[CTRL] The Knights Templar, the Assassins, the Johannite Heresy, and Satanism

[eric stewart]

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com/knightstemplar.html

The Knights Templar, the Assassins, the Johannite
Heresy, and Satanism
By Nesta Webster


IN the year 1118--nineteen years after the first
crusade had ended with the defeat of the Moslems, the
capture of Antioch and Jerusalem, and the instalment
of Godefroi de Bouillon as king of the latter city--a
band of nine French gentilshommes, led by Hugues de
Payens and Godefroi de Saint-Omer, formed themselves
into an Order for the protection of pilgrims to the
Holy Sepulchre. Baldwin II, who at this moment
succeeded the throne of Jerusalem, presented them with
a house near the site of the Temple of Solomon--hence
the name of Knights Templar under which they were to
become famous. In 1128 the Order was sanctioned by the
Council of Troyes and by the Pope, and a rule was
drawn up by St. Bernard under which the Knights
Templar were bound by the vows of poverty, chastity,
and obedience.

But although the Templars distinguished themselves by
many deeds of valour, the regulation that they were to
live solely on alms led to donations so enormous that,
abandoning their vow of poverty, they spread
themselves over Europe, and by the end of the twelfth
century had become a rich and powerful body. The motto
that the Order had inscribed upon its banner, "Non
nobis, Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam," was
likewise forgotten, for, their faith waxing gold, they
gave themselves up to pride and ostentation. Thus, as
an eighteenth-century masonic writer has expressed it:



The war, which for the greater number of warriors of
good faith proved the source of weariness, of losses
and misfortunes, became for them (the Templars) only
the opportunity for booty and aggrandizement, and if
they distinguished themselves by a few brilliant
actions, their motive soon ceased to be a matter of
doubt when they were seen to enrich themselves even
with the spoils of the confederates, to increase their
credit by the extent of the new possessions they had
acquired, to carry arrogance to the point of rivalling
crowned princes in pomp and grandeur, to refuse their
aid against the enemies of the faith, as the history
of Saladin testifies, and finally to ally themselves
with that horrible and sanguinary prince named the Old
Man of the Mountain Prince of the Assassins.(1)
The truth of the last accusation is, however, open to
question. For a time, at any rate, the Templars had
been at war with the Assassins. When in 1152 the
Assassins murdered Raymond, Comte de Tripoli, the
Templars entered their territory and forced them to
sign a treaty by which they were to pay a yearly
tribute of 12,000 gold pieces in expiation of the
crime. Some years later the Old Man of the Mountain
sent an ambassador to Amaury, King of Jerusalem, to
tell him privately that if the Templars would forgo
the payment of this tribute he and his followers would
embrace the Christian faith. Amaury accepted, offering
at the same time to compensate the Templars, but some
of the Knights assassinated the ambassador before he
could return to his master. When asked for reparations
the Grand Master threw the blame on an evil one-eyed
Knight named Gautier de Maisnil.(2)

It is evident, therefore, that the relations between
the Templars and the Assassins were at first far from
amicable ; nevertheless, it appears probable that
later on an understanding was brought about between
them. Both on this charge and on that of treachery
towards the Christian armies, Dr. Bussell's impartial
view of the question may be quoted:


When in 1149 the Emperor Conrad III failed before
Damascus, the Templars were believed to have a secret
understanding with e garrison of that city ; . . . in
1154 they were said to have sold, for 60,000 gold
pieces, a prince of Egypt who had wished to become a
Christian ; he was taken home to suffer certain death
at the hands his fanatical family. In 1166 Amaury,
King of Jerusalem, hanged twelve members of the Order
for betraying a fortress to Nureddin.
And Dr. Bussell goes on to say that it cannot be
disputed hat they had " long and important dealings "
with the Assassin " and were therefore suspected (not
unfairly) of imbibing their precepts and following
their principles."(3)

By the end of the thirteenth century the Templars had
become suspect, not only in the eyes of the clergy,
but of the general public. " Amongst the common
people," one of their latest apologists admits, "
vague rumours circulated. They talked of the
covetousness and want of scruple of the Knights, of
their passion for aggrandizement and their rapacity.
Their haughty insolence was proverbial. Drinking
habits were attributed to them ; the saying was
already in use ' to drink like a Templar.' The old
German word Tempelhaus indicated house of
ill-fame."(4)

The same rumours had reached Clement V even before his
accession to the papal throne in 1305,(5) and in this
same year he summoned the Grand Master of the Order,
Jacques du Molay, to return to France from the island
of Cyprus, where he was assembling fresh forces to
avenge the recent reverses of the Christian armies.

Du Molay arrived in France with sixty other Knights
Templar and 150,000 gold florins, as well as a large
quantity of silver that the Order had amassed in the
East.(6)

The Pope now set himself to make enquiries concerning
the charges of " unspeakable apostasy against God,
detestable idolatry, execrable vice, and many heresies
" that had been " secretly intimated " to him. But, to
quote his own words :


Because it did not seem likely nor credible that men
of such religion who were believed often to shed their
blood and frequently expose their persons to the peril
of death for Christ's name and who showed such great
and many signs of devotion both in divine offices as
well as in facts, as in other devotional observances,
should be so forgetful of their salvation as to do
these things, we were unwilling . . . to give ear to
this kind of insinuation . . . (hujusmodi insinuacioni
ac delacioni ipsorum . . . aurem noluimus
inclinare).(7)
The King of France, Philippe le Bel, who had hitherto
been the friend of the Templars, now became alarmed
and urged the Pope to take action against them ; but
before the Pope was able to find out more about the
matter, the King took the law into his own hands and
had all the Templars in France arrested on October 13,
1307. The following charges were then brought against
them by the Inquisitor for France before whom they
were examined:


1. The ceremony of imitation into their Order was
accompanied by insults to the Cross, the denial of
Christ, and gross obscenities.

2. The adoration of an idol which was said to be the
image of the true God.


3. The omission of the words of consecration at Mass.


4. The right that the lay chiefs arrogated to
themselves of giving absolution.


5. The authorization of unnatural vice.

To all these infamies a great number of the Knights,
including Jacques du Molay, confessed in almost
precisely the same terms ; at their admission into the
Order, they said, they had been shown the cross on
which was the figure of Christ, and had been asked
whether they believed in Him, when they answered yes,
they were told in some cases that this was wrong
(dixit sibi quod male credebat)(8) because He was not
God, He was a false prophet (quia falsus propheta
erat, nec erat Deus).(9) Some added that they were
then shown an idol or a bearded head which they were
told to worship(10); one added that this was of such "
a terrible aspect that it seemed to him to be the face
of some devil, called in French un maufé, and that
whenever he saw it he was so overcome with fear that
he could hardly look at it without fear and
trembling."(11) All who confessed declared that they
had been ordered to spit on the crucifix, and very
many that they had received the injunction to commit
obscenities and to practise unnatural vice. Some said
that on their refusal to carry out these orders they
had been threatened with imprisonment, even perpetual
imprisonment ; a few said they had actually been
incarcerated(12); one declared that he had been
terrorized, seized by the throat, and threatened with
death.(13)

Since, however, a number of these confessions were
made under torture, it is more important to consider
the evidence provided by the trial of the Knights at
the hands of the Pope, where this method was not
employed.

