1531–2.]
THE PROTESTANTS
579
his return to his living, he was informed that he was to be cited before Stokesley. His friends in the neighbourhood wrote to him, evidently in great alarm, and more anxious that he might clear himself, than expecting that he would be able to do so;[1] he himself, indeed, had almost made up his mind that the end was coming.[2]
The citation was delayed for a few weeks. It was issued at last, on the 10th of January, 1531–2,[3] and was served by Sir Walter Hungerford, of Farley.[4] The offences with which he was charged were certain 'excesses and irregularities' not specially denned; and the practice of the bishops in such cases was not to confine the prosecution to the acts committed; Jan. 10.but to draw up a series of articles, on which it was presumed that the orthodoxy of the accused person was open to suspicion, and to question him separately upon each. Latimer was first examined by Stokesley; subsequently at various times by the bishops collectively; and finally, when certain formulas had been submitted to him,- ↑ 1 See Latimer's two letters to Sir Edward Baynton: Remains, pp. 322–351.
- ↑ 'As ye say, the matter is weighty, and ought substantially to be looked upon, even as weighty as my life is worth; but how to look substantially upon it otherwise know not I, than to pray my Lord God, 'day and night, that, as he hath emboldened me to preach his truth, so he will strengthen me to suffer for it.'I pray you pardon me that I write no more distinctly, for my head is [so] out of frame, that it would be too painful for me to write it again. If I be not prevented shortly, I intend to make merry with my parishioners, this Christmas, for all the sorrow, lest perchance I never return to them again; and I have heard say that a doe is as good in winter as a buck in summer.'—Latimer to Sir Edward Baynton, p. 334.
- ↑ Latimer's Remains, p. 334.
- ↑ Ibid. p. 350.
