In the third section Jewel takes up the particular accusations laid
against the Protestants, most especially that they are heretics, they foster
those who hold to old heresies and that not only are they schismatic from
Rome, but that they do not even agree among themselves. To the charges
of fostering heresy, Jewel merely retorts that although these heresies did
arise ‘ever since the gospel did first [again] spring (i.e., from the time of
Luther)’, nonetheless, ‘Anabaptists, Libertines, Menonians, and
Zuenckfeldians ... we have neither bred, nor taught, nor kept up with
these monsters ... What hath there ever been written by any of our
company, which might plainly bear with the madness of any of those
heretics?’^138 In section IV Jewel takes up the question of sedition. Who
was first a rebel Jewel asks? It was none other than the pope himself, for:
Falsely and traitorously also did he release the Romans and the
Italians, and himself too of the oath whereby they and he were
straitly bound to be true to the emperor of Grecia, and stirred up the
emperor’s subjects to forsake him; and calling Carolus Martellus out
of France into Italy, made him emperor [sic], such a thing as never
was seen before.^139Jewel also brings up several historical incidents, such as the Pope’s
dealings with several monarchs, including John I of England and the
emperor Henry IV. He also takes pains to poison the waters of the term
‘catholic’ by calling on several of the Middle Age’s leading lights and
using their terms to cast aspersions on Rome. Part V treats the
accusation of novelty, in which Jewel resorted to one of the basic
premises maintained throughout his writings, that the ancient Church
could not be a dogmatic standard, for even among themselves the
Fathers disagreed. Further, even what they univocally affirmed, even this
his traditionalist opponents do not possess. Ultimately, Jewel’s Catholic
opponents lack any claim to the ancient Christian Tradition: ‘They have
not, good Lord, they have not (I say) those things which they boast they
have: they have not that antiquity, they have not that universality, they
have not that consent of all places nor of all times.’^140 In the sixth and
90 JOHN JEWEL AND THE ENGLISH NATIONAL CHURCH
and Bullinger, see Paul Rorem, ‘Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord’s Supper, Part I: The
Impasse’,Lutheran Quarterly,II. 2 Summer (1988), pp. 155–84 and ‘Calvin and Bullinger
on the Lord’s Supper, Part II: The Agreement’, Lutheran Quarterly, II.2 (1988), pp.
357–90.
(^138) Jewel,Apologia,Works, III, p. 67.
(^139) Ibid., p. 75. He does correct the historical gaff, found in both Lady Bacon’s
translation and in the original Latin of the Apologia(Works, III, p. 22) to Carolus Magnus
in the Defense.In the subsequent editions of the Apologia, 1581, 1591 and 1599, the
mistake was amended to read Carolum Magnum Martellum.
(^140) Ibid., p. 89. Jewel’s anti-formula echoes Vincent of Laurens canon of what was
tradition.
http://www.ebook3000.com