The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Church of England Articles allowed Universalism in 1563

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:

Some brilliant stuff in this thread. Keep it coming. :slight_smile:

Thanks for all your work on this, Dick. I’m looking forward to hearing what you’ve discovered!

Och well - I’d better get my act togther then :slight_smile:

Hi Drew – and all readers of this thread (I’m amazed at your perseverance! :laughing: ). I think I’m ready to set things down now – this is not an exact work of scholarship so there is no need for me to be scrupulous with referencing etc. – because I’d take forever to write it up and none of you would read it anyway!!! So I’ll keep things fairly informal - you are my audience , no one else is! However I think I can now sketch out my conclusions about the abrogation of the 42nd article from the fairly diligent research I have done; I think you can trust me about 95% of the time now (although I’m open to correction on matters of detail). I no longer think we require getting other academics, real academics, involved – for reasons that I will describe later. For those reading this thread for the first time – and with the staying power produced by a genuine interest in the subject matter – I refer you to an earlier post I made summarising the arguments of D.P. Walker in ‘The Decline of Hell’ as essential background reading; it’s very useful for you to grasp the meaning and the consequences of ‘magisterial Protestantism’ for example.
To begin I want to summarise the views of Anglican Clergymen in the past about the importance of the abrogation of the 42nd article for the Universalist cause (I’ve added to my earlier posts, but the stuff that I reproduce here it’s worth reading again to pick up the thread of a dormant argument)

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 from 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’ **

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.

Third example is Frederic William Farrar from ‘Eternal Hope: Five Sermons Preached in Westminster Abbey. November and December, 1877’. Farrar was Dean of Westminster Abbey and although other Anglicans before him had expounded on the theme of Hopeful Universalism – notably Tillotson who was Archbishop of Canterbury in the late seventeenth century in a Christmas Day sermon preached to Queen Mary, the wife of William III –Farrar was the first to preach a hopeful (but not certain) Universalism to a wider public, and his sermons were published and sold out in five editions rapidly. He wrote/preached that –

For ten years indeed (1552 -1561) a Forty Second Article condemned Universalism; but for Universalism (that is ‘certain’ Universalism) I have not pleaded, and, more-over, even that Article was struck out with the consent of the Bishops and Clergy of both Houses and Provinces. TO say that it was struck out because the Anabaptists were no longer prominent is simply an unsupported conjecture. The conjecture may be true, but even if so I look on the elimination of the Article as distinctly overruled by a watchful Providence; since it is the province of the Church to decide only in matters of faith, and no church has a right to legislate in those matters of opinion on which wise and holy men have, in all ages, been content to differ, seeing that we have no indisputable voice of Revelation to guide our conclusions respecting them.
Fourth and last is the Rev. Professor Michael Screech – Anglican Priest and notable scholar of the Renaissance – writing in his ’Laughter at the Foot of the Cross’

**Some think of the Christian revelation as above all a deposit dutifully guarded by an infallible man, institution, or church. Others see the revelation of the fullness of Christ’s truth as primarily a winding road, leading members of a fallible church –however fitfully – towards a deepening understanding of divine truth, justice and mercy. Christian truth may be at any time revealed – in his own way and in his own choosing – by the risen Christ. Christ is the Logos, the Living Word, the very idea of right-reason. He approaches man and addresses him in ways he can understand. It may all seem very mundane. The Logos does not smother the personality of those whom he chooses to address, but he does expect to elicit a response. One response has been a quiet rejection – despite Fathers and Councils and encyclicals and synods – of the notion of a celestial Belsen where wretches suffer infinite and everlasting torment, partly in order to add to the joy of the elect. When in 1553 the church under Edward VI drew up the Forty-two Articles, the forty second read: All men shall not be saved at length. Edward died almost at once and those articles were immediately abrogated under Queen Mary. The forty second was never restored under Elizabeth. So the church left the universalism of Origen an open question. Origen (the favourite theologian of Erasmus) held that, in the end, all rational creatures will be saved: all mankind, and even all devils. The Church, by never restoring Edward’s forty second article, leaves the door of God’s redeeming power wide open: all of us may be eventually saved. If so there will be no human beings left in hell to laugh at…’ **

