The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Church of England Articles allowed Universalism in 1563

added to list

1413

The first scribal manuscript version of Julian’s Short Text is finished 1413, (this is noted in the introduction to the 15th-century Amherst Manuscript which names Julian and refers to her as still alive). All three of the early manuscripts of the Shewings – two Short Text, one Long Text - have connections to the Brigittine Nunnery, Syon Abbey on the banks of the Thames – destroyed during the Reformation. In the 17th century, the Julian manuscripts were written out and preserved in the Cambrai and Paris houses of the English Benedictines. It was not until 1670 that the first English printed edition appeared edited by Cressy, the English Benedictine.

The Julian manuscripts secret and exclusive circulation can be attributed to a number of factors –

Her radical and inclusive images of Jesus as mother, while not new, go beyond anything written before, and her hopeful universalism as asserted by a loyal daughter of the church is also very ‘avant-garde’.

In a patriarchal age, when schoolmen seriously debated whether or not women have rational souls, the writings of female visionaries were always suspect. Given the right circumstances visions could confer great authority on a woman – as they did to Abbess Hildegard von Bingen in the thirteenth century. However, the history of Joan of Arc and the near escapes of Margery Kempe reveal that another outcome was always a danger. Also – however self effacing Julian is in her writings – she is the first English woman of letters (a dangerous innovator).

Julian translates some passages from the Latin and Hebrew texts of the Bible into English in the Shewings. At this date you could be burnt at the stake for owing a copy of Wycliffe’s ‘Lollard’ translation of the Bible into English. Julain makes her own translations – but her efforts could arouse suspicion.

Julia Bolton Holloway, a leading Julian scholar, has argued that Julian shows extensive knowledge of the Hebrew Bible when translating the Old Testament, the evidence being that she had access to the Hebrew of the Scriptures, likely gained through Cardinal Adam Easton of Norwich who had taught the Hebrew Scriptures at Oxford and who had translated them into Latin, correcting Jerome’s errors. Holloway argues that Julian understands that the Hebrew shalom meaning ‘peace, well-being, in all things’, is wrongly translated by Jerome with the Latin ’recte’, (rightness, correctness) and is better translated as ‘And all manner of thing shall be well’. Holloway even speculates that Julian was of Jewish ancestry. Whether or not this is so, Julian’s knowledge of Hebrew again makes her suspect.
(see bltnotjustasandwich.com/2013/02/ … f-norwich/)

In the final passage of the ‘Shewings’ Julian refers to her readers as ‘even Christians’ – that is Christians who she is ‘on a level with’, and bound to in reciprocal bonds of love rather than by hierarchy. There is nothing to suggest that Julian was a Lollard – far from it – but the phrase ‘even Christians’ was also used by the Lollards.

Briefly worth noting (perhaps later): Julian’s “all will be well” would go so far as to be favorably quoted in the Great Catechism at the end of the 20th century, long after her univeralism was well known, on the topic of the scope and persistence of God’s salvation! (I can give chapter and verse, so to speak, for this later when I get back to my office.) The fact that the Catechism still technically denies universalism makes this even more amazing; but the current pope and some future ones at the time were fairly strong supporters of hopeful and certain universalists among their fellow Roman Catholics.

That would be very interesting and extremely relevant Jason :slight_smile: I’d also be interested to find out when she was given honorific stauts in the Catholic and Anglican calendars.

c. 1367–70
This is the conjectured date for the writing of the first text – Text A – of the Christian Dream Vision allegory ‘Piers Plowman’ (the author revised the original twice and these revisions are known as Text B and Text C). The text B and text C versions contain clear statements of hopeful universalism. The conjectured author of this poem is William Langland (ca. 1332 – ca. 1386). We know very little about him, but the sophisticated level of religious knowledge in the poem indicates that he had some connection to the clergy, and was possibly an itinerant hermit. The tradition that Langland was a Lollard, promoted by Robert Crowley’s 1550 edition of Piers and by early Lollard appropriation of the Plowman-figure, is false. Langland and Wycliffe shared many concerns: both question the value of indulgences and pilgrimage, promote the use of the vernacular in preaching, and attack clerical corruption. But these topics were widely discussed throughout the late fourteenth century anyway, Langland certainly does not echo Wycliffe’s teachings about the sacraments.

Passus 18 of the B text (and 20 of the C text) concludes with Will waking to the ringing of Easter Bells after witnessing in dream vision the events of Holy Week culminating in a debate between the four daughters of God – Mercy, Justice, Truth and Peace. Justice and truth argue for everlasting punishment of sin, while Mercy and Peace argue for forgiveness and restoration. Christ intervenes to harrow hell saying –
Then I shall come as a king, crowned with angels
And have all men’s souls out of hell
Demons great and small shall stand before me
And be at my bidding where I will
My kinship demands that I have mercy
On man , for we are all brethren
In blood, if not in baptism

My righteousness and right shall rule
In hell, and mercy over all mankind before me
In heaven. I were an unkind king
If I did not help my kin.

