On Monday, July 5th, at the request of the ecclesiastical council, the

bishop of Chichester had an interview with Sir William de la More,

the Master of the Temple, taking with him certain learned lawyers,

theologians, and scriveners. He exhorted and earnestly pressed him to

abjure the heresies of which he stood convicted, by his own confessions

and those of his brethren, respecting the absolutions pronounced by

him in the chapters, and submit himself to the disposition of the

church; but the Master declared that he had never been guilty of the

heresies mentioned, and that he would not abjure crimes which he had

never committed; so he was sent back to his dungeon. The next day, the

bishops of London, Winchester, and Chichester, had an interview in

Southwark with the Knight Templar Philip de Mewes, Preceptor of Garwy,

and some serving brethren of the New Temple at London, and told them

that they were manifestly guilty of heresy, as appeared from the pope’s

bulls, and the depositions taken against the order both in England and

France, and also from their own confessions regarding the absolutions

pronounced in their chapters, explaining to them that they had

grievously erred in believing that the Master of the Temple, who was a

mere layman, had power to absolve them from their sins by pronouncing

absolution, and they warned them that if they persisted in that error

they would be condemned as heretics, and that, as they could not clear

themselves therefrom, it behoved them to abjure all the heresies of

which they were accused. The Templars replied that they were ready to

abjure the error they had fallen into respecting the absolution and all

heresies of every kind, before the archbishop of Canterbury and the

prelates of the council, whenever they should be required so to do,

and they humbly and reverently submitted themselves to the orders of

the church, beseeching pardon and grace. A sort of compromise was then

made with most of the Templars in custody in London. They were required

publicly to repeat a form of confession and abjuration drawn up by the

bishops of London and Chichester, and were then solemnly absolved and

reconciled to the church.

On the 9th of July, Brother Michael de Baskevile, Knight, Preceptor

of London, and seventeen other Templars, were absolved and reconciled

in full council, in the Episcopal Hall of the see of London, in the

presence of a vast concourse of the citizens. On the 10th of the

same month, the Preceptors of Dokesworth, Getinges, and Samford, the

guardian of the Temple church at London, Brother Radulph de Evesham,

chaplain, with other priests, knights, and serving brethren of the

order, were absolved by the bishops of London, Exeter, Winchester,

and Chichester, in the presence of the archbishop of Canterbury, and

the whole ecclesiastical council. The next day many more members of

the fraternity were publicly reconciled to the church on the steps

before the south door of Saint Paul’s cathedral, and were afterwards

present at the celebration of high mass in the interior of the sacred

edifice, when they advanced in a body towards the high altar bathed

in tears, and falling down on their knees, they devoutly kissed the

sacred emblems of Christianity. The day after, (July 12,) nineteen

other Templars were publicly absolved and reconciled to the church in

the same place, in the presence of the earls of Leicester, Pembroke,

and Warwick, and afterwards assisted in like manner at the celebration

of high mass. The priests of the order made their confessions and

abjurations in Latin; the knights pronounced them in Norman French, and

the serving brethren for the most part repeated them in English. The

vast concourse of people collected together could have comprehended but

very little of what was uttered, whilst the appearance of the penitent

brethren, and the public spectacle of their recantation, answered the

views of the papal inquisitors, and doubtless impressed the commonalty

with a conviction of the guilt of the order. Many of the Templars were

too _sick_ (from the effect of torture) to be brought down to Saint

Paul’s, and were therefore absolved and reconciled to the church by the

bishops of London, Winchester, and Chichester, at Saint Mary’s chapel

near the Tower. Among these last were many old veteran warriors in the

last stage of decrepitude and decay. “They were so old and so infirm,”

says the public notary who recorded the proceedings, “that they were

unable to stand;” their confessions were consequently made before two

masters in theology; they were then led before the west door of the

chapel, and were publicly reconciled to the church by the bishop of

Chichester; after which they were brought into the sacred building, and

were placed on their knees before the high altar, which they devoutly

kissed, whilst the tears trickled down their furrowed cheeks. All these

penitent Templars were now released from prison, and directed to do

penance in different monasteries. Precisely the same form of proceeding

was followed at York; the reconciliation and absolution being there

carried into effect before the south door of the cathedral.[161]

Similar measures had, in the mean time, been prosecuted against the

Templars in all parts of Christendom. On the 18th of March, the pope

wrote to the kings of Castile, Leon, Aragon, and Portugal, complaining

of the omission to torture the Templars in their dominions. “The

bishops and delegates,” says the holy pontiff, “have imprudently

neglected these means of obtaining the truth; we therefore expressly

order them to employ TORTURE against the knights, that the truth may

be more readily and completely obtained!” The order for TORTURING the

Templars was transmitted to the patriarch of Constantinople, the bishop

of Negropont, and the duke of Achaia; and it crossed the seas to the

king of Cyprus, and the bishops of Famagousta and Nicosia! The councils

of Tarragona and Aragon, after applying the torture, pronounced the

order free from heresy. In Portugal and in Germany the Templars were

declared innocent: and in no place situate beyond the sphere of the

influence of the king of France and his creature the pope was a single

Templar condemned to death.[162]

On the 16th of October the general council of the church which had

been convened by the pope to pronounce the abolition of the order,

assembled at Vienne, near Lyons in France. It was opened by the holy

pontiff in person, who caused the different confessions and avowals of

the Templars to be read over before the assembled nobles and prelates.

Although the order was now broken up, and the best and bravest of

its members had either perished in the flames or were languishing

in dungeons, yet nine fugitive Templars had the courage to present

themselves before the council, and demand to be heard in defence of

their order, declaring that they were the representatives of from 1,500

to 2,000 Templars, who were wandering about as fugitives and outlaws in

the neighbourhood of Lyons. Monsieur Raynouard has fortunately brought

to light a letter from the pope to king Philip, which states this fact,

and also informs us how the holy pontiff acted when he heard that these

defenders of the order had presented themselves. Clement caused them to

be thrown into prison, where they languished and died. He affected to

believe that his life was in danger from the number of the Templars at

large, and he immediately took measures to provide for the security of

his person.

The assembled fathers, to their honour, expressed their disapprobation

of this flagrant act of injustice, and the entire council, with the

exception of an Italian prelate, nephew of the pope, and the three

French bishops of Rheims, Sens, and Rouen, all creatures of Philip,

who had severally condemned large bodies of Templars to be burnt at

the stake in their respective dioceses, were unanimously of opinion,

that before the suppression of so celebrated and illustrious an order,

which had rendered such great and signal services to the christian

faith, the members belonging to it ought to be heard in their own

defence.[163] Such a proceeding, however did not suit the views of the

pope and king Philip, and the assembly was abruptly dismissed by the

holy pontiff, who declared that since they were unwilling to adopt

the necessary measures, he himself, out of the plenitude of the papal

authority, would supply every defect. Accordingly, at the commencement

of the following year, the pope summoned a private consistory; and

several cardinals and French bishops having been gained over, the holy

pontiff abolished the order by an apostolical ordinance, perpetually

prohibiting every one from thenceforth entering into it, or accepting

or wearing the habit thereof, or representing themselves to be

Templars, on pain of excommunication.[164]

On the 3rd of April, the second session of the council was opened

by the pope at Vienne. King Philip and his three sons were present,

accompanied by a large body of troops, and the papal decree abolishing

the order was published before the assembly. The members of the council

appear to have been called together merely to hear the decree read.

History does not inform us of any discussion with reference to it,

nor of any suffrages having been taken. A few months after the close

of these proceedings, Brother William de la More, the Master of the

Temple in England, died of a broken heart in his solitary dungeon in

the Tower, persisting with his last breath in the maintenance of the

innocence of his order. King Edward, in pity for his misfortunes,

directed the constable of the Tower to hand over his goods and

chattels, valued at the sum of 4_l._ 19_s._ 11_d._, to his executors,

to be employed in the liquidation of his debts, and he commanded

Geoffrey de la Lee, guardian of the lands of the Templars, to pay the

arrears of his prison pay (2_s._ per diem) to the executor, Roger

Hunsingon.

Among the Cotton MS. is a list of the Masters of the Temple, otherwise

the Grand Priors or Grand Preceptors of England, compiled under the

direction of the prior of the Hospital of Saint John at Clerkenwell,

to the intent that the brethren of that fraternity might remember

the ancient Masters of the Temple in their prayers.[165] A few names

have been omitted which are here supplied. Magister R. de Pointon.

Rocelinus de Fossa. Richard de Hastings, (A. D. 1160). Richard

Mallebeench. Geoffrey, son of Stephen, (A. D. 1180). Thomas Berard,

(A. D. 1200). Amaric de St. Maur, (A. D. 1203). Alan Marcel, (A. D.

1224). Amberaldus, (A. D. 1229). Robert Mountforde, (A. D. 1234). Robert

Sanford, (A. D. 1241). Amadeus de Morestello, (A. D. 1254). Himbert

Peraut, (A. D. 1270). Robert Turvile, (A. D. 1290). Guido de Foresta,

(A. D. 1292). James de Molay, (A. D. 1293). Brian le Jay, (A. D. 1295).

WILLIAM DE LA MORE THE MARTYR.[166]

The only other Templar in England whose fate merits particular

attention is Brother Himbert Blanke, the Grand Preceptor of Auvergne.

He appears to have been a knight of high honour and of stern unbending

pride. From first to last he had boldly protested against the violent

proceedings of the inquisitors, and had fearlessly maintained, amid all

his trials, his own innocence and that of his order. This illustrious

Templar had fought under four successive Grand Masters in defence of

the christian faith in Palestine, and, after the fall of Acre, had led

in person several daring expeditions against the infidels. For these

meritorious services he was rewarded in the following manner:--After

having been tortured and half-starved in the English prisons for the

space of five years, he was condemned, as he would make no confession

of guilt, to be shut up in a loathsome dungeon, to be loaded with

double chains, and to be occasionally visited by the agents of the

Inquisition, to see if he would confess _nothing further_.[167] In this

miserable situation he remained until death at last put an end to his

sufferings.

