Графични страници
PDF файл

time given in an English dress in this edition, may serve as a specimen of those testimonies.

At home, its estimation was, if that might be, still higher. It was admired and praised by all the friends of the reformation, and received with silent dismay by the advocates of the old religion.' In the Convocation which met soon after the publication of the work, it was invariably regarded as a standard of faith, of little less authority than the Liturgy and Articles themselves, A schedule of business prepared, in anticipation, for the Convocation, contains, among other matters, the proposition that the “Apology of this Church, once again revised, and so augmented and corrected as occasion serveth,' be adjoined, in one book, to a Catechism and Articles, to be adopted; and that the whole be authorized, as containing true doctrine, and enjoined to be taught to youth : offences in speaking or writing against it to be punished as those against the Common Prayer. In another paper, relative to the same Convocation, supposed by STRYPE to be the production of Archbishop Parker's secretary, it is proposed to extract from the Apology articles for general assent.—When it is remembered that these propositions were brought before the Convocation in which the Catechism and Articles, as they now stand, were discussed and adopted; the high ground occupied by the Apology, as a standard of the Church, comes clearly into view. We have reason to thank God that the wisdom of the leading men of that Convocation, under the guidance of His providence, overruled the disposition to exalt the work to a still higher place ;

* This was written and set up before the editor had seen the translation, or rather paraphrase which Mr. ISAACSON has appended to the Life of Jewell, accompanying his Translation of the Apology.

1 Preserved by STRYPE, Annals, I. 283.

for the results of such a measure would, in all probability, have been little less disastrous than the kindred proceedings of the Lutherans in Germany—at first, the fiercest controversy, and ultimately, total disregard of all ties of union in faith ;--but we cannot lightly regard a work which there was at least a disposition among the framers of the Articles to place upon a level with the Articles themselves.

It was not to be expected that a work of this nature, and of such pretensions, should be suffered to remain unanswered. In the tongue, indeed, which its author had chosen as the fittest vehicle for his plea, it met with no reply; although it is said” that the Council of Trent considered it an object worthy of animadversion, and appointed two ecclesiastics, a Spaniard and an Italian, to prepare an answer. Some time, also, elapsed before the English Romanists gathered spirits to attack a production at once so learned and so eloquent, even in their own language—with all the advantage of writing in their mother tongue, and against a translation. At length, in 1564, one DORMAN," a fellow of New College, Oxford, described as "a young forward man,'• led the onset, in a work entitled A Proof of certain Articles in Religion, denied by Mr. Jewell, P printed at Antwerp, where its author then lived, a refugee. Against this writer Jewell was defended by Dean Nowell, the author of the Latin Catechism adopted by the Convo: cation, and one of the most eminent divines of his Church. DORMAN replied ; and a controversy of some extent, between him, with SAUNDERS and STAPLETON, 9 two English Papists then resident at Louvain, on the one side ; and Nowell on the other; was the consequence.r

m HUMPHREY, Jewell's earliest and contemporary biographer, asserts this as matter of common fame :-"etiamsi omnium sermone tritum sit Synodum Tridentinum vidisse, et in eam acriter inquisivisse, et respondendi pensum Hispano cuidam et Italo jam olim demandasse." FEATLY gives the same account, with the variation of substituting a Frenchman for the Spaniard; in which form also (I think) it is somewhere given by JEWELL himself. This is all the authority I can find for the fact, of which I discover no vestiges in the histories of the Council of Trent by FRA Paolo, PALLAVICINI, and LE COURAYER; although STRYPE and COLLYER repeat the statement, but without adducing vouchers.

n The name is sometimes erroneously spelt DORMER.—DORMAN IS called the scholar of Harding, and the dedication of his first work to that eminent fellow-combatant, gives some probability to the representation. He died either in 1572, or 1577. He was at least suspected of employing borrowed capital in his expenditures of controversial lore. As executor to Dr. Richard Smith, of the same college, a learned and zealous advocate of Popery, he obtained possession of his papers, whence he was charged with deriving stores of learning not his pwn,

JEWELL's abilities were reserved for a more formidable assailant. În 1565 Thomas HARDING," said to have been the tutor of Dorman, and once the fellow student and intimate of Jewell, but already engaged with him

STRYPE. p It maintained 1) the papal supremacy; 2) the antiquity of the doctrine of transubstantiation; 3) communion in one kind; and 4) private masses ; adding twelve reasons for adherence to the old faith.

