The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Church of England Articles allowed Universalism in 1563

Hi Drew -

Have been otheriwse engaged but am back in harness now (and I’ve had an opporutnity to think about matters more deeply). Will post tomorrow.

All the best

Dick

ANd thanks for starting thread on the A. Creed

Cheers Dick, I’m looking forward to your post :slight_smile:

Hi Drew –

Nice to have time to chat again. :smiley: :smiley:

The odd thing about the history site that I referred you to is that when I first accessed it on 24 November 2011 it contained both the text of ‘An Ordinance for the punishing of Blasphemies and Heresies’, and contextual information (presumably written by C.H. Firth, R.S. Rait, the 1911 editors ‘Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660’). The contextual stuff seems to have been withdrawn and I’m sorry for any confusion. Fortunately I copied it when I first looked at the site.

It says that -

**In England the Protestants, in drawing up their Forty-two Articles of Religion, in 1552, condemned Universalism. Ten years later, when the convocation revised the doctrines of the Church, the number of articles was reduced to thirty-nine, omitting, among others, the one condemning Universalism. Since that time Universalism has not been a forbidden doctrine in the Church of England… **

So this is what I meant by confirmation of the ‘abrogation hypothesis’ (and by the way I’ve found a number of examples of the ‘abrogation hypothesis’ as expressed by Anglican clergymen since the seventeenth century; I’ll post them just before Christmas to cheer you).

Firth and Rait go on to explain that

The Presbyterian Parliament of 1648, which temporarily overthrew Episcopacy, passed a law against all heresies (that is, the Ordinance of May 1648), punishing the persistent holders of some with death, and of others with imprisonment. “That all men shall be saved” was among the heresies punishable in the latter manner. This law was not long operative, for the Independents, headed by Cromwell, soon overthrew the law-makers. Gerard Willstanley published a work in advocacy of Universalism only a few days after the passage of the law, which was soon followed by similar works from his pen. William Earbury fearlessly preached Universalism. Richard Coppin was active in its advocacy, publishing largely in its exposition and defense, and was several times tried for his offence.

So the context here is the Rump Parliament after the overthrow of Charles I in the Civil War/English Revolution. Charles I had been a sort of High Church Anglican of the Armenian tendency and one of the many causes of the Civil War was his attempt to impose the letter of the 39 Articles on Calvinist Anglicans, rather than being content to allow them to conform to the spirit of the Articles (of course, part of his concern in doing this was to limit their power).The Rump Parliament was composed of powerful Calvinists. What is interesting in this source is the evidence that the Rump felt the need to forbid the teaching of Universalism, whereas the Anglican Church had not done so – it shows that the Calvinists had a far greater concern to police/control the beliefs of the common people than the Anglican Divines of the Elizabethan Settlement; and I think in their need to proscribe universalism they were more in line with the policy of the other continental state/magisterial Protestant Churches (see following section). However, this attempt at censorship was short lived. As stated above Cromwell, the head of the Army, backed the Independents, a substantial force in the Army, to overthrow the law in the cause of Christian Liberty (the ‘Independents’ is the name for those parties and sects who believed that religion should not be controlled by the state, but should be a matter of voluntary association by Believers – their beliefs were in some ways parallel to those of the continental Anabaptists but not all were directly influenced by continental Anabaptism). This gave a number of Universalists the liberty to express their faith during the period of the Commonwealth. This experiment with religious liberty – way in advance of Anglican toleration - was exceptional at the time.

D.P. Walker and ‘The Decline of Hell’

I’ve just read D.P. Walker’s The Decline of Hell,(University of Chicago Press, 1964). This is the classic authority on changing views of hell in the seventeenth century (with a nod to the sixteenth century); I have found it enormously useful and relevant to our discussion. I think I need to outline the scope of this for you –

Walker argues that the beginnings of the decline in the belief in Hell in the seventeenth century, were part of a gradual and glacially slow revolution in sentiment (some of which can be seen in embryonic form in the sixteenth century – but only in a marginal and exceptional way – and much of which only becomes clear in the late nineteenth century). He gives several examples of this ‘shift’ but most important for our purposes are -

• A dawning awareness that the savage punishments formerly meted out to criminals (including traitors and heretics), and to the insane and the young (different in degree if not in kind from the punishments of criminals) were not in keeping with Christian charity.
• A gradual acceptance of religious tolerance and pluralism by Church and Society. Religious persecution had formerly been justified on grounds of the need to protect believers from the spread of false teaching and in this way to prevent their corruption and damnation. However, after a century of savage religious wars, sectarian violence, and persecution and with the idea of toleration becoming increasingly attractive, believers of all sects and parties became less happy to consign those who did not share their religious views to the flames and/or to damnation, even in imagination.