James de Molay, the Grand Master of the Temple, Guy, the Grand

Preceptor, a nobleman of illustrious birth, brother to the prince of

Dauphiny, Hugh de Peralt, the Visitor-general of the order, and the

Grand Preceptor of Aquitaine, had now languished in the prisons of

France for the space of five years and a half. The secrets of their

dark dungeons were never brought to light, but on the 18th of March,

A. D. 1313, a public scaffold was erected before the cathedral church of

Notre Dame, at Paris, and the citizens were summoned to hear the order

of the Temple convicted by the mouths of its chief officers, of the

sins and iniquities charged against it. The four knights, loaded with

chains and surrounded by guards, were then brought upon the scaffold

by the provost, and the bishop of Alba read their confessions aloud in

the presence of the assembled populace. The papal legate then, turning

towards the Grand Master and his companions, called upon them to renew,

in the hearing of the people, the avowals which they had previously

made of the guilt of their order. Hugh de Peralt, the Visitor-general,

and the Preceptor of the Temple of Aquitaine, signified their assent

to whatever was demanded of them, but the Grand Master, raising his

arms bound with chains towards heaven, and advancing to the edge of

the scaffold, declared in a loud voice, that to say that which was

untrue was a crime, both in the sight of God and man. “I do,” said

he, “confess my guilt, which consists in having, to my shame and

dishonour, suffered myself, through the pain of torture and the fear of

death, to give utterance to falsehoods, imputing scandalous sins and

iniquities to an illustrious order, which hath nobly served the cause

of Christianity. I disdain to seek a wretched and disgraceful existence

by engrafting another lie upon the original falsehood.” He was here

interrupted by the provost and his officers, and Guy, the Grand

Preceptor, having commenced with strong asseverations of his innocence,

they were both hurried back to prison.

King Philip was no sooner informed of the result, than, upon the first

impulse of his indignation, without consulting either pope, or bishop,

or ecclesiastical council, he commanded the instant execution of both

these gallant noblemen. The same day at dusk they were led out of their

dungeons, and were burned to death in a slow and lingering manner upon

small fires of charcoal which were kindled on the little island in the

Seine, between the king’s garden and the convent of Saint Augustine,

close to the spot where now stands the equestrian statue of Henri

IV.[168] Thus perished the last Grand Master of the Temple.

The fate of the persecutors of the order is not unworthy of notice.

A year and one month after the above horrible execution, the pope

was attacked by a dysentery, and speedily hurried to his grave. The

dead body was transported to Carpentras, where the court of Rome then

resided; it was placed at night in a church which caught fire, and the

mortal remains of the holy pontiff were almost entirely consumed. His

relations quarrelled over the immense treasures he left behind him, and

a vast sum of money, which had been deposited for safety in a church at

Lucca, was stolen by a daring band of German and Italian freebooters.

Before the close of the same year, king Philip died of a lingering

disease which had baffled all the art of his medical attendants,

and the condemned criminal, upon the strength of whose information

the Templars were originally arrested, was hanged for fresh crimes.

“History attests,” says Monsieur Raynouard, “that all those who were

foremost in the persecution of the Templars, came to an untimely and

miserable death. The last days of Philip were embittered by misfortune;

his nobles and clergy leagued against him to resist his exactions; the

wives of his three sons were accused of adultery, and two of them were

publicly convicted of that crime. The misfortunes of Edward the Second,

king of England, and his horrible death in Berkeley Castle, are too

well known to be further alluded to.”

“The chief cause of the ruin of the Templars,” justly remarks Fuller,

“was their extraordinary wealth. As Naboth’s vineyard was the chiefest

ground of his blasphemy, and as in England Sir John Cornwall Lord

Fanhope said merrily, not he, but his stately house at Ampthill, in

Bedfordshire, was guilty of high treason, so certainly their wealth was

the principal cause of their overthrow.... We may believe that king

Philip would never have taken away their lives if he might have taken

their lands without putting them to death, but the mischief was, he

could not get the honey unless he burnt the bees.” King Philip, the

pope, and the European sovereigns, appear to have disposed of all the

personalty of the Templars, the ornaments, jewels, and treasures of

their churches and chapels, and during the period of five years, over

which the proceedings against the order extended, they remained in the

actual receipt of the vast rents and revenues of the fraternity. King

Philip put forward a claim upon their lands in France to the extent

of two hundred thousand pounds for the expenses of the prosecution,

and Louis, his son, claimed a further sum of sixty thousand pounds:

“J’ignore,” says Voltaire, “ce qui revint au pape, mais je vois

evidemment que les frais des cardinaux, des inquisiteurs déléguès

pour faire ce procès épouvantable monterent à des sommes immenses.”

The holy pontiff, according to his own account, received only a _small

portion_ of the personalty of the order, but others make him a large

participator in the good things of the fraternity.[169]

On the imprisonment of the Templars in England, the Temple at London,

and all the preceptories dependent upon it, with the manors, farms,

houses, lands, and revenues of the order, were placed under the survey

of the Court of Exchequer, and extents were directed to be taken of the

same, after which they were confided to the care of certain trustworthy

persons, styled “Guardians of the lands of the Templars,” who were

to account for the rents and profits to the king’s exchequer. These

guardians were directed to pay various pensions to the old servants and

retainers of the Templars dwelling in the different preceptories, also

the expenses of the prosecution against the order; and they were at

different times required to victual the king’s castles and strongholds.

In the month of February, A. D. 1312, the king gave the Temple manors

of Etton and Cave to David, earl of Athol, directing the guardians of

the lands and tenements of the Templars in the county of York to hand

over to the said earl all the corn in those manors, the oxen, calves,

ploughs, and all the goods and chattels of the Templars existing

therein, together with the ornaments and utensils of the chapel of the

Temple. But on the 16th of May the pope addressed bulls to the king,

and to all the earls and barons of the kingdom, setting forth the

proceedings of the council of Vienne, and the publication of a papal

decree, vesting the property late belonging to the Templars in the

brethren of the Hospital of St. John, and he commands them forthwith

to place the members of that order in possession thereof. Bulls were

also addressed to the archbishops of Canterbury and York and their

suffragans, commanding them to enforce by ecclesiastical censures

the execution of the papal commands. King Edward and his nobles very

properly resisted this decree, and on the 21st of August the king wrote

to the Prior of the Hospital of St. John at Clerkenwell, telling him

that the pretensions of the pope to dispose of property within the

realm of England, without the consent of parliament, were derogatory to

the dignity of the crown and the royal authority. The following year

the king granted the Temple at London, with the church and all the

buildings therein, to Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke; and on the

5th of May of the same year, he caused several merchants, from whom he

had borrowed money, to be placed in possession of many of the manors of

the Templars.[170]

Yielding, however, at last to the exhortations and menaces of the pope,

the king, on the 21st of Nov., A. D. 1313, granted the property to the

Hospitallers, and sent orders to the guardians of the lands of the

Templars, and to various powerful barons who were in possession of the

estates, commanding them to deliver them up to certain parties deputed

by the Grand Master and chapter of the Hospital of St. John to receive

them. At this period many of the heirs of the donors, whose title had

been recognised by the law, were in possession of the lands, and the

judges held that the king had no power of his own sole authority to

transfer them to the order of the Hospital. The thunders of the Vatican

were consequently vigorously made use of, and all the detainers of the

property were doomed by the Roman pontiff to everlasting damnation.

Pope John, in one of his bulls, dated A. D. 1322, bitterly complains

of the disregard by all the king’s subjects of the papal commands. He

laments that they had hardened their hearts and despised the sentence

of excommunication fulminated against them, and declares that his heart

was riven with grief to find that even the ecclesiastics, who ought to

have been as a wall of defence to the Hospitallers, had themselves been

heinously guilty in the premises.[171]

At last (A. D. 1324) the pope, the bishops, and the Hospitallers, by

their united exertions, succeeded in obtaining an act of parliament,

vesting all the property late belonging to the Templars in the brethren

of the Hospital of St. John, in order that the intentions of the donors

might be carried into effect by the appropriation of it to the defence

of the Holy Land and the succour of the christian cause in the East.

This statute gave rise to the greatest discontent. The heirs of the

donors petitioned parliament for its repeal, alleging that it had been

made against law, and against reason, and contrary to the opinion of

the judges; and many of the great barons who held the property by a

title recognised by the common law, successfully resisted the claims

of the order of the Hospital, maintaining that the parliament had no

right to interfere with the tenure of private property, and to dispose

of their possessions without their consent. This struggle between the

heirs of the donors on the one hand, and the Hospitallers on the other,

continued for a lengthened period; and in the reign of Edward the Third

it was found necessary to pass another act of parliament, confirming

the previous statute in their favour, and writs were sent to the

sheriffs (A. D. 1334) commanding them to enforce the execution of the

acts of the legislature, and to take possession, in the king’s name, of

all the property unjustly detained from the brethren of the Hospital of

St. John.[172]

Whilst the vast possessions, late belonging to the Templars, thus

continued to be the subject of contention, the surviving brethren

of that dissolved order continued to be treated with the utmost

inhumanity and neglect. The ecclesiastical council had assigned to each

of them a pension of fourpence a day for subsistence, but this small

pittance was not paid, and they were consequently in great danger of

dying of hunger. The king, pitying their miserable situation, wrote

to the prior of the hospital of St. John at Clerkenwell, earnestly

requesting him to take their hard lot into his serious consideration,

and not suffer them to come to beggary in the streets. The archbishop

of Canterbury also exerted himself in their behalf, and sent letters

to the possessors of the property, reproving them for the non-payment

of the allotted stipends. “This inhumanity,” says he, “awakens our

compassion, and penetrates us with the most lively grief. We pray

and conjure you in kindness to furnish them, for the love of God and

for charity, with the means of subsistence.” The archbishop of York

caused many of them to be supported in the different monasteries of his

diocese.[173]

We have already seen (ante, p. 298) that the Temple at London, the

chief house of the English province of the order, had been granted

(A. D. 1313) by king Edward the Second to Aymer de Valence, earl of

Pembroke. As Thomas earl of Lancaster, the king’s cousin and first

prince of the blood, however, claimed the Temple by escheat, as the

immediate lord of the fee, the earl of Pembroke, on the 3rd of October,

A. D. 1315, at the request of the king, and in consideration of the

grant to him by his sovereign of other land, gave up the property to

the earl of Lancaster. This earl of Lancaster was president of the

council, and the most powerful and opulent subject of the kingdom,

and we are told that the students and professors of the common law

made interest with him for a lodging in the Temple, and first gained a

footing therein as his _lessees_. They took possession of the old Hall

and the gloomy cells of the military monks, and converted them into

the great and most ancient Common Law University in England. From that

period to the present time the retreats of the religious warriors have

been devoted to “the studious and eloquent pleaders of causes,” a new

kind of TEMPLARS, who, as Fuller quaintly observes, now “defend one

Christian from another, as the old ones did Christians from Pagans.”