Now, at the time the Templars were arrested, Clement
V, deeply resenting the King's interference with an
Order which existed entirely under papal jurisdiction,
wrote in the strongest terms of remonstrance to
Philippe le Bel urging their release and even after
their trial, neither the confessions of the Knights
nor the angry expostulations of the King could
persuade him to believe in their guilt.(14) But as the
scandal concerning the Templars was increasing, he
consented to receive in private audience " a certain
Knight of the Order, of great nobility and held by the
said Order in no slight esteem," who testified to the
abominations that took place on the reception of the
Brethren, the spitting on the cross, and other things
which were not lawful nor, humanly speaking,
decent.(15)

The Pope then decided to hold an examination of
seventy-two French Knights at Poictiers in order to
discover whether the confessions made by them before
the Inquisitor at Paris could be substantiated, and at
this examination, conducted without torture or
pressure of any kind in the presence of the Pope
himself, the witnesses declared on oath that they
would tell " the full and pure truth." They then made
confession which were committed to writing in their
presence, and these being afterwards read aloud to
them, they expressly and willingly approved them
(perseverantes in illis eas expresse et sponte, prout
recitate fuerunt approbarunt).(16)

Besides this, an examination of the Grand Master,
Jacques du Molay, and the Preceptors of the Order was
held in the presence of " three Cardinals and four
public notaries and .many other good men." These
witnesses, says the official report, " having sworn
with their hands on the Gospel of God " (ad sancta dei
evangelia ab iis corporaliter tacta) that--

they would on all the aforesaid things speak the pure
and full truth, they, separately, freely, and
spontaneously, without any coercion and fear, deposed
and confessed among other things, the a denial of
Christ and spitting upon the cross when they were
received into the Order of the Temple. And some of
them (deposed and confessed) that under the same form,
namely, with denial of Christ and spitting on the
cross, they had received many Brothers into the Order.
Some of them too confessed certain other horrible and
disgusting things on which we are silent. . . .
Besides this, they said and confessed that those
things which are contained in the confessions and
depositions of heretical depravity which they made
lately before the Inquisitor (of Paris) were true.

Their confessions, being again committed to writing,
were approved by the witnesses, who then with bended
knees and many tears asked for and obtained
absolution.(17)

The Pope, however, still refused to take action
against the whole Order merely because the Master and
Brethren around him had " gravely sinned," and it was
decided to hold a papal commission in Paris. The first
sitting took place in November 1309, when the Grand
Master and 231 Knights were summoned before the
pontifical commissioners. " This enquiry," says
Michelet, " was conducted slowly, with much
consideration and gentleness (avec beaucoup de
ménagement et de douceur) by high ecclesiastical
dignitaries, an archbishop, several bishops, etc."(18)
But although a number of the Knights, including the
Grand Master, now retracted their admissions, some
damning confessions were again forthcoming. It is
impossible within the scope of this book to follow the
many trials of the Templars that took place in
different countries--in Italy, at Ravenna, Pisa,
Bologna, and Florence, where torture was not employed
and blasphemies were admitted,(19) or in Germany,
where torture was employed but no confessions were
made and a verdict was given in favour of the Order. A
few details concerning the trial in England may,
however, be of interest.

It has generally been held that torture was not
applied in England owing to the humanity of Edward II,
who at first, absolutely refused to listen to any
accusations against the Order.(20) On December 10,
1307, he had written to the Pope in these terms :


And because the said Master or Brethren constant in
the purity of he Catholic faith have been frequently
commended by us, and by all our kingdom, both in their
life and morals, we are unable to believe in
suspicious stories of this kind until we know with
greater certainty about these things.
We, therefore, pity from our souls the suffering and
losses of the Sd. Master and brethren, which they
suffer in consequence of such infamy, and we
supplicate most affectionately your Sanctity if it
please you, that considering with favour suited to the
good character of the Master and brethren, you may
deem fit to meet with more indulgence the detractions,
calumnies and charges by certain envious and evil
disposed persons, who endeavour to turn their good
deeds into works of perverseness opposed to divine
teaching ; until the said charges attributed to them
shall have been brought legally before you or your
representatives here and more fully proved.(21)

Edward II also wrote in the same terms to the Kings of
Portugal, Castile, Aragon, and Sicily. But two years
later, after Clement V had himself heard the
confessions of the Order and a Papal Bull had been
issued declaring that " the unspeakable wickednesses
and abominable crimes of notorious heresy " had now "
come to the knowledge of almost everyone," Edward II
was persuaded to arrest the Templars and order their
examination. According to Mr. Castle, whose
interesting treatise we quote here, the King would not
allow torture to be employed, with the result that the
Knights denied all charges ; but later, it is said, he
allowed himself to be overpersuaded, and torture
appears to have been applied on one or two occasions
"(22) with the result that three Knights confessed to
all and were given absolution.(23) At Southwark,
however, " a considerable number of brethren "
admitted that " they had been strongly accused of the
crimes of negation and spitting, they did not say they
were guilty but that they could not purge themselves .
. . and therefore they abjured these and all other
heresies."(24) Evidence was also given against the
Order by outside witnesses, and the same stories of
intimidation at the ceremony of reception were
told.(25) At any rate, the result of the investigation
was not altogether satisfactory, and the Templars were
finally suppressed in England as elsewhere by the
Council of Vienne in 1312.

In France more rigorous measures were adopted and
fifty-four Knights who had retracted their confessions
were burnt at the stake as " relapsed heretics " on
May 12, 1310. Four years later, on March 14, 1314, the
Grand Master, Jacques du Molay, suffered the same
fate.

Now, however much we must execrate the barbarity of
this sentence--as also the cruelties that had preceded
it--this is no reason why we should admit the claim of
the Order to noble martyrdom put forward by the
historians who have espoused their cause. The
character of the Templars is not rehabilitated by
condemning the conduct of the King and Pope. Yet this
the line of argument usually adopted by the defenders
of the Order. Thus the two main contentions on which
they base their defence are, firstly, that the
confessions of the Knights were made under torture,
therefore they must be regarded as null and void ;
and, secondly, that the whole affair was a plot
concerted between the King and Pope in order to obtain
possession of the Templars' riches. Let us examine
these contentions in turn.

In the first place, as we have seen, all confessions
were not made under torture. No one, as far as I am
aware, disputes Michelet's assertion that the enquiry
before the Papal Commission in Paris, at which a
number of Knights adhered to the statements they had
made to the Pope, was conducted without pressure of
any kind. But further, the fact that confessions are
made under torture does not necessarily invalidate
them as evidence. Guy Fawkes also confessed under
torture, yet it is never suggested that the whole
story of the Gunpowder Plot was a myth. Torture,
however much we may condemn it, has frequently proved
the only method for overcoming the intimidation
exercised over the mind of a conspirator ; a man bound
by the terrible obligations of a confederacy and
fearing the vengeance of his fellow-conspirators will
not readily yield to persuasion, but only to force.
If, then, some of the Templars were terrorized by
torture, or even by the fear of torture, it must not
be forgotten that terrorism was exercised by both
sides. Few will deny that the Knights were bound by
oaths of secrecy, so that on one hand they were
threatened with the vengeance of the Order if they
betrayed its secrets, and on the other faced with
torture if they refused to confess. Thus they found
themselves between the devil and the deep sea. It was
therefore not a case of a mild and unoffending Order
meeting with brutal treatment at the hands of
authority, but of the victims of a terrible autocracy
being delivered into the hands of another autocracy.