Certainly this shift has influenced the Anglican Church – but not explicitly at first. We need to remember that Anglicanism is a form of Magisterial Protestantism – its original purpose was to replace the Catholic Church’s monopoly of religion with the State’s monopoly of (Protestant) religion enforced by the magistrates. As it was developed in the Elizabethan Settlement it was far more tolerant than most contemporary continental forms of Magisterial Protestantism. However, there were limits to tolerance and conformity was enforced by a network of spies, the torture chamber, and by persecution on the pretext of preventing schism and anarchy in the State. However, the seventeenth century sees a shift in Anglicanism as it gradually comes to operate in a more pluralistic framework.

He argues compellingly that for any Magisterial Protestant church, allowing universalism would have been madness in the sixteenth century and for much of the seventeenth. He gives multiple examples from writings of the sixteenth and seventeenth century Protestantism to assert that the authorities of Magisterial Protestantism(s) believed that if the common people stopped believing in the threat of Hell – either through adopting annihilationism or UR -there would be nothing to prevent them succumbing to all manner of wickedness and sedition. Civil society would crumble into anarchy and perdition.

He also shows that by the end of the seventeenth century some Anglican churchmen and scholars – especially those associated with the Cambridge Platonist movement –began to argue for universalism. However, their writings were published posthumously and/or pseudonymously – for fear of the personal consequences, and/or for fear of encouraging wickedness in the common people. Indeed these authors went to great length to specify the appalling and prolonged physical suffering awaiting the damned – even if this fate was not everlasting

Finally , he argues that the sects in seventeenth century England that openly preached universalism did so precisely because they believed that this world was passing away and that Christ was about to come and reign with his Saints. Therefore they were not concerned with questions of maintaining the civil order. Although these sects were short-lived and ‘eccentric’ – not least because millenarians with mass appeal are usually rather vindictive in their expectations - Walker argues that they had a big influence on the ‘Decline of Hell’.

Back to the Elizabethans

In the light of Walker’s thesis, I would suggest that when the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion were established, if there were any men with UR sympathies in the Convocation which formulated them these would have been Christian Humanist scholars with a knowledge of Patristic literature and, therefore, of Origen and/or knowledge of the Greek New Testament and the ambiguous meaning of terms such as ‘aionos’. (Such men may also have thought that ‘perish everlastingly’ in the Athanasian Creed means ‘age long perishing’ in the original Greek). I understand that Matthew Parker was indeed a Humanist scholar with knowledge of Erasmus’ edition of the Greek New Testament and, unusually for an English Reformers, a scholar of Patristic literature; so he fits the bill. If secret Universalist sympathies were behind the abrogation of the 42nd Article the intention behind this may have been to secretly include any clergy who also had secret Universalistic sympathies. However, it would not have been to allow the teaching of Universalism to the laity. This may be a wild idea, but it is worth thinking about further before dismissing.

Regarding the ambiguous meaning of ‘aionos’ in New Testament Greek, D.P. Walker that Thomas Burnett (c.1635–1715), an Anglican Theologian connected with the Cambridge Platonists and ‘others’ – presumably other associates of the Cambridge Platonists - argued ‘with some success, that the word used for eternal in Matthew XXV and other crucial texts, need not mean more than age-long…”(‘Decline of Hell’, p.7). Burnett is writing more the a hundred years after the Convocation met to establish the39 Articles – but this does not mean that the issue was unknown earlier.