Subsequently to this event the fee simple or inheritance of the

place passed successively through various hands. On the memorable

attainder and ignominious execution before his own castle of the earl

of Lancaster it reverted to the crown, and was again granted to Aymer

de Valence, earl of Pembroke, who was shortly afterwards murdered at

Paris. He died without issue, and the Temple accordingly once more

vested in the crown.[174] It was then granted to the royal favourite,

Hugh le Despenser the younger, and on his attainder and execution by

the Lancastrian faction, it came into the hands of the young king

Edward the Third, who had just then ascended the throne, and was

committed by him to the keeping of the Mayor of London, his escheator

in the city. The mayor closed the gate leading to the waterside, which

stood at the bottom of the present Middle Temple Lane, whereby the

lawyers were much incommoded in their progress backwards and forwards

from the Temple to Westminster. Complaints were made to the king on

the subject, who, on the 2nd day of November, in the third year of

his reign, (A. D. 1330,) wrote as follows to the mayor:--“The king

to the mayor of London, his escheator in the same city. Since we

have been given to understand that there ought to be a free passage

through the court of the New Temple at London to the river Thames,

for our justices, clerks, and others, who may wish to pass by water

to Westminster to transact their business, and that you keep the gate

of the Temple shut by day, and so prevent those same justices, clerks

of ours, and other persons, from passing through the midst of the

said court to the waterside, whereby as well our own affairs as those

of our people in general are oftentimes greatly delayed, we command

you, that you keep the gates of the said Temple open by day, so that

our justices and clerks, and other persons who wish to go by water to

Westminster may be able so to do by the way to which they have hitherto

been accustomed.” The following year (A. D. 1331) the king wrote to

the mayor, his escheator in the city of London, informing him that

he had been given to understand that the pier in the said court of

the Temple, leading to the river, was so broken and decayed, that his

clerks and law officers, and others, could no longer get across it, and

were consequently prevented from passing by water to Westminster. “We

therefore,” he proceeds, “being desirous of providing such a remedy

as we ought for this evil, command you to do whatever repairs are

necessary to the said pier, and to defray the cost thereof out of the

proceeds of the lands and rents appertaining to the said Temple now in

your custody; and when we shall have been informed of the things done

in the matter, the expense shall be allowed you in your account of the

same proceeds.”[175]

Two years afterwards (6 E. III., A. D. 1333) the king committed the

custody of the Temple to “his beloved clerk,” William de Langford,

“and farmed out the rents and proceeds thereof to him for the term of

ten years, at a rent of 24_l._ per annum, the said William undertaking

to keep all the houses and tenements in good order and repair, and so

deliver them up at the end of the term.” In the mean time, however, the

pope and the bishops had been vigorously exerting themselves to obtain

a transfer of the property to the order of the Knights Hospitallers of

Saint John. The Hospitallers petitioned the king, setting forth that

the church, the cloisters, and other places within the Temple, were

consecrated and dedicated to the service of God, that they had been

unjustly occupied and detained from them by Hugh le Despenser the

younger, and, through his attainder, had lately come into the king’s

hands, and they besought the king to deliver up to them possession

thereof. King Edward accordingly commanded the mayor of London, his

escheator in that city, to take inquisition concerning the premises.

From this inquisition, and the return thereof, it appears that many

of the founders of the Temple Church, and many of the brethren of the

order of Knights Templars, then lay buried in the church and cemetery

of the Temple; that the bishop of Ely had his lodging in the Temple,

known by the name of the bishop of Ely’s chamber; that there was a

chapel dedicated to St. Thomas-à-Becket, which extended from the door

of the TEMPLE HALL as far as the ancient gate of the Temple; also a

cloister which began at the bishop of Ely’s chamber, and ran in an

easterly direction; and that there was a wall which ran in a northerly

direction as far as the said king’s highway; that in the front part of

the cemetery towards the north, bordering on the king’s highway, were

thirteen houses formerly erected, with the assent and permission of

the Master and brethren of the Temple, by Roger Blom, a messenger of

the Temple, for the purpose of holding the lights and ornaments of the

church; that the land whereon these houses were built, the cemetery,

the church, and all the space enclosed between St. Thomas’s chapel, the

church, the cloisters, and the wall running in a northerly direction,

and all the buildings erected thereon, together with the hall,

cloisters, and St. Thomas’ chapel, were sanctified places dedicated to

God; that Hugh le Despenser occupied and detained them unjustly, and

that through his attainder and forfeiture, and not otherwise, they came

into the king’s hands.[176]

After the return of this inquisition, the said sanctified places were

assigned to the prior and brethren of the Hospital of Saint John; and

the king, on the 11th of January, in the tenth year of his reign, A. D.

1337, directed his writ to the barons of the Exchequer, commanding

them to take inquisition of the value of the said sanctified places,

so given up to the Hospitallers, and of the residue of the Temple,

and certify the same under their seals to the king, in order that a

reasonable abatement might be made in William de Langford’s rent. From

the inquiry made in pursuance of this writ before John de Shoreditch,

a baron of the Exchequer, it further appears that on the said residue

of the Temple upon the land then remaining in the custody of William

de Langford, and withinside the great gate of the Temple, were another

HALL and four chambers connected therewith, a kitchen, a garden, a

stable, and a chamber beyond the great gate; also eight shops, seven of

which stood in Fleet Street, and the eighth in the suburb of London,

without the bar of the New Temple; that the annual value of these shops

varied from ten to thirteen, fifteen, and sixteen shillings; that the

fruit out of the garden of the Temple sold for sixty shillings per

annum in the gross, that seven out of the thirteen houses erected by

Roger Blom were each of the annual value of eleven shillings; and that

the eighth, situated beyond the gate of entrance to the church, was

worth four marks per annum. It appears, moreover, that the total annual

revenue of the Temple then amounted to 73_l._ 6_s._ 11_d._, equal to

about 1,000_l._ of our present money, and that William de Langford was

abated 12_l._ 4_s._ 2_d._ of the said rent.[177]

Three years after the taking of this inquisition, and in the

thirteenth year of his reign, A. D. 1340, king Edward the Third, in

consideration of the sum of one hundred pounds, which the prior of

the Knights Hospitallers promised to pay him towards the expense of

his expedition into France, granted to the said prior all the residue

of the Temple then remaining in the king’s hands, to hold, together

with the cemetery, cloisters, and the other sanctified places, to the

said prior and his brethren, and their successors, of the king and his

heirs, for charitable purposes, for ever. From this grant it appears

that the porter of the Temple received sixty shillings and tenpence

per annum, and twopence a day wages, which were to be paid him by the

Hospitallers. At this period Philip Thane was prior of the Hospital;

and he exerted himself to impart to the celebration of divine service

in the Temple Church, the dignity and the splendour it possessed in the

time of the Templars. He, with the unanimous consent and approbation

of the whole chapter of the Hospital, granted to Hugh de Lichefield,

priest, and to his successors, guardians of the Temple Church, towards

the improvement of the lights and the celebration of divine service

therein, all the land called Ficketzfeld, and the garden called

Cotterell Garden; and two years afterwards he made a further grant, to

the said Hugh and his successors, of a thousand fagots a year to be cut

out of the wood of Lilleston, and carried to the New Temple to keep up

the fire in the said church.[178]

King Edward III., in the thirty-fifth year of his reign, A. D. 1362,

notwithstanding the grant of the Temple to the Hospitallers, exercised

the right of appointing to the porter’s office, and by his letter

patent he promoted Roger Small to that post for the term of his

life, in return for the good service rendered him by the said Roger

Small.[179]

It appears that the lawyers in the Temple had at this period their

purveyor of provisions as at present, and were then keeping commons

or dining together in the hall. The poet Chaucer, who was born at the

close of the reign of Edward II., A. D. 1327, and was in high favour at

court in the reign of Edward III., thus speaks of the MANCIPLE, or the

purveyor of provisions of the lawyers in the Temple:--

“A gentil Manciple was there of the TEMPLE,

Of whom achatours mighten take ensample,

For to ben wise in bying of vitaille.

For whether that he paid or toke by taille,

Algate he waited so in his achate,

That he was aye before in good estate.

Now is not that of God a full fayre grace,

That swiche a lewed mannes wit shal pace,

The wisdome of an hepe of lerned men?”