Moreover, do the confessions of the Knights appear to
be the outcome of pure imagination such as men under
the influence of torture might devise ? It is
certainly difficult to believe that the accounts of
the ceremony of initiation given in detail by men in
different countries, all closely resembling each
other, yet related in different phraseology, could be
pure inventions. Had the victims been driven to invent
they would surely have contradicted each other, have
cried out in their agony that all kinds of wild and
fantastic rites had taken place in order to satisfy
the demands of their interlocutors. But no, each
appears to be describing the same ceremony more or
less completely, with characteristic touches that
indicate the personality of the speaker, and in the
main all the stories tally.

The further contention that the case against the
Templars was manufactured by the King and Pope with a
view to obtaining their wealth is entirely disproved
by facts. The latest French historian of mediæval
France, whilst expressing disbelief in the guilt of
the Templars, characterizes this counter-accusation as
" puerile." " Philippe the Bel," writes M.
Funck-Brentano, " has never been understood ; from the
beginning people have not been just to him. This young
prince was one of the greatest kings and the noblest
characters that have appeared in history."(26)

Without carrying appreciation so far, one must
nevertheless accord to M. Funck-Brentano's statement
of facts the attention it merits. Philippe has been
blamed for debasing the coin of the realm ; in reality
he merely ordered it to be mixed with alloy ; as a
necessary measure after the war with England,(27)
precisely as our own coinage was debased in
consequence of the recent war. This was done quite
openly and the coinage was restored at the earliest
opportunity. Intensely national, his policy of
attacking the Lombards, exiling the Jews, and
suppressing the Templars, however regrettable the
methods by which it was carried out, resulted in
immense benefits to France ; M. Funck-Brentano has
graphically described the prosperity of the whole
country during the early fourteenth century--the
increase of population, flourishing agriculture and
industry. " In Provence and Languedoc one meets
swineherds who have vineyards, simple cowherds who
have town houses."(28)

The attitude of Philippe le Bel towards the Templars
must be viewed in this light--ruthless suppression of
any body of people who interfered with the prosperity
of France. His action was not that of arbitrary
authority ; he " proceeded," says M. Funck-Brentano, "
by means of an appeal to the people. In his name
Nogaret (the Chancellor) spoke to the Parisians in the
garden of the Palace (October 13, 1307). Popular
assemblies were convoked all over France " ;(29) " the
Parliament of Tours, with hardly a dissentient vote,
declared the Templars worthy of death. The University
of Paris gave the weight of their judgement as to the
fullness and authenticity of the confessions."(30)
Even assuming that these bodies were actuated by the
same servility as that which has been attributed to
the Pope, how are we to explain the fact that the
trial of the Order aroused no opposition among the far
from docile people of Paris ? If the Templars had
indeed, as they professed, been leading noble and
upright lives, devoting themselves to the care of the
poor, one might surely expect their arrest to be
followed by popular risings. But there appears to have
been no sign of this.

As to the Pope, we have already seen that from the
outset he had shown himself extremely reluctant to
condemn the Order, and no satisfactory explanation is
given of his change of attitude except that he wished
to please the King. As far a his own interests are
concerned, it is obvious that he could have nothing to
gain by publishing to the world a scandal that must
inevitably bring opprobrium on the Church. His
lamentations to this effect in the famous Bull (31)
clearly show that he recognized this danger and
therefore desired at all cost to clear the accused
Knights, if evidence could be obtained in their
favour. It was only when the Templars made damning
admissions in his presence that he was obliged to
abandon their defence.(32) Yet we are told that he did
this out of base compliance with the wishes of
Philippe le Bel.

Philippe le Bel is thus represented as the
arch-villain of the whole piece, through seven long
years hounding down a blameless Order--from whom up to
the very moment of their arrest he had repeatedly
received loans of money--solely with the object of
appropriating their wealth. Yet after all we find that
the property of the Templars was not appropriated by
the King, but was given by him to the Knights of St.
John of Jerusalem !

What was the fate of the Templars' goods ? Philippe le
Bel decided that they should be handed over to the
Hospitallers. Clement V states that the Orders given
by the King on this subject were executed. Even the
domain of the Temple in Paris . . . up to the eve of
the Revolution was the property of the Knights of St.
John of Jerusalem. The royal treasury kept for itself
certain sums for the costs of the trial. These had
been immense.(33)

These facts in no way daunt the antagonists of
Philippe, who, we are now assured--again without any
proof whatever--was overruled by the Pope in this
matter. But setting all morality aside, as a mere
question of policy, is it likely that the King would
have deprived himself of his most valuable financial
supporters and gone to the immense trouble of bringing
them to trial without first assuring himself that he
would benefit by the affair ? Would he, in other
words, have killed the goose that laid the golden eggs
without any guarantee that the body of the goose would
remain in his possession ? Again, if, as we are told,
the Pope suppressed the Order so as to please the
King, why should he have thwarted him over the whole
purpose the King had in view ? Might we not expect
indignant remonstrances from Philippe at thus being
baulked of the booty he had toiled so long to gain ?
But on the contrary, we find him completely in
agreement with the Pope on this subject. In November
1309 Clement V distinctly stated that " Philippe the
Illustrious, King of France," to whom the facts
concerning the Templars had been told, was " not
prompted by avarice since he desired to keep or
appropriate for himself no part of the property of the
Templars, but liberally and devotedly left them to us
and the Church to be administered," etc.(34)

Thus the whole theory concerning the object for which
the Templars were suppressed falls to the ground--a
theory which on examination is seen to be built up
entirely on the plan of imputing motives without any
justification in facts. The King acted from cupidity,
the Pope from servility, and the Templars confessed
from fear of torture--on these pure hypotheses
defenders of the Order base their arguments.

