On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors
On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors
Introduction
In what
follows, I’ll present some evidence for the presence of a doctrine or a
sympathy of universalism (i.e. the belief that all human beings will be ultimately
saved) in some Latin Fathers. There are some suggestive passages in the writings
of Ambrose of Milan and John Cassian. Also, Rufinus of Aquileia, in his quarrel
against Jerome of Stridon, while admitting that the fate of the wicked is a
mystery shows a clear sympathy for the doctrine of universalism.
However, it
should be noted that none of the figures I quote in this post have been cited
as universalists (as far as I know) before the 19th century and,
also, the interpretation of their texts never seem to have caused controversy among
later writers (again, as far as I know) about the possible presence of genuine
universalist beliefs or interpolations in their texts. While this fact alone
doesn’t exclude an universalist reading it clearly should warrant some caution.
It is easy, in fact, to misinterpret the meaning of isolated passages if one
doesn’t know the more general context[1].
Ambrose of Milan (c. 339-397)
Ambrose is sometimes said to have believed that
all the baptized will be saved, based on this passage:
‘‘All who are considered to be
joined to the holy Church, by being called by the divine name, shall obtain the
privilege of the resurrection and the grace of eternal bliss.” (Quoted by Brian
Daley, The Hope of the Early Church,99,
In his book On Faith, however, he
seems to go further and endorse an universalist reading of texts like 1 Cor 15:21-28, Philippians 2:9-11 etc:
“167. How, then, will they be brought into
subjection? In the way that the Lord Himself has said. Take My yoke upon you.
It is not the fierce that bear the yoke, but the humble and the gentle. This
clearly is no base subjection for men, but a glorious one: that in the Name
of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things beneath; and
that every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord in the glory of God the
Father. But for this reason all things were not made subject before, for
they had not yet received the wisdom of God, not yet did they wear the easy
yoke of the Word on the neck as it were of their mind. But as many as
received Him, as it is written, to them gave He power to become the sons
of God.
168. Will any one say that Christ is
now made subject, because many have believed? Certainly not. For Christ's
subjection lies not in a few but in all. For just as I do not seem to be
brought into subjection, if the flesh in me as yet lusts against the spirit,
and the spirit against the flesh, although I am in part subdued; so because the
whole Church is the one body of Christ, we divide Christ as long as the human
race disagrees. Therefore Christ is not yet made subject, for His members are
not yet brought into subjection. But when we have become, not many members, but
one spirit, then He also will become subject, in order that through His
subjection God may be all and in all.
…
175. The benefit has passed, then,
from the individual to the community; for in His flesh He has tamed the nature
of all human flesh. Thus, according to the Apostle: As we have borne the
image of the earthly, so also shall we bear the image of the heavenly. This
thing certainly cannot come to pass except in the inner man. Therefore,
laying aside all these, that is those things which we read of: anger,
malice, blasphemy, filthy communication; as he also says below: Let us,
having put off the old man with his deeds, put on the new man, which is renewed
in knowledge after the image of Him that created Him.
176. And that you might know that
when he says: That God may be all in all, he does not separate Christ
from God the Father, he also says to the Colossians: Where there is neither
male nor female, Jew nor Greek, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free, but
Christ is all and in all. So also saying to the Corinthians: That God
may be all and in all, he comprehended in that the unity and equality of
Christ with God the Father, for the Son is not separated from the Father. And
in like manner as the Father works all and in all, so also Christ works all in
all. If, then, Christ also works all in all, He is not made subject in the
glory of the Godhead, but in us. But how is He made subject in us, except in
the way in which He was made lower than the angels, I mean in the sacrament of
His body? For all things which served their Creator from their first beginning
seemed not as yet to be made subject to Him in that.
…
181. As we then sit in Him by
fellowship in our fleshly nature, so also He, Who through the assumption of our
flesh was made a curse for us (seeing that a curse could not fall upon the
blessed Son of God), so, I say, He through the obedience of all will become
subject in us; when the Gentile has believed, and the Jew has acknowledged Him
Whom he crucified; when the Manichæan has worshipped Him, Whom he has not
believed to have come in the flesh; when the Arian has confessed Him to be
Almighty, Whom he has denied; when, lastly, the wisdom of God, His justice,
peace, love, resurrection, is in all. Through His own works and through the
manifold forms of virtues Christ will be in us in subjection to the Father. And
when, with vice renounced and crime at an end, one spirit in the heart of all
peoples has begun to cleave to God in all things, then will God be all and in
all.