Final note for further consideration

Even if the evidence for secret Origenism in the Elizabethan Church hierarchy proves to be thin, I still think that the abrogation of the 42nd article by a Magisterial Protestant Church at this time seems nothing short of miraculous for reasons given above and others. It seems mind blowing considering the wildly exaggerated fear of the Anabaptists in Elizabethan England, who suffered severe state persecution (two were burnt as heretics even though the law for the burning of heretics had been repealed). The Anabaptists, like the later English Independents, taught (and still teach) that Church membership should be voluntary for believers and no business of state coercion – a seditious doctrine to Magisterial Protestants. At this time they were greatly feared – largely, and unfairly, because of the association of all Anabaptists with those who notoriously took control of Munster from 1553 – 1555. They also had a reputation –probably undeserved – for teaching Universal salvation; and this makes the suppression of the 42nd article curious because it could easily have been construed as condoning the Anabaptists (and this was certainly not the intention).

Also, to my knowledge, all of the Confessional documents for continental Magisterial Churches at this time contain clauses explicitly affirming eternal damnation. For example Article 17 of the Lutheran Confession of Augsburg (1530) affirms that ‘in the consummation of the world (at the last day), Christ shall appear to judge, and shall raise up all the dead, and shall give unto the godly and elect eternal life and everlasting joys; but ungodly men and the devils shall he condemn unto endless torments’. The Confession then goes on to explicitly ‘condemn the Anabaptists who think that to condemned men and the devils shall be an end of torments’. It seems very odd indeed that the Elizabethan Church should risk offending Lutherans by not explicitly condemning Universalism associated with Anabaptism when Article 29 of the Book of Common Prayer’s 39 Articles– ‘Of the Wicked Which Eat Not The Body of Christ’ –was at first omitted from the Prayer Book, very probably to ease diplomatic negotiations with the Lutheran Princes of Germany (because the Lutheran sacramental teaching states that both the good and the wicked do indeed receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the sacramental elements, the former to their benefit, the latter to their condemnation). The omission may well have been due to the personal intervention of the Queen, and the Article was not restored until 1571.This is all very curious, and food for thought for another time).

Thanks for your patience - that’s rathe ra lot of information I’ve spewed out… :smiley:

All very good wishes

Dick

Hi Dick, Thank you for such a well-researched and thought provoking contribution. Lots for me to chew on and ideas to pursue further. I particularly liked this:

and this:

Thanks again, you are a star!

Thanks Drew -

I’m glad and relieved you liked it - I see that other people are reading it too, so I can stop being too anxious about coming across as a pompous bore.

I’ve just found out something very interesting from a very reliable source (an article by Eamon Duffy - a noted historian of the English Reformation). It seems that Elizabeth I tolerated members of the ‘Family of Love’ amongst her personal servants. The ‘Family of Love’ held gentle mystical beliefs which seem to have included some sort of notion of universal salvation . They were a secret society of mutual support and were prepared to conform to the rites and governance of the Anglican Church – so they posed no threat to civil order (although they became one of the objects of religious panic in the 1580s). Now that is a thing worth ‘a pondering’ - but won’t jump to any rash conclusions: on the back burner for now.

Will post mid-week (I hope) with some bits and bobs - but wont’ do another major post before the New Year.

All the best

Dick

I had a pang of conscience today about a possible faux pas. I mentioned the ‘Family of Love’ fleetingly in my last post because a discovery had excited me - and one that I can only share with virtual friends – (my nearest and dearest aren’t much interested in this discussion). I’ve since paused for thought about what I said – not least because I am posting on an Evangelical Universalist thread. So I thought I should say a little more about the Family of Love etc., to avoid confusion.

First there is no connection between the sixteenth century ‘Family of Love’ and the rebranded version of The Children of God (the very unpleasant and heterodox fundamentalist cult which some of you may have experience of).

Second – as far as the sixteenth century version is concerned the sources of evidence are fragmentary so it is difficult to say for certain who the Family of Love were and what they believed. Once upon a time when Marxist history was popular ,the Family of Love were viewed as a sort of underground resistance religious movement of the common people, numbered in their thousands who were universalists and took the idea of freedom from the law as a licence for free love. Marxist historians lauded Universalism, not because they believed it to be true – they were generally atheists - but because they saw it as an example of the common people throwing off the shackles of the oppressive ideology of their rulers (there’s may be a grain of truth in this– but it’s not the full story).