The truth is, far more probably, that if the King had
any additional reason for suppressing the Templars it
was not envy of their wealth but fear of the immense
power their wealth conferred ; the Order dared even to
defy the King and to refuse to pay taxes. The Temple
in fact constituted an imperium in imperio that
threatened not only the royal authority but the whole
social system.(35) An important light is thrown on the
situation by M. Funck-Brentano in this passage :


As the Templars had houses in all countries, they
practised the financial operations of the
international banks of our times ; they were
acquainted with letters of change, orders payable at
sight, they instituted dividends and annuities on
deposited capital, advanced funds, lent on credit,
controlled private accounts, undertook to raise taxes
for the lay and ecclesiastical seigneurs.(36)
Through their proficiency in these matters--acquired
very possibly from the Jews of Alexandria whom they
must have met in the East--the Templars had become the
" international financiers " and " international
capitalists " of their day ; had they not been
suppressed, all the evils now denounced by Socialists
as peculiar to the system they describe as "
Capitalism "--trusts, monopolies, and " corners
"--would in all probability have been inaugurated
during the course of the fourteenth century in a far
worse form than at the present day, since no
legislation existed to protect the community at large.
The feudal system, as Marx and Engels perceived, was
the principal obstacle to exploitation by a financial
autocracy.(37)

Moreover, it is by no means improbable that this order
of things would have been brought about by the violent
overthrow of the French monarchy--indeed, of all
monarchies ; the Templars, " those terrible
conspirators," says Eliphas Lévi, threatened the whole
world with an immense revolution."(38)

Here perhaps we may find the reason why this band of
dissolute and rapacious nobles has enlisted the
passionate sympathy of democratic writers. For it will
be noticed that these same writers who attribute the
King's condemnation of the Order to envy of their
wealth never apply this argument to the demagogues of
the eighteenth century and suggest that their
accusations against the nobles of France were inspired
by cupidity, nor would they ever admit that any such
motive may enter into the diatribes against private
owners of wealth to-day. The Templars thus remain the
only body of capitalists, with the exception of the
Jews, to be not only pardoned for their riches but
exalted as noble victims of prejudice and envy. Is it
merely because the Templars were the enemies of
monarchy ? Or is it that the world revolution, whilst
attacking private owners of property, has never been
opposed to International finance, particularly when
combined with anti-Christian tendencies ?

It is the continued defence of the Templars which, to
the present writer, appears the most convincing
evidence against them. For even if one believes them
innocent of the crimes laid to their charge, how is it
possible to admire them in their later stages ? The
fact that cannot be denied is that they were false to
their obligations, that they took the vow of poverty
and then grew not only rich but arrogant ; that they
took the vow of chastity and became notoriously
immoral.(39) Are all these things then condoned
because the Templars formed a link in the chain of
world revolution ?

At this distance of time the guilt or innocence of the
Templars will probably never be conclusively
established either way ; on the mass of conflicting
evidence bequeathed to us by history no one can
pronounce a final judgement.

Without attempting to dogmatize on the question, I
would suggest that the real truth may be that the
Knights were both innocent and guilty, that is to say,
that a certain number were initiated into the secret
doctrine of the Order whilst the majority remained
throughout in ignorance. Thus according to the
evidence of Stephen de Stapelbrugge, an English
Knight, " there were two modes of reception, one
lawful and good and the other contrary to the
Faith."(40) This would account for the fact that some
of the accused declined to confess even under the
greatest pressure. These may really have known nothing
of the real doctrines of the Order, which were
confided orally only to those whom the superiors
regarded as unlikely to be revolted by them. Such have
always been the methods of secret societies, from the
Ismailis onward.

This theory of a double doctrine is put forward by
Loiseleur, who observes :


If we consult the statutes of the Order of the Temple
as they have come down to us, we shall certainly
discover there is nothing that justifies the strange
and abominable practices revealed at the Inquiry. But
. . . besides the public rule, had not the Order
another one, whether traditional or written,
authorizing or even prescribing these practices--a
secret rule, revealed only to the initiates ?(41)
Eliphas Lévi also exonerates the majority of the
Templars from complicity in either anti-monarchical or
anti-religious designs :


These tendencies were enveloped in profound mystery
and the Order made an outward profession of the most
perfect orthodoxy. The Chiefs alone knew whither they
were going ; the rest followed unsuspectingly.(42)
What, then, was the Templar heresy ? On this point we
find a variety of opinions. According to Wilcke,
Ranke, and Weber it was " the unitarian deism of Islam
"(43); Lecouteulx de Canteleu thinks, however, it was
derived from heretical Islamic sources, and relates
that whilst in Palestine, one of the Knights,
Guillaume de Montbard, was initiated by the Old Man of
the Mountain in a cave of Mount Lebanon.(44) That a
certain resemblance existed between the Templars and
the Assassins has been indicated by von Hammer,(45)
and further emphasized by the Freemason Clavel :


Oriental historians show us, at different periods, the
Order of the Templars maintaining intimate relations
with that of the Assassins, and they insist on the
affinity that existed between the two associations.
They remark that they had adopted the same colours,
white and red ; that they had the same organization,
the same hierarchy of degrees, those of fedavi, refik,
and dai in one corresponding to those of novice,
professed, and knight in the other ; that both
conspired for the ruin of the religions they professed
in public, and that finally both possessed numerous
castles, the former in Asia, the latter in Europe.(46)

But in spite of these outward resemblances it does not
appear from the confessions of the Knights that the
secret doctrine of the Templars was that of the
Assassins or of any Ismaili sect by which, in
accordance with orthodox Islamism, Jesus was openly
held up as a prophet, although, secretly, indifference
to all religion was inculcated. The Templars, as far
as can be discovered, were anti-Christian deists ;
Loiseleur considers that their ideas were derived from
Gnostic or Manichean dualists--Cathari, Paulicians, or
more particularly Bogomils, of which a brief account
must be given here.

The Paulicians who flourished about the seventh
century A.D., bore a resemblance to the Cainites and
Ophites in their detestation of the Demiurgus and in
the corruption of their morals. Later, in the ninth
century, the Bogomils, whose name signifies in
Slavonic " friends of God," and who had migrated from
Northern Syria and Mesopotamia to the Balkan
Peninsula, particularly Thrace, appeared as a further
development of Manichean dualism. Their doctrine may
be summarized thus :


God, the Supreme Father, has two sons, the elder
Satanael, the younger Jesus. To Satanael, who sat on
the right hand of God, belonged the right of governing
the celestial world, but, filled with pride, he
rebelled against his Father and fell from Heaven.
Then, aided by the companions of his fall, he created
the visible world, image of the celestial, having like
the other its sun, moon, and stars, and last he
created man and the serpent which became his minister.
Later Christ came to earth in order to show men the
way to Heaven, but His death was ineffectual, for even
by descending into Hell He could not wrest the power
from Satanael, i.e. Satan.

This belief in the impotence of Christ and the
necessity therefore for placating Satan, not only "
the Prince of this world," but its creator, led to the
further doctrine that Satan, being all-powerful,
should be adored. Nicetas Choniates, a Byzantine
historian of the twelfth century, described the
followers of this cult as " Satanists," because
"considering Satan all-powerful they worshipped him
lest he might do them harm"; subsequently they were
known as Luciferians, their doctrine (as stated by
Neuss and Vitoduranus) being that Lucifer was unjustly
driven out of Heaven, that one day he will ascend
there again and be restored to his former glory and
power in the celestial world.

