nry is neither more
nor less than Rosicrucianism as modified by those who transplanted it
into England." Chambers, who published his famous _Cyclopaedia_ in 1728,
observes: "Some who are no friends to Freemasonry, make the present
flourishing society of Freemasons a branch of _Rosicrucians_, or rather
the Rosicrucians themselves under a new name or relation, viz. as
retainers to building. And it is certain there are some Freemasons who
have all the characters of Rosicrucians."

The connexion between Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism is, however, a
question hardly less controversial than that of the connexion between
Freemasonry and Templarism.

Dr. Mackey violently disputes the theory. "The Rosicrucians," he writes,
"as this brief history indicates, had no connexion whatever with the
masonic fraternity. Notwithstanding this fact, Barruel, the most
malignant of our revilers, with a characteristic spirit of
misrepresentation, attempted to identify the two institutions."[327]
But the aforesaid "brief history" indicates nothing of the kind, and the
reference to Barruel as a malignant reviler for suggesting a connexion,
which, as we have seen, many Freemasons admit, shows on which side this
"spirit of misrepresentation" exists. It is interesting, however, to
note that in the eyes of certain masonic writers connexion with the
Rosicrucians is regarded as highly discreditable; the fraternity would
thus appear to have been less blameless than we have been taught to
believe. Mr. Waite is equally concerned with proving that there "is no
traceable connexion between Masonry and Rosicrucianism," and he goes on
to explain that Freemasonry was never a learned society, that it never
laid claim to "any transcendental secrets of alchemy and magic, or to
any skill in medicine," etc.[328]

The truth may lie between the opposing contentions of Prof. Buhle and
his two masonic antagonists. The Freemasons were clearly, for the
reasons given by Mr. Waite, not a mere continuation of the Rosicrucians,
but more likely borrowed from the Rosicrucians a part of their system
and symbols which they adapted to their own purpose. Moreover, the
incontrovertible fact is that in the list of English Freemasons and
Rosicrucians we find men who belonged to both Orders and amongst these
two who contributed largely to the constitutions of English Freemasonry.

The first of these is Robert Fludd, whom Mr. Waite describes as "the
central figure of Rosicrucian lite