"Indeed Very Many"? Summary and Conclusion (part 8 of 8)

Part 7: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/02/indeed-very-many-part-7-justinian-and.html

    Throughout this series of posts, the history of early Christian thought on hell and the ultimate fate of unbelievers has been presented in detail, backed up with numerous quotes from early patristic writers (and a few medieval writers as well). This last post in the series will be a summary of the foregoing, in an attempt to show the broad development of Christian soteriology from universalism to infernalism.

    At the very earliest stage of post-New Testament Christianity, characterized by first-century apocryphal literature and the writings of the apostolic fathers, there was a wide spectrum of beliefs about the eventual fate of unbelievers. Several writers, most notably Clement of Rome (posthumously, the fourth Pope) and the author(s) of the deuterocanonical Odes of Solomon, believed in universalism. On the opposite side of the spectrum, there were also several believers in conditionalism, the idea that only believers would again be resurrected to immortality and unbelievers would be consigned to eternal oblivion; this view included Polycarp of Smyrna and possibly the author(s) of the Didache.

    Ignatius of Antioch, the third apostolic father, seems not to have been convinced either way (or kept his views ambiguous to avoid controversy). In one place, he uses the ‘abolition of death’ (1 Cor. 15:26) and the eventual cessation of motion (i.e., motions of will) to describe the eventual destruction of all evil, which is a precursor to the Origenian view of the apokatastasis. However, he also says that unbelievers are going to death, and in a letter to Polycarp, that immortality is the prize set before believers. There is no indication in his writings, or in any other first and early second century writing, that any unbeliever will be tormented eternally in the Lake of Fire. Rather, the Church at this time appears to have included a mixture of universalists and conditionalists.

    By the mid-to-late second century, the situation had changed somewhat. Conditionalism was now only believed by a few, including (probably) Justin Martyr and the old man who converted him. Instead, a belief in universal salvation became much more common, and was preached by many Christian apologists, including Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Clement of Alexandria. By connecting the eventual universal reconciliation to the consummation (τελος), and interpreting it as a return to the original state as a result of the ontological non-existence of evil, these early apologists created the foundation of the doctrine of “universal apokatastasis” propounded by Origen Adamantius and his fourth-century followers.

    At the same time, infernalism was beginning to arise in certain Gnostic communities. Valentinus, the first and most successful early Gnostic, was a conditionalist, but his follower Tatian the Syrian believed that all unbelievers (who, in Gnosticism, were of a ‘material’ nature) would receive death and pain in immortality. However, this view was heterodox even within Gnostic circles, and it was refuted by Bardaisan (a Syrian Gnostic and universalist) [1].

    Despite the rise of universalism in the late 100s, near the turn of the century, infernalism began to spread to some proto-orthodox communities. The first Latin Church father, Tertullian of Carthage, believed that unbelievers would be tormented eternally in fire, likely affected by the mistranslation of αιωνιος (‘eonian’) into Latin as aeternus (‘eternal’). Strangely, he also thought that watching unbelievers burn in hell would be the greatest ‘spectacle’ ever and the only one worth watching for Christians, which is certainly an unbiblical view. He passed this teaching on to his pupil, Cyprian of Carthage, and the rest of the Roman clergy, which permanently affected the theology of the Western church. After this, there would only be a handful of Latin universalists.

    Possibly to combat this rising belief in eternal torment, the doctrine of universal apokatastasis was finally fully fleshed out in the writings of Origen of Alexandria in the early third century. His work De Principiis brought together the themes of universalism from second century writers, including the timing of the apokatastasis (the consummation of the ages) and the ontological non-existence of evil, all while affirming the reality of αιωνιον punishment. Moreover, although he is considered the ‘first universalist’ by some, by looking at the writings of his predecessors it can be seen that he was merely formulating the ideas passed down to him into one, single doctrine.

    Origen’s writings became extremely popular in the late third and early fourth centuries, so much that virtually all of the Eastern patristic writers during the fourth century were either universalists or ‘hopeful’ universalists. Among the followers of Origen and believers in universal apokatastasis were the Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, all three Cappadocian Fathers, the champion of orthodoxy Athanasius of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, Evagrius Ponticus, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ephrem the Syrian, and the ‘hopeful’ universalists Cyril of Jerusalem and John Chrysostom. In fact, as far as my research has taken me, there was not a single orthodox Eastern writer in the fourth century that was not a universalist or hopeful universalist.

    At the same time, the Latin church (following Tertullian) comprised mainly infernalists and annihilationists. Hilary of Poitiers and the Ambrosiaster (author of a pseudonymous commentary on Paul’s epistles) were devout infernalists and argued that it was impossible for any unbeliever to obtain salvation after death. Similarly, Novatian and Arnobius were outspoken annihilationists and similarly argued that punishment for unbelievers would be eternal (albeit not conscious torment). However, there were a few followers of Origen; Hilary of Poitiers is sometimes even called ‘the Origen of the West’ (despite believing in infernalism), and Ambrose of Milan believed in an apokatastasis at least of believers, if not of all humans [2].

    Unfortunately, this widespread support for Origen lasted only about a century. In the final quarter of the 300s, an anti-Origenist movement began, headed at first by Epiphanis of Salamis. Although this movement spread a number of falsehoods about Origen’s beliefs, such as that he did not believe in a bodily resurrection and that he taught the preexistence of souls, it became extremely popular in the last decade of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth. A number of followers of Origen, including Theophilus of Alexandria and John Chrysostom, were threatened with violence and some ended up switching sides.

    Although universalism was not originally associated with Origenism, the prominent anti-Origenist Augustine of Hippo came to the erroneous belief that the universal apokatastasis originated with Origen in the mid-410s, and so became an outspoken anti-universalist. His contemporary, Jerome of Stridon, who had been both an anti-Origenist and full universalist, began teaching that some ‘impious’ humans would receive eternal torment at the same time, although he continued to proclaim that God would have mercy on all other unbelievers until his death. After Augustine of Hippo, universal apokatastasis never enjoyed the same level of support that it had during the fourth century.

    The second Origenist controversy, which occurred in the mid-sixth century, was led by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I. Convinced by anti-Origenist propaganda that Origen had been a heretic of the highest degree, Justinian made it his goal to officially condemn Origen and his doctrines, including universalism. He succeeded in this endeavor at the 553 ecumenical council of Constantinople II, where Origen and his writings were posthumously anathematized. However, universalism was not actually condemned at this council; the fifteen anti-Origenist anathemas associated with Constantinople II were not discovered until the seventeenth century, and should almost certainly be connected with a letter from Justinian to the council, rather than the council itself. Furthermore, the doctrine that is condemned in these anathemas is so far from what Origen actually held regarding the universal apokatastasis that even if it were original, the form of universalism held by the early Church would not have itself been anathematized.

    Further proof that the fifth ecumenical council did not actually condemn universalism is the fact that there were still a few Catholic universalists in the centuries following 553. Maximus the Confessor, a saint according to both Catholic and Orthodox tradition, was an avowed universalist who believed that all people would eventually be saved and ‘divinized’. His contemporary, Isaac the Syrian, a saint in many catholic Eastern and Syriac churches, believed that Gehenna was a place of purification through God’s love and that it would eventually be emptied by His grace.

    The last known universalist of the early church was John ‘the Scot’ Eriugena, a poet and theologian of the mid-ninth century. He rediscovered a number of Origenist doctrines, including the universal apokatastasis, the ontological non-existence of evil, the ‘spiritual’ resurrection, and Origen’s interpretive hermeneutic of scripture (which recognized both a literal and allegorical ‘layer’ to the text). However, he seems to have been unaware that these doctrines were primarily Origenian, as he derived his beliefs solely from scripture and other early Church writings. Interestingly, he also hints that there may have been others who openly agreed with him about universal apokatastasis, although unfortunately we do not have other documents from his time confirming this.

    Conclusion

The main focus of this series of articles is to demonstrate that universalism was considered orthodox for at least the first five centuries of the Church, and even that there were a few catholic believers in universalism after its supposed anathematization in the sixth century. However, knowing that church tradition and orthodoxy has gotten this so wrong, and so opposed to the teachings of the earliest Church fathers, can we really trust tradition and orthodoxy in other areas of theology? What else might Christianity have gotten wrong over the two thousand years it has existed?

    Because of this, I have chosen to be dedicated to scripture rather than orthodoxy and tradition. For scripture, when released from the suffocating confines of orthodoxy, holds far more truth.

______________________________

[1] “And there will come a time when even this capacity for harm that remains in them will be brought to an end by the instruction that will obtain in a different arrangement of things: and, once that new world will be constituted, all evil movements will cease, all rebellions will come to an end, and the fools will be persuaded, and the lacks will be filled, and there will be safety and peace, as a gift of the Lord of all natures.” (Book of the Laws of Countries 611; transl. by Ilaria Ramelli)

[2] Ramelli, Ilaria. The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena. Leiden: Brill, 2013. p. 616 - 622.

"Indeed Very Many"? Justinian and Afterward (part 7 of 8)

Part 6: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/02/indeed-very-many-part-6-origenist.html

     ‘Universalism is heresy!’ has been the default position of the church for nearly 1500 years, alongside the idea that ‘infernalism (eternal torment) is orthodoxy.’ For this reason, it’s hard for many Christians to fathom a time in which universalism might have been considered orthodox, and the idea of eternal torment heretical. However, the fact is that universalism was actually the majority view for the first four hundred years of the church’s existence. In fact, until the time of Augustine of Hippo, who was one of the first mainstream infernalists, the salvation of all was proclaimed by major champions of early orthodoxy such as Irenaeus of Lyons, the three Cappadocian Fathers, and St. Jerome. This series of posts will go through the history of early church thought on hell and universal salvation.

