The Knights Templar are familiar to us as the famous Medieval group of religious warrior monks, created in Jerusalem by essentially French citizens to help defend the Holy Land after the end of the First Crusade. They enjoyed fame and fortune on a massive scale before being extraordinarily suppressed among accusations of heresy several hundred years later. Their demise appeared to be at the hands of a French king and perhaps even the Church of Rome which, at the time, had its own interests to protect and acted behind the machinations of the king.

There is much intrigue in their origins – there must have been a guiding force shaping the original Templar destiny. I was interested in the characters that were at the head of their creations. I suspect that Godefroy de Bouillon was behind this creation. We shall see why below. Suffice to say that it was most certainly a family affair because Godfrey's older brother, according to Heather J. Tanner, became the first patron [a person who supports with money, gifts, efforts, or endorsement or a person whose support or protection is solicited or acknowledged] of the Templars. Eustace III died in 1125. 

These influential individuals who must have had some goal in mind when they created the Order of the Templars. Was it possible, I thought, that these individuals could have been working to a ‘plan’ and ‘design’? It seemed incredible that the power, wealth and prestige that the Templars gathered very quickly could have been wholly incidental and that the original group would not have had any aim or direction in mind.

Starting with a modern ‘Templar conspiracy theory’ that I chanced upon – i followed certain statements made that attested to an ‘inner’ order which existed within the Templars. This must have been the case. A structure like the Templars would have needed leadership. The logic of their creation suggested an  ‘upper echelon’ of individuals working to a ‘grand design’.


Addison, in his ‘History of the Knights Templar’ referred to the fact that the Knights Templar themselves were divided into three sections. These were;

1) Knights
2) Priests
3) Serving Brethren.

He tells us that ‘every candidate for admission as a Knight must have received the honour of Knighthood according to the laws of Chivalry’1. Therefore the actual Knights of the Temple were all of noble birth because the rules of chivalry were that only the nobility could be admitted to the Knighthood. Furthermore the title of knight was the central rank of the Medieval aristocratic system in Europe, usually ranking at or near the top of the Minor Nobility. However, those that led the early creation of the Templars appeared  be blood-related and were much more esteemed than this Knightly class. This I suspected was the upper echelons of the Templars – those noble family members who flocked to join the Order.

Templar Mystery

Here is an alleged quote made by Raymond Lull in 1309:

  ‘ ..the Christians do without doubt have numerous secrets. Among them is one in particular … which represents an incredible revelation: the lie to which the Templars are giving away at this  moment …. If such an infamy was made public & manifest it would put the barque of St Peter in danger …’2

     Lull is considered an important and influential occultist of his time. Baigent & Leigh, in their 1989 publication ‘The Temple & The Lodge’, identify in him the ‘first major esotericist in the Western [wisdom] Tradition’. Indeed, Lull's work has been said to have influenced European development. 

AE Waite discusses the importance of Raymond Lull. Waite identified in him that 'rosicrucian exponent' who practiced alchemical experiments - which Lull is known to have conducted in the presence of kings. Lull is reported by Figulus to have referred to a secret society of alchemists that were established at the beginning of the 15th century - and to which presumably Lull was a member. This society was variously called the Sons of Truth or Sons of the Order

It was Lull who proposed that the Templars should be united and amalgamated with the Hospitallers under the King of France. Jaques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Templars, would not accept this proposal. His refusal to join with the Hospitallers is the ‘real’  reason for his execution & the ‘end of the Templars’.

    In Lull we therefore have an influential esotericist admitting that the Christians had many ‘secrets’ and one in particular that was dangerous to the survival of the Vatican. The Templars were seen to be ‘giving away’ this secret in Lull's time. What could Lull have meant by this? How did Lull know about this 'secret'? Was the knowledge also instrumental in the Church wanting to completely annihilate the Templar institution?  Pope Clement V in his bull (Vox in Excelso 22/3/1312) tells his audience that the Templar order was abolished

by an inviolable and perpetual decree’

The church wanted the Templars completely eradicated from future history.

So what of the Templars themselves? 

What did they say about their origins? Did they have an archive? According to Barber - the Templars did have archives & they were kept in the Temple of Solomon until 1187. He goes on to say that it is not known what happened to these archives after the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin in 1187. The archive disappeared completely – leaving no trace. If we had this archive, which was large, we would obviously have a very different view of the Templars and those upper echelons.

Outwardly the Templars appeared to be working to a set agenda. This ‘design’ was persistently explained as the inauguration of a ‘new and true religion’. Perhaps this has an echo in the secret Lull mentioned, which could put the barque of St Peter in danger! Was this new and true religion the real truth regarding Christian religious origins? By setting up a ‘new’ religion the Templars would have been denying the current orthodox religion, which already was thought to be a ‘universal religion’. The Tempalrs were in effect setting up a 'rival' religion. 

The Templars also embarked on massive building plans – and one such projected building was to be the construction of a huge church on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Would this have been their ‘universal church’ and religion's base?

Further impetus came after chancing upon the work of French author Camille Bartoli.  He was referenced in another book which had compiled together all the theories in respect of the identity of the ‘Man In The Iron Mask’. Initially the attraction for me to Bartoli was because of the reference in the 1982 book  ‘Holy Blood & Holy Grail’ about this 'Man in the Iron Mask' and the suggestion that the Iron Mask could have been Nicolas  Fouquet. Fouquet's incarceration had occurred after he had received the famous letter from Abbe Louis Fouquet, his brother, in which he discussed his meeting with Nicolas Poussin in Rome. In this letter it was detailed that through Poussin his brother could discover a monumental secret. Did Bartoli have any further information?

Bartoli discusses his meeting with an elderly and distinguished gentleman at the Hotel Negresco in Nice. The gentleman, known simply as Monsieur G, offers to tell Bartoli ‘the secret’ of the Iron Mask on one condition - that he publish it. Monsieur G told Bartoli that the conspiracy involving the Iron Mask was created by ‘secret’ members of the ‘Order of the Temple’. This, he said, was a ‘clandestine’ organisation which survived the Knights Templar after their demise in 1307. Monsieur G himself claimed to be a member of this ‘secret order’. He explained:

‘ ….The secret that the Templars of the 17th century were seeking, as were the Templar knights before them, was to impose their ‘grand design’ upon the world, a political and religious system to unify all nations and sects …….’3.

       Templars of the 17th century? The Templars were wiped out in 1307! Monsieur G went on to detail the first part of this ‘grand design’ of the secret Templars. It involved the reinstatement of the French monarchy and those Frankish kings called the Merovingian's – who Monsieur G added ‘were kings by right of birth’. All dynasties which followed – the Capetian's, the Valois and the Bourbon he said were illegitimate. It was  re-iterated:

  ‘The crown of France belonged by divine right to the descendants of Charles de Lorraine, who was the true heir when Capet usurped the throne at the end of the 10th century’ 4.

Now, readers of Holy Blood, Holy Grail will know exactly why this was of interest to me. Doesnt the mysterious Monsieur G sound remarkably like Pierre Plantard? 

