by Rev. William M. Brennan, TH.D.
In the first chapter of my book, Hope for the Lost: The Case for Evangelical Universalism, I offer an evangelical approach to the defense of Universal Restoration founded upon the five solas of the Protestant Reformation. But many in the evangelical community are under the misapprehension that universal restoration was an obscure viewpoint held by only a few crazed heretics, if they are aware that it was taught in the early church at all. So, in my first chapter I dispel that myth, by presenting a survey of those who held the view, including Gregory of Nyssa, the Cappadocian Father who was the leading figure in the formulation of our Nicaean Creed.
CHAPTER ONE
THE ORIGIN AND PROGESS OF UNIVERSALISM
A frequent criticism levied against Christian Universalism is that it has never been accepted by the majority of the Church. Mark Chamber-lain makes the following remarks regarding the paucity of historic testimony to universal restoration:
If Universalism is scriptural, why hasn’t anybody in the history of Christianity believed it? The fact is that they have. When the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone was rediscovered a little over four hundred years ago after being obscured for centuries, people could have asked the same thing they ask now about Universalism.[1]
He adds the following observation…
Whatever you think of Luther, you’ve got to admit it
took guts to stand up for scripture against the established church. Jonathan
Hill says in his book The History of Christian Thought, “The emperor declared
that if one monk stood against the whole of Christendom, then he must be wrong,
for it was unthinkable that the entire church could have been wrong for the
past 1,000 years. He condemned Luther as a heretic.”
Ever since the doctrine of everlasting hell became the official teaching of the church hundreds of years after its founding by our Lord Jesus Christ, there have been brave souls who have stood up for the clear scriptural teaching of God’s love for all men and His intention to save all men. Just because they were going against the beliefs of the majority in the church does not make them wrong any more than Luther was wrong to teach salvation by grace through faith alone.[2]
But, while the true measure of truth is the Word of God, and not majority opinion, the wisdom of the pastors and teachers who have gone before us should not be ignored. There is much we can learn through studying the teachings of holy men of old. What may surprise some is that there have been many respected leaders throughout the history of the church who have embraced universal restoration. In a recent essay, Robin Parry said,
Christian Universalism is a minority voice within the church, but it is not some new-fangled liberal theology. It is, rather, an ancient Christian theological position that in the early church stood alongside annihilation and eternal torment as a viable Christian opinion.[3]
Around a hundred years earlier, J.W. Hanson went even further when he argued that Universalism was the prevailing view of the Church for its first five hundred years.[4] Nor was he the first to make that claim.[5] Opponents of Universalism such as W.G.T. Shedd sometimes present our position as the opinion of an obscure handful of theologians, far too minute to be taken seriously.[6] This misrepre-sentation of the historical data is refuted by Hanson in his book, A Great Cloud of Witnesses,[7] which is replete with quotes from theologians throughout the history of the Church testifying to the hoary and enduring nature of Universalist opinion. In that volume Hanson says,
“The
deliverance of the whole human family from sin and sorrow, its final holiness
and happiness, has been the thought of multitudes, even when the prevailing
doctrines around them were wholly hostile.”[8]
But whether they were few or many
who advocated the “Wider Hope,” it
cannot be denied that proponents of universal restoration have existed
throughout the first two millennia of the church age. Simply stated,
Universalism is not a new idea. The doctrine of universal salvation has an
ancient pedigree dating all the way back to the earliest days of Christianity
The First Reference to Universalism
No written
testimony can be found in the Christian literature of the first century
explicitly for or against Universalism. Some might argue that certain
expressions found in the earliest writings of the Apostolic Fathers lean in the
direction of endless torment, but this is a far cry from asserting any explicit
declarations of the same. In his Ancient
History of Universalism,[9]
Hosea Ballou gives his readers a detailed analysis of these references and I
would direct the curious to that volume for the details. It is sufficient to
say that the few references to eternal or everlasting punishment which may be
found in those early writings were understood differently by the original
writers. Ballou notes that “the word everlasting or eternal, was used by the
ancients, to denote indefinite rather than interminable duration.”[10]
The question of the ultimate disposition of the lost
simply was not explicitly addressed in the early literature. The first document
that indicates any definite stance on the question offers little more than a
sketchy reference to universal salvation.
That document, known as The
Sibylline Oracles, was written between A.D.140 and 150 by an unknown
Christian author. Here is the relevant citation from the text of The Sibylline Oracles as translated by
Milton Terry:
405 Imperishable grant another thing,
When they shall ask the imperishable
God:
That he will suffer men from raging
fire
And endless gnawing anguish to be
saved;
And this will he do. For hereafter he
410 Will pluck them from the restless
flame,
Elsewhere remove them,
and for his own people's sake
Send them to other and eternal life
With the immortals, in Elysian field,
Where move far-stretching billows of
the lake
415 Of ever-flowing Acheron profound. [11]
The opinions of the fathers, between The Sibylline Oracles and the early third century, were divided into three categories. Some believed in Universalism, while others, such as Justin Martyr, held to the doctrine of Conditional Immortality, or Annihilationism. Finally, some may have believed in the endless torment of the lost, although not even a single proponent of that dreadful doctrine rejected the possibility of post-mortem salvation, during those early years of church history. So, ironically, it is actually the contemporary rejection of post-mortem salvation, and not Universalism, that is the innovation.
Early Universalists
In his essay, Why I am A Universalist, William Barclay
noted that the name most commonly associated with the concept of universal
restoration in the early church was Origen.[12]
Origen Adamantius was, unquestionably, the greatest theologian of the early
church. Schaff called him “one of the most remarkable men in history for genius
and learning, for the influence he exerted on his age, and for the controversies
and discussions to which his opinions gave rise.”[13]
Farrar said that even the great Augustine, who he refers to as “far less learned and far less profound”
paled in comparison to Origen’s theological acumen.[14]
However, despite the assertion of Schaff to the contrary,[15]
Origen was neither the first, nor the only Universalist of his day.
As we have already noted, it is a
common tactic among opponents of Universalism to portray the doctrine as an
obscure minority opinion. By portraying Origen as the only theologian of his
era to advocate the doctrine, our critics hope to strengthen their argument
against Universalism. But despite assertions to the contrary from detractors
like W.G.T. Shedd,[16]
Hanson has certainly demonstrated that Universalism was not advocated by a few,
but rather, by many of the most
learned, godly and eminent church fathers of the first five and a half
centuries.[17]
Rather than trust secondary sources, like the conflicting assertions of Shedd and Hanson, let’s take a look at the writings of the early church fathers, themselves, in order to more accurately ascertain their opinions. In what follows, I have included excerpts from the earliest Christian scholars so that we can read, in their own words, what they had to say on the subject.
Theophilus of Antioch
(c. 169)
Theophilus was the Patriarch of Antioch and the most ancient representative of Universalism among the early fathers. The only known sample of his writing still in existence is his Apology to Autolycus. According to the historian Eusebius, Theophilus was a staunch defender of the faith who made significant contributions in literature, polemics, exegetics, and apologetics. William Sanday described him as one of the precursors of that group of writers who, from Irenaeus to Cyprian, not only broke the obscurity which rests on the earliest history of the Christian church but carried it to the forefront of literary prominence, and “outstripped all their non-Christian contemporaries.
In his Apology to Autolycus, Theophilus wrote:
And God showed great kindness to man in this, that He did not suffer him to remain in sin forever; but, as it were, by a kind of banishment, cast him out of Paradise, in order that, having by punishment expiated, within an appointed time, the sin, and having been disciplined, he should afterwards be restored. Wherefore also, when man had been formed in this world, it is mystically written in Genesis, as if he had been twice placed in Paradise; so that the one was fulfilled when he was placed there, and the second will be fulfilled after the resurrection and judgment. For just as a vessel, when on being fashioned it has some flaw, is remolded or remade, that it may become new and entire; so also it happens to man by death. For somehow or other he is broken up, that he may rise in the resurrection whole; I mean spotless, and righteous, and immortal.[18]
Irenaeus of Lyons
(c. 182 A.D.)
Irenaeus of Lyons writes the following, with reference to God’s dealings with Adam:
Wherefore also he drove him out of
paradise and removed him far from the tree of life, not because He envied him
the tree of life, as some dare assert, but because He pitied him and desired
that he should not be immortal and the evil interminable and irremediable.[19]
It is not my intention to give the impression that Irenaeus was a Universalist. Farrar presents a good argument that he may have believed in restoration for some sinners and annihilation for others.[20] The consensus is that Irenaeus, like Justin Martyr, was an annihilationist and not an advocate of endless punishment. However, though he specialized in refuting heresy, and even wrote a book entitled Against Heresies, he never condemned Universalism or labeled it a heretical doctrine. This he most certainly would have done, had he considered it such. This argument from silence may be considered one more proof that Universalism was considered an acceptable view of last things in those days.