182. Let us then shortly sum up our
conclusion on the whole matter. A unity of power puts aside all idea of a
degrading subjection. His giving up of power, and His victory as conqueror won
over death, have not lessened His power. Obedience works out subjection. Christ
has taken obedience upon Himself, obedience even to taking on Him our flesh,
the cross even to gaining our salvation. Thus where the work lies, there too is
the Author of the work. When therefore, all things have become subject to
Christ, through Christ's obedience, so that all bend their knees in His name,
then He Himself will be all in all. For now, since all do not believe, all do
not seem to be in subjection. But when all have believed and done the will of
God, then Christ will be all and in all. And when Christ is all and in all,
then will God be all and in all; for the Father abides ever in the Son. How,
then, is He shown to be weak, Who redeemed the weak?” (St. Ambrose of Milan, On
Faith, Book V; source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34045.htm )
These passages seem to indicate that Ambrose
indeed believed that all will human beings will turn towards God, given the
explicit contrast he makes with the present situation.
Ambrose also seemed to view the eschatological
punishments as spiritual and not physical[2]
(I haven’t find online sources for the following quote):
“What is the outer darkness? Does a
prison exist there, mine-like excavations in which the offender is locked away?
No; but rather, those who persist in remaining outside God’s promise and order
are in the outer darkness. Consequently, there is no actual gnashing of teeth
or a fire that is eternally fed by physical flames; there is no bodily worm.” (Expos.
Evang. Sec. Lucam VII, 204; quoted by Hans von Balthasar, Dare we hope
for the salvation of all, p. 38)
He also seems to suggest that the ‘fire’ in 1
Cor 3:10-15[3]
saves a human being in part and condemns a human being in part:
“uides quia et Paulus
adsistet, ut ipse commemorat. caue ne ligna, caue ne stipulam ad iudicium dei
tecum deferas, quae ignis exurat. caue ne, cum in uno aut duobus habeas quod
probetur, in pluribus operibus deferas quod offendat. si, cuius opus arserit, detrimentum
partietur, potest tamen per ignem et ipse saluari. unde colligitur, quia idem
homo et saluatur ex parte et condemnatur ex parte. cognoscentes itaque multa
esse iudicia opera nostra examinemus omnia. in uiro iusto graue est detrimentum
de graue operis alicuius incendium, in impio poena miserabilis. sint magis
omnia iudicia plena gratiae, plena florentium coronarum, ne forte, cum
trutinantur facta nostra, culpa praeponderet. (Exposition Psalmi CXVIII, 20, par. 58; Latin text
found here https://archidiacre.wordpress.com/2023/06/11/25-passages-bibliques-qui-indiquent-ou-suggerent-lexistence-du-purgatoire/
and here: https://archive.org/details/CSEL62/page/473/mode/1up
)
Google translation: “You see
that Paul also stands by, as he himself reminds us. Beware lest you bring wood,
beware lest you bring stubble with you to the judgment of God, which the fire
consumes. Beware lest, when you have something to prove in one or two, you
bring something to offend in many works. If the loss of one whose work is
burned is divided, yet he himself can be saved by fire. Whence it is gathered,
that the same man is both saved in part and condemned in part. Knowing
therefore that there are many judgments, let us examine all our works. In a
just man the loss is heavy from the weight of some work, the burning of some,
in an ungodly man the punishment is miserable. Rather let all judgments be full
of grace, full of flowering crowns, lest perhaps, when our deeds are weighed,
guilt should outweigh.”
(Exposition Psalmi CXVIII, 20, par. 58)
John Cassian (c. 360-435)
In the 13th conference of John Cassian, we find
the teaching of a certain abbot Chaeremon, who seems to clearly say (starting
from chapter 7 through the end of the 'conference') that:
(i)
God's salvific will is indeed universal,
(ii)
Those who perish do so against God's will and that
(iii)
God draws people to salvation even against their will.
