WHAT A PROTESTANT SAYS OF LATIMER.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume I, Issue 36, 3 January 1874, Page 9

WHAT A PROTESTANT SAYS OF LATIMER.

The following is from Burkes men and Worn™ of tha Reformation: " Latimer was a coward. Pip ho recanted no less than four limes under H>nry VEIL— in 15i9, when chirked wit 1 ! hares? before Cardinal Woliey, ' w ere,' Foxu almits, c he was content to subscribj and graunto inlo such articles as they propoun ltd unto hi n.' Kj came up again before Primitive Warham in 1531, and abjured a second time. He ap pej.ro I before Henry himself later, and made au unreserved submission of himself to the king in all spiritual rnitters. Lislly, when imprisoned fur heresy, along with Bishop Shixfon, towards the close of Henry's reign (1546), he abjured a fourth time, to save his life. Thus he dissembled not once or twice but for nearly twenty years. He was perjured and unscrupulous, for he accepted a bishopric in 1535, being then a reformer, and owore to the oath ia the Pontifical (about whose meaning there wis no doubt), pie tging himself to obediences to the usages and doctrines of the Catholic Church. How lie kept that oatli is a matter of history ; but it may be mentioned that the main charge under which he was deprived by Henry VIIE. was for open violation of the good Friday fast— a custom not easily chargeable with dangerous superstition. Mr Froude aptly remarks of a less flagrant violation of tbe day of abstinence, ' that it was in that era just as if a bishop of our time were to go to the theatre on Sunday— a mere wanton insult to general religious feeling.' Latimer's coarseness and profanity are not left to conjouture, not to the bias of pa >tizHns. He has given ample proofs of them under his own hand in his still extant sermons. It may be pleaded that these faults were those of the age rather than those of the man. I can only answer that those who say so can know very little of contemporary horailists. Latimer was a cruel persecutor, and bis conduct at the burning of Dr. Forrest was indescrib ibly shocking Ho was inconsistent in every action, whatever might be his ' inner consciousness.' His name appears as one of the bishops who sat to try John Lambert, who was in 1528 burnt for disbelieving in Transubstantiation, which Latimer had hijaself abandoned in 1529. Nor can it be pleaded tint he was forced to be present, having had no share in the matter, for he and Cranmer actually endeivored to make L-»mbert recant the very opinions they held themselves. Litimer's signature also appears attached to the death warrant of Jean Boucher. [_Vol ii. pp. 274-275 ]