Hi Drew (and Hi Paul Corinthians - havent; heard from you for a couple of days and hope you are still following) –
I’m home from work now (early start, early finish) – I’m just going to chill out for the afternoon and then will get going with this thread again in the early evening.
Any feedback from you as to how the argument is developing at this point is appreciated. I hope I’ve made valid distinctions in assessing the evidence between what we can be certain about, what is probable, what is possible, and what is plain ridiculous when we are talking about this fascinating area of history (at least for us Christian Universalists). I hope I am beginning to make a reasonable case for thinking that arguments suggesting Matthew Parker may have been a Universalist are not ridiculous; rather they wobble somewhere between the possible and the probable (indeed I’m beginning to think that the idea that Elizabeth nursed Universalist sympathies may be possible, despite her career as a persecutor from 1575).
You’ll just have to trust me about sources – because I am giving you a general sketch rather than the real McCoy here. If you would particularly like to question me about my sources on specific points of interest, do ask and I will supply them.
Before assessing the changes to Cranmer’s 42 Articles in any detail (at last!!)I think that I/we now need to pause to reflect on why we cannot expect the evidence from this period to yield positive answers. It’s not only that the evidence is fragmentary; it’s also to do with the lack of personal disclosure expected of most public figures at this time even in their personal correspondence (and there are sound reasons for this – expedient self protection, and also the lack of a clear language of personal revelation at this time).
I think perhaps I should also say a little more about the ‘double truth’ doctrine of early Universalism – we may find this troubling, D.P. Walker certainly stands in harsh moral judgement on it; but I think he is being anachronistic and we are being anachronistic if we feel as he does. Also, on reflection, I certainly feel that Walker’s use of the words ‘esoteric’ and ‘intellectual’ in his passage on Origen quoted in my last post needs to be qualified.
With my dentist appointment tomorrow – which I had conveniently put to the back of my mind since I don’t like having teeth pulled!!! – I think it unlikely that I will have everything completed by the end of Friday. But I do hope to have the argument about the abrogation of the 42nd in its original Elizabethan context settled, as far as is humanly possible.
After this I want to continue the story – mainly looking at how the Athanasian Creed was used by the Tudor and early Stuart Anglican Church as a charter for persecution, and how (some) Anglicans eventually learnt that this was wrong at the same time that they questioned the authority of this creed (this links to the English Civil War and its aftermath, the development of Religious Toleration from the late seventeenth in England and its Anglican supporters and detractors, the changes to the prayer book made by the Episcopalians in 1801, and the prosecution for blasphemy of an Anglican hopeful Universalist clergyman in the mid- Victorian period using the Athanasian creed as a pretext (Farrar alludes to this prosecution in the sermon I have already quoted).
An important sub-theme here is the different arguments put forward by Anglicans and others during the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The eighteenth century arguments against hell are based on reason – threats do not produce good behaviour, disproportionate punishment eventually breed hatred of a tyrant and rebellion rather than compliance. This is in keeping with the Age of Reason/Enlightenment and part of the rational/classical ethos.
In the nineteenth century the arguments against hell are based more on feeling and imagination – ‘How can a loving father do such things to his children? How can we live happy knowing that or nearest and dearest departed may be suffering eternal torment?’ Etc. This is in keeping with the ethos/emphasis of Romanticism.
At the end of the thread I’d like to sum arguments about whether an Anglican today -,of whatever shade or party, and whether ordained or lay - can in good conscience describe themselves as Universalist (given the 39 articles, The Athanasian Creed etc; to which, of course, I hope to give a resounding ‘yes!!!’)
I think I will deal with this part of the argument on unused thread on the ‘Athanasian Creed, the Damnatory clauses and EU’ Drew started for me at Ecclesiology. I will refer everyone to the very full discussion of the theological issues regarding the Creed that has already taken place for excellent background reading. But will confine myself to the history outlined above in the new thread.
The new thread should not be as complex as this one, of which it will be a continuation, and I hope to have it ‘nailed good and proper’ by the end of next week. That’ll give everyone, including me, a time to take a breather between thread topics.
I hope you are all still on board and appreciate your support.
All the best
Dick