The Bogomils and Luciferians were thus closely akin,
but whilst the former divided their worship between
God and His two sons, the latter worshipped Lucifer
only, regarding the material world as his work and
holding that by indulging the flesh they were
propitiating their Demon-Creator. It was said that a
black cat, the symbol of Satan, figured in their
ceremonies as an object of worship, also that at their
horrible nocturnal orgies sacrifices of children were
made and their blood used for making the Eucharistic
bread of the sect.(47)

Loiseleur arrives at the conclusion that the secret
doctrine of the Templars was derived from the Bogomils
:


Thus the Templars recognize at the same time a good
god, incommunicable to man and consequently without
symbolic representation, and a bad god, to whom they
give the features of an idol of fearful aspect.(48)
Their most fervent worship was addressed to this god
of evil, who alone could enrich them. " They said with
the Luciferians : ' The elder son of God, Satanael or
Lucifer alone has a right to the homage of mortals ;
Jesus his younger brother does not deserve this
honour.' "(49)

Although we shall not find these ideas so clearly
defined in the confessions of the Knights, some colour
is lent to this theory by those who related that the
reason given to them for not believing in Christ was "
that He was nothing, He was a false prophet and of no
value, and that they should believe in the Higher God
of Heaven who could save them."(50) According to
Loiseleur, the idol they were taught to worship, the
bearded head known to history as Baphomet, represented
" the inferior god, organizer and dominator of the
material world, author of good and evil here below,
him by whom evil was introduced into creation."(51)

The etymology of the word Baphomet is difficult to
discover ; Raynouard says it originated with two
witnesses heard at Carcassonne who spoke of " Figura
Baffometi," and suggests hat it was a corruption of "
Mohammed," whom the Inquisitors wished to make the
Knights confess they were taught to adore.(52) But
this surmise with regard to the intentions of he
Inquisitors seems highly improbable, since they must
have been well aware that, as Wilcke points out, the
Moslems forbid all idols.(53) For this reason Wilcke
concludes that the Mohammedanism of the Templars was
combined with Cabalism and that their idol was in
reality the macroprosopos, or head of the Ancient of
Ancients, represented as an old man with a long beard,
or sometimes as three heads in one, which has already
been referred to under the name of the Long Face in
the first chapter of this book--a theory which would
agree with Eliphas Lévi's assertion that the Templars
were initiated into the mysterious doctrines of the
Cabala."(54) But Lévi goes on to define this teaching
under the name of Johannism. It is here that we reach
a further theory with regard to the secret doctrine of
the Templars--the most important of all, since it
emanates from masonic and neo-Templar sources, thus
effectually disposing of the contention that the
charge brought against the Order of apostasy from the
Catholic faith is solely the invention of Catholic
writers.

In 1842 the Freemason Ragon related that the Templars
learnt from the " initiates of the East " a certain
Judaic doctrine which was attributed to St. John the
Apostle ; therefore " they renounced the religion of
St. Peter and became Johannites.(55) Eliphas Lévi
expresses the same opinion.

Now, these statements are apparently founded on a
legend which was first published early in the
nineteenth century, when an association calling itself
the Ordre du Temple and claiming direct descent from
the original Templar Order published two works, the
Manuel des Chevaliers de l'Ordre du Temple in 1811,
and the Lévitikon, in 1831, together with a version of
the Gospel of St. John differing from the Vulgate.
These books, which appear to have been printed only
for private circulation amongst the members and are
now extremely rare, relate that the Order of the
Temple had never ceased to exist since the days of
Jacques du Molay, who appointed Jacques de Larménie
his successor in office, and from that time onwards a
line of Grand Masters had succeeded each other without
a break up to the end of the eighteenth century, when
it ceased for a brief period but was reinstituted
under a new Grand Master, Fabré Palaprat, in 1804.
Besides publishing the list of all Grand Masters,
known as the " Charter of Larmenius," said to have
been preserved in the secret archives of the Temple,
these works also reproduce another document drawn from
the same repository describing the origins of the
Order. This manuscript, written in Greek on parchment,
dated 1154, purports to be partly taken from a
fifth-century MS. and relates that Hugues de Payens,
first Grand Master of the Templars, was initiated in
1118--that is to say, in the year the Order was
founded--into the religious doctrine of " the
Primitive Christian Church" by its Sovereign Pontiff
and Patriarch, Theoclet, sixtieth in direct succession
from St. John the Apostle. The history of the
Primitive Church is then given as follows :


Moses was initiated in Egypt. Profoundly versed in the
physical, theological, and metaphysical mysteries of
the priests, he knew how to profit by these so as to
surmount the power of the Mages and deliver his
companions. Aaron, his brother, and the chiefs of the
Hebrews became the depositaries of his doctrine. . . .

The Son of God afterwards appeared on the scene of the
world. . . . He was brought up at the school of
Alexandria. . . . Imbued with a spirit wholly divine,
endowed with the most astounding qualities
(dispositions), he was able to reach all the degrees
of Egyptian initiation. On his return to Jerusalem, he
presented himself before the chiefs of the Synagogue.
. . . Jesus Christ, directing the fruit of his lofty
meditations towards universal civilization and the
happiness of the world, rent the veil which concealed
the truth from the peoples. He preached the love of
God, the love of one's neighbour, and equality before
the common Father of all men. . . .

Jesus conferred evangelical initiation on his apostles
and disciples. He transmitted his spirit to them,
divided them into several order after the practice of
John, the beloved disciple the apostle of fraternal
love, whom he had instituted Sovereign Pontiff and
Patriarch. . . .

Here we have the whole Cabalistic legend of a secret
doctrine descending from Moses, of Christ as an
Egyptian initiate and founder of a secret order--a
theory, of course, absolutely destructive of belief in
His divinity. The legend of the Ordre du Temple goes
on to say :


Up to about the year 1118 (i.e. the year the Order of
the Temple was founded) the mysteries and the
hierarchic Order of the initiation of Egypt,
transmitted to the Jews by Moses, then to the
Christians by J.C., were religiously preserved by the
successors of St. John the Apostle. These mysteries
and initiations, regenerated by the evangelical
initiation (or baptism), were a sacred trust which the
simplicity of the primitive and unchanging morality of
the Brothers of the East had preserved from all
adulteration. . . .
The Christians, persecuted by the infidels,
appreciating the courage and piety of these brave
crusaders, who, with the sword in one hand and the
cross in the other, flew to the defence of the holy
places, and, above all, doing striking justice to the
virtues and the ardent charity of Hugues de Payens,
held it their duty to confide to hands so pure the
treasures of knowledge acquired throughout so many
centuries, sanctified by the cross, the dogma and the
morality of the Man-God. Hugues was invested with the
Apostolic Patriarchal power and placed in the
legitimate order of the successors of St. John the
apostle or the evangelist.

Such is the origin of the foundation of the Order of
the Temple and of the fusion in this Order of the
different kinds of initiation of the Christians of the
East designated under the title of Primitive
Christians or Johannites.

