Marginalia1555. Decemb.MarginaliaMaster Philpots request to the lordes.Wherefore I kneeling downe, besought the Lords to be good vnto me a poore gentleman, that would fain liue in the world if I might: and to testify, as you haue heard me to say this day, that if any man can approue that I ought to be of any other maner of fayth then that of which I now am, and can proue the same sufficiently, I will be neyther wilfull neyther desperate, as my Lord of London would make you beleue me to be.

[Back to Top]

Rich. What countrey man be you? are you of the Philpots of Hampshiere?

Phil. Yea my Lord, I was Sir Peter Philpots sōne of Hampshiere.

Rich. Hee is my neare kinsman: wherfore I am the more sory for him.

Phil. I thanke your Lordship that it pleaseth you to chalenge kinred of a poore prisoner.

Rich. In fayth I would go an hundreth myles on my bare feete to do you good.

Cham. He may do well inough if he list.

S. Iohn. M. Philpot, you art my countrey man,  

and I would be glad you should do well.

Rich. You sayd euen now, that you would desyre to maintain your beleife before ten of the best in the realm. You did not well to compare with the Nobility of the realme. But what if you haue x. of the best of the realme to heare you, will you be tryed by them?

Phil. My Lord, your lordship mistaketh me to thinke that I challenge ten of the best of the Nobility in thys realme: It was no part of my mynd, but I ment of the best learned on the contrary syde.

Rich. Well, I take your meaning. What if meanes be made to the Queenes maiesty, that you shall haue your request? Will you be iudged by them?

MarginaliaIohn Philpot will not be iudged by his aduersaries, but by the hearers, so far as they shall iudge by Gods word.Phil. My Lord, it is not meete that a man should bee iudged by his aduersaries.

Rich. By whom then would you be iudged?

Phil. I will make your honours iudges, that shalbe hearers of vs.

Rich. I dare be bold to procure for you of the Quenes maiesty that you shall haue tenne learned men to reason with you, and twenty or forty of the Nobility to heare, so you will promise to abyde their iudgement. How say you? will you promise here afore my Lordes so to do?

Phil. I will be contented to be iudged by them.

Rich. Yea, but will you promise to agree to their iudgment.

Phil. There be causes why I may not so do, vnlesse I were sure they would iudge according to the woorde of God.

Rich. O, I pecrceiue you will haue no man iudge but your selfe, and thinke your selfe wiser then all the learned men of this realme.

MarginaliaThe true order of Iudgemēt vsed in the primatiue church.Phil. My Lord, I seeke not to be myne owne Iudge, but am content to be iugded by other, so that the order of iudgement in matters of religion be kept that was in the primatiue church, which is, first that Gods wyll by hys word was sought, & thereunto both the spiritualtie & temporaltie was gathered together, & gaue their consents and iudgement: and such kinde of iudgemēt I wyll stand to.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaB. Boner bewraieth his owne ignorance.London. My Lordes, he would make you beleue that he were profoundly sene in aūcient writers of the iudgements of the primatiue church, and there was neuer any such maner of iudgement vsed as he now talketh of.

Phil. In the Epistles of Saint Cyprian I am able to shew it you.

London. A, I tell you there is no such thing: fet mee Cyprian hether.

Phil. You shall finde it otherwyse when the booke commeth. And D. Chadsey hys Chaplaine (whom he appointed to fet hys booke) whispered the bishop in hys eare, and fet not the booke, MarginaliaB. Boner dare not fetch out his booke.by lykelyhood that he should haue susteined the reproch therof if the booke had bene fet. Wel my Lord (quoth I) master Doctor knoweth it is so, or els he would haue fet the booke ere this.

[Back to Top]

Rych. You woulde haue none other iudge (I see) but the woord.

Phil. Yes my Lord, I wyll be tryed by the word, and by such as wyll iudge according to the word. As for an example, if there were a controuersie betwixt your lord ship and an other vpon the wordes of a Statute, must

not the wordes of the Statute iudge and determine the controuersie?MarginaliaIn a controuersie of the law whether the law or the iudge of the law doth iudge.

Rych. No mary, the Iudges of the law may determine the meaning thereof.

London. He hath brought as good example against him selfe, as can be.