Plantard advocated a specific role for the Templars, and an Order behind them, which was family orientated. And the family was the descendants of the Merovingians. 

So who was Charles de Lorraine? 

"Charles of Lorraine was the son of Louis IV of France and Gerberga of Saxony and younger brother of King Lothair. He was a sixth generation descendant of Charlemagne. Louis IV's father was himself son of Charles III [or Charles the Simple] and Eadgifu of England, a daughter of King Edward the Elder. Charles III was the undisputed King of France from 898 until 922 and the King of Lotharingia from 911 until 919/23. He was a son of Louis the Stamerer by his second wife, Adelaide of Paris. Louis the Stammerer was the King of Aquitaine and later King of West Francia. He was the eldest son of Charles the Bald and Ermentrude of Orleans. He succeeded his younger brother in Aquitaine in 886 and his father in West Francia in 877  though he was never crowned Emperor. In the French monarchial system, he is considered Louis II".

So Charles of Lorraine could legitimately trace his line back to Charles the Bald and Charlemagne. However, "Charles III (10th century) was excluded from the throne of France, and the German Emperor Otto II made him Duke of Lower Lorraine in 977.  In 977, he accused Lothair's wife, Emma, daughter of Lothair II of Italy, of infideility with Adalberon, Bishop of Laon.  The council of Sainte-Macre at Fismes (near Reims) exonerated the queen and the bishop, but Charles maintained his claim & was driven from the kingdom, finding refuge at the court of his cousin, Otto II. Otto promised to crown Charles as soon as Lothair was out of the way and Charles paid him homage, receiving back Lower Lorraine.  In August 978, Lothair invaded Germany and captured the imperial capital of Aachen, but failed to capture either Otto or Charles. In October, Otto and Charles in turn invaded France, devastating the land around Rheims, Soissons and Laon. In the latter city, the chief seat of the kings of France, Charles was crowned by Theodoric I, Bishop of Metz. Lothair fled to Paris and was there besieged. But a relief army of Hugh Capet's forced Otto and Charles to lift the siege on 30 November. Lothair and Capet, the tables turned once more, chased the German king and his liege back to Aachen and retook Laon.

Through his daughter Gerberga of Lower Lorraine, (a countess of Brussels, who married Lambert I, Count of Leuven) and granddaughter Mathilda (Maud) the line of Charles later engendered Eustace I - who was father of Eustace II. It is Eustace II's second marriage with Ida of Lorraine (daughter of Godfrey III, Duke of Lower Lorraine), which produced the three sons, Eustace III, the next count of Boulogne, and Godfrey of Bouillon and Baldwin, both later kings of Jerusalem. 

As Charles had been a vassal also of Lothair, Charles' acts on behalf of Otto were considered treason and he was thereafter excluded from the throne. On Lothair's death (986), the magnates elected his son Louis V and on the latter's death (987), Hugh Capet. Thus, the House of Capet came to the throne over the disgraced and ignored Charles".

The disgraced and ignored Charles - the alleged rightful King of France after the death of Lothair - was passed over for the Crown by the clergy, including both Adalberon and Gerbert (who later became Pope Sylvester III). They argued eloquently for Hugh Capet, who was not only of royal blood but had proven himself through his actions and his military might. Capet was elected to the Frankish throne and Adalberon crowned him, all within two months of Louis V's death. Thus the Carolingian dynasty ended and the Capetian began.

Cadet Gassicourt

Centuries later after these events, and after the French revolution, a Cadet de Gassicourt claimed that Jaques de Molay himself instituted a kind of ‘occult masonry’ and referred to the Rite of the Strict Observance and a Templar Vengeance grade. The group were avowed to complete the following actions:

exterminate all kings, especially the House of Capet,
to destroy papal power,
to preach liberty and promote a universal republic!

Cadet de Gassicourt [in his Memoirs , Cadet's friend Baron Thiébault reveals how he is son of King Louis XVth] wrote a book called The Tomb of Jacques Molay, in which he described a secret plan by the surviving Grand Master to exact revenge against the French monarchy and the Catholic Church, and the Revolution was the culmination of the plot. De Gassicourt’s theory was that the Templars had done just what the Scottish Masons were claiming in the late 1700s — they had gone underground and resurfaced as the Freemasons. He contended that a small core of just eight members of an inner circle of Templars/Masons sparked the Revolution.

Monsieur G, our mysterious Bartoli contact, cited Godefroy de Bouillon as one of the descendants of Charles of Lorraine and Godfrey, of course, was first defender of Jerusalem. 

Monsieur G went on to say that when Louis XIVth was king he realised that there was a conspiracy against him and that a concerted effort was being made to oust him in favour of the Grand Monarch [presumably this Grand Monarch was someone from the legitimate line of those first Frankish kings, the Merovingians - who were the family who were given the 'divine right to rule' as per the legend of Saint Remi']. 

Louis learnt the identity of this ‘Grand Monarch’ through the secret order who were trying to replace him. It was Henri de Lorraine, descendant of Charlemagne and heir to the Merovingian kings. When Louis found out who the true Grand Monarch was he then had Henri imprisoned and it was Henri who became the ‘Man in the Iron Mask’.

An inner Order of the Temple?

Monsieur G through Bartoli was intimating that there existed a ‘Secret inner Order of the Temple’ who most definitely were NOT the Templars themselves. This sounded suspiciously like Lincoln et al and their supposition that there was an order ‘behind’ the Templars which they called the Priory of Sion. And yet, Bartoli published his book in 1978 and had met Monsieur G ca. 2 years previously – which made his book origins at least 6 years before the ‘Holy Blood & the Holy Grail’.

There are vague hints which suggest a secret order behind the Templars.  AE Waite refers to individuals behind the Templars who were 'magical adepts'. These individuals, he said, were known to have argued with their 'creation' and then to have separated from them. 

If one is prepared to accept the epics, romances and literature of the Middle Ages as evidence of a kind then in the romance called ‘Parzival’ by Wolfram Von Eschenbach one can see the idea of an ‘inner’ order in his work. Helen Nicholson, respected scholar of Templar studies, for example thinks that Von Eschenbach refers to two different sets of Templar knights. Upon my reading of Parzival I tend to concur with her judgement. Nicholson sees an order of the Templeis as separate from the Knights Templar. In Parzival there does seem to be a distinction between those who ‘guard’ the Grail (in the Grail Castle) and the more common Templars. The Templars, as we know them, are war like and military. The guardians, however, of the Order and the Grail, are spiritual and ‘carry the sign of the dove’. Does this mean that the Knights who actually guarded the Grail (whatever the Grail turns out to be, given that very recent research by Frale suggests this might be nothing more, nor less than the Shroud of Turin i.e. the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. Frale also presents evidence that this Shroud was guarded by the Knights Templar)  – are in a way separate and removed from their Templar cousins? A kind of inner order if you will?

