their private object is not exclusively the characteristic of Rosicrucians and Free-masons. True: it belongs no less to all the secret societies which have arisen in modern times. But, notwithstanding that, it is indisputable that to them was due the original scheme of an institution, having neither an ecclesiastic nor a political tendency, and built on the personal equality of all the individuals who composed it. II. Women, children, those who were an idea so bold for those times as the union of nobles and burghers under a law of perfect equality could ever have been realized. And in fact amongst any other people than the English, with their national habits of thinking and other favourable circumstances, it could not have been realized. Minors were rejected unless when the consent of their guardians was obtained; for otherwise the order would have exposed itself to the suspicion of tampering with young peo not in the full possession of civic free-ple in an illegal way: to say nothing dom, Jews, Anti-christians generally, and (according to undoubted historic documents) in the early days of these orders-Roman Catholics, were excluded from the society. For what reason women were excluded, I suppose it can hardly be necessary to say. The absurd spirit of curiosity, talkativeness, and levity, which distinguish that unhappy sex, were obviously incompatible with the grave purposes of the Rosicrucians and Masons. Not to mention that the familiar intercourse, which co-membership in these societies brings along with it, would probably have led to some disorders in a promiscuous assemblage of both sexes, such as might have tainted the good fame or even threatened the existence of the order. More remarkable is the exclusion of persons not wholly free, of Jews, and of Anti-christians; and indeed it throws an important light upon the origin and character of the institutions. By persons not free we are to understand not merely slaves and vassals, but also those who were in the service of others-and generally all who had not an independent livelihood. Even freeborn persons are comprehended in this designation, so long as they continued in the state of minority. Masonry presumes in all its members the devotion of their knowledge and powers to the objects of the institution. Now what ser vices could be rendered by vassals, menial servants, day-labourers, jour neymen, with the limited means at their disposal as to wealth or knowledge, and in their state of dependency upon others? Besides, with the prejudices of birth and rank prevalent in that age, any admission of plebeian members would have immediately ruined the scheme. Indeed we have great reason to wonder that of the want of free-agency in minors. That lay-brothers were admitted for the performance of servile offices-is not to be taken as any departure from the general rule: for it was matter of necessity that persons of lower rank should fill the menial offices attached to the society; and these persons, be it observed, were always chosen from amongst those who had an independent property however small. As to the exclusion of Anti-christians, especially of Jews, this may seem at first sight inconsistent with the cosmo-political tendency of Masonry. But had it that tendency at its first establishment? Be this as it may, we need not be surprised at such a regulation in an age so little impressed with the virtue of toleration, and indeed so little able-from political circumstancesto practise it. Besides it was necessary for their own security: the Freemasons themselves were exposed to a suspicion of atheism and sorcery; and this suspicion would have been confirmed by the indiscriminate admission of persons hostile to chris tianity. For the Jews in particular, there was a further reason for rejecting them founded on the deep degradation of the national character. With respect to the Roman Catho lics, I need not at this point anticipate the historic data which favour their exclusion: the fact is certain ; but, I add, only for the earlier periods of Free-masonry: further on, the cosmo-political constitution of the order had cleared it of all such religious tests and at this day I believe that in the lodges of London and Paris there would be no hesitation in receiving as a brother any upright Mahometan or Jew. Even in smaller cities where lingering prejudices would still cleave with more nature of these mysteries. To this question we must seek for a key in the spirit of that age when the societies themselves originated. We shall thus learn first of all whether these societies do in reality cherish any mystery as the final object of their researches; and secondly perhaps we shall thus come to understand the extraordinary fact that the Rosicrucian and Masonic secret should not long ago have been betrayed in spite of the treachery which we must suppose in a certain proportion of those who were parties to that secret in every age. IV. These orders have a general system of signs (e. g. that of recognitition) usages, symbols, mythi, and festivals. In this place it may be sufficient to say generally that even that part of the ritual and mythology which is already known to the public, will be found to confirm the conclusions drawn from other historical data as to the origin and purpose of the institution: thus, for instance, we may be assured beforehand that the original Free-masons must have had some reason for appropriating to themselves the attributes and emblems of real handicraft Masons: which part of their ritual they are so far from concealing that in London they often parade on solemn occasions attired in full costume. As little can it be imagined that the selection of the feast of St. John (Midsummer-day) as their own chief festival-was at first arbitrary and without a significant import. Of the external characteristics-or those which the society itself announces to the world-the main is the public profession of beneficence; not to the brothers only, though of course to them more especially, but also to strangers. And it cannot be denied by those who are least favourably disposed to the order of Freemasons that many states in Europe, where lodges have formerly existed or do still exist, are indebted to them for the original establishment of many salutary institutions, having for their object the mitigation of human suffering. The other