http://books.google.com/books?id=WhT67MqcFDIC&pg=PA319&dq=examinations+and+writings+of+john+philpott+parker+society&lr=&as_brr=1.
For an expansive overview of all persecuted, Catholic (Confessional Protestant) and Romanist, an helpful list can be seen at. See:
http://www.martyrs.faithweb.com/LondonMartyrsList.pdf
Back to Archdeacon John Philpott. Martyred 1555 for the Reformed English Church. The book contains a biography, the several trials and examinations prior to martyrdom, his letters, a A Defense for Spitting on an Arian, and A Defense of the True and Old Authority of Christ’s Church. Born of a nobleman’s family in 1511. Well-studied in Hebrew as well as patristics. Admitted to New College, Oxford, 1534. Travelled abroad studying civil law, 1535-1543, tumultuous years for England. But takes interest in theology. Visited Rome and took issues. Growing disaffection for Romanism and he determined upon return to Oxford to oppose it. Upon return the book of Romans, Galatians and Colossians were his theme-books. He resolved not to “hide under a napkin.” Began to lecture at Winchester and throughout the area. Bp. Gardiner was not amused.
Winchester Cathedral at http://www.winchester-cathedral.org.uk/. Imagine Paul’s Epistle to the Romans being taught by Reformers in this cathedral? And under the nose of Bp. Gardiner, Winchester? Yet repression of Philpott, a luminary, was not easy at this time in Henry’s reign according to the biographer. Well, might modern Anglican Bishops learn anew this Gospel and these Pauline epistles. Advancement to the archdeaconry of Winchester occurred during E6’s reign. Tried under Mary and dies Dec 1555. Tried under Bp. Bonner of London who transferred there prior to his nomination to Hereford, 1538 (who himself was deprived in 1549, imprisoned at Marshalea prison, and re-instituted 1553).An helpful summary of the Bishops from 1530-1560, Romanist and those of the Reformed Church of England.
Philpott’s examinations began in Oct 1555. In Newgate prison twelve months before the examinations began. “Come to the Catholic Church and you will be saved…” put to Philpott repeatedly. Dr. Story, a prosecutor for the Court of Arches and the diocese, “Thou holdest out against the Mass. Thou shalt go to the Lollards’ Tower and be tried by the Bishop of London. How sayest thou against the Altar? Thou art a heretic and shalt be burnt.”
Second examination in same month, but later, 24 Oct 1555. A third examination, this time before Bp. Bonner of London. Philpott confesses he belongs to Christ’s Church and is 44 years old.
Fourth examination before the Bishops of Bath, Wells, London, Gloucester, and Worcester. The circle of Marian judges is getting larger. Again, the issue is speaking against the holy Altar, the “sacrament of the Altar.” The issue of which is the true church comes to the fore. Philpott holds his own on Scriptures, councils, Jerome, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine and the true Catholic Church. Ably shows that the eastern/Asian and north African churches never consented to universal Roman supremacy. Points to the growing recoveries of the light in Germany, Denmark, France, Holland, Asia (?) and Africa (?). It appears that Philpott argues that the ancient African and Eastern Churches never acknowledged Roman supremacy. Expresses fears that the Bishops have “zeal” but not a “zeal according to knowledge.” (One hears a hint of Romans 10.1ff here.) An amicable set of exchanges but the sides were hardened and not moving.
Fifth examination. The Bishops of London, Coventry, St. Asaph, as well as Dr. Story, Dr. Saverson, Dr. Pendleton, Dr. Curthop, various chaplains, and officers of Mary’s court convene. Again, a widening circle.
Philpott acknowledges early in the discussion that he expects the death sentence from the earlier examinations. Bonner expresses exasperation and calls him an “heretic” again. “Is Christ really and substantially in the sacrament” asked the Bishop of St. Asaph, all Bishops doffing their caps at the mention of Christ’s name (much like some Anglo-Papalists still practice). Philpott acknowledges “such a presence” but continues to insist that his ordinary, Winchester, has the jurisdiction, not London.
The issue returns to the supremacy of the Roman see. Mt.16.16ff. is asserted along with apostolic succession, but Philpott’s rejoinder is the standard Protestant one. Philpott notes that seven general (he includes a few regional ones) councils never took Mt. 16.16ff to indicate universal Petrine supremacy, contrary to the Bishops’ assertions. Philpott concedes that the list of Romanist errors is very long and contrary to the ancient church, but that he will briefly note Petrine supremacy and transubstantiation to be two errors.
At this point, this concession appears to sound the death knell—the statement that Rome had made many errors. Philpott calls on the Bishops to refute the German and Genevan divines, Calvin being explicitly named. These are bold statements in medievalist, Roman England.
Dr. Story calls Philpott a “beast, heretic, phantastical man, and worse than a brute beast.” He then rails against Calvin’s predestinarianism and Philpott calls Calvin a “Godly man” and “well-instructed.” Philpott is explicitly connected to Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer in doctrine by Bishop Bonner and Dr. Story.
We return to the sixth examination. Several lords of the temporality were called to evaluate Archdeacon Philpott with Bp. Bonner again as lead prosecutorial counsel.