In other Arthurian romances the name Templeis is given to those ‘chaste guardians of the Grail’. Although the word Templeis is most likely to be a translation of the middle high German
language of Eschenbach's s time – I think the word is good to keep in order to differentiate these ‘guardians’. 

It is interesting to note that the patron saint of the Knights of the Holy Grail – are not the warrior monks but St Odilia. This implies some continuity between her time and the Knights guarding the Grail in the Middle Ages. In seeing St Odilia as patron of the Grail Guardians – we may see here vestiges of the idea that the Grail may be a bloodline, or some sort of family affair involving a bloodline guarding the Grail. For Odilia is herself Merovingian. 

The Knights Templar, Eschenbach tells us, are indeed guardians of the ‘Holy Grail’, furthermore he tells us that although the Templiese knights are different to the Templars, they do however share some common ground. Did one important group of Knights have influence or jurisdiction over the other? Why should one group of the Templars be singled out and what ‘common ground’ did they share?

So we see that there are at least 4 different references here to an order behind the Templars. 

So what do we know about the 'accepted' Templar history? Who actually were the Temple? 

The ‘official history’ starts with Guillaume de Tyre. The Templars were created by French citizens who in one way or another had connections with each other. The most important and frequently mentioned names are Hugh de Payens and Godfrey of Saint-Omer although the Knights of St John name Yves de Faillon as the founder of the Order of the Temple. Whatever the truth of these statements it is said that the Templars were formed for the ‘defense’ of the Holy Sepulchre. They were first called the Poor Fellow Soldiers of Christ and they had no church or dwelling place. On Mount Moriah the ‘Temple of The Lord’ had been built and this was over the spot where Solomon's Temple once stood. To the south was the Church of the Virgin which the Muslims had converted to the Al Aqsa Mosque. It was this structure that was given to the Templars by Baldwin II of Jerusalem. Also ceded to the Templars (by the Canons of the Temple of the Lord) was the large court extending between the Temple and the Al Aqsa Mosque.

The Al Aqsa Mosque & the Temple Mount 

        Occult writer Blavatsky tells us that this ‘group of people  joined together for altruistic purposes’ and she also asserts (in her ‘ISIS UNVEILED’ published in 1937) that the ‘outward reason’ for the formation of the Templars was to protect pilgrims but the ‘real’ reason and objective was not this aim. She tells us that the Templars came into existence to:

‘ …  encourage the newborn struggle for intellectual freedom and [to]  restore the one universal religion in the world’ 5.

The Templars themselves were said to have regarded Jesus as a Brother not a God. In fact they adhered to the doctrine that he was a false prophet. I find this statement extraordinary. An ostensibly highly Christian group denying Jesus as a false prophet. But as a man, he was ‘their brother’. If the Templars interpreted the word ‘christ’ and also the word ‘prophet’ in their own terms how may have this been? If it were in Jewish and messianic terms their Jesus would be a man sent by God to save his people – but they still regarded him as a false prophet. If the ‘Christ’ was, in Catholic terms, accepted as some sort of God then that idea was being rejected by the Templars too. Blavatsky tells us that the Templars

were opposed to the Church of Rome from the  very first ……..’6.

Apparently, because the Templars were anti-catholic from the start they carried the red cross on the white mantle which other initiated groups used. The red cross represented the four quarters of the compass and was also an emblem of the universe. 

The alleged attitude of some towards Jesus and the Church was not new nor is it particularly shocking. The idea that the Catholic Church was not the ‘true’ church was voiced almost immediately at the very dawn of Christianity [albeit it was the Jewish religion versus the new sect of Christians!]. We of course know them today as heresies. Heresy has been described as a doctrine or faith held in defiance of the Church. Note, that it does not pre-suppose that the heresies are ‘wrong’ – just that they are held in defiance of the Church. 

There are common beliefs held by all the heretical groups. They are listed as follows [in a scholarly study] as:

"wanting a return to the apostolic practice of preaching and poverty
To free the Christian from worldly ambition
Protestations against the Church authority, hierarchy and abuse of the sacraments
They emphasised chastity, preaching and communal life
It was not believed that an intermediary between humans and God was needed
All sects denied the orthodox doctrines
The Trinity was denied
The Roman Church was not holy, but the Devils instrument

The Middle Age heresies which sprung up were first detected in AD 970. The following frequent reports were of the following, taken from the same source as above, it shows that they had a similar outlook to the earlier heresies:

"Ascetic practices
Anti-clerical attitudes
Rejection of the authority of the clergy
Rejection of marriage
Stress on chastity
Baptism was by the imposition of hands only
Refusal to venerate the Cross
Denial of the Trinity
Refusal to venerate the Saints
Rejection of all the hierarchy, institutions and liturgy of the Church
Explicit denial of transubstantiation
The priests and prelates of the Church were rejected
The divinity of Christ was rejected
The Church authority was with out foundation
It was taught that Christ was married to Mary  Magdalene

Allied to this were groups and individuals claiming that they were the true church. For example the Cathars believed they were the true church and the ‘successors of  the Apostles’. The earlier Gnostics claimed direct knowledge from God, or by a secret Tradition from the Apostles themselves. 

Peter of Bruys, a famous Medieval heretic, was notorious for denouncing the cross as a symbol of worship and Tanchelm declared that he and his group ‘were the only true Christians’.  When Blavatsky tells us that the Templars ‘were opposed to the Church of Rome from the start ….’ it would appear that all the Templars were doing was continuing a long Tradition of opposition to the Roman Church.

Guillaume de Tyre tells us that the Templars were formed by French knights in 1118. But the fairly damning evidence that Lincoln et al offer regarding the date of the Templars’ creation, and the policy of the Templars in admitting new members convinces me that Guillaume was wrong in his date of 1118 . The actual date of Templar creation is more likely to have been around 1111. In support of this, among other evidence given by Lincoln et al, I cite the major piece of evidence concerning the Count of Anjou who joined the order and which is on record in 1120. If the Order was created and admitted no new members for nine years after its date of creation, then the admission of the Count in 1120, means, if Guillaume is right, that the Templars were created in at least 1111.

In fact an earlier date for the creation of the Templars has been given. For example in 1135 – 1140 Simon, a monk of St Bertin of Sith, dated this event to c. 1099 just after the Crusades. Another is a bishop of Havellburg called Anselm who wrote in 1145 and suggested the same date. In itself the actual date of the foundation of the order is not  important. To quote an academic source,  Barber in his book ‘The New Knighthood’ dates the foundation of the Order of  the Temple to around 1119 (from internal Templar documents). However the interesting question is this: the capture of Jerusalem by the First Crusaders occurred in 1099. The ‘official’ formation of the Templars is dated to 1119. That gives a gap of 20 years in which the Knights on the Crusade presumably were in Jerusalem. The First Crusade was levied to rescue the Church of  the Holy Sepulchre. When Godefroy de Bouillon achieved this objective it seems  highly unlikely that a military presence was not then required to guard the Holy Sepulchre. The Templars were created to also guard the Holy Sepulchre as one of its first aims.

