English Reformer. John Philpott's Trial #7

Part Three: Philpott and Bonner, Sixth and Seventh Examination and Trial.


Bonner to the right.


Some lovelygems emerge here on the church, the false church, the "Table," sacraments, and a "numbers game."

Philpott continues to insist on Augustine’s dictum, “Let the word be joined to the element and it becometh a sacrament.” Calvin and Luther would insist on this also. Philpott recites the phrase, Take, eat, or Accipte, manducate, as plural, meaning that all should eat, not communion in one kind—the prevailing dicta of Romanism.

He continues to call the Supper “The Table,” something Cranmer stood by as pastoral wisdom to uproot the Romish doctrine of the Mass. It was not until the Tractarians of the late 19th centurythat the term “Mass” was re-introduced.

This will not matter to the Mish-mashers, since they are unprincipled in the Reformed Church of England. After all, they are Americans and they like Metropolitan Jonah (who called the Reformers "heretics") and Rev. Rick Warren (need more be said?).


Here is “presence” for Philpott. “If any come worthily, then do I confess the presence of Christ wholly to be, with all the fruits of his passion, unto the said worthy receiver, by the Spirit of God, and that Christ is thereby joined to him and he to Christ.”[1] London is not amused and calls Philpott a “deceiver.”

The seventh examination of John Philpott, 19 Nov, before London, Rochester, Chancellor of Lichfield, Dr. Chedsey, and Master Dee (Bachelor of Divinity).

The inquisitors ask why Philpott didn’t come to Mass (after faulting him for being late which Philpott attributes to his jailer.) As to the Mass, Philpott says “that’s another question.”


London is unamused for “I told you we should have a forward fellow of him.” His ignorance is assailed and he is charged with making himself bold and the equal of the inquisitors (Churchmen) and lords temporal.

Philpott’s answer on the Mass is this: “If your lordship can prove that your mass, whereunto you would have me to come, to be the true service of God, whereunto a Christian ought come, I will afterward come with good will.”[2] London: “Thou art a fool, and a very ignorant fool.”

Bonner, or London, proceeds to read articles against Philpott. Philpott affirms that “I am of that catholic faith and church as I was baptized unto.” “I am of the same catholic faith, and of the same catholic church, which is of Christ, the pillar and stablishment of the truth.”[3]

Philpott continues to dispute Bonner’s jurisdiction, to wit, that he was forced to London and is outside that diocese. Philpott argues that he has antiquity, universality, and unity for his “faith and catholic church.” This theme will cohere for a larger set of Reformers.

Bonner issues a rejoinder: “Do you not see what a bragging foolish fellow this is?” Bonner and Philpott agree to a review of the fathers and doctors. Philpott catches Bonner on a Cyprian quote, to wit, that a Church has all it needs in Christ, the Head of the Church, and in every bishop, not just Rome. Philpott affirms that every Patriarch, after election by the people and consent by fellow bishops, possesses what it needs—that Rome’s claim to supremacy is not proven by this citation. He says that Rome has no more authority than the Bishop of London.

Well, does this apply to the moderns who need a connection to Cantaur. We would argue that a local congregation can be a True Church of Christ, as well as a competent college of Elders.

The old keys argument of Mt.16.16ff. is offered, including the statement that only Peter had the keys. Philpott rebuts the argument by citing Augustine’s view. The same, old, bruit and same broken argument from Jn.21 is offered by the Inquisitors.

Theophylact is put on offer, but Philpott says he was biased against the plain words of Scripture. The Nicene Council is referenced, but Philpott claims that Athanasius was the “chief bishop and president of the council, and not the bishop of Rome.”[4] An Oxford scholar and reader in Greek is called in, but he can’t rebut Philpott’s claim that Rome had no jurisdictional supremacy at Nicea.[5]

The Chancellor pulls the “numbers” argument out of his hat. “You see all men of this realm do condemn you: and why will you be so singular?” How thoroughly modern this sounds. It sounds like our favourite Windbag and Enthusiast, David Virtue. Pity poor the young Christian who turns to these folks for an education and guidance.

Philpott notes that “the church” being defended by the Inquisitors is a “false church and synagogue of Satan.”[6] You won't hear this from James Packer, John Stott, or other "so-called" evangelicals. Why? Cowards and failures as ecclesiastical Churchmen.


We posted an article--earlier today--by Turretinfan blogspot, to wit, that controversy, conflict and fighting are inevitable in the Church. Here's Philpott at one of his finest moments.

To be continued.

[1] Philpott, op.cit., 117.
[2] Philpott, op.cit., 119.
[3] Philpott, op.cit., 121.
[4] Philpott, op.cit., 126.
[5] Archbishop Grindal will correct the record later in a letter to Foxe, to wit, that Athanasius was not the president of the Nicene Council, but a leading voice, although only a deacon. However, it remains true that Rome was not the President of the Council either. Grindal and Foxe will observe that Philpott did not have access to books and, on trial for his life and with twelve months already served in jail, he was speaking memoriter.
[6] Philpott, op.cit., 126. This is the common view of the Reformed Churchmen in England. It was held by the German, Swiss, French, Belgian, Scots, Irish, and Dutch Reformers, until the 20 century—that’s our best guess. It will not be said in modern centres of Protestant Churchmanship.