(Piers Plowman, Passus 18.399)Through the incarnation, all mankind is kin of Christ the King, and this verse emphasizes that Christ is bound by the bonds of kinship to save all of his kin – all of mankind - from the flames of hell. Langland here is drawing on the old Anglo-Saxon views on kinship and its bonds(found for instance in the pagan poem ‘Beowulf’) which held on quite long among the English. However, Langland extends kinship to all mankind, something the older, tribal-based Anglo-Saxons wouldn’t have done, and he does this through his inclusive doctrine of Incarnation. Langland’s egalitarian notions of kingship are very different from the hierarchical Norman French notions found in Anselm’s eleventh century ‘Cur Deus Homo’ – where God’s kingly honour, because God is infinite, is infinitely offended by our sin.

It has to be said that this passage conflicts with more pessimistic passages elsewhere in the poem including one – Truth’s pardon – that echoes the Athanasian Creed’s ;those who do evil will go into the everlasting fire’ (A Passus 8.96, B Passus 7 110B, C Passus 9. 287)… However, in the Harrowing of Hell scene it is important that the words of ultimate hope are placed on the lips of Christ – although it seems that Langland was still troubled by this hope as if the Daughters of God within him were still at loggerheads.

Piers Plowman was widely circulated in the fourteenth century (fifty two known manuscripts are extant). With Crowley’s printed edition of 1550 it reached a wide readership (although I will have to check and see how Crowley glosses the Universalist passages someday). If there is an inspirational link between the first flourishing of hopeful universalism in fourteenth century and the radical Universalists of the sixteenth century, ‘Piers Plowman’ is it.

Even advocate what? (There seems to be at least one phrase missing.)

Hi Jason – yes that was just an error in the mapping notes, which I’ve now deleted. The most important difference between Langland and Wycliffe from a UR viewpoint is that Langland was a hopeful Universalist, while Wycliffe and the Lollard mainstream seem to have been soul sleepers and annihilationist (I’ve seen the claim made on Universalist websites that the Lollards were Universalists but have seen no evidence for this claim given anywhere).

Regarding my notes on the first flourishing of UR in England – well I’ve a little bit more to say about Julian (comparing here with Anselm regarding God’s motherhood seems well worth a note) – but the gist of things is down now. I think I’ll just put some brief contextual notes in about the big events that the early UR crowd shared and which shaped their beliefs –

The Black Death
The Peasants Revolt
The rise and fall of the Lollards
The Hundred Years War
The season of popes and anti-popes

Should have this finished by end of the week. Then I can get cracking on the sixteenth century big time and work forwards (I’ve done enough flitting from one thing to another now).
When the mappings is over it will be time to look back at the first UR set and see if any other perspectives crop up – but I will soon leave them alone for the moment.

Jason – thanks so much for reading this stuff. You are a pal

1368

Louis Ellies du Pin, or Dupin (1657 –1719) the French ecclesiastical historian often quoted by nineteenth century historians of universalism apparently speaks of a council convened by
Langham, Archbishop of Canterbury, .A.D. 1368, in which judgment was given against thirty propositions that were taught in his province; one of which was that “all the damned, even the demons, may be restored and become happy.” I have good reason t believe that Dupin is not always a reliable source –but this is worth checking sometime against ecclesiastical records.

Ann interesting fact (if you are interested in boring stuff) -
When I’ve been working with Pog no his list of ‘hellism deniers’ I scanned through a copy of ‘The Modern History of Universalism: Extending from the Epoch of the Reformation to the Present Time. Consisting of Accounts of Individuals and Sects’ , by Thomas Whittemore on Google Books. Whittemore actually covers the same ground that this thread does about the Abrogation of the 42nd, the connection with Anabaptist Universalism etc – he tells the sane story. I hadn’t known this until now.

What I will say is that there is a lot we know now – a lot of it detailed in this thread – that Whittemore had no idea about. But this is effectively a new telling of an old story.
:bulb:

that’s interesting…i wonder if he’d be interested in this thread??

He’s been dead a long time James :laughing: He departed this life in 1861 - but I’m really glad I’ve done an intensive stint on Pog list because it’s improved my knowledge about American Universalism hugely and enabled me to find this out. :smiley:

does that mean he’s not interested? what a bore :stuck_out_tongue:

I wish I could download Whittemore’s two books off Google (or somewhere) – the various new print versions are expensive. But I’ve registered them in my Google library anyway. :wink:

Dave Tomlinson, a great mention…and thanks to you lending me that book, i’ve been going to and LOVING his church :slight_smile:

I’ve seen some copies for about £10 on Amazon UK. I think I ought to get one for this research - I see it includes some stuff by an early Episcopalian universalist minister citing the abrogation of the 42nd article.