“Of maisters had he mo than thries ten,

THAT WERE OF LAWE EXPERT AND CURIOUS;

Of which there was a dosein in that hous

Worthy to ben stewardes of rent and lond

Of any lord that is in Englelond,

To maken him live by his propre good,

In honour detteles, but if he were wood,

Or live as scarsly, as him list desire;

And able for to helpen all a shire,

In any cas that mighte fallen or happe;

And yet this manciple sette hir aller cappe.”[180]

At the period of the dissolution of the order of the Templars many

of the retainers of the ancient knights were residing in the Temple,

supported by pensions from the crown. These were of the class of free

servants of office, they held their posts for life, and not having

been members of the order, they were not included in the general

proscription of the fraternity. On the seizure by the sheriffs and

royal officers of the property of their ancient masters, they had

been reduced to great distress, and had petitioned the king to be

allowed their customary stipends. Edward II. had accordingly granted

to Robert Styfford clerk, chaplain of the Temple Church, two deniers a

day for his maintenance in the house of the Temple at London, and five

shillings a year for necessaries, provided he did service in the Temple

Church; and when unable to do so, he was to receive only his food

and lodging. Geoffrey Talaver, Geoffrey de Cave, clerk, and John de

Shelton, were also, each of them, to receive for their good services,

annual pensions for the term of their lives. Some of these retainers,

in addition to their various stipends, were to have a gown of the class

of free-serving brethren of the order of the Temple each year; one old

garment out of the stock of old garments belonging to the brethren; one

mark a year for their shoes, &c.; their sons also received so much _per

diem_, on condition that they did the daily work of the house.[181]

These domestics and retainers of the ancient brotherhood of the Knights

Templars, appear to have transferred their services to the learned

society of lawyers established in the Temple, and to have continued and

kept alive amongst them many of the ancient customs and observances of

the old Knights. The chaplain of the Temple Church took his meals in

the hall with the lawyers as he had been wont to do with the Knights

Templars; and the rule of their order requiring “two and two to eat

together,” and “all the fragments to be given in brotherly charity to

the domestics,” continued to be observed, and prevails to this day;

whilst the attendants at table continued to be, and are still called

_paniers_, as in the days of the Knights Templars.[182]

In the sixth year of the reign of Edward III., (A. D. 1333,) a few

years after the lawyers had established themselves in the convent

of the Temple, the judges of the Court of Common Pleas were made

KNIGHTS,[183] being the earliest instance on record of the grant of the

honour of knighthood for services purely civil, and the professors

of the common law, who had the exclusive privilege of practising

in that court, assumed the title or degree of FRERES SERJENS or

FRATRES SERVIENTES, so that an order of knights and serving-brethren

was most curiously revived in the Temple, and introduced into the

profession of the law. It is true that the word _serviens_, _serjen_,

or serjeant, was applied to the professors of the law long before the

reign of Edward III., but not to denote a _privileged brotherhood_.

It was applied to lawyers in common with all persons who did any

description of work for another, from the _serviens domini regis ad

legem_, who prosecuted the pleas of the crown in the county court,

to the _serviens_ or _serjen_ who walked with his cane before the

concubine of the patriarch Heraclius in the streets of Jerusalem.

The priest who worked for the Lord was called _serjen de Dieu_, and

the lover who served the lady of his affections _serjen d’amour_.

It was in the order of the Temple that the word _freres_ serjens or

_fratres_ servientes first signified an honorary title or degree,

and denoted a powerful privileged class of brethren. The _fratres

servientes armigeri_ or _freres serjens des armes_, of the chivalry of

the Temple, were of the rank of gentlemen. They united in their own

persons the monastic and the military character, they were allotted one

horse each, they wore the cross of the order of the Temple on their

breasts, they participated in all the privileges of the brotherhood,

and were eligible to the dignity of Preceptor. Large sums of money

were frequently given by seculars who had not been advanced to the

honour of knighthood, to be admitted amongst this highly esteemed

order of men. These _freres serjens_ of the Temple wore linen _coifs_,

and red caps close over them.[184] At the ceremony of their admission

into the fraternity, the Master of the Temple placed the coif upon

their heads, and threw over their shoulders the white mantle of the

Temple; he then caused them to sit down on the ground, and gave them a

solemn admonition concerning the duties and responsibilities of their

profession. The knights and Serjeants of the common law, on the other

hand, have ever constituted a privileged _fraternity_, and always

address one another by the endearing term _brother_. The religious

character of the ancient ceremony of admission into this legal

brotherhood, which took place in the Temple Church, and its striking

similarity to the ancient mode of reception into the fraternity of the

Temple, are curious and remarkable. “Capitalis Justitiarius,” says an

ancient MS. account of the creation of serjeants-at-law, “monstrabat

eis plura bona exempla de eorum prædecessoribus, et tunc. posuit

les _coyfes_ super eorum capitibus, et induebat eos singulariter de

capital de skarletto, et sic creati fuerunt _servientes ad legem_.”

In his admonitory exhortation, the chief-justice displays to them the

moral and religious duties of their profession. “Ambulate in vocatione

in quâ vocati estis.... Disce cultum Dei, _reverentiam superioris,

misericordiam pauperi_.” He tells them the coif is sicut vestis

_candida_ et immaculata, the emblem of purity and virtue, and he

commences a portion of his discourse in the scriptural language used

by the popes in the famous bull conceding to the Templars their vast

spiritual and temporal privileges, “_Omne datum optimum et omne donum

perfectum desursum est descendens a patre luminum_,” &c. &c.[185] It

has been supposed that the coif was first introduced by the clerical

practitioners of the common law to hide the _tonsure_ of those priests

who practised in the Court of Common Pleas, notwithstanding the

ecclesiastical prohibition. This was not the case. The early portraits

of our judges exhibit them with a coif of very much larger dimensions

than the coifs now worn by the serjeants-at-law, very much larger than

would be necessary to hide the _mere clerical tonsure_. A covering for

that purpose indeed would be absurd.

From the inquisition into the state of the Temple, taken 10 E. III.,

A. D. 1337, it appears, as we have already seen, that in the time of the

Knights Templars there were TWO HALLS in the Temple, the one being the

hall of the knights, and the other the hall of the _freres serjens_, or

serving-brethren of the order. One of these halls, the present Inner

Temple Hall, had been assigned, the year previous to the taking of

that inquisition, to the prior and brethren of the Hospital of Saint

John, together with the church, cloisters, &c., as before mentioned,

whilst the other hall remained in the hands of the crown, and was

not granted to the Hospitallers until 13 E. III., A. D. 1340. It was

probably soon after this period that the Hospitallers conceded the use

of _both halls_ to the professors of the law, and these last, from

dining apart and being attached to different halls, at last separated

into two societies. When the lawyers originally came into the Temple as

lessees of the earl of Lancaster, they found engraved upon the ancient

buildings the armorial bearings of the order of the Temple, which were,

on a shield argent, a plain cross gules, and (_brochant sur le tout_)

the holy lamb bearing the banner of the order, surmounted by a red

cross. These arms remained the emblem of the Temple until the fifth

year of the reign of queen Elizabeth, when unfortunately the society

of the Inner Temple, yielding to the advice and persuasion of Master

Gerard Leigh, a member of the College of Heralds, abandoned the ancient

and honourable device of the Knights Templars, and assumed in its place

a galloping winged horse called a Pegasus, or, as it has been explained

to us, “a horse striking the earth with its hoof, or _Pegasus luna on

a field argent_!” Master Gerard Leigh, we are told, “emblazoned them

with precious stones and planets, and by these strange arms he intended

to signify that the knowledge acquired at the learned seminary of the

Inner Temple would raise the professors of the law to the highest

honours, adding, by way of motto, _volat ad æthera virtus_, and he

intended to allude to what are esteemed the more liberal sciences, by

giving them Pegasus forming the fountain of Hippocrene, by striking his

hoof against the rock, as a proper emblem of lawyers becoming poets, as

Chaucer and Gower, who were both of the Temple!”

The Society of the Middle Temple, with better taste, still preserves,

in that part of the Temple over which its sway extends, the

widely-renowned and time-honoured badge of the ancient order of the

Temple.

On the dissolution of the order of the Hospital of Saint John, (32

Hen. 8,) the Temple once more reverted to the crown, and the lawyers

again became the immediate lessees of the sovereign. In the reign of

James I., however, some Scotchman attempted to obtain from his majesty

a grant of the fee simple or inheritance of the Temple, which being

brought to the knowledge of the two law societies, they forthwith made

“humble suit” to the king, and obtained a grant of the property to

themselves. By letters patent, bearing date at Westminster the 13th

of August, in the sixth year of his reign, A. D. 1609, king James

granted the Temple to the Benchers of the two societies, their heirs

and assigns for ever, for the lodging, reception, and education of

the professors and students of the laws of England, the said Benchers

yielding and paying to the said king, his heirs and successors, ten

pounds yearly for the mansion called the Inner Temple, and ten pounds

yearly for the Middle Temple.[186]

There are but few remains of the ancient Knights Templars now existing

in the Temple beyond the CHURCH. The present Inner Temple Hall was

the ancient HALL OF THE KNIGHTS, but it has at different periods

been so altered and repaired as to have lost almost every trace and

vestige of antiquity. In the year 1816 it was nearly rebuilt, and the

following extract from “The Report and Observations of the Treasurer

on the late Repairs of the Inner Temple Hall,” may prove interesting,

as showing the state of the edifice previous to that period. “From

the proportions, the state of decay, the materials of the eastern and

southern walls, the buttresses of the southern front, the pointed

form of the roof and arches, and the rude sculpture on the two doors

of public entrance, the hall is evidently of very great antiquity....

The northern wall appears to have been rebuilt, except at its two

extremities, in modern times, but on the old foundations.... The roof

was found to be in a very decayed and precarious state. It appeared to

have undergone reparation at three separate periods of time, at each of

which timber had been unnecessarily added, so as finally to accumulate

a weight which had protruded the northern and southern walls. It

became, therefore, indispensable to remove all the timber of the roof,

and to replace it in a lighter form. On removing the old wainscoting

of the western wall, a perpendicular crack of considerable height and

width was discovered, which threatened at any moment the fall of that

extremity of the building with its superincumbent roof.... The turret

of the clock and the southern front of the hall are only cased with

stone; this was done in the year 1741, and very ill executed. The

structure of the turret, composed of chalk, ragstone, and rubble, (the

same material as the walls of the church,) seems to be very ancient....

The wooden cupola of the bell was so decayed as to let in the rain, and

was obliged to be renewed in a form to agree with the other parts of

the southern front.”

“Notwithstanding the Gothic character of the building, in the year

1680, during the treasurership of Sir Thomas Robinson, prothonotary of

C. B., a Grecian screen of the Doric order was erected, surmounted by

lions’ heads, cones, and other incongruous devices. In the year 1741,

during the treasurership of John Blencowe, esq., low windows of Roman

architecture were formed in the southern front. The dates of such

innovations appear from inscriptions with the respective treasurers’

names.”

This ancient hall formed the far-famed refectory of the Knights

Templars, and was the scene of their proud and sumptuous hospitality.