Recent research, based on careful sifting of the evidence, has suggested a very different picture. Rather than there being thousands of ‘Familists’ in Elizabethan England there were probably only a couple of hundred. Far from being a sect of rebels, they were actually anxious to conform to the National Church. Far from being a populist movement, many Familists were members of the gentry. Indeed, some were numbered amongst the household of the Queen and her members of her Yeoman of the Guard (all of whom would have come from gentry stock). The charge of moral licence made by their persecutors is actually difficult to substantiate and may well have been the product of hysteria. Their tradition of secrecy had its roots in the continental Famalism where secrecy had to be maintained to avoid persecution ,as in the English persecutions under Mary. (Continental Famalism was generally composed of intellectuals and included big stars like the painter Peter Brueghel the Elder). All in all it seems that the Family of Love were probably more like a premature version of the Society of Friends than the organisation as envisaged by Marxists.

One thing we do know about the Familist’s beliefs is that they allegorized heaven and hell saying that these were states of the soul rather than physical places. This does not necessarily amount to universalism but – because it takes away the focus on the severe and retributive justice of God - it is a step along the way.

That Elizabeth tolerated Familists in her household is interesting regarding the history of Anglican universalism. It doesn’t suggest to me a sort of ‘Da Vinci Code’ conspiracy theory whereby the suppression of the 42nd article was due to infiltration of Familists in the Convocations of Bishops– that would be very wild and very crazy to argue. However, it may suggest something about a double standard –that universalism was not so alarming/heretical to the Elizabethan powers as long as it was confined as an opinion to the gentry and intellectuals (and kept secret). Elizabeth addressed parliament in the 1580s to reject the idea that ‘hell was only torment of conscience’ – which sounds pretty much the Familist doctrine – and this was said when the widespread scare about Familism was at its height and perhaps she felt a political need to distance herself at this point.

This is a side issue in a wider discussion – but I raise it in order to put it aside for the moment by allaying any possible fears I may have raised. One of these days I will ask somebody who knows all about Familism what they think.

All good wishes

Dick

That’s pretty much what I read about the “Familists” too. Thanks for clarifying anyway :slight_smile:

Drew
I can well understand if you are cheesed off with me. I can only say –

If I seem to be taking over – that’s a fair point. At the moment I am a carer with time a certain amount of time on my hands because I can only do part time work in Community Education because I have to be around for emergencies etc. Most of the time these days I’m an English Literature teacher in further education – but I can’t do this at the moment and the nearest I get to historical studies is doing reminiscence work with dementia patients (very rewarding - but do miss some intellectual stimulation too). Also your question about the 42nd article dovetails in to a lot of issues I struggled with and read about when I was a recently ‘recovering fundie’ – as they say here. So this is stimulating to me and kind of therapeutic too. Also my time is precarious – any time soon I may have no time – caring pattern varies greatly -so I wanted to set things down now while the going is reasonably good.

I had offered to do a private dialogue with you, and we decided against it. The reason for the post on the ‘Familists’ was to keep anyone else informed who reads this post . (It’s hard to point to a specific site for people to read – a lot of the information I’m getting –without the resources of a University Library to hand - is from bits and bobs of Google Books. And readers/viewers have to get some sort of grasp of the background to this issue, if they are to have any hope of understanding it – a lot of it is pretty obscure). Also you can appreciate my concern about the Children Of God - not with you but with someone else who might read my post. I’ve only just read this stuff on Familism too. The last time I’d thought about them properly was about twenty years ago when the Marxist view prevailed. The only academic I have any contact with these days happens to be something of an expert on English religious sects of the period – so when I can see him again that’s one expert opinion I can ask for (but we’ll have to look elsewhere for expert opinions on other points)
In addition I’m aware of how measly an Anglican stipend is – and therefore I’ve summarised stuff from Screech and D.P, Walker for you. You’ve also haven’t currently got time on your hands.