From the time of the Middle Ages the Templars are alleged to have continued intact until modern times. The ‘legend of perpetuation’ – that of Jean Marc Larmenius  –  successor of Jaques de Molay after his murder as last Grand Master  – is supported by the Templars in England and Wales today. They assert  that:

 ‘ … it is one of the ‘governing documents’ of  today's order ….’ 10.

The Charter of Larmenius was claimed by Fabre-Palaprat to issue from De Molay before he was burnt at the stake. De Molay, in this document, handed the grand mastership of the order of the Temple to a successor. The rumours of the document began to circulate around Paris in 1804. There are those who insist that this Order, however, is spurious and that it arose under the supervision of the Jesuits. The Jesuits are also blamed for the assassination of a ‘great’ European prince who was the last to have held the great secrets of the ‘true Knights Templar’. 

These ‘modern’ Templars are different from the ‘true’ lineage – they never, for example, had any secrets dangerous to the Church (implying of course that the true lineage did).

   Chevalier Ramsay crops up here (elsewhere associated with the Priory of Sion). Ramsay is interesting because of a quote he gives, thus:  ‘ Our forefathers, the Crusaders, assembled in  the Holy Land … to unite in a fraternity, embracing all nations … bound together  heart and soul for mutual improvement’ 11.  Ramsay is  echoing this idea of a ‘universal’ & altruistic aim’ as referred to by others and in the context of this essay, by Monsieur G. The document itself, which caused the uproar citing Larmenius as the Templar Grand Master successor is in cipher, which decodes into Latin, giving the instructions on the survival of the Temple. Bernard Raymond Fabre –Palaprat (1777 – 1838), on this basis, revived the true supposed lineage of the Templars revitalising the Order in the 18th century. Baron Von Hund also claimed his ‘Die Strikt Observance’ as the true heirs of the Templars . In 1840, an abbot AE Genoude headed an ‘Order of the Temple’. Louis Adrien Peladan was a member of this Order, and it was his son Josephin – who set up a Rosicrucian Order and claimed to have ‘true’ knowledge of the tomb of Christ. They were all friends of Lepasse & Du Mege – who were critical in the forming of the various occult societies in 19th century France.

One may ask what this idea of a ‘universal religion’ is? It cannot be the Catholic Church because it is denied so many times and is said to be the ‘false church’ based on no authority whatsoever. It is the heretics who claim true knowledge and are the ‘true’ church. The Templar ‘universal religion’ may be that idea expressed by Baigent & Leigh (in the Temple & the Lodge), who say that the Templars were a:

major conduit for the western world, and their desire {was } to unite Christianity in reconciliation with Judaism and Islam.’14

Other more modern ‘Order of the Temple’s are appearing today. For example, there exists another called the ‘Cheveliers de l’ordre Notre Dame de Sion’. The history given is that they were founded in the Holy Land in 1099 by Godefroy de Bouillon and Brother Hugh De Payens (Count of Champagne). They maintain that their order was able to continue after its suppression in 1307. So they too are claiming a heritage from the Knights Templar. But here Godefroy de Bouillon is cited as a founder!! The Grand Master in France is said to have been Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (who helped to revitalise the order) and the Grand Master in the USA is said to be an Andre Barbeau.

    In a Priory document called ‘Le Cercle de Ulysees’ Lefebvre is said to have been a member of the Priory of Sion. In his battles with the Vatican, Lefebvre is said to have had a ‘secret weapon’ which he could use against the Papacy. Further, in  the ‘Cercle de Uyleses’ (by Jean Delaude) it is stated that the ‘Order of Sion’ was created by Godefroy de Bouillon in 1090. However, in Deloux and Bretigny Godefroy created this Order in 109915.  According to the ‘Chronicles of the Crusades’ Godefroy had spent most of his adult life up until then fighting to preserve his inheritance. However, when the crusades were called in 1096, Godefroy then proceeded to sell off this inheritance to finance himself and his soldiers to march on Jerusalem. His crusade to Jerusalem was accomplished in 1099.

So we have re-occurring but garbled dates and names in relation to the formation of the Knights Templar & a secret Order of Sion. We have 1090, 1099, 1111 & 1118. The common denominator in this confusion always appears to be Godefroy de Bouillon. What is going on?
Was Godfrey responsible for setting up an order after he conquered the Holy Land and reclaimed the Holy Sepulchre from the Infidel? Waite cites Mackey - a standard historian of Freemasonry - who tells us that the institution of the Rose Cross degrees in Freemasonry is associated with the Rosicrucians. The Rosicrucians are thought to have started their life after Johann Valentin Andreae published the Rosicrucian Manifestos. However, in his 'Dictionnaire Macconique' Mackey tells us that this society was set up by Godfrey de Bouillon (!!) In Palestine in the year 1100! - saying that their emblems were the rose (meaning secrecy) and the cross (meaning immortality). This group of Godfreys Mackey said - dealt with 'spiritual alchemy and sought that stone that was also the objective of the likes of Basil Valentin, Paracelsus etc'. Waite suggests that there is confusion within the Freemasons, their Rose Cross degrees and the Rosicrucians themselves.

However, the work of Mackey seems to once again present us with a garbled date concerning the formation of an alchemical and hermetic society -which was secret in nature - and was in some way involved with Godefrey de Bouillon.

Order of the Holy Sepulchre

There does appear to be a ‘real’ order set up by Godefroy in the Holy Land. This is the Order of the Holy Sepulchre. Apparently Godefroy ‘gathered’ around him 12 Knights – and these Knights were to protect the religious chapter of Canons who were serving at the Sepulchre of Christ when Godefroy and his army arrived. (Note Godefroy did not install the religious canons here, they were already in place.) Most commentators are prepared to accept that Godefroy set up the Order of the Holy Sepulchre (eg Stair Sainty, Bander Van Duren, Smythe & Halliday). All agree that there was a religious order of Canons of the Holy Sepulchre under the Rule of Saint Augustine who were to protected by the new Knights formed by Godefroy de Bouillon. The Canons are never at any time said to be military. It is interesting to note here, however, that these Canons do appear to have been involved in one way or another with the military orders, and also with individuals trying to protect pilgrims and the Holy Sepulchre. For example a knight called Paganus managed to obtain a hall from these Canons of the Temple of the Lord so that he could recruit more men from among visiting knights. These Canons at the Temple and the Holy Sepulchre are said to have worked together.

Stair Sainty insists that the Order of the Canons of the Holy Sepulchre and the Order of the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre – had no connection with each other. Stair Sainty tells us:

 ‘there is not one document dating from the period 1099 – 1291 when the  Crusaders ruled in the Holy Land – which mentions the Military Knights of the Holy Sepulchre, or any order of Knights of that name’16.