Within its venerable walls they at different periods entertained king

John, king Henry the Third, the haughty legates of the Roman pontiffs,

and the ambassadors of foreign powers. The old custom, alluded to by

Matthew Paris, (ante, p. 203,) of hanging around the walls the shields

and armorial devices of the ancient knights, is still preserved, and

each succeeding treasurer of the Temple still continues to hoist his

coat of arms on the wall, as in the high and palmy days of the warlike

monks of old. Here, in the time of the Knights Templars, the discipline

was administered to disobedient brethren, who were scourged upon their

bare backs with leathern thongs. Here also was kept, according to

the depositions of the witnesses who brought such dark and terrible

accusations against the Templars before the ecclesiastical tribunal

assembled in London, the famous black idol with shining eyes, and the

gilded head, which the Templars worshipped! and from hence was taken

the refractory knight, who having refused to spit upon the cross, was

plunged into the well which stood in the middle of the Temple court!

The general chapters of the Templars were frequently held in the Temple

Hall, and the vicar of the church of St. Clements at Sandwich, swore

before the Papal inquisitors assembled at London, that he had heard

that a boy had been murdered by the Templars in the Temple, because he

had crept by stealth into the Hall to witness the proceedings of the

assembled brethren.

At the west end of the hall are considerable remains of the ancient

convent of the Knights. A groined Gothic arch of the same style of

architecture as the oldest part of the Temple Church forms the roof of

the present buttery, and in the apartment beyond is a groined vaulted

ceiling of great beauty. The ribs of the arches in both rooms are

elegantly moulded, but are sadly disfigured with a thick coating of

plaster and barbarous whitewash. In the cellars underneath these rooms

are some old walls of immense thickness, the remains of an ancient

window, a curious fireplace, and some elegant pointed Gothic arches

corresponding with the ceilings above; but they are now, alas! shrouded

in darkness, choked with modern brick partitions and staircases, and

soiled with the damp and dust of many centuries. These interesting

remains form an upper and an under story, the floor of the upper story

being on a level with the floor of the hall, and the floor of the

under story on a level with the terrace on the south side thereof.

They were formerly connected with the church by means of a covered way

or cloister, which ran at right angles with them over the site of the

present cloister-chambers, and communicated with the upper and under

story of the chapel of St. Anne, which formerly stood on the south side

of the church. By means of this corridor and chapel the brethren of the

Temple had private access to the church for the performance of their

strict religious duties, and of their secret ceremonies of admitting

novices to the vows of the order. In 9 Jac. I., A. D. 1612, some brick

buildings three stories high were erected over this ancient cloister by

Francis Tate, esq., and being burnt down a few years afterwards, the

interesting covered way which connected the church with the ancient

convent was involved in the general destruction, as appears from

the following inscription upon the present buildings:--VETUSTISSIMA

TEMPLARIORUM PORTICU IGNE CONSUMPTA, ANNO 1678, NOVA HÆC, SUMPTIBUS

MEDII TEMPLI EXTRUCTA, ANNO 1681, GULIELMO WHITELOCKE ARMIGERO,

THESAURARIO. “The very ancient portico of the Templars being consumed

by fire in the year 1678, these new buildings were erected at the

expense of the Middle Temple in the year 1681, during the treasurership

of William Whitelocke, esq.”

The cloisters of the Templars formed the medium of communication

between the halls, of the church, and the cells of the serving brethren

of the order. During the formation of the present new entrance into

the Temple, by the church, at the bottom of the Inner Temple lane,

a considerable portion of the brickwork of the old houses was pulled

down, and an ancient wall of great thickness was disclosed. It was

composed of chalk, ragstone, and rubble, exactly resembling the walls

of the church. It ran in a direction east and west, and appeared to

have formed the extreme northern boundary of the old convent. The exact

site of the remaining buildings of the ancient Temple cannot now be

determined with certainty.

Among the many interesting objects to be seen in the ancient church

of the Knights Templars which still exists in a wonderful state of

preservation, is the PENITENTIAL CELL, a dreary place of solitary

confinement formed within the thick wall of the building, only four

feet six inches long and two feet six inches wide, so narrow and

small that a grown person cannot lie down within it.[187] In this

narrow prison the disobedient brethren of the ancient Templars were

temporarily confined in chains and fetters, “in order that their

souls might be saved from the eternal prison of hell.” The hinges and

catch of a door firmly attached to the doorway of this dreary chamber

still remain, and at the bottom of the staircase is a stone recess or

cupboard, where bread and water were placed for the prisoner. In this

cell Brother Walter le Bachelor, Knight, Grand Preceptor of Ireland, is

said to have been starved to death.

THE END.

LONDON:

G. J. PALMER, SAVOY STREET, STRAND.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Will. Tyr._ lib. i. cap. 2, lib. viii. cap. 3. _Jac. de Vitr.

Hist. Hierosol._ cap. lxii. p. 1080. _D’Herbelot Bib. Orient._ p. 270,

687, ed. 1697.

[2] _Procopius_ de ædificiis Justiniani, lib. 5.

[3] _Will. Tyr._ lib. xii. cap. 7, lib. viii. cap. 3. _Hist. Orient.

Jac. de Vitr. apud Thesaur. Nov. Anecd. Martene_, tom. iii. col. 277.

_Phocæ descript. Terr. Sanct._ cap. 14, col. 1653.

[4] _Chrysost. Henriq. de Priv. Cist._ p. 477.

[5] See also Hoveden apud X script. page 479. Hen. Hunting. ib. page

384.

[6] _Will. Tyr._ lib. xiii. cap. 26; _Anselmus_, lib. iii. epistolarum,

epist. 43, 63, 66, 67.

[7] _Reg. Cart. S. Joh. Jerus. in Bib. Cotton. Nero E. b._ No. xx. fo.

118.

[8] _Odo de Diogilo de Ludov._ vii. _profectione in Orientem_, p. 67.

[9] _Duchesne hist. franc. scrip._ tom. iv. p. 512; epist. 58, 59.

[10] _Dugd. Monast._ vol. vii. p. 838; vol. ii. p. 820, 843, ed. 1830.

Baronage, tom. i. p. 122.

[11] _Will. Tyr._ lib. xvii. cap. 21, cap. 9.

[12] _Registr. epist._ apud _Martene_, tom. ii. col. 647.

[13] _Will. Tyr._ lib. xvii. cap. 27; lib. xviii. cap. 14; lib. xix.

cap. 8.

[14] Keightley’s Crusaders. The virtues of Noureddin are celebrated

by the Arabic Historian _Ben-Schunah_, by _Azzeddin Ebn-al-athir_,

by _Khondemir_, and in the work entitled, “The flowers of the two

gardens,” by _Omaddeddin Kateb_. See also _Will. Tyr._ lib. xx. cap. 33.

[15] _Alwakidi_, translated by Ockley, _Hist. Saracen._ _Cinnamus_,

lib. iv. num. 22.

[16] His. de Saladin, per _M. Marin_, tome i. p. 120, 1. _Gibbon_, cap.

59.

[17] _Hist. Franc. Script._ tom. iv. p. 692, 693. _Gesta Dei_, epist.

xiv. p. 1178, 9.

[18] _Martene_, vet. Script., tom. ii. col. 846, 847, 883. _Gesta Dei_,

tom. i. p. 1181-1184. _Duchesne._ Hist. Franc. script. p. 698.

[19] _Will. Tyr._ lib. xxii. cap. 5.

[20] _Will. Tyr._ lib. xviii. cap. 4, 5. lib. xx. cap. 5. _Hoveden_ in

Hen. 2, p. 622. _De Vertot_, Hist. des Chevaliers de Malte, liv. ii. p.

150 to 161, ed. 1726.

[21] _Will. Tyr._ lib. xxi. cap. 29.

[22] Académie des Inscriptions, tom. xvii. p. 127, 170.

[23] Adjecit etiam et alia _a spiritu superbiæ_, quo ipse plurimum

abundabat, dictata, quæ præsenti narrationi non multum necessarium est

interserere.--_Will. Tyr._ lib. xx. cap. 32.

[24] _Will. Tyr._ lib. xx. xxi. xxii.

[25] _Will. Tyr._ lib. xx-xxii. _Abulpharadge_ Chron. Syr. p. 379-381.

[26] _Hemingford_, cap. 33. _Hoveden_, ad ann. 1185; _Radulph de

Diceto_, p. 622-626. Concil. Mag. Brit. tom. iv, p. 788. _Matt. West._

ad ann. 185; _Guill. Neubr._ tom. i. lib. iii. cap. 12, 13.

[27] _Speed._ Hist. Britain, p. 506. A. D. 1185.

[28] _Stowe’s_ Survey. _Tanner_, Notit. Monast. _Dugd._ Orig. Jurid.

_Herbert_, Antiq. Inns of Court.

[29] _Dugd._ Monast. Angl. vol vi. part ii. p. 820.

[30] _Will. Tyr._ lib. xii. cap. 7.

[31] _Will. Tyr._ lib. xx. cap. 21. _Rob. de Monte_, appen. ad chron.

Sig. p. 631. _Marin_, _Sanut._ p. 221. _Bernard_, Thesaur. p. 768.

_Matt. Par._ p. 142.

[32] _Roccus Pyrrhus_, Sicil. Antiq. tom. iii. col. 1000, 1093, 4, 5,

6, 7, &c.

[33] _Mariana_, de. reb. Hist. lib. ii. cap. 23.

[34] Script. rer. Germ. tom. ii. col. 584.

[35] Constantinop. Christ. lib. iv. p. 157.

[36] Hist. Gen. de Languedoc. Hist. de la ville de Paris, tom. i. p.

174. Gall. christ. nov. tom. vi., tom. vii. col. 853.

[37] _Dugd._ Monast. Angl. vol. vi. part 2, p. 800 to 817. Concil.

Magnæ Britanniæ, tom. iii. p. 333 to 382. Acta _Rymeri_, tom iii. p.

279, 288, 291, 295, &c.

[38] _Nichol’s_ Hist. of Leicestershire.

