The Knights Templars

by C. G. Addison

The succeeding articles charge the Templars with crimes and abominations too horrible and disgusting to be named.

“46. That the brothers themselves had idols in every province, viz. heads; some of which had three faces, and some one, and some a man’s skull.—47. That they adored that idol, or those idols, especially in their great chapters and assemblies—48. That they worshipped them.—49. As their God.—50. As their Saviour.—51. That some of them did so.—52. That the greater part did.—53. They said that those heads could save them.—54. That they could produce riches.—55. That they had given to the order all its wealth.—56. That they caused the earth to bring forth seed.—57. That they made the trees to nourish.—58. That they bound or touched the heads of the said idols with cords, wherewith they bound themselves about their shirts, or next their skins.—59. That at their reception the aforesaid little cords, or others of the same length, were delivered to each of the brothers.—60. That they did this in worship of their idols.—61. That it was enjoined them to gird themselves with the said little cords, as before mentioned, and continually to wear them.—62. That the brethren of the order were generally received in that manner.—63. That they did these things out of devotion.—64. That they did them everywhere.—65. That the greater part did.—66. That those who refused the things above mentioned at their reception, or to observe them afterwards, were killed or cast into prison.”[154] The remaining articles, twenty-one in number, are directed principally to the mode of confession practised amongst the fraternity, and to matters of heretical depravity.—Such an accusation as this, justly remarks Voltaire, destroys itself.

Brother William de la More, and thirty more of his brethren, being interrogated before the inquisitors, positively denied the guilt of the order, and affirmed that the Templars who had made the confession alluded to in France had lied. They were ordered to be brought up separately to be examined. On the 23rd of October, Brother William Raven, being interrogated as to the mode of his reception into the order, states that he was admitted by Brother William de la More, the Master of the Temple at Temple Coumbe, in the diocese of Bath; that he petitioned the brethren of the Temple that they would be pleased to receive him into the order to serve God and the blessed Virgin Mary, and to end his life in their service; that he was asked if he had a firm wish so to do; and replied that he had; that two brothers then expounded to him the strictness and severity of the order, and told him that he would not be allowed to act after his own will, but must follow the will of the preceptor; that if he wished to do one thing, he would be ordered to do another; and that if he wished to be at one place, he would be sent to another; that having promised so to act, he swore upon the holy gospels of God to obey the Master, to hold no property, to preserve chastity, never to consent that any man should be unjustly despoiled of his heritage, and never to lay violent hands on any man, except in self-defence, or upon the Saracens. He states that the oath was administered to him in the chapel of the preceptory of Temple Coumbe, in the presence only of the brethren of the order; that the rule was read over to him by one of the brothers, and that a learned serving brother, named John de Walpole, instructed him, for the space of one month, upon the matters contained in it. The prisoner was then taken back to the Tower, and was directed to be strictly separated from his brethren, and not to be suffered to speak to any one of them.

The next two days (October 24th and 25th) were taken up with a similar examination of Brothers Hugh de Tadecastre and Thomas le Chamberleyn, who gave precisely the same account of their reception as the previous witness. Brother Hugh de Tadecastre added, that he swore to succour the Holy Land with all his might, and defend it against the enemies of the christian faith; and that after he had taken the customary oaths and the three vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience, the mantle of the order with the cross and the coif were delivered to him in the church, in the presence of the Master, the knights, and the brothers, all seculars being excluded. Brother Thomas le Chamberleyn added, that there was the same mode of reception in England as beyond sea, and the same mode of taking the vows; that all seculars were excluded, and that when he himself entered the Temple church to be professed, the door by which he entered was closed after him; that there was another door looking into the cemetery, but that no stranger could enter that way. On being asked why none but the brethren of the order were permitted to be present at the reception and profession of brothers, he said he knew of no reason, but that it was so written in their book of rules.