    After the Origenist controversy of the early 5th century and Augustine of Hippo’s condemnation of universalism, the doctrine of universal reconciliation never again experienced the vast amount of support that it enjoyed during the 4th century. It was officially anathematized by the emperor Justinian in the mid-6th century in a controversial ecumenical council, and became a fringe, heterodox doctrine. However, there were still a few holdouts that believed in universalism after the 6th century, including some saints that are still venerated in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches today. This post will examine both the circumstances surrounding the anathematization of universalism, and the few saints who continued to believe in and teach universal reconciliation.

Emperor Justinian I and the Second Council of Constantinople

Justinian I (482 - 565) was the Byzantine emperor from 527 to 565, and so enjoyed a vast amount of political, military, and religious power. In the year 543 or slightly before, he seems to have encountered a number of anti-Origenist writings and became convinced that Origen and his ‘heretical’ doctrines needed to be anathematized. In a letter to Mennas, the patriarch of Constantinople, dated to 543, he describes several heresies that he attributed to Origen, including subordinationism and Arianism, the idea that resurrected bodies would be spherical and incorporeal, the pre-existence of souls and their co-eternality with God, and the eventual restoration of the devil and his angels, along with wicked humans.

    Although Origen himself likely did not believe in any of these doctrines, apart from the restoration of all rational beings, Justinian decided that Origen and ‘Origenism’ should be condemned. He convened a local synod at Constantinople in that same year, 543, to anathematize these beliefs. The list of anathemas from this synod are quoted below:

1. If anyone says or holds that the souls of human beings pre-exist, as previously minds and holy powers, but that they reached satiety with divine contemplation and turned to what is worse and for this reason grew old in the love of God and are therefore called souls, and were made to descend into bodies as a punishment, let him be anathema.

2. If anyone says or holds that the Lord’s soul pre-existed and came into being united to God the word before the incarnation and birth from a virgin, let him be anathema.

3. If anyone holds or says that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was first formed in the womb of the holy Virgin and that afterwards both God the word and the soul, being pre-existent, were united to it, let him be anathema.

4. If anyone says or holds that the Word of God became like all the heavenly orders, becoming cherubim for the cherubim, seraphim for the seraphim, and becoming (in a word) like all the powers above, let him be anathema.

5. If anyone says or holds that at the resurrection the bodies of human beings will be raised spherical and does not profess that we shall be raised upright, let him be anathema.

6. If anyone says or holds that heaven, sun, moon, stars, and the waters above the heavens are ensouled and rational powers, let him be anathema.

7. If anyone says or holds that in the age to come Christ the Master will be crucified on behalf of demons as well as on behalf of human beings, let him be anathema.

8. If anyone says or holds that God’s power is finite and that he created [only] what he could grasp and comprehend, or that creation is coeternal with God, let him be anathema.

9. If anyone says or holds that the punishment of demons and impious human beings is temporary and that it will have an end at some time, and that there will be a restoration of demons and impious human beings, let him be anathema.

It is significant that Justinian only had a problem with the punishment of demons and “impious” humans, rather than of all unbelievers. This was also the view of Jerome of Stridon just before his death, as described in the previous post of this series, and yet Jerome still argued for the eventual restoration of all other unbelievers and that God’s punishments would be restorative.

    However, the real problem for universalism did not begin until the fifth ecumenical council at Constantinople, in 553. Most Catholics and Orthodox consider that this council absolutely condemned the apokatastasis, based on the fourteenth of fifteen anathemas against Origen associated with this council. According to this anathema,

If anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be united in one henad [1], when the hypostases as well as the numbers and the bodies shall have disappeared, and that the knowledge of the world to come will carry with it the ruin of the worlds, and the rejection of bodies as also the abolition of names, and that there shall be finally an identity of the Gnosis and of the hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apokatastasis, spirits only will continue to exist, as it was in the feigned pre-existence: let him be anathema.

    This is a highly imprecise and inaccurate way of describing the Origenian apokatastasis! First of all, it misunderstands Origen’s idea of the resurrection; he did not believe that our bodies would disappear in the resurrection, or that we shall all become one, but rather that our bodies in the resurrection would become ‘spiritual’ (which is a Pauline statement, not unique to Origen; 1 Cor. 15:42-44). Second, it says that the knowledge of the apokatastasis carries with it the ‘ruin of the worlds’, which is an incorrect way of describing Origen’s belief that the apokatastasis would be at the consummation of the ages, not the ruin of the worlds. And third, it claims that Origen taught the pre-existence of souls; although some followers of Origen did believe this, Origen himself only believed that souls existed in the foreknowledge of God prior to their creation.

    Even more problematic for the argument that universal apokatastasis was condemned at Constantinople II is the fact that these fifteen anathemas against Origen don’t appear in the original, official acts of this council. In fact, they were first discovered in the seventeenth century by Peter Lambeck, the librarian of Vienna. It is highly unlikely that these anathemas originally belonged to the fifth ecumenical council, since the pope Gregory the Great writes at length about the decisions of this council in his Epistle 51, and yet does not talk once about Origen himself. The more likely option is that they were taken from a letter delivered from Justinian to the bishops at the council, regarding a set of beliefs that he wanted them to anathematize (although they did not):

...that all will be raised again to the same henad and become minds (as they were in their pre-existence), when indeed the devil himself and the other demons are restored to the same henad, and when impious and godless human beings will be with godly and inspired men and the heavenly powers and will enjoy the same union with God that Christ too enjoys, just as in their pre-existence, with the result that there will be no difference at all between Christ and the remaining rational beings, neither in substance nor in knowledge nor in power nor in operation... On account of these wicked and destructive doctrines, or rather ravings, we bid you most sacred ones to assemble together, read the appended exposition attentively, and condemn and anathematize each of these articles together with the impious Origen and all those who hold or have held these beliefs till death. (Acts of the Council of Constantinople 2.282-284)

Thus, although Justinian wanted the council of Constantinople II to condemn Origenist beliefs including the universal apokatastasis, it’s probable that they didn’t actually do so - and even if they had, the doctrine that was condemned bears little to no resemblance to the actual doctrine of universal reconciliation propounded by Origen and his 4th-century followers.

    Even more evidence that the council did not anathematize universalism and those who believed in it comes from the acts of the council itself. They say that “we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers... Gregory of Nyssa... and their writings on the true faith.” Since Gregory Nyssen himself, an outspoken advocate for universalism, and his writings are venerated by the bishops at the council, we can be almost certain that their purpose was not to condemn universalism.

Post-Justinian universalists: Maximus the Confessor and Isaac the Syrian

Further proof that universalism was not officially condemned in 553 is the fact that there were a few Christian theologians and writers who, although holding to the infallibility of the ecumenical councils, believed in and preached universal reconciliation. The first of these is Maximus the Confessor (c. 580 - 662), a venerated saint according to both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition. As many patristic scholars have noticed, the doctrine of universal apokatastasis appears in multiple places throughout his writings:

And this [the universe] is because it is for the sake of Christ—that is, for the whole mystery of Christ—that all the ages and the beings existing within those ages received their beginning and end in Christ. For the union of the limit of the age and the limit­less­ness, of measure and immeasurability, of finitude and infinity, of Creator and creation, and of rest and motion, was conceived before the ages. (The Responses to Thallasios 60.4)

God will truly come to be “all in all,” embracing all and giving substance to all in himself, in that no being will have any more a movement independent of God, and no being will be deprived of God’s presence. Thanks to this presence, we shall be, and shall be called, gods and children, body and limbs, because we shall be restored to the perfection of God’s project. (Ambigua 7; transl. by Ilaria Ramelli)

The end of the natural motion of whatever has been originated is rest, which, after the passage beyond finite things, is produced completely by infinity, for in the absence of any spatial or temporal interval, every motion of whatever is naturally moved ceases, henceforth having nowhere, and no means whereby, and nothing to which it could be moved, since it has attained its goal and cause, which is God, who is Himself the limit of the infinite horizon that limits all motion. Thus the beginning and end of every origin and motion of beings is God, for it is from Him that they have come into being, and by Him that they are moved, and it is in Him that they will achieve rest (Ambigua 15)

“Death is the last enemy to be destroyed” means whenever we, ourselves, submit the entire self-determining will to God, then the last enemy is also abolished. And it is called “death” since God is life, and that which is opposed to life is fittingly called death. (Questions and Doubts 21)

    Maximus also certainly believed in judgment and punishment in Gehenna, and taught that in it there would be “an intensification and increase of punishment” (Ambigua 42.15) and a “more feared fire that is fused perpetually into one mass with worms” (Questions and Doubts 96), among other passages which seem to suggest eternal torment. For this reason, some scholars have suggested that he was a ‘hopeful universalist’ along the lines of Gregory Nazianzen and John Chrysostom, who believed that both infernalism and universalism were equally possible.

