This file is copyright (c) 1997 The Philalethes Society and all rights
including any redistribution rights are reserved by the copyright holder.
Permission to quote from, redistribute or to otherwise use these materials
must be obtained from the copyright holder directly by contacting The
Philalethes, Nelson King, FPS, Editor, 2 Knockbolt Crescent, Agincourt
Ontario Canada, M1S 2P6. Tel: 416-293-8071 Fax: 416-293-8634 or
nking@freemasonry.org or nking@onramp.ca




                                Review
                       by Allen E. Roberts, FPS
     (Reprinted by permission of The Philalethes - February 1990)

     Born  in  Blood:  The Lost Secrets of  Freemasonry:  by  John  J. 
Robinson:  M.  Evans,  NY: 396 pages;  indexed;  cloth  covered;  ISBN 
087131-602-1; $18.75 plus $2.00 P&H.

     This is not a good book; it's excellent. But it will be hated  by 
many,  including  the Roman Catholic church,  religious  bigots,  some 
Masonic  ritualists,  and some Masonic "historians" who  believe  King 
Solomon brought the Craft into being.

     The  publisher's  promo caused me some problems. My 40  years  of 
research  had  revealed  not a single case in  which  Freemasonry  had 
spilled blood. It had, in fact, on many occasions struggled to prevent 
the  spilling of blood. Then, too, I had found that there was  no  way 
the   present  day  Knights  Templar  could  be  the   forerunner   of 
Freemasonry. But I received a review copy, and I'm glad I did.

     Toward the end of his book Mr. Robinson solved one of my dilemmas 
when  he  wrote:  "As  for the Masonic  Knights  Templar,  they  first 
appeared in Germany, then spread to France and, with variations,  were 
established  in the United States before 1770 and in Great Britain  by 
1778. None of these orders were based on the true origin of Masonry in 
the  flight  of  the Templars from the clutches  of  Pope  Clement  V. 
Although  the  Templar  orders  do teach  the  story  of  the  Templar 
suppression."

     The  spilling  of  blood  dilemma could  still  be  with  me.  If 
Robinson's premise is correct, and it does make as much sense (if  not 
more)  as some of the theorems I've encountered, it may  have  spilled 
some blood.

     To  cover  Robinson's  supposition of the  birth  and  growth  of 
Freemasonry  would take more space than our Editor will permit  me  to 
use. Here it is in brief: Freemasonry evolved from the Knights Templar 
of  medieval  history. Events that began on Friday, October  13,  1307 
matured  into  a  secret  society  that would  come  to  be  known  as 
"Freemasonry." That this society was a part of the building trades (or 
operative  masonry)  was  a  cover story employed  to  hide  the  true 
associates.

     On that date in 1307 King Philip IV of France (Philip the  Fair), 
with  the connivance of Pope Clement V, ordered every  Knight  Templar 
arrested. The Knights were imprisoned, tortured, murdered,  mutilated, 
and  many burned at the stake. The Pope sent his own  inquisitors  and 
torturers to make certain the kind did the job properly. The Templars' 
treasures  were confiscated by both the church and the state. Much  of 
the  Templars'  property  ended  up  in  the  hands  of  the   Knights 
Hospitaller, now the Knights of Malta.

     On Friday, June 7, 1381 a "Peasants' Rebellion" erupted. A fellow 
named  Walter  the  Typer held the  "uncontedted  appointment  as  the 
supreme  commander."  This, among other things, suggests  to  Robinson 
that  a "Great Society" that had been hinted at actually existed.  And 
the  fact that the leaders of this Rebellion destroyed  only  property 
held  by  the  Hospitallers  implies  deposed  Knights  Templar   were 
principal  characters. These leaders didn't stop with the  destruction 
of property, but concentrated on killing Hospitallers.