Between the 25th of October and the 17th of November, thirty-three knights, chaplains, and serving brothers, were examined, all of whom positively denied every article imputing crime or infidelity to their order. When Brother Himbert Blanke was asked why they had made the reception and profession of brethren secret, he replied, “through our own unaccountable folly.” They avowed that they wore little cords round their shirts, but for no bad end; they declared that they never touched idols with them, but that they were worn by way of penance, or according to a knight of forty-three years standing, by the instruction of the holy father St. Bernard. Brother Richard de Goldyngham says that he knows nothing further about them than that they were called girdles of chastity. They state that the receivers and the party received kissed one another on the face, but everything else regarding the kissing was false, abominable, and had never been done.

Radulph de Barton, priest of the order of the Temple, and custos or guardian of the Temple church at London, stated, with regard to Article 24, that the Grand Master in chapter could absolve the brothers from offences committed against the rules and observances of the order, but not from private sin, as he was not a priest; that it was perfectly true that those who were received into the order swore not to reveal the secrets of the chapter, and that when any one was punished in the chapter, those who were present at it durst not reveal it to such as were absent; but if any brother revealed the mode of his reception, he would be deprived of his chamber, or else stripped of his habit. He declares that the brethren were not prohibited from confessing to priests not belonging to the order of the Temple; and that he had never heard of the crimes and iniquities mentioned in the articles of inquiry previous to his arrest, except as regarded the charges made against the order by Bernard Peletin, when he came to England from king Philip of France. He states that he had been custos of the Temple church at London for ten years, and for the last two years had enjoyed the dignity of preceptor at the same place. He was asked about the death of Brother Walter le Bachelor, knight, formerly Preceptor of Ireland, who died in the Temple at London, but he declares that he knows nothing about it, except that the said Walter was fettered and placed in prison, and there died; that he certainly had heard that great severity had been practised towards him, but that he had not meddled with the affair on account of the danger of so doing; he admitted also that the aforesaid Walter was not buried in the cemetery of the Temple, as he was considered excommunicated on account of his disobedience of his superior, and of the rule of the order.

Many of the brethren thus examined had been from twenty to thirty, forty, forty-two, and forty-three years in the order, and some were old veteran warriors who had fought for many a long year in the thirsty plains of Palestine. Brother Himbert Blanke, Knight, Preceptor of Auvergne, had been in the order thirty-eight years. He was received at the city of Tyre, had been engaged in constant warfare against the infidels, and had fought to the last in defence of Acre. Brother Robert le Scott, Knight, a brother of twenty-six years’ standing, had been received at the Pilgrim’s Castle, the famous fortress of the Knights Templars in Palestine, by the Grand Master, Brother William de Beaujeu, the hero who died so gloriously at the head of his knights at the last siege and storming of Acre. He states that from levity of disposition he quitted the order after it had been driven out of Palestine, and absented himself for two years, during which period he came to Rome, and confessed to the pope’s penitentiary, who imposed on him a heavy penance, and enjoined him to return to his brethren in the East, and that he went back and resumed his habit at Nicosia in the island of Cyprus, and was re-admitted to the order by command of the Grand Master, James de Molay. He adds, also, that Brother Himbert Blanke (the previous witness) was present at his first reception at the Pilgrim’s Castle.

On the 22nd day of the inquiry, the following entry was made on the record of the proceedings:—“Memorandum. Brothers Philip de Mewes, Thomas de Burton, and Thomas de Staundon, were advised and earnestly exhorted to abandon their religious profession, who severally replied that they would rather die than do so.” On the 19th and 20th of November, seven lay witnesses, unconnected with the order, were examined before the inquisitors in the chapel of the monastery of the Holy Trinity. Master William le Dorturer, notary public, declared that the Templars rose at midnight, and held their chapters before dawn, and he thought that the mystery and secrecy of the receptions were owing to a bad rather than a good motive, but declared that he had never observed that they had acquired, or had attempted to acquire, anything unjustly. Master Gilbert de Bruere, clerk, said that he had never suspected them of anything worse than an excessive correction of the brethren. William Lambert, formerly a “messenger of the Temple,” knew nothing bad of the Templars, and thought them perfectly innocent of all the matters alluded to. And Richard de Barton, priest, and Radulph de Rayndon, an old man, both declared that they knew nothing of the order, or of the members of it, but what was good and honourable.