    However, there is a much better explanation which takes into account the apparent inconsistencies in Maximus’ theology. Rather than admitting that universalism is only possible, he writes in The Reponses to Thallasios (59.11) that “divinization will be present in actuality to all” — not merely possible, but in actuality. Therefore, his apparently infernalist statements must be interpreted in a different way. An answer to this solution can be found in Maximus’ own writings:

It would have been possible to give this theme [of Christ’s universal victory in Php. 2:9-11] a more mystical and sublime interpretation. But because, as you know, the deeper secrets of the divine doctrines must not be committed to writing, let the above be enough to satisfy those who seek a more detailed understanding of this question. When God grants us to come together again, we shall inquire assiduously into the apostolic mind regarding this question. (The Responses to Thallasios 21.8)

This brings to mind one of Origen’s own statements, from Contra Celsus (6.26):

It is in the precincts of Jerusalem, then, that punishments will be inflicted upon those who undergo the process of purification, who have received into the substance of their soul the elements of wickedness, which in a certain place is figuratively termed “lead”, and on that account iniquity is represented in Zechariah as sitting upon a “talent of lead”. But the remarks which might be made on this topic are neither to be made to all, nor to be uttered on the present occasion; for it is not unattended with danger to commit to writing the explanation of such subjects, seeing the multitude need no further instruction than that which relates to the punishment of sinners; while to ascend beyond this is not expedient, for the sake of those who are with difficulty restrained, even by fear of eonian punishment, from plunging into any degree of wickedness, and into the flood of evils which result from sin.

So it seems that Maximus the Confessor, following the author of the Apocalypse of Peter [2] and Origen, merely had the interest of the common population in mind when apparently describing eternal torment. He was not an infernalist or a ‘hopeful’ universalist. For more evidence that Maximus was a full universalist and not merely agnostic on this issue, see this article by Mark Chenoweth.

    Another post-Constantinople II universalist is Isaac of Nineveh “the Syrian” (613 - 700), a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church and other Eastern and Syriac churches. He wrote five books full of ascetic homilies, the first three of which are now known to us (and parts of the fifth). In the Second Part of his series of homilies, he expresses a highly universalistic view of Gehenna, and writes that all people will be saved out of it through God’s love:

For it would be most odious and utterly blasphemous to think that hate or resentment exists with God, even against demonic beings... Rather, He acts towards us in ways He knows will be advantageous to us, whether by way of things that cause suffering, or by way of things that cause relief, whether they cause joy or grief, whether they are insignificant or glorious: all are directed towards the single eternal good, whether each receives judgement or something of glory from Him—not by way of retribution, far from it!—but with a view to the advantage that is going to come from all these things. (Second Part 39.3)

I am of the opinion that He is going to manifest some wonderful outcome, a matter of immense and ineffable com­pas­sion on the part of the glorious Creator, with respect to the ordering of this difficult matter of Gehenna’s torment: out of it the wealth of His love and power and wisdom will become known all the more—and so will the insistent might of the waves of His goodness... It is not the way of the compas­sionate Maker to create rational beings in order to deliver them over mercilessly to unending affliction in punishment for things of which He knew even before they were fashioned, aware how they would turn out when He created them—and whom nonetheless He created (Second Part 39.6)

Accordingly we say that, even in the matter of the afflictions and sentence of Gehenna, there is some hidden mystery, whereby the wise Maker has taken as a starting point for its future outcome the wickedness of our actions and wilfulness, using it as a way of bringing to perfection His dispensation wherein lies the teaching which makes wise, and the advan­tage beyond description, hidden from both angels and human beings, hidden too from those who are being chastised, whether they be demons or human beings, hidden for as long as the ordained period of time holds sway. (Second Part 39.20)

    Isaac also cites as authorities on this issue Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, both fourth-century Church fathers, who apparently believed that punishment would come to an end (as also attested by John of Dara and Solomon of Basra). In his opinion, Gehenna was not a place of retributive punishment, but ultimately a place of love where the souls of unbelievers are “scourged by the scourge of love” and thereby purified (First Part 28).

John the Scot: the last medieval Christian universalist

John Eriugena (c. 815 - 877) or John ‘the Scot’ was a highly Origenistic poet and theologian of the medieval period. He seems to have reinvented many of the doctrines propounded by Origen, although he based his theology solely on scripture and early Christian writings. Interestingly, he seems to have been strongly influenced by the Cappadocian Fathers, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus, all three of whom were universalists or hopeful universalists [3].

    John’s universalism is found most clearly in books 4 and 5 of his Periphyseon, although it is also present in his other writings. Here are a number of quotes from the Periphyseon that demonstrate his belief in universal apokatastasis:

For if Christ Who understands all things, Who indeed is the understanding of all things, really unified all that He assumed, who doubts but that what first took place in the Head and principal Exemplar of the whole of human nature will eventually happen in the whole, as we shall consider in the fifth book? (Book II.545B)

Now we come to the Fourth Book which starts with the works of the Sixth Prophetic Meditation of the creation of the Universe, goes on to consider the Return of all things into that Nature which neither creates nor is created, and so brings our work to its conclusion. (Book IV.743C)

For it is not in accordance with the Divine Justice that anything should perish of that which He has made, especially as it is not nature herself who has sinned, but the perverse will which moves irrationally against rational nature. (Book IV.760C)

For in itself evil is a deformity and an abhorrent ugliness which, if the erring sense beheld undisguised, it would not only refuse to follow or take delight in, but would flee from and abhor. But the unwitting sense errs, and in erring is deceived, because it takes the evil for something which is good and fair to look upon and pleasant to taste. (Book IV.826C)

among the Greeks “beginning” is called telos, which really means “end”; they name both beginning and end telos without distinction — what but the Return of our nature to its beginning, out of which it was made, and in which and through which it moves and towards which its tendency is always to return? For all men in general, whether perfect or imperfect, chaste or defiled, redeemed through knowledge of truth in Christ, or lingering in the darkness of the ignorance of the Old Man, have one and the same natural yearning after being and well-being and being forever... And if it is a necessary rule that every natural activity is ceaseless and unresting until it attain the end it seeks, what can check or restrain or arrest the necessary activity of human nature from arriving at that towards which it naturally tends? For there is no creature which desires and tends towards not-being; and does not rather shun it lest it should happen to cease to be, and indeed, how hard it would be for anything which is made by Him Who truly is and is beyond being to return to nothing. (Book V.867C-868A)

the Cause of all things and the end of all things is the same. (Book V.871A)

The first step in the Return of our human nature is taken when the body suffers dissolution and turns back into the four elements of the sensible world from which it was composed. The second is fulfilled at the Resurrection when each shall take his own body out of the common fund of the four elements. The third when body is changed into soul. The fourth when soul, and in fact the whole human nature, shall revert to its Primordial Causes, which ever and immutably abide in God. The fifth when that spirit with its Causes is absorbed into God as air is absorbed in light. For when there is nothing but God alone, God will be all things in all things. By this I am not trying to prove that the substance of physical nature will perish, but that by these aforesaid states it will change into something better. (Book V.876A-B)

Of these stages of the Return of which I have been speaking some are universally accepted by traditional theology, while others are the subject of the widest disagreement. Thus, there is no dispute about the return of the body into the elements from which it came nor of its temporal resurrection into itself: but concerning the passing or transmutation of body into soul, or of soul into the Causes, or of all into God, opinions differ greatly, and almost every possible teaching has its supporters. (Book V.876C-D)

To avoid this article becoming too long, I will stop here. However, John’s argument and defense of universal apokatastasis is much longer than this, and takes up all of book 5 of his Periphyseon. If any reader is curious, a translation of the Periphyseon is available here.

    What’s most intriguing about John’s theology is that, although he shares many doctrines with Origen as can be seen above, he hardly ever cites Origen himself or acknowledges that his ideas came from Origen; rather, he derives his beliefs solely from the Bible and other early Church writings. Among the doctrines he shares with Origen are: the universal apokatastasis, the ontological non-existence of evil, the spiritual (rather than fleshly) resurrection, and the hermeneutic of two ‘layers’ to scriptural interpretation (literal and allegorical). Moreover, although John admits that his beliefs are relatively unorthodox among his peers, he also acknowledges that there are other supporters of apokatastasis in his time.

    Conclusion

Following the first Origenist controversy of the fourth century, there were very few outspoken supporters of apokatastasis; even less so after Justinian caused a second controversy and condemned many doctrines he deemed to be Origenistic. However, neither universalism nor the apokatastasis were ever officially condemned. One anathema against apokatastasis purported to have been passed by the fifth ecumenical council in 553 likely was not officially ratified, and even if it had been, it did not condemn universalism but an extremely corrupted notion of an ‘Origenist’ apokatastasis.

    Furthermore, even following the fifth ecumenical council, there were a few orthodox supporters of universal apokatastasis. St. Maximus the Confessor believed that all humans would eventually undergo a process of ‘divinization’, unbelievers after being purified in increasing punishments. Similarly, Isaac of Nineveh ‘the Syrian’ believed that Gehenna was merely a place of purification out of God’s love, possibly following his predecessor Ephrem the Syrian. [4] Finally, even as late as the ninth century, John Eriugena ‘the Scot’ and apparently a few of his contemporaries still believed in universal apokatastasis. This shows conclusively that universalism was not officially condemned, but rather slowly lost support from the fifth century onward, until it disappeared from Christendom completely in the medieval period.

Part 8: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/02/indeed-very-many-part-8-summary-and.html

______________________________

[1] A henad is a unity separate from the unity of God, who is the ‘monad’.

[2] See the first post in this series.

[3] See the fifth post in this series.

