Some early ideas on Rosicrucianism

But very soon, when it became clear that the doctrines associated with all these magical things seemed to have anticipated the Reformation—and were very definitely opposed to the supremacy of Rome as a religious power and its claim to be an essential mediator between the human creature and his Creator—the suspicion significantly decreased. While the magical side of the Rosicrucian story was regarded as interesting, the doctrinal side was welcomed with satisfaction in most of the countries that had adopted the Reformation.

It was taken as proof that even in the fifteenth century, Rome was recognized as being doomed to decay. It suggested that the upheaval seen in Luther and Calvin was not a sudden result of personal revenge but had been undergoing a process of regular development. The orthodoxy of doctrinal Rosicrucianism thus helped to overcome whatever suspicion the magical elements may have raised in a world that had come to see everything magical and miraculous as part of a religious system that was fighting hard for its survival and was linked to an attempt to control all of Europe for its own ends.

Therefore, we find two groups among the critics. One group regarded "The Invisibles"—as they were called and called themselves—as a body of learned and traditional reformers possessing extraordinary knowledge. Others, however, regarded them as a band of ignorant dreamers engaged in spreading harmful delusions. Those who held the latter view were obviously the ones who most disliked the anti-Papal elements in Rosicrucianism.

It must also be remembered that science in the 1620s and 1630s original: second and third decades of the seventeenth century was still unformed and somewhat primitive in both its goals and methods. Consequently, any theory that was proposed was at least considered worthy of investigation. The world was, in fact, thirsty for exact knowledge. The three great principles upon which Rosicrucianism proceeded would have appealed to this new spirit. They may be stated as follows:

1. True knowledge could only be gained by analyzing all substances through the use of fire. This was essentially the belief of the alchemists, with whom the founder of our Society had been in contact during his travels in Asia.

2. God works in the Kingdom of Grace in the same way that He works in the Kingdom of Nature; therefore, there is a complete analogy and agreement between Science and Religion. This view would naturally appeal to the more intelligent reformers as a way to prevent the obvious dangers of a conflict between new knowledge and the old faith. Yet, even to this day, although that claim of an analogy and agreement between Science and Religion is proposed—sometimes by scientists, sometimes by Bishops—the average person still feels that this agreement and analogy

can only be fully realized by abandoning some firmly held religious formulas.

3. A divine soul or energy is spread throughout all forms in the Universe. This doctrine of immanence, whenever it is proposed today, is regarded by traditionalists as dangerous because it leads to unexpected and sometimes unwelcome conclusions.

As philosophers, "The Invisibles"—the representatives of Rosicrucianism—were definitely opposed to Aristotelian philosophy, which was powerful at the time and expressed popularly by the school known as the Peripatetics. Aristotle was still the philosopher whose thought influenced both the Reformers and the older religion. A century later (that is, up to the formation of the Grand Lodge of England), Aristotelianism seemed to be in full strength; however, the revolt against it, which the Rosicrucians helped start, continued to develop, and it was eventually replaced by Neoplatonism, which still continues today.

The magical powers claimed by "The Invisibles" included various forms of secret knowledge, such as the transformation original: transmutation of metals, the power to prolong life indefinitely, and control over the elements and elemental spirits. These claims were resisted from two perspectives: the religious and the scientific. The religious perspective regarded them as the work of sorcerers and agents of the devil, though it did not deny the possibility that such things could exist. The scientific perspective based its opposition primarily on the impossibility of the claims being proven true. In Samuel Butler’s Hudibras (1664), there is a notable phrase: "The Rosicrucians... philosophers whom you insist are but sorcerers," which emphasizes that the magical and miraculous elements in Rosicrucian literature were still regarded as the most important parts fifty years after they appeared. Butler’s remark dates to the period when the Royal Society was beginning to investigate, in what we would now call a scientific way, those very secrets of Nature of which the Rosicrucians claimed to have their own special knowledge.

I do not need to emphasize here that many of the old theories of the alchemists have since been proven true by researchers. We cannot say how they discovered that truth, but the alchemists were certainly the fathers of modern research. The time may not be far off when even more of their claims will enter textbooks as scientific facts. There are still gaps in the list of elements, but every year more is being learned—or perhaps we should say rediscovered—and made clear to us regarding the secrets of Nature which it is our duty to investigate.

The world has always listened readily to stories of making gold and prolonging human life and vigor, and even the most suspicious among us has a secret feeling that there may be something to it. We are, in fact, all mystics and alchemists despite ourselves, and even the most enthusiastic of Luther’s followers...