Reply unto M. Harding's Answer
John Jewel's Reply unto M. Harding's Answer represents the second volley in one of the most significant theological exchanges of the early Elizabethan settlement. When Thomas Harding, Jewel's former colleague at Oxford who had converted to Roman Catholicism during Mary's reign, published a detailed refutation of Jewel's famous Apology of the Church of England in 1564, Jewel felt compelled to defend both his original work and the broader theological foundations of the English Reformation. The Reply emerged from this heated controversy as Jewel sought to vindicate Protestant doctrine against what he viewed as sophisticated but fundamentally flawed Catholic arguments.
Jewel structures his response as a systematic dismantling of Harding's critique, addressing questions of scriptural authority, ecclesiastical tradition, and sacramental theology with characteristic precision and extensive patristic documentation. He argues that Harding misrepresents both Protestant positions and early church teaching, demonstrating through careful citation of the church fathers that reformed doctrine better reflects primitive Christianity than contemporary Roman practice. The work showcases Jewel's formidable learning as he marshals evidence from Augustine, Chrysostom, and other ancient authorities to prove that practices like communion in both kinds, clerical marriage, and vernacular liturgy represent recovery rather than innovation. Throughout, he maintains that Scripture alone provides the ultimate standard for Christian truth while simultaneously showing that the early church fathers, properly understood, support Protestant rather than papal claims.
The Reply established Jewel as the foremost apologist for Elizabethan Anglicanism and helped cement the intellectual respectability of the English church's middle way between Rome and radical Protestantism. Its exhaustive scholarship and measured tone influenced generations of Anglican theologians seeking to defend their church's claims to catholicity without papal authority.
Who should read this: Scholars of Reformation theology and early Anglican thought will find this essential primary source material, while general readers seeking devotional literature should look elsewhere given its polemical nature and technical theological content.