to consent to their imprisonment, and to order further depositions to be taken in the various dioceses throughout France. A bull (Pastoralis praeeminentiae solio) was accordingly issued, November 22, 1307, to this effect, but not until after the king had surrendered to the papal commissioner both the persons and the sequestered property of the Templars. The reports, as elicited both by the secular courts and canonical procedure, were conflicting and contradictory in the ex

treme.

While, on the one hand, it was claimed that confessions inculpating the Templars were made freely and without constraint by every officer, from the Grand Master down to the humblest in the Order, it was contended, on the other, that the torture employed to extort damnatory evidence, was so terrible in character, that, as Aymer of Villars afterward affirmed, he would, while undergoing its pain, and in the extremity of death, have admitted, had it been required of him, that he was the murderer of our Lord. It is, however, a little remarkable, that those professing their innocence gave no such tokens of steadfastness and adherence to principle as were exhibited by the martyrs, even among the weaker sex, in the early days of the Church. But again, it seems strange that the members of an Order bearing witness against it, should not have been brought face to face with those against whom they deposed, and that the officers, despite their frequent demands, should have been denied the privilege of appearing personally before the Pope; and it is no less strange, that those who declared both themselves and the other members of their Order guilty of abominable crimes, should have been treated with unusual and suspicious leniency. Finally, the fact that the investigations made in all other countries except France, were favorable to the Templars, can not be overlooked in forming a judgment of their guilt or innocence. The members of the Order examined in Spain, declared that it passed their comprehension how their brothers in France could have testified to wickedness so enormous and incredible.

After these preliminary labors, Pope Clement convoked, by the bull Regnans in coelis, an Ecumenical Council, at

2. Part

Epoch

Vienne, to give final judgment in the matter. The Council was also to set at rest forever, the question concerning Boniface VIII., and to enact decrees for the reformation of the Church in her Head and members, as the phrase ran, in the adadmirable memorial1 of William Durandus, the Younger, Bishop of Menda.

FIFTEENTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL (OCTOBER 16, 1311, TO MAY 6, 1312).

There were present at this Council one hundred and fourteen (not 300) archbishops and bishops, among whom were the partriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, and a number of oriental prelates.2

Notwithstanding that many evil reports were still afloat derogatory to the reputation of Boniface,3 the council declared the charges of immorality against him unfounded, and his memory free from taint of heresy. With regard to the Templars, it yielded to the wish of the King, who professed himself ready, in case the Order were suppressed, either to apply their property and estates to

4

1 De modo celebrandi generalis concilii, ed. Probus, Paris, 1545, and oftener; ed. (Fabre), Paris, 1671. Cf. Bzovii, Annal. ad an. 1311, nro. 1.

2 The invitation to this council in the bull of April 27, 1311, in Raynald. ad an. 1311, nro. 26; the acts in Mansi, T. XXV., p. 367-426; Harduin, T. VII., p. 1321-1361. Cf. *Hefele, Hist. of Counc., Vol. VI., p. 388 sq.

3 For example, Card. Nicholas, formerly confessor to the French king, affirmed, on oath, that "on hearing of the canonization of St. Louis, the king said it was a source of general rejoicing, but many expressed a wish 'quod ejusmodi canonizatio fuisset facta ab alio Papa probo viro et Catholico bonae famae.'" Hefele, p. 391-415.

Cf.

* In the bull of suppression "Ad providam hristi," in Mansi, T. XXV., p. 389 sq. Harduin, T. VII., p. 1340 sq. The Pope says: "Ordinis statum, habitum atque nomen, non sine cordis amaritudine et dolore et sacro approbante concilio, non per modum definitae sententiae, cum eam super hoc, secundum inquisitiones et processus super his habitos, non possemus ferre de jure, sed per viam provisionis seu ordinationis Apostolicae irrefragabili ac perpetuo valitura sustulimus sanctione, ipsum prohibitioni perpetuae supponentes. Universa etiam bona ordinis praelibati Apostolicae sedis ordinationi et dispositioni Apostolica auctoritate duximus reservanda." Contemporaries accused the king of desiring the suppression of the Templars, in order to secure their property, but as it was nearly all transferred to the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, this seems hardly probable. J. Bulaei Hist. Univ. Par., T. IV., p. 110. Natal. Alexandri h.e. saec. XIV. diss. X. de causa Templariorum. The abolition is still taxed with injustice by Antoninus Florent., in Raynald ad a. 1307, nr. 12, and Trithemius († 1516). Cf. P. Dupuy, Hist. de la condemnation des Templiers, Paris, 1650,

