After the First Crusade, two seasoned knights of French Nobility, Hugh de Payens and Godfrey de Saint-Omer, with a group of like-minded companions, formed the Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Salomonici (the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon), or the Poor Knights of Christ, to protect pilgrims of all faiths seeking to worship in the Holy Land against highwaymen and other threats on their way to worship. Yet how these men evolved from seasoned Crusade warriors to holy, set-apart monks seems to be a significantly missing piece in the Templar legend. In the 21st-century mind, this disconnect demands that there must be some reasoning for this disparity.
The Templars’ evolution from warriors to cloistered, avowed monks has a lot to do with the religious temperament of 12th-century European culture.
Founders Hugh de Payens and Godfrey de Saint-Omer were devout Catholic Christians. It was commonplace that knights of this era took temporary vows of chastity or poverty during their military activities in the Crusades. Afterward, many sought a more permanent commitment to a religious life, resembling a lifelong pilgrimage, especially in view of Pope Urban II’s proffered plenary indulgence for sincere motives in sacrificial service for the Lord. Again, it was powerful motivation, as Christians at the time equated the plenary indulgence with remission of time in Purgatory for themselves or a deceased loved one.
It is probable that Hugh de Payens lived in Jerusalem for 14 years prior to the day he made vows to the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem to begin his volunteer service as a peacemaker in the Holy Land. It is recorded that he accompanied Hugh, Count of Champagne, to Jerusalem when the Count made pilgrimages to the Holy Land in 1104–1107. It is probable that Hugh de Payens, as a member of the Count’s court, remained behind in Jerusalem. The agreement between Hugh de Payens and the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem was to form a monastic-military organization from the first day of the Templars’ founding.
Hugh de Payens moved to make the Templar Poor Soldiers of Christ a monastic group that was specifically influenced heavily by the vows of the Cistercian Order, which strictly observed the Rule of St. Benedict. Hugh de Payens was most likely already a benefactor with an important family connection with the widely known Bernard of Clairvaux, an influential leader in the Cistercian Order at that time, as Hugh’s family held impressive social influences in their home town of Payens, near Troyes, France.
While no definitive evidence confirms a direct blood relation, the shared regional and social context of the two men suggests at least a close familiarity. Indeed, there is evidence that Hugh was a benefactor or associate of Cistercian monasteries in Champagne.
But the apparent logical disconnect from warriors to cloistered monks is not just a 21st-century issue. It also existed in 13th-century Europe as well. There was an expectation that monks led a set-apart life, in constant communion with God, absolutely eschewing the ways of the common world – and especially violence of any kind.
Soon it became more evident that the Templars were a valued asset of the Vatican. Knowledge of the existence of the military monks became well known in France and greater Europe. The extraordinary idea of blending monastic roles with the committed warrior ethos was radical and controversial, as killing, even in defense of faith, was seen by some as incompatible with monastic life. Even some of the early Templars were worried about whether there was a genuine theological justification for monk-warriors, concerned about sinning before God.
Sensing a direct threat to the Templars that would trigger an ultimate rejection by the Vatican, Hugh de Payens sought the assistance of his brilliant and influential friend, Bernard of Clairvaux, to permanently solve the idea of theological incompatibility beginning to roil outside the ranks of the Templars.
Sometime between 1120 and 1129, the brilliant document, “De Laude Novae Militiae” (In Praise of the New Knighthood) was written by Bernard of Clairvaux to Hugh de Payens, Master of the Templars, and released to the Vatican and other influential parties. Its purpose was to seal once and for all the acknowledgement that there was no incompatibility in scripture for the existence of holy military orders. Bernard brilliantly employed the use of several key theological arguments embedded in his writing to support the fact.
Addressing some Templars’ concerns for theological justification of their role as monk-warriors, in one key passage, Bernard declared that the killing of God’s enemies on the battlefield was justified as “malicide” – or the killing of evil – not murder or violation of the Exodus 20:13 command, “Thou shall not kill.” The document was such a blend of a coherent theological defense of the Templars that it lay to rest most of the arguments against the warrior monks – especially since the Muslim threat against Christendom was one of the most feared geopolitical catastrophes of the age.
Now that a respected, highly placed theological giant had written this brilliant defense of the Templars, there seemed to be little resistance left – even before the ink of the document had fully dried. It was so effective that it opened the door to the Council of Troyes and an official Papal seal.
In 1129, the Knights Templar received official recognition from the Catholic Church, sanctioned by Pope Honorius II at the Council of Troyes, (pronounced like “twah” in English) which convened on 13 January 1129. The Templar Rule was formally established, convened by Bernard of Clairvaux and presided over by the papal legate Matthew, cardinal-bishop of Albano. But it is clear to many historians that the primary tool that enabled the rise of Templarism was the key document, “De Laude Novae Militiae,” penned by our most ardent supporter.
Bernard of Clairvaux was officially canonized on 18 January 1174 by Pope Alexander III. He was also declared a Doctor of the Church in 1830 by Pope Pius VII.
This is an important topic of discussion for 21st-century Templars because there is so much mythology, misunderstanding, and slander still circulated about our forefathers – and therefore, by extension, about us and our heritage. I have personally heard the same objection regarding how Templars used violence to justify religion, and therefore, we are accused of supporting the use of violence in the Crusades of antiquity. As you have probably appreciated, the medieval crusaders do not have such a stellar reputation in this century. Much of that is due to revisionist historiography and the overlaying of existing cultural values on the times of the Crusades.
These masterful deceptions of the enemy have resulted in a new type of social war that rages around us each day. It is the culture in which we now live – engaged in an absurd war over wars – a cultural feedback that demands heroes, villains, and subjects to persecute in absentia. And sometimes we wake up, and realize that we are the subject of that villainization!
But, between you and me, fellow Templar, when the torches and pitchforks show up at the door, a little bit of knowledge about our esteemed history and its foundational defense goes a very long way.
___________________________
Remember, no matter what the struggle and against all odds, it has always been and will always be all about Jesus:
“Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam.” Psalm 115:1