The Academic Environment of the Anti-Nicaean Era
As we consider the opinions of the Fathers on the fate of the lost, we may benefit by looking at the doctrinal positions of the learning institutions from which they sprang. Regarding the leading theological schools in the early Church, Edward Beecher tells us,
There were at least six theological schools in the Church at large. Of these six schools one, and only one, was decidedly and earnestly in favor of the doctrine of future eternal punishment. One was in favor of the annihilation of the wicked. Two were in favor of the doctrine of universal restoration on the principles of Origen, and two in favor of the doctrine of universal restoration, on the principles of Theodore of Mopsuestia.[21]
Four out of six schools favored Universalism, and only one taught eternal punishment! Origen founded the school in Caesarea and was dean of the Alexandrian school, so we are not surprised to find that he set his imprint upon them. Theodore of Mopsuestia was the guiding influence that permeated the institutions located in Antioch and Edessa. The Annihilationist school, which was located in Antioch, and the school of Northern Africa, which taught endless torment, were not, strictly speaking, theological schools but rather seminaries. The African school received its scriptures in the form of defective Latin translations of the original koine and it is partially due to this handicap that it arrived at its conclusions. Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine all labored under this same disadvantage.[22]
Thus,
contrary to Schaff and Shedd, the opinions of Origen were not reflections of
one individual (Shedd), or one lone academic institution (Schaff), but rather
represented the stream of thought of the four major schools and especially of
the Alexandrian school from which he sprang. That Alexandrian school, called
the Didascalium, was the first of the theological
schools and was also the most influential catechetical school of its day.
One important fact noted by F. W. Farrar is that the eastern theologians favored the Platonic philosophy while the western scholars who came later, shifted toward Aristotelian doctrinal formulations. This may in some small way account in part for the shift away from Universalism toward dualistic thought. Plato gave far more hegemony to the spiritual or ideal realm than Aristotle with the material realism inherent in his synthesis of form and matter. Plato believed in a higher reality consisting in something very much like Parmenides way of truth, which incorporated all reality into one universal and unchanging beingness. For him the way of seeming, the material world in which we dwell was illusory and deceptive. It was not to be trusted. Our faith must reside with the unchanging principles of truth and beauty. Should we be surprised then, when the Christian scholars who formulated their thought along Platonic lines also proved to be more Universalistic in their theology?
Likewise, when we see the influence of Aristotelian materialism imbedded in every word of the western scholars, are we surprised to find them far more atomistic and materialistic than their eastern counterparts? After the influence of centuries of Aristotelian thought had been impressed upon the western mind it should surprise no one that it might be difficult to see beyond Aristotle’s globe of mud and cast our eyes once more to the heavenly realm wherein dwells the true reality.
It is only natural that such a radical shift in the foundations of the theological systems as occurred between the eastern and western scholars might also spark a conflict between the post-Nicene fathers and the anti-Nicene doctors who had gone before them? Farrar writes:
The attacks on Origen at the close of the fifth century, synchronize with a great intellectual revolution. The learned Alexandrian and Asiatic Fathers, men like St. Clemens, and Origen, and St. Basil and the Gregories, were men who were trained in philosophic thought. They belonged to what has been called “the Age of Doctors.” They were familiar with the works of the great Greek thinkers and were deeply imbued with the Platonic idealism. By the fifth century a very different school had sprung up. The leaders of Church thought had been gradually influenced by Aristotelian realism. and the enemies of Origen were actuated not only by a teacher whose views were too large, too humanitarian, and too profound for their limited capacity and narrow training, but were also advocates of hierarchical supremacy, and devotees of religious formulae.[23]
Setting aside the unsavory political realities mentioned in the above citation, it is striking to note the underlying dehumanization that resulted from their Aristotelian realism. As we survey the history of Universalists in this chapter, and those who denied it in the next, this distinction between top-down Platonic epistemology and bottom-up Aristotelianism may serve to explain why it is that so many cannot see the doctrine of universal restoration so plainly revealed in every page of Scripture.
Pantaenus of Alexandria
(c. 150-200)
Pantaenus founded the Didascalium in
Alexandria around 190 A.D. He had been a Stoic philosophy teacher in
Alexandria. When he converted to Christianity, he sought to integrate his Greek
philosophy into Christian theology. After spending some time as a missionary,
he returned to Alexandria to chair the Catechetical School which he founded
there. Despite the objections of Norris,[24]
it is quite possible that he was the one who first taught Universalism to his
protégé, Clement. Norris makes the common mistake of miss-interpreting the
usage of the term “aionios” by the
Greek fathers. Following the Latin fathers into error, he translates the term
as “endless.”
Actually,
the term corresponds most closely to our English word “eon,” meaning, “an age.”
It signified something that was either “age-long”
in duration or something that was “of the
eons,” or to put it another way,
something that was of “divine origin.”
But more on this in a later chapter.
The more important consideration is that Pantaenus was the predecessor and tutor of Clement. Hanson argues “the Universalism of Clement, Origen and their successors must, beyond question, have been taught by their great predecessor, Pantaenus.”[25] Hanson’s contention seems to have some weight, because although the Roman’s martyred him in the year A.D. 216, his successor, Clement stated that he had learned everything from Pantaenus, which suggests that he learned his Universalism from him as well.
Clement of Alexandria
(c. 150-215)
Like his predecessor, Pantaenus, and his famous
protégé, Origin, Clement was well versed in the classical Greek literature and
philosophy. He was born in Athens and Greek was his native tongue.
He was venerated as a saint by both the Eastern and
Western Churches. In 1586, his status as saint was removed in the West, due to
concerns about his orthodoxy levied against him by Pope Sixtus V. Nevertheless,
he is still regarded as a church father. Like his more famous student, Origen,
he also espoused the wider hope. He has this to say regarding the ultimate fate
of the lost:
"For all things are ordered both universally
and, in particular, by the Lord of the universe, with a view to the salvation
of the universe. * * * But needful corrections, by the goodness of
the great, over-seeing judge, through the attendant angels, through various prior judgments, through the final judgment, compel even those who
have become more callous to repent."[26]
And,
"therefore he truly saves all; converting some
by punishments, and others by gaining their free will, so that he has the high
honor, that unto him every knee should bow, angels, men, and souls of those who
died before his advent."[27]
And,
"For there are partial corrections (padeiai) which are called
chastisements (kolasis), which
many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord's
people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are
we by Providence. But God does not punish (timoria) for punishment (timoria)
is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are
chastised collectively and individually.[28]
With
respect to post-mortem salvation, Clement wrote,
We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer to redeem, to rescue, to
discipline in his work, and so will he continue to operate after this life.[29]
And,
All men are Christ’s, some by knowing Him, the rest
not yet. He is the Savior, not of some and the rest not. For how is He Savior
and Lord, if not the Savior and Lord of all?[30]
Norris says, “it is now considered that Clement of Alexandria's views contained a tension between salvation and freewill.”[31] But that is more autobiographical of Norris than true of Clement. As the quotes above clearly indicate he certainly believed in the post-mortem salvation of “infernal things.”
Origen Adamantius
(185 to 254 A.D.)
It was
his pupil, Origen, who gave the loudest and
clearest testimony to the universal
nature of divine restoration. For Origen, God could never be truly glorified so
long as any evil whatsoever remains. We have already noted the universal
recognition of the brilliance of this great theologian. Jerome said of him that
he was the greatest teacher in the Church after the Apostles.
Origen Adamantius was one of nine children.
His father, Leonides is universally venerated as a saint by both Eastern and
Western Churches. He was the most influential theologian of the early church,
and he distinguished himself as Dean of the Alexandrian Academy before founding
a second school in Caesarea. Although disowned by the church in the sixth
century, he is still considered to be the father of the sciences of systematic
theology and textual criticism. Only a few quotes from him are needed to
demonstrate his belief in universal restoration.
Stronger than all the evils in the soul
is the Word, and the healing power that dwells in him, and this healing He
applies, according to the will of God, to every man. The consummation of all
things is the destruction of evil…[32]
Hanson adds the following:
Origen
interprets “fire” in the Bible not only as a symbol of the sinner’s suffering
but of his purification. The “consuming fire” is a “refiner’s fire.” It
consumes the sin and refines and purifies the sinner. It burns the sinners
work, wood, hay and stubble, that result from wickedness. The torture is real,
the purification sure; fire is a symbol of God’s severe, certain, but salutary
discipline.[33]
In his
work, “On First Principles,”
considered by many to be the first systematic theology, he writes:
So then, when the end has been
restored to the beginning, and the termination of things compared with their
commencement, that condition of things will be re-established in which rational
nature was placed, when it had no need to eat of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil; so that when all feeling of wickedness has been removed, and the
individual has been purified and cleansed, He who alone is the one good God
becomes to him “all,” and that not in the case of a few individuals, or of a
considerable number, but He Himself is “all in all.” And when death shall no
longer anywhere exist, nor the sting of death, nor any evil at all, then verily
God will be “all in all.[34]
And,
We think, indeed, that the goodness of
God, through His Christ, may recall all His creatures to one end, even His
enemies being conquered and subdued…. for Christ must reign until He has put
all enemies under His feet.[35]
For Origen, God must truly be
victorious over all his creatures. Even his enemies will be subdued. Even the
devil would bend the knee in the end. For him, and for Gregory of Nyssa, evil
is not something eternal and equally ultimate with God. Rather, evil is the
absence of good and once that good saturates the cosmos there will no longer be
a place for evil. This accords perfectly with Origen’s theodicy, because
ontologically, evil can never be derived from God, in whom is no evil. Since
God is the creator of all, and he did not create evil, it follows that evil
does not exist. This does not mean that
evil is an illusion. Rather it means that evil is simply the absence of good,
as non-being is the absence of being. The Parmenidean influence is clearly
evident in this teaching. When all things are restored to a state of
perfection, evil will cease to be. He was a product of his
time, and taught some things which, to modern ears, seem quite strange, such as
a ransom theory of the atonement. According to his theory, man had been sold
into bondage to Satan and therefore a ransom was due not to God but to Satan.