It will be seen at once that all this story is subtly
subversive of true Christianity, and that the
appellation of Christians applied to the Johannites is
an imposture. Indeed Fabré Palaprat, Grand Master of
the Ordre du Temple in 1804, who in his book on the
Templars repeats the story contained in the Lévitikon
and the Manuel des Chevaliers du Temple, whilst making
the same profession of " primitive Christian "
doctrines descending from St. John through Theoclet
and Hugues de Payens to the Order over which he
presides, goes on to say that the secret doctrine of
the Templars " was essentially contrary to the canons
of the Church of Rome and that it is principally to
this fact that one must attribute the persecution of
which history has preserved the memory."(56) The
belief of the Primitive Christians, and consequently
that of the Templars, with regard to the miracles of
Christ is that He " did or may have done extraordinary
or miraculous things," and that since " God can do
things incomprehensible to human intelligence," the
Primitive Church venerates " all the acts of Christ as
they are described in the Gospel, whether it considers
them as acts human science or whether as acts of
divine power."(57) Belief in the divinity of Christ is
thus left an open question, and the same attitude is
maintained towards the Resurrection, of which the
story is omitted in the Gospel of St. John possessed
by the Order. Fabré Palaprat further admits that the
gravest accusations brought against the Templars were
founded on facts which he attempts to explain away in
the following manner :


The Templars having in 1307 carefully abstracted all
the manuscripts composing the secret archives of the
Order from the search made by authority, and these
authentic manuscripts having been preciously preserved
since that period, we have to-day the certainty that
the Knights endured a great number of religious and
moral trials before reaching the different degrees of
initiation : thus, for example, the recipient might
receive the injunction under pain of death to trample
on the crucifix or to worship an idol, but if he
yielded to the terror which they sought to inspire in
him he was declared unworthy of being admitted to the
higher grades of the Order. One can imagine in this
way how beings, too feeble or too immoral to endure
the trials of initiation, may have accused the
Templars of giving themselves up to infamous practices
and of having superstitious beliefs.
It is certainly not surprising that an Order which
gave such injunctions as these, for whatever purpose,
should have become the object of suspicion.

Eliphas Lévi, who, like Ragon, accepts the statements
of the Ordre du Temple concerning the " Johannite "
origin of the Templars' secret doctrine, is, however,
not deceived by these professions of Christianity, and
boldly asserts that the Sovereign Pontiff Theoclet
initiated Hugues de Payens " into the mysteries and
hopes of his pretended Church, he lured him by the
ideas of sacerdotal sovereignty and supreme royalty,
he indicated him finally as his successor. So the
Order of the Knights of the Temple was stained from
its origin with schism and conspiracy against
Kings."(58) Further, Lévi relates that the real story
told to initiates concerning Christ was no other than
the infamous Toledot Yeshu described in the first
chapter of this book, and which the Johannites dared
to attribute to St. John.(59) This would accord with
the confession of the Catalonian Knight Templar,
Galcerandus de Teus, who stated that the form of
absolution in the Order was : " I pray God that He may
pardon your sins as He pardoned St. Mary Magdalene and
the thief on the cross " ; but the witness went on to
explain :


By the thief of which the head of the Chapter speaks,
is meant, according to our statutes, that Jesus or
Christ who was crucified by the Jews because he was
not God, and yet he said he was God and the King of
the Jews, which was an outrage to the true God who is
in Heaven. When Jesus, a few moments before his death,
had his side pieced by the lance of Longinus, he
repented of having called himself God and King of the
Jews and he asked pardon of the true God ; then the
true God pardoned him. It is thus that we apply to the
crucified Christ these words : " as God pardoned the
thief on the cross."(60)
Raynouard, who quotes this deposition, stigmatizes it
as " singular and extravagant " ; M. Matter agrees
that it is doubtless extravagant, but that " it merits
attention. There was a whole system there, which was
not the invention of Galcerant."(61) Eliphas Lévi
provides the clue to that system and to the reason why
Christ was described as a thief, by indicating the
Cabalistic legend wherein He was described as having
stolen the sacred Name from the Holy of Holies.
Elsewhere he explains that the Johannites " made
themselves out to be the only people initiated into
the true mysteries of the religion of the Saviour.
They professed to know the real history of Jesus
Christ, and by adopting part of Jewish traditions and
the stories of the Talmud, they made out that the
facts related in the Gospels "--that is to say, the
Gospels accepted by the orthodox Church-- " were only
allegories of which St. John gives the key."(62)

But it is time to pass from legend to facts. For the
whole story of the initiation of the Templars by the "
Johannites " rests principally on the documents
produced by the Ordre du Temple in 1811. According to
the Abbés Grégoire and Münter the authenticity and
antiquity of these documents are beyond dispute.
Grégoire, referring to the parchment manuscript of the
Lévitikon and Gospel of St. John, says that "
Hellenists versed in palaeography believe this
manuscript to be of the thirteenth century, others
declare it to be earlier and to go back to the
eleventh century."(63) Matter, on the other hand,
quoting Münter's opinion that the manuscripts in the
archives of the modern Templars date from the
thirteenth century, observes that this is all a tissue
of errors and that the critics, including the learned
Professor Thilo of Halle, have recognized that the
manuscript in question, far from belonging to the
thirteenth century, dates from the beginning of the
eighteenth. From the arrangement of the chapters of
the Gospel, M. Matter arrives at the conclusion that
it was intended to accompany the ceremonies of some
masonic or secret society.(64) We shall return to this
possibility in a later chapter.

The antiquity of the manuscript containing the history
of the Templars thus remains an open question on which
no one can pronounce an opinion without having seen
the original. In order, then, to judge of the
probability of the story that this manuscript
contained it is necessary to consult the facts of
history and to discover what proof can be found that
any such sect as the Johannites existed at the time of
the Crusades or earlier. Certainly none is known to
have been called by this name or by one resembling it
before 1622, when some Portuguese monks reported the
existence of a sect whom they described as "
Christians of St. John " inhabiting the banks of the
Euphrates. The appellation appears, however, to have
been wrongly applied by the monks, for the sectarians
in question, variously known as the Mandæans,
Mandaites, Sabians, Nazoreans, etc. called themselves
Mandaï Iyahi, that is to say, the disciples, or rather
the wise men, of John, the word mandaï being derived
from the Chaldean word manda, corresponding to the
Greek word , or wisdom.(65) The multiplicity of names
given to the Mandæans arises apparently from the fact
that in their dealings with other communities they
took the name of Sabians, whilst they called the wise
and learned amongst themselves Nazoreans.(66) The sect
formerly inhabited the banks of the Jordan, but was
driven out by the Moslems, who forced them to retire
to Mesopotamia and Babylonia, where they particularly
affected the neighbourhood of rivers in order to be
able to carry out their peculiar baptismal rites.(67)