MarginaliaB. Boner triumpheth before þ^e victory.And here the Bishop thought he had good handfast against me, and therfore enlarged it with many words to the iudgement of the church.

The Lords. He hath ouerthrowen hymselfe by his own argument.

Phil. My Lords, it seemeth to your honors that you haue great aduantage of me by the example I brought in to expresse my cause: but if it be pondered throughly, it maketh wholy wyth me, and nothing against me, as my Lord of London hath pretended. For I wil aske of my L. Rich here, whom I know to haue good knowledge in the lawes and statutes of this realme, albeit a Iudge may discerne the meaning of a statute agreable to the wordes, MarginaliaAs a Iudge of the law may not discerne the meaning of a statute otherwise then agreable to the wordes: so hath the church no power to iudge the meaning of Gods word, contrary to it selfe.whether the same may iudge a meaning contrary to the expresse wordes or no?

[Back to Top]

Rich. Hee cannot so do.

Phil. Euen so say I, that no man ought to iudge the worde of God to haue a meanyng contrary to the expresse wordes thereof, as thys false Church of Rome doth in many things: and wyth thys the Lords seemed to be satisfied, and made no further replication herein.

Rich. I maruayle then why you doe denye the expresse words of CHRIST in the sacrament, saying: This is my body, and yet you wyll not sticke to say it is not hys body.MarginaliaObiection of þ^e Lord Rich, why the wordes of thys scripture are not to be takē: [this is my body?] Is not God omnipotent? and is not he able as well by hys omnipotencie to make it his body, as hee was to make man flesh of a peece of clay? Did not he say: This is my body which shall be betrayed for you? and was not his very body betraied for vs? therfore it must nedes be his body.

[Back to Top]

Lond. My L. Rich, you haue said wōderful wel & learnedly. But you might haue begun wyth hym before also in þ^e sixt of Iohn, where CHRIST promised to geue hys body in the sacrament of the aultar, saying: Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est:  

The bread which I wyll geue, is my flesh. Howe can you aunswer to that?

[Back to Top]

Phil. If it please you to geue me leaue to aunswere first my L. Rich, I wyll also aunswere this obiection.

Rich. Aunswere my Lorde of London first, and after come to me.

MarginaliaAunswere to B. Boners obiection.Phil. My Lord of London may be soone aunswered, that the saying of Saint Iohn is, that the humanity of CHRIST, which he tooke on hym for the redemption of man, is the bread of lyfe, whereby our bodies and soules be susteyned to eternall lyfe, of the which the sacramentall bread is a lyuely representation and an effectuall cohabitation to all such as beleue on his passion: MarginaliaThe place Iohn. 6. expounded. [The bread that I will geue is my flesh. &c?]and as CHRIST sayth in the same sixt of Iohn, I am the bread that came downe from heauen, but yet hee is not materiall neither naturall bread. Likewyse the bread is hys fleshe, not naturall or substantiall, but by signification, and by grace in a Sacrament.

[Back to Top]

And now to my Lord Riches argument. MarginaliaAnswere to the L. Riches obiection.I doe not deny the expresse wordes of CHRIST in the sacramēt, This is my body: but I deny that they are naturally and corporally to be taken: they must be taken sacramētally and spiritually, according to the expresse declaration of CHRIST saying, that the wordes of the Sacrament which the Capernaites  

tooke carnally, MarginaliaPapistes cater cosins to the Capernaites.as the Papistes nowe do, ought to be taken spiritually, and not carnally, as they falsely imagine, not waying what interpretatiō Christ hath made in this behalfe, neyther followe the institution of CHRIST, neyther yet the vse of the Apostels and of the primatiue Church, who neuer taught, neyther declared no such carnall maner of presence as is now exacted of vs violently MarginaliaTransubstantiation hath neither ground of scripture, nor antiquitie.without any ground of scipture or antiquity, who vsed to put out of þ^e church all such as dyd not receiue the sacrament with the rest, and also to burne that which was left after the receyuing, as by the Canon of the Apostles and by the decree of the Councell of Antioch, may appeare.

[Back to Top]

London. No, that is not so: they were onely Cathecumeni  

which went out of the Church at the celebration of