He also believed the sun, moon and stars were sentient celestial beings. His Christology was both the basis
for later trinitarian orthodoxy and at the same time opened the door for the
heresy of Arianism. He attributed eternity to the being of Christ and taught an
identity of substance between the Father and the Son. With respect to the
question of his orthodoxy regarding the nature of Christ, Schaff notes, “he was
vindicated even by Athanasius, the two Cappadocian Gregories and Basil.”[36]
Nevertheless, he also taught that the essence of the Father and Son were
separate, with that of the Son being subordinate to the Father thereby in
essence making the Son a lesser aspect of the substance of the divine being.
This served as a basis for the later extremes of Arius who denied the deity of
Christ altogether.
His hermeneutic consisted of a multi-layered system which relied too heavily on an allegorical method of interpretation. Nevertheless, his was the greatest mind in the church for its first five hundred years, and perhaps ever.
Gregory Thaumaturgus
(210 to 270 A.D.)
Although there is nothing explicitly stated in Gregory’s writings to identify him as a Universalist, Hosea Ballou observes that Rufinus “alludes to the fact as notorious that Gregory erred with Origen; and it is of Universalism that he is speaking.”[37] Gregory, the legendary “Wonder Worker” was brought to the faith as a young man, by Origen, himself, and studied under his old master for eight years. He held Origen in such high regard that he wrote a tribute to his beloved mentor. Furthermore, he was the mentor of Macrina the Elder, who was mother to the greatest proponent of universal restoration since Origen, namely Gregory of Nyssa. It would be quite the anomaly if both Gregory’s mentor and those whom he mentored were Universalists whilst he was not.
Schaff notes that the Wonder Worker labored as Bishop in Neo-Caesarea from 244-270 and was extraordinarily useful. So much so, that “He could thank God on his death bed, that he had left to his successor no more unbelievers in his diocese than he had found Christians in it at his ascension.”[38] Such was his devotion to his great master, Origen, that he published a Panegyric on Origen upon the occasion of his departure. In it according to Ballou, “he lavishes the most extravagant praise on the genius and doctrine of his master.”[39]
He was a staunch defender of orthodoxy
and fought against the early anti-trinitarians with a zeal equal to that of
Athanasius. Gregory of Nyssa and Basil attributed an early trinitarian creedal
statement to him which they said was delivered to him by divine revelation in a
dream. They also ascribed many fantastic miracles to him, which were later
defended as authentic by the nineteenth century British Cardinal John Henry
Newman.
Hippolytus
(circa A.D. 220)
In the year 1842, an ancient volume
was discovered in a monastery on Mt. Athos, by an individual whom Hanson
describes as simply “a learned Greek.” That tome which was originally
thought to be the work of Origen, was subsequently identified as the work of
one Hippolytus. The title of the work was The Philosophumina
(Refutation of Heresy). His work consists of an examination of all the
heresies prevalent in his day.
Hippolytus (about A.D. 220) enumerates and comments on thirty-two heresies, but universal restoration is not named among them. And yet Clement of Alexandria, and Origen - then living – were everywhere regarded as the great teachers of the church, and their view of man’s future destiny was generally prevalent, according to Augustine, Jerome and others. It could not have been regarded as a “heresy” or Hippolytus would have named it. What a force there is in the fact that not one of those who wrote against the heresies of their time ever name universal salvation as one of them! Hippolytus mentions thirty-two. Epiphanius wrote his Panarion and epitomized it in his Anacephalaeosis or Recapitulation, but not one of the heresy-hunters includes our faith in his maledictions. Can there be stronger evidence than this fact that the doctrine was not then heretical?[40]
Pierius
(d. circa A.D. 309)
Pierius,
a Christian priest who is believed to have been the head of the catechetical
school of Alexandria, which he and Achillas oversaw together, was a
contemporary of Theonas, Bishop of Alexandria, He suffered persecution for his
faith during the Diocletian Persecution and eventually died in Rome where he as
probably martyred for his faith according to the testimony of such historians
as Phillip of Side and Photius.
He was a disciple of Origen, and his skill as an exegete and preacher was so great that he earned the nickname “Origen the Younger," as a result. His most well-known work, Biblion, consisted of twelve sermons. Very little of his writings are still known to exist, but he repeated dogma commonly ascribed to Origen, including the pre-existence of the soul. Since the notion of pneumatic pre-existence was intimately related to Origen’s idea of universal restoration, can there be any question that Pierius was also a Universalist?
Saint Pamphilus of Caesarea
(250 to 309 A.D.)
Saint Pamphilus, a profound Christian
scholar, was born in the latter half of the 3rd century and died a martyr in
309, during the persecution of Maximus. He founded a seminary and library that
greatly advanced the cause of Christian learning which was second only to that
of Alexandria.[41]
As the friend and mentor to Eusebius of Caesarea. Pamphilus instilled within
the young Eusebius a strong admiration for the thought of Origen. Although
Pamphilus didn't know Origen personally, he undoubtedly picked up Origenist
ideas during his studies under Pierius. Eusebius wrote the following about
Pamphilus:
He was of a rich and honorable family,
and a native of Berytus; in which city, at that time famous for its schools, he
in his youth ran through the whole circle of the sciences and was afterwards honored
with the first employments of the magistracy. After he began to know Christ, he
could relish no other study but that of salvation and renounced everything else
that he might apply himself wholly to the exercises of virtue, and the studies
of the holy scriptures. This accomplished master in profane sciences, and this
renowned magistrate, was not ashamed to become the humble scholar of Pierius,
the successor of Origen in the great catechetical school of Alexandria.[42]
In collaboration with Eusebius, Pamphilius wrote a six volume “Apology for Origen” only the first book of which is now known to be in existence in the Latin version of Rufinus.[43] His mentor, Pierius, wrote a Eulogy for Pamphilius. The close mutual respect exhibited by these theologians makes it probable that they also shared the doctrinal views of their great master, Origen Adamantius
Eusebius
(263-339 A.D.)
Eusebius,
the Roman historian, exegete and polemicist, was one of the more renowned of
the early fathers and a scholar of the Biblical canon. He was made Bishop of Caesarea
around A.D. 314.
Among
his published works are Preparations for
the Gospel, Demonstrations of the
Gospel, a work On Discrepancies
Between the Gospels, and numerous studies of the Biblical text. He has been
called the Father of Church History and wrote the earliest Ecclesiastical
History and well as a biography On the Life of Pamphilus and a work On the
Martyrs. Like Origen, Eusebius believed the chastisements of God to be essentially
remunerative in character.
The Son “breaking in pieces” His enemies is for the sake of remolding them, as a potter his own work; as Jeremiah 18;6 says: i.e., to restore them once again to their former state.
St. Macrina the Elder
(c. 265 to 340 A.D.)
There is little doubt that the elder Macrina was a Universalist. As noted above, one of Origen’s most ardent disciples, Gregory Thaumaturgus, was her instructor. It was St. Macrina the Elder who passed her faith down to her grandchildren, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and St. Macrina the Blessed, and Gregory was the staunchest proponent of universal salvation of all the ancient fathers. In his Lives of the Fathers, Dr. Cave gives implicate acquiescence to Macrina’s belief in Universalism when he notes the elder Macrina exposure to Gregory Thaumaturgus. In seeking to defend her granddaughter, Macrina the Blessed of the suspicion of Universalism, he writes:
She [Macrina the Blessed] is said by some to have been infected with Origen’s opinions, but finding it reported by no other than Nicephorus, I suppose he mistook her for her grandmother, Macrina, auditor of St. Gregory, who had Origen for his tutor.[44]
Thus, in order to “rescue” Macrina the Blessed from the taint of Universalism he implicated her grandmother. Although William Cave is undoubtedly correct regarding the Elder’s sympathy for universal salvation, he is altogether wrong to suggest the granddaughter possessed any different sentiments on the subject.
St. Macrina the Blessed
(327 to 390 A.D.)
Saint Macrina was the eldest sister of the renowned
Church fathers, Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa. Gregory wrote of the
profound influence that this godly woman had upon the entire family and
referred to her as "the Teacher." Like her brother Gregory, St.
Macrina also believed there would come a time when evil would be obliterated.