James - I’m really glad you are loving it at Dave’s church - well he is a universalist after all :slight_smile:

A note to say that the Synod convened by Langham of Canterbury (mentioned above – and cited by a number of 19th century American historians of universalism) actually did take place and concerned the views of Uthred of Bolden that I’ve mentioned. Here is the ‘dirt’ on it -

In 1366, a quarrel broke out at Oxford when the Dominicans, led by William Jordan, launched an attack on the Benedictine Uthred of Bolden; the earliest evidence of this s a letter written by a monk of St. Mary’s, York, found in W.A. Pantin, General and Provincial Chapters of the English Back Monks, (London; Royal Historical Society, 1937), 3:308-9. This seems to have been the start of a long running quarrel.

Feb 18th 1368 Archbishop Langham of Canterbury ordered the Chancellor of Oxford to silence the two parties. On Nov 9th, Langham condemned a list of 30 propositions as erroneous; 22 of them deal with the issue of grace and salvation, and are clearly Uthred’s work. The remaining 8 deal broadly with the principle that things cannot change their basic nature, and appear to be the work of Jordan, although he was permitted to deny holding them. See Dom David Knowles, ‘’the Censured Opinions of Uthred of Bolden’ in ‘Proceedings of the British Academy, 1951, p.p. 306-42. There is no evidence that either man was required to formally recant or was punished in any fashion.

‘The School of Heretics: Academic Condemnation at the University of Oxford’ by Andrew E Larsen. P 297)

It is not clear to me yet that the Langham’s Synod actually did condemn universalism per se. I’ll need to do some more digging – and get hold of David Knowles’ article.

Doctrine in the Church of England 1938 (p. 219) states - ‘‘there must be room in the Church for those who hold that the love of God will at last win all to penitence and answering love from every soul that is has created’’

I had never read that, Dick. Heartening.

I looked at the numbers who have read this thread the other day and got a bit down because they are very high. I’d just like to say that although the suppression of the 42nd Article in the Convocation of 1563 has consoled and given legitimacy Anglican Universalist in later times, I’m certain now that there are no reasons to think that allowing universalism was the intention of the Convocation, and there are many good reasons for thinking this was not the case. Sorry about the change of mind:-/ And I think it is better to refer to the 42nd article having been ‘suppressed’ rather than ‘abrogated’.

All the best

Dick

Matthew Parker’s tutor Martin Bucer - who mentored him in moderation which is the reason why Elizabeth appointed him – was not a man who would shun someone for disagreement over matters that he thought we not essential . However, when – before he’d fled to England -he questioned Hans Denck the Anabaptist in Strasbourg who was charged with universalism and other matters (perhaps wrongly) he had part responsibility for having Hans Denck banished from the City. Bucer wrote that Denck had been leading members of the flock astray from their own salvation by teaching universalism.

The Articles that were deleted included those against the ‘millenarians’ (and like universalist. in the nineteenth century there were Anglican clergy who had become dispensationalist who used the deletion of this article as evidence that their beliefs were allowed). There are strong arguments to think that this was not the intention of the Convocation either. However, the one argument that trumps this reasoning is that the article against the ‘antinomians’ was also deleted – and it would be absurd to argue that therefore Anglicanism at this time was open to the licentious teachings of the antinomians.

The only evidence we have for debate about matters of belief concerning the articles at the convocation of 1563 is from correspondence between Bishop Alley of Exeter and Matthew Parker urging that the article about the Descent into Hell be shortened because there was so much disagreement over it. And indeed Cramners’ article was abridged in the final version no longer affirming that Christ preached to the spirits in prison but instead simply affirming that Christ descended into hell (The Calvinist doctrine that Christ that took this stamen as figurative for Christ experiencing the pains of hell on the cross – which did away with suggestions of post mortem salvation in the descent was well known in England and was the doctrine preferred by the Reformers who had returned from Switzerland . And with this being such a contentious issue, allowing universalism as an option would have been way beyond the pale.

Although the Funeral service in the Prayer Book was complained about as ‘Orignestic’ in the later Calvinist Admonitions to Parliament’ - along with many other complaints about the Articles not being fully Reformed - the suppression of the 42nd article is not mentioned in these. It certainly would have been if this allowed universalism.

Although the 42nd article was suppressed other articles assume the prospect of eternal damnation. For example the one on the Creeds. The authenticity of the Athanasian Creed was not in doubt at this point apart from in very secret communications of some Continental humanists, and the ‘charity of its damnatory clauses was not an issue before the rise of the non-conformists at the end of the eighteenth century. Also there the Article about the error of believing that people can be saved by following their own sects and opinions outside of the Church (which assumes that those who believe this are damned) and the comment about unbaptised children not begin saved in the Prayer Book of (which was deleted in the late seventeenth century when this idea rightly came to be seen as abominable).