Sixth examination. The leading questions are the “real presence of the body and blood of Christ.[1] Philpott’s answer, “My lord, I do acknowledge in the sacrament such a presence, as the word of God doth allow and teach me.” The Bishop of London said there is an accident of the bread---whiteness, roundness and the shape of the bread, but that “there is also the thing itself, as very Christ both God and man.” This was and still is the Aristotelian and Roman view of the Table. Philpott acknowledged there “there is in due respects both the sign and the thing signified, when it is duly ministered after the institution of Christ.”
The bishop of London expresses frustration about the lack of a direct answer; Philpott realized that “I [he] cannot speak hereof without the danger of my life.”[2] Finally, Philpott began to give his view. He disavowed the Aristotelian view of the Table, to wit, “that it is not the sacrament of Christ, neither in the same is there any manner of Christ’s presence….and it causes you to commit manifest idolatry in worshipping that for God which is no God.”[3] Philpott states that the Romish communion has “usurped the name of the church.” He offers himself to stand against the ten best learned men in the realm to see if “they can prove otherwise” than what he has previously asserted.[4] One senses an implicit judgment on Bonner, London’s Bishop. The sense of the request appears to be this: you will need more learned men that Bonner on these questions. Bonner begins to query the Archdeacon about Christ’s Person.
Philpott speaks the language of orthodoxy on the two natures and one Person of Christ, although the Bishop of London has endeavoured to derail Philpott. At this point in the examination, it would appear that Philpott’s request to be heard and judged by ten of the most learned Englishmen will be granted, but provided, Philpott insists, that “they would judge according to the word of God.”[5] Philpott gets on thin ice, as one might imagine, with the Romanists when he says “this false church of Rome.”[6]
For Bonner, the question returns to “`This is my body which shall be betrayed for you?’ and was not his very body betrayed for us? Therefore it must needs be his body.” Philpott’s answers that “the sacramental bread is a lively representation and an effectual coaptation[7] of all such as believe on his passion. And as Christ saith in the same sixth of John, `I am the bread that came down from heaven;’ but yet he is not material natural bread neither; likewise the bread is his flesh, not natural or substantial, but by signification and by grace in the sacrament.”[8]
Philpott denies that the body of Christ is “naturally and corporally taken” but “sacramentally and spiritually.”
This line of thought will be taken up by other Reformed English Churchmen. He calls the former Capernaitism, the same as Romanism. He believes he has the ancient and primitive church on his side. London (the shorthand for the Bishop of London and shall be used occasionally)[9] queries Philpott about the “omnipotency of God,” to wit, “Is he not able to perform that which he spake?”[10] Philpott does not deny the omnipotence of God, but notes that God cannot do contrary to His nature. He cannot become a “carpet,” since that would be against God’s nature. He cannot become a “creature” and unless Bonner can show otherwise from God’s Word, his argument from the “omnipotency of God is vain.”
Yet, Philpott affirms that Christ is “really” present. Of course, the issue will turn on what he means by “really present.” Philpott answers, “I mean by really present, present indeed.” Lord Riche who was present calls for the “master doctor Chedsey” to reason with Philpott, suggestive perhaps that Bonner was being worsted by Philpott. They agree to an adjournment for a repast of drinking. Upon returning, Chedsey believes he can best Philpott as he addresses the Bishops and Lords. Chedsey refers to Paul and the four Gospels that they do not say, “This is not my body.” Philpott’s rebuttal was that had Christ’s body actually and really been in the Words of Institution in the Gospels, then he need not have died “after he had given the sacrament.”[11] Chedsey claims Ignatius, Irenaeus and Cyprian on his side. Chedsey affirms that the words of the priest effect the transubstantiation. Philpott alleges that it is “blasphemy to say that these words only, `This is my body,’ make real presence.”[12] Philpott quotes St. Augustine, to wit, Accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum, etiam ipsum tanquam visibile verbum. “Let the word be joined to the element, and it becometh a sacrament.” If the Word is not conjoined with the sacramental ministration, it is no sacrament. Philpott notes that it is not the priest’s word, but God’s Word that makes it a valid sacrament.[13] Bonner states that if a Lord or Nobleman uttered the word, it would not be transubstantiated; not a nobleman, but a priest is empowered to effect the change from bread to Christ’s body.
For these exchanges, Archdeacon Philpott will go to the stake.
[1] John Philpott. The Examinations and Writings of John Philpott (Parker Society Series, 1842), 102.
[2] Philpott had already been in the Tower for some time and martyrs were dying.
[3] Philpott, op.cit., 103.
[4] Philpott, op.cit., 104.
[5] Philpott, op.cit., 107.
[6] It continues to be noteworthy that all the English Reformers, like the Germans and the Swiss, continue to view Rome as a false church, antichristian, and blasphemous.
[7] We are unsure of the Philpott’s term coaptation.
[8] Philpott, op.cit., 109.
[9] This is Bishop Bonner.
[10] Philpott, op.cit., 110.
[11] Philpott, op.cit.,113.
[12] Philpott, op.cit., 114.
[13] This appears to be Calvin’s view also.
No comments:
Post a Comment