I note here the references; to Origen for whom Christ perceived in his fullness is Logos /Wisdom – i.e. that which will hold all things together in balance in the fullness of time; to Erasmus, the Christian Humanist and Catholic reformer who revered Origen above Augustine, and was a profound influence – at least in his rhetoric of moderation – on the English Reformers; and to the horrendous idea derived from Tertullian, that Farrar rightly termed the ‘damnable doctrine’, that the elect in heaven would enjoy great voyeuristic pleasure from watching and scoffing at the torments of the damned (Screech goes on to point out the sheer wickedness of the logical conclusion of Augustinian fundamentalists in all sections of the Church on this socre – that since un-baptised/unsaved babies are damned, the elect can also look forward to laughing at their torments. Finally Screech suggests that Fredric William Farrar should be remembered as a ‘Merciful Doctor’ of the Church.

All the best (and thanks for your patience)

Dick

So let’s start the rolling – you will note that in some arrears I have substantially revised my opinions since earlier posts due to my recent studies. I must say, in the light of recent scholarly research in to primary sources, that some of the conclusions drawn by the Marxist historian Christopher Hill in the nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies – especially in his essay on Universalism in ‘The World Turned Upside Down’ - now seem very dated. I note this because Louise Hickman cites him as a reliable source in ‘The World Turned Upside Down’; but it appears to me that he was often driven more by Marxist theory than attention to the evidence. Anyway, it’s a side issue – but his essay certainly did lead me up the garden path initially and I may have cause to refer to it later. (No offence is intended to Louise Hickman – studies in the secret history of universalism are still in their infancy which is why we all need to keep talking to each other)
The political context of the Thirty Nine Articles

With the death of the Catholic Queen Mary I (‘Bloody Mary’) her Protestant sister Elizabeth ascended the throne, lauded as the ‘new Deborah’ just as her little Protestant brother Edward who had ruled before Mary had been lauded as the ‘new Josiah’. Elizabeth was in a difficult situation and was not fully confident of her position until late in her reign after the defeat o the Spanish Armada when she finally became ‘Gloriana Virginia,’ the Virgin Queen beloved by her people. At first she had to play different parties off against each other in order to survive, and also take care not to offend continental Princes of various religious sympathies so as to keep open the prospect of a marriage match and build defensive alliances on the basis of this guessing game. She also had to cope with religious pluralism and the need to prevent the sectarian violence that was all too common on the Continent.

‘Bloody’ Mary had revived English Catholicism with persecuting zeal, but there was a lot of support for Mary, especially in the North of England, which had not waned – and Elisabeth was aware of this. It seems that Elizabeth – although she was not bothered about people having Catholic sensibilities in terms of liturgy and worship - hoped that old style Catholicism would die out within a generation; but she was too canny to force the issue

Under Edward the English Reformation had been chiefly influenced by the Lutheran tradition and by Christian Humanism (Elizabeth’s tutor Roger Ascham was a Christina Humanist and when she was young she had translated work by Erasmus from English into Latin); and it was with this broad tradition of moderate Protestantism that Elizabeth identified. However, during the persecutions of Mary, many English Protestants had fled to Geneva and returned as Calvinists. And they returned with the hope and zeal for complete Reform of the Church. Elizabeth had no time for them and made a habit of offending them by swearing ‘By God’s Soul!’ in their company. Of course they wanted the Church of England to be governed by elected committees of Elders independent of the monarch, which was anathema to Elizabeth who appointed her own bishops to govern the Church. Loathe them she might – but she also had to keep them on board.

In the 1530’s a group of millenarian Anabaptist had taken over Munster on the continent. For two years, from (1533-1535) it had been governed by their ‘Messianic King’ John of Leydon (a sort of David Koresh - of Waco fame - figure). He had imposed both communism and polygamy on the people and ruled with great cruelty, especially towards women who would not comply with polygamy, or who were found guilty of adultery. Whether it is appropriate to call these people Anabaptists is debatable; they had nothing in common with the mainstream Scriptural and Spiritual Anabaptist traditions – but perhaps mainstream Anabaptists learnt from the Munster example of the dangers of confusing the Kingdom of God with the Kingdoms of Men. The Messianic Kingdom of Munster was ended with enormous and revolting cruelty by a Catholic army that had found common cause with the Lutherans. The aftershock of Munster created fear in a generation of Magisterial Protestants, and persuaded them to sully all Anabaptists with the memory of the Messianic Kingdom. It seems that by Elizabeth’s time this fear was on the wane (indeed there is little evidence of their being many Anabaptists in England during her reign – more of this later),. Certainly the Anabaptist threat no longer seemed apriority with all of the other juggling that needed to be done to accommodate people in one Church of England.