[39] _Clutterbuck’s_ Hist. of Hertfordshire. Acta _Rymeri_, tom. iii.

p. 133, 134. _Dodsworth_, MS. vol. xxxv.

[40] _Morant’s_ Hist. Essex. _Rymer_, tom. iii. p. 290 to 294.

[41] Inquis. terrar. ut sup. _Peck’s_ MS. in Musseo Britannico, vol.

iv. fol. 95. _Dodsworth_, MS. vol. xx. p. 65, 67. _Dugd._ Baron, tom.

i. p. 70.

[42] Monast. Angl. _Hasted._ Hist. Kent. _Manning’s_ Surrey. _Atkyn’s_

Gloucestershire; and see the references in _Tanner_. _Nash’s_

Worcestershire. _Bridge’s_ Northamptonshire, vol. ii. p. 100.

[43] _Thoroton’s_ Nottinghamshire. _Burn and Nicholson’s_ Westmoreland.

_Worsley’s_ Isle of Wight. _Mat. Par._ p. 615, ed. Lond. 1640.

[44] _Dugd._ Monast. Angl. p. 838.

[45] _Dugd._ Monast. p. 844.

[46] Acta _Rymeri_, tom. i. p. 30-32, 54, 298, 574, 575.

[47] 2 Inst. p. 432, 465.

[48] Stat. Westr. 2, cap. 43, 13 Ed. I.

[49] Concil. Mag. Brit. tom. ii. p. 335, 339, 340, 355, 356. Monast.

Angl. p. 818.

[50] _Peck’s_ MS. in Museo Brittannico, vol. iv. p. 65.

[51] _Nicholl’s_ Hist. Leicestershire, vol. iii. pl. cxxvii. fig. 947,

p. 943; vol. ii. pl. v. fig. 13.

[52] Rot. claus. 49. H. III. m. xi. d. Acta _Rymeri_, tom. iii. p. 802.

[53] L’Histoire des Cisteaux, _Chrisost Henriques_, p. 479.

[54] _Lord Littleton’s_ Life of Henry II. tom. ii. p. 356. _Hoveden_,

453. _Chron. Gervasii_, p. 1386, apud X. script.

[55] _Lansdowne_ MS. 207 E. fol. 467. Ibid. fol. 201.

[56] Acta _Rymeri_, tom. i. p. 442, 4, 5. _Wilkins_. Concilia, tom. ii.

p. 230.

[57] _Matt. Par._ p. 381.

[58] _Matt. Par._ p. 253, 645.

[59] _Wilkins_. Concilia Magnæ Britanniæ, tom. ii. p. 19, 26, 93, 239,

253, 272, 292.

[60] _Muratori_ script. rer. Ital. p. 792. _Cotton_ MS. Nero E. vi. p.

60, fol. 466.

[61] _Radulph de Diceto_, p. 626. _Matt. Par._ ad ann. 1185. _Hoveden_,

p. 636, 637.

[62] The above passage is almost literally translated from the _Chron.

Joan. Bromton_, abbatis Jornalensis, script. X. p. 1144, ad ann. 1185.

[63] Contin. hist. apud _Martene_, tom. v. col. 606.

[64] Contin. Hist. _Will. Tyr._ apud _Martene_, tom. v. col. 585,

593-596. This valuable old chronicle appears to have been written by a

resident in Palestine. It was translated into Latin by Francis Piper

and published by Muratori inter rer Italicar. script. tom. vii. as the

chronicle of Bernard the treasurer. Assizes de Jerusalem, cap. 287, 288.

[65] _Rad. Cogg._ apud _Martene_, tom. v. col. 550-552. Contin. Hist.,

ib. col. 599, 600.

[66] _Bohadin ib’n Sjeddadi_, apud _Schultens_, ex. MS. Arab. Pref.

[67] _Rad. Cogg._ col. 552, 553. _Abulfed._ Chron. Hejir. 582.

[68] _Muhammed_, _F. Muhammed_, _N. Koreisg. Ispahan_, apud _Schultens_,

p. 18.

[69] _Omad’eddin Kateb_, in the book called Fatah. Extraits Arabes,

_Michaud. Radulph Coggleshale_. Chron. Terr. Sanct. apud _Martene_,

tom. v. col. 552 to 559. Contin. Hist. ib. col. 602--608. _Bohadin_,

p. 70. _Jac. de Vitr._ cap. xciv. _Abulfeda_, cap. 27. _Abulpharag._

Chron. Syr. p. 399, 401, 402. Gesta Dei, tom. i. p. 1150, 1.

_Vinisauf._ apud _Gale_, p. 15.

[70] _Hoveden_, rer. Angl. script. post Bedam, p. 636, 637. Chron.

_Gervas._ ib. col. 1562.

[71] Contin. Hist. col. 611. _Jac. de Vitr._ cap. xc. _Vinisauf_, p.

257. _Michaud_, Extr.

[72] _Rad. Cogg._ col. 567, 568.

[73] _Ibn-Alatsyr._ Extraits par _M. Michaud_. Bib. des Croisaides, p.

464.

[74] _Rad. Cogg._ col. 570-573. Contin. Hist. Bell. Sacr. col.

614, 615, 621. _Bohadin_, cap. xxxvi. and the Arab Extracts, apud

_Schultens_, cap. xxvii. p. 42, 43.

[75] _Hoveden_, Rer. Angl. script. post Bedam, p. 645, 646.

[76] _Bohadin_ apud _Schultens_, cap. 36. _Abulfeda_, ib. cap. xxvii.

p. 43. _Wilken_ Comment. p. 148.

[77] Khotbeh, or sermon of _Mohammed Ben Zeky_.--_Michaud_, Extraits

Arabes.

[78] _Michaud_, Pieces justificatives, No. ix. 485.

[79] _Hoveden_, p. 646. Contin. Hist. col. 623. _Ibn-Alatsyr_, p.

474-477.

[80] Ipse meis vidi oculis, uno eorum cadente, alter mox eundem locum

occuparet, immotique, perstarent ad instar muri. _Bohadin_ apud

_Schultens_, p. 85. _Michaud_, Extraits, p. 487, 488.

[81] _Ibn Alatsyr_, ut sup. p. 479-484, 492. _Bohadin_, cap. 41-44, 48,

49.

[82] _Radulph de Diceto_, apud X. script. p. 642.

[83] _Vinisauf_ apud _Gale_ XV. script, vol. 2. p. 270. _Rad. Cogg._

col. 574. Gesta Dei, tom. 1, part 2, p. 1165. _Radulph de Diceto_ col.

649.

[84] _Ducange_, Gloss, tom. vi. p. 1036. Cotton MS. Nero E. vi. p. 60,

fol. 466.

[85] _Bohadin_, cap. 55-58, 75-84. _Ibn Alat_. ut sup. p. 499, 500,

510-514. _Vinisauf_, apud _Gale_ XV. script. cap. 58-60. _D’Herbelot_,

Bib. Orient, p. 743.

[86] _Rad. Cogg_. col. 557. _Vinisauf_, cap. 64, 74. L’Art de Verif.

tom. 4, p. 59, ed. 1818.

[87] Hist. de la maison de Sablè, liv. vi. chap. 5. p. 174, 175.

Cotton MS. Nero, E. vi. p. 60. folio 466, where he is called Robert de

Sambell. L’Art de Verif. tom. v. p. 347.

[88] _Jac. de Vitr._ Gesta Dei, cap. 65.

[89] _Michaud_, Hist. des Croisades, tom. ii. p. 383, 384.

[90] _Bohadin_, cap. 95-110, 112. _I’Bn Alat._ p. 520. _Bohadin_, cap.

115. Contin. Hist. col. 634, 635.

[91] Contin. Hist. col. 633. _Trivet_ ad ann. 1191. Chron. de S. Denis,

lib. ii. cap. 7.

[92] Itinerarium regis Anglorum Ricardi et aliorum in terram

Hierosolymorum auctore _Gaufrido de Vinisauf_. _Gale’s_ scriptores

Historiæ Anglicanæ, tom. ii. p. 247-429.

[93] Erat autem perelegans ea et per sane venusta, validissimis

mœnibus, celsissimis ædificiis, ita ut terrorem quendam gravitate et

firmitate incuteret. _Bohadin_, apud _Schultens_, pp. 100-201. _Ibn

Alat._ p. 523-525. _Vinisauf_, lib. iv.

[94] _Bohadin_, apud _Schultens_, cap. 156, p. 235, 236.

[95] _Vinisauf_, lib. vi. _Bohadin_, p. 238. _Abulfeda_, p. 51. Contin.

Hist. col. 638, 641.

[96] _Cotton_ MS. Nero E. VI. 23, i.

[97] _Jac. de Vitry_, Gest. Dei, tom i. pars. 9, p. 1113.

[98] _Michaud_, Hist. des Croisades, tom. iii. p. 39.

[99] _Othonis de S. Blazio_, apud _Martene_, tom. vi. p. 886. Contin.

Hist. ib. tom. v.

[100] Lib. i. ii. epistolarum. _Inn. III._, epist. 138, 567.

[101] _Cotton_ MS. Nero E. VI., p. 60, fol. 466. _Ducange_, Gloss. tom.

vi. p. 1036.

[102] _Bernardus_ Thesaurarius, Script, rer. Italicar. tom. vii. cap.

187. p. 823.

[103] _Cotton_, MS. Nero E. VI. fol. 23 i.--p. 60, fol. 466. _Ducange_,

Gloss. tom. vi. col. 1036.

[104] _Bern_ Thesaur. cap. 190-200, Script. Ital. tom. viii. _Jac. de

Vitr._ p. 1135-1143. _Martene._ Thesaur. anec. tom. iii. col. 294, &c.

_Ibn Ferat_ p. 770. _Ibn Alat._ p. 538. _Oliverii_, Hist. Damiatana,

tom. ii. cap. 31.

[105] Epist. apud _Matt. Par._ p. 312, 313. _Martene_, tom. v. col.

1480.

[106] _Matt. Par._ p. 314. See also another letter, p. 313.

[107] _Ibn Schunah_, ad ann. Hejir 626. _Tyr._ Contin. Hist. col.

695-699. _Marin Sanut._ p. 213.