[4] Ephrem: “Between the fire of hell and Paradise, those who have found mercy can obtain punishment and then forgiveness” (Hymns on Paradise 10.15); “no sin will resist repentance, apart from [the unforgivable sin]. But not even this sin will be able to prevent a person from being justified. God, after giving retribution in Gehenna, will reward this person in the Kingdom” (Commentary on the Diatesseron 10.4); “it is likely that, thanks to mercy, Gehenna will be emptied” (Nisibis Poems 59.8).

"Indeed Very Many"? The Origenist Controversy of the Late Fourth Century (part 6 of 8)

Part 5: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/02/indeed-very-many-part-5-fourth-century.html

     ‘Universalism is heresy!’ has been the default position of the church for nearly 1500 years, alongside the idea that ‘infernalism (eternal torment) is orthodoxy.’ For this reason, it’s hard for many Christians to fathom a time in which universalism might have been considered orthodox, and the idea of eternal torment heretical. However, the fact is that universalism was actually the majority view for the first four hundred years of the church’s existence. In fact, until the time of Augustine of Hippo, who was one of the first mainstream infernalists, the salvation of all was proclaimed by major champions of early orthodoxy such as Irenaeus of Lyons, the three Cappadocian Fathers, and St. Jerome. This series of posts will go through the history of early church thought on hell and universal salvation.

    Although Origen’s doctrine of universal apokatastasis and the ontological non-existence of evil enjoyed much support following his death, near the end of the 4th century, it became embroiled in controversy. Many Christian writers who had previously supported universalism suddenly abandoned it, due to pressure from the anti-Origenists. This post will examine the history of the Origenist controversy, and focus on the changing beliefs of three Church fathers (John Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine) to see how their sudden flip to infernalism affected the nascent Catholic Church.

The Anti-Origenists: Examining the basis of the controversy

The Origenist controversy first began in the late fourth century, around 370, when the vast majority of the Eastern church still accepted (and venerated) Origen and his doctrine of apokatastasis. The controversy was first initiated by Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403), a heresiologist from Palestine, who took offense at several of Origen’s more questionable doctrines. Taking Origen’s subordinationist interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:28 as contrary to the Nicene Creed, Epiphanius considered Origen to be the “father of Arius and the root and parent of other heresies” (Epistles of Jerome 51.3). This claim that Origen was a non-trinitarian subordinationist would remain at the heart of Epiphanius’ criticism of Origenist doctrine, as seen in his Panarion, written around 376:

For Arius took his cue from Origen, and so did the Anomoeans who succeeded him, and the rest… he does not believe that the Son is of the Father’s essence, but represents him as entirely different from the Father, and created besides. But he holds that he is called “Son” by grace. But he has other downfalls too, which are more serious.

He says that the human soul is preexistent, and that souls are angels and celestial powers, but have sinned and so been shut up in this body as a punishment. They are sent down by God as a punishment, to undergo a first judgment here. And so the body is called a ‘frame’ [δέµα], says Origen, because the soul has been ‘bound’ [δέδεσθαι] in the body, imagining the ancient Greek fabrication. And he spins other yarns about this as well. He says that we speak of a ‘soul’ [ψυχή] because it has ‘cooled off’ [ψυχϑῆναι] in coming down…

He makes the resurrection of the dead a defective thing, sometimes nominally supporting it, sometimes denying it altogether, but at other times saying that there is a partial resurrection. Finally, he gives an allegorical interpretation of whatever he can—Paradise, its waters, the waters above the heavens, the water under the earth. He never stops saying these ridiculous things and others like them. But I have already mentioned things of this sort about him, and discussed them at length, in some of my other works. (Panarion 64.4.2-11)

    Although a number of these doctrines were not even believed by Origen, such as the preexistence of souls and the partial or ‘spiritual’ resurrection, these baseless accusations would continue to be leveled at him throughout the 5th and 6th centuries. However, it is important to note that at this time the doctrine of universal apokatastasis was not included in the controversy, and would never be brought up by Epiphanius (even in his anti-Origenist letter to John of Jerusalem written in 394, in which he only criticized the eventual salvation of the devil; Epistles of Jerome 51.5).

    The second phase of the Origenist controversy, which took place in the early fifth century, was carried out in large part by Theophilus of Alexandria. Although he was actually a proponent of Origenism up to 399, [1] as evidenced by Jerome’s Epistles 63 and 82 in which he exhorts Theophilus to stop “fostering the boldness of abandoned men [Origenists],” he quickly switched sides when confronted by a violent mob of anti-Origenist monks:

When some ignorant and coarse monks created a disturbance in Egypt, Theophilus, apparently alarmed when they abused him, attempted to deceive them by flattery, saying, “I have seen your faces as the face of God.” But when they further demanded that Origen, because he asserted that the divinity was without human form, should be anathematized, he consented, and so escaped death. (Photius’ Bibliotheca 92)

    Apparently prompted by these monks to expel the Origenists from Egypt, Theophilus immediately went on a crusade to eliminate Origenism. In a series of letters between Theophilus, Epiphanius, and Jerome (the three main anti-Origenist leaders of their time), we see a local synod convened at Alexandria in 400 to condemn Origenism (Letters of Jerome 86-92). However, even at this date, the controversy did not include universal apokatastasis, but was limited to subordinationism, the ‘partial resurrection’, and a second crucifixion of Christ ‘for the demons’, as well as a few other minor doctrines (most of which were never believed by Origen or his followers).

    Even as late as the 430s, the ascetic Shenoute of Atripe (a prominent critic of ‘Origenism’) did not include apokatastasis in his heresiological work, Against Origenism and Gnosticism. Instead, he focused on the doctrines of subordination, the partial resurrection, and the preexistence of souls; again, nearly all beliefs that were never espoused by Origen, but became associated with him in the late 4th century. Up to this point, only the eventual salvation of the devil and demons was criticized, and that of human unbelievers was properly understood as not originating with Origen.

    However, beginning with Augustine of Hippo, universalism began to be erroneously grouped together with the other heretical ‘Origenist’ doctrines. In his On the Proceedings of Pelagius (10), Augustine expands the doctrines considered heretical from the salvation of the devil and his angels to the salvation of all unbelievers, stating that universalism originated with Origen. Although he was certainly misinformed about this (his contemporary Rufinus of Aquileia cited several pre-Origen universalists to demonstrate this very point in Apology Against Jerome 1.43), the doctrine of universal apokatastasis quickly became irrevocably associated with Origenism, and so it finally fell out of favor with the early Church.

John Chrysostom: a hopeful universalist?

Although the controversy over Origenism was in full swing by the time John Chrysostom (349 - 407) became archbishop of Constantinople in 397, he remained firmly on the side of Origen. In fact, when Theophilus of Antioch expelled the Origenist monks from Egypt in 400, Chrysostom received them with open arms and gave them protection (Palladius’ Dialogue 7). This resulted in his condemnation and expulsion by a local synod in 403, and again in 407, when he died en route to his exile in Pityus.

    Although friendly towards the Origenist monks, John Chrysostom was reluctant to express a belief in universalism, in line with the hostile attitude toward doctrines considered to be ‘Origenist’. Throughout his writings, rather than teaching full universalism, Chrysostom seems to have used the ‘tension’ approach to hopeful universalism suggested by theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar; that is, a theology in which one admits the equal possibility of both infernalism and universalism without favoring one over the other.

    This can be seen clearly in Chrysostom’s homilies on the New Testament. In many of these homilies, he expresses a belief in infernalism, for example:

This is no small subject of enquiry which we propose, but rather about things which are of the first necessity and which all men enquire about; namely, whether hell fire have any end. For that it has no end Christ indeed declared when he said, “Their fire shall not be quenched, and their worm shall not die”… As I said then; that it has no end, Christ has declared. Paul also says, in pointing out the eternity of the punishment, that the sinners “shall pay the penalty of destruction, and that for the age” (Homily on 1 Cor. 9.1)

When you see anything terrible, think of hell, and you will deride it. When you are possessed by carnal desire, think of the fire, think also of the pleasure of sin itself, that it is nothing worth, that it has not even pleasure in it. For if the fear of the laws that are enacted here has so great power as to withdraw us from wicked actions, how much more should the remembrance of things future, the vengeance that is immortal, the punishment that is absolutely eternal [aidios]? If the fear of an earthly king withdraws us from so many evils, how much more the fear of the King Eternal? (Homily on 2 Thess. 2)

Oh that we could at all times and constantly act wisely with respect to these things, and speak thus concerning future punishment!… Settle every affair here, that thou mayest see that tribunal with untroubled mind. As long as we are here we have good hope, but when we come there, we no longer have it in our power to repent nor to cleanse ourselves from our sins. Wherefore it is necessary to be always ready for our going thither. For what if this evening it should seem good to the Lord to call us? What if He should do so tomorrow? The future is left uncertain, that we may be constantly striving and prepared for departure. (Discourse on Lazarus and the Rich man 2.3)

On the one hand, these passages demonstrate that Chrysostom accepted the possibility (and indeed, the probability) of eternal punishment. However, in a few other places, he also suggests that it is possible to be saved after death, and that all people will be saved.