external We must not forget however that the Rosicrucian and Masonic orders were not originally at all points what they now are: they have passed through many changes and modifications; and no inconsiderable part of their symbolic system, &c. has been the product of successive generations. I. Masonry is compatible with every form of civil constitution; which cosmo-political relation of the order to every mode and form of social arrangements has secured the possibility of its reception amongst all nations however widely separated in policy and laws. II. It does not impose celibacy and this is the criterion that distinguishes it from the religious orders and from many of the old knightly orders, in which celibacy was an indispensable law or still is so. III. It enjoins no peculiar dress, (except indeed in the official assemblages of the lodges, for the purpose of marking the different degrees), no marks of distinction in the ordinary commerce of life, and no abstinence from civil offices and business. Here again is a remarkable distinction from the religious and knightly orders. IV. It grants to every member a full liberty to dissolve his connexion with the order at any time and without even acquainting the superiors of the lodge: though of course he cannot release himself from the obligation of his vow of secrecy. Nay, even after many years of voluntary separation from the order, a return to it is always allowed. In the religious and knightly orders the members have not the power, excepting under certain circumstances, of leaving them; and, under no circumstances, of returning. This last was a politic regulation: for, whilst on one hand the society was sufficiently secured by the oath of secrecy, on the other hand by the easiness of the yoke which it imposed it could the more readily attract members. A young man might enter the order; satisfy himself as to the advantages that were to be expected from it; and leave it upon further experience or any revolution in his own way of thinking. In thus assigning the internal and external characteristics of the Rosicrucians and Free-masons, I have purposely said nothing of the distinctions between the two orders themselves: for this would have presupposed that historical inquiry which is now to follow. That the above characteristics however were common to both-is not to be doubted. Rosicrucianism, it is true, is not Freemasonry: but the latter borrowed its form from the first. He that gives himself out for a Rosicrucian, without knowing the general ritual of masonry, is unquestionably an impostor. Some peculiar sects there are which adopt certain follies and chimeras of the Rosicrucians (as gold-making); and to these he may belong; but a legitimate Rosicrucian, in the original sense and spirit of the order, he cannot be. CHAP. II. Upon the earliest Historical traces of the Rosicrucian and Masonic Orders. The accredited records of these orders do not ascend beyond the two last centuries. On the other hand it is alleged by many that they have existed for eighteen hundred years. He, who adopts this latter hypothesis, which even as a hypothesis seems to me scarcely endurable for a moment, is bound to show in the first place in what respect the deduction of these orders from modern history is at all unsatisfactory; and secondly, upon his own assumption of a far elder origin, to explain how it happened that for sixteen entire centuries no writers contemporary with the different periods of these orders have made any allusion to them. If he replies by alleging the secrecy of their proceedings,-I re join that this might have secured their doctrines and mysteries from being divulged but not the mere fact of their existence. My view of their origin will perhaps be granted with relation to Western Europe: but I shall be referred to the east for the incunabula of the order. At one time Greece, at another Egypt, or different countries of Asia, are alleged as the cradle of the Rosicrucians and the Free-masons. Let us take a cursory survey of the several hypotheses. 1. In the earlier records of GREECE we meet with nothing which bears any resemblance to these institutions but the Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries. Here however the word mysteries implied not any occult problem or science sought for, but simply sensuous * and dramatic representa tions of religious ideas-which could not otherwise be communicated to the people in the existing state of intellectual culture, and which (as often happens) having been once established were afterwards retained in a more advanced state of the national mind. In the Grecian mysteries there were degrees of initiation amongst the members: but with purposes wholly distinct from those of the masonic degrees. The Grecian mysteries were not to be profaned: but that was on religious accounts. Lastly the Grecian mysteries were a part of the popular religion acknowledged and authorised by the state. The whole resemblance in short rests upon nothing, and serves only to prove an utter ignorance of Grecian antiquities in those who have alleged it.t 2. Neither in the history of EGYPT is any trace to be found of the Rosicrucian and Masonic characteristics. It is true that the meaning of the Egyptian religious symbols and usages was kept secret from the people and from strangers: and in that sense Egypt may be said to have had mysteries: but these mysteries involved nothing more than the essential points of the popular religion. As to the writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus, they are now known to be spurious; and their pretensions could never have imposed upon any person who had examined them by the light of such knowledge as we still possess of the ancient Egyptian history and religion: indeed the gross syncretism in these writings of Egyptian doctrines with those of the later Platonists too manifestly betrays them as a forgery from the schools of Alexandria. Forgery apart however, the sub : stance of the Hermetic writings disconnects them wholly from masonic objects: it consists of a romantic Theology and Theurgy and the whole is very intelligible and far from mysterious. What is true of these Hermetic books-is true à fortiori of all later writings that profess to deliver the traditional wisdom of ancient Egypt. 