defraying the expenses of a crusade or to transfer them to another military religious order; but in the meantime he was careful to keep his army encamped before the walls of Vienne, to act as a menace upon the council. Owing to the suspicious methods employed in conducting the proceedings against the Templars, the Fathers at first demanded that they should be permitted to speak personally in their own defense before the council; but, for some reason not explained, they consented, in a private consistory, held March 22, 1312, to the suppression of the Order. The bull states, however, that the suppression is not to be understood as a condemnation of the Order (via condemnationis), but as required by circumstances (via provisionis)—that is, not because the members. had been proven de jure guilty of crimes, but because the interests of the Church demanded the suppression of their body. The disposal of their personal property and real estate was reserved to the Pope. The Fathers declared that the confessions laid before them were sufficient evidence of guilt. It is to be remarked, however, that while the witnesses were themselves Templars, their depositions were made, as a rule, not before papal, but royal commissioners. According to the testimony, said to have been freely given, the Templars were accused of making shipwreck of the faith, of corrupt and immoral practices, and of other crimes, for all which more definite and reliable proof has been furnished in recent times. Many opposed the publication of the proceedings of the trial when it finally closed, from fear that a knowledge of such crimes might accustom men to regard them with less horror, and thus eventually lead to their perpetration. In justice to the committee commissioned to 4to; enlarged, Brux. 1751, 4to. On the other hand, nearly every French historian of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries maintained that the guilt of the Order was established. Raynouard, Monumens hist. relatifs à la condamnation des chevaliers du temple, etc., Paris, 1813. Hammer-Purgstall, Mysterium Baphometis (the name of a symbol of the Templars) revelatum, seu fratres militiae templi, Viennae, 1818. Raynouard wrote answers to this work in the Journal des Savans, 1819; also Puttrich, Architectural Monuments of the Middle Ages in Saxony, Vol. I., Pt. III., p. 29. But the French sources but lately published, such as Procès des Templiers, etc., Paris, 1841-51, have furnished a result rather unfavorable to the Order. See Theiner, in the Tübing. Quart., 1832, p. 681. An English work, written by C. C. Addison, entitled "History of the Knights Templars," notwithstanding its manifest advocacy of the Order, accuses the Templars of a certain religious scepticism on the divinity of Christ. See also Règle et statuts secrets (?) des Templiers précédés de l'histoire de léstablissement, de la destruction et de la continuation moderne de l'ordre du Temple, etc., par C. H. Maillard de Chambure, Paris, 1841. But, despite the most searching investigations at the abolition of the Order, other statutes could not be found anywhere than those generally known, and adduced by us, page 704, note 1. Conf. Palma, Praelectiones hist. eccl., T. III., Pt. II., p. 191-210. Soldan, Procès des Templiers (Raumer, Manual of History, 1844). Havemann, Hist. of the Suppression of the Order of Templars, Tübg. 1846. Careful examination of all the proceedings, in Damberger, Vols. XII. and XIII.; especially in Hefele, Hist. of Counc., 1. c. Cf. Freiburg Eccl. Cyclopaedia, Vol. X., p. 716–736; French transl., Vol. 23, p. 186–208. O. A. Haye, Persecution of the Knights Templars, Edinburgh, 1865.

draw up the report, it must be said that a majority of their number were in favor of opening the trial anew and giving the Order the benefit of a fresh defense.

There were other matters before the Council of Vienne more directly bearing on faith and morals. The false mysticism of the Fratricelli, Dulcinists, Beg hards, and Beguines, as dangerous as it was criminal, was condemned, and decrees enacted for the reformation of discipline in both male and female religious communities, for correcting the morals of the secular clergy, and for the better administration of charitable institutions, now presided over, not by the clergy, but by laymen. It was also ordained that a tithe should be levied upon all ecclesiastical benefices, during six years, for the support of Christians in the Holy Land, and, as has been already stated, that Hebrew, Arabic, and Chaldaic should be taught wherever the Roman court was held, and in the universities of Paris, Oxford, Bologna, and Salamanca.