9 So STRYPE affirms : but no work of STAPLETON bears any reference to JEWELL or Nowell in its title.

Nowell's answer to DORMAN was entitled The Reproof of Mr. Dorman his' Proof foc., 4to., 1566. DORMAN replied, in A Disproof of Mr . Alexander Nowell's 'Reproof, &c., Antwerp, 4to., 1566. SAUNDERS also, in his 'huge volume,' The Supper of our Lord set forth according to the Truth of the Gospel and Catholic Faith, professed to answer Nowell; although out of eight hundred and fifty pages, he merely bestowed thirty-four in animadversions upon fourteen lines of Now. ELL’s Reproof. In 1567 Nowell rejoined to both, in a work of considerable extent, under the title of A Confutation as well of Mr. Dorman's late book, entitled, 'A Disproof foc., as also of D. Sander his Causes of Transubstantiation :--whereby our countrymen, specially the simple and unlearned, may understand how shamefully they are abused by those and the like books, pretended to be written for their instruction ; pointing out, among other similar characteristics, DORMAN's gross plagiarisms from HARDING and Hosius, of arguments which as originally propounded had been already triumphantly confuted by JEWELL.

Some account of him will be given in a subsequent page, in a note to the ‘Memoir.

1 "The controversies sometime handled between M. Harding and the worthiest divine that Christendom hath bred for the space of some hundreds of years; who being brought up together in one University,

in a controversy excited by the famous challenge at Paul's Cross, published A Confutation of the book called an Apology of the Church of England, Antwerp, 4to., 1565.

The confident claims of this writer to victory, his specious show of authorities, and his extravagant warmth in defence of the very rankest corruptions of Poperyrather than any intrinsic merit in his work, required speedy and thorough refutation. Accordingly, in October 1567, appeared Jewell's elaborate Defence of the Apology of the Church of England, containing an Answer to a certain Book lately set forth by Mr. Harding. In this work the most consummate industry and patience are displayed in dissecting every objection started by his antagonist, and unravelling every thread of the film of misrepresentation and deceit cast around the subject by that wily controversialist. It is a production little, if at all inferior to the Apology in eloquence, and unquestionably surpassing it in learning ; though necessarily of more transient interest, on account of its close reference to the attacks of HARDING. The copious extracts given in the notes to this volume, will enable the reader to form some estimate of the value of its multifarious contents. .

HARDING quickly rejoined in A Detection of sundry foul Errors, Lies, Slanders, Corruptions, and other false Dealings, touching Doctrine and other matters,

it fell out in them which was spoken of two others, They learned in the same, that which in contrary camps they did practise.'*» HOOKER Ecclesiastical Polity, Book II. Sect. 6.

u The Defence was translated into Latin by Thomas Braddock, fellow of Christ College, Cambridge, and printed at Geneva in folio, 1600. It was reprinted in English, together with the Answer to HARDING's Detection, in 1569–9, and 1570—1, in folio ; and in JEWELL’s collected Works, 1609 and 1611.

• Jugurtha et Marius—in iisdem castris didicere quæ postea in contrariis face. rent.' VELL. PATERCULUS.

uttered and practised by M. Jewell, in a book lately by him set forth, entitled Defence of the Apology, frc., printed at Louvain in 1568, in 410., with even more virulence, and less show of reason, than had characterized his former production. In 1569, JEWELL closed the discussion, by a second edition of his Defence, in which were inserted, together with the text of the Apology, and nearly the whole of HARDING's Confutation, answers to every thing material in the Detection."

Nor were Dorman and HARDING the only assailants aroused by the Apology. JOHN RASTELL,w another exile for religion, domiciled at Louvain, and already engaged as an antagonist to JEWELL in the controversy relative to the challenge, published A Brief View of the false Wares packed up in the nameless Apology of the Church of England, 8vo., Louvain, 1567.-ALAN COPE, SAUNDERS, STAPLETON, and HESKYNS, are also mentioned as having written against the Defence.x

In the meanwhile, the Apology maintained its rank in the public estimation, and was repeatedly republished, both in the original and in translations. The former was reprinted both in Germany and Paris.s of the

v From WATTS' Bibliotheca Britannica and the catalogue of Jewell's works appended to Mr. ISAACSON's Life, it appears that the additional matter in this edition was also published separately, under the title of An Answer to a book written by Mr. Harding, entitled, "A Detection foc. London, 1568. 1570, fol.

w He was a student of Common Law, and nephew to Sir THOMAS MORE by his sister, who had married John Rastell, a London printer of some eminence.' He died at Ingolstadt, about the year 1607."

COLLYER, Ecclesiastical History, II. 479. STRYPE's Annals, I. 251.-Cope is expressly said by HUMPHREY to have answered the Apology in Latin ; yet his name does not appear in Watts' Bibliotheca. Neither does that work give the title of any production of STAPLETON, or of HESKYNS directed against the Apology, or its Defence.

Ý Beside these editions, which it is certain were executed very shortly after the first appearance of the work, Mr. Isaacson mentions others at Zurich, Geneva, and Basle. The following are also on record :-London, 1565, 12mo. ; 1584, 8vo. ; 1591 ; 1606, 12mo.; 1626, 24mo.; 1637; 1692, 12mo.; Oxford, 1639, 12mo.; Cambridge, 1683;


« ПредишнаНапред »