The Examinations and Writings of John Philpott (Parker Society Series, 1842). Free and downloadable at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=WhT67MqcFDIC&pg=PA319&dq=examinations+and+writings+of+john+philpott+parker+society&lr=&as_brr=1
We return to the sixth examination. Several lords of the temporality were called to evaluate Archdeacon Philpott with Bp. Bonner (London) again as lead prosecutorial and examining counsel, Doctor Chedsey assisting.
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 expressed frustration about the lack of a direct answer; Philpott realized that “I 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 Philpott's implicit judgment of inadequacy on Bonner, London’s Bishop. The sense of Philpott's 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] (One hears the same point made by Lutheran Churchmen.) Philpott does not deny the omnipotence of God, but notes that God cannot do contrary to His nature. Philpott's rejoinder: God 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 on the Table, Archdeacon Philpott will go to the stake.
Part Two Concluded. 116.
[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, continued in the Reformation to view Rome as a false church, antichristian, and blasphemous.
[7] We are unsure of the Philpott’s term coaptation. Co-optation or co-option?
[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