“Nay, on this very account I lament”, you say, “because he departed being a sinner”… But grant that he departed with sin upon him, even on this account one ought to rejoice, that he was stopped short in his sins and added not to his iniquity; and help him as far as possible, not by tears, but by prayers and supplications and alms and offerings. For not unmeaningly have these things been devised, nor do we in vain make mention of the departed in the course of the divine mysteries, and approach God in their behalf, beseeching the Lamb Who is before us, Who takes away the sin of the world — not in vain, but that some refreshment may thereby ensue to them… Since God is wont to grant the petitions of those who ask for others… Let us not then be weary in giving aid to the departed, both by offering on their behalf and obtaining prayers for them: for the common expiation [atonement] of the world is even before us. Therefore with boldness do we then intreat for the whole world, and name their names with those of martyrs, of confessors, of priests... Why therefore do you grieve? Why mourn, when it is in your power to gather so much pardon for the departed? (Homilies on 1 Cor. 41.8)

    This passage is somewhat confusing, as Chrysostom seems to shift back and forth from arguing that unbelievers can be saved permanently from damnation, and that only Christian sinners can be saved (a precursor to the doctrine of purgatory). Although he begins by discussing a person who “departed being a sinner,” which indicates that he is referring to an unbeliever, he goes on to say that commemorations are specifically for “all that have fallen asleep in Christ.” However, his true meaning here is likely universalistic, as he says that “the common expiation of the world is even before us”. Furthermore, what he meant by those who have fallen asleep in Christ may be interpreted in light of his homilies on Colossians, in which he takes the Church to encompass all of humanity:

Although elsewhere he calls Adam first, as in truth he is; but here he takes the Church for the whole race of mankind. (Homilies on Col. 3, 1:18)

And he that is over the Church, says not, “Peace be unto you”, simply, but “Peace be unto all”. For what if with this man we have peace, but with another, war and fighting? What is the gain? For neither in the body, should some of its elements be at rest and others in a state of variance, is it possible that health should ever be upheld; but only when the whole of them are in good order, and harmony, and peace, and except the whole are at rest, and continue within their proper limits, all will be overturned. (Homilies on Col. 3, 1:19-20)

This idea that all motions contrary to God will eventually be stopped, and all will be at rest, is actually a highly Origenist notion introduced in De Principiis 4.6.2 and continued in the writings of his fourth-century followers. Therefore, it is probable that John Chrysostom, rather than being merely an infernalist as many have assumed, was a hopeful universalist who admitted the tension between the punishment and universalist passages of scripture (à la Balthasar).

Jerome of Stridon

Jerome of Stridon (d. 420), a saint and doctor of the Catholic Church, was originally a supporter of Origen and a full universalist who believed even the devil would be saved eventually. However, during the later Origenist controversy, he suddenly made a volte-face and became one of the most prominent critics of both Origen and the apokatastasis (although he did admit the eventual restoration of most human sinners). His first phase, in which he espoused the salvation of all rational creatures, can be seen most clearly in his commentary on Ephesians written in c. 387:

But when, at the end of all things and the consummation of the world, all things shall be subject to Him, all things will be filled in all; so that according to God, who is full of all virtues, all things may be filled in all, and they may all have all things which each one possessed before... [then] the fullness of Him who fills all things in all, not only of men, but also of angels and all rational creatures, may be understood. (Comm. on Eph. 1)

...in the restoration of all, when the body of the whole Church has been scattered and torn, the true physician Jesus Christ will come to heal each one according to the measure of his faith and knowledge of the Son of God... and man, who had been rejected from paradise, will be restored again to the cultivation of paradise. (Comm. on Eph. 4)

    An even more valuable resource on the early beliefs of Jerome is Rufinus of Aquileia’ Apology Against Jerome, in which Rufinus documents Jerome’s previous espousal of Origenist doctrines to argue that he is a hypocrite. The following quotes are taken from Rufinus’ work:

But you [Jerome] assign rewards, though they may be inferior ones, to all, even to those who now do not believe, that is, the devil and his angels; and, though now you hold the mere opinion, not the mature judgment, of another worthy of condemnation who thinks it possible that the devil may one day have a respite from punishment, you bring him into the kingdom of God to receive the second reward… These are the things which we learn from the Commentaries [on Ephesians] to which you direct us. These are the rules for the confusion of our faith which you teach us. You wish us to condemn in others what you teach yourself in private. For, of course, if you are now that ‘other’ who do not admit the doctrine which holds that our souls existed in heaven before they were joined to bodies, you are undoubtedly the man who not only promise pardon to the devil and his angels and all unbelievers but also undertake that they shall be endowed with rewards of the second order. (Apology Against Jerome 1.32-33)

These things which you [Jerome] have said are read by all who know Latin, and you yourself request them to read them: such sayings, I mean as these: that all rational creatures, as can be imagined by taking a single rational animal as an example, are to be formed anew into one body, just as if the members of a single man after being torn apart should be formed anew by the art of Æsculapius into the same solid body as before: that there will be among them as amongst the members of the body various offices, which you specify, but that the body will be one, that is, of one nature: this one body made up of all things you call the original church, and to this you give the name of the body of Christ; and further you say that one member of this church will be the apostate angel, that is, of course, the devil, who is to be formed anew into that which he was first created: that man in the same way, who is another of the members, will be recalled to the culture of the garden of Eden as its original husbandman. (Apology Against Jerome 1.43)

[Quoting Jerome:] “it is in accordance with the character of the Trinity, which is good and simple and unchangeable that every creature should in the end of all things be restored to the state in which it was first created; and that this must be after long punishment equal to the length of all the ages, which God inflicts on each creature in the spirit not of one who is angry but of one who corrects, since he is not one who is extreme to mark iniquity; and that, his design like a physician being to heal men, he will place a term upon their punishment.” (Apology Against Jerome 2.9)

    There can be no question that Jerome, at first, was a full universalist who expected the salvation even of the devil and his angels. However, in his own words, “we once were zealous in our praise of Origen; let us be equally zealous in condemning him now that he is condemned by the whole world“ (Apology Against Rufinus 3.9). Providing no reasoning against Origen other than the fact that the flow of current opinion was running against him, Jerome suddenly turned against Origenism in the last decade of the 4th century.

    Despite turning to anti-Origenism, Jerome did not immediately abandon universalism or the apokatastasis. In his Commentary on Jonah, written just after his volte-face, he rejects his previous belief in the salvation of the devil and his angels but accepts the ultimate salvation of all humans.

These are the bars of the earth and like the locks of a final prison and tortures, which do not let the captive spirits out of hell. This is why the Septuagint has translated this is a pertinent way: “eternal bonds”, that is, wanting to keep in all those whom it had once captured. But our Lord, about which we read these lines of Cyrus in Isaiah: “I will break the bronze bars, I will crack the iron bars,” He went down to the roots of the mountains, and was enclosed by eternal bars to free all the prisoners. (Comm. on Jonah 2:6b-7)

I know certain men for whom the king of Nineveh… is the symbol of the devil, who at the end of the world, (because no spiritual creature that is made reasoning by God will perish), will descend from his pride and do penitence and will be restored to his former position… we must eradicate this from our spirits. Let us remember though that the sinners in the Gospel are sent to the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels, about whom is said, “their worm will not die and their fire will not be extinguished”. All the same we know that God is mild, and we sinners do not enjoy his cruelty, but we read, “the Lord is kindly and righteous, and our God will be merciful”. The justice of God is surrounded by mercy, and it is by this route that he proceeds to judgement: he spares to judge, he judges to be merciful. (Comm. on Jonah 3:6-9)

    Thus, even after Jerome abandoned Origen, he still believed in the salvation of all human sinners (Christians and unbelievers included). Near his death, in 417, he expanded the category of those who would face eternal punishment to include ‘impious’ humans, but still espoused the salvation of the rest of the human race (who would eventually be saved, although losing the glory of the first resurrection; Against the Pelagians 1.28). Jerome of Stridon can definitely be considered a universalist, then, although he did turn halfway against this doctrine late in his life.

Augustine of Hippo

Augustine (354 - 430) was the bishop of Hippo Rebius in Africa and one of the preeminent founding Latin fathers of the early Church. He helped to define many accepted doctrines of Western Christianity, and is considered a doctor of the Catholic Church. Like Jerome, Augustine originally followed many doctrines of Origen, but later abandoned Origenism due to pressure from the anti-Origenists. One of his earliest writings, De moribus (written in 388), expresses a highly Origenist view of universal apokatastasis:

Thus, so far as anything acquires unity, so far it exists. For uniformity and harmony are the effects of unity, and by these compound things exist as far as they have existence. For simple things exist by themselves, for they are one. But things not simple imitate unity by the agreement of their parts; and so far as they attain this, so far they exist. This arrangement is the cause of existence, disorder of non-existence; and perversion or corruption are the other names for disorder. So whatever is corrupted tends to non-existence. You may now be left to reflect upon the effect of corruption, that you may discover what is the chief evil; for it is that which corruption aims at accomplishing. But the goodness of God does not permit the accomplishment of this end, but so orders all things that fall away that they may exist where their existence is most suitable, till in the order of their movements they return to that from which they fell away… For it has been said, Nothing is allowed in the providence of God to go the length of non-existence. (De moribus 2.6.8-7.9)

This is a clear statement of universalism, by which Augustine excludes any rational being from salvation, even the devil. Similarly, in De moribus 2.8.11, he assumes a highly Origenistic view of evil; namely, that it has no ontological substance, and so will eventually cease to exist. Therefore, at least in this passage, Augustine drew on clearly Origenist doctrines to explain his own beliefs.