So I’ve done a synopsis of D.P. Walker for you,. His book may be the standard authority but it is open to question and nuance. I’ve seen a review online concerning his idea of religious toleration and the decline of hell operating in tandem; the reviewer argues that although Walker was basically correct, the early advocates of tolerance saws divine vengeance waiting for the persecutors; so the Decline is in need of nuance. What is exciting to me about the Familist stuff is that it seems to suggest another point of nuance needed of the Decline. Walker argues that it was impossible to think of Universalism as an allowable option if you were a sixteenth century Magisterial Protestant. However, it seems that Elizabeth’s toleration of the Famalists in her circle suggests that it wasn’t impossible within the framework of the Elizabethan Settlement as long as it was done with secrecy and confined to the gentry.

I append my other bits of stuff that I was going to send you before Christmas.

The Abrogation of the 42nd

I have reflected on the context and meaning of the suppression of the 42nd Article a little more. The entry on the 39 Articles in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (p.1622) tells me that “Subscription to the 39 Articles has never been required of any but the clergy and until the nineteenth century, members of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. From 1865 the clergy were only required to affirm… them as agreeable to the Word of God and undertake not to teach in contradiction of them… Since 1975 they have been required simply to Articles as one of the historic formularies of the C of E which bear witness to the faith revealed in the scripture and set forth in the catholic creeds”.
It strikes me from all of this that through the centuries of the C of E’s existence, those who have been primarily concerned with pondering the meaning and implications of the Articles have been clergy and scholars. All will have been educated to some degree in the history of the Anglican Church and thus most will have know of the abrogation of the Forty Second Article from Edward IV’s Prayer Book . Yes, the 39 Articles do not positively allow the teaching of universal salvation but knowledge of the abrogation/suppression of the 42nd Article condemning universalism must have caused many Anglican clergy through the ages to pause for thought. And Drew, it is such an notable, striking thing to an Anglican who has embraced Universalism that I’m not surprised that others have arrived at the same conclusions as you in the past, and independent of each other (it’s almost a sort of ‘cloud of witness’)

First example I’ve found is that the abrogation of the 42nd Article was used by George Rust, formerly Dean of Conor and later Bishop of Dromore, and a younger associate of the Cambridge Platonists, in A Letter of Resolution Concerning Origen and the chief of his opinions’ (published under a pseudonym in 1661)

**I would fain know why she (i.e. The Church of England) who in her 39 Articles does so punctually (i.e. exactly) follow the Articles agreed upon in King Edward’s Days, or with little variation, should wholly omit that Article which condemns the Restorers (i.e. the exponents) of this opinion, if she had thought it ought to be condemned’ **(quoted in The Decline p.23) D.P. Walker The Decline of Hell, University of Chicago Press, 1964

Second example is Andrew Jukes from The Second Death and the Restitution of All Things, 1867. I’ve seen some conflicting versions of his story but the consensus appears to be that he was ordained in the Church of England but was suspended and left over disagreement with the authorities about Infant Baptism. He went on to found an independent church and was friendly with Darby of the Plymouth Brethren (decidedly not a Universalist) and Samuel Cox the Baptist Universalist. When he published ‘Restitution’ he lost a lot of his congregation in protest and eventually came back to the Church of England as an Anglo Catholic – although he never took holy orders again. In Restitution he wrote -

It ought not to be forgotten also, that our English Church , having in her original Forty-two Articles had a Forty-first, declaring of “Millenarians,” that they “cast themselves headlong into a Jewish dotage,” and a Forty-second, asserting, that “All men shall not be saved at length,” within a very few years, in Elizabeth 's reign, struck out both these Articles. Surely this is not without its significance. The Creeds, which are received both by East and West, not only make no mention whatever of endless punishment, but in their declaration of “the forgiveness of sins” seem to teach a very different doctrine.

The other examples are Screech and, of course, your good self. I think Farrar may well have arrived at the same conclusion as you– and I don’t for a moment think that he was your inspiration (nor do I think Dukes knew of Rust, or Farrar necessarily knew of Dukes). You’d certainly not read Farrar’s sermons when you started the thread and you are good bloke too – and I hope you’ve never thought I’d implied that you had read them (perhaps I’m being paranoid).

Errors in my past posts

I’ve made a lot of slips and errors in my posts – not including typos - and I end with my naughty list. In previous posts -
I have coupled the Family of Love with the Grindletonians; but the latter originated after Elizabeth’s reign and, therefore, are not strictly relevant.