[108] _Od Rainald_, ad ann. 1229.

[109] _Cotton_ MS. Nero E. VI. 23 i. p. 60, fol. 466. L’Art de Verif.

tom. v. p. 351.

[110] _Matt. Par._ p. 615. _Tyr._ Contin. Hist. col. 722-725. _Marin

Sanut._ cap. 15. _Michaud_, Extr. p. 549. _Ibn Schunah_, Hejir. 638.

[111] Acta _Rymeri_, tom. i. p. 134, 165, 170, 194, 195, 208, 209.

_Matt. Par._ p. 234-237, 253. _Matt. West._ p. 271.

[112] Acta _Rymeri_, tom. i. p. 234, 258, 270, 275, 311, 373, 380.

[113] _Addison’s_ Temple Church.

[114] Cart. 11, _Hen._ 3, m. 33. _Dugd._ Monast. Angl. vol. vi. part 2.

p. 844.

[115] _Plac. de Quo Warranto_ temp. EDW. 1, rot. 4, d. p. 191.

_Spelman_, Gloss p. 251.

[116] _Djemal’eddeen_, ad ann. Hejir. 841. _Michaud_, Extraits Arabes,

p. 549.

[117] _Steph. Baluz_, Miscell. lib. vi. p. 357, de constructione Castri

SAPHET.

[118] _Conder’s_ Modern Traveller.--Palestine, p. 335, 337-339.

[119] _Marin. Sanut._ p. 217. _Tyr._ Contin. Hist. col. 731, 732.

_Michaud_, Extraits, p. 551, 718. _Matt. Par._ 631, 632.

[120] _Matt. Par._ p. 631 to 633. _Abulpharag_, p. 486. _D’Herbelot_,

Bib. Orient. p. 357, 628.

[121] _Cotton_ MS. Nero E. VI. p. 60, fol. 466. L’Art de Verif. tom. v.

552. _Matt. Par._ p. 618-620.

[122] _Matt. Par._ p. 711.

[123] _Matt. Par._ p. 733.

[124] _Matt. Par._ p. 736, et in additamentis, p. 161, ad ann. 1247.

[125] _Matt. Par._ in additamentis, p. 168, 169.

[126] _Joinville_, p. 47.

[127] _Ibn Schunah_, ad ann. Hejir, 648.

[128] _Joinville_, p. 58. _Matt. Par._ Chron. Nan. p. 790.

[129] Acta _Rymeri_, tom. i. p. 473.

[130] Gal. Christ. nov. tom. ii. col. 1008. _Tyr._ Contin. col. 735.

[131] Acta _Rymeri_, tom. i. p. 474, 557, 558. _Matt. Par._ p. 899.

[132] Reg. et constit. ord. Cisterc. p. 480. Acta _Rymeri_, tom. i. p.

575-582.

[133] _Od. Rainald_, ad ann. 1257. _Tyr._ Contin. col. 732, 735-737.

[134] Acta _Rymeri_, tom. i. p. 698.

[135] Ib. p. 730, 878, 879.

[136] _Tyr._ Contin. Hist. col. 737, 742. _Sanut._ p. 220-222.

_Abulfeda_, apud _Wilkins_, p. 223. _Ibn Ferat_ Chron. Arab ad ann.

Hejir. 662, 664. _Mohieddin_, by _Schafi Ibn Ali Abbas_. _Michaud_

Extraits, 668, 669, 673, 674.

[137] _Ibn Ferat._ Hejir. 666. _Michaud_, Extr. 675-785. _Tyr._ Contin.

col. 743

[138] _Tyr._ Contin. col. 745. _Sanut_, p. 224. _Michaud_, p. 757.

_Trivet_, ad ann. 1272. _Walsingham_, p. 43. Acta _Rymeri_, tom. i. p.

885, 889; tom. ii. p. 2.

[139] _Tyr._ Contin. col. 746, 747. Acta _Rymeri_, tom. ii. p. 34.

[140] De excidio urbis Acconis apud _Martene_, tom. v. col. 757, 782.

_De Guignes_, Hist. des Huns, tom. iv. p. 162. _Abulfarag._ Chron. Syr.

p. 595. _Wilkens_, Comment. Abulfed. Hist. p. 231-234. _Marin. Sanut.

Torsell_, lib. iii. pars 12, cap. 21, 22. _Makrisi_, ad ann. Hejir.

689, 690. _Hermann Cornarius_, Collect. _d’Ekard Michaud_, Bib. des

Croisades, tom. ii.

[141] Concil. Mag. Brit. tom. ii. p. 350-352, 387, 388. _Cotton_ MS.

Nero E. VI. 23 i. p. 60, fol. 466. L’Art de Verif. tom. i. p. 523, ed.

1783. _Rainald_, tom. xiv. ad ann. 1294.

[142] _Haiton_, Hist. Tartar. cap. 43. Chron. de _Nangis Rainald_, ad

ann. 1299, 1300, n. 34. _Marin. Sanut._ p. 242. _De Guignes_, tom iv.

p. 184.

[143] _Ibn Ferat_, ad ann. Hejir. 690. _Sanut._ p. 232.

[144] Acta _Rymeri_, tom. i. p. 575-579, 582, tom. ii. p. 529.

_Martene_, tom. vii. col. 156.

[145] Acta _Rymeri_, tom. ii. p. 683. _Hemingford_, vol. i. p. 159,

244. Rolls of Parliament, vol. i. p. 2. Ib. No. 7.

[146] _Dupuy_, tom. ii. p. 309. Chron. St. Denis. Acta _Rymeri_, tom.

iii. p. 18.

[147] Ostendens duo ossa quod dicebat illa esse quæ ceciderunt de talis

suis. _Processus contra Templarios._ _Raynouard_, Monumens Historiques,

p. 73, ed. 1813.

[148] Ponderibus appensis in genitalibus, usque ad exanimationem. Ib.

p. 35.

[149] Acta _Rymeri_, tom. iii. p. 35, 37.

[150] _Knyghton_, apud X. script. col. 2494, 2531. Acta _Rymeri_, tom.

iii. p. 30-32, 34, 35, 45.

[151] Acta _Rymeri_, tom. iii. p. 100-103, 111, 121, 122.

[152] Acta _Rymeri_, p. 168, 169.

[153] Concil. Mag. Brit. tom. ii. p. 346, 347. Acta _Rymeri_, tom. iii.

p. 174, 175, 178, 179.

[154] The original draft of these articles of accusation, with the

corrections and alterations, is preserved in the Tresor des Chartres.

_Raynouard_, Monumens Historiques, p. 50, 51. The proceedings against

the Templars in England are preserved in MS. in the British Museum,

Harl. No. 252, 62, f. p. 113; No. 247, 68, f. p. 144. Bib. Cotton.

Julius, b. xii. p. 70; and in the Bodleian Library and Ashmolean

Museum. The principal part of them has been published by _Wilkins_ in

the Concilia Magnæ Britanniæ, tom ii. p. 329-401, and by _Dugdale_, in

the Monast. Angl. vol. vi. part ii. p. 844-848.

[155] Concil. Mag. Brit. tom. ii. p. 350-383. Acta _Rymeri_, tom. iii.

p. 179, 180.

[156] _Raynouard_, p. 52, 57, 75, ed. 1813. _Dupuy_, p. 138, 139, 174,

ed. 1700.

[157] Chron. Cornel. _Zanfliet_ apud _Martene_, tom. v. col. 159.

_Bocat._ de cas. vir. illustr. lib. ix. cap. 21. _Joan. Can. Sti.

Vict._ Contin. de _Nangis_, ad ann. 1310. _Rayn._

[158] Acta _Rymeri_, tom. iii. p. 194, 195, 224, 225, 227, 230-235.

Concil. Mag. Brit. tom. ii. p. 305-314; tom. iii. p. 228, 229.

[159] AGNES LOVECOTE dixit quod ... fratres aperuerunt quandam voltam

et perduxerunt de illo loco monstrum quoddam ad formam seu imaginem

diaboli, habens loco oculorum lapides rutilantes et illuminantes

capitulum, cujus culum osculabantur omnes, primo Magister, et postea

alii, et postea ponebant unam crucen nigram ad culum dicti monstri, et

spuebant omnes in crucem...! Deponit se audivisse à quâdam _dominâ_

Agnete, quæ dicebat se audivisse à sorore cujusdam Templarii, quod cum

ipsa soror denudasset fratrem suum post mortem, credens invenire signa

salutis, invenit in braccis dicti Templarii fratis sui crucem pendentem

contra anum...! Concil. Mag. Brit. tom. ii. p. 350-364.

[160] Acta _Rymeri_, tom. iii. p. 290. MS. Bodl. F. 5, 2. Concil. p.

364, 365. Acta _Rymeri_, tom. iii. p. 228, 231, 232.

[161] Concil. Mag. Brit. tom. ii. p. 383-391, 394-401.

[162] Concilia Hispaniæ, tom. v. p. 223. _Raynouard_, p. 199-204.

[163] Secund. vit. Clem. 5, p. 43. _Rainald_, ad ann. 1311, n. 55.

_Walsingham_, p. 99. Antiq. Britann. p. 210.

[164] _Maratorii_ collect. tom. iii. p. 448; tom. x. col. 377.

_Mariana_, tom. iii. p. 157. _Raynouard_, p. 191, 192.

[165] _Cotton_ MS. Nero E. vi. 23 i. Ib. p. 60, fol. 466. Acta

_Rymeri_, tom. iii. p. 380.

[166] _Lansdown_ MS. 207, E. vol. v. fol. 162, 163, 201, 284, 317, 467.

Acta _Rymeri_, tom. i. p. 134, 342, 344, 345, part 3, p. 104. _Matt.

Par._ p. 253-255, 258, 270, 314, 615, et in ad. p. 480. Concil. Mag.

Brit. tom. ii. p. 340; tom. xi. p. 335, 339, 341, 343, 344. _Prynne_,

collect. 3, 143.

[167] Concil. Mag. Brit. tom. ii. p. 393.

[168] _Villani_, lib. viii. cap. 92. _Dupuy_, ed. 1700, p. 71, 128,

139. _Raynouard_, p. 60, 209, 210.

[169] _Dupuy_, p. 179, 184. _Raynouard_, 197-199. _De Vertis_, liv. iii.

[170] Acta _Rymeri_, tom. iii. p. 130, 134, 139, 279-297, 321-327, 337,

409, 410. _Dodsworth_, MS. vol. xxxv. p. 65, 67.

[171] Acta _Rymeri_, tom. iii. p. 451, 454, 455, 457, 459-463, 956-959.

_Dugd._ Monast. Angl. vol. vi. part 2, p. 809, 849, 850. Rolls of

Parliament, vol. ii. p. 41. Concil. Mag. Brit. tom. ii. p. 499.

[172] Statutes at Large, vol. 9. Appendix, p. 23. Rolls of Parliament,

vol. ii. p. 41, No. 52. Monast. Angl. p. 880.

[173] Acta _Rymeri_, tom. iii. p. 472. Concil. Mag. Brit. tom. ii.

_Walsingham_, p. 99.

[174] Pat. 8, E. 2. m. 17. Ancient MS. account of the Temple, formerly

the property of lord Somers, and afterwards of Nicholls, the celebrated

antiquary. Acta _Rymeri_, tom. iii. p. 936, 940. _Lel._ coll. vol. i.

p. 668. Rot. Escaet. 1, E. 3. _Dugd._ baron. vol. i. p. 777, 778.

[175] Acta _Rymeri_, tom. iv. p. 406, 464.

[176] Rot. Escaet. 10, E. 3, 66. Claus. 4, E. 3, p. 1, m. 10.

[177] Sunt etiam ibidem claustrum, capella Sancti Thomæ, et quædam

platea terræ eidem capellæ annexata, cum _una aula_ et camera supra

edificata, quæ sunt loca sancta, et Deo dedicata, et dictæ ecclesiæ

annexata, et eidem Priori per idem breve liberata.... Item dicunt, quod

præter ista, sunt ibidem in custodia Wilielmi de Langford, infra Magnam

Portam dicti Novi Templi, _extra metas et disjunctiones prædictas_ una

_aula_ et quatuor cameræ, una coquina, unum gardinum, unum stabulum,

et una camera ultra Magnam Portam prædictam, &c. In memorandis

Scacc. inter recorda de Termino Sancti Hilarii. 11 E. 3, in officio

Remembratoris Thesaurarii.

[178] _Dugd._ Monast. vol. vii. p. 810, 811. Ib. tom. vi. part 2, p.

832.

[179] Pat. 35 E. 3, p. 2, m 33.

[180] Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. The wages of the Manciples of

the Temple, tomp. Henry VIII. were xxxvis. per annum. Bib. _Cotton_.

Vitellius, c. 9, f. 320, a.

[181] Acta _Rymeri_, tom. iii. p. 292, 294, 331, 332.

[182] Thomas of Wothrope, at the trial of the Templars in England, was

unable to give an account of the reception of some brethren into the

order, quia erat _panetarius_ et vacabat circa suum officium. Concil.

Mag. Brit. tom. ii. p. 355. Ita appellabant officialem domesticum, qui

mensæ panem, mappas et manutergia subministrabat. _Ducange_, Gloss.

verb. PANETARIUS. Concil. Mag. Brit. tom. ii. p. 371-373. MS. Inner

Temple Library, div. 9, shelf 5, vol. xvii. fol. 393.

[183] _Dugd._ Orig. Jurid. cap. xxxix. p. 102.

[184] _Will. Tyr._ lib. i. p. 50, lib. xii. p. 814. _Dugd._ Hist.

Warwickshire, p. 704. Et tune Magister Templi dedit sibim antellum,

et imposuit pileum capiti suo, et tune fecit eum sedere ad terram,

injungens sibi, &c. Acta _contra Templarios_. Concil. Mag. Brit. tom.

ii. p. 300. See also p. 335.

[185] Ex cod. MS. apud sub-thesaurarium Hosp. Medii Templi, f. 4, a.

_Dugd._ Orig. Jurid. cap. 43, 46.

[186] _Hargrave_, MS. No. 19, 81, f. 5, fol. 46.

[187] For an account of the Temple Church and its antiquities, see

_Addison’s_ “Temple Church.”

* * * * * *

Transcriber's note:

Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully as

possible, including inconsistencies in Arabic transcription. Some

changes have been made. They are listed below.

References to footnotes [14] and [71] were missing in the original.

They have been added.

The following is a list of changes made to the original.

The first line is the original line, the second the corrected one.

Page vi:

Henry II., king of England, visits the Temple at Paris

Henry III., king of England, visits the Temple at Paris

Page 3:

but as cotemporary historians of Palestine, who describe the exploits

but as contemporary historians of Palestine, who describe the exploits

Page 8:

themselves in various impregnable castles and strong holds,

themselves in various impregnable castles and strongholds,

Page 10:

The crescent had been torn down by the crusders from the summit

The crescent had been torn down by the crusaders from the summit

Page 14:

arranged by St Bernard, and sanctioned by the Holy Fathers

arranged by St. Bernard, and sanctioned by the Holy Fathers

Page 16:

XLI. It is in no wise lawful for any of the brothers to receive

"XLI. It is in no wise lawful for any of the brothers to receive

Page 17:

"LXVIII. Care must be taken that no brother, powerful or weak

"LXVIII. Care must be taken that no brother, powerful or weak,

Page 20:

In such causes it is neither safe to slay nor to be slain."

In such causes it is neither safe to slay nor to be slain.

Page 23:

and relate the wonderful things that are done in thee."

and relate the wonderful things that are done in thee.

Page 26:

his minister and vicegerent, the famous Suger, abbot of St. Denis

his minister and vicegerent, the famous Suger, abbot of St. Denis:

Page 31:

is of more avail than two two months of fasting and of prayer.

is of more avail than two months of fasting and of prayer.

Page 32:

the vizier who conducted the ambassadors laid aside his scimetar,

the vizier who conducted the ambassadors laid aside his scimitar,

Page 35:

had not put arms into their hands to make conquests; but the

had not put arms into their hands to make conquests;" but the

Page 39:

On the death of Nourdedin, sultan of Damascus, (A. D. 1175,)

On the death of Noureddin, sultan of Damascus, (A. D. 1175,)

Page 52:

In FRANCE the principal preceptories were at Besancon, Dole, Salins,

In FRANCE the principal preceptories were at Besançon, Dole, Salins,

Page 53:

the immediate jnrisdiction of the Master of the Temple at Paris.

the immediate jurisdiction of the Master of the Temple at Paris.

Page 54 footnote:

_Dudg._ Monast. Angl. vol. vi. part 2, p. 800 to 817.

_Dugd._ Monast. Angl. vol. vi. part 2, p. 800 to 817.

Page 58 footnote:

_Dug._ Monast. Angl. p. 838.

_Dugd._ Monast. Angl. p. 838.

Page 66:

better things, on pain of suspension and excommunication.

better things, on pain of suspension and excommunication."

Page 68:

the royal penitent to fulfil his vow and and perform his penance;

the royal penitent to fulfil his vow and perform his penance;

Page 70:

'No wonder.' sayde the patryarke, 'for of the deuyll they come,

'No wonder,' sayde the patryarke, 'for of the deuyll they come,

and returned in disgust and disappointment to the Holy Land

and returned in disgust and disappointment to the Holy Land.

Page 77:

be became, through his gallant bearing and demeanour,

he became, through his gallant bearing and demeanour,

Page 86:

now sweeping swifty across the landscape like the rainy clouds

now sweeping swiftly across the landscape like the rainy clouds

Page 87:

every one of them excepting the Grand Master of the the Hospital,

every one of them excepting the Grand Master of the Hospital,

Page 89:

and the blackened corses piled one upon another like the stones

and the blackened corpses piled one upon another like the stones

Page 98:

The place surrrendered after a short siege; the fortifications

The place surrendered after a short siege; the fortifications

and on the spot were Abraham delivered the seven ewe lambs,

and on the spot where Abraham delivered the seven ewe lambs,

Page 108:

He then descended from the pulpit, and prayed in the Mihrah.

He then descended from the pulpit, and prayed in the Mihrab.

Page 118:

The Templars, manfully defended themselves, and their brethren

The Templars manfully defended themselves, and their brethren

Page 122:

then to the centre, patiently enduring the severity of his pain.

then to the centre, patiently enduring the severity of his pain."

Page 156:

to the summit of the castle of Taphnis, to dirct the Greek fire

to the summit of the castle of Taphnis, to direct the Greek fire

the structure near the water, threw out their grapling-irons,

the structure near the water, threw out their grappling-irons,

Page 174:

employed by king Henry the Third in various important negociations.

employed by king Henry the Third in various important negotiations.

"This portion of the sacred edifice was of a lighter and more

This portion of the sacred edifice was of a lighter and more

Page 180:

Henry II., king of England, visits the Temple at Paris

Henry III., king of England, visits the Temple at Paris

Page 186:

and were extirminated in a bloody battle of two days' continuance.

and were exterminated in a bloody battle of two days' continuance.

Page 219:

king Edward had borrowed of the Templars during his stay at Acre."

king Edward had borrowed of the Templars during his stay at Acre.

Page 221:

The separate truces and treaties of peace which Bendocdor had

The separate truces and treaties of peace which Bendocdar had

Page 242:

delares that the Templars had “un lieu creux ou cave en terre,

declares that the Templars had “un lieu creux ou cave en terre,

Page 278:

que nous puissoms aver lez drettures de seinte eglise, comme

que nous puissoms aver lez drettures de seinte église, comme

Page 296:

mischief was, he could not get the honey unless he burnt the bees.

mischief was, he could not get the honey unless he burnt the bees."

Page 307:

fragments to be given in brotherly charity to the domestics,

fragments to be given in brotherly charity to the domestics,"

Page 310:

It was brobably soon after this period that the Hospitallers

It was probably soon after this period that the Hospitallers

Page 320:

"his beloved clerk," William de Langford," and farmed out the rents

"his beloved clerk," William de Langford, "and farmed out the rents