their argument prove all they claimed. But there was a further, more
telling point for Jewel here. The synagogue did have a title analogous to
the title of archbishop, such as Principes domus Dei, Principes
famliarum sacerdotalium, et cetera, and so it is clear that a hierarchy
existed among the priests within the synagogue structure, as ‘[y]et were
not all priests of like anciency [agency] in government’.^144
The third argument Jewel answered in two basic ways. First, accidents
are not necessary to substances, and the substance of true religion still
exists, for only its accidents have varied. Prophets and Apostles were
accidental parts of the early Church, but they have now been replaced by
universities and doctors. In ancient Israel, there was no king prior to
Saul, but would anyone now say kings are not needful? So now also
there are deans, prebendaries, archdeacons, and archbishops. Jewel then
cites the authority of Erasmus, Chrysostom and Nicholas of Lyra
concerning the status of Titus, and asks how could Titus be classified as
anything but the archbishop of Crete especially appointed by Paul? The
last of the four assertions, that the civil and the ecclesiastical cannot be
confounded, Jewel effaced by merely pointing to Moses. Further, what
ecclesiastics do as regards punishment and fines is an ecclesiastical
matter, and does indeed pertain to the clergy, and thus there is an
ecclesiastical government.^145
Jewel has taken some of the same stratagems he employed against the
traditionalists and turned them on the Presbyterians, only instead of
extending the chronological parameters to the year 600, he has limited
them to the New Testament. Both parties he has challenged to find the
exact particulars of the systems they profess. Granted, for the
Presbyterians it was the substantial specifics, whereas for the Catholics
many of the issues were peripheral, but the strategies are analogous. He
has also largely denied for both parties the formative nature of the
canons to which both had appealed: for the traditionalists, it was the
ancient Church and Fathers; for the Presbyterians, a New Testament,
even more explicitly a sola scripturafoundation for polity. Finally, in his
dispute with the Presbyterians Jewel does not argue for what must
definitely be held to the exclusion of other things, but merely for what
may licitly be entertained. Yet what Jewel has here argued with the
Presbyterians was the very same point that Rastell had made against
him: not what can be assuredly found, but what can be licitly held, this
may be believed. While Jewel had appealed to the Scriptures over the
head of both Pope and council, the Presbyterians now appealed to it
against him. Jewel seems to have read Rastell after all. That what Jewel
200 JOHN JEWEL AND THE ENGLISH NATIONAL CHURCH
(^144) Jewel,Frivilous Objections, in Works, IV, p. 1299.
(^145) Jewel,Answere to Certain Frivolous Objections, in Works, IV, p. 1300.
http://www.ebook3000.com