24
April 1522 A.D. The
Church of England’s Jewel, Mr. (Bp.) John Jewel, was born.
From Wiki (although there are a few minor errors of material fact below, there is weight otherwise).
John Jewel (sometimes spelled Jewell) (24 May 1522 – 23 September 1571) was an
English bishop of Salisbury.
Contents
Life
He was the son of John Jewel of Buden,
Devon, was educated under his uncle John Bellamy, rector of Hampton, and other
private tutors until his matriculation at Merton College,
Oxford, in July 1535.
There he was taught by John
Parkhurst, afterwards bishop
of Norwich; but on 19 August 1539 he was elected scholar of Corpus Christi
College, Oxford. He graduated BA in 1540, and MA in
1545, having been elected fellow of his college in 1542. He made some mark as a
teacher at Oxford, and became after 1547 one of the chief disciples of Pietro Martire
Vermigli, known in England as Peter Martyr. He graduated BD in
1552, and was made vicar of Sunningwell, and public orator of the university, in which capacity he had to compose
a congratulatory epistle to Mary on her accession. In April 1554 he acted as notary to Cranmer and Ridley at their disputation, but in the autumn he signed a series of Catholic
articles. He was, nevertheless, suspected, fled to London, and thence to
Frankfort, which he reached in March 1555. There he sided with Coxe against Knox, but soon joined Martyr at Strasbourg, accompanied him to Zürich, and then paid a visit to Padua.
Reign of Queen Elizabeth I
Under Elizabeth's succession he returned to England, and made earnest efforts to secure what would now be called a low-church settlement of religion; he was strongly committed to the Elizabethan reforms. Indeed, his attitude was hardly distinguishable from that of the Elizabethan Puritans, but he gradually modified it under the stress of office and responsibility. He was one of the disputants selected to confute the Romanists at the conference of Westminster after Easter 1559; he was select preacher at St Paul's Cross on 15 June; and in the autumn was engaged as one of the royal visitors of the western counties. His congé d'élire as bishop of Salisbury had been made out on 27 July, but he was not consecrated until 21 January 1560.
He now constituted himself the
literary apologist of the Elizabethan
Settlement. He had on 26 November 1559, in a sermon at St
Paul's Cross, challenged all comers to prove the Roman Catholic case
out of the Scriptures, or the councils or Fathers for the first six hundred
years after Christ. He repeated his challenge in 1560, and Dr Henry Cole
took it up. The chief result was Jewel's Apologia ecclesiae Anglicanae,
published in 1562, which in Bishop
Creighton's words is the first methodical statement of the
position of the Church of England against the Church of Rome,
and forms the groundwork of all subsequent controversy. The work was translated
into English by Anne Bacon to reach a wider audience
and was a significant step in the intellectual justification of Protestantism
in England.
Later years
A more formidable antagonist than Cole
now entered the lists in the person of Thomas Harding, an Oxford contemporary whom Jewel had deprived of his prebend in
Salisbury Cathedral for recusancy. He published an
elaborate and bitter Answer in 1564, to which Jewel issued a Reply in
1565. Harding followed with a Confutation, and Jewel with a Defence
of the Apology in 1566 and 1567; the combatants ranged over the whole field
of the Anglo-Roman controversy, and Jewel's theology was officially enjoined
upon the Church
by Archbishop Bancroft in the reign of James I.
Latterly Jewel had been confronted with criticism from a different quarter. The
arguments that had weaned him from his Zwinglian simplicity did not satisfy his unpromoted brethren,
and Jewel had to refuse admission to a benefice to his friend Lawrence Humphrey,
who would not wear a surplice.
He was consulted a good deal by the
government on such questions as England's attitude towards the Council
of Trent, and political considerations made him more and more
hostile to Puritan demands with which he had previously sympathized. He wrote an attack on Thomas Cartwright; which was published after his death by Whitgift. Collapsing after a
sermon at Lacock, Wiltshire, he was taken to the episcopal manor house of Monkton Farleigh where he died on 23 September 1571. He was buried in Salisbury Cathedral, where he had built a library. Richard
Hooker, who speaks of Jewel as the "worthiest divine that
Christendom bath bred for some hundreds of years," was one of the boys
whom Jewel prepared in his house for the university; and his Ecclesiastical
Polity owes much to Jewel's training.
