involve a contradiction, for if the abuse had destroyed the use, then
ought not Puritan clergy be indulged? For Jewel, this was not the case.
The reply to Harding, consequently aimed at Rome, did not absolve the
Puritans of their disobedience to the prescribed English use. Vestments,
though indifferent, were matters of order, and in a Church submissive to
its Queen, were not open to debate. In this light, the prerogative of
regional Churches, embraced and extolled in the Apologia, again
emerges, but now as a foil to Puritanism.
In this regard, the previously mentioned incident involving Jewel’s
refusal in December of 1565 to allow Laurence Humphrey a benefice
within the Salisbury diocese, due to the Magdalen College president’s
contentions over vestments, comes into sharper focus. Humphrey’s
opinion did not trouble Jewel, indeed Humphrey counted Jewel his
friend, and as shown by a letter to Bullinger dated the following
February, Jewel and Humphrey had similar convictions. But Jewel’s
private sympathies ended where Humphrey’s public variance began.
Jewel had written Parker explaining his position about Humphrey before
the 1566 Advertisements, and therefore this action should not be seen as
Jewel merely cowering to the prevailing episcopal wind: he had real
scruples about Humphrey’s position. As an English prelate, Jewel’s first
allegiance was to the 1559 Settlement, a settlement that preserved
England from Marian atrocities. Integral to it was the concept that the
prince had the right to make and establish laws for the good order of the
Church. Jewel held out hope, quite naturally, that eventually Elizabeth
would see things with better eyes, writing as much to Bullinger in 1566:
This contention about the linen ecclesiastical vestments {surplice},
about which you have heard ... has not yet quieted. That matter still
somewhat disturbs weak minds. And would that all, even the most
tenuous vestiges of popery be removed from our churches, and most
importantly from our minds. But the queen is not able to bear the
least change in religion at this time.^107In this sentiment Jewel displays not the least recrimination against
Elizabeth. Further, this statement communicates no change in Jewel’s
attitude or perception since 1559. His letters to Zurich, reflective of
Jewel’s aspirations, also give us the frankness of his mind respecting
English polity. If Jewel could live in the English Church with his scruples
about the crucifix, certainly the Puritans could live with the surplice.
So the Apologia, as well as Jewel’s other writings, must be seen as
more than merely an anti-Catholic document; contrary to Collinson’s
A PRELATE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE 187
(^107) ‘Contentio illa de ecclesiastica veste linea ... nondum etiam conquievit. Ea res
nonnihil commovet infirmos animos. Atque utinam omnia etiam tenuissia vestigia papatus
et e templis, et multo maxime ex animis omnium, auferri possent! Sed regina ferre
mutationem in religione hoc tempore nullam potest.’ Jewel, Works, IV, p. 1267.