This is the political situation in which the 39 articles were formulated and it is to these articles that I will address myself next.

I must say I am absolutely loving all this information!

As a result of this thread, I have also been looking into the Anglican (Episcopalian) church and while talking with many Episcopalian clergy on the subject, I have discovered that UR is something that is perfectly acceptable today to hold and MANY members/clergy have been believers in UR over the centuries. I have no references to establish that, I am strictly going by what I was told by some various clergy. Mind you, not all believe it and take UR as heresy. However from what I can tell (don’t quote me on this), UR as heresy is not something that is outright taught and is left open to the individual believer.

Sorry if this is repeating anything already said or obvious but again, thanks to this thread, I have learned quite allot!

Thank you. :smiley:

Two very helpful posts there Dick, thanks very much for piecing all this together. Its helpful to know why the anabaptists were seen as such a threat. Interested in your emphasis on Elizabeth I as a canny politician. Her faith was important to her to though, I think, and Matthew Parker (Bucer’s protegé?) a strong influence on her from her. Anyway, waiting for your next instalment with baited breath!

What a lovely and encouraging response :smiley: . I’ve been meaning to nail this one for some time. God willing – I’ll do it all this week with a few instalments each day. And keep up the encouragement and/or questions please to support me in this – and I’ll buy you all a beer one day!

1Cor1522 – what’s your actual name? That is so good to know that this is of benefit to you. Will come on later in the week to why the Creed Of Athanasius was dropped from the revised Prayer Book of the Episcopalian Church in 1801; it is very relevant to our theme and may also shed some light on why a section of the Episcopalian Church today is less likely to accommodate Universalism – although on the whole the Episcopalian Church is ultra-Liberal compared with the Anglican Church in the UK (but I for one don’t equate Universalism with Liberalism – no way; it can properly be a Conservative option too).

Ok Drew – we go for the white knuckle ride then? In the posts that immediately follow I will have cause to say more about Elizabeth’s faith – which was genuine, but not Universalist I think, at least not as you and I would think of Universalism (I’ve revised my picture of her slightly from the rose tinted vision I had of her at first – probably half remembered from ‘Look and Learn’ educational comics when I was a child!); of the influence of gentle, sweet tempered Matthew Parker – who may have been a Universalist (we can make a case for it but I think it is impossible to prove); and of the influence of Bucer, which was real, but I think more marginal than we originally assumed. Whatever, as early as Richard Hooker in the 1580s we have proper evidence of hopeful universalism from a key figure of the Anglican tradition. I think we will never know for certain exactly why the 42nd article was abrogated – for reasons I will explain - but along with Canon Frederic Farrar we can put it down to Divine Providence, and certainly see this Providence working itself out in the history of Anglicanism as it gradually became a fully tolerant and non-persecuting Church.

I don’t normally give my name out online out of old habit. However my name is Paul. I just use 1Cor1522 in reference to one of my fave passages in the Bible. :smiley:

Hi Paul -there are a lot of Paul’s in this world so you haven’t really blown your cover :laughing: Nice to have you along for the journey. Will do a couple more posts tomorrow (just working on one now).

All the best

Dick :smiley:

Before looking at the revision of the Forty Two Articles in any detail I will first respond to Drew’s questions in a brief ‘excursion’. (You’ve got me in pompous academic mode – and I’m loving it; so your mockery is appreciated! :laughing: ).
I am sure Elizabeth’s religious faith was genuine and heartfelt. Her manual of private devotions suggests that her private faith was pretty mainstream Protestant focussed on ‘Justification through Faith Alone’.

As someone primarily influenced by the Lutheran tradition – which retained a love of music and ritual -she loved fine Church music and encouraged the use of vestments. When she first came to power she had a large golden cross installed for adoration in her private chapel. An outcry ensued and it was removed only to be reinstated later.