     Robinson  points  out  that the  Knights  Templar  were  declared 
outlaws  by  the Pope. If captured they would be tortured  and  worse, 
Therefore they had to depend on trusted friends for protection.  There 
had   to  be  a  means  of  positively  identifying   these   friends. 
Consequently the "secrets" of Freemasonry were essential for them, but 
workers  in the building trades didn't need them. Nor did the  workers 
need to be protected by obligating themselves with gruesome penalties. 
Men  running  for  their lives from edicts of the Popes  were  not  as 
fortunate.

     According to Robinson these men, who had become Freemasons,  were 
not  safe to bring "Secret Masonry" into the open until  the  Catholic 
threat  had  been removed in Great Britian. Puritans  were  almost  as 
blood thirsty and so were many of Kings and Queens. Then in 1701 a law 
was  passed that prohibited any but members of the Church  of  England 
from  ascending the throne of England. This crown, by law, would  pass 
to  the  nearest Protestant relative of the House of Stuart.  In  1714 
King George I, a German who never learned to speak English, became the 
nominal  ruler. Robert Walpole became Prime Minister. The  danger  had 
ended.  Three  years later four Masonic Lodges in London  "decided  to 
reveal   themselves   to  the  world...Freemasonry  had   become   the 
establishment."

     Robinson  believes  the  three villains we hear  about  were  not 
Jubela, Jebelo and Jubelum. They were Philip the Fair of France,  Pope 
Clements V, and the Order of the Knights of the Hospital of St.  John. 
The "lost word" was actually the lost wealth, respect and power of the 
Templars.  Robinson  concludes: "The mystery is simply  this:  If  the 
story of Hiram Abiff and the Masonic role in the building of Solomon's 
temple  are acknowledged as myths, how did that temple become  central 
to Masonic ritual and legend? Certainly medieval stone-masons  provide 
no  answer to that question, and as the medieval guild  theory  itself 
falls  away,  there appears to be no answer to  that  mystery...except 
one. The temple that is so honored and revered by Freemasonry is not a 
building but is the only other order that ever identified itself  with 
that building: the Knights of the Temple." And he adds: "the  allegory 
of the construction of the temple provided the basis for the  eventual 
cover story of the secret society as a society of stonemasons.

     The  Royal  Society  formed about  1645,  Robinson  believes  was 
composed  mainly of Freemasons. He quotes Sir Francis Bacon at  length 
to help support this claim.

     There is more, much more, to Robinson's thesis about the  origins 
of  Freemasonry.  To  appreciate  his arguments  every  word  must  be 
digested.  A casual reading will leave the reader scoffing.  Give  the 
author a fair hearing.

     I  can't find where Freemasons claim to be allied with  "corsairs 
and  pirates"  as Robinson claims. And his constant use  of  "compass" 
instead of the correct "compasses" leaves me cold.

     Another  observation must be made before ending this review.  Mr. 
Robinson is not a Freemason, yet he condemns 'The Brotherhood' written 
by  the  late unlamented Stephen Knight about which far  too  many  of 
Freemasonry's  leaders  have  remained silent. About  the  many  gross 
distortions compounded by Knight, Robinson writes:

     "I just could not believe that this was a book that had shaken up 
a government. It has shaken me up, but for a totally different reason. 
I  was  awestruck  that Mr. Knight could summon  up  from  some  great 
reservoir  of  chutzpah the testicular diameter required  to  identify 
himself in 'The Brotherhood' as a 'neutral observer.' After all, if  a 
'neutral  observer'  asserts  accusations  of  unfair  advancement  in 
business and government, corruption of police and the judicial system, 
a  connection  with  the  KGB, an infiltration of  the  Vatican  in  a 
conspiracy  to  commit  the  biggest  financial  fraud  of  our  time, 
responsibility  for  the Jack the Ripper murders,  and  the  undoubted 
worship of the Devil, what is left for an enemy to assert?"

     To  make  this perfectly clear, Stephen Knight  offered  not  one 
piece  of  evidence to prove any of his outlandish  claims.  Isn't  it 
strange  that he was able to convince governments and  religions  that 
Freemasonry  is  synonymous  with evil? Makes  one  wonder  about  the 
gullibility of supposedly educated people.