However, Bander Van Duren and Smythe state that the Order of the Holy Sepulchre received the approval of Pope Callistus in 1122, and was even earlier acknowledged by Pope Paschal II in 1113, who recognised their aims and purposes. Godefroy set this Order up in 1099, and it makes sense that it was an ‘Order of the Holy Sepulchre’ – for this is what the Crusades were all about. Wasn’t the whole point to rescue Christ's’ Tomb from the Infidels? These Knights therefore
protected the Christian presence at the Sepulchre for 20 years and then in 1122 Pope Callistus issued a Bull. This made them into a ‘lay religious community’ who were to guard the Sepulchre and the city of Jerusalem. This allowed me to deduce that the order had been set up c. 1102 – pretty close to the given date of 1099.

There is a strange relationship between this Order of the Holy Sepulchre and the Papacy. The Order is under the protection of the Vatican but the Vatican itself does not ‘own’ it or have any control over it. This suggests a ‘special relationship’ – a relationship that other commentators have referred to. The Order is independent and the Grand Master title of the Order appears to be held by the Pontiff. Pope Benedict XIV said that ‘this Order of the Holy Sepulchre’ should be more important than all the other Orders accept one (that being the Order of the Golden Fleece). Also, the insignia of the Order (the red cross) was adopted by Godefroy in AD 1071 and
it can be traced back to Charlemagne! (It is interesting to note here that there are epic romances involving the Templars which are set in the time of Charlemagne. These include the 1175- 1200 ‘Raoul de Cambrai' which describes the life of the monk Bernier – who wants to serve with the Templars. Also, Orson de Beavais from a manuscript that only survives in Lorraine sets the Templars in the reign of Charlemagne’. So too are the Templars in ‘La Chevalerie d'Ogier de Danmarche' & 'Renaut de Montauban'. These were set in the 8th century but written in the 12th). This emblem of the red cross is said to have been given to Charlemagne by the then
Patriarch of Jerusalem, Thomas.

I dwell on this ‘Order of the Holy Sepulchre’ because it now becomes even more important. In Deloux & Bretigny's  ‘Stenay, the Mystery of Sion’  they make a rather curious comment. They refer to the costume and ritual of the ‘Knights of the Saint Sepulchre’ and tell us that these costumes inspired the ritual costumes of the ‘Order of the Prieure de Sion’.

What tradition is this? Is it the same tradition that Rene Grousset talks of (the same one that Godefroy continues – based on the rock of Sion)? One is meant to see in Deloux & Bretigny's statements some sort of link between the ‘Order of the Holy Sepulchre’, the ‘Order of Sion’ and today's ‘Prieure de Sion’. Deloux & Bretigny also stress the importance of Godefroy, Stenay and the Merovingians. They say:

‘ … the Duchy of Lorraine is ever linked to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, in the same way that Stenay, third summit of the Golden Triangle, formed by Gisors and Rennes-le-Chateau refers to the mysteries of Sion’17.

The confusion in dates for the foundation of any military orders has led academics to suggest that there were other military brotherhoods in operation at the time before the first ‘official’ order of the Knights Templar. In fact some have suggested that the military orders arose out of the Islamic institutions known as the ‘ribats’. The papacy appeared uneasy with the war and killing associated with the Christian military orders. Some questioned how the two sides – war and religion – could be reconciled. The papacy certainly considered military orders as spiritually less advanced than for example the monastic orders. Others have expressed the view
that the Military orders arose directly from the traditions of the Old Testament. Even St. Bernard himself quotes from the Bible prophecies that concern Jerusalem, to sanction the formation of the Knights Templar. This is discussed by Nicholson.

Jerusalem Landmarks

The stated aim of the Templars appear to have less to do with the protection of pilgrims and more to do with Solomon's Temple. The various orders also claimed descent from Old Testament times and popes even believed these stories (for example Pope Celestine III). The Templars themselves are known to have altered and made additions to their translations of the Book of Judges. Nicholson also suggests that the Templars hint vaguely that Solomon founded their Order. Could there in fact be a correlation here between the assertion made here by Nicholson and the remarks made by Francis Bacon in his New Atlantis? Remember he refers to a secret society existing in Bensalem which was founded by a ‘wise king’ (Could this king be Solomon? After all the society is called Solomon's House). In the ‘Queste del Graal’ there is a connection made between the Order of the Temple and the perfect Knight. Apparently Solomon ‘knew of the coming of the perfect Knight and prepared for it’. It is Galaad who is identified as this perfect Knight. In the Arthurian cycles of romance, Galaad saw the entire Grail or the San Greal. He may even have handled it – in one myth Galaad is said to have ‘took our Lords body between his hands’. It was, furthermore, only Galaad who could sit in the empty seat at the Round Table of King Arthur – a seat always left empty until the one came who would find the Grail. Galaad again was said to be the most deserving of joining an Order of Knighthood.

In the context of this essay – Solomon knew the perfect Knight was Galaad and he rejoiced  'that his final descendent will be a Knight better than Joshua’.  The Templars themselves, after doctoring the Book of Judges added, for example, after the: ' .. description of lands taken by various tribes of Israel (Judges 1, V21)  [that] the (Templar) added that the lineage of Levi was chosen to serve the God in the Temple’.  Nicholson  comments;  ‘…..the Temple had not yet been built, and the Levi tribe served before the Ark of the Lord’. She therefore makes a parallel – the Levites served in the old Temple, the Templars saw themselves as serving in the ‘new’ Temple (18).  She also recounts a speech that Gerard de Ridefort gave to rally his troops at the battle of Nazareth on 1/5/1187.  He cried;

…….Remember your fathers , the Maccabees ………….’ 19.

Did the Templars see themselves as the ‘new’ Maccabeans? In fact St Bernard of Clairvaux compares the Knights Templar to the Maccabees.

The connection with the Old Testament continues. When David became king over the 12 tribes of Israel – he ‘took the castle of Sion’ and he ‘dwelt in the castle’. A palace was built and the 'Ark of the Covenant' was brought into the city of David. Eventually the priests Mathais of Hasmon & his 5 children (the Maccabeans) organised resistance to the oppression of the Holy Temple and the Holy City when Jerusalem was overrun by the Infidels and was being defiled. When Gerard de Ridefort called ‘remember your fathers – the Maccabees’ was he invoking the same principle that those Maccabeans were fighting for? The Maccabees were trying to rid the Holy City of the Infidels while the Templars were trying to free the Holy Sepulchre & keep the Infidels away.

The Templars and the possible ‘secret order’ behind them – have been said to have occupied the Abbey of Notre Dame du Mont de Sion and that it housed the Order of Sion until 1187. This Abbey is said to have been formed with the Tomb of David and the Cenacle. The Abbey was said to have been built at the command of our old friend Godefroy de Bouillon. This abbey still exists and has been excavated by archaeologists. The foundations of the Abbey are associated with the famous ‘Church of the Apostles’ and the structures within this complex are traditionally revered as the Tomb of David and the second floor is revered as the Cenacle – that is – the room of the Last Supper.