In commenting on the phrase “all in all” in 1 Cor. 15:28, she says:
The Word seems to me to lay down the
doctrine of the perfect obliteration of wickedness, for if God shall be in all
things that are, obviously wickedness shall not be in them." "For it
is necessary that at some time evil should be removed utterly and entirely from
the realm of being.[45]
For since by its very nature evil cannot exist
apart from free choice, when all free choice becomes in the power of God, shall
not evil advance to utter annihilation so that no receptacle for it at all
shall be left[46]
With
reference to Phil. 2:10, St. Macrina said,
When the evil has been extirpated in the long cycles of the æons nothing shall be left outside the boundaries of good, but even from them shall be unanimously uttered the confession of the Lordship of Christ.[47]
St. Macrina was a wealthy woman who used her resources to establish a monastery which housed hundreds of devout women from all walks of life. They came there from all over to dedicate their lives to spiritual enrichment. The fact that both she and her brothers, who were prominent figures in the church expressed their belief in universal restoration in a non-polemical fashion suggests that the view was in fact a shared conviction in her day.
The Cappadocian Fathers
The
Cappadocian Fathers made significant contributions to the doctrine of the
Trinity with they defended against the errors of the Arians, and they also
helped to draft the Nicene Creed. As noted above, two of them, Basil the
Great (330–379),
bishop of Caesarea; and his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395), were siblings of
St. Macrina. The third of the Cappadocian Fathers, Gregory of
Nazianzus
(329–389), was a close friend of theirs.
A
well-kept secret is that the Cappadocian Fathers were all Universalists. The Universalism
of Gregory is undisputed, and this alone should give us reason to expect that
the same sentiments would reside in the other two Cappadocian Fathers as well.
How then can Universalism
be condemned without also condemning the framers of the Nicene Creed as well?
Gregory of Nyssa
332-398 A.D.)
Gregory
writes:
Our Lord is the One who delivers man
[all men], and who heals the inventor of evil himself. For it is
needful that evil should some day be wholly and absolutely removed out of the
circle of being.
and
Wherefore, that at the same time liberty of free-will should be left to nature and yet the evil be purged away, the wisdom of God discovered this plan; to suffer man to do what he would, that having tasted the evil which he desired, and learning by experience for what wretchedness he had bartered away the blessings he had, he might of his own will hasten back with desire to the first blessedness …either being purged in this life through prayer and discipline, or after his departure hence through the furnace of cleansing fire.
For it is evident that God will in truth be all in all when there shall be no
evil in existence, when every created being is at harmony with itself and every
tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; when every creature shall have
been made one body.
Gregory, like Origen and the other Alexandrian Fathers, denied the reality of evil. His doctrine, like Origen’s, sounds quite Parmenidean in places. His definition of evil as the absence of good is reminiscent of Parmenides discussion of being and non-being in his way of truth. Evil is a privation and therefore it is non-being.
Gregory Nazianzus
(330 to 390 A.D.)
Some of Gregory of Nyssa’s contemporaries also expressed similar sentiments. His friend, Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop of Constantinople was one such. Gregory Nazianzus was a brilliant scholar who studied in the schools of Nazianz, Cappadocia and Alexandria before undertaking geometry, rhetoric and astronomy in Athens under the famous pagan instructors Proeresias and Gymorias. At the Second Ecumenical Council, there were over 300 Church leaders, who gathered in Constantinople from all over the world, and out of all the brilliant men who attended it was Gregory of Nazianz who was selected to preside over it. Since he was a well-known Universalist, belief in Universal Restoration must have been a common, and accepted view in his day or he would never have been offered such an exalted seat of honor. He would never have been permitted to even attend, let alone preside over that council had the case been otherwise. He writes:
These, if they will, may go Christ’s way, but if not let them go their way. In another place perhaps they shall be baptized with fire, that last baptism, which is not only painful, but enduring also; which eats up, as if it were hay, all defiled matter, and consumes all vanity and vice. –Oracles 39:19
Basil the Great
(c.330–379 A.D.)
Along with his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa and his lifelong friend Gregory of Nazianz, Basil completed the compliment of the “Three Cappadocians,” those great fathers of the Church that were instrumental in the formulation of the Nicene Creed. He was the grandson of a martyr on his mother, Emmelia’s side and the grandson of St. Macrina the Elder on his father’s side. He stood strong against the Arian heresy along with the two Gregories, and Athanasius, against the far superior number of bishops who favored the error and even against the emperor himself.
Although his own views on the matter are ambiguous, as far as his writings go, can it be possible that he was not in favor of universal restoration when his brother Gregory was the greatest proponent of the doctrine in the early church, even more vociferous in his promulgation of the doctrine than Origen! Basil the Great testified uncritically that Universalism was a majority position in his day:
The mass of men (Christians) say there is to be an end to punishment and to those who are punished.[48]
While this statement could also apply to annihilationism, it certainly does not support endless torment. His written testimony serves as one of three primary sources that bear irrefutable witness to the hegemony of doctrine of Universalism in the ancient church. Augustine and Jerome likewise testified to the fact that Universalism was the predominate opinion of the majority of Christians in their day. As we shall see, Augustine was by no means a friend of Universalism but rather its chief opponent, and while Jerome may have been a Universalist in his earlier days, the later Jerome became a strong critic of Origen. Some of his statements seem to lean heavily toward universal salvation. For example:
It is the sins which are consumed, not the very persons to whom the sins have befallen.[49]
Yet
he makes other statements which seem equally strong in favor of eternal
torment. Which makes Hanson believe that he, like Chrysostom, employed the
principle of reserve. This seems likely given his family tree. We shall examine
the principle of reserve in greater detail a little later in this chapter.[50]
Athanasius
(296-373 A.D.)
Athanasius, who was renowned throughout the
Church as THE great father of
orthodoxy wrote:
While the devil thought to kill One
[Christ], he is deprived of all those cast out of Hades, and he [the devil]
sitting by the gates, sees all fettered beings led forth by the courage of the
Savior.
That
he was, at the very least, not opposed to the doctrine of universal restoration
is plain from the fact that he appointed Didymus the Blind, an avid
Universalist, to head the Alexandrian Catechetical School. This he certainly
would never have done had he shared the negative opinion regarding
Universalists that is prevalent among contemporary theolo-gians.
Didymus the Blind
(c 313 – 398)
Didymus the Blind was an Alexandrian theologian who was held in high regard by Athanasius. Although he lost his sight at the tender age of five years old, Athanasius appointed him head of a catechetical school after him and Didymus presided over that institution for nearly fifty years. Like Origen, he believed in universal salvation and the pre-existence of souls. Like many of the eastern fathers, he also seems to have believed in the redemption of the devil and his demons as well.
In his doctoral dissertation, Edward Duffy shows that Didymus also believed that souls could be re-embodied after death.[51] Didymus, and Origen, both disliked the reincarnation and transmigration terminology found in Plato and the eastern spiritualists. Didymus preferred the terms re-embodiment or change-in-embodiment.
Both he and his venerated master objected strenuously to the idea that souls might lose their individuality. “It will not do,” says Duffy, “to “lump” his thinking on “re-embodiment” with a certain body of thought loosely called “reincarnation,” if the latter simply means a “generic” soul floating endlessly between different existences. For the soul, in Didymus and Origen has a particular road that it will follow, … It is individual; it has identity.”[52]
Be that as it may, and despite their objections, there is a certain commonality between their view and standard forms of eastern mysticism. In both there is the movement of the soul between one body and another. The main distinction of the Origenian re-embodiment theory is the forward progress and retention of the individuality of the soul.
Although
he was revered and admired for hundreds of years after his death, his teachings
were finally condemned along with those of Origen by the council of
Constantinople in 553 and again at the Third Council of Constantinople in 680. The early Jerome, called him his master; a
sentiment which he later retracted when Didymus’ works were condemned.
As
a result of his condemnation many of his works were not copied during the
Middle Ages and were subsequently lost. However, the following citations are
sufficient to plainly indicate his Universalism:
Mankind, being reclaimed from their
sins, are to be subjected to Christ in the fullness of the dispensation
instituted for the salvation of all.
and,
In
the liberation of all no one remains a captive! At the time of the Lord’s
passion the devil alone was injured by losing all of the captives he was
keeping.
Marcellus of Ancyra
(c. 374 C.E.)
Marcellus of Ancyra was one of the bishops present
at the Councils of Ancyra and of Nicaea. He was a strong opponent of Arianism
but was accused of adopting the opposite extreme of modified Sabellianism. He
was condemned by a council of his enemies and expelled from his see, though he
was able to return there to live quietly with a small congregation in the last
years of his life.
Marcellus's
theology included a belief in Universalism, that all people would eventually be
saved. He is quoted by Eusebius as having said:
For what else do the words mean, 'until the times of the restitution' (Acts 3:21), but that the apostle designed to point out that time in which all things partake of that perfect restoration.
The Early Jerome
(331-420 A.D.)
