about its demise. Jewel’s polemical duplicity is apparent; but it would be
wrong to think that he does not believe himself justified in his use of
these authors this way. For Jewel and for many of the other English
Reformers,abusus tollit usum.This method is part and parcel of his
making the prince the guardian of England’s conscience, the keeper of
both tables of the law, for by the prince’s decree, abused things could be
made licit. The prince had become that unilateral, irresponsible
definition of tradition that Jewel would damn the papacy for assuming.
The matter of the Donation of Constantine serves as an excellent
example of how Jewel employed and misused humanism, and also
provides a sidelight on Jewel’s reading and use of criticism, illuminating
Jewel’s apologetic and polemical method. Though he knew and even
quoted Lorenzo Valla’s On the Forgery of the Alleged Donation of
Constantinewhen criticizing the morals of the Popes, citing Valla’s status
as a canon of the Church in Rome, and thus one who could, with a first-
hand authority, address his subject,^116 he never employed him when he
attacked Harding’s assertion of papal claims as contained in the
Donation. Harding indeed had tried to skirt and fend off any criticisms
by avoiding the text of the Donation altogether. He instead quoted a
Greek, Matthaeus the Hieromonk, as his authority on the question of
Constantine’s bequest to Sylvester I. This did not deter Jewel, who
launched an attack on the veracity of monk Matthew’s testimony (Jewel
added as an aside that Matthew had never even seen Rome and thus had
no authority in the matter). Moreover, Jewel pursued the whole question
of the Donation of Constantine and its authenticity, not on the grounds
of humanist arguments as utilized by Valla, concentrating on philology
and syntax, but rather on grounds of authority, and thus his abuse of the
Greek Matthew. Valla may be a canon, but Nicholas of Cusa was a
Cardinal bishop, and to Cusanus Jewel turned to garner arguments: not
to proof and reason as characterized by Valla’s humanism, but to an
authority even Harding must recognize, one ensured to produce an ad
majoremeffect on his English audience. Valla did make it to a list of
some dozen authors who had written against the document – again,
Jewel’s version of an intellectual inundation, but the particulars of his
argument which treat with syntax and philology Jewel never touched.^117
THE STRUGGLE FOR THE ELIZABETHAN CHURCH 83
(South Bend, 1962), p. 9. For De visione Dei, see also Dolan, pp. 129–84 and L. Bond,
Nicholas of Cusa(New York, 1997).
(^116) Jewel,Works, III, p. 127 in A Preface to the Reader, in defending himself against the
charge of lying, Jewel quotes Valla that Pope Celestine was a Nestorian. IV, p. 916. Jewel
cites Valla on the simony of the bishop of Rome, IV, p. 972, quotes Valla that the devils
make it great sport to dress as do Romish priests, and in IV, p. 1081 notes Valla’s
observations about the greed of the Church.
(^117) Jewel,Works, IV, p. 839.