Jewel's works were published in a
folio in 1609 under the direction of Bancroft, who ordered the Apology
to be placed in churches, in some of which it may still be seen chained to the
lectern; other editions appeared at Oxford (1848, 8 vols) and Cambridge (Parker
Soc., 4 vols). See also Gough's Index to Parker Soc. Publ.; John
Strype's Works (General Index); Calendars of Domestic
and Spanish State Papers; Dixon's
and Frere's
Church Histories; and Dictionary of
National Biography (art. by Bishop Creighton).
Jewel's Apology of the Church of England
After the theological pioneering of Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Calvin, and the other first-tier
reformers, the Reformation became less about the theologies of individuals and more about the
religion and politics of nations, kingdoms, and continents. John Jewel’s 1562 Apology
of the Church of England,[1] a document more
important in its political-historical significance than its theological significance, represents an attempt to provide a statement of faith
for the Church of England
under Elizabeth I and answer
challenges and accusations of the Romanists against the Protestants.
For these causes, I say, we have
thought fit, by this book, to give an account of our faith, and to answer truly
and publicly, what hath been publicly objected against us, that the whole world
may see the parts and reasons of that faith, which so many good men have valued
above their lives, and that all mankind may understand what kind of men they
are, and what they think of God and religion . . . . (I.10)
In this way, the Apology serves
to allow everyone to determine with themselves, whether that faith which they
must needs perceive to be consonant to the words of Christ and the writings of
the apostles, and the testimonies of the catholic fathers, and which is
confirmed by the examples of many ages, be only the rage of a sort of madmen,
and a combination or conspiracy of heretics. (I.17)
Answering accusations of heresy and “tumultuous defection,” among others, Jewel establishes the truth and
legitimacy of the claims of not only the Church of England but the whole protestant
reformation by demonstrating the continuity between the reformers
and Scripture, the apostles (especially, Paul), the church fathers (i.e., Augustine, Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome, etc.), and church councils. Says Jewel, “Thus
we have been taught by Christ, by the apostles and holy fathers; and we do
faithfully teach the people of God the same things . . .” (III.2).
At the core of the Apology is a
positive statement of catholic doctrine, which comprises the second section of the document. In tone and approach,
this section is reminiscent of the Augsburg Confession, a 1530 document written primarily by Philip Melanchthon throughout which
he had maintained a strong emphasis that the reforming movement was no new sect
or cult and had added no new or heretical doctrines: “Our churches dissent in
no article of the faith from the Church Catholic, but only omit some abuses
which are new, and which have been erroneously accepted by the corruption of
the times.” In this spirit, the Apology begins its statement of doctrine
in its second section with an exposition and affirmation of the Nicene
Creed. Facing charges of heresy, many Protestant reformers
realized that establishing their orthodoxy was paramount.
More than soteriology
Unlike the Augsburg Confession,
Jewel’s Apology is much more interested in doctrines and issues
concerning the church than in soteriology. Apology never treats grace, predestination, election, or justification per se. The most explicit and important statement of soteriology in
the piece—and one of the few statements concerning soteriology—amounts to a
basic summary of the reformers’ view of soteriology and concomitant views of
man, works, the law, and Christ.
We say that man is born in sin and
leadeth his life in sin, and that no man can truly say his heart is clean; that
the most holy man is an unprofitable servant; that the law of God is perfect,
and requires of us a full and perfect obedience; and that we cannot in any way
keep it perfectly in this life; and that there is no mortal who can be
justified in the sight of God by his own deserts; and therefore our only refuge
and safety is in the mercy of God the Father, by Jesus Christ, and in the
assuring ourselves that he is the propitiation for our sins, by whose blood all
our stains are washed out; that he has pacified all things by the blood of his
cross; that he by that only sacrifice which he once offered upon the cross,
hath perfected all things; and therefore, when he breathed out his soul, he
said, IT IS FINISHED; as if by these words he would signify, Now the price is
paid for the sins of mankind. (II.21)
In this statement, we see continuities
with the early Protestant reformers and sharp discontinuity with the late medieval Catholic theologians (e.g., Gabriel
Biel, Robert
Holcot) of the via moderna. This is most evident in Jewel’s doctrine
of man, or anthropology. First, we see evidence of Luther’s totus homo anthropology and corollary view that the Christian is simul
iustus et peccator. Jewel implies these
views and causes a number of questions when he says that “no man can truly say
his heart is clean,” that “the most holy man is an unprofitable servant,” and
that “we cannot in any way keep it [the law] perfectly in this life.” Of these
statements, the first two are ambiguous. In the first, Jewel is not clear on
the word “man.” “Man” may refer either to the unsaved only or to both the saved
and the unsaved. The second of these statements contains a similar ambiguity in
the phrase “the most holy man.” This could refer either to the Christian who
lives generally well or to the person who is not saved but who only acts
righteous outwardly. If the latter is the case, it may represent something like
the “civil righteousness” discussed in the Augsburg Confession.