As noted above, although he changed his public doctrine later, due to fear of persecution, the early Jerome was a Universalist and a disciple of Origen. He wrote:
In the end and consummation of the
Universe all are to be restored into their original harmonious state, and we
all shall be made one body and be united once more into a perfect man and the
prayer of our Savior shall be fulfilled that all may be one.
In his commentary on Zephaniah, he makes the blatantly Universalist assertion that all mankind will one day be reformed.
The nations are gathered to the Judgment that on them may be poured out the wrath of the fury of the Lord, and this in pity and with a design to heal. in order that everyone may return to the confession of the Lord, that in Jesus’ Name every knee may bow, and every tongue may confess that He is Lord. All God’s enemies shall perish, not that they cease to exist, but cease to be enemies
And,
Our Lord descends, and was shut up in the eternal bars, in order that He might set free all who had been shut up… The Lord descended to the place of punishment and torment, in which was the rich man, in order to liberate the prisoners.
Fearing persecution when the political climate
turned against Origenism, he departed from that doctrine to adopt a harsher
theology. Nevertheless, like Basil the
Great, he admitted that Universalism was the majority view in his day. In his
commentary on Jonah he wrote:
“I know that most persons
understand by the story of Nineveh and its king, the ultimate forgiveness of
the devil and all rational creatures.”
But ironically, the most damning testimony of all, against those who would argue that Universalism was an obscure view, comes from the pen of the first great advocate of the doctrine of endless torment, Augustine. In his City of God, in the place where he explicitly argues against Universalism he writes:
There are very many (imo quam plurimi, can be translated
majority) who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless
torments.[53]
In
the light of primary source testimony from three unbiased eyewitnesses, Basil,
Jerome and Augustine, as to the opinions of their day, it is inexplicable how
Shedd could call Universalism a minority opinion held by only a few in the
early church. Who is better qualified to make such a determination? Those three
great fathers of the church, who were witnesses to the theological climate of
the day, or Shedd who was fifteen hundred years removed.
Rufinus
(c. A.D. 344-410)
Tyrannius Rufinus (aka Rufinus of Aquileia)
was a monk, historian and theologian, born in 344 or 345 in the roman city of
Julia Concordia (now Concordia Sagittaria), near Aquileia (in modern day
Italy). He was one of the greatest exponents of Origenism in his day and the chief
promoter of the works of Origen to the Latin speaking world.
In 370, he met Jerome, while living in a
monastic community in Aquileia. Around 372, Rufinus travelled to Alexandria and
studied under the Origenist, Didymus the Blind, who was the head of the
Alexandrian Catechetical School. He later moved to Jerusalem and founded a
monastery there. He also cultivating friendly relations with Macarius the elder
and other ascetics in the desert.
While
in Egypt, he met Melania the Elder, a devout Roman widow of considerable means.
When she fled to Palestine, taking with her a large contingent of clergy and
monks who had been sorely persecuted by the Arian Valens, Rufinus accompanied
her.
In
394, due to the attack of Epiphanius of Salamis upon the doctrines of Origen
made during his visit to Jerusalem, a heated controversy occurred, which placed
Rufinus and Jerome on opposite sides. As we have noted above, the early Jerome
was an Origenist, but later, under fear of persecution he departed from Origen
and sided with his detractors. This was the cause of the rift. Rufinus was an
Origenist. The breach between Jerome and Rufinus was never healed.
In the autumn of 397 Rufinus discovered
that the theological controversies of the East were exciting much interest and
curiosity, in Rome. As a result, he published a Latin translation of The Apology for Origen, by Pamphilus and
also a Latin rendering of Origen’s Περι Αρχων
(aka De Principiis) “On First
Principles.” In the preface to the latter work he referred to Jerome as an
admirer of Origen, and as having already translated some of his works with
modifications of ambiguous doctrinal expressions. Although he himself
appreciated the works of Origen he was aware that others within the Latin
Church would not receive them as readily, which explains the obvious attempts
made in his translation to soften some of Origen’s bolder declarations.
As one historian observed, Rufinus’ allusion to him as an admirer of Origen annoyed Jerome, who was exceedingly sensitive as to his reputation for orthodoxy, and the consequence was a bitter pamphlet war, which the Encyclopedia Britannica labeled “very wonderful to the modern onlooker who finds it difficult to see anything discreditable in the accusation against a Biblical scholar that he had once thought well of Origen, or in the countercharge against a translator that he had avowedly exercised editorial functions as well.”[54] At the instigation of Theophilus of Alexandria, Rufinus was summoned to Rome by Pope Anastasius I to defend his orthodoxy; but he excused himself from appearing before the Pope by means of a written excuse. In his reply, the Pope expressly condemned Origen, but left the question of Rufinus' orthodoxy to his own conscience. Rufinus was, however, thereafter, regarded with suspicion in orthodox circles despite his many contributions to the promulgation of Christian literature. Just before the sack of Rome, by Alaric and the Visigoths, Rufinus fled to Sicily where he was employed in translating the Homilies of Origen when he died in 410.
Despite
his high regard for the learned Origen, it is evident that he did not follow
him completely for, as was noted earlier, in his allusion to Gregory
Thaumaturges’ devotion to his mentor, as referenced by Hosea Ballou, Rufinus
says that Gregory followed Origen in his “error.”
Ballou suggests that the error to which Rufinus referred was Universalism, but
in all likelihood, Rufinus’ remark would have been specifically directed toward
apocatastasis and the restoration of the Devil and the fallen angels and not to
Universalism in general. Rufinus’ sentiments
with regard to universal restoration are evident enough from the portions of
Origen which he did not edit. Hanson makes the following observation regarding
Rufinus:
Rufinus … wrote an elaborate defense of Origen, in
the preface to “De Principiis” he declares that he excised from that work of
Origen all that was “discordant with our (the accepted Christian) belief” As
the work still abounds in expressions of Universalism, not only his sympathy
with that belief, but also the fact that it was then the prevailing Christian
belief cannot be questioned. Huet says that he taught the temporary duration of
punishment.[55]
I
believe that Hanson’s observations regarding Rufinus’ editorializing of Origen demonstrate
conclusively that it was apocatastasis and not Universalism that Rufinus
considered to be the error.
John Chrysostom
(c. 347–407)
That
John Chrysostom was an Origenist can be ascertained from several well
documented facts. First, Theophilus, the Patriarch of Alexandria opposed John's
appointment to Constantinople; specific-ally, because he opposed Origen’s doctrines
and he felt John was much too partial to Origen’s teachings. From the editors of the Encyclopedia
Britannica we read:
Theophilus,
with implacable hostility, impugned the ortho-doxy of John Chrysostom, the
leading theologian, by implicating him in controverted points of Origenism.
Successful in condemning and exiling Chrysostom at the Synod of the Oak in 403.[56]
And
secondly, it was over the teachings of Origen that Chrysostom and Rufinus had
their famous disputation with Jerome. With regard to the scope of the efficacy
of the cross, John wrote:
While the devil imagined that he got a
hold of Christ, he really lost all of those he was keeping.
However, the vehemence of his rhetoric about the endless and horrible nature of hell fire exhibited in his homilies leaves no room for doubt that he taught that terrible doctrine to the masses in his sermons. (Samples of this are given in the next chapter.) But given that he studied under Diodorus for six years alongside of Theodore of Mopsuestia there is little doubt that he was exposed to their Universalism.
The Principle of Reserve
Given
his training and association with known Universalists, Hanson argued that
Chrysostom may have secretly believed in universal restoration but employed the principle of reserve when it came to
his public preaching, believing that the masses needed the fear of eternal fire
to bring them into submission to Christ.[57]
A lack of sensitivity to this practice has led some contemporary scholars like
Norris[58]
to conclude erroneously that even Origen was not a Universalist! Nineteenth
century British scholar, Andrew Jukes supplies a number of examples of this
practice in Origen and his mentor Clement.[59]
Jukes finds frequent instances of the reserve principle in the ministry of
Chrysostom. For example:
Restitution
was held by many who in their public teaching distinctly asserted endless
punishment. To take the great and good Chrysostom as an example, if we only
looked at his statements as to the end of punishment, we should say that he
must also hold Universal Restoration. For his doctrine is, that “if punishment
were an evil to the sinner, God would not have added evils to the evil;” that
“all punishment is owing to His loving us, by pains to recover us and lead us
to Him, and to deliver us from sin which is worse than hell.” (Hom. ix.
in Ep. ad Rom. v. 11. See also Hom. v. para. 13, de Statuis, and
Hom.
iii. para. 2, in Ep. ad Philem. i. 25.) Yet in his sermons he repeatedly
states the doctrine of everlasting punishment; (e.g. Hom. ix.
para. 1, 2, in Ep. 1. ad
Cor. iii. 12; Hom. x.
para. 6, in Ep. 2. ad
Cor. v. 10; and Hom.
viii. para. 2, in Ep. 1. ad
Thess. iv. 15; &c.)[60]
But
Jukes adds,
His
view however of what he calls an “economy,” (that is some particular line of
conduct, whether of God or man, pursued for the benefit of certain other
persons,) that “those who are to derive benefit from an economy should be
unacquainted with the course of it: otherwise, the benefit of it will be lost;”
(Comment in Galat. ii. 5, 6;) and the strong feeling which he
often expresses as to the evil of communicating certain higher truths to the
uninitiated; (e.g. Hom. xl. para. 2, in Ep. 1. ad Cor. xv.
