Thanks Drew 
Thanks again Dick. It is great to know that the awareness of the harm that can be done by misguided ministers was around centuries ago. The tragedy is it still goes on today. Only yesterday I heard what another minister had said to a young victim of sexual abuse some years ago. His foolish condemnation of her has caused immense harm, multiplying the damage caused by the original abuse, and has made it very difficult for her to trust anybody connected with the church. It makes my blood boil.
Hi Drew old chum – yes that’s maddening; and I’ve known of similar cases. I think it is reassuring to know that our ancestors also came across similar issues and that there can be a dialogue between present and past regarding pastoral practice. So hey I’ll do one on Richard Hooker (a better version of a post I did on another thread some time ago)…
1579 (?)
From 1570 to the end of the century a bleak and uncompromising form of Calvinists determinism characterised the pastoral (and political) theology of the powerful Puritan wing of the Church of England (both the sectarians and the moderates – although the moderates like Archbishop Whitgift were capable of more nuanced understanding than sectarians like the formidable Thomas Cartwright). According to this theology, because God has decided who is going to hell beforehand it is useless praying for some people (indeed it is superstitious and ungodly). This emphasis very often went ‘with a rather wooden understanding of assurance, and the need for a constant sense of being in God’s favour, with the consequence that if you didn’t feel you were in God’s favour, you had to take this as a likely sign of God’s reprobation. (Rowan Williams, ‘Christian Imagination in Poetry and Polity’, p.p. 25-6)
The man who was to become the main intellectual opponent of extreme Puritanism was Richard Hooker 1554 –16000, the Anglican priest and theologian, given the epithet ‘Judicious’ by his biographers and little in stature by his cotemporary Calvinist detractors. Hooker’s major work is the encyclopaedic ‘Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity’ (several volumes written from the mid 1580s to the end of the century), but his challenge to extreme Calvinism is already evident in an early sermon he preached in the 1570s on the theme of ‘The Certainty and Perpetuity of Faith in the Elect’.
In ‘Faith in the Elect’, against damning teachings about assurance, Hooker maintains that fluctuations of human emotion, periods of darkness and doubt, are to be expected in life and are not indicators of reprobation; people should not be ‘deceived by too hard an opinion of themselves’. His wise pastoral reassurance in this is reminiscent of Staretz Silouan advice: ‘Keep you mind in hell, and despair not’:
’‘An aggrieved spirit is therefore no argument for a faithless mind…(An) occasion for men’s misjudging themselves, as if they were faithless when they are not, is, when they fasten their thoughts on the distrustful suggestions of the flesh, and finding great abundance of these in themselves, they gather thereby ‘Surely unbelief has taken full dominion, it has taken possession of me; if I were faithful it could not be thus (and) …they lie buried and overwhelmed; when notwithstanding as the blessed apostle acknowledges (Romans. Viii. 26, 27) that ’the Spirit groaneth’, and that God hears us when we do not hear God ;so there is no doubt, but that our faith may have and does have her private operations secret to us, but known to God…Tell this to a people who has been deceived by too hard an opinion of themselves, and it will only augment their grief…Well to favour (indulge) them a little in their weakness; let what they imagine be granted– that they are faithless and without belief. But are they not grieved for their unbelief. Do they not wish it might be otherwise and also strive for this. We know they do…The faith therefore of true believers, though it has many and grievous downfalls, yet does it still continue secretly invincible’’. (‘The Works of That Learned and Judicious Divine, Mr. Richard Hooker’, Vol. iii. p. 474-6)
In 1581 Hooker came to prominence as preacher at St Paul’s’ Cross – the open air pulpit at old ST Paul’s Cathedral which was the stage for radical preaching and bookselling.- where he offended Puritans for diverging from the views on predestination and for suggesting that even the Pope might be saved. The following year, he was appointed Master (Rector) of the Temple Church in London by the Queen where he soon came into public conflict with his cousin Walter Travers, a leading Puritan and Reader (Lecturer) at the Temple – they had a sort of dual by sermons.
Hooker’s clearest statement of what could be called’ hypothetical universalism’ – edging towards a hopeful universalism but lacking the resources of a doctrine of purgatory - comes in Book v. of his ‘Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity’ where he states that :
‘[The]safest axioms of charity to rest itself upon are these ‘ he which steadfastly believes is (saved) and ‘he which believes not as yet may be the child of God’. It becomes not us during this lifetime altogether to condemn any man seeing that (for anything we know) there is hope of every man’s forgiveness, the possibility of whose repentance is not yet cut off by death. And therefore charity ‘which hopeth all things’ prayeth also for all men’’. (Hooker, Laws, Bk v, Ch.49. 1-2)
Christopher Insole comments on this passage:
’'This charity which ‘hopes all things’ does not do so in vain theologically speaking. Hooker’s vision of the Church is one which expresses the desire for participation found at every level of creation, finding its ultimate consummation in the infinite desire for God. It cannot be in vain to hope for ‘every man’s forgiveness’ if one’s anthropology inclines one to view the deepest satisfaction of all the yearning creation, is to move towards the creative centre. Peter Lake gives a beautiful evocation of Hooker’s vision, showing how in ‘the face of the Puritans’ inherently subversive view of the community of Christians, permanently fractured by division between the godly and the ungodly/the elect and the reprobate, one has Hooker’s more restful vision of the visible church which included everyone within the slow moving cycle of its outward observances, while the slow trickle of sacramental grace performed its subtly ameliorative work and the mystical body of Christ grew with glacial slowness and a soothing lack of conflict’. (Christopher Insole, ‘The Politics of Human Frailty’ pages 56 -57)
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 
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.
that’s interesting…i wonder if he’d be interested in this thread??
He’s been dead a long time James 
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.
does that mean he’s not interested? what a bore 
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. 
Dave Tomlinson, a great mention…and thanks to you lending me that book, i’ve been going to and LOVING his church
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
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.