rior.

abfurditas.

rum fanchßimorum Martyrum teftiúmque Lefu Chrifti adauxiffet. Cùm perueniffent Meldas,in carcerem ones incluferunt:ac tu quærere tormentis extraordinarijs,vt vocant,cœperunt:præfertim in illos XIIII. ad accufandum cos qui eadem doctrinam fouerent,quorum ta men nullus eorum ore accufatus aut nominatus fuit. In ea quæftione, virtus ku cùm crudelem in modum tortores membra corum diftraherent,ac tan- mana lup. tum no dilacerarent,quidam ex ipfis animo confirmatior,carnificibus clamaffe dicitur hortatufque fuiffe,ne mifero corpori parcerent, quòd tantoperè fpiritui voluntatique Creatoris fui reftitiffet. Poftero die quo crant fupplicio afficiendi,difputationem cum ijs doctores theologi renouarunt præapuè de facramento Cane Domini. Sed Picartus ceteri,incerti quid dicerent, planè obmutefcebant cùm Clericus quæreret ab eis,in quo fundata effet ipforum tranfubftantiatio, an cùm Tranfubft. panem ederent aut vinum biberent,aliquem carnis fanguinifue gustu perciperent. Poftremo hæc illis conditio oblata est, vt qui vellent in au rem facerdotis infufurrare,quod illis eft peccata cofiteri,ij aliquid gra tia obtineret,nec lingua cis præciderentur. Itaq; ex XIIII.quos fuprà nominauim',fepté ea conditione acceperit, aut quòd id no magm momenti esse arbitrarentur,aut quòd eo pacto beneficiumvocis redimere fe poffe exiftimarent.idque maximo dolore cæterorum, qui nullis nce minis nec promifsis flecti,à fententiáq; deduci vnquã potuerut. Hora aute post meridie fecuda,quæ fupplicio dieta erat, cũ è carcere educerentur, carnifex linguam primùm à Stephano Mangino poftula Manginne uit, quam ille præbuit libenter atque excruit:qua præcifa, fangui- lingua lonem euomens,loquutus eft,ita vt fatis intelligeretur, huiufmodi verbis ter precatus, Sit nomen Dei benedictum.móxque fuper crate traEtus fuit, quemadmodum & Clericus: cæteri verò plaustro impofiti deportabantur.quos quidem ij qui non fuerant damnati capitis, proximi pedibus fequebantur vfque ad forum magnum. Quo in loco quatuordecim patibula forma arculari crecta erant, atque è regione domus Mangini pofita. Et aliud patibulum feparatum ab alys ac paulò longius remotum, in quo fub axillis fefpendedus erat adolefcens, Mi- Fidelesochael Piquerius nominatus, quem propter atatem quò minus crema- tion deta rent,pudore impediebatur. Tum verò carnifices,cos non fecus atque agnos facrificio deftinatos alligarunt. Quoniam autem ij quibus lin

Facsimile (reduced) of a page in Crespin's "Actiones et Monimenta

Martyrum." [Quarto, 1560]

ues macta

natr.

the passage on ast conduct of terrible trials, plete, without have tried to nd for English rom exhausting Dorted Crespin's even hostile gin and Pierre rtling events of

t, at its culminnen, if not themthe "Reformed he long-suffering troubled French which may well

A

have influenced the Franco-Swiss protestants of the Reformation. The Vaudois sought, and accepted, doctrinal assistance from that vigorous young school of thought, and rejected the Roman Communion. They suffered a dreadful massacre, (under some authority of the recently constituted "Parlement of Aix and the French government), in 1545. Again, several towns even in the heart of France had doubtless furnished, as Meaux herself had already done, many individuals, and even some congregations, favourable to the new ideas. Whether before 1546, any of these last had advanced so far as Meaux towards a stable constitution, is perhaps impossible to find out. Be this as it may, one thing seems almost certain: namely that, as implied by a marginal note to the Histoire Ecclésiastique des Eglises réformées (Edition nouvelle 1883, Vol. I, p. 67), and by other authorities, Meaux produced strictly the first "Église Réformée", in the accepted sense, in France proper.

*

A visit to the town of Meaux, recently undertaken, had the result of furnishing me with considerable confirmation and elucidation of Crespin's really classical narrative; for I was there able to obtain a copy of the now rare, and happily unprejudiced, "Histoire de Meaux," published in 1865 by A. Carro, late official Libarian of that town; also to copy out two passages, used by him, in reference to these events, from an interesting MS. by Rochard, dated 1721, and preserved in the Town Library. These writers used some much older but inedited manuscripts,† which any one of antiquarian taste may perhaps find interesting. I also obtained at that town a copy of the "Histoire de l'Eglise de Meaux," 1731, by Dom Toussaints du Plessis, a worthy representative of the learned Benedictines of S. Maur.‡

The "Histoire Ecclésiastique des Eglises Réformées," attributed to Théodore de Bèze, and first published in 1580, gives an account of this tragedy, which is said by the editors of the modern reprint to be drawn from Crespin's work. [See the Paris edition of 1883. Vol. I. page 70, note; referring the reader also to Toussaints du Plessis]. Sismondi, in the 17th volume of his "Histoire des Français," follows Théodore de Bèze and other writers. In main features Crespin and Bèze agree. Some variation will be remarked on in my notes. It would be useless to repeat the history in Bèze's words also.

* See notes 3, 25a, and 29, hereafter. +MSS. by L'Enfant and by Janvier. The "Memoires de Lenjant," cited by Toussaints du Plessis, are no doubt the inedited MSS. of that writer. Cf: Hist: de l'Egl: de Meaux, Tome I, p. 318; and Carro, Hist: de Meaux, pp. III, IV, V.

Again, Carro's account of the affair appears to be merely a modern résumé from Rochard and Toussaints du Plessis; so I have been content to add to Crespin's narrative separate translations from these two writers. They seem to give independent histories of the tragedy from a point of view hostile to the reformers. They, however, singularly corroborate Crespin as to main facts and many details.

The official judgment in the case is still extant among the Archives at Paris; and, considering that the versions printed in different histories somewhat vary, I thought it well to make, and add here, a careful translation of the whole judgment as copied out for me from the original.

As you, and some other friends, have suggested that a wider public than your own family might like to see the present account, and the Huguenot Society of London has kindly taken the same view, some justification becomes due perhaps to readers unknown to me, for the bulk of the notes I have appended. While all of these may, I hope, be useful, there are very special grounds for several of them. The note on Étienne Mangin and his family is, I think, a fresh and important contribution to Huguenot information. The position, too, of his house, is now brought to light, by the admirable exertions of M. Moussé, of the Hospice général de Meaux, whose efforts in this matter deserve the heartiest thanks; and the note thereon needs probably no apology whatever. Again, some of those families which may be concerned with the event of 1546, (when sixty named persons were apprehended,) or are otherwise interested in Meaux, would find great difficulty in obtaining the history of that town. The note on that subject is chiefly drawn from Carro's Work. The note on Crespin speaks for itself. That on the celebration of the Lord's Supper by the Meaux Gospellers will, though a long one, be excused by any one who bears in mind the difficulties under which these people laboured, and reads the judgment against them. The shorter notes on the organization and discipline which they found at Strasburg, and on the Psalm tune sung at Meaux, will, I hope, justify themselves. Those on Briçonnet's work and contests, and on King Francis I, could hardly have been shortened or left out, in justice either to the former himself, to the subjects of the latter, or to the historical import of the Meaux movement.

In any notice of a religious struggle it is inevitable that doctrine be mentioned, or even made the subject of some remark. But I have avoided disputation on warmly contested questions of Divinity. The occasion does not seem in the