29; and Hom. xviii. para. 3, in Ep. 2. ad Cor.
viii. 24;) go far to explain why in sermons addressed to the multitude he has
spoken as he has on this subject.[61]
Jukes
finds further evidence that Chrysostom held Universalist sentiments in the fact
that he was accused of being an Origenist.
We know however, that, in spite of his
popular language as to everlasting punishment, among the accusations brought
against him, when he was summoned to the Synod of the Oak, one distinct charge
was his Origenism.[62]
He
finds the same practice of reserve exhibited in the ministry of St. Ambrose.
So again, with Ambrose. Not only are there
passages, in his book De Bono Mortis, which, as it appears to me, can never be
reconciled with the doctrine of never-ending punishment, but the whole drift of
the book is in an entirely opposite direction. For he asserts that “death is
the end of sin;” (cap. iv.) that, even with the wicked, “it is worse to live to
sin than to die in sin; for, while the wicked man lives, he increases his sin:
if he dies, he ceases to sin.” (cap. vii.) The whole fourth chapter is to
prove, that “death is altogether good, as well because it is the end of sin, as
because it redeemed the world.” In a word, according to Ambrose, sin is the
great evil, while what we call death is God’s means to deliver man from the
evil; “for those who are unbelievers descend into hell, even while they live:
though they seem to live with us, they are in hell.” (cap. xii.) But all this
is directly opposed to the popular notion of future punishment, which regards
the second death as hopeless, endless torment.[63]
The reserve principle may be connected to
the multi-leveled hermeneutic of Origen, according to which, there are three levels
of meaning in Scripture. Origen believed that Paul deliberately made
contradictory statements about himself. In his opinion, if one were to take
Paul literally, one would find that he contradicts himself. For Origen this
posed a weighty problem because if Paul cannot be trusted to tell the truth,
then his letters were not worth the scrolls they were written on; and the vast
majority of Scriptures available in Origen’s day could not be trusted. Origen
writes,
On
the same passage one may also make use of such an example as that of Paul, who
at one place Romans 7:14 says that he is carnal, sold under sin, and thus was
not able to judge anything, while in another place he is the spiritual man who
is able to judge all things and himself to be judged by no man. Of the carnal
one are the words, Not what I would that do I practice, but what I hate that do
I. And he too who was caught up to the third heaven and heard unspeakable words
is a different Paul from him who says, Of such an one I will glory, but of
myself I will not glory. If he becomes 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 to the Jews as a
Jew that he may gain the Jews, and to those under the law as under the law that
he may gain those under the law, and to them that are without law as without
law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that he may gain
those without law, and if to the weak he becomes weak that he may gain the
weak, it is clear that these statements must be examined each by itself, that
he becomes a Jew, and that sometimes he is under the law and at another time
without law, and that sometimes he is weak. Where, for example, he says
something by way of permission 1 Corinthians 7:6 and not by commandment, there
we may recognize that he is weak; for who, he says, 2 Corinthians 11:29 is
weak, and I am not weak."[64]
Was
Paul being dishonest? No, said Origen. He was simply holding back from weaker brethren,
things they were not yet able to bear, so Origen took that as an instruction to
do likewise. There seems to be little doubt that Origen held to this idea of
reserve in that Jerome raised the issue in his dispute with Rufinus as a basis
for rejecting the teachings of Origen.
Martin
Luther exhibits the same attitude that perpetuated the reserve principle when
he speaks of the doctrine of predestination and warns that it must be handled
delicately.[65] Did
his remark respecting the possibility of post-mortem salvation also exhibit
this principle of reserve? This
principle of reserve was extant even as late as the nineteenth century where it
was taught by the Oxford Tractarians. R.C. Shelby and Cardinal Newman both
defended the practice though it garnered much opposition from the opponents of
the Oxford Tractarians.[66]
Diodore of Tarsus
(320-394 A.D.)
In
the fourth century we have Diodore of Tarsus, espousing universal restoration
with the following words:
For the wicked there are punishments,
not perpetual, however, lest the immortality prepared for them should be a
disadvantage, but they are to be purified for a brief period according to the
amount of malice in their works. They shall therefore suffer punishment for a
short space, but immortal blessedness having no end awaits them…the penalties
to be inflicted for their many and grave sins are very far surpassed by the
magnitude of the mercy to be showed to them.[67]
Theodore of Mopsuestia
(350-428 A.D.)
Theodore of Mopsuestia,
aka Theodore the
Interpreter served as the bishop of Mopsuestia
from AD 392 to 428. He is the most renowned representative of the School of Antioch, which was famous for its advocacy of a literal
hermeneutic. Theodore echoes the sentiments of Diodore, regarding the temporary
nature of future punishments, when he writes:
The wicked who have committed evil the whole period of their lives shall be
punished till they learn that, by continuing in sin, they only continue in
misery. And when, by this means, they shall have been brought to fear God, and
to regard Him with good will, they shall obtain the enjoyment of His grace.[68]
Theodoret the Blessed
(387-458 A.D.)
Like
Diodore and Theodore, Theodoret believed that future punishments are medicinal,
and so, it follows, cannot be incurable:
In the present life God is in all, for
His nature is without limits, but he is not all in all. But in the coming life,
when mortality is at an end and immortality granted, and sin has no longer any
place, God will be all in all. For the Lord, who loves man, punishes
medicinally, that He may check the course of impiety.[69]
Titus of Bostra
(died c.378)
Titus
of Bostra was one of the bishops present at the Council of Antioch (A.D. 363)
who signed the Letter, addressed to Jovian ratifying the Nicene Creed. Although
he followed the Aristotelian leanings of the Antiochian School in his literal
approach to interpretation, Hanson quotes the eminent 17th century
Catholic historical scholar Tillemont as an “unwilling” witness to the fact
that “he [Titus] seems to have followed
the dangerous error ascribed to Origen, that the “pains of the damned, and even those of the demons themselves, will
not be eternal”[70] To
demonstrate his Universalism, Hanson, shares the following two citations from
Titus’ work Against the Manicheans;
Thus the mystery was completed by the
Savior in order that, perfection being completed in all things, and in all
things by Christ, all universally shall be made one through Christ and in
Christ.[71]
and,
The very abyss of torment is indeed a
place of chastisement, but it is not eternal (aionion) nor did it exist in the
original constitution of nature. It was afterwards, as a remedy for sinners,
that it might cure them. And the
punishments are holy, as they are remedial and salutary in their effect upon transgressors;
for they are inflicted, not to preserve them in their wickedness, but to make
them cease from their wickedness.[72]
Ambrose of Milan
(340-397
A.D.)
Ambrose,
Bishop of Milan indicated his belief in postmortem salvation with these words:
Our Savior has appointed two kinds of
resurrection in the Apocalypse. ‘Blessed is he that hath part in the first
resurrection,’ for such come to grace without the judgment. As for those who do
not come to the first, but are reserved unto the second resurrection, these
shall be disciplined until their appointed times, between the first and the
second resurrection.[73]
Peter Chrysologus
(c. 380 – c. 450)
Peter Chrysologus (the
"golden-worded") echoed
Augustine, in espousing post-mortem salvation. He quoted from Matt. 5:26 as
proof that hell was not permanent:
In the world to come, those who have done evil all their life long, will be
made worthy of the sweetness of the Divine bounty. For never would Christ have
said, “You will never get out until you have paid the last penny” unless it
were possible for us to get cleansed when we paid the debt[74].
