THE TRIAL OF THE TEMPLARS IN ENGLAND 275

QUESTION

4. As regards Templars who, after
making profession of faith, have
at their reception engaged in
heretical practices, but who deny
the charges and cannot (owing
to the death of the members
who received them) be shown to
be guilty, should such be received
as belonging to the Church ?

5. If there are, say, ten, thirty,
forty, or more brethren who
deny the crimes and whose
guilt cannot be proved, do these
Templars retain the rights and
privileges of the Order, or is the
whole Order condemned by the
confessions of the other
brethren ?

6. Bearing in mind the preceding
questions, are the goods of the
Temple liable to confiscation by
the prince in whose jurisdiction
they are found, or must they be
reserved for the Church, or for
the benefit of the Holy Land
for which they were originally
given ?

7. If the prince, either of right or
as an act of grace, devotes such
goods to the cause of the Holy
Land, should the administration
be in the hands of the Church
or the princes, more especially in
France, where such goods have
always been particularly under
the care of the king and his
predecessors ?

ANSWER

4. In view of the confessions which
have been made, there exists
strong grounds for suspecting all
the members of heresy, and it is
right that the brethren whose
guilt is not proven should be
carefully guarded lest they spread
infection.

5. The Masters refer to the replies
to questions 3 and 4.

6 and 7. As the goods were given
to the Templars as defenders of
the Holy Land, and as the
purpose for which they were
given has not yet been achieved,
the property must be faithfully
preserved for the benefit of the
Holy Land. As to whether the
Church or the prince should
administer the possessions of the
Temple, the Masters point out
that the principal thing is that
the property should be admin-
istered to the best advantage of
the Holy Land, and it follows
therefore that the party best
equipped to conserve the property
should be entrusted with its
administration.

This series of replies was far from what Philip had hoped
for, though not perhaps from what his lawyers expected.
But the opinions were not altogether unsatisfactory. In
particular, the Masters agreed that in emergency a secular
prince was justified in arresting heretics, without prior con-
sultation with the Church, though the prisoners must be