The conference doesn't contain
an explicit statement of universal salvation as far as I can tell (e.g.
something like "all humans being will be saved", "at the end no
human being will perish", or “there will be an end to punishments” etc)
and indeed the text seems to assert that ‘perishing’ is a real possibility but (i)-(ii)-(iii),
unless I am missing the obvious, do seem to lean towards an universalist conclusion.
Here is chapter 7, for reference, where the text seems to affirm all the three
propositions above (underline mine, my references to the above propositions
are in brackets []):
For the purpose of God whereby He
made man not to perish but to live for ever, stands immovable. And when His
goodness sees in us even the very smallest spark of good will shining forth,
which He Himself has struck as it were out of the hard flints of our hearts, He
fans and fosters it and nurses it with His breath, as He wills all men to be
saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, for as He says, it is
not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones
should perish, and again it says: Neither will God have a soul to
perish, but recalls, meaning that he that is cast off should not altogether
perish. For He is true, and lies not when He lays down with an oath: As
I live, says the Lord God, for I will not the death of a sinner, but that he
should turn from his way and live. For if He wills not that one of His
little ones should perish, how can we imagine without grievous blasphemy that
He does not generally will all men, but only some instead of all to be saved? [(i)]Those then who perish,
perish against His will [(ii)], as He testifies against each one of them
day by day: Turn from your evil ways, and why will you die, O house of
Israel? And again: How often would I have gathered your
children together as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and you would
not; and: Wherefore is this people in Jerusalem turned away with a
stubborn revolting? They have hardened their faces and refused to
return. The grace of Christ then is at hand every day, which, while it wills
all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, calls all
without any exception, saying: Come unto Me, all you that labour and
are heavy laden, and I will refresh you. But if He calls not all generally
but only some, it follows that not all are heavy laden either with original or
actual sin, and that this saying is not a true one: For all have sinned
and come short of the glory of God; nor can we believe that death passed on
all men. And so far do all who perish, perish against the will of God [(ii)],
that God cannot be said to have made death, as Scripture itself
testifies: For God made not death, neither rejoices in the destruction
of the living. And hence it comes that for the most part when instead
of good things we ask for the opposite, our prayer is either heard but tardily
or not at all; and again the Lord vouchsafes to bring upon us even against our
will, like some most beneficent physician, for our good what we think is
opposed to it, and sometimes He delays and hinders our injurious purposes and
deadly attempts from having their horrible effects, and, while we are rushing
headlong towards death, draws us back to salvation, and rescues us without our
knowing it from the jaws of hell [(iii)]. (John Cassian, Conference
13.7, source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/350813.htm )
Does this mean that John Cassian hoped for
the salvation of all humans?
Rufinus of Aquleia (c. 340-410):
In his quarrel against Jerome of Stridon (c.