After the powerful influence of Augustine upon the Latin Church, the doctrine of endless torment began to gain the ascendency. Nevertheless, throughout the dark ages that ensued there still arose an occasional glimmer of hope here or there. Among the most notable of these were the following:
Olympiodorus the Deacon
(A.D. 550)
Little is known of this Greek scholar
other than that he wrote several commentaries on the Scriptures and some
philosophical works, including one on Aristotle. Some confusion exists because
there was a contemporary pagan Neoplatonist philosopher by the same name. To
help distinguish the two, the deacon is also sometimes referred to as the elder
and the Neoplatonist as the younger. The Universalism of deacon is evident in
this remark:
Do not suppose that the soul is
punished for endless eons (apeirou aionias) in Tartarus. Very properly, the
soul is not punished to gratify the revenge of the divinity, but for the sake
of healing. But we say that the soul is punished for an aionion period
(aionios) calling its life and its allotted period of punishment, its aeon.[76]
Even more interesting is his allusion to re-embodiment, which suggests that he held to the belief along Origenian lines. Note the following citation from Beecher:
Of the very worst, he says, that they need a second life. And a second period of punishment, to be made perfectly pure, and that Plato called this double period their aion.[77]
Maximus the Confessor
(c. 580 – 662)
Maximus
the Confessor was a monk and scholar who served as secretary to Emperor
Heraclius. He was also a close friend and confidant to Pope Martin I. He was
banished by Emperor Constans II, because Maximus opposed his efforts to force
the people to follow his religious views. Regarding Maximus, Hanson quotes
Neander as follows…
The fundamental ideas of Maximus seem to lead to the
doctrine of a final universal restoration, which in fact is intimately
connected also with the system of Gregory of Nyssa, to which he most closely
adhered. Yet he was too much fettered by the church system of doctrine
distinctly to express anything of the sort." Neander adds, that in his
aphorisms "the reunion of all rational essences with God is established as
the final end." "Him who wholly unites all things in the end of the
ages, or in eternity." Ueberweg states that "Maximus taught that God
had revealed himself through nature and by his Word. The incarnation of God in
Christ was the culmination of revelation and would therefore have taken place
even if man had not fallen. The Universe will end in the union of all things
with God.[78]
_________________________
Universalism
in the Dark Ages
Clement of Ireland
(ca. 771 – 818)
Clement of Ireland, aka Clemens Scotus, was
born in Ireland, about the year 771 This Scottish scholar planted the mustard
seed which developed into a great tree of learning at Paris. In his book, The Ancient History of Universalism, Hosea
Ballou tells us that Clement was an ordained minister in the Romish Church who
discarded its superstitions, renounced its authority and rejected the whole
mass of ecclesiastical canons the decrees of the councils and all the treatises
and expositions of the fathers reserving to himself the Bible alone as the guide of his faith
although in those days, the Bible had been forbidden the people.[79]
He taught that Christ when he descended to
hell restored all the damned even infidels and idolaters and he differed on
what particulars we know not from the catholic doctrine concerning
predestination Several independent congrega-tions were gathered under his
ministry in part of France and Germany and such was his progress as to awaken
the attention of both the civil and ecclesiastical powers[80]
In his History of the
Church, Priestly comments that it is probable that if his sentiments and conduct
were fully known, he would have been ranked as one of the earliest reformers[81]
Johannes Scottus Eriugena
(c. 815–877)
Johannes
Scottus Eriugena, aka John the Irishman, was an Irish theologian, Neo-Platonist
philosopher, and poet. Eriugena was also a Christian Universalist. He believed
that all people and all beings, including animals, reflect attributes of God,
towards whom all are capable of progressing and to which all things ultimately
must return. Hell was not actually a
place to him, but a condition in which punishment was purifying rather than
penal.
He
was a believer in apocatastasis,
which maintains that all moral creatures — angels, humans and devils — will
eventually come to a harmony in God's kingdom. He based his beliefs on the
Greek writings of the early Christian fathers, like Origen, and considered
himself an orthodox Christian thinker
Rome and the shadow of Augustine created
a dark cloud of ignorance, which largely dominated the centuries that followed
Scotus Eriugena; a Dark Age that did not end until the Great Reformation of the
sixteenth century. Johan Tauler, Albertus Magnus and Jan Van Ruysbroeck are
among the few pre-Reformation Universalists of that bleak period. For the most
part, Augustine had won the day and the doctrine of endless torment became the
prevailing view of the church from the dark ages until today.
_____________________
Universalism in
the Reformation Period
The
challenges against the authority of the Church of Rome during the Reformation
allowed for a period of somewhat greater freedom in theological expression
(although, as Michael Servetus was to discover, there were still significant
limitations.) During the Reformation, Universalism could be found in the
thought of some Anabaptists, Lollards and sundry Protestant Mystics, but the
powerful influence exerted by Augustine over-shadowed the teaching of the
Reformers in the area of personal eschatology to such an extent that none of
them could find a scriptural argument for Universalism, especially since their
cosmic eschatology was mostly futurist or historicist in perspective.
Farrar
tries to claim Luther as a possible advocate for post-mortem salvation by means
of a rather loose and dubious translation of the German from Luther’s 1522 letter
to Hans von Rechenberg.
“God forbid that I should limit the time of acquiring faith to the
present life. In the depth of the Divine mercy there may be opportunity to win
it in the future.”
Although it
would certainly be a feather in our cap if we could place Luther, the father of
the Reformation, in the camp of the undecided, he was clearly a proponent of
the doctrine of endless torment. The citation should probably have been
rendered…
It would be quite a different
question whether God can impart faith to some in the hour of death or after
death so that these people could be saved through faith. Who would doubt God’s
ability to do that? [… No one, however, can prove that
He does do this.]
The
most we can take away from this rendering is that Luther acknowledged God could save men after death, if he so
desired. Nor did he deny that he does do so. He simply states that no one can
prove this, one way or the other.[82]
Therefore his position on this matter, as with all other doctrines, seemed to
be that one should not pin their hopes upon something that cannot be proven
from the Bible. This is certainly a softer position than that of Calvin, who
does not allow any possibility of post-mortem salvation.
Post-Reformation
Universalists
With
the influence of Kant, Ritschl and Schleiermacher paving the way, most liberal
theology is Universalist, but that brand of Universalism comes at the expense
of rejecting the scriptures and as such is unstable having been built upon a
foundation of air. That theology has little to do with the evangelical Universalism
being championed in this volume. Following Barth, neo-orthodoxy also tends
toward Universalism as well, but that theology shares the same fatal flaw as
it’s liberal predecessors.
However,
it is in this post reformation period that we once again see a fresh crop of
evangelical Universalists begin to develop. The earliest of these was the Welsh
Methodist Minister, James Relly (c.1722–1778) and his
protégé Presbyterian Minister, John Murray (1741–1815) who
left their respective denominations to embrace the “Wider Hope.” Murray left England
after being persecuted for his faith, and sailed to America where he was
instrumental in founding the Universalist Church in America
The
next great light for Evangelical Universalists was Elhanan Winchester. He had
been a Baptist minister until, upon reading Sigevolk’s Everlasting Gospel, he converted to Universalism. For a good survey
of the development and progress of Universalism in America, Thomas Brown’s the Origin and Progress of the Doctrine of
Universal Salvation is recommended.
Hosea
Ballou became a guiding light within that denomination for good and for ill.
His Unitarian leanings and rejection of vicarious atonement created a dangerous
precedent and planted the seeds which would ultimately lead to the demise of
the Universalist Church in America as a Trinitarian and evangelical body. She
was assimilated by the Unitarians more effectively that a Borg invasion on Star
Trek and finally in 1961 the assimilation was completed, and she merged with
the Unitarians to form the Unitarian, Universalist Association.
Ballou has the important distinction
of being the earliest known preterist Universalist. Shortly after him came
Robert Townley. While ministering as a pastor in England he came under
conviction of full preterism and subsequently wrote the first full book on the
subject in 1845, entitled, The Second
Advent of the Lord Jesus Christ a Past Event.[83]
Less than five year later, he moved to America, married and took a Universalist
pulpit.
Among
the more notable Evangelical Universalists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
we find Thomas Thayer, Thomas Sawyer, J.H. Hanson, Thomas Brown, Asher Moore,
Thomas Whitmore, Adin Ballou, Archbishop Tollotson, Tennyson, Browning,
Wordsworth, Coloridge, Samuel Cox, Andrew Jukes, Thomas Allin, William Barclay
and A.D. Knoch. In addition, there have been several notable scholars who,
although not explicitly Universalist, have put for arguments for the
possibility of universal restoration. Among these are Fredrick Farrar and
Arthur Custance. In recent years, several very helpful tomes have been written
defending the wider hope. A list of these can be found at the end of this
chapter.
Historic
Revisionism
W.G.T.
Shedd demonstrated his ignorance for the plain facts of the historic record,
when he wrote:
“The common opinion in the Ancient church
was, that the future punishment of the impenitent wicked is endless. This was
the catholic faith; as much so as belief in the Trinity. But as there were some
church fathers who deviated from the creed of the church respecting the
doctrine of the trinity, so there were some who dissented from it in respect to
that of eternal retribution. The deviation in eschatology, however, was far
less extensive than in trinitarianism. The Semi-Arian and Arian heresies
involved and troubled the Ancient church much more seriously, than did the Universalism
of that period. Long controversies, ending in (ecumenical councils and
formulated statements, were the consequence of the Trinitarian errors, but no
ecumenical council, and no authoritative counterstatement was required to
prevent the spread of the tenet of Restoration. Having so little even seeming
support in scripture and reason, it gradually died out of the Ancient church by
its own intrinsic mortality.”[84]
The
boldness of these assertions in the complete absence of any supporting evidence
is disappointing, coming from a theologian of Shedd’s repute. Shedd here
proposes the purely circular argument that since there were no censures from
any ecumenical council Universalism must have been a minority opinion so
obscure and with so little support that no one found it necessary to oppose it,
because otherwise it would surely have been oppos-ed!
