was not the same as adultery, though the words of Christ with respect to
the causes for divorce closely linked them. If fornication differed from
adultery, then Augustine confessed that he was unable to tell whether it
was forbidden in the decalogue, but not whether it was not forbidden
altogether.^41 Oddly, Jewel never cited the passages from St Augustine and
St Thomas which countenanced the existence of brothels, allowable on
the assumption that if they did not exist greater harm could occur to
society, even though Peter Martyr cited them both (only to reject them),
the passages present in the Loci communes.^42
The Recusants and Jewel’s use of logic
Jewel’s oratio had hobbled his theologica, and consequently, the
scholastic in Jewel, something he had little place for, must fill the breach.
But as Jewel’s rhetoric faltered, his logic proved unequal to the challenge,
unable to save him, at least not according to Harding and the other
Recusants. While it may be unfair to say that Jewel purposefully abused
logic, the Recusants believed themselves justified in drawing this
conclusion, and probably the more so since Jewel’s rhetoric had so
poorly served his theology. The Recusants throughout their writings
repeatedly slighted Jewel’s theological logic and acumen, and one of
the most basic accusations against Jewel’s dialectic was that his
conclusions did not proceed from his assumptions and first principles.
Harding had attacked both Jewel’s rhetoric and logic, and found them
wanting.
Item, [according to Jewel] ‘The Fathers speak muche of the spiritual
Aulters of our harte, and of mere spirtual sacrifices: Ergo, they
denie, that there be any material “Autlers, and that theron the real
and external Sacrifice of Christes body and bloude is offered”’.
Logique is good cheape, where these Argumentes be allowed. But he
that lacketh a Recorder, may yet pype with an oten reede. If Logique
can not handsomly be applyed, to mainteine M. Iewels glorious
Chalenge, yet Rhetorique wil do good service. And yet in Rhetorique
it selfe these Arguments be but childish.^43Thomas Dorman amplified Harding’s sentiment, though he is far more
specific and acerbic on how it was that Jewel’s conclusions did not
THE CATHOLIC REACTION TO JEWEL 135
(^41) Ibid., ff. 403a–05a.
(^42) For Martyr, Loci, 2.11.8–11; for St Augustine, De ordine, 2.4.12; and for St Thomas,
Summa Theologiae, 2-II, Q. 10, a. 11. All cited in John Patrick Donnelly, ‘Peter Martyr
Vermigli’s Political Ethics’, in Emidio Campi et al, Vermigli, Humanism, Republicanism
(Geneva, 2002), pp. 65–66.
(^43) Harding,A Reioindre to M. Iewels Replie(Louvain: John Fowler, 1567), sig NNNi
b. His citation from Jewel is Works, II, p. 723.