345-420), he wrote an Apology against Jerome where it is clear that he
sympathizes with the doctrine of universal salvation. Among other things he
says:
“These things which you 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. All those things you say one
after the other, without bringing in the person of that 'other' whom you
usually introduce when you speak of such matters cautiously, and like one
treading warily, so as to make men think that you had some hesitation in
deciding matters so secret and abstruse. Origen indeed, the man whose disciple
you do not deny that you are, and whose betrayer you confess yourself to be,
always did this, as we see, in dealing with such matters. But you, as if you
were the angel speaking by the mouth of Daniel or Christ by that of Paul, give
a curt and distinct opinion on each point, and declare to the ears of mortals
all the secrets of the ages to come. Then you speak thus to us: O multitude of
the faithful, place no faith in any of the ancients. If Origen had some
thoughts about the more secret facts of the divine purposes, let none of you
admit them. And similarly if one of the Clements said any such things, whether
he who was a disciple of the apostle or he of the church of Alexandria who was
the master of Origen himself; yes even if they were said by the great Gregory
of Pontus, a man of apostolic virtues, or by the other Gregory, of Nazianzus,
and Didymus the seeing prophet, both of them my teachers, than whom the world
has possessed none more deeply taught in the faith of Christ.” (Apology Against
Jerome, book 1, 43, source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27051.htm )
Here Rufinus seems to that that Clement of
Rome (died around 100), Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-210), Origen of
Alexandria (c. 185-254), Gregory the Wonderworker (c. 213-270), Gregory
of Nazianzus (c. 329-390), Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398) and formerly Jerome
himself taught that all rational creatures will be restored. Elsewhere, he
claims that supporters of ‘universal restoration’ do so in trying to address
the problem of theodicy and he himself admits, however, that it is unsure about
the truth of the doctrine:
“But now let us look at the other
points which he blames. He says that the doctrines in question are of heathen
origin, but in this judgment he condemns himself. He calls these doctrines
heathenish; yet he himself incorporates them into his works. He here makes a
mistake. Still, we ought to stretch out the hand to him, and not to press him
too far: for it is only because he soars so completely above the world on the
wings of his eloquence, and is borne along by the full tide of invective and
vituperation that he forgets himself and his reason loses its place. Do not be
so rash, my brother, as to condemn yourself unnecessarily. Neither you nor
Origen are at once to be set down among the heathen if, as you have yourself
said, you have written these things to vindicate the justice of God, and to
make answer to those who say that everything is moved by chance or by fate: if,
I say, it is from your wish to show that God's providence which governs all
things is just that you have said the causes of inequality have been acquired
by each soul through the passions and feelings of the former life which it had
in heaven; or even if you said that 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. Whether in this you spoke truly, let God
judge; anyhow such views seem to me to contain little of impiety against God,
and nothing at all of heathenism, especially if they were put forward with the
desire and intention of finding some means by which the justice of God might be
vindicated.” (Apology Against Jerome, book 2, 9; source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27052.htm )
Conclusions
In this text, I provided quotes from the texts
authored by Ambrose of Milan, John Cassian and Rufinus of Aquileia. We can say
safely that Rufinus decidedly showed sympathy for universalism but he himself
didn’t affirm certainty of it. Regarding Ambrose, some of his quotes seem to
imply universalism but the lack of controversy about them warrants caution.
Finally, the quoted text of John Cassian (conference XIII) does seem to espouse
doctrines that, taken together, seem to imply an universalist conclusion.
However, there is a lack of an explicit statement in this direction. Whether
this prove that Cassian’s text is inconsistent or that the author (or the
quoted teacher) didn’t draw the seemingly implied conclusion of what he was
saying or that, indeed, he was an universalist, we can’t say with certainty.
Appendix: Augustine of Hyppo’s exegesis of one
of his texts
Perhaps, interestingly, in his Retractationum
wrote:
“In alio libro, cuius est titulus:
De moribus Manichaeorum, illud quod dixi: Dei bonitas omnia deficientia sic
ordinat, ut ibi sint ubi congruentissime possint esse, donec ordinatis motibus
ad id recurrant unde defecerunt, non sic accipiendum est, tamquam omnia
recurrant ad id unde defecerunt, sicut Origeni visum est sed ea omnia quae recurrunt. Non enim
recurrunt ad Deum a quo defecerunt, qui sempiterno igne punientur, quamvis
omnia deficientia sic ordinentur, ut ibi sint ubi congruentissime possint esse,
quia et illi qui non recurrunt congruentissime in poena sunt.” (Rectractationum, 1.7.6, source: https://www.augustinus.it/latino/ritrattazioni/ritrattazioni_1_libro.htm
)
Google Translation:
“In another book, entitled: On the Manners of the
Manichaeans, what I said: The goodness of God so orders all failings that
they are where they can most appropriately be, until, with ordered movements,
they resort to that from which they failed, is not to be understood as if
everything resorts to that from which they failed, as Origen thought, but
rather as if everything resorts. For it is not those who resort to God from
whom they failed who will be punished with eternal fire, although all failings
are so ordered that they are where they can most appropriately be, because even
those who do not resort are most appropriately in punishment.”
