Dr. Palo wrote in his book, New World Mystics, of Randolph's last chapter in German Pietists... :

"Dr. Julius F. Sachse, Litt. D. was originally slated to write this chapter.  Due to illness, he could not do it.  Randolph states, 'In this emergency Mr. Sachse has been more than kind.  He has generously placed all the material which he has gathered, and now available to him, at the disposal of his successor [Randolph]. . . .'  What is of interest are the numerous points not included in Sachse's previous works on this Rosicrucian period."

In going through the material and artifacts provided by Sachse, Randolph came to a conclusion that the "Brotherhood of Zion" as he called it, was a Masonic brotherhood at Ephrata, and that Beissel's following were "the Rosicrucians".   Sachse didn't present the "Zionitic Brotherhood" as being a Masonic brotherhood, but as being the Rosicrucian group at Ephrata.  Sachse was a respected historian who, it seems obvious to me, would have had very good reasons, as evidenced in his own writing, for not making the conclusions about Masonry that Randolph did in that chapter.  This is without mention, also, of the work of other historians. 

For one thing, members of the Ephrata Cloister may have been Masons in addition to being Rosicrucian, or in addition to being Seventh Day Baptist.  The Seventh Day Baptists were a separate, different group at Ephrata, although Rosicrucians traditionally contribute in their own way as possible individually, to the spiritual efforts of all religions.

The passages in question here from Randolph's chapter are:

"The Brotherhood of Zion was, in short, an organization which practiced the mystic rites of Freemasonry of the eighteenth century, which were very different from the rites of Rosicrucian philosophy which was so dear to the hearts of Beissel and Miller.  The leading spirits of the Brotherhood of Zion were the four Echerlin brothers. "  and "Sachse has assured the present writer [Randolph] that there is no vital relation existing between true Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry, the latter being but a crude imitation of the former."

1.  Sachse was both a Rosicrucian and a Mason himself.  Knowing this and the character of his own writing alone, entirely aside from Randolph, I doubt very seriously that Sachse would characterize Masonry in the way that Randolph did, whether Sachse was a Rosicrucian or a Mason.   Also, that this statement alone, was not edited prior to the book's publication indicates that Sachse did not see Randolph's chapter until too late to edit any of the conclusions drawn by Randolph.

2.  That Randolph even needed Sachse to have assured him about the nature of either Rosicrucianism or Masonry, indicates that he had very little foundation about these Orders upon which to discern the nature of their significance at Ephrata, even if Randolph was an expert on the Seventh Day Baptists of Early America.

3.  I believe it was Sachse himself who referred to the Brotherhood at Ephrata as the "Zionitic Brotherhood" and not as Randolph put it, the "Brotherhood of Zion".  There is a difference in form that is important on Sachse's part, for referencing it as Zion-itic.  The adjective ending, "itic", indicates an allusion to Zion, i.e., "of the nature of" and not something that is pointing to being at or of "Zion" itself. 

4.  As to "the mystic rites" that "were very different from the rites of Rosicrucian philosophy":  It is clear that Randolph was not familiar with other different mystical rites, particularly of the Pietist conventicles from which was derived Kelpius, and his perfecti delegation from Europe in 1694, continued under the leadership of Conrad Mathaii.  This information has been made clearer subsequently by Manly P. Hall's work in the early 20th Century on the Lodge and Chapter system of "Perfection" or "Perfecti".   Later historians have added other pertinent information, as well, that provides historical consistencies with which Randolph's theses do not coincide.

5.  The monastery built in 1737 at the old Kelpius site on the Ridge above the Wissahickon River, was previously documented in an old drawing as being built by the Zionitic Brotherhood, where Mathaii continued his work in the Philadelphia area.  Mathaii never lived at Ephrata.  This would have been built there in keeping with the Kelpius Rosicrucian tradition, and that it was built there makes inconsistent with history, Randolph's idea that the Temple on Mt. Zion at Ephrata was "Masonic".   I would be interested in knowing whether the Zionitic Brotherhood may have been established on the Ridge in Philadelphia before it "eventually " as Jan Stryz put it, it was established at Ephrata, or was it established at Ephrata prior to constructing the monastery on the Ridge. [Ref.:  Additional Readings below Bibliography.]

6.  Conrad Mathaii himself, for years, had nothing more to do with Beissel after his expulsion of the Echerlin brothers and Mrs. Echerlin from Ephrata.   Randolph's thesis that the Echerlin were expelled from Ephrata as "the leading spirits of the Brotherhood of Zion" must remain consistent with the history indicating it functioned with 13 Rosicrucians.   Beissel, in point, was well known as a tyrant and dictator at Ephrata, jealous about his authority and position, and resented not being consulted on all matters at the Cloister:  a more likely reason for friction between the groups.   Mathaii was also well known for his objections to Beissel's actions, to the point of having little contact for many years with Beissel even before the Echerlin incident.  Only much later after the Echerlins returned to Ephrata, was the remarkable event of Mathaii's and Beissel's exchange of the "Kiss of Peace."

7.  In reviewing even a few of the practices of the German Seventh Day Baptists as established under the leadership of Beissel, one easily sees a dogma that is more inconsistent than consistent with Rosicrucian ontology, even while Beissel had a gift of charismatic speech and inspiration.  Randolph was taking literary license in characterizing Beissel's rituals as "rites of Rosicrucian philosophy."

8.  Julius Sachse wrote a history, too, of the Masonic Order in Early America.  It is referenced as another possible resource concerning his views about possible Masonry at Ephrata, specifically concerning the Zionitic Brotherhood.  Sachse had access to the documentation of Masonic Temples.  In a 1911 address to Masonic brothers, he discusses the Masonic "Ancients" (patriots of the Revolution, and the "Moderns" (Tories loyal to England).  (See Further Reading below Bibliography.) 

Sachse would have understood as a Rosicrucian, the common objectives in the work of both, regardless of the differences in approach.  "Out of Many One" applies in the Rosicrucian attitude, and I believe it also is a Masonic attitude of life.  "Different" does not mean "unequal" in the focus of attention in achieving the same, common purposes and objectives.  In fact, traditionally in history, even today, many Masons are also Rosicrucians.  The order of "Co-Masons" today has included women, and there, too, are many female Rosicrucians who are members.  For further insight into Julius Sachse's recognition and respect among Masons, in spite of Randolph's characterization of the two Orders, please see the list of additional references at the end of the Bibliography page.