two devices that Humphrey employed – Jewel the scholar defending
truth and Jewel the warden guarding the Church, embrace in their
clearly Protestant rhetorical strategy substantial elements of truth. As a
scholar, Jewel comprehended a complete change from earlier forms of
theological method, and this not only in distinction with his Catholic
opposition, but even when compared with his own mentor, Peter Martyr
Vermigli. Jewel’s scholarship became the instrument employed in
completing the second of Humphrey’s two categories, that of the
defender and nurturer of a new type of Protestant arrangement.
That England’s metropolitan and its third ranking bishop were behind
the program demonstrates the esteem in which the English hierarchy
held Jewel’s work both before and after his death. Already as early as
1563 Parker had desired the Apologyto be made part of the Church of
England’s confession, bound together with the Articles of Religion and
Alexander Nowell’s catechism, and enjoined without dissent.^9 Needless
to say, the queen resisted the move, not for lack of love of the Apology,
but because she wished to maintain only a modicum of doctrine.
(Though how any could think the Apology rife with theology is
perplexing.) Parker was more successful in getting the Defenceinto
parish churches, even though this move was resisted by of all people
Parkhurst, who thought that placing Jewel’s work in the churches a
risk:
Touching the bishop of Sarum’s work, as I have singular cause to
allow as well as of the author as of his works, so do I conjecture that
the placing of such controversies in open churches may be a great
occasion to confirm the adversaries in their opinions, that having no
wherewith to by Hardings’s books, shall find the same already
provided for them; where like unto the spider sucking only that may
serve their purposes, and contemning that is most wholesome, will
not once vouchsafe to look upon the same.^10Despite Parkhurst’s fears, which he confesses are but his own, Jewel’s
works were widely disseminated, and it became remarkable that an
THE IDENTITY OF THE ENGLISH NATIONAL CHURCH 227
coarguit, divinissimi Davidis vocem usurpans, Loquebar in testimonijs tuis coram Regibus
est non consundebar.’ Humphrey, Vita Iuelli, p. xxvii. What Humphrey means by
‘Scythicarum Ecclesiarum’ except perhaps government of foreign churches, I am not sure.
(^9) Strype,Annals, I.1, pp. 473–74. In some general notes of matters to be moved by the
clergy in the next Parliament and synod, with marginalia by Parker, in ‘A certain form of
Doctrine to be conceived in articles, and after to be published and authorized’, three items
are touched: the first two concern Nowell’s catechism and the articles as in Edward VI’s
time. ‘Thirdly, to these articles also may be adjoined the Apologyrevised and so augmented
or corrected, as occasion serveth.’ These articles were to be bound together, and to be
taught without dissent.
(^10) Quoted in The Correspondence of Matthew Parker(Cambridge, 1853), p. 416 (fn.
2), 17.