    However, just as with Jerome, Augustine quickly turned away from Origenism around the turn of the fourth century (if he had been an Origenist in the first place). In a letter dated to 405, he condemns Jerome for having previously been a follower of Origen (Epistles of Augustine 82.3.23). However, he didn’t begin to question apokatastasis until the mid-410s, in his On Faith and Works 15.24 and Ad Orosium 8.10 [2], at the same time that Jerome was beginning to condemn some ‘impious’ humans to eternal punishment. Augustine’s most anti-universalist sentiment from this period comes from his De gestis Pelagii (On the Proceedings of Pelagius), which he wrote in 417:

But what Pelagius added, “Who believes differently is an Origenist,” was approved by the judges, because in very deed the Church most justly abominates the opinion of Origen, that even they whom the Lord says are to be punished with everlasting punishment, and the devil himself and his angels, after a time, however protracted, will be purged, and released from their penalties, and shall then cleave to the saints who reign with God in the association of blessedness. This additional sentence, therefore, the synod pronounced to be “not opposed to the Church” — not in accordance with Pelagius, but rather in accordance with the Gospel, that such ungodly and sinful men shall be consumed by eternal fires as the Gospel determines to be worthy of such a punishment; and that he is a sharer in Origen’s abominable opinion, who affirms that their punishment can possibly ever come to an end, when the Lord has said it is to be eternal. (De gestis Pelagii 10)

    During and after this stage, Augustine (wrongly) associated the origin of the doctrine of universalism with Origen, and so became a prominent infernalist and opponent of universal reconciliation. An entire chapter of his De civitate Dei (21) is devoted to the eternality of hell, how the resurrected bodies of unbelievers can survive in eternal flames, and why this punishment is just.

    Later on, near his death, Augustine was even so contrite about his previous support of Origen and universalism that he felt the need to recant and explain away his earlier views:

In the other book, the title of which is De moribus Manichaeorum, I said this: “The goodness of God regulates all things which fell away in such a way that they may exist where they can exist most suitably, until, in the regulation of their motions, they return to that whence they have fallen away”; this should not be understood as if all things “return to that from which they have fallen away,” as Origen thought, but all things which actually do return. For they who will be punished in everlasting fire will not return to God from whom they have fallen away, although “all the failures” are regulated so “that they may exist where they can exist most suitably,” because those who do not return exist most suitably in punishment. (Retractions 6.8)

From these excerpts, we can conclude that although Augustine had indeed supported universalism early on, he was unfortunately swept up in the anti-Origenist movement and came to believe that all unbelievers would be separated from God forever in eternal fire at their death.

    What was the effect of this unfortunate volte-face, both of Jerome of Stridon and Augustine of Hippo? As they were founding fathers and venerated saints of the Catholic Church, and strongly influenced both Western and Eastern thought, their sudden turn from universalism into infernalism (and subsequent anti-universalism, in the case of Augustine) greatly affected the nascent orthodoxy of the Catholic Church. After them, the doctrine of universal apokatastasis would never enjoy the same amount of vast support that it engendered in the fourth century. However, even in the middle of Augustine’s anti-universalist phase, he still admitted that many Christians in his day were universalists without ignoring scripture:

It is in vain, then, that some, indeed very many, make moan over the eternal punishment, and perpetual, unintermitted torments of the lost, and say they do not believe it shall be so; not, indeed, that they directly oppose themselves to Holy Scripture, but, at the suggestion of their own feelings, they soften down everything that seems hard, and give a milder turn to statements which they think are rather designed to terrify than to be received as literally true. (Enchiridion 112)

When Augustine says that “indeed very many” Christians make moan over eternal punishment, he is actually saying immo quam plurimi, or “indeed the vast majority” of Christians. Certainly it is unfair to paint all universalists with the same brush of following their feelings over scripture, seeing as this list includes most of Christianity in the first three centuries and virtually all of the Eastern Church in the 4th century (but I digress).

Conclusion

Following the resurgence in universalism of the 4th century, the Origenist controversy led to a massive drop in the number of Christian theologians who believed in universal reconciliation. Although the main opponents of Origen — Epiphanius of Salamis, Theophilus of Alexandria, and Jerome of Stridon — did not criticize the doctrine of universal salvation, eventually Augustine of Hippo became a major critic of this doctrine, erroneously believing that universalism had originated with Origen.

    After Augustine and Jerome, both vastly important founding members of the Catholic Church, turned to infernalism in their later years, universalism never enjoyed the same amount of support that it had in the early days of the Church. The next post in this series will deal with Justinian’s anathematization of universalism, and the last few holdouts in the medieval church.

Part 7: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/02/indeed-very-many-part-7-justinian-and.html

______________________________

[1] Ramelli, Ilaria. The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena. Leiden: Brill, 2013. p. 584-585.

[2] Ramelli, Ilaria. The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena. Leiden: Brill, 2013. p. 669.

"Indeed Very Many"? Fourth-Century Fathers (part 5 of 8)

Part 4: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/02/indeed-very-many-part-4-rise-of-proto.html

     ‘Universalism is heresy!’ has been the default position of the church for nearly 1500 years, alongside the idea that ‘infernalism (eternal torment) is orthodoxy.’ For this reason, it’s hard for many Christians to fathom a time in which universalism might have been considered orthodox, and the idea of eternal torment heretical. However, the fact is that universalism was actually the majority view for the first four hundred years of the church’s existence. In fact, until the time of Augustine of Hippo, who was one of the first mainstream infernalists, the salvation of all was proclaimed by major champions of early orthodoxy such as Irenaeus of Lyons, the three Cappadocian Fathers, and St. Jerome. This series of posts will go through the history of early church thought on hell and universal salvation.

    In the 4th century, the proto-orthodoxy of the 2nd and 3rd centuries began to be solidified into official orthodoxy. The canon of scripture was established around this time, although it’s debated when it actually became official. At the First Council of Nicaea in 325, the basis for the doctrine of trinitarianism was laid, and it was officially affirmed in 381 at Constantinople and again in 431 and 451. Most of the patristic writers around this time were concerned with maintaining what they saw as orthodoxy, and defending the doctrines that they believed were biblical and had been passed down to them. Therefore, it’s important to determine what the Christian writers of this time believed about universal salvation. This post will demonstrate that universalism was the majority view of the 4th century Eastern Church.

Basil of Caesarea

Basil the Great (330 - 379) was bishop of Caesarea Mazaca and a prominent supporter of both trinitarianism and the Nicene Creed. Along with Gregory Nyssen and Gregory Nazianzen, he was one of the Cappadocian Fathers, three respected defenders of orthodoxy who are now venerated as saints and some of the most important members of the early Church. He wrote many works of literature, of which his principal writings are De Spiritu Sancto (On the Holy Spirit) and Refutation of the Apology of the Impious Eunomius.

    Basil was a strong defender of Origen and his ideas, including his doctrine of universal salvation. Although it comes short of promoting universal reconciliation, Basil does describe a ‘restoration to the beginning’ in one of his epistles which is similar to Origen’s idea of apokatastasis:

Only pray, I beseech you, that the Lord may not deliver us for aye to the enemies of the Cross of Christ, but that He will keep His Churches, until the time of that peace which the just Judge Himself knows when He will bestow. For He will bestow it. He will not always abandon us. As He limited seventy years for the period of captivity for the Israelites in punishment for their sins, so perhaps the Mighty One, after giving us up for some appointed time, will recall us once again, and will restore us to the peace of the beginning (Epistles of Basil 264)

    As well as promoting the idea of eventual apokatastasis (restoration to the beginning), Basil also clearly promoted the doctrine of universalism in his Commentary on Isaiah. Here are a number of quotes from this commentary which demonstrate this:

After those worthy of restoration to their original state have been saved with judgement and with mercy, those entirely lawless and those persevering in sin shall be broken together… But perhaps even in those whom God benefits, wishing them to walk in newness of life, He breaks their old man. That is why sacrifice to God is a broken spirit. For the spirit of the world which effects sin is broken, so that a straight will be renewed in the inward parts of man. The arm of the sinner is also broken, that is, the active power of sin, in order that his sin may be sought for and not found. Such is also the pronouncement: “I will kill and I will make alive; I will smite and I will heal.” For God will kill him who lives in an evil way, so that after purification of the evil life He may grant him a new one. Therefore “the lawless and sinners shall be broken together,” so that they may cease to be rebellious and disobedient. (Comm. on Isa. 1.59)

For He says: “He that, until the time, is in distress, shall not be perplexed”. Not forever shall this ignorance hold mankind fast, but he who now seeks out the truth of it and is in travail of its discovery, at some time shall see “face to face” and receive the perfection of knowledge, when the time comes for the restoration of all. For that is what the phrase “until the time” means. (Comm. on Isa. 8.222)

“And I will eradicate the insolence of the lawless”, says the Lord, “and I will humble the insolence of the arrogant.” It is the word of the good God to eradicate what is worthless in order to restore His creation from every evil and to elevate it, released from every sickness, into its natural state. (Comm. on Isa. 13.267)

    Similarly, Basil saw judgment and punishment as merely tools used by God to bring about the salvation of sinners. To support this notion, he quotes 1 Corinthians 3:15:

Then Isaiah adds: “The whole earth has been set on fire because of the wrath of the lord’s anger”. He shows that earthly things are given over to the purifying fire for the benefit of the soul, just as the Lord indicates saying: “I came to bring fire upon the earth, and I wish to see it already kindled”. And the people shall be as a man burnt by fire. The prophecy does not threaten with obliteration, but indicates purification, in accordance with what is said by the Apostle: “If somebody’s work burns up, he shall suffer loss; yet himself shall be saved, but only as through fire.” (Comm. on Isa. 9.231)

“When,” says the Lord, “the anger of my wrath is over, I will heal again.” That is: “after chastening blows, whenever I see the correction to be sufficient, I will not abandon them in sorrowful circumstances”; just as a physician would say to the sick: “When I cut and when I cauterise, I will leave neither the incision, nor the sores from the cautery uncared for. For whenever I have achieved the end for the sake of which painful methods have been adopted, then, providing the final treatment, I will restore to health.” (Comm. on Isa. 7.195)

    Therefore, Basil was a universalist and clearly expressed this belief in some of his writings. Why did he not do so in his other works? First of all, he was mainly concerned with trinitarianism and refuting those who disagreed with the Nicene Creed, so universalism wouldn’t have been a topic in most of his writings. Moreover, following the guideline set out by the Apocalypse of Peter and Origen, most universalists of the early Church did not share this belief with non-Christians, to avoid provoking them to sin even more and to reject Christ. Therefore, it is only natural that Basil’s universalism would be primarily confined to his pedagogical works, such as his Commentary on Isaiah.

