s have been always famous for
magical and secret societies."

Another apologist of the Rosicrucians, John Heydon, who travelled in
Egypt, Persia, and Arabia, is described by a contemporary as having been
in "many strange places among the Rosie Crucians and at their castles,
holy houses, temples, sepulchres, sacrifices." Heydon himself, whilst
declaring that he is not a Rosicrucian, says that he knows members of
the Fraternity and its secrets, that they are sons of Moses, and that
"this Rosie Crucian Physick or Medicine, I happily and unexpectedly
alight upon in Arabia." These references to castles, temples,
sacrifices, encountered in Egypt, Persia, and Arabia inevitably recall
memories of both Templars and Ismailis. Is there no connexion between
"the Invisible Mountains of the Brethren" referred to elsewhere by
Heydon and the Mountains of the Assassins and the Freemasons? between
the Scriptural "House of Wisdom" and the Dar-ul-Hikmat or Grand Lodge of
Cairo, the model for Western masonic lodges?

It is as the precursors of the crisis which arose in 1717 that the
English Rosicrucians of the seventeenth century are of supreme
importance. No longer need we concern ourselves with shadowy Brethren
laying dubious claim to supernatural wisdom, but with a concrete
association of professed Initiates proclaiming their existence to the
world under the name of Freemasonry.

5

ORIGINS OF FREEMASONRY

"The origin of Freemasonry," says a masonic writer of the eighteenth
century, "is known to Freemasons alone."[265] If this was once the
case, it is so no longer, for, although the question would certainly
appear to be one on which the initiated should be most qualified to
speak, the fact is that no official theory on the origin of Freemasonry
exists; the great mass of the Freemasons do _not_ know or care to know
anything about the history of their Order, whilst Masonic authorities
are entirely disagreed on the matter. Dr. Mackey admits that "the origin
and source whence first sprang the institution of Freemasonry has given
rise to more difference of opinion and discussion among masonic scholars
than any other topic in the literature of the institution."[266] Nor is
this ignorance maintained merely in books for the general public, since
in those specially addressed to the Craft and at discussions in lodges
the same diversity of opinion prevails, and no decisive conclusions
appear to be reached. Thus Mr. Albert Churchward