It was her refusal to budge on the issues of vestments that got poor old Matthew Parker embroiled in a controversy that he would have preferred to avoid which gave him the posthumous nickname of ‘Nosey Parker’. You see the Reformed Calvinist Christians who were in the ascendancy refused to wear the vestment stipulated by Royal Decree in the Prayer Book. These vestments were fairly low key by High Catholic standards, but still too much for the Calvinists who wanted to wear the austere black Genevan gown. They argued that the wearing of vestments made the officiate at Communion into a Priest presiding at a real sacrifice – which was more than they could stomach. The reluctant Parker had to ensure that vestments were worn – hence his reputation for checking up and spying on clergy (there were some fines and brief imprisonments of a few clergy as a result, but nothing serious). He was a gentle man and his successor Archbishop Grindall was more assertive in standing up to the Queen about allowing flexibility to accommodate the Calvinists.

Elizabeth had frequent ‘run ins’ with the Calvinists – although she was happy to accommodate those who were loyal to the Church (a later Archbishop Whitgift, was thoroughly Calvinist in his theology, but was happy to bring sectarian Calvinists into line). She also obviously fell out with them, and would not budge, over the issue of elected committees of Elders replacing her appointed Bishops. IN addition she fell out with them over the issue of ‘Prophesyings’ – these were un-programmed interactive sermons that went against Royal decree –Elizabeth wanted her bishops to control the content of the clergy’s sermons.

Late in her reign when a Calvinist clique tried to revise/supplement the Thirty Nine Articles with Six Articles proclaiming the truth of Double Predestination as the bedrock of Anglican faith she was beside herself with rage – and the authors were banished from the realm. However, apart from fines and the occasional brief stays in prison it appears that the Calvinists were never really persecuted by her, and their persecution has been greatly exaggerated in Calvinists histories (perhaps they were just too powerful to persecute – I dunno). The same was true of the Brownists– a sect within Anglicanism that wanted more independence at a local level for parishes to hire and fire their clergy and became known as the Independents in the next century and later as the Congregationalists. They were subjected to fines and imprisonment but never put to death.

It seems that Elizabeth genuinely loved peace and was prepared to tolerate pluralism as long as you kept your private beliefs to yourself and conformed to the practices of her Church. ‘We would not have windows into men’s souls’ she is reputed to have said (it appears that it was actually Francis Bacon who wrote this, but it surely comes near to what she thought). And until 1575 there was no religious persecution in England, in this England was only matched for toleration in the Free Dutch Republic at this time (although the latter allowed for more genuine outward religious pluralism). In 1575 – perhaps, significantly, the year of Matthew Parker’s death, the persecutions began. I will have to return to this darker chapter of Elizabeth’s reign before we weigh the final evidence for the meaning of the abrogation of the 42nd article. However, for the next post I will say something more about Matthew Parker and the influences on him (so hold your questions back about Elizabeth the persecutor for the moment).

All the best

Dick

A footnote to the above post –

Elizabeth - ‘Good Queen Bess’ - is known to have loved at least one man with a fond and steady affection - that man being Matthew Parker (I would not call her famous affection for Robert Dudley ‘steady’ - rather it was solely passionate and therefore capricious, although she was never cruel to him). She is also known to have loathed one man so much that it out put her out of all charity - that man being John Knox, Scotland’s fierce and unrelenting Reformer trained by Calvin in Geneva. In the year that Elizabeth came to the throne Knox published a tract entitled ‘A Trumpet Against The Monstrous Regiment Of Women’; in this tract the mirthless firebrand argued for a strong view of the so called ‘biblical’ doctrine of the headship of men and subordination of women, inferring from this that it was ungodly, indeed Satanic, that a Queen should ever come to the throne of any country. To be fair to Knox, he had written this tract before Elizabeth’s accession and his real targets were Bloody Mary, then Catholic Queen of England, and Mary of Guise then French Catholic Queen of Scotland (and mother of Mary Queen of Scots). But certainly ‘Good Queen Bess’ was not amused.

Note that the Christian Humanist tradition, in contrast to Mr Knox, had always held a high view of women and about the goodness of educating women - witness Thomas Moore and his educated daughters who disputed with the King on points of law and theology, and Roger Ascham the tutor to Elizabeth, and all of the spirited and resourceful heroines in the comedies of Shakespeare, who was also much influenced by Christian Humanism.