    Perhaps even more important for determining Basil’s beliefs on universalism is Orosius’ work Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum in which he describes Basil, along with two other Greek fathers, as hardcore Origenists:

But these two Aviti, and with them Saint Basil the Greek (who taught these things most blessedly), have delivered some things from the books of Origen himself, as I now understand... They preached that the eternal fire by which sinners are to be punished is neither true fire, nor eternal, saying that the punishment in one’s own conscience was called fire. They said that ‘eternal’ [aiōnios] according to its Greek etymology does not mean ‘perpetual’. They even added a Latin proof: for in saying “for eternity [eis ton aiōna]” and “for ever and ever [eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn]” something is added to eternity. And so [they said that] all the souls of sinners will return to unity in Christ’s body after the purification of their conscience. They were also willing to assert regarding the devil that, because good deeds cannot perish, his substance, once the whole wickedness of the devil is burnt up, is to be saved. (Commonitorium 3.3-7)

This testimony is extremely important in more than one way. First, it shows that Basil was, beyond a doubt, a full universalist (and even left open the possibility that the devil might be saved, in line with Comm. on Isa. 14.280). Even more significantly, it demonstrates that even by the late fourth century, the Greek phrases aiōnios, eis ton aiōna, and eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn were understood not to mean ‘everlasting’ or ‘perpetual’. Therefore, we can be absolutely sure that Basil was as much a universalist as his brother Gregory Nyssen (see below) and not merely a hopeful universalist or an infernalist.

Gregory Nyssen

Gregory, brother of Basil the Great (c. 335 - 395) was bishop of Nyssa and an influential theologian during his later life. Along with his brother and his friend Gregory Nazianzen, he was one of the three Cappadocian Fathers of the fourth century. He was actually one of the most venerated saints of the early Church, and the bishops of the Second Council of Nicaea (787) said of him that “all have called [him] the father of fathers.”

    It is interesting, then, that out of the three Cappadocians, Gregory Nyssen was the most prominent defender of Origen and his doctrine of universal apokatastasis. In fact, the theme of universalism runs so clearly throughout Gregory’s writings that in medieval times, following the Origenist controversy, some thought that his works had been altered to make him look like a heretic (!). One of his most famous works, On the Soul and the Resurrection, clearly demonstrates his belief in universal salvation:

[Macrina the Younger:] “when evil shall have been some day annihilated in the long revolutions of the ages, nothing shall be left outside the world of goodness, but that even from those evil spirits shall rise in harmony the confession of Christ’s Lordship. If this is so, then no one can compel us to see any spot of the underworld in the expression, ‘things under the earth’; the atmosphere spreads equally over every part of the earth, and there is not a single corner of it left unrobed by this circumambient air.” (On the Soul and the Resurrection 4)

[Gregory Nyssen:] “Then it seems”, I said, “that it is not punishment chiefly and principally that the Deity, as Judge, afflicts sinners with; but He operates, as your argument has shown, only to get the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of blessedness.” (On the Soul and the Resurrection 7)

[Macrina:] “In any and every case evil must be removed out of existence, so that, as we said above, the absolutely non-existent should cease to be at all. Since it is not in its nature that evil should exist outside the will, does it not follow that when it shall be that every will rests in God, evil will be reduced to complete annihilation, owing to no receptacle being left for it?… But He that becomes ‘all’ things will be ‘in all’ things too; and herein it appears to me that Scripture teaches the complete annihilation of evil. If, that is, God will be in all existing things, evil, plainly, will not then be among them; for if any one was to assume that it did exist then, how will the belief that God will be ‘in all’ be kept intact? The excepting of that one thing, evil, mars the comprehensiveness of the term ‘all’. But He that will be ‘in all’ will never be in that which does not exist.” (On the Soul and the Resurrection 7)

The remedy offered by the Overseer of the produce is to collect together the tares and the thorns, which have grown up with the good seed, and into whose bastard life all the secret forces that once nourished its root have passed, so that it not only has had to remain without its nutriment, but has been choked and so rendered unproductive by this unnatural growth. When from the nutritive part within them everything that is the reverse or the counterfeit of it has been picked out, and has been committed to the fire that consumes everything unnatural, and so has disappeared, then in this class also their humanity will thrive and will ripen into fruit-bearing, owing to such husbandry, and some day after long courses of ages will get back again that universal form which God stamped upon us at the beginning. (On the Soul and the Resurrection 12)

    Interestingly, much of On the Soul and the Resurrection is written as a dialogue between Gregory and his sister, Macrina the Younger, who seems to share many doctrines with Origen. Not only does she espouse universalism and apokatastasis, but she also uses the exact same argument as Origen does to defend this doctrine; namely, that evil is not inherent to the creation and so once we see God clearly we will naturally be reconciled to Him. If the dialogue associated with Macrina is actually her own words, and not, as some argue, merely a contrived conversation, then all four Cappadocians were universalists.

    Gregory Nyssen, like Origen, interprets 1 Corinthians 15:28 (that God will be “all things in all”) as extremely strong evidence for universalism. In fact, his entire work In Illud is devoted to a detailed exegesis of this verse and the surrounding passage. Only one example will suffice to show how clear his universalistic thought is in this exposition:

Paul signifies, by the Son’s subjection, the destruction of death [1 Cor. 15:26-27]. Therefore, these two elements concur, that is, when death will be no more, and everything will be completely changed into life. The Lord is life. According to the apostle, Christ will have access to the Father with his entire body when he will hand over the kingdom to our God and Father. Christ’s body, as it is often said, consists of human nature in its entirety to which he has been united. Because of this, Christ is named Lord by Paul, as mediator between God and man. He who is in the Father and has lived with men accomplishes intercession. Christ unites all mankind to himself, and to the Father through himself (In Illud)

Therefore, Gregory of Nyssa was very clearly a universalist and a follower of Origen, and his sister Macrina the Younger likely was as well.

Gregory Nazianzen

Gregory of Nazianzus (329 - 390) was the archbishop of Constantinople during his later life, and so one of the most important theologians and Eastern Church leaders of his time. Along with Basil of Caesarea and Gregory Nyssen, he is considered one of the Cappadocian Fathers and is venerated along with them. He was also a prominent defender of the orthodoxy of his day, and convened the second ecumenical council at Constantinople in 381. For this reason, his opinions on eschatology and soteriology are highly important in determining whether universalism was still considered orthodox in the late fourth century.

    Gregory Nazianzen’s beliefs on soteriology appear to have shifted back and forth throughout his life. Early on, in an oration of his written in 362, he seems to have believed in universalism:

This is why God was united to the flesh by means of the soul, and natures so separate were knit together by the affinity to each of the element which mediated between them: so all became one for the sake of all, and for the sake of one, our progenitor, the soul because of the soul which was disobedient, the flesh because of the flesh which co-operated with it and shared in its condemnation, Christ, Who was superior to, and beyond the reach of, sin, because of Adam, who became subject to sin. (Orations 2.23)

This passage seems to suggest that Gregory believed that the Son’s sacrifice was effective for all, and went even beyond the reach of Adam’s sin. However, unfortunately, this statement is less than clear as to whether Gregory believed that all people would truly be saved, or whether all people merely have the opportunity to be saved.

    In another oration, written seven years later, he expresses a belief in annihilation:

This is my fear, this day and night accompanies me, and will not let me breathe, on one side the glory, on the other the place of correction: the former I long for till I can say, “My soul faints for Your salvation”; from the latter I shrink back shuddering; yet I am not afraid that this body of mine should utterly perish in dissolution and corruption; but that the glorious creature of God (for glorious it is if upright, just as it is dishonourable if sinful) in which is reason, morality, and hope, should be condemned to the same dishonour as the brutes, and be no better after death; a fate to be desired for the wicked, who are worthy of the fire yonder. (Orations 7.22)

    And again, in another passage written just before the death of his father in 374:

I do not dwell on the judgments to come, to which indulgence in this world delivers us, as it is better to be punished and cleansed now than to be transmitted to the torment to come, when it is the time of chastisement, not of cleansing. For as he who remembers God here is conqueror of death (as David has most excellently sung) so the departed have not in the grave confession and restoration; for God has confined life and action to this world, and to the future the scrutiny of what has been done. (Orations 16.7)

During this period, Gregory Nazianzen clearly thought that the punishment in the world to come was death and dissolution from which there would be no return.