But
the reader hardly needs to be reminded that this assertion flies in the face of
the historical records as we have noted previously. Had he bothered to look,
Shedd would have discovered that Basil the Great, Jerome, and even Augustine,
the first great opponent to Universalism in the early church all acknowledged Universalism
to be not some obscure idea of a few, but a major view, if not the majority view, in their day.[85]
Lest
the reader think we are just picking on poor Dr. Shedd, let it be known that
other prominent theologians have been equally fast and loose with their characterizations
of the obscurity of universal restoration. A case in point being Charles Hodge,
of Princeton Seminary who wrote:
It is an almost invincible presumption that the
Bible does teach the unending punishment of the finally impenitent, that all
Christian Churches have so understood it. Any man, therefore, assumes a fearful
responsibility who sets himself in opposition to the faith of the Church
universal.[86]
In
his Doom Eternal, Junius Reimensnyder asked the question, “how shall we
distinguish whether an article of faith be not indifferent and accidental, but
primary, fundamental, and essential?” His answer; “One of the most important
and decisive tests is that of universal reception. That which has been held semper, ubique, et ab omnibus (always,
everywhere, and by all) is of universal obligation.”[87]
But though he goes on to assert that eternal punishment has been universally
held by all throughout the history of the Church, these assertions fly full in
the face of all the evidence set forth in the preceding pages of this tome, of
which many, many, more may be multiplied to show that it was categorically NOT the sole opinion of the Church
universal on this matter and certainly not the sole opinion of the early Church
which, as we have seen from the very lips of Augustine, Gregory and Jerome, may
well have held universal restoration as the majority view.[88]
That
Universalism all but died out in the Church by the sixth century is
indisputable. But that is not proof that it cannot be supported by Scripture
any more than sola fide is unbiblical
because that doctrine also all but died out until Luther revived it.
The Ecumenical
Councils
Contrary
to a popular misconception, Universalism was never condemned by a general
Church council. The first local church council to denounce the doctrine did not
convene until the year 394. As
Whittemore observes:
In the year 394 a quarrel broke out between the
followers of the celebrated Origen and the Monophysites, in which some of the
latter attacked, for the first time, the particular tenet of the ultimate
salvation of the devil, but did not at first object to the final salvation of
all men. In 399, some of the councils that were convened against the
Origenists, condemned expressly the doctrine of the salvation of the Devil and
his angels, though they passed by the belief of the salvation of all mankind
without a censure.[89]
In point of
fact, Universalism has never been officially condemned by an ecumenical council. In 553 the
“so-called” Fifth General Council, which was held at Constantinople was alleged
to have condemned Origenism, but they did not condemn Universalism, only
certain other questionable teaching ascribed to him by his adversaries.
Furthermore, the legitimacy of this council and the confusion regarding the
findings of said council make the entire affair suspect.[90]
Although this assembly has been viewed by some as an ecumenical council, the
facts surrounding that meeting prove otherwise.[91]
A Great Cloud of Witnesses
As
we can now plainly see, the list of early fathers who held to at least some
form of Universalism is extensive. Proponents of the Biblical Universalism
included Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Marcellus of Ancyra, Titus of Bostra,
Gregory Nazianzen, Evagrius, Didymus, Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of
Mopsuestia, Fabius Manus Victorinus, and Gregory of Nyssa.
Universalism
was not revived by the Reformers of the fifteenth century when they revived the
other doctrines of grace such as sola fide,
sola gratia and soli Deo gloria, because they were, almost to a man, disciples of
Augustine, who, as has already been noted, was the chief proponent of the
doctrine of everlasting torment. However, like Augustine, Luther (formerly an
Augustinian monk) was willing to allow for the possibility of post-mortem
salvation. During that period, there were others, such as the Anabaptists of
Germany, who began to espouse the wider hope.
Since
then, there have been many clergy and philosophers such as Dr. David Hartley,
who wrote the "Observations on Man," Bishop Thomas Newton, Sir George
Stonehouse, John Henderson, James Brown, D.D., Rev. R. Barbauld, and Rev. John
Brown. Many English Libertarians such as Rev. Theophilus Lindsey, were also Universalists.
James
Relly began to preach Universalism in the city of London about 1750 followed by
Rev. John Murray in America in 1770. Murray founded the Universalist Church in
America which was an Evangelical Universalist denomination until it merged with
the Unitarians in 1961 and Evangelical Universalism as an organized body ceased
to exist.
Theologians
Adolph E. Knoch and William Barclay were Universalists. F.W. Farrar and
Canadian theologian Arthur Custance were sympathetic to the doctrine. Paul
Revere, US President Abraham Lincoln, Clara Barton and Florence Nightengale
were also Universalists.
This
great cloud of historical witnesses to Universalism is enough to give pause to
anyone willing to look at the evidence. It certainly puts the lie to the
assertion that Universalism was an obscure doctrine held by a mere handful of well-meaning
but misguided heretics.
The
honest reader will see from what has just been set forth that there was at very
least a long-standing tradition in support of universal restoration dating back
to the very beginning of the church age. We do not need to argue, as Hanson
does, that it was the majority view, although the testimony of Augustine, Basil
the Great and Jerome suggests that it was in fact a major, if not the majority,
position in their day.
One
may wonder, how it is possible that scholars like Shedd could arrive at the
conclusion that Universalism was an obscure view when faced with the eyewitness
testimony to the contrary from such men as Basil Jerome and Augustine.
Ignorance
of the correct usage of a certain key term by the fathers may be partially
responsible for this misconception. As was noted earlier in the case of the
Apostolic Fathers, so too in almost all of the fathers, including Origen the
phrase aionios, which the translators
of the King James version rendered “eternal”
was used in an entirely different sense.
Theologians
have observed that Origen used this term and from that some have extrapolated
that even he did not fully believe in universal restoration, or that he perhaps
changed his view on the subject. But among those who spoke the ancient Greek,
the term meant something entirely different. As we shall see in more detail in
a subsequent chapter, the word, as employed by the Greek speaking fathers, most
closely corresponds to our English word “eon” or “age.” So, it is entirely consistent for Origen and
the rest of the Greek fathers to speak of
aionian punishment, without in any way inferring endless punishment. The
case with the rest of the early Fathers is identical.
Once
we recognize this, the number of fathers who can be brought to bear in defense
of endless punishment shrinks dramatically. How, then, did the doctrine of
endless torment gain such widespread acceptance in the evangelical churches?
The next chapter is devoted to answering that question.
[3]. Robin Parry, A Universalist View, in Four Views on Hell, 2nd ed., Stanley N.
Gundry, ed., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), p. 101.
[4] John Wesley Hanson, Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine of the
Christian Church During It’s First Five Hundred Years (Boston: Universalist
Publishing House) 1899
[5]
cf for example Hosea Ballou’s The Ancient History of Universalism.
1885. For an even earlier effort see Thomas Brown’s History of Universalism, 1826.
[9].
Hosea Ballou, Ancient History of
Universalism from The Time of The Apostles To The Fifth General Council, (Boston:
Universalist Publishing Company, 1885).
[18]. Philip Schaff, The
Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2. pp.104-105.
It should be noted that in chapter 34 of the same work he speaks of
those who shall “escape eternal punishment”
but this aionian language was
frequently employed by the Greek Universalist fathers to mean eternal in the
sense of divine or heavenly not in the sense of everlasting.
21.
Edward Beecher, D.D., History of the
Scriptural Doctrine of Reconcilia-tion, (New York: D. Appleton & Co.,
1878) pp.189-190.
[31]. Andrew C. Itter, Esoteric
Teaching in the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria. (The Netherlands: Brill, 2009), p.181.
[42]. Eusebius mentions him with
highest praise in his History of the Church, (London: Penguin Books, 965), pp.
325, 345.
[51]. Edward Duffy, The Tura Papyrus of Didymus the Blind’s
Commentary on Job, (Indiana: unpublished doctoral dissertation), p. 20-22.
[54].
Encyclopedia Britannica, ninth edition, vol.21, “Rufinus” (New York, Chas.
Scribner’s Sons, 1886), P. 55.
[56].
Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Theophilus
of Alexandria, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Theophilus-of-Alexandria,
2007
43. Norris, op. cit. Norris sees
conflicting statements in Origen and Clement as an indication of uncertainty,
because of is ignorance of this reserve principle.
[59]. Andrew
Jukes, The Second Death and the
Restitution of All Things, 3rd ed., (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1875,),
p. 175.
[64]. Roberts,
The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Vol. 9).
Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D., p. 384.
[76]. Edward
Beecher, The History of Opinions on the Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution, (New
York: Appleton, 1878), p. 166.
[81]. ibid. Ballou cites Joseph Priestley, A General History of the Christian Church, (Northumberland: Andrew
Kennedy, 1804).
[82].
For more on this read Florian Berndt’s useful article “Was Martin Luther a
Closet Universalist?”
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/martin_luther_universalist.html
[83].
Robert Townley, The Second Advent of the
Lord Jesus Christ a Past Event, (Liverpool: Simpkins Marshall: 1945.)
[90]. Farrar, F.W. Mercy and Judgement, (New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1881) Farrar
points out that the finding of an earlier local synod and the letters of the
Monophysite Emperor Justinian have been so intertwined with the rulings of the fifth
“ecumenical” council as to make it
impossible to identify with any certainty which was which. pp. 344 ff.
No comments:
Post a Comment