Second footnote - those of you who have not read other posts I have made may think my judgements are too soft when I look at people from the past (you may, for example, think that I’ve even seemed to condone Elizabeth’s use of fines and light prison sentences for Calvinists in the last post - but not so). Maybe I am a man of soft temperament (we can’t all be hardnosed all of the time!). However I will say that I believe that we should not be anachronistic in our judgement of people in the past. We need to judge them in the light of their circumstances and limitations, as future generations will do to us one day - if they are merciful and don’t also leap to making anachronistic judgements about us.

I’m always concerned about the Tentmaker site view of history - where ECT is simply a conspiracy of the power hungry and bad, while universalism was always the clear teaching of the early church; this, in myview, discredits our case as Univesalists by being too clear cut and going against much of the evidence. It may also seduce us into thinking that some people credited with Universalists views over at Tentmakers - I’m thinking especially of John Chrysostom and Jerome - would be good company to keep if alive today (but I think most of us would find both of them, particularly Jerome, absolutely vile).

Now for the really pretentious bit! I think history is a wonderful training in moral imagination and that it is much undersold. We look back at people in the past and recognise shared joys, sorrows and problems with them (this trains us in sympathy). But on closer inspection we often realise with a jolt how very different they also were from us, and how it is stupid to judge the past in terms of the present (this trains us in empathy - being able to negotiate and understand difference and otherness in our everyday lives). I told you it was going to be ‘deep man’ :laughing: .

All the best

Dick

Matthew Parker, Elizabeth’s first Archbishop of Canterbury, was much loved by the Queen. He had been the Chaplin to her Protestant mother, Anne Boleyn (second wife of Henry IIIV). He had also been Chaplin to the young Elizabeth throughout the dark and difficult years before she became Queen (she had, for example, been imprisoned by her sister Mary in the Tower of London for a short time – uncertain of her own fate – and this was the same prison fortress where her Mother had met death at the hands of a sword wielding headsman). So Elizabeth and Parker had a shared personal history; and she had every reason to feel fond affection for him – and forgave him for having married when she appointed him her Archbishop (one of the idiosyncrasies of Elizabeth’s faith is that, although a Protestant, she was a firm believer in celibacy for those clergy raised to the rank of bishop).

Her appointment of Parker was also a shrewd move – I think we are mistaken if we view her depth of faith and political shrewdness as incompatible; she needed a conciliator and moderate to restore the Protestant faith to her realm in such a way as not to threaten violence and schism. This was a time when all religion was political (and even the pacifist Anabaptists refusal to buy into State controlled Magisterial Protestant religion was interpreted as an act of political rebellion).

So we know of Parker’s influence on the Queen – although we can be sure that she certainly had a mind of her own too! So what can we say about the influences that shaped Parker’s? Can these tell us anything about the context of the abrogation of the 42nd article (before we look at this in detail).

Regarding sources, we actually have good resources of primary source documentation for Parker – which I will give details of very soon in a separate post not much to say). However, I think we can be almost 99% certain that none of these sources give us a clear window into Parker’s soul regarding whether or not he was a Universalist (or whether or not the young Queen Elizabeth shared these sympathies with him before bitter political experience took its toll on her spiritual optimism). All I can do is make a good case for his Universalist sympathies based on the possibilities from the evidence.

Parker was educated at Oxford University and, unlike the other major English Reformers, he actually studied Patristics. So he knew the Church Fathers and it is very likely that he had studied Origen in some shape or form. He would certainly have been aware of the theology of Origen from the writings of the Dutch Christian Humanist Erasmus, who had a great influence on the English Reformers prior to the Genevan ascendancy of the Elizabethan Calvinists (I will do a separate post on the influence of Erasmus because I feel this is vital in making my ‘case for the possible’). Parker was also the friend and colleague of the moderate continental reformer Martin Bucer who was resident at Oxford university during the reign of the boy King Edward IV (I will also do a separate post on Bucer)