I have said that I seemed to remember that Elizabeth had some influence on the inclusion of ‘comfortable words’ in the Prayer Book. I haven’t been able to find any confirmation of this. Indeed, I must have remembered wrongly because ‘comfortable words’ are already included in Cramner’s Prayer Book

I have referred to Richard Hooker as the ‘theorist’ of the Elizabethan Settlement, implying he had some input into this. However, it is more accurate to call him the ‘apologist’ for the Elizabethan Settlement – he was published in the 1590’s and his apology is for something that has already existed for some time.

I have said that I thought the real reason for suppressing the 42nd article was to guard against an epidemic of spiritual despair (assertion made after initial optimism over your idea had taken a knock from reading Christopher Hill – the Marxist historian I referred to indirectly in my last post). I no longer think it is central; the issue only becomes hugely important in the 1580’s when the Calvinists within the Anglican Church became ideological about predestination and assurance. However, Anglican traditions of compassion for the spiritually depressed plus the paradoxes in the BOCP Funeral Service do provide additional support for Anglican Universalism along with the abrogation of the 42d Article. And - as you know, my optimism about your idea has returned refreshed.

I have suggested that Gerhard Jan Voss in 1642).was the first to question the authorship of the Athanasian Creed. I now know that Joachim Camerarius was the first in 1547. He was a German Classical scholar consulted by the Reformers when they were composing the Ausburg confession. He expressed his ideas on the Creed in Greek, but the storm was such that he had to omit these from the Latin edition of his work in 1593. In 1569, John Jewell, Anglican Bishop of Salisbury spoke guardedly in support of Camerarius’ ideas. The first Anglican to express doubts about the uses of the damnatory clauses, as far as I know, was Jeremy Taylor in ‘A Discourse of the Liberty of Prophesying’ (1646). He wrote that: 'It seems very hard to put uncharitableness into a creed, and so to make it become an article of faith’.

There were also some things I have written about the Civil War that were so brief as to be misleading – I’ve looked things up to gain the proper context.

I have referred to the powerful Calvinist party within the Long Parliament during the Civil War simply as ‘Calvinists’. ‘Presbyterians’ is the better term. Some of the Independents had Calvinist views on Predestination – and two of the Universalists from this period, Sterry and White, were effectively Calvinist Universalists. However, the party in Parliament as well as being theologically Calvinist also wanted to introduce the Presbyterian system of Church Government in the National Church doing away with the power of bishops appointed by the Crown and imposing the hierarchical system of government by Councils of the Elect favoured in Geneva (and arguably replacing one authoritarian system with another more intrusive and authoritarian one).In this they were heirs of the Calvinist Anglicans of the Elizabethan Settlement who seem to have bought in to the Settlement in the hope that a partially reformed Church would one day be fully reformed. The issue of ‘Christian Liberty’ that eventually had them ejected from Parliament was not religious censorship – they had already lost this battle – but rather their willingness to cut a deal with the King rather than supporting his execution as a Tyrant. After the restoration of the Monarchy – with the realisation that the Church was never going to be fully reformed many English Calvinists had a profound and painful rethink and developed a largely tolerant and socially progressive faith.

I have suggested that the ‘Independents’ were somehow linked to the Anabaptist tradition. This is misleading. Independents primarily refers to Dissenters who were non-sectarian/happy to be part of the national church but what more powers for congregations – e.g. to hire and fire ministers instead of having these chosen by Bishops. They became the Congregationalists after the Restoration. However the Independents did support the rights/freedoms of the sects/sectaries – Baptists, Quakers, Levellers, Diggers – who arguably can be linked to the Anabaptists.

I have given the Anglican Armenians too much of an easy ride. They were Armenian in their view of salvation; they developed a high church form of liturgical worship (offensive to the Presbyterians); but most offensive to the Presbyterians – and understandably so – they developed an oppressive theology and policy of the ‘Divine Right of Kings’ with Royal approval/input.

