THE BUILDER DECEMBER 1916
THE SUPPRESSION OF THE ORDER OF THE TEMPLE

BY BRO. FREDERICK W. HAMILTON, MASSACHUSETTS

PART II.

DE MOLAY confessed only to spitting on the cross, denying the other
allegations. He seems to have been led to this partial confession, which in a
way was an evidence of weakness, by several considerations. One was fear of
torture. Although De Molay appears to have been a man of personal courage in
the battle field and was capable of dying a painful death with heroic
resignation, as we shall see later, he seems to have shrunk from the threat of
torture. He was also promised clemency if he would confess and he appears to
have believed that a partial confession would open the door to freedom and
enable him not only to save himself, but the other Knights. We must remember
that De Molay throughout was conscious of his responsibility as Grand Master,
and in all his actions he appears to have felt that he must consider not only
himself but the brethren of the Order who were under his command. He also
feared a definite charge of sodomy aimed against himself. There is no reason
to believe that there was a slightest proof for such a charge but De Molay's
enemies were active, ingenius, and unscrupulous. They had manufactured a case
against him and they had witnesses ready to sustain the charge by perjured
testimony. In those days escape was difficult if the tribunal desired to
convict and there is little doubt that if De Molay had been tried upon this
charge he would have been convicted. No matter how unjust such a conviction,
it would have meant death and dishonor. It is no wonder that De Molay was not
willing to face this. Under these circumstances he made his confession, but he
declared that he would offer satisfactory explanation if only he could be
allowed to submit it in person to the King or the Pope. What this explanation
probably was we shall see later. It is needless to say, however, that De Molay
was not permitted to make it, and his confession was held by his enemies for
all it was worth and more.

When Pope Clement heard of these proceedings he was extremely angry. He
immediately issued an edict suspending the Grand Inquisitor, and sent a
committee of cardinals to investigate and report. Unfortunately, however, the
case had gone too far to be stopped, as the King perfectly well knew.
Individuals might be punished, but in some way or another proceedings would
have to go on. Philip was not in the least daunted by the Pope's anger or
disturbed by his interference. He arranged for a conference between himself
and Clement which was held in June, 1308. The King, who, throughout these
proceedings shows himself to have been much the stronger personality of the
two, took the aggressive by demanding of the Pope five extremely unpalatable
things.

1. Canonization of Celestine V.
2. Condemnation of Boniface VIII for heresy.
3. A general Council to take into comprehensive consideration the affairs of
the Church.
4. Papal absolution for De Nogaret.
5. Removal of the papacy from Rome to Avignon.

Clement yielded with regard to the canonization of Celestine, the absolution
of De Nogaret, and the removal of the papacy. This was the beginning of the
long residence of the popes at Avignon which is known in history as the
"Babylonish Captivity." The condemnation of Boniface and the general Council
were two things to which he was entirely unwilling to consent. In return for
the relinquishment of these points he did exactly what Philip had foreseen and
desired; he abandoned the defense of the Templars.

After considerable negotiation a bargain was struck between the Pope and the
King. Two sets of terms were agreed upon, one to be made public but not to
bind either the Pope or the King, the other to be kept secret but to be
regarded as binding. According to the first, which was a tissue of treacherous
falsehoods, the Templars were to be taken from the French-authorities and
placed in the hands of the Pope as representing the Church. The property of
the Order was to be held in trust by the Church and the proceeds were to be
used for carrying on the crusade; that is to say for the purpose for which it
was originally intended. The suspension of the Grand Inquisitor and others who
had been involved with him was to be removed. The terms of the private
agreement were far different. The Church, on the plea that it had no
facilities for the care of so large a number of prisoners, was to leave the
persons of the Templars in the hands of the King. The properpty, instead of
being held and administered by the Church, in trust, was to be held by Philip
on behalf of the Church and was to be administered by a Board of
Administrators, half of whom were to be appointed by the Pope and the other
half secretly appointed by King Philip. In other words, the Templars and their
goods were handed over to the tender mercies of the King. Such was the price
in humiliation and dishonor which Clement paid for the title of Successor of
St. Peter.

The next act in this tragedy was the summoning of a Council to try the Order
as a whole. Henceforth here were two processes simultaneously going on, one
against the Knights as individuals and one against the Order as a corporation.
This gave opportunity for more treachery.

As we have seen, the King had played the game with loaded dice from the
beginning and now the dice were loaded even more heavily than ever, if such a
thing were possible. A net was spread from which it was well nigh impossible
for any one to escape, while the proceedings were extended to other countries.
It is not necessary to go into the details of the story of the proceedings
outside France. In a general way, so far as the individual Knights were
concerned, they were similar to the French proceedings although conducted with
varying degrees of severity according to the temper of the several monarchs
who were concerned in the matter. Actions against the Order as a whole were
covered by the proceedings which we are about to trace.

Knights were summoned from far and near to come to the defense of the Order in
its hour of trial. They were asked by the papal authorities to come and speak
in its defense and they naturally understood that this implied personal
immunity. They soon found, however, that nothing of the sort was intended.
When each Knight appeared he was asked if he desired to defend the Order. If
he said that he did he was immediately made a defendant, not only in the
process against the Order but in the personal process against the Knights. If
he took alarm and said that he did not wish to defend the Order, he was held
as a witness, liable to examination under torture.

Many Knights, trusting to their immunity as witnesses, withdrew their former
confessions which, as will be remembered, were obtained under torture. They
withdrew these confessions because they were false and because they desired to
defend the Order as a whole against the charges to which they had personally
pleaded guilty under compulsion. Considerable numbers of those who withdrew
their confessions in this way were immediately burned as relapsed heretics.
This, by the way, was the ordinary procedure in those days in the case of
dealings with heresy. As a rule there was very little chance for the accused
to escape. If he refused to confess he was convicted and burned on the
testimony of others. If he confessed and withdrew his confession he was burned
as a relapsed heretic. If heconfessed and did not withdraw the confession, he
was burned as a confessed heretic. About the only difference was that in the
last case he received absolution, which was supposed to save his soul, and was
sometimes able to save his property for his family. Moreover, not content with
the ordinary partiality of judicial proceedings in those days, the two sets of
proceedings were made to play into each other and evidence obtained in either
trial was used indiscriminately against the defendants in both.

Interest centers largely around the tragic figure of De Molay. As we have
already seen, he had been examined by the Grand Inquisitor in 1306 and had
made a partial confession. He was kept in close confinement although he
demanded an opportunity to appear before the Pope who, it will be remembered,
was the only person in Christendom to whom he owed allegiance, and submit to
him an explanation of the acts with which he was charged.

In 1308 he was visited by three cardinals sent by the Pope. He was solemnly
assured that he was now in the hands of the Church, from whose clemency and
aversion to cruelty and bloodshed everything favorable could be expected. He
was promised mercy by both the Pope and the King on the strength of a full and
free confession. He renewed his confession, although he did not extend its
scope, and threw himself on the mercy of the Church. He was given absolution
by the cardinals, was restored to the communion of the Church, and was
actually given the sacrament by the cardinals. This was distinctly stated by
the cardinals in a report which they made to the Pope.

In spite of all these facts, however, he was not set at liberty, though he
vigorously demanded it and urged the fulfillment of the promises which had
been made to him.

In November, 1309, De Molay was brought before the Council which was trying
the Order. Being asked if he would defend the Order he refused to plead. He
appealed to the Pope, pleading the rights of the Order and demanding to be
heard by the Pope in person. In response to the charge of idolatry he made
solemn affirmation of orthodoxy. Being charged by De Nogaret with having
dealings with the Saracens contrary to his vows and to the interests of
Christendom, he said that the alleged dealings consisted only of truces and
treaties made with them as incidents of warfare and for the sake of saving the
Christians in the Orient from disaster. The charge of sodomy was brought up,
but was not pressed with much vigor and the prosecution failed to establish it
by even plausible testimony. De Molay then demanded to be set at liberty,
claiming the failure of the accusations and the promises of both the Pope and
the King. The request, however, was denied and he was sent back to his
dungeon.

The tedious proceedings against the Order dragged on for three years. Every
effort was made to suppress the defense and to discourage or destroy the
defendants of the Order. Again and again the chosen representatives of groups
of Knights were either executed or silenced. Executions continually took place
as the result of the other set of proceedings and care was taken that these
executions should be as damaging as possible to the defense of the Order.