The article against Purgatory and other superstitions is strengthened in the Elizabethan Prayer Book. (And some sort of doctrine of post mortem purification was essential to universalism at this point). Cranmer only speaks of the scholastic doctrine of purgatory as an abomination – but Parker’s article is less specific calling it squarely ‘Romish’. And this is clarified in John Jewel’s homily that scoffs at any idea of there being an intermediate state of purification and of the efficacy of prayer for the dead. Prayers for the dead were ordered in Cramner’s first prayer book but deleted from the second prayer book on the advice of Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr. They were condemned in the early Latin draft of the Elizabethan articles but this condemnation was dropped from the 39 articles (and they are included in a Latin primer later in Elizabeth’s reign). We do know that the Elizabethan Reformers were ‘gradualist’ in their project and were hoping that concessions made to the old Catholic practices when these were not too contrary to Protestant faith would actually result in these practices dying out. It was only later at the end of Elizabeth’s reign in reaction to the near triumph of the Reformed party in the Church that the idea that Anglicanism was a real middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism gained currency with Richard Hooker.

There is no evidence of any Anglican priests advocating universalism before the late seventeenth century – the general idea expressed at prior to the seventeenth century is that universalism is a madness that threatens all social order by taking away the motivation for people to be good an disobedient. In the late seventeenth century the advocates of universalism wrote either pseudonymously or in posthumous publication which does not suggest any degree of acceptance of universalism before this date. There were of course vigorous debates about predestination and freewill in the Elizabethan and Jacobean Church– but this is another matter

The most thorough evidence we have of an Anglican swayed by the teachings of Origen earlier than the late seventeenth century comes from Sir Thomas Browne’s ‘Religio Medici’ where Browne tells us that in his youth –in the 1620s - he believed in universal restoration for a time but later renounced his error (although his other writings show that his wider charity still was at variance with the teachings about hell). He says that he fell into error rather than heresy because he did not publicly teach his error and therefore cause division in the Church.

No one can complain you aren’t an honest scholar and gentleman! :slight_smile:

Is there a prior post in this thread you would like to add a comment to, and/or a link to this post, for future reference? I’m not sure if non-mod members have unlimited time to edit their prior posts; but if not, and if you want to, let me know where and what you want to amend, and one of us (presumably me) will do it for you.

Hi everyone,

I’m a bit late in on this discussion, and not sure if the following has already been said, but as someone with a great interest in the Church of England I am reassured by the actual Common Worship ordination service liturgy:

The only direct declaration made there is the following:

Bishop: Will you faithfully minister the doctrine and sacraments of Christ as the Church of England has received them, so that the people committed to your charge may be defended against error and flourish in the faith?

Ordinands: By the help of God, I will.

In addition, people to be ordained have to make the following “Declaration of Assent”:

The Declaration: I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon.

Notice the desire to be very open in the careful language of these declarations. The declaration is in the faith that is “revealed” in the Holy Scriptures, “set forth” in the catholic creeds, while the “historic formularies” of the Church of England “bear witness”.

What is striking here is that none of the adjectives relating to the creeds (which might include the Athanasian creed) or the “historic formularies” (which includes the 39 articles) require belief in their infallibility. It simply says the creeds “set forth” the same faith revealed in the Scriptures. The MacMillan dictionary defines “set forth” as “to explain or describe something in a clear and detailed way, especially in writing” - implying the creeds are meant to explain and clarify the doctrine revealed by the Scripture. Significantly, the faith is not revealed in the creeds - it is revealed in Scripture - meaning that, if there were some point of difference, the Scripture would have priority. It does not say that one has to believe everything in the creeds, or that they are perfect - it simply says a belief in the faith (i.e. faith in Christ) which the creeds in some sense explain. I could, for instance, declare that a mathematics textbook “set forth” the principles of mathematics, without affirming its inerrancy.

The language with the “historic formularies” (i.e. 39 articles etc.) is even more open - these are affirmed to “bear witness” to the faith. This simply means they contain some truth somewhere that sheds light on our understanding of faith. This certainly does not imply their perfection, however, or a complete agreement with them.

And also, remember this is only for people being ordained in the Church of England! If such openness is given to people who are ordained, imagine the openness to everyone else! In fact, as far as I am aware, apart from the Nicean creed which is declared as “our faith” during services, I do not believe there are any specific faith requirements of members of the Church of England!

This is reassuring, as it seems to me the Church of England is open to people believing in the ultimate restoration of everyone to God! :smiley: