Note 320 — Chapter V · POLITICAL HERESY UTILIZED BY THE STATE. (continued 2)
Reading edition
Fisquet, La France Pontificale, Sens, p. 68.—Procès, I. 274-5, 281.—Contin. Chron. G. de Fracheto (Bouquet, XXI. 33).—Chron. Anon. (Bouquet, XXI. 140).—Amalr. Auger. Hist. Pontif. (Eccard II. 1810).—Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1307.—Bern. Guidon. Flor. Chron. (Bouquet, XXI. 719).—Joann. de S. Victor (Bouquet, XXI. 654-55).—Contin. Guill. Nangiac. ann. 1310.—Grandes Chroniques, V. 187.—Chron. Cornel. Zantfliet ann. 1310 (Martene Ampl. Coll. V. 158).—Bessin, Concil. Rotomagens. p. iii.—Raynouard, pp. 118-20.
It was not all bishops who were ready to accept the inquisitorial doctrine that revocation of confession was equivalent to relapse. The question was discussed in the Council of Narbonne and decided in the negative.—Raynouard, p. 106.
The number of those who refused to confess was not insignificant. Some papers respecting the expenses of detention of Templars at Senlis describe sixty-five as not reconciled, who therefore cannot have confessed.—Ib. p. 107.