Happy Christmas Drew. Really didn’t mean to cheese you off. I could post in the New Year – I was thinking a couple of big ones and two or three small ones up to Easter before we formulate questions for experts - but could stop now if it’s getting a drag, or communicate in a different way so we can slow down and you can do some research or whatever.

Cheers and Blessings adn Merry Christmas

Dick

Hi Dick,

You certainly haven’t “cheesed me off” in any way at all, and I’m really sorry if I gave you that impression. I have been longing for a historian to join in our discussions, especially someone with knowledge of the reformation era. You are a gentleman, a scholar and a breath of fresh air and, although few people here may feel sufficiently qualified to comment on the information you are posting, the rising number of readers of the thread shows your efforts are well appreciated. I am, as you guessed, quite busy in the run-up to Christmas of course. But I am reading and printing all your posts and making space for some deeper study in the New Year.

By the way, I was fortunate to be given some books by a clergy widow recently, including Bishop T.V. Short’s “Sketch of the History of the Church of England” (1882). I’ve only dipped into it so far, but have already picked up a few gems, including the following description of our friend Archbishop Parker:

He certainly seems to have improved the CofE in ridding it of Article 42, if nothing else!

Happy Christmas to you and those you care for. Love and prayers from me, Drew

Thanks Drew - bless you.

That’s a lovely quotation you’ve posted - and how fortunate that the book has come into your hands. I reckon Matthew Parker is a man after your own heart Drew - and good for you. Also Parker was happily married, as you are happily married. Elizabeth for some reason, although a Protestant, was still a private believer in celibate clergy (especially Bishops). She rated Parker so much that she forgave him his marriage (that was big of her!).

I don’t know whether you know this but Parker left his entire library of 600 plus manuscripts to Caius College Cambridge where they still reside with additions, and the Parker Library is in the process of being put online. So any expert opinion we may seek about Parker could first be addressed to the current Parker Librarian

Will continue to produce stuff after Christmas and you can catch up on reading it ‘as and when’. There is no rush to get expert opinions - or anything else.

Love to you and your wife - and don’t work too hard over Christmas (I know that’s a ‘busman’s holiday’ for a Rev.)

Dick

Hi –

While I’m still thinking through ‘the big stuff’ about the suppression of the 42nd Article I can do some quick post to deal with related issues. This post is about the service for the Burial of the Dead in the Book of Common Prayer. Eamon Duffy writes of the reception of this service in Elizabethan England -

“…It was in many ways a starkly reformed service, speaking much of predestination, “beseeching thee, that it may please thee to accomplish the number of thy elect”. Yet it required the minister to declare of everyone he buried that they died “in sure and certain hope” of salvation. Were all the dead elect? The godly answered with an emphatic no, and godly ministers were increasingly unwilling to read over the bodies of drunkards, adulterers, or the merely mediocre words of hope and rejoicing for their deliverance, words that asserted and assumed their salvation. As Richard Baxter put it, “It is confusion perilous to the living that we assume that all we bury be of one sort, viz., elect and saved: when contrarily, we see multitudes die without any signs of repentance as rational charity can judge sincere.” (R. Baxter, Reliquiae Baxterianae, 1696, part II, p. 315). .Yet James Pilkington, Elizabethan Bishop of Durham, commenting on the rights of the dead, declared that the comely using of these in God’s church is a great comfort to all Christians, and the want of them a token of God’s wrath and plague.” (The Works of James Pilkington, ed. J. Schofield, Parker Society, 1842, pp. 317-18). This was the view of the average English parishioner too, and they would permit no predestinarain scruples on the part of ministers to abbreviate or truncate those rites. Insistence on the due performance of this and the other rites of passage became a frequent bone of contention between traditionally minded parishioners and Protestant clergy.” (E. Duffy, The Stripping of Altars; Traditional Religion in England 1400-1580, p. 590 London, 1992)

‘Duffys book argues controversially that the common people of England did not initially see the Reformation as liberation. Indeed, they were very reluctant to relinquish the old religion of England with its rites and ceremonies although with the second generation of people brought up in Reformation England the old religion of the country did in fact die out. A Catholic historian, he has managed to get the backs up of both Protestant historians of the Reformation and Anglo Catholic historians – if he’s that challenging he can’t be all bad.