The proceedings lasted until May 6, 1312, when the Pope, by a summary exercise
of his authority, dissolved the Order. It is important to note that the Order
was never condemned. The proceedings against the Order were never finished.
While they were still going on the Pope intervened and put a stop to the
proceedings and to the Order at the same time. Examination of the evidence
shows that the charges were not substantiated, at least in any way which would
appear to satisfy modern ideas. It is quite probable, however, that had the
proceedings been allowed to come to their natural end the Order would have
been condemned. It is difficult to see how the Pope and King could have
permitted the proceedings to come to any other conclusion.

The intervention of the Pope was for the particular purpose of saving the
immense properties of the Order for the Church. By the law of that day the
property of a condemned heretic passed not to the Church but to the State. If
the Order of the Temple had been condemned for heresy its immense possessions
would have passed to the rulers of the countries in which they were located
and the Church would not have touched a penny. Dissolution of the Order,
however, without condemnation threw its numerous properties, scattered over
Europe and the east, into the hands of the Church. Pope Clement was not so
sincere a defender of orthodoxy that he had the slightest intention of taking
all his trouble for the purpose of enriching Philip of France and other kings
of Europe. He preferred to let the Order go uncondemned, to leave the Knights
to the tender mercies of kings and inquisitors, and to save the money for the
Church.

In this, however, he was only partially successful. It will be remembered that
in France, at least, the King was the custodian of the property of the
Templars and he succeeded in keeping a very large part of it. The same thing
happened to a greater or less extent in the other countries. The Pope,
however, succeeded in getting a portion of the wealth into his possession and
a considerable part of this finally found its way into the hands of the
Hospitalers. It is not to be understood that the Hospitalers were participants
in the proceedings against the Templars. The Order of the Hospitalers was the
greatest militant Order of Knights in existence except the Templars and the
natural administrator of property given in trust for the crusades.

De Molay remained in prison until December, 1313, when he was brought before
three French cardinals. The old vague promises of mercy were made and De Molay
once more renewed the old confession again without extending its scope. He was
taken back to his dungeon and told that at a certain time the cardinals would
make their final decision in the case. Trusting to the repeated promises which
had been made, De Molay came before them on March 10, 1314, expecting
liberation, probably accompanied by heavy penance and possibly other
penalties. To his amazement he was sentenced to life imprisonment. De Molay,
it will be remembered, had been in prison for seven years. Whether he had been
actually tortured or not is not quite certain, but imprisonment itself was
torture in those days and De Molay was not willing to face the prospect of a
further imprisonment which could terminate only in his death. He was shocked,
angry, and broken hearted at the treachery which he had met at the hands of
both State and Church. As soon as the sentence was announced, De Molay arose
in his place and retracted his confession, declaring that it was not true,
that he had confessed only out of willingness to please the King and the Pope
and a desire to help his brethren, and that he now wished to withdraw his
confession, proclaim its untruth, and take the consequences. The cardinals, in
confusion, adjourned their court until the next day. This was something
entirely unexpected and they desired time to think it over.

King Philip, however, had no intention of allowing his prey to escape him or
of giving the cardinals the desired opportunity for meditation. That very
night De Molay was taken from his prison by a detachment of the King's guards
and burned at the stake on a little island in the Seine. In spite of the
high-handedness of these proceedings, involving the invasion of the rights of
the Church by taking its prisoner from its hands and putting him to death, the
cardinals did not dare to raise a word of protest, so great was the ascendancy
which the King had obtained over the Pope. It is stated by tradition that when
De Molay went to the stake, he solemnly summoned the Pope and the King to meet
him before the bar of eternal justice within one year. Whether or not this
legend is true, it is true that within the year Clement and Philip were both
in their graves.

Whether for good or evil the Order of the Temple was suppressed forever. No
other body of men ever enjoyed such wealth, such power, such privileges, and
such immunities as had been enjoyed by the Templars. Whether they had used
them wisely or not, it is not always easy to say. That they were in a very
real sense injurious to both State and Church, we shall probably all agree.
That the Templars did not deserve so cruel a fate as that which overtook them
seems clearly established. In order to make this point clear, let us make a
brief examination of the indictment drawn against the Order and the probable
truth, or lack of it, in the charges.

The indictment against the Order contained 117 articles, or counts as we
should style them. This great number of counts was partly the result of
technical repetitions. In many cases the same accusations were repeated in
different forms, the first charging that a specified offense was committed by
all of the Knights, the second that it was committed by most of them, and the
third that it was committed by some of them.

Stripped of verbiage and repetition the charges came down to the following:
Denial of Christ.
Defiling the Cross.
Requiring indecent kisses from the candidates.
Denial of the sacrament of the altar.
Omission of the most significant words from the mass.
Granting of absolution for sins, even when not confessed, by the Grand Master.
Exacting an oath never to leave the Order.
Holding secret conclaves.
Permission to the members to practice sodomy.
Actual practice of sodomy.
Worship of Idols.
Adoration of a cat.
Use of cords which had been touched to an idol.
Murder of candidates for refusing to take the oath of secrecy
Murder of members for revealing the secrets ofthe Order.
Confession only within the limits of the Order and not to outside priests.
Failure to correct or reveal the evils which the members of the Order knew to
exist.
Failure to discharge the duties of hospitality which were incumbent upon the
Order.
Covetousness and rapacity in obtaining possession of the property of others.
The indictment closed by alleging the confessions which we have already
considered as proof of the truth of the charges.

It would be tedious, perhaps, to examine the charges in detail, but a few of
them should have careful consideration.

We know that the conclaves of the Order were held in secret and that no
outsiders were admitted to their ceremonies. That was not a crime, but it was
a cause of suspicion.

We have no sufficient evidence either that candidates were murdered for
refusing to take the oath or that members were murdcred for revealing the
secrets. In this respect, as in some others, the agitation reminds us of the
anti-Masonic charges of a later time and especially of those connected with
the name of Morgan. Fundamentally the same human characteristics are involved.

Charges of immorality are certainly not substantiated by the evidence. That
there were immoral individuals in the Order could hardly be denied. It would
be impossible that so large a body of men should be free from unworthy
members. It would be rash to deny that there were individual cases of sodomy.
The crime was common in the middle ages and has always been the curse of
celibate communities. That it was particularly common among the Templars or
sufficiently common to blacken the fame of the whole Order is absolutely
without proof. Indeed there is very little evidence in the trial bearing at
all upon this point.

The charge that the practice was permitted finds absolutely its only shadow of
foundation in the fact that a section of the "rule" provides that when there
were not sufficient accommodations for each Knight to have a separate bed, two
might occupy the same bed rather than that one should lie upon the floor.

The charge of covetousness and rapacity is natural. When a rich noble died and
left all his property to the Order his heirs, naturally enough, were not
particularly pleased. They doubtless had a good deal to say about undue
influence and other things which we hear about today. That the action of the
Order was particularly objectionable in this respect does not appear from the
evidence.

The charge of parsimony and lack of hospitality was abundantly refuted.

The charge of heresy or the holding of forbidden beliefs was not proved and
was always denied by the Knights.

The omission of significant words from the mass or any other form of blasphemy
was not only unproved but was vigorously denied by practically all of the
witnesses. The charges relating to heresy are denied not only by the testimony
of the witnesses but by the entire history of the Order. It is extremely
probable that the cosmopolitan character of the Order and the contact of its
members with men of many nationalities and of different faiths had the
inevitable result of broadening their views and giving them a certain
toleration and largeness of personal outlook. It is very difficult for a man
who comes constantly in contact with all sorts and conditions of men and with
a great number of national and racial types to continue a fanatic. During the
whole course of their existence, however, the Knights were the foremost to
shed their blood and spend their lives for the Christian faith, that is to say
for orthodox catholicism. They were the cutting edge of the crusading armies,
rivaled in this regard only by the Hospitalers. Again and again detachments of
the Knightswere cut down to the last man fighting for the cross and refusing
to surrender to the infidel or even to flee from him. Men do not show such
determination as this for a faith in which they do not believe.

As for the matter of confession and absolution. We know that the rule of the
Order especially provided that the members should have their own chaplains, to
whom they should make their confessions when it was possible to do so. This
rule was drawn up by St. Bernard and approved by the Pope. Obedience to it on
the part of the Knights could hardly be considered a crime. It was abundantly
proved that the Grand Master did not give ecclesiastical absolution. He did
have the right to receive disciplinary confessions, to condone offenses
against the Order, or to inflict disciplinary penance. This was a purely
administrative matter and had nothing to do with clerical absolution. No Grand
Master ever presumed to give clerical absolution.

The charge of idolatry arose from a curious misapprehension. It was alleged
that the Templars worshiped a brazen head. This head, it was said, had a white
beard and rested upon a tall tripod. To this head the Templars were said to
pray, and it was charged that the cords which they wore as a part of their
habits were consecrated to it by being touched to it. The great church of the
Templars in Paris possessed a very sacred relic. It was said to be the head of
one of the 11,000 virgins who were martyred with St. Ursula at Cologne. It is
interesting to know, by the way, that the legend of the 11,000 virgins rests
upon a misreading of an old Roman inscription. The inscription tells of "XI M
Virgines." M was read as an abbreviation for "mille" but it was really the
abbreviation for "martyres" and instead of being read 11,000 virgins it should
have been read 11 virgin martyrs. However, the head in question was believed
to be the head of one of the virgins, whether there were eleven or eleven
thousand. This head was covered with a white linen cloth and was covered again
by a gold or bronze case in the shape of a head. When the case was slipped
over the head the linen cloth showed at the base of it. The relic was
displayed on special occasions before the high altar of the church, mounted on
a tripod. This was the bearded, brazen head which the Templars were said to
worship. There were probably reproductions of this reliquary in other Temple
churches. It is probable that the Templars were glad to consecrate their cords
by touching them to this sacred relic as was a common practice in those days.

The charge that indecent kisses were required is probably true, though not as
a universal practice. This appears from a considerable number of depositions.
This was done probably from one or both of two reasons. It may have been
required as a test of obedience. It will be remembered that the Knight swore
the three great vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Obedience was held
to be absolute. Once the Knight had sworn he was under this bond and was bound
to do without question anything that he was told to do by his knightly
superior. His obedience was immediately tested by this requirement. The second
reason is almost unintelligible today but is perfectly intelligible to anyone
who is familiar with the life and habits of the middle ages. It was a rough
joke, and it was the kind of thing that the medieval mind considered funny.
Wit and humor as we know them were very rare in the middle ages. Their places
were taken by unspeakable coarseness. Anyone who is familiar with the art,
literature, and drama of the middle ages is only too familiar with this fact.
The more filthy and indecent the story or incident the more it appealed to the
rough humor of the time and the louder the laugh which it excited. Contrasts
of rough buffoonery with the most solemn incidents appealed to the minds of
the people of that age. It was only in accord with the habits of the time that
after the solemn ceremonies of the initiation the candidates should be
subjected to a bit of foolish buffoonery.

There remains the charge of denial of Christ and defiling the cross. That
there was any denial beyond the alleged defilement of the cross does not
appear. That the candidates were sometimes, not always, commanded to spit upon
the cross or otherwise defile it was confessed by De Molay and seems to be
clearly established by other testimony. It will be remembered, however, that
De Molay insisted that he could explain the fact, and the explanation appears
in the testimony of some of the witnesses. Witnesses usually testified that
they did not spit upon the cross but upon the ground near the cross, and some
of them testified that when commanded to do so they refused. Those who refused
were congratulated upon their courage and told that they would certainly be
good soldiers of the cross. In other words the command to defile the cross was
a test. The candidate having sworn obedience and having sworn to serve as a
defender of the cross was immediately put to the most difficult and trying of
all tests, a test which involved conflict of obligations. He was called upon
to choose whether he would fulfill his vow of obedience at the expense of his
vow of loyalty to the cross, or whether he would carry his loyalty to the
cross so far as to break his oath of obedience. It must be remembered that
this was an age in which obedience was a virtue and that the efficiency of the
Order, or any similar body, depended upon the absolute obedience of its
members to the orders which they received. As has already been pointed out the
loyalty of the Order to the cross is written in blood on every page of its
history, whatever may have occurred at the initiation. Undoubtedly the
explanation De Molay would have made, if he had been given opportunity to do
it, was the one just indicated, that this ceremonial requirement was a test
and entirely void of any deeper significance.

A survey of the charges and the evidence seems to show that the condemnation
of the Templars was an act of great injustice and that the suppression of the
Order was certainly not warranted by the charges which were brought against
it. That the privileges and immunities of the Order worked to the weakening of
the state, the impairment of the king's power and authority, the injury of the
Church, and the lessening of the authority of the bishops, must be clear to
anyone. That both Pope and King breathed easier after the Order had ceased to
exist is entirely probable, but that its crimes were such as to deserve the
treatment it received certainly does not appear from any facts in our
possession or brought out at the trial.

One question will at once arise in the minds of every Mason, "Did the Order
survive its suppression and is there any direct connection between the ancient
Templars and modern Templar Freemasonry?"

So far as we have any evidence this question must be answered in the negative.
Legend states that De Molay appointed a successor and a line of Grand Masters
is named connecting the ancient and modern Orders. De Molay had no right to
appoint a successor. The election of Grand Master is carefully provided for in
the rule of the Order and no provision is made for any other form of procedure
under any circumstances. There is no evidence whatever for the authenticity of
the list which is sometimes given.

Some of the Templars who survived joined other orders and some of them passed
their remaining days in obscurity or imprisonment. There is no traceable
connection between the ancient Knights of the Temple and any modern order. The
most we can say is that it is possible that the traditions and even the
secrets of the Order were cherished by its surviving members after the Order
was dissolved. Men do not easily forget things which have been very dear to
them, for which they have suffered, and for which they have seen their
companions die. That there was any esoteric rule or belief among the Templars,
we have no evidence. That there was a certain freedom of thought and breadth
of view would be the inevitable result of that cosmopolitanism and contact
with the outside world of which we have taken account. It may be that the
survivors of the Order, hoping against hope that it might some day revive, may
have communicated their hopes, their aspirations, their ritual, their views,
and their secrets, if such there were, to their chosen friends and in this way
the soul of the Order may have survived until it reappeared in other forms,
and its ideas and ideals may have been influential some centuries later in the
development of those movements which resulted in the transformation of Masonry
from its old operative into its modern speculative form. But all this lies in
the field of conjecture. As far as the sober historian can see the Order of
the Temple ceased with the edict of May 6, 1312, which absolved the Order, and
the tragedy of March 10, 1314, which ended the life of De Molay.


THE APRON SYMBOLISM

1. More ancient than the Golden Fleece
Whose story shines in classic lore: 
Or Roman Eagle--which portrayed 
Chivalric deeds in days of yore.
2. More honored than the Knightly Star, 
Or Royal Garter, it must be; 
A symbol you should fondly keep 
From spot and stain forever free.
3. It may be that in coming years, 
As time shall all your labors test: 
That laurel leaves of Victory 
Shall on your brow in honor rest.
4. Yea, from your breast may jewels hang 
Fit any diadem to grace: 
And sparkling gems of beauty rare 
May on your person find a place.
5. Nay more, perchance with coming light, 
Your feet may tread the path of fame: 
Which in our Mystic order leads 
To glory, and an honored name.
6. Yes, on your shoulders there may rest 
The purple which we hold so dear: 
That ensign which our progress marks 
In high fraternal Circles here.
7. But never more can you receive 
From mortal hand while here below: 
An emblem which such honor brings 
As this one--which I now bestow.
8. Until your spirit shall have passed 
Beyond the pearly gates above: 
May this the "Badge of Innocence" 
Remind you of your vows of love.
9. 'Tis yours to wear throughout your life, 
'Till death shall call your soul to God: 
Then on your casket to be placed, 
When you shall sleep beneath the sod. 
10. Its spotless surface is a type 
Of that which marks a noble mind: 
The rectitude of heart and life, 
Which in its teachings you should find. 
11. And when at last your weary feet 
Shall reach the goal awaiting all: 
And from your tired nerveless grasp 
The working tools of life shall fall. 
12. May then the record of your life, 
Reflect the pure and spotless white 
Of this fair token which I place 
Within your keeping here tonight. 
13. And as your naked soul shall stand 
Before the great white throne of light; 
And judgment for the deeds of earth 
Shall issue there--to bless or blight;
14. Then may you hear the Welcome Voice 
That tells of endless joys begun,
As God shall own your faithfulness, 
And greet you with the words, "Well Done.' 
--N. A. McAulay.