The archaeologist, Pixner, tells us that these structures were of a Judeo-Christian synagogue, that is, a house of the early Jerusalem Christians. Pixner also discusses the peculiar orientation of the Synagogue. It was not orientated to the Temple but to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. When the Crusaders arrived in the Holy Land they headed straight for Mount Sion and this Monastery. They appear to have disregarded all other traditions regarding other sites of
the Tomb of David and room of the Last Supper (21). It was these Crusaders who erected a huge Gothic structure to mark David's tomb. Was it Godefrey de Bouillon who was responsible for this? After all he is said to have rebuilt the Sion Monastery. Why was this spot important to them? This Monastery (also known as the Priory of Mount Sion) in Jerusalem has a religious order attached to it.

The activity and aims of the ‘Order of the Holy Sepulchre’ created by Godefroy de Bouillon, and indeed its whole identity became synonymous with the Order of St Francis (when the original knights had returned home). This ‘Order of St Francis’ was given, in 1330, by Pope John XXII ‘ Custodian of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre’. They became deputies of the Pontiff in the Holy Land. And these Franciscans (as the Order of St Francis became known) were based at, and had custody of the Monastery of Mount Sion. When Pope Gregory IX instructed the clergy of Palestine to welcome the Franciscans in 1230– the monks immediately on arrival, ‘resumed’ possession of their convent at Mount Sion. Even today, to become a knight of the ‘Holy Sepulchre’ one must apply through the Franciscans & when a new Knight is accepted into the order he is dubbed with a sword allegedly used by Godefroy de Bouillon.

I have actually been in touch with these monks at Mount Sion. I asked them very specific questions about their history. Here is a transcript:

1) Why is the Monastery of Mount Sion & its ancient ruins referred to as the ‘mother of all churches’

  A)    The ‘Agia Sion’ is called  ‘the mother of all churches’ by ancient Christian writers because of its association with the house where the Apostles were found when the Holy Spirit descended upon them.

2) When the Crusaders arrived, and decided to build a church – who requested this? Who built the original church?

  A)    The ‘Agia Sion’ was built by John, the second  bishop of Jerusalem (387– 417) but the pilgrim EGERIA ( 381 – 384) tells us that an older small church was not in ruins, but it was rebuilt later during the Latin Kingdom.

3) Was there ever a chivalric order, or order of Knights ever based at Mount Sion, like for example those at the Holy Sepulchre?

   A)    Not a chivalric order, but a monastic order (the Augustinians ) were in charge of the church during crusader times."

Here then the Knights (Order) of the Holy Sepulchre via the Franciscans ‘resumed’ possession of the Monastery of Mount Sion, implying that they had held the Monastery some time before this date. There seem to be shadowy connections behind Abbey of Mount Sion, the Holy Sepulchre and the Canons of the Holy Sepulchre and those Canons of the Temple of the Lord. And they are in some way connected with the Knights Templar.

The Franciscans started buying up Holy Land property. In 1333, for example, Roger Garin – who was from Aquitaine – in the name of Robert of Anjou and Sancha of Maiorca began negotiations to buy the Holy Places from the then Sultan. It was the purchase of the Cenacle that caused the most problems. Why should this have caused problems? It appears to have been a problem because of the associations of a hoard of treasure alleged to have been buried there. For example, Josephus reports ‘that Herod the Great …secretly tried to rob the treasure hidden in Davids Tomb'. In 333AD the Bordeaux Pilgrim tells us that Davids tomb contained not only his remains, ‘ but also those of Solomon and other family members of the family of Jesse22. Finally during the Crusader period a Spanish Jew by the name of Benjamin of Tudela directs us to the ‘Tomb of David' on Mount Sion. He tells us:

  ‘ … while employed by the Christian patriarch to reconstruct a damaged monument on Mount Sion – 2 Jewish workers accidentally happened upon a secret passage, and suddenly found themselves in a Palace made of marble columns –  {the place of } the Tomb of David and the Kings of Israel. A golden sceptre & golden crown rested upon a table. There were riches all around ….’ 23.

The Copper Scroll also lists vast treasures from the Temple. These included documents from the era of the Gospels – which provided first hand witness accounts that had not been edited by ecclesiastical authority. These included the ‘truth’ of the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus. Bernard of Clairvaux – that champion of the Knights Templar spoke of an ‘indeterminable treasure’ that had been found by the Crusaders - allowing him to proclaim the Jerusalem ‘mission’ a huge success. In fact, the last line of the Copper Scroll does imply a second copy of the Scroll is hidden containing a more complete set of information for interpreting the codes in the Copper Scroll. It also further suggests inventories not listed, but referred to as ‘other things ‘ along side the treasure. These accounts of treasures and the remains of the ‘Kings of Israel’ certainly explain why the Crusaders and Godefroy headed straight for Mount Sion. Here they stayed – and Hugh de Payens was certainly here for some time. In fact, by heading to, and setting up a base on Mount Sion and staying there for some years – might they have been checking out and excavating for the ‘secret’ treasure under Sion?

The Franciscan monks today tell me that there was never an ‘Order of Knights’ based at Mount Sion – only the Augustinian Canons. However, another commentator, Emmanuel Fiorentino tells us that a ‘select number of Bouillon's knights were installed in what remained of Constantines original basilica of the Holy Sepulchre and they were there to assist the Canons Regular of St. Augustin. Fiorentino tells us that the Holy Sepulchre was recognised as the ‘mother of all churches’ at the Council of Nicea in 325AD. This same appellation was given to the Monastery of Mount Sion. He also tells us that the pilgrim Egeria (and I assume this is the same pilgrim the monks at Mount Sion today told me about – who talked of the Agai Sion being rebuilt) testifies to the early history of this ‘mother of all churches’. But which is the real ‘mother of all churches’? The Monastery of Mount Sion, or Constantine's basilica over the Holy Sepulchre?

Finally Fiorentino, in discussing the ‘Order of the Holy Sepulchre’ dates its foundation to between July 18th – August 12th 1099. In occult circles – and by its very nature of being ‘occult’ I cannot confirm this – I was told that the Priory of Sion/ Ordre of Sion was created on July 18th 1099. Its interesting that 2 dates should arise from different currents of thought for the creation of an order by Godefroy de Bouillon. Could the Ordre of Sion be behind the Order
of the Holy Sepulchre and the Knights Templar as alluded to by Deloux and Bretigny?

The Monastery of Mount Sion

An interesting correlation with the above named bishop called John, quoted by the present day Franciscans at Mount Sion as the second Bishop of Jerusalem, refers to the fact that the Monastery of Mount Sion was built by him. The original Temple of Sion had passed away and the ‘new’ Sion then  arose. It was restored by St. Maximus (331-349) & then built by this same John, bishop of Jerusalem.  This  appears to be the same John who wrote a book called ‘On the Institution of the First Monks’ and this John connects the Old Testament ‘Sons Of Prophets’  with the Order of Mount Carmel and prophecy – and presumably  now linked in some way to the ‘Agia Sion’ and the Monastery of Mount Sion.