3. If we look to ancient CHALDEA and PERSIA for the origin of these orders, we shall be as much disappointed. The vaunted knowledge of the Chaldæans extended only to Astrology, the interpretation of dreams, and the common arts of jugglers. As to the Persian Magi, as well before as after the introduction of the doctrine of Zoroaster, they were sim ply the depositaries of religious ideas, and traditions, and the organs of the public worship. Moreover, they composed no secret order; but rather constituted the highest caste or rank in the nation, and were recognized by the government as an essential part of the body politic. In succeeding ages the religion of the Magi passed over to many great nations, and has supported itself up to our days. Anquetil du Perron has collected and published the holy books in which it is contained. But no doctrine of the Zendavesta is presented as a mystery; nor could any of those doctrines from their very nature have been presented as such. Undoubtedly amongst the Rosicrucian titles of honour we find that of Magus: but with them it simply designates a man of rare knowledge in physics-i. e. especially in Alchemy. That the ancient Magi in the age immediately before and after the birth of Christ attempted the transmutation of metals is highly improbable: that idea, there is reason to believe, The word sensuous is a Miltonic word; and is moreover a word that cannot be dispensed with. + See the German essay of Meiners upon the Mysteries of the Ancients, especially the Eleusinian mysteries, in the 3d part of his Miscellaneous Philosophical Works. Collate with this the work of Ste. Croix entitled Mémoires pour servir à l'Histoire de la Religion secréte des anciens Peuples. Paris: 1784. On the principle and meaning of the popular religion in Egypt and the hieroglyphics connected with it, consult Gatterer's essay De Theogonia Aegyptiorum in the 7th vol.-and his essay De metempsychosi, immortalitatis animorum symbolo Aegyptio in the 9th vol, of the Göttingen Transactions. The path opened by Gatterer has been since pursued with success by Darnedden in his Amenophis and in his new theory for the explanation of the Grecian Mythology: 1802. Consult also Vogel's Essay on the Religion of the ancient Egyptians and the Greeks. 4to. Nuremberg: 1793. first began to influence the course of chemical pursuits amongst the Arabian students of natural philosophy and medicine. 4. The pretensions of the DERVISHES and BRAMINS of Asia, especially of Hindostan, to be the fathers of the two orders need no examination, as they are still more groundless than those which have been just noticed. 5. A little before and after the birth of Christ there arose in Egypt and Palestine a Jewish religious sect which split into two divisions-the ESSENES, and the THERAPEUTE. Their history and an account of their principles may be found in Josephus and more fully in Philo, who probably himself belonged to the Therapeuta. The difference between the two sects consisted in this -that the Essenes looked upon practical morality and religion as the main business of life, whereas the Therapeute attached themselves more to philosophic speculations, and placed the essence of religion in the contemplation and reverence of the deity. They dwelt in hermitages, gardens, villages, and cottages, shunning the uproar of crowds and cities. With them arose the idea of monkish life, which has subsisted to this day -though it has received a mortal shock in our revolutionary times. To these two sects have been traced the Rosicrucians and Free-masons. Now, without entering minutely into their history, it is sufficient for the overthrow of such a hypothesis to cite the following principles common to both the Essenes and the Therapeuta. First, they rejected as morally unlawful all distinction of ranks in civil society. Secondly, they made no mystery of their doctrines. Thirdly, they admitted to their communion persons of either sex. Fourthly, though not peremptorily enjoining celibacy, they held it to be a more holy state than that of marriage. Fifthly, they disallowed of oaths. Sixthly, they had nothing symbolic in their worship or ritual. If it should be objected that the Free-masons talk much of the rebuilding of Solomon's temple, and refer some of their legends to this speculation, I answer that the Essenes and Therapeute either were Christians, or continued Jews until by little and little their sects expired. Now to the Christians the rebuilding of the Temple must have been an object of perfect indifference; and to the Jews it must have been an important object in the literal sense. But with the Free-masons it is a mere figure under which is represented the secret purpose of the society: why this image was selected, will be satisfactorily accounted for further on. 6. The ARABS, who step forth upon the stage of history in the seventh century after Christ, have as little concern with the origin of these orders. They were originally a nomadic people that rapidly became a conquering nation not less from the weakness of their neighbours than their own courage and religious fanaticism. They advanced not less rapidly in their intellectual conquests; and these they owed chiefly to their Grecian masters, who had themselves at that time greatly degenerated from the refinement of their ancestors. The sciences in which the Arabs made original discoveries and in which, next after the Greeks, they have been the instructors of the moderns, were Mathematics, Astronomy, Astrology, Medicine, Materia Medica, and Chemistry. Now it is very possible that from the Arabs may have originally proceeded the conceit of physical mysteries without aid of magic, such as the art of gold-making, the invention of a panacea, the philosopher's stone, and other chimeras of alchemy which afterwards haunted the heads of the Rosicrucians and the elder Freemasons. But of Cabbalism and Theosophy, which occupied both sects in their early period, the Arabs as Mahometans could know nothing. And, and if those sects had been derived from an Arabian stock, how comes it that at this day in most parts of Europe (and until lately everywhere) a Mahometan candidate would be rejected by both of them? And how comes it that in no Mahometan country at this time are there any remains of either? In general then I affirm as a fact established upon historical research that, before the beginning of the seventeenth century, no traces are to |