When Parker became Archbishop, one of his first acts was to call upon the ancient powers and authority of ‘Convocation’ to reinstate the Ecumenical faith subverted by the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome. And this Convocation which revised Cranmer’s 42 Articles to 38 (that later became the 39 Articles) was modelled on the Great Ecumenical Councils of the early church at which the Bishop of Rome was merely a ‘first amongst equals’ – as Parker well knew from his study of the Patristics. The Elizabethan Convocation was composed of; Parker; Richard Cox Bishop of Ely - an ill tempered and peppery anti-Calvinist by all accounts; and Edmund Gheast (or Guest) Bishop of Rochester who had been Parker’s Chaplin and was a man after Parker’s heart. (In some sources I have seen the third Bishop named as Edmund Grindall, Parker’s successor to Canterbury, but the most recent sources name Gheast so I assume the others are in error). Farrar in ‘Eternal Hope’ tells us that the alterations made by this Convocation to Cranmer’s articles – which included the abrogation f the 42nd - were given the consent of ‘the Bishops and Clergy of both…provinces’ (that is Canterbury and York).

Parker’s first love was Church History on which he wrote prolifically. In his writings he made a case that the English Church since Saxon times had always showed a degree of independence from the tyranny of Papal authority – and thus was keen to stress the continuity of the Reformed Church with the church founded by St Augustine of Kent, missionary to the pagan Angles and Saxons (a different Augustine from St Augustine of Hippo, the foremost ‘Severe Doctor’ of the Church). In his historical interests Parker stood foursquare in the tradition of Christian Humanism.

Christian Humanism began in the fourteenth century with the Italian scholar Petrarch. Whereas the medieval scholars had concentrated single-mindedly on the study of Divinity and the things of Eternity, Petrarch showed a new interest in the Human story of Human history. He lived in the City State of Florence which was under threat from the ‘fascist’ tyranny in Milan. Partly in repose to this threat he revived interests in the Classics of Republican Rome, written before the Caesars, and spoke of a Republican Age of Freedom and Light (in Rome), and a republican age of Freedom and Light (in Florence) with a ‘Middle Age’ of darkness that lay between the two. From this we derive the concept of the Middle Ages and, it seems, Petrarch’s insight had an enormous influence on the development of historical consciousness – of our awareness of change through time. Parker was basically following Petrarch’s model in writing his History of the English Church.

Christian Humanism never dismissed the claims of Eternity but tried to hold these in creative tension with the claims of Time. Hence the Humanists were interested in theology and biblical studies, but they were also interested in history, politics, law and in human emotion and empathy. As the motto of the Christian Humanists, taken from a Roman poet, put it – ‘I am a human being and therefore nothing human is alien to me’. In this connection the favoured Christian Humanist model of salvation was the Greek Orthodox one of salvation being a process of collaboration between the Human and Divine wills (Jacob Arminius was himself a Christian Humanist).

Christian Humanists were also concerned to establish the best texts for the Bible – going to the Hebrew and Greek originals rather than depending on the authority of the Latin Vulgate and ahving an evangelical purpose in doing this – and they were concerned to settle matters of doctrine by research into the Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils. So again Matthew Parker fits the profile.

During the reign of Bloody Mary. Parker had kept a low profile rather than flee to the Continent or court martyrdom. He had actually spent a lot of time absorbed in his studies. Because of this I can anticipate a macho response that he somehow ‘wimped out’ of martyrdom from some quarters – and this is worth briefly reflecting on. Both Jesus and Paul avoided death until they had no alternative but to face it. And Paul’s hymn to Agape in 1 Corinthian 13 gives us a timely warning about the death loving cult of martyrdom – real Martyrs die as witnesses to love, not for ideological reasons. As the Anglican Universalist William Law wrote, ‘Martyrdom has had its fools’. I note for example that Cranmer who was martyred under Mary, was the same Cranmer who persuaded the boy King Edward to sign the warrant for death by burning of an Anabaptist woman of blameless life. I have also often been haunted by the sentiment expressed by the scholar Richard Marius in his biography of Luther. He wrote that Luther’s position was often precarious and he was undoubtedly a very brave man who would have faced death with resolution if this had been required of him. However, because of the intemperate violence with which Luther pursued the cause for Reform, Marius concludes that if Luther had not been born perhaps a hundred thousand people who died horrible deaths in war and persecution would have died quietly in their beds.

All the best

Dick