Nevertheless, the third statement clearly evidences simul iustus et peccator
and thus a totus homo anthropology. In this statement, Jewel is clearly
referring to Christians. This is apparent when Jewel begins using first-person
pronouns and when he says that no one is able to obey the law in this life
(i.e., before glorification, when man will become unable to sin).
Salvation treated
Second, Jewel, like the early
Protestants, maintains that man, because of original
sin and his corrupt nature, possesses no soteriological
resources. Man can produce no good or meritorious works, and so “there is no
trust to be put in the merits of our works and actions” (II.23). Consequently,
“no mortal who can be justified in the sight of God by his own deserts,” and so
man must hope and trust in Christ for his salvation.
Such a doctrine of man completely
uproots and destroys the whole theology of the via moderna. For, the moderni
hold that “God will not deny his grace to the man who does quod in se
est ["what lies within oneself"]”; and yet, if, as Luther sees
it, quod in se est is corrupt and evil, it is 'impossible' for
man to earn, or even initiate, salvation.
Jewel makes it clear that salvation
comes by faith in Christ. “It is our faith,” he says, “which applies the death and cross
of Christ to us” (II.17). Jewel defines a true, saving faith as a “living
faith” (II.23). When Jewel treats the sacraments, he emphasizes that not the sacraments themselves but the faith of the
individual effects salvation. On this point, Jewel appeals to several church
fathers:
‘The faith of the sacraments,’ saith
St. Augustine, ‘justifies, and not the sacrament.’ And Origen saith, ‘He
(Christ) is the priest and the propitiation, and the sacrifice; and that
propitiation comes to every one by way of faith.’ And, therefore, agreeably
hereunto, we say that the sacraments of Christ do not profit the living without
faith” (II.17).
Similarly, Jewel says, “For although
we do not touch Christ with our teeth and lips, yet we hold and press him by
faith, mind, and spirit” (II.15).
But Jewel is no antinomian or abuser of Christian
freedom, for a true and living faith “is not idle” but, as Paul
says in Ephesians 2:10, is called unto good
works. “Christ himself dwelleth in our hearts by faith,” Jewel
says, and Christians are called to sanctification (II.23).
Much of Jewel’s Apology
concerns doctrine of the church.
Concerning the role of the clergy, Jewel on the one hand
rails against the Roman Catholic practices of sacerdotalism and refutes the pope's claim to be the “vicar
general of Christ,” but on the other hand maintains a need for specially called
clergy. Jewel lists three church
offices: deacon, presbyter, and bishop. The pope, who is more technically the bishop of Rome, must not be
regarded as the “vicar general of Christ” or in any sense the foundation of the
church but as equal to the other patriarchs in the church. The pope has become
too powerful, says Jewel, and “usurps a power which belongs not to him.” He
should be judged only by how well he executes the function of the office of
bishop—that is, instructing, admonishing, and teaching the people and
administering the sacraments. Like Luther in his 1520 work On
the Babylonian Captivity of the Church,
Jewel says (referencing Augustine)
that “bishop is the name of a work or office, and not a title of honour; so
that he who would usurp an unprofitable preeminence in the church is no bishop”
(II.6, 304). Moreover, Jewel, like Luther, compares the pope to “Lucifer” and
says the pope has “become the forerunner of antichrist” (II.6).
