Latimer's character, which has been treated most beautifully by the late Rev. E. Thomson, D.D., LL.D., in his S/cetches, Biographical and Incidental (Cine. 1856), p. 42 sq., seems to us to present a combination of many noble and disinterested qualities. " He was brave, hon- est, devoted, and energetic, homely and popular, yet free from all violence ; a martyr and hero, yet a plain, simple-hearted, and unpretending man ; an earnest, hopeful, and happj^ man, fearless, open-hearted, hating UQthing but baseness, and fearing none but God — not throwing away his life, yet not counting it dear when the great crisis came — calmly yieliiing it up as the crown of his long sacrifice and strugi^le. There may be other reformers that more engage our admiration, there
is no one that more excites our love" (TuUoch, Leaders of the Ref. p. 322-324). Latimer's sermons, character- ized by humor and cheerfulness, manly sense and direct evangelical fervor, were first printed collectively in 1549, 8vo, and in 1570, 4to; one of the best editions, with notes and a memoir, was prepared by John AVatkins, LL.D. (Lond. 1824, 2 vols. 8vo). A complete edition of his Works (the only complete one) was edited for the Parker Society by the Rev. G. E. Corrie (Cambr. 1844-5, 4 vols. 8vo). See Gilpin, Life of Latimer (1755, 8vo); Fox, Book of Martijrs ,- Mkldleton, Mem. of the Reform- ers, iii, 101 sq. ; TuUoch, Leaders of the Reformation, p. 245 sq. ; Hook, Eccles. Biog.vi, 551 sq. ; Burnet, Hist, of the Reformation (see Index) ; CoUier, Eccles. Hist, (see Index) ; Froude, Hist, of Engl. vol. i-vi (see Index in vol. xii) ; Engl. Ci/clop. s.v.; Blachcood's Maq. Ixix, 131 sq. ; Lond. Retr. Rev. 1822, vi, 272 sq. (,J.*H. W.)
Latimer, William, an English humanist of the 15th century, became in 1489 a fellow of All Souls' Col- lege, Oxford. He studied theology in that university, and afterwards Greek at Padua, and subsequently be- came teacher to Reginald Pole. He was a friend of Eras- mus, and even assisted him in preparing his second edi- I tion of the N. T. He died about 1545. Erasmus and j Leland both speak of Latimer in high terms as a writer I and scholar. Unfortunately, however, he never pub- lished any of his writings, and there remain in ]\IS. form only a few of his letters to Erasmus. See Hallam, Lit. Hist, of Europe (Lond. 1854), i, 232, 271.
Latin ('Pw^uaVKoc, Roman, Luke xxiii, 38 ; 'Pw/m- iari, in Roman, John xix, 20), the vernacular language of the Romans, although most of them in the time of Christ likewise spoke Greek. See the monographs on the subject cited by Yolbeding, Index, p. 135. See Lat-
INISMS.
LATIN, Use of, in the Administration of the Sacrasients. The words of St. Augustine against hea- then Rome in De civitate Dei, xix, 7, " Opera data est, ut imperiosa civitas non solum jugum sed etiam linguam suam domitis gentibus imponeret," may be justly ap- plied to modern Christian Rome. By imposing its lan- guage on all nations acknowledging its sovereignty it has obtained also the mastery over their spiritual life. Benedict XIV, indeed, nobly declared, " Ut ornnes ca- tholici sint, non ut omnes Latini ijant, necessarium est." But this principle of true, ancient catholicity resulted only in some useless concessions on unimportant points, for Roman Catholicism early found that it cannot af- ford to dispense with the use of Latin and adopt the vulgar tongues; that it would thereby endanger the consolidation of the Church's power — yea, its very ex- istence. Tliat the Latin language was originally used in the public worship of the Romish adherents, in countries where Latin was the popidar language, can- not be a matter of surprise or condemnation, nor that the clergy should have continued to use it in Chris- tianizing the nations who became subjects to Rome, even after its use had become obsolete in Rome itself. Of course there is everj- reason to believe that in the earliest stages the ecclesiastical language of the Greek- speaking Roman Church was Greek, and continued such till the transfer of the empire to Byzantium (Forbes, Explan. XXXIX A rt. ii, 430), and that, indeed, all the early churches followed the practice of the apostles, to whom the use of a foreign language was repugnant (compare 1 Cor. xiv, 19 ; ibid. IC). and made use of their own vernacular, as in the introduction of the Gospel to India, Parthia. and other regions. But the use of the Latin tongue b)' tlic Romish Church was in its early period admissible, when we consider that it was only the Church that had it in its pov.cr, at a time when the influence of the infant modern languages was derogatory to tlie Latin, to maintain the ancient language in com- parative purity, and to preserve to us its most noble mon- uments. Indeed, as Hill (English Monasticism, p. 325) has well said, " had it not been adopted by the Church,
LATIN
262
LATIN
then, for some centuries, while the new tongues were gradually developing themselves and settling into a form, the world would have been dark indeed; not a book, not a page, not a syllable would have reached us of the thought, the life, or the events of that period. From the 4th to the 7th century there woidd have been an impenetrable gap in the annals of humanity — tlie voice of history would have been hushed into a dead silence, and the light of the past, which beacons the fu- ture, woidd have been extinguished in the darkness of a universal chaos." Not so justifiable, however, -was the conduct of the Romish Church after the moderate de- velopment of the modern languages ; and we see an in- clination, even in the papal chair, to revolutionize eccle- siastical usage in this respect in the latter half of the 9th century, when the Slaves became converts to Christian- ity untler the labors of St. Methodius, and introduced the vernacular, with the consent and approval of pope John VIII (comp. Methodius, Epist. 247, to Sfentopul- cher, count of Moravia). Gregory VIII, on the other hand, quickly undid the liberal work of John VlII, and was loud in his denunciations of the use of any but the Latin language in Christian religious worship. Never- theless, there have been many exceptions during the Middle Ages. The Bohemian Church early manifested a desire to use the vernacular; and, although Gregory VII had stringently insisted on the use of the Latin, they succeeded at the Council of Basle (1431) in the pas- sage of an act tolerating the vernaciUar in the churches of Bohemia.