It references this passage of an
earlier work:
“Unitatis est enim operatio, convenientia et concordia, qua sunt in quantum sunt ea quae composita sunt, nam simplicia per se sunt, quia una sunt; quae autem non sunt simplicia, concordia partium imitantur unitatem et in tantum sunt in quantum assequuntur. Quare ordinatio esse cogit, inordinatio ergo non esse; quae perversio etiam nominatur atque corruptio. Quidquid itaque corrumpitur, eo tendit, ut non sit. Iam vestrum est considerare quo cogat corruptio, ut possitis invenire summum malum; nam id est quo perducere corruptio nititur.
...
Sed Dei bonitas eo rem perduci non sinit et omnia deficientia sic ordinat, ut ibi sint ubi congruentissime possint esse, donec ordinatis motibus ad id recurrant unde defecerunt. Itaque etiam animas rationales, in quibus potentissimum est liberum arbitrium, deficientes a se in inferioribus creaturae gradibus ordinat, ubi esse tales decet. Fiunt ergo miserae divino iudicio, dum convenienter pro meritis ordinantur. Ex quo illud optime dictum est, quod insectari maxime soletis: Ego facio bona et creo mala. Creare namque dicitur condere et ordinare. Itaque in plerisque exemplaribus sic scriptum est: Ego facio bona et condo mala. Facere enim est, omnino quod non erat; condere autem, ordinare quod utcumque iam erat, ut melius magisque sit. Ea namque condit Deus, id est ordinat, cum dicit: Condo mala quae deficiunt, id est ad non esse tendunt, non ea quae ad id quo tendunt, pervenerunt. Dictum est enim: Nihil per divinam providentiam ad id ut non sit pervenire permittitur.” ( De
Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum, 2.6.8-2.7.9; source: https://www.augustinus.it/latino/costumi/costumi_2.htm
)
Google translation:
“For unity is the operation, the agreeableness and concord, by which they exist insofar as they are those things which are composed, for simple things are by themselves, because they are one; but those which are not simple, the concord of the parts imitate unity and exist insofar as they attain it. Wherefore order compels to be, disorder therefore not to be; which is also called perversion and corruption. Therefore whatever is corrupted tends to be that which is not. Now it is for you to consider what corruption compels, so that you may be able to find the greatest evil; for that is what corruption strives to lead to.
....
But the goodness of God does not allow things to be brought to that point, and so orders all things that are deficient, that they may be where they can be most fittingly, until, with ordered movements, they return to that from which they failed. Therefore, even rational souls, in whom free will is most powerful, He orders, failing of Himself, in the lower degrees of creation, where it is fitting that they should be such. Therefore, they become miserable by divine judgment, while they are suitably ordered according to their merits. From which is best said that which you are most accustomed to attack: I do good and I create evil. For to create is said to establish and to order. Therefore, in most copies it is written thus: I do good and I create evil. For to make is to do absolutely that which was not; but to establish is to order that which was already in some way, so that it may be better and more. For God creates, that is, He orders, when He says: I create evils which fail, that is, tend to non-existence, not those which tend to that to which they tend, have arrived. For it has been said: Nothing is permitted by divine providence to arrive at that which is not to be.”
Does this mean that the early Augustine was
a supporter of universalism? I would answer in the negative given his later
harsh criticism of it and the fact that he never says he was (considering the remarkable honesty that he shows in the Confessions, one would expect an admission of having endorsed an universalist view in earlier times). But interestingly, he felt the need to clarify that a passage
in his work wasn’t pointing to universalism.
[1] As an example, I analysed the case
of a passage of Jerome of Stridon’s Commentary on Jonah that can be suggestive of
an universalist reading of the text if one doesn’t read the quote that later
appears in the book that I provide: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/02/jerome-of-stridon-universalism-and.html
[2] Notably this is quite different from
Augustine’s view of physical torments. See book 21 of the ‘City of God’:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120121.htm
[3] “10 By
the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder,
and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For
no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus
Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation
using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their
work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to
light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of
each person’s work. 14 If what has been built
survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If
it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though
only as one escaping through the flames.” (1 Corinthians 3:10-15, NIV
translation, source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%203%3A10-15&version=NIV
)
Comments
Post a Comment