There are suggested links between the Knights Templar and these other groups. Alan Luttrell distinguished a connection between the Templars & the Canons of the Holy Sepulchre. Even Barber refers to surviving documents that suggest the Templars & the Canons worked together. Were the Templars and the Canons of the Holy Sepulchre somehow working together in some not glimpsed at plan? Another interesting piece of information is that supplied by Barber in relation to the witness of 2 pilgrims of the 1160s –1170s named John of Wursburg and Thedorich. Apparently the Templars were laying the foundations of a large new church at right angles to the north end of the Al Aqsa Mosque. Barber himself says the Templars intended
to ‘build on a lavish scale’. He says:

the church would have run across the (whole) Temple platform’ 24.

What Church is this and why did the Templars want to build across the Temple Mount? Perhaps it would have been the realisation of the Templar ‘dream’ and Grand Design – that of inaugurating a ‘universal church and religion’. There is, in fact, archaeological evidence to support these claims. I, of course, assume that those Canons Regular, sited on the Temple Mount knew what the Templars were up to? One commentator said of these Canons;

 ‘Lest it be defiled by powerful demons – these Canons of the Holy  Sepulchre were the foundation of the Order Militants arm …’ .

So here we are told that the Canons are ‘behind’ the Military Orders. It seems a preposterous idea. I looked a little more into the fact that the Augustinian's were said to be looking after Mount Sion when Godefroy de Bouillom arrived. Aquinas said that these Canons were:

  ‘ … essentially destined to those works which relate to the Divine mysteries, whereas it is not so with the monastic orders…..’

The order of Augustians dates once again from the time of Charlemagne or Christ himself, and from the time of the Apostles. It is quite erroneous to say that these Canons of Augustin
came from St Augustin of Hippo. The following Popes all say that the Canons were not instituted by St Augustin but were confirmed by him – Pius IV, Benedict XII. St Clement Urban I and those quoted below. This early church of the Apostles lived ‘ secundum regulum sub sanctis Apostoles constitution’ that is ‘had all things in common’ and they lived according to the Apostolic rule.

Eusebius  says that St. Mark was one of these Apostles and it is Mark who is said  to have established this Apostolic Rule & discipline at Alexandria. Saint Mark is credited with being the writer of the oldest of the four gospels. The Augustinian Canons Pope Pius said, in his Lateran Congregation ‘ … these that are clothed in white robes, who are they and whence they come? I will tell you. Their origin is nothing else but the society and the common life of  Jesus and his Apostles, the original model of the community life …..’. And Benedict XII said:‘ … the order of the canons… who in the early ages of the church were called clerics & who ….. derived their origin from the Apostles ……..’29

Mount Sion and the Franciscans have a very famous monk – and this was St. Anthony of Padua. St. Anthony's birth name was Ferdinand de Bulhoes and he was said to be descended from a Knight. In the 15th century writers however asserted that his father was Martin Bouillon, a descendant of Godefroy de Bouillon. He changed his name to Anthony, in reverence to Anthony the Hermit. He was a Franciscan Thaumaturgist and he was born at Lisbon in 1195. He was a renowned teacher, and preacher and he was said to have taught at Montpellier and Toulouse. When he was canonised in 1232, Pope Gregory IX called him the ‘Ark of the Covenant’ apparently because of his immense scriptural knowledge. And yes, I do know that St.Anthony was and is the patron saint of lost treasure – and that Billard, when he saw this statue in Sauniere's church told Sauniere that he appreciated his sense of humour!30.

Templar Heresy?

Peter of Bruys, a contemporary of Olivi said that the holy cross should be broken and burned because it was not worthy of adoration. This recalls the Templar activity of trampling on the cross, spitting on it and telling new entrants not to believe in the Cross because it will not save you. Heretics of all persuasions have claimed to have ‘true’ knowledge of Jesus. Simon Studion said as much in his  Naometria. He said that the ‘Militia Evangelica’ had the true knowledge of Christ and that this Militia were known as the ‘Knights of the Temple of
Solomon, Knights of St John and the Poor Knights of Christ’
. He asserts that the knowledge and the doctrines of the Rosicrucians come from the Essenes and the early Christians. The scholar Frances Yates discusses how early students of Rosicrucianism see in Studions Militian Evangelica the basic source of the Rosicrucian Movement.  I believe that as some commentators have suggested – the Templars gave the Rosicrucians their heritage. This is because of the ideals that the Templars, the Rosicrucians and the heretics have all held. All disputed the authority of the Roman Church. All were interested in a reformation of religion and society. All were persecuted by the Church. All were said to have access to the true knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Johann Andreae was interested in Studions work. His Naometria dealt in prophecies. And Simon Studion himself links his prophecies with the Abbot Joachim. And what is the main thrust of Studions’ prophecy? It is the downfall of the rule of the Anti-Christ – here identified as the Pope. Interestingly Elinor Von Le Coq, wife of Professor Von Le Coq in Berlin, stated that she had found evidence in the German Archives that Francis Bacon stayed after 1626 with the family of Johannes Valentinus Andreae in Germany. Both Bacon and Andreae are associated with the Rosicrucian origins.

To end this article I would like to tell you about Professor Lisi. He was the doctor/medical physician to Pope Puis XII. When Pope Puis XII died his body was preserved & Professor Lisi told the Press that he had been preserved in such a manner that his body would last indefintely without decaying. He then announced that this procedure was pretty much the same one that was used to preserve the body of Jesus Chist. The Vatican was in uproar. Lisi was banned by the Congregation of Cardinals from the whole of the Vatican state and the Government and Medical Association were alleged to have made Lisi's life very difficult at the instigation of Vatican officials. Professor Lisi resigned on October 20th, 1958.

  As Lull reported, as far back as 1309, the Vatican does indeed have many secrets. But the secret is known by others. Is this the secret that the ‘true’ Templars were said to possess –  ‘dangerous to the church’? Is Jesus’ body still here on earth as hinted in the folk legends of Rennes-Le-Chateau and marvellously encoded in that Templar map of Jerusalem as discussed by Andrews & Shellenberger in their book ‘Tomb of God’?  Isn’t this probably what the Crusades would have been called for? Is this not what the nobles wanted – to rescue the earthly body of Jesus in a more ‘literal’ way rather than an ‘airy fairy ideal’ of an empty tomb? Was it hinted at in the Grail romances - because otherwise how would Galaad be able to take ‘...our Lords body between his hands’ ? Would the early disciples and Apostles have had knowledge of the early church and the Despoyni (the Lords family) and the burial place of Jesus?

And didn’t Lull tell us that among the many secrets that the Christians have there is one in particular that can threaten the whole edifice of the Papacy? For what could be more dangerous to the barque of Saint Peter, which Professor Lisi found out to his cost, than suggest that the body of the historical Christ rests somewhere peacefully on this Earth?