    However, later on, he appears to advocate universal salvation and the complete, final destruction of death and evil, just as Origen and the other Cappadocians:

[Adam] forgot the Commandment which had been given to him; he yielded to the baleful fruit; and for his sin he was banished, at once from the Tree of Life, and from Paradise, and from God; and put on the coats of skins...that is, perhaps, the coarser flesh, both mortal and contradictory. This was the first thing that he learned — his own shame; and he hid himself from God. Yet here too he makes a gain, namely death, and the cutting off of sin, in order that evil may not be immortal. Thus his punishment is changed into a mercy; for it is in mercy, I am persuaded, that God inflicts punishment. (Orations 38.12)

For since that Deceiver thought that he was unconquerable in his malice, after he had cheated us with the hope of becoming gods, he was himself cheated by God’s assumption of our nature; so that in attacking Adam as he thought, he should really meet with God, and thus the new Adam should save the old, and the condemnation of the flesh should be abolished, death being slain by flesh… Let these men then if they will, follow our way, which is Christ’s way; but if they will not, let them go their own. Perhaps in it they will be baptized with fire, in that last baptism which is more painful and longer, which devours wood like grass, and consumes the stubble of every evil. (Orations 39.13)

For if God is called upon as a Mediator to ratify human professions, how great is the danger if we be found transgressors of the covenant which we have made with God Himself; and if we be found guilty before the Truth Himself of that lie, besides our other transgressions...and that when there is no second regeneration, or recreation, or restoration to our former state, even though we seek it with all our might, and with many sighs and tears, by which it is cicatrized over (with great difficulty in my opinion, though we all believe that it may be cicatrized). Yet if we might wipe away even the scars I should be glad, since I too have need of mercy. But it is better not to stand in need of a second cleansing, but to stop at the first… For it is a strange thing to substitute for a painless remedy one which is more painful; to cast away the grace of mercy, and owe a debt of punishment (Orations 40.9)

In these orations, which were written in 380 and 381, Gregory of Nazianzus appears to preach a belief in merciful, restorative punishment and a “second cleansing”. However, because he seems not to be certain whether all people really will be saved (modifying his statements with “perhaps,” “whether,” “if,” etc.) some have suggested that he was rather an agnostic or ‘hopeful’ universalist.

    As quoted in the second post of this series, at the turn of the fourth century, the Latin universalist Rufinus lists a number of well-respected early Origenists as a polemic against the nascent infernalist Jerome of Stridon. In this list, alongside known universalists like Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Didymus the Blind, he includes Clement of Rome and Gregory Nazianzen as fathers whom both he and Jerome agreed believed in full universalism. This could be evidence that Gregory of Nazianzus did indeed believe in universalism, and was not merely a ‘hopeful’ universalist. However, in lieu of a clear statement from Gregory himself, it is impossible to be sure.

Other fourth-century Greek Fathers

Although the three Cappadocians were by far the most prominent defenders of orthodoxy in the fourth-century Greek Church, there were also many others which we will now consider. The esteemed Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260 - 339) definitely believed in the eventual apokatastasis, and very likely believed that it would be universal as well. [2] He wrote that “the expression ‘until the times of restoration’... indicates to us the world to come, in which all beings must receive the perfect restoration” (Against Marcellus 2.4.11).

    Another patristic writer of the fourth century is Athanasius of Alexandria (297 - 373), who was perhaps the most fervent defender of Nicene trinitarianism. He shared many beliefs with Origen, not least of which were universalism and the eventual destruction of death and evil. A few quotes from his writings will suffice to demonstrate this:

...the Word Himself was made flesh, and being in the form of God, took the form of a servant, and from Mary after the flesh became man for us, and that thus in Him the human race is perfectly and wholly delivered from sin and vivified from the dead, and given access to the kingdom of the heavens. (Tomus ad Antiochenos 7)

For being over all, the Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life of all satisfied the debt by His death. And thus He, the incorruptible Son of God, being conjoined with all by a like nature, naturally clothed all with incorruption, by the promise of the resurrection… For the race of men had gone to ruin, had not the Lord and Saviour of all, the Son of God, come among us to meet the end of death. (On the Incarnation 9.2-4)

And so it was that two marvels came to pass at once, that the death of all was accomplished in the Lord’s body, and that death and corruption were wholly done away by reason of the Word that was united with it. For there was need of death, and death must needs be suffered on behalf of all, that the debt owing from all might be paid. Whence, as I said before, the Word, since it was not possible for Him to die, as He was immortal, took to Himself a body such as could die, that He might offer it as His own in the stead of all, and as suffering, through His union with it, on behalf of all, “Bring to nought Him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and might deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” Why, now that the common Saviour of all has died on our behalf, we, the faithful in Christ, no longer die the death as before, agreeably to the warning of the law; for this condemnation has ceased; but, corruption ceasing and being put away by the grace of the Resurrection, henceforth we are only dissolved, agreeably to our bodies’ mortal nature, at the time God has fixed for each, that we may be able to gain a better resurrection. (On the Incarnation 20.5-21.1)

Clearly, then, Athanasius believed in universal salvation and repeatedly called the Son “the Savior of all”. Although he didn’t agree with Origen that all would come to the same end, as he believed that those who have faith in Christ “may be able to gain a better resurrection,” he did at least believe that all would participate in the resurrection and achieve incorruption. Even more evidence of Athanasius’ universalism can be found here if the reader is curious.

    A number of other fourth-century Greek fathers were also universalists and supporters of Origen: Didymus the Blind (a known universalist), Evagrius Ponticus [3], Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia [4], Ephrem the Syrian [5], and possibly Cyril of Jerusalem [6]. In contrast, not one single orthodox Greek Church father from the 4th century certainly believed in infernalism. (If any readers know of one, I would be happy to add them to this list; however, I haven’t actually been able to find any.)

The Western Church in the Fourth Century

As detailed in the previous post, following Tertullian of Carthage, the majority of Latin Church fathers believed in the eternality of punishment (whether infernalism or conditionalism). For example, Hilary of Poitiers, a doctor of the Catholic Church, wrote

What of our expectation in heaven, if for us as well as for the wicked the end is a cessation of being? But even if there remains for the saints an expectation, whereas for the wicked there waits the end they have deserved, we cannot conceive that end as a final dissolution. What punishment would it be for the wicked to be beyond the feeling of avenging torments, because the capability of suffering has been removed by dissolution? The end is, therefore, a culminating and irrevocable condition which awaits us, reserved for the blessed and prepared for the wicked. (On the Trinity 11.28)

    He immediately afterward describes this torment of the wicked as “an ultimate and final condition,” a clear expression of his belief in infernalism. Similarly, the Ambrosiaster (the anonymous author of a commentary on Paul’s epistles) believed that, although some Christians would be saved through fire and attain to the apokatastasis, unbelievers would remain to be tormented forever. The third-century writer Novatian believed in conditionalism, as did Arnobius of Sicca. However, there were also a few holdouts in the Western church to the doctrine of universal reconciliation. Ambrose of Milan, another doctor of the Catholic Church, believed in an apokatastasis at least of Christians and possibly of all people [7].

Conclusion

In the fourth century, at the same time that universalism had almost completely fallen out of favor among Latin-speaking Christians, a belief in universal apokatastasis reached its fullest extent in the Greek-speaking Church. The most prominent defenders of this doctrine were Basil the Great and Gregory Nyssen, along with the third Cappadocian Father, Gregory Nazianzen, who may have been a full universalist (but more likely merely a hopeful universalist). Many other Greek and Syriac patristic writers of this time expressed a belief in universalism, including Athanasius of Alexandria and Ephrem of Edessa. Both infernalism and conditionalism were confined entirely to the Western Church.

Part 6: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2022/02/indeed-very-many-part-6-origenist.html

______________________________

[1] Ramelli, Ilaria. The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena. Leiden: Brill, 2013. p. 351-357.

[2] Ramelli, Ilaria. “Origen, Eusebius, the Doctrine of Apokatastasis, and Its Relation to Christology." Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2013.

[3] See his Epistle to Melania 22-30 in which he argues that all rational creatures will be united to God when He becomes “all things in all”, and Keph. Gnostica 1.40-41 in which he says that death and evil will one day cease to exist.

[4] The seventh-century writer Isaac the Syrian, in his Second Part (39.8-13), cites both Diodore and Theodore as saying that there will be an end to punishment. John of Dara in the ninth century likewise lists them both as universalists (On the Resurrection of Human Bodies 4.21). Writing in the thirteenth century, Solomon of Basra states that both Diodore and Theodore believed punishment was not everlasting, and that αιωνιος does not mean strictly ‘everlasting’ in scripture (Book of the Bee 60).

[5] “Between the fire of hell and Paradise, those who have found mercy can obtain punishment and then forgiveness” (Hymns on Paradise 10.15); “no sin will resist repentance, apart from [the unforgivable sin]. But not even this sin will be able to prevent a person from being justified. God, after giving retribution in Gehenna, will reward this person in the Kingdom” (Commentary on the Diatesseron 10.4); “it is likely that, thanks to mercy, Gehenna will be emptied” (Nisibis Poems 59.8).

[6] Cyril was at the very least a hopeful universalist, who thought that prayers for the damned would be effective in his Eucharistic Liturgy. He wished that all people would attain to the gifts of the Spirit (Catechetical lectures 18.29), interpreted the eonian fire as cleansing (Cat. lect. 15.20), and described the Church as effectively encompassing all men (Cat. lect. 18.22). However, he never clearly expressed a belief in universalism.

[7] Ramelli, Ilaria. The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena. Leiden: Brill, 2013. p. 616-622.