to take the pulpit and repent his subscription, which Jewel did with
tears.^161 Humphrey’s description of this elaborates not only on Jewel’s
confession, but as well on that of Cranmer, certain soldiers under Julian
the Apostate and Origen: all who had renounced the faith, yet with
contrition took it back again.
The author of the Brieff Discours would later write, noting the
compromise reached before Cox arrived, that ‘within fewe daies after,
this determination was broken. A stranger craftily brought in to preache
who had bothe byn at masse and also subscribed to blasphemous
Articles, many taunting bitter sermons were made (as they thought) to
oure defacing’.^162 That Jewel is the same stranger who both repented his
apostasy with tears and who preached a taunting sermon would seem
probable. In the first instance of his tearful repentance in the pulpit,
when cited as one of them who had subscribed to wicked articles, the
author of the Brieff Discoursnotes that it is Jewel in the margin. If the
second were other than Jewel the question is why did the author not
distinguish him from Jewel, even if only again in the margin? What the
author’s state of mind was toward Cox’s party when he penned these
words cannot be said, whether of libelous disposition or not; but that
bitter feelings had emerged dividing the two groups need hardly be
stated.^163 Jewel could well be the ‘stranger’ mentioned in the letter, but
whether he is or not, the author of the Brieff Discoursshows the level of
animus between the two parties this occasion produced, and by
extension, the level of animus during the Puritan controversy of
Elizabeth’s reign when the Brieff Discourswas published.^164
Cox, Jewel and the others were admitted into the Frankfurt church,
under the protests of some, but largely due to the intercession of Knox
who, ironically, pleaded for them. This immediately altered the course of
JEWEL TILL 1558 43
(^161) Humphrey, Vita Iuelli, pp. 84–87.
(^162) Brieff Discours, p. XLVIII.
(^163) Christina Garrett maintains that Wittingham is here referring to Jewel, and the letter
Jewel wrote to Goodman and Wittingham from Zurich seems to be that of the man
Wittingham described. Though we have no direct evidence that Jewel attended Mass, the
sermon he preached as a penitent fits the description given by Wittingham, and it seems to
be the same person that is mentioned earlier in the Brieff Discours. Cf. Southgate,
Doctrinal Authority, pp. 17–18. Southgate’s contention that Jewel parted on good terms,
and that the letter to Wittingham and Goodman attests to it is all on the supposition that
Wittingham and Goodman had played the interlopers at Frankfurt. But why would Jewel
ask forgiveness of them if that were the case? Jewel may well be him to whom Wittingham
was referring in his letter, but neither Garrett nor Southgate seem conclusive or persuasive.
(^164) Why Jewel’s name may not be mentioned could easily stem from his sympathies to
Puritan concerns, and the fact that the Puritans held him in high regard. Laurence
Humphrey having been his biographer, it may not have served Puritan interest to defame
him.