I think the passage I have quoted above can be considered apart from the more controversial thesis of the book. The passage suggests to me that the logic of the Prayer Book service – at least the poetic logic – is actually Universalist: everyone who is buried has sure and certain hope of salvation, and everyone who is buried is therefore numbered among God’s elect (I’ve read the service carefully and I agree with Duffy on this). I presume this ‘logic’ originates from a moderate Evangelical concern to remain on the sidelines about exactly who will be numbered among the elect. However, along with the abrogation of the 42nd article it seems another historical factor that makes the Anglican tradition open to Universalism.

I note that the Service for the Burial of the Dead comes from Cranmer’s 1552 version of the Prayer Book. The Elizabethan prayer book of 1559 contained some minor revisions – including the revisions of Cranmer’s 42 articles – but none, that I know of, to the Burial Service. I am not claiming that Cranmer was a Universalist – far from it. I am merely claiming that because of the indiscriminate assurance the service provides it has a Universalist ‘poetic logic’ (when people are gathered at a funeral service they are affected at a powerful emotional level rather than a rational/doctrinal one.
Apologies for typo in previous post – ‘right’ = ‘rite’

All the best

Dick

Hi Dick,
Thanks, interesting stuff. I agree there is a universalist “poetic logic” to the burial service - as in all the modern funeral services I’m aware of. Perhaps this is because it is in stark pastoral situations that the absurdity of the hell doctrine is most obvious :slight_smile: . Of Duffy’s thesis:

I think he’s more or less right. Although I think the “old religion” never went away altogether. It certainly came back pretty easily with the 19thC Oxford Movement and the rise of Anglo Catholicism. The CofE has always been a broad church.

Couldn’t agree more :slight_smile:

I don’t usually put on my big pointy hat, but if RevDrew hasn’t reassured you enough Sobor, allow me as one of the Big Three admins to reassure you that I am 100% in favor of your posting so far. :smiley:

I very much appreciate the careful, sober and self-critical historical analysis you’ve been offering in this thread, on an obscure topic, and I strenuously doubt any of the other ad/mods (among whom is Drew, nowadays) have or would have a problem with it either.

Thank you for all the work, and feel free to continue as you get the time. I assure you, if we think there’s a problem we’ll let you know. :mrgreen:

Thanks Jason -

Good to hear from you: D . That’s very kind of you. I feel most reassured by you and by Drew. Will continue to post as and when I get time - and will continue to be self critical .

I read the thread on the Athanasian Creed - to which you are the main contributor - too late :frowning: You’ve really explained all the critical issues with wonderful clarity - I’ve been stumbling trying to understand these of late myself because I keep bumping into them during research on Drew’s topic. And I needn’t have bothered!

I only note that you’ve said at some point on the 42nd Article thread that you wish you could have been a fly on the wall when the Episcopalian’s dropped the Nicene and Athanasian creeds from their 1801 prayer book. I did stumble across the reasons for this, quite by accident, and will do a post when I have a moment - if you’d like that.

A very merry Christmas to you -

Dick

Yes, very much interested, thanks! :smiley:

Hi Drew and hi Jason -

I haven’t forgotten about my entirely self imposed promise to you both. I’ve done more research on both issues - the suppression of the 42nd Article, and the non-inclusion of the Athanasian creed in the Episcopalian prayer book of 1801 (and another interesting topic regarding when, in the 1860’s, the Athanasian creed was use to charge an Anglican clergyman who had written tentatively in defence of Universalism with heresy (he was found guilty but acquitted on appeal).

In fact I’ve done all my research and am just taking respite to ponder - I’ve learnt some very interesting stuff which has given me new slants on some things.

Also - it was a bit weird joining this site and posting without knowing my way round it or getting to know people first; so just want to concentrate on this for a couple of weeks longer (then I’ll feel less self conscious and needy when I start posting my informal research - and I’ll only do this in small bits).

Finally this is the first time I’ve ever been a posting person - having to learn the etiquette and the language of emoticons etc - and I may be an egghead but am slightly dyslexic so have to acclimatise myself.

A very good site you have here - you should be proud of yourselves.

Dick

In the meantime - any specific questions, please ask. :slight_smile: