More
about Born In Blood
(From Summer 91 edition of the Missouri "The Freemason")
By John C. Allen Past
Master Pleasant Grove
Lodge #42 Otterville, MO.
In the summer issue of this year’s
Freemason appeared a review by Zel
Eaton of the book Born in Blood, by
John J. Robinson. I am prompted to write
this article by a conclusion drawn by Mr.
Robinson about the origin of
Freemasonry. In his review Mr. Eaton
alludes to this aspect of the book only
vaguely.
I am referring to Mr. Robinson’s theory that modern Masonry actually had
its
origin from the Knights Templar, outlawed in 1312 by Pope Clement V and
the French King Philip the Fair. It was
Mr. Robinson’s conclusion that the
Templars not apprehended went under-
ground to escape the heavy hand of the
Papacy and then resurfaced centuries
later as lodges of Freemasons.
Most traditional Masonic researchers,
of course, have contended that the Order
and its ritual somehow developed from
the early crude organizations of the stone
mason
labor guilds. I, for one, have never
been able to accept that view. Several
years ago I arrived independently at the
same conclusion as Mr. Robinson. Our
Masonic ritual, steeped as it is in
Kabalistic occultism and mystery ceremonials of the Middle East, could
never
possibly have been developed out of the
crude beginnings of the stonemason
guilds. In that era even the skilled artisans and their speculative
associates were
far too unlettered and unlearned to have
been capable of coming up with anything
as elaborate and esoteric as even the earliest forms of Masonic ritual.
Knowledge
of the Hebrew Kabal and the Middle
Eastern mystery dramas had been ruthlessly suppressed by the Papacy during
the Dark Ages and could have returned to
Western Europe only by way of the
Crusades. For bringing it back, the
Templars became the logical bridge.
During
their stay in the Holy Land, the
Templars had come into close association
with a Moslem sect called the Sufi, who
previously had adopted many of the
beliefs and ritualistic forms of the
Gnostic, or primitive Christians. From
the Sufi the Templars borrowed many of
their own esoteric beliefs and ceremonials. A number of these have made
their
way into modern Freemasonry. One of
these, for example, is the Junior Warden’s
call of the Craft from labor to refreshment and from refreshment to labor,
referring in a symbolic sense to death and
rebirth. The Gnostics, the Sufi, and the
Templars all believed in reincarnation.
Is this view about Masonic origins
borne out by any prestigious Masonic
scholars? Yes, it certainly is—by one of
our most celebrated scholars, Brother
Albert Pike. My readings in Brother
Pike’s Morals and Dogma have convinced me that Mr. Robinson, in his
recent book, was on the right track.
Jacques
B. de Molai, the last Grand
Master of the Knights Templar, according to Brother Pike, masterminded the
plans for Freemasonry while he was
awaiting execution. Before coming in
unequivocally to that assertion, Brother
Pike cited conclusive evidence that long
before the Templars went underground,
they considered themselves builders, or
masons, and were even called by the
English, through careless pronunciation,
Freemasons. This is clearly shown by
the following extract with reference to de
Molai: “The Templars, or Poor Fellow
Soldiery of the Holy House of the
Temple intended to be rebuilt, took as
their models, in the Bible, the Warrior
Masons of Zorabel, who worked, holding
the sword in one hand and the trowel in
the other. Therefore, it was that the
Sword and the Trowel became the
insignia of the Templars, who subsequently concealed themselves under the
name of Brethren Masons. The name
Freres Macons in the French was corrupt-
ed in English into Free Masons. The
trowel of the Templars is quadruple, and
the triangular plates of it are arranged in
the form of a cross, making the
Kabalistic pantacle known by the name
of the Cross of the East.”
On page 820 of Morals and Dogma,
Brother Pike leaves no doubt that he considered Freemasonry the brain
child of
Jacques de Molai, as this extract will
indicate. “But before his execution, the
Chief of the doomed Order organized and
instituted what afterward came to be
called the Occult, Hermetic, or Scottish
Masonry. In the gloom of his prison, the
Grand Master created four Metropolitan
Lodges, at Naples for the East, at
Edinburgh for the West, at Stockholm for
the North, and at Paris for the South.
The initials of his name, J.B.M., found in
the same order in the first three degrees
are but one of the many internal and
cogent proofs that such was the origin of
modern Free Masonry.” Brother Pike’s
reference to the initials, of course, is to
the words Jachin, Boaz, and the Master’s
Word in the third degree. Could this be a
mere coincidence?
Brother Pike then went on to say that
“The legend of Osiris was revised and
adopted as the central theme of the third
degree ritual, to symbolize the destruction of the Order, and the
resurrection of
Khurum, slain in the body of the Temple
of Khurum Abai, the Master, as the martyr of fidelity to obligation, of
Truth and
Conscience.”
According to the legend of Osiris here
referred to, as the fragments of the god’s
body lay on the ground, a lion reached
down with his paw, scooped up the
pieces, and lifted them back again to
erect and living form. In the new Order
succeeding the Templars this served as a
symbolism. The Papacy and the King had
slain the Grand Master but failed to
accomplish their purpose. The grip of the
lion’s paw had triumphed again over
extinction’ The prostrate corpse of the
Knights Templar had been raised from
death. Once again it lived in the form of a
new Order—Freemasonry. The old
Order, vitally obsessed with building,
lived on as builders still. The trowel
remained still as its principal working
tool. The Templars continued their role
as “Brethren Masons.”
Why are Freemasons so obsessed with
the Holy Saints John? “Oh, the labor
guilds were expected to have patron
saints, so the stone masons adopted the
Holy Saints John.” We have all read that
lame explanation. If a labor guild wanted
patron saints, why would it choose two
saints with contrasting religious beliefs?
For
the Knights Templar to do so was
perfectly logical, as Brother Pike took
note in Morals and Dogma. From their
very inception, the Templars functioned
as a dualistic Order. Their avowed and
pretended purpose was to protect
Christians making pilgrimages to the
Holy Land. Their actual and secret objective was to rebuild the Temple of
King
Solomon to recapture its original splendor and restore Jerusalem to the
days of
its pristine glory. In their outward aspects
they posed as loyal supporters of orthodox Catholicism. This facade they
craftily cultivated to gain the approval and
sanction of the papacy. For this reason
they adopted John the Baptist as one of
their patron saints. St. John the
Evangelist, however, was the one who
had been regarded as the spokesman
of the Gnostic religious views to which
they adhered and wished to make
supreme in their restored city of
Jerusalem, designed by them secretly to
displace Rome as the center of
Christendom. St. John the Evangelist,
therefore, became their most cherished
patron saint. If Freemasonry did indeed
stem from the Templars, it is only natural
that the Masons would also adopt both of
these patron saints.
Since the Templars chief objective was
the rebuilding of King Solomon’s
Temple, one would reasonably expect
them to continue in that preoccupation
when they established a new Order to
succeed the Templars. Need there be any
mystery, then, as to why Freemasonry is
similarly obsessed with the same
Temple?
The Templar Connection would also
nicely explain the mystery of the
“bloody” Masonic obligations. If the
Templars had any part in drafting these
obligations, we would expect them to be
fraught with dire consequences. We say
today that the obligations are intended to
be only symbolical. To a Templar member of the early guilds or lodges they
would not have been considered symbolical. A Templar was a marked man with
a
price on his head. The long arm of the
Papacy could reach him even in non-
Catholic Scotland. Wherever he fled,
there was always the threat of hired
assassins. He could take no chances of
having his identity or activities revealed.
Many of the other secrets of Freemasonry
can be similarly accounted for as safe-
guarding the security of the Templars
who probably dominated the earliest
lodges.
In one respect perhaps the traditionalists were right. Perhaps
Freemasonry did
develop in and come down to us from
the stonemason guilds of Scotland. Its
concept and ritual, however, could not
have been originated by the stonemasons
per se. Perhaps the Templars who
escaped to Scotland decided to infiltrate
the stonemason guilds and their intro-
duce the system of deMolai’s new Order.
They
had very good reasons to do so.
The
Templars had also been builders, or
masons. In their heyday the Templars
had exerted complete control over not
only the stonemasons but also over all
other skilled craftsmen throughout
Western Europe. That being true, the
Templars would obviously have experienced little difficulty trying to
infiltrate
the guilds.
As a final argument for the Templar
Connection, we should not forget the
religious element. Freemasonry is regarded as a semi-religious Order. If
the
Templars did really found Masonry, it
would be surprising if they hadn’t placed
a very strong emphasis on religion,
because the Knights Templar was instituted primarily as a religious Order.
|