When the Pope, in virtue of his reserved jurisdiction, finally condemned some of the most distinguished Templars to perpetual imprisonment, and among them the Grand Master, James of Molay, and Guy, the brother of the Dauphin of Auvergne and Grand-Preceptor of Narbonne, these retracted their former confessions, stating they had been extorted by violence, and protested their innocence. Molay, in his retractation, said : "Standing at the threshold of death, when the slightest deviation from truth is fraught with danger, I declare before Heaven and earth, that I have committed the most grievous of crimes, and exposed myself to a terrible death, because, mistaking the fair words of King and Pope, and wishing to escape painful torture and save my own life, I have borne false witness against my Order. I will not be brought by fear of death to give utterance to a second falsehood. If such be the price of my life, I had rather die than submit to so great an infamy." Guy of Auvergne made a similar recantation. Their example, however, was not followed by their fellow-prisoners, Hugh Peyraud, Visitor of France, and Geoffrey of Gonneville, Preceptor of Aquitaine, who steadily maintained the truth of their first assertions. The tardiness of a legal process little accorded with the impetuous temper of Philip, who, hearing of the action of the two Templars, had them dragged away, while the judges were still deliberating on their fate, to an island of the Seine, situated where the present Pont-Neuf crosses that river, and there burnt alive (March 18, 1314). This was but of a piece with the arbitrary acts of Philip during the years 1310 and 1311, as exemplified in the death of

fifty-nine Templars, who, refusing to confess the truth of the crimes imputed to the Order, were adjudged worthy of death by their declared enemy Philip Marigny, Archbishop of Sens, and, by the king's order, burnt alive in Paris, near Porte Saint Antoine. Both the king and the Pope died shortly after the execution of Molay and Guy-the latter, April 20, and the former, September 29, 1314. Their death occurring so shortly after the suppression of the Templars, was regarded by some as a visitation of Providence. Since all the acts of the Council of Vienne have not been preserved, and of those that have come down to us, many passages have been falsified, it is impossible to obtain an authentic statement of the affairs of the Templars, and the verdict of history in their regard is consequently the reverse of uniform.

King Philip was succeeded by his eldest son, Louis X., surnamed the Brawler (le Hutin).

§ 267. John XXII. (August 7, 1316, to December 4, 1334)— Benedict XII. (December 20, 1334, to April 25, 1342)-Clement VI. (May 7, 1342, to December 6, 1352)-Struggle with Louis the Bavarian.

Chronicon Ludov. IV. imp. (Pezii Scriptt. Aust., T. II., p. 415.) Henrici de Rebdorf Chronica, 1295-1363. Freheri Scriptt. Germ. ed. Struve, T. I., p. 598. Gualvanei de la Flamma, De reb. gestis a vicecomitib. (Muratori, Scriptt., T. XII.) Viti Arnpeckhii Chronicon Bavar. (Pezii Thesaur. anecdot., T. III., Pt. III.) Christophe, 1. c. (Germ. by Ritter, Vol. II., p. 1–28.) Herwart ab Hohenburg, Ludov. IV. imp. defensus contra Bzovium (Annal. eccl., T. I., P. I., p. 412 sq.), Monach. 1618, 4to. Gewoldi defensio Ludov. IV. imp., Ingolst. 1618, 4to. Olenschläger, Polit. Hist. of the Roman Empire during the first half of the fourteenth century, Frankfort, 1755, 4to. The works of Weech and Schreiber.

After the death of Clement, the Holy See remained vacant two years. A conclave was held at Lyons, where, after a protracted and bitter struggle between the Italian and French cardinals, the choice finally fell upon James of Ossa, a native of Cahors, and at the time of his promotion, Cardinal-bishop of Porto, who took the name of John XXII. Villani, the Florentine statesman, represents this Pope as a religiously minded man, versed in theology and canon law, a promoter of learning, friendly to the universities, of a penetrating mind, and pursuing an enlightened policy in all important