De Quincey is not the only writer who has expressed himself to the effect that the systems of Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism are virtually identical; others have said so as well, and in stating their views have not scrupled to write most severely respecting what they believed to be the tricks and impositions of both. Mr. George Soane in his "New Curiosities of Literature," says of the Freemasons, that he can shew their society sprang out of decayed Rosicrucianism just as the beetle is engendered from a muck-heap. And further he says, "not a few of the old nursery tales still maintain their ground amongst us; and of these Freemasonry is the most disseminated and the most ridiculous." "Of course," he continues "such an opinion will shock many gentlemen, who wear aprons, leather or silk as the case may be, and who amuse themselves with talking of light from the east, and the building of Solomon's Temple, and with many other childish pranks, which if played off in the broad daylight would be ridiculous."
He goes on to say:--"In wading through a mass of alchemical trash for very different purposes, I was struck by the great similarity both of the doctrine and symbols existing between the Rosicrucians and the Freemasons. With more haste than judgment I at first imagined that the brethren of the Rosy Cross were only imitators of the Freemasons, but after a long and patient enquiry, pursued through more volumes than I should like to venture upon again for such an object, I was forced to abandon my position. The Freemasons did indeed, like the Rosicrucians, lay claim to great antiquity, but while some of them modestly dated the origin of their order from Adam, I could by no means trace it back farther than the first half of the seventeenth century. Their historical assertions, when fairly tested and examined, crumbled into dust; the negative proofs were as strong against them as they well could be; and at length the conclusion was to my mind inevitable."
Soane then proceeds to say:--"I feel not the slightest hesitation in saying that the Freemasons have no secret beyond a few trumpery legends and the attaching of certain religious and moral meanings to a set of emblems, principally borrowed from the mechanical art of the builder. I affirm too that all such symbols, with their interpretations, are of Rosicrucian origin, and that the Freemasons never belonged to the working guilds, their objects being totally different."