ON THE ROSICRUCIANS.

XI. It would finally remain for us to place before our eyes the one whom Arnold peddles as the true author of the society, no less impudently than imprudently. But for certain reasons, I will first review the other opinions, among which the invention of this society—which brought so many evils with it—is usually attributed to more than one person. Thus Rostius, in Helden-Buche, C. I, Quest. 2, proposes four opinions that were already cherished in his own time concerning these Brothers. The first was that it is a fiction of clever minds selling trifles to the credulous or casting shadows upon others. 2) That others persuaded themselves that it was a trumpet of sedition, rebellion, and internal war, that is, the most dangerous thoughts and a fraudulent proposal to stir up a pernicious tumult or sedition, because they themselves cried out too boldly in the Fama and Confession that they intended a universal reformation of the world, and they spoke much of force and coercion, and prophesied a great change in politics. 3) That some held all these things to be magical illusions. 4) That many were of the opinion that the R. C. Brothers were persistent followers of Paracelsus, who sought by all means to obtain authority and glory for this very Paracelsus and his associates against the Aristotelians and Galenists. For although, in their Fama (p. 10), they exclude Paracelsus from their order—indeed, they freely state that he was never in it—nevertheless, as I showed above in § VII, they not only praise him but also free him from the accusations of Menapius and others, and vigorously conspire with him in errors. Regarding these opinions, which are repeated by Colbergius (c. l. p. 267) and other authors, it can be observed that the first is made more likely by that story found in Grismannus (c. l. p. 37), which goes as follows:

Someone has let it be known that he, during his travels with his companions, once concluded that although there are so many societies and fraternities in the world that it is almost impossible to start another, they still wanted to try whether they could stir up a new one, and how many novitatis cupidos desirous of novelty and fools they might bring under one hat, to which end they published the Fama Fraternitatis, etc.

If this narrative could be confirmed by many other trustworthy testimonies, it would not be far from impelling the reader to agree with this opinion, since it cannot be denied that it has occupied the minds of many scholars, nor does it oppose our own view.