1) ADDISON,CG (No date given) The History of the Knights Templar. Adventures
Unlimited Press. USA.
2) SILVAIN,P (1999) Jesus Christ Bar-Aba - Imprimerie
Bonnet, Marseille.
(1994) The Man Behind the Iron Mask. Sutton Publishing Ltd.
5) BLAVATSKY,HP (2001) ISIS UNVEILED Pp3-17. Volume 2, Chapter 8. Part 2.
7) WAKEFIELD,W & EVANS,A (1991) Heresies of the High Middle Ages. Columbia
University Press. Oxford. Pp20-27.
9) A Short History of the Knights Templar @ pp1-3
10) IBID
11) BLAVATSKY,HP (2001) ISIS UNVEILED VOL 2, Chapter 8 Part 2 – pp 4.
12) IBID – pp 3
13) IBID – pp 3
14) BAIGENT,M & LEIGH,R (1992) The Temple and the Lodge. Corgi, LONDON.
15) DeLaude, J – LE Cercle D’Uylesse. Privately published document.
16) STAIR- SAINTY,G (2001) The Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre
of Jerusalem @
17) DELOUX & BRETIGNY – STENAY – the Mystery of Sion. Privately published document.
18) NICHOLSON,HJ (1995) Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights. Images of the
military orders 1128-1291. Leicester University Press. London.
19) IBID.
20) The Carmelite Order – information obtained from the following site– Pp1  (6.04.01)
21) PIXNER,B (1990) CHURCH OF THE APOSTLES FOUND ON MOUNT SION. Biblical Archaeology Review. May/June 1990. Washington,
USA. Pp 21
22) IBID pp 34-35
23) IBID pp 34-35
24) BARBER, M (1996) The New Knighthood. Cambridge University Press. Pp 193.
25) MACKEY,AG (No date given) Encyclopeadia of Freemasonry. Volume 2. Kessinger
Publishing Co Ltd. Montana. USA. pp 748-749.
26) WAITE, AE (No date Given) The Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross. Kessinger Publishing CO.
Ltd. Montana. USA. pp1-35
27) IBID
28) IBID
29) Information found at
30) WAKEFIELD, WL & EVANS, AP (1991) Heresies of the High Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press. Pp 422.


Readers interested in my essay on the ‘Order of the Temple’ may like to read for themselves the recent work by Henry Lincoln and Erling Haagensen called ‘The Templars’ Secret Island’. The main bulk of the book deals with the ‘sacred’ geometry Lincoln purports to have found in the area of Rennes-le-Chateau (and based on the geometry found in the parchments of Sauniere) which is then transposed as it were – onto the tiny island of Bornholm.

However – the authors reference some very interesting research they found which in a small way may support my main argument – that there was most definetly a secret and inner order of the Knights Templar – which had a definite structure and definite aim. As I suggest – these points were needed for the Templars to achieve what they did. They had to have a ‘helmsman’ directing their ‘mission’. I would – as a postscript to the above – like to summarise the details of this material.

Firstly, as I suggested, the ‘inner’ order of the Templars must have had a coherent and set agenda. They must, I argue, have been working to a plan. I reported what Addison had described – that because only the nobility could rise to the rank of a Knight Templar – then the ‘inner’ order must have been made up of the aristocracy who probably knew each other very well. Lincoln and Haagensen describe St Bernard and his connection with the Cistercians. He
effectively turned the Cistercians’ fortunes around, as he did with the Knights Templar (also writing the Templar Rule). But when Bernard joined the Cistercians – he did not join alone. In fact he is said to have joined with 30 other nobles of the area including his father and his five brothers. When Bernard eventually left to form his own monastery at Citeaux he did so on land granted to him by the Count of Champagne (who indeed had recently joined the Knights Templar). And as we already know the Templars were formed by nine Knights – which included one of Bernards uncle's – Andre de Montbard and with Hughes de Payens, eventually went to St Bernard with the news that the ‘mission’ had been completed successfully. Hence I submit that the family connections are verified in regard to the Templars and a ‘mission’.

A fascinating piece of work is then referred to. This is a work of research carried out by a Mr JA Starck – said to be an 18th century theologian. He suggests that the Templars – after gaining authorisation from Pope Alexander III (in 1172) were allowed to effectively appoint their own priests. But what would they need their own priests for? I think they are priests of the ‘new & universal’ religion of Christ. Starck says that these priests were the ‘inner’ order of the actual Knights Templar and that they were directly descended from the ‘Canons of the Holy Sepulchre’ in Jerusalem. I am assuming these are the same Canons I refer to –the same ones that scholars such as Barber have discerned had a close relationship with the Templars. After all the Templars were in the process of building a huge church on the temple platform. I also presume that it is these canons that Godfrey de Bouillon was directly concerned with protecting when he set up his Order of the Holy Sepulchre.

This secret group of Canons that Starck refers to are known as the following:'The League of the Canonical Knights of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem of our Lord Jesus Christs’ Holy and Poor Templar Knights’. These canonical Knights are described thus:

‘.. a secret brotherhood within the brotherhood – forever united with the Templar Order’ (The Templars Secret Island page 95).

These documents of Starck actually found their way into the hands of Charles XIII –who apparently used them as a basis to set up his freemasonic rite of the Swedish system. The machinations of the nobility and the Templar higher order mean that the Templars eventually had ‘undisturbed’ access not only to the Sepulchre but other sites in Jerusalem. We know that the Templars excavated under the Temple Mount, and under Solomon's Stables and also Mount Sion.

In ‘The Templars’ Secret Island’ the authors go on to discuss the work of a Swedish engineer called Millen. He was, by all accounts, leader of an archaeological expedition in Jerusalem. Millen however, tells us that he was trying to identify the precise location of Mount Sion, and therefore the ‘true City of David’. It seems he did indeed find the exact spot that he was looking for. In his book, Millen tells us however that the expedition were not ‘clearing tunnels’ as had been reported – but that he was actually instructed to look for the ‘Ark of the Covenant’. Of
course, in my essay on the ‘Order of the Temple’ I refer to the associations of a hoard of treasure being under Mount Sion – which was of an unspecified nature which also included the tombs of the Kings of Israel. But how did Millen know of this and where precisely to look? It seems, according to Lincoln et al that he obtained this knowledge from the work of a Finnish scholar, a Dr Valter Henrik Juvelius – with whom Millen had been in contact with. Juvelius had
discerned a cipher – every bit as conclusive – as that of Schonfields Atbash Cipher – encoded in books of the Old Testament. The ‘key’ is hidden in certain books of the Old Testament – in its original text that is – especially in the first chapter of the Book of Ezekiel.

Once decoded it was found to be a description of how and where the Ark was moved to a new hiding place in a cavity/mountain in the City of David. The code was ‘ciphered’ in the 6th century b.c during the exile of the Israelites. So – the Templars dug at Mount Sion. Godfrey de Bouillon also headed straight for Mount Sion. Did they know about this treasure?


This information was taken from Henry Lincoln and Erling Haagensens’ ‘THE TEMPLARS’
SECRET ISLAND’ Published in 2000 by the Windrush Press.

S.H (2003)