There can be no doubt that the doctrines of the
Mandæans do resemble the description of the Johannite
heresy as given by Eliphas Lévi, though not by the
Ordre du Temple, in that, the Mandæans professed to be
the disciples of St. John--the Baptist, however, not
the Apostle--but were at the same time, the enemies of
Jesus Christ. According to the Mandæans' Book of John
(Sidra d'Yahya), Yahya, that is to say, St. John,
baptized myriads of men during forty years in the
Jordan. By a mistake--or in response to a written
mandate from heaven saying, " Yahya, baptize the liar
in the Jordan "--he baptized the false prophet Yishu
Meshiha (the Messiah Jesus), son of the devil Ruha
Kadishta.(68) The same idea is found in another book
of the sect called the " Book of Adam," which
represents Jesus as the perverter of St. John's
doctrine and the disseminator of iniquity and perfidy
throughout the world.(69) The resemblance between all
this and the legends of the Talmud, the Cabala, and
the Toledot Yeshu is at once apparent ; moreover, the
Mandæans claim for the " Book of Adam " the same
origin as the Jews claimed for the Cabala, namely,
that it was delivered to Adam by God through the hands
of the angel Razael.(70) This book, known to scholars
as the Codex Nasarous, is described by Münter as " a
sort of mosaic without order, without method, where
one finds mentioned Noah, Abraham, Moses, Solomon, the
Temple of Jerusalem, St. John the Baptist, Jesus
Christ, the Christians, and Mohammed." M. Matter,
whilst denying any proof of the Templar succession
from the Mandæans, nevertheless gives good reason for
believing that the sect itself existed from the first
centuries of the Christian era and that its books
dated from the eighth century(71) ; further that these
Mandæans or Nazoreans--not to be confounded with the
pre-Christian Nazarenes or Christian Nazarenes--were
Jews who revered St. John the Baptist as the prophet
of ancient Mosaism, but regarded Jesus Christ as a
false Messiah sent by the powers of darkness.(72)
Modern Jewish opinion confirms this affirmation of
Judaic inspiration and agrees with Matter in
describing the Mandæans as Gnostics : " Their sacred
books are in an Aramaic dialect, which has close
affinities with that of the Talmud of Babylon. " The
Jewish influence is distinctly visible in the Mandæan
religion. It is essentially of the type of ancient
Gnosticism, traces of which are found in the Talmud,
the Midrash, and in a modified form the later
Cabala."(73)

It may then be regarded as certain that a sect existed
long before the time of the Crusades corresponding to
the description of the Johannites given by Eliphas
Lévi in that it was Cabalistic, anti-Christian, yet
professedly founded on the doctrines of one of the St.
Johns. Whether it was by this sect that the Templars
were indoctrinated must remain an open question. M.
Matter objects that the evidence lacking to such a
conclusion lies in the fact that the Templars
expressed no particular reverence for St. John ; but
Loiseleur asserts that the Templars did prefer the
Gospel of St. John to that of the other evangelists,
and that modern masonic lodges claiming descent from
the Templars possess a special version of this Gospel
said to have been copied from the original on Mount
Athos.(74) It is also said that " Baphomets " were
preserved in the masonic lodges of Hungary, where a
debased form of Masonry, known as Johannite Masonry,
survives to this day. If the Templar heresy was that
of the Johannites, the head in question might possibly
represent that of John the Baptist, which would accord
with the theory that the word Baphomet was derived
from Greek words signifying baptism of wisdom. This
would, moreover, not be incompatible with Loiseleur's
theory of an affinity between the Templars and the
Bogomils, for the Bogomils also possessed their own
version of the Gospel of St. John, which they placed
on the heads of their neophytes during the ceremony of
initiation, giving as the reason for the peculiar
veneration they professed for its author that they
regarded St. John as the servant of the Jewish God
Satanael.(75) Eliphas Lévi even goes so far as to
accuse the Templars of following the occult practices
of the Luciferians, who carried the doctrines of the
Bogomils to the point of paying homage to the powers
of darkness :


Let us declare for the edification of the vulgar . . .
and for the greater glory of the Church which has
persecuted the Templars, burned the magicians and
excommunicated the Free-Masons, etc., let us say
boldly and loudly, that all the initiates of the
occult sciences . . . have adored, do and will always
adore that which is signified by this frightful symbol
[the Sabbatic goat].(76) Yes, in our profound
conviction, the Grand Masters of the Order of the
Templars adored Baphomet and caused him to be adored
by their initiates.(77)
It will be seen, then, that the accusation of heresy
brought against the Templars does not emanate solely
from the Catholic Church, but also from the secret
societies. Even our Freemasons, who, for reasons I
shall show later, have generally defended the Order,
are now willing to admit that there was a very real
case against them. Thus Dr. Ranking, who has devoted
many years of study to the question, has arrived at
the conclusion that Johannism is the real clue to the
Templar heresy. In a very interesting paper published
in the masonic Journal Ars Qautuor Coronatorum, he
observes that " the record of the Templars in
Palestine is one long tale of intrigue and treachery
on the part of the Order," and finally :


That from the very commencement of Christianity there
has been transmitted through the centuries a body of
doctrine incompatible with Christianity in the various
official Churches. . .
That the bodies teaching these doctrines professed to
do so on the authority of St. John, to whom, as they
claimed, the true secrets had been committed by the
Founder of Christianity.

That during the Middle Ages the main support of the
Gnostic bodies and the main repository of this
knowledge was the Society of the Templars.(78)

What is the explanation of this choice of St. John for
the propagation of anti-Christian doctrines which we
shall find continuing up to the present day ? What
else than the method of perversion which in its
extreme form becomes Satanism, and consists in always
selecting the most sacred things for the purpose of
desecration ? Precisely then because the Gospel of St.
John is the one of all the four which most insists on
the divinity of Christ, the occult anti-Christian
sects have habitually made it the basis of their
rites.

References

1. Développement des abus introduits dans la
Franc-maçonnerie, p.56(1780).

2. Jules Loiseleur, La doctrine secrète des Templiers,
p. 89

3. Dr. F.W. Bussell, D.D., Religious Thought And
Heresy in the Middle Ages, pp. 796, 797 note.

4. G. Mollat, Les Papes d'Avignon, p. 233 (1912).

5. Michelet, Procès des Templiers, I.2 (1841). This
work largely consists of the publication in Latin of
the Papal bulls and trials of the Templars before the
Papal Commission in Paris contained in the original
document once reserved at Notre Dame. Michelet says
that another copy was sent to the Pope and kept under
the triple key of the Vatican. Mr. E.J. Castle, K.C,
however, says that he has enquired about the
whereabouts of this copy and it is no longer in the
Vatican (Proceedings against the Templars in France
and in England for Heresy, republished from Ars
Quatuor Coronatorum, Vol. XX. Part III. p. 1).

6. M. Raynouard, Monuments historiques relatifs à la
condamnation des Chevaliers du Temple et de
l'abolition de leur Ordre, p, 17 (1813).

7. Michelet, op. cit. I. 2 (1841).

8. Michelet, Procès des Templiers, II. 333.

9. Ibid., 295, 333.

10. Ibid., 290, 299, 300.

11. " Dixit per juramentum suum quod ita est
terribilis figure et aspectus quod videbatur sibi quod
esset figura cujusdam demonis, dicendo gallice d'un
maufé, et quod quocienscumque videbat ipsum tantus
timor eum invadebat, quod vix poterat illud respicere
nisi cum maximo timore et tremore."--Ibid., p. 364.

12. Ibid, pp. 284, 338. " Ipse minabatur sibi quod
nisi faceret, ipse ponereteum in carcere
perpetuo."--Ibid., p. 307.

13. " Et fuit territus plus quam unquam fuit in vita
sua : et statim unus rum accepit eum per gutur, dicens
quod oportebat quod hoc faceret, vel
moreretur."--Ibid., p. 296.

