with attacking and refuting them—might stand as more witnessed, or, as the words of Arnold himself have it in § 5, quite bitingly: original: "Wie übel und unvorsichtig so viel Orthodoxi ihren Religions-Eiffer angewandt / da sie wider ein Gedicht eines Lutherischen Theologi so heftig gestritten haben." How poorly and incautiously so many Orthodox have applied their religious zeal, when they have fought so violently against the poem of a Lutheran theologian. This maliciousness of his reveals more than enough his hatred against orthodoxy, which is already hateful to many others up to this time.

VIII. The same reason, without a doubt, impelled Arnold to write, in the fourth place, § 2, that Weigel is falsely and in vain hawked about by some as the author of this Philadelphia. Namely, Arnold recognized Weigel as a partner in errors, and, having Weigel himself confessing as a guilty party, he does not deny, in Part II, p. 618, that he owes many things to Paracelsus. Therefore, it was not to his palate to ascribe the origin of this society to these holy (so-called) men, but a Lutheran theologian seemed not a little more suitable to support these parts. I, however, not with a bad mind but with the best counsel, believe that Weigel is held by some to be the founder of this society, and I would propose a certain parallelism between Weigel and the aforementioned Brothers, if this very thing were not already in some way