Sacramental theology
Jewel’s sacramental theology follows
the early Protestant reformers, such as Luther and Calvin. Jewel defines
sacraments as “the sacred signs and ceremonies which Christ commanded us to
use, that he might by them represent to our eyes the mysteries of our
salvation, and most strongly confirm the faith we have in his blood, and seal
in our hearts his grace” (II.11). This is especially close to Calvin’s own
definition of a sacrament. Like the early Protestants, Jewel recognizes two
sacraments, baptism and the Eucharist. Baptism is a sacrament of the remission of sins, representing the
Christian’s being washed in Christ’s blood (II.13). The Eucharist is a
sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, representing the death and
resurrection of Christ (II.14). It serves to remind Christians of Christ’s
sacrifice and thereby to nourish hope of the resurrection and of eternal life.
Concerning the nature of the Eucharistic elements, the Apology is
slightly vague, although its position seems to be somewhere between Luther’s consubstantiation and the Catholics’ transubstantiation.
Says Jewel, “The bread and wine are the holy and heavenly mysteries of the body
and blood of Christ; and . . . in them Christ himself . . . is so exhibited to
us as present, that we do by faith truly take his body and blood” (II.15). By
at once acknowledging the presence of the body and blood of Christ but saying
that these are only grasped by faith, the Apology would appeal to both
Protestants and Catholics. “We assert that Christ in his sacraments doth
exhibit himself truly present. In baptism, that we may put him on; in his
supper that we may eat him by faith and in the spirit; and that by his cross
and blood we may have life eternal” (II.15).
Except for section II, the Apology
reads like Luther’s Babylonian Captivity. It devotes considerable
attention to criticizing the manifold abuses and corruptions in the Catholic
Church. Such issues include marriage of clergy,
which Jewel allows (II.9); sacerdotalism, a category of offence which would include, for example, making the mass a sacrifice; veneration of saints, which the Apology denounces (II.20); private absolution, which it denies (II.8); and the language of the mass, which Jewel says
should be in the vernacular (II.19).
The Church of England has broken from
Catholic church, which, Jewel says, has departed from Scripture, the church
fathers, and church councils; and Jewel asserts that the Protestant churches
are the revival of the true Christian church (Conclusion.1).
We have departed from that church,
which they had made a den of thieves, in which they had left nothing sound or
like a church, and which they themselves confessed to have erred in many
things, as Lot left Sodom, or Abraham Chaldea, not out of contention, but out
of obedience to God; and have sought the certain way of religion out of the
sacred Scriptures, which we know cannot deceive us, and have returned to the
primitive church of the ancient fathers and apostles, that is, to the beginning
a first rise of the church, as to the proper fountain. (Conclusion.1)
But while Jewel’s Apology makes
clear the theological and religious reasons for the defection of the Church of
England, the English Reformation was to a greater extent driven by politics than was, for example, the German Reformation,
which began in one man’s tumultuous and uncertain conscience. Jewel’s Apology
of the Church of England provides a good and valuable purview of the
central issues—both religious and secular—of the English Reformation and the
Reformation as a whole.
References
1.
Jump up ^ Jewell, John. The
Apology of the Church of England, Henry Morley, ed. (London: Cassell, 1888). Project Canterbury.
- Booty, John E. (1963). John Jewel as Apologist of the Church of England. London: SPCK.
- Jewel, John (1843) [1562]. Apology of the Church of England. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication.
- Calvin, John (1975) [1536]. Institutes of the Christian Religion. trans. Ford Lewis Battles (1536 edition ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
- McGrath, Alister E. (1993). Reformation Thought: An Introduction (2nd edition ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
- Melanchthon, Philip (1530). Augsburg Confession.
- Southgate, W. M. (1962). John Jewel and the Problem of Doctrinal Authority. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
- Bishop Jewell is also recognised as one of the houses in Bishop Wordsworth's School, Salisbury. The houses are all named after famous Bishops of Salisbury: John Jewell (using alternative spelling), Martival, Osmund and Richard Poore.
External links
- Works by John Jewel at Project Gutenberg
- The Apology of the Church of England by John Jewel at Project Canterbury.
- Biography of John Jewel. By G.W. Bromiley.
No comments:
Post a Comment