14. Mollat, op. cit., p. 241.

15. Procès des Templiers, I. 3 : Mr. E.J. Castle, op.
cit. Part III. p. 3. (It should be noted that Mr.
Castle's paper is strongly in favour of the Templars.)


16. Ibid., I. 4.

17. Procès des Templiers, I. 5.

18. Michelet in Preface to Vol. I. of Procès des
Templiers.

19. Jules Loiseleur, La Doctrine Secrète des
Templiers, p. 40 (1872).

20. Ibid., p. 16.

21. Proceedings against the Templars in France and
England for Heresy, by E.J. Castle Part I. p. 16,
quoting Rymer, Vol. III. p. 37.

22. Ibid., Part II. p.1.

23. Ibid., Part II. pp. 25-7.

24. Ibid., Part II. p. 30.

25. " Another witness of the Minor Friars told the
Commissioners he had heard from Brother Robert of
Tukenham that a Templar had a son who saw through a
partition that they asked one professing if he
believed in the Crucified, showing him the figure,
whom they killed upon his refusing to deny Him, but
the boy, some time after, being asked if he wished to
be a Templar said no, because he had seen this thing
done. Saying this, he was killed by his father. . . .
The twenty-third witness, a Knight, said that his
uncle entered the Order healthy and joyfully, with his
birds and dogs, and the third day following he was
dead, and he suspected it was on account of the crimes
he had heard of them ; and that the cause of his death
was he would not consent to the evil deeds perpetrated
by other brethren."--Ibid, Part II. p. 13.

26. F. Funck-Brentano, Le Moyen Age, p. 396 (1922).

27. Ibid., p. 384.

28. F. Funck-Brentano, op. cit., p. 396.

29. Ibid., p. 387.

30. Dean Milman, History of Latin Christianity, VII.
213.

31. E.J. Castle, op. cit., Part I. p. 22.

32. Thus even M. Mollat admits : " En tout cas leurs
dépositions, défavorables à l'Ordre,
l'impressionnèrent si vivement que, par une série de
graves mesures, il abandonna une à une toutes ses
oppositions."--Les Papes d'Avignon, p. 242.

33. F. Funck-Brentano, op. cit., p. 392.

34. E.J. Castle, Proceedings against the Templars,
A.Q.C., Vol. XX. Part III. p. 3.

35. Even Raynouard, the apologist of the Templars (op.
cit., p. 19), admits that, if less unjust and violent
measures had been adopted, the interest of the State
and the safety of the throne might have justified the
abolition of the Order.

36. Funck-Brentano, op. cit., p. 386.

37. " The bourgeoisie, whenever it has conquered
power, has destroyed all feudal, patriarchal, and
idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder all
the many-coloured feudal bonds which united men to
their ' natural superiors,' and has left no tie twixt
man and man but naked self-interest and callous cash
payment."--The Communis Manifesto.

38. Eliphas Lévi, Histoire de la Magie, p. 273.

39. E.J. Castle, op. cit., A.Q.C., Vol. XX. Part I. p.
11.

40. Ibid., Part II. p. 24.

41. Loiseleur, op. cit., pp. 20, 21.

42. Histoire de la Magie, p. 277.

43. Dr. F.W. Bussell, Religious Thought and Heresy in
the Middle Ages, p. 803.

44. Les Sectes et Sociétés Secrètes, p. 85.

45. History of the Assassins, p. 80.

46. F.T.B. Clavel, Histoire Pittoresque de la
Franc-Maçonnerie, p. 356 (1843).

47. Loiseleur, op. cit., p. 66.

48. Ibid., p. 143.

49. Ibid., p. 141.

50. " Dixit sibi quod non crederet in eum, quia nichil
erat, et quod erat quidam falsus propheta, et nichil
valebat ; immo crederet in Deum Celi superiorem qui
poterat salvare."--Michelet, Procès des Templiers, II.
404. Cf. ibid., p. 384 : " Quidem falsus propheta est
; credas solummodo in Deum Celi, et non in istum."

51. Loiseleur, op. cit. p. 37.

52. Raynouard, op. cit., p. 301.

53. Wilhelm Ferdinand Wilcke, Geschichte des
Tempelherrenordens, II. 302-12 (1827).

54. Eliphas Lévi, Histoire de la Magie, p. 273.

55. J. M. Ragon, Cours Philosophique et Interprétatif
des Initiations anciennes et modernes, édition sacrée
à l'usage des Loges et des Maçons SEULEMENT (5,842),
p. 37. In a footnote on the same page Ragon, however,
refers to John the Baptist in this connexion.

56. J.B. Fabré Palaprat, Recherches historiques sur
les Templiers, p. 31 (1835).

57. Ibid., p. 37.

58. Eliphas Lévi, Histoire de la Magie, p. 277.

59. Eliphas Lévi, La Science des Esprits, pp. 26-9,
40, 41.

60. Raynouard, op. cit., p. 281.

61. Matter, Histoire du Gnosticisme, III. 330.

62. Eliphas Lévi, Histoire de la Magie, p. 275.

63. M. Grégoire, Histoire des Sectes religieuses, II.
407 (1828).

64. Matter, Histoire du Gnosticisme, III. 323.

65. Ibid., III. p. 120.

66. Jewish Encyclopodia, article on Mandæans.

67. Grégoire, op. cit., IV. 241.

68. Jewish Encyclopodia, and Hastings' Encyclopodia of
Religion and Ethics, articles on Mandæans.

69. Codex Nasarous, Liber Adam appellatus, trans. from
the Syriac into Latin by Matth. Norberg (1815), Vol.
I. 109 : " Sed, Johanne hac ætate Hierosolymæ nato,
Jordanumque deinceps legente, et baptismum peragente,
veniet Jeschu Messias, summisse se gerens, ut baptismo
Johannis baptizetur, et Johannis per sapientiam
sapiat. Pervertet vero doctrinam Johannis et mutato
Jordani baptismo, perversisque justitiæ dictis,
iniquitatem et perfidiam per mundum disseminabit."

70. Article on the Codex Nasarous by Silvestre de Sacy
in the Journal des Savants for November 1819, p. 651 ;
cf. passage in the Zohar, section Bereschith, folio
55.

71. Matter, op. cit., III. 119, 120. De Sacy (op.
cit., p. 654) also attributes the Codex Nasarous to
the eighth century.

72. Matter, op. cit., III. 118.

73. Jewish Encyclopodia, article on Mandæans.

74. Loiseleur, op. cit., p. 52.

75. Ibid., p. 51 ; Matter, op. cit., III. 305.

76. The Sabbatic goat is clearly of Jewish origin.
Thus the Zohar relates that " Tradition teaches us
that when the Israelites evoked evil spirits, these
appeared to them under the form of he-goats and made
known to them all that they wished to learn."--Section
Ahre Moth, folio 70a (de Pauly, V. 191).

77. Eliphas Lévi, Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie,
II. 209.

78. Some Notes on various Gnostic Sects and their
Possible Influence on Free-masonry, by D.F. Ranking,
reprinted from A.Q.C., Vol. XXIV. pp. 27, 28 (1911).




The Templars
Chapter III
Secret Societies and Subversive Movements
Nesta Webster



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om