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.
No comments:
Post a Comment