holding by the use of these words the views embraced by cardinal
Bellarmine.^19 Jewel, again, does admit that the term is used by the
Fathers, but wants to deny that they intended by it any notion of sacrifice
at all even analogous to that embraced by Catholics, and instead took
those places where various Fathers, for example, Eusebius inter alios,
speaks of the unbloody sacrifice as nothing other than prayers and
thanksgiving (a sense certainly found in the Fathers when using the term
sacrifice, though, it should be noted, never in connection with the term
‘bloodless’ or ‘unbloody’). Jewel also noted that the Fathers speak of
Christ’s birth as a daily thing, but since they could not have meant that
Christ was born of the Virgin every day, so must they not have meant
that the daily, unbloody sacrifice was to be identified with Christ’s death
upon the cross.^20
Laud’s citations of Jewel served the archbishop a double purpose.
Though the theological one should hardly be slighted, it is the rhetorical
one that he was certainly after, for he wanted to show himself Jewel’s
heir (though this is certainly a strained assertion), and that he was doing
nothing other than speaking as had the bishop of Sarum. This use
betrays the regard in which Laud’s accusers held Jewel’s reputation;
perhaps to the same extent it betrays both Laud’s regard for Jewel, and
also what Laud’s nemeses believed Jewel was defending. Regardless of
the archbishop’s sincerity in his use of Jewel, both Laud and his accusers
believed that an appeal to the bishop of Sarum was an appeal to an
unsullied, Protestant reputation that was to be identified with the best
that was Elizabeth’s Church. One no less than Richard Hooker had
commented that Jewel was ‘the worthiest divine that Christendom had
bred for some hundred years’.^21
Regardless of how the more precise saw Jewel, like Laud, the rest of
the High Church party were quick to latch onto his appropriation of the
Fathers in his defense of the English Church. This was true into the
nineteenth century, that is, until the Oxford Movement. In the summer
of 1833 following the Irish Temporalities Bill, by which Parliament
abolished two archbishoprics and eight bishoprics in the Church of
Ireland, the Oxford professor John Keble preached his assize sermon
‘National Apostasy’ (July 1833), and with it gave a formal commence-
ment to the Anglo-Catholic, or Oxford Movement.^22 Keble’s sermon
230 JOHN JEWEL AND THE ENGLISH NATIONAL CHURCH
(^19) Ibid., p. 358.
(^20) Jewel,Works, II, pp. 732–36.
(^21) Richard Hooker, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Vol I. (1841), p. 314. ed.
(^22) For a discussion of the Oxford Movement (also known as the Tractarians, after the
name of their publications, Tracts for the Times), see Owen Chadwick, The Victorian
Church, Part One, 1829–1859(London, 1966). Also Peter Nockles, The Oxford
Movement in Context: Anglican High Churchmanship in Context, 1760–1857
(Cambridge, 1996). There is some debate about how prominent the assize sermon was in
http://www.ebook3000.com