exist, but these qualms were of only minor importance. For Southgate,
the real issues Jewel emphasized were obedience and order; the substance
of this assertion by Southgate shall be discussed later. More axiomatic
for Southgate, however, is his identification of Jewel as a prototypical
Anglican, whose use of reason and Scripture was echoed by later
theologies: ‘John Jewel was an Anglican, after Archbishop Parker the
most important of the first generation of Elizabethan churchmen, the
heir of the Christian humanists and of Cranmer, and the progenitor of
Richard Hooker.’^29 Southgate wanted Jewel to embrace the same notion
of the comprehension of Scripture that Hooker did, especially in
connection to Hooker’s distinction between what the Scriptures
comprehend and what they contain. For Southgate, because Jewel had
embraced Lady Bacon’s translation of comprehend for continerein the
Apologia, this entails a marginal sola scripturastance for Jewel.^30 This
raises several problems, not only about the nebulous and malleable word
Anglican, but also about the historical question of when exactly this
term could have been applied to a member of the Church of England? If
Jewel had understood what Southgate meant by the term, would he have
assented? That Jewel saw himself as no different theologically than
Martyr or Bullinger can only give a negative response to this question.
Southgate makes one more assertion, the focus of the title of his
monograph: that Jewel employed the Church Fathers in a positive and
normative sense in the interpretation of Scripture. Consequently, the
ancient Church would take on the same authority in the formation of
ecclesiastical dogmas:
Jewel’s treatment of patristic literature suggests at times a faith in
patristic authority more basic than either the result of a mere
counting of heads or the most convincing historical analysis would
seem to justify ... As a group, however, Jewel did regard them as set
apart, as superior to other men ... Consent, agreement among them,
was an instrument through which God had chosen to instruct the
Church.^31Southgate’s Jewel used the Church Fathers in positive ways to construct
a system of dogma, appropriating them to define the parameters of the
Christian faith of the English Church. In this way, according to
Southgate, Jewel had struck a course between those who based their
dogmatics on biblicistic and sola scripturagrounds and those who made
234 JOHN JEWEL AND THE ENGLISH NATIONAL CHURCH
(^29) Ibid., p. x.
(^30) Ibid., pp. 143–60. However, see Booty, Jewel as an Apologist, Chapter VI, ‘The
Challenge Unmasked: The Problem of Authority’, pp. 126–49. Booty asserts, I believe
rightly, that Jewel adamantly affirmed the primacy and sole authority of the Scriptures.
(^31) Southgate,Doctrinal Authority, p. 189.
http://www.ebook3000.com