Possible traces of universalism in the writings of ancient Latin Christian theologians

Possible traces of universalism in the writings of Latin Christian theologians

Introduction

In what follows, I’ll present some evidence for the presence of a doctrine or a sympathy of universal reconciliation in some Latin Fathers. In particular, it is possible that St. Ambrose of Milan and St. John Cassian did endorse the doctrine, however the textual evidence from their writings is ambiguous. It is also possible that Rufinus and Aquleia and St. Melania the Elder also endorsed it. St. Jerome at a certain point clearly repudiated it after seemingly having endorsed it earlier and, finally, despite some claims to the contrary, St. Hilary of Poitiers opposed it.

St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 339-397)

Known as the teacher of St. Augustine, it is possible that he believed that all the baptized or even all human beings shall be saved but the evidence is ambiguous. For instance, he wrote:

‘‘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,source: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2024/09/09/an-open-letter-to-fr-stephen-de-young-what-is-orthodox-universalism/ )

In his book On Faith, he seems to endorse the same interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28, Philippians 2:10-11 etc that was given by Origen:

“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 )

*Update (16/07): In this link: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_fide_(Ambrosius)#5  there is the Latin text of book 5 of 'De Fide'. The number of paragraphs is a bit different.*

Ambrose also seemed to view the eschatological punishments as spiritual and not physical:

“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 saves a human being in part and condemns a human being in part:

Google translation: “Knowing therefore that all the judgments of God's justice will last for ever, let us beware lest our works displease and we begin to suffer eternal judgment, nor, if we have done any good, be dissolute with a backward attitude. We must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what he has done, whether good or evil. You see that Paul also stands, as he himself mentions. Beware lest you bring wood, beware lest you bring stubble with you to the judgment seat 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, whose work is burned, he suffers loss, yet he can himself be saved by the 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 great, the burning of a certain work is great, in an ungodly man the punishment is miserable. Rather, let all judgments be full of grace, full of blooming crowns, lest perhaps, when our deeds are weighed, guilt outweigh.” (Exposition Psalmi CXVIII, 20, par. 58)

 “Scientes igitur in aeternum mansura iudicia omnia iustitiae dei caueamus, ne opera nostra displiceant et aeternum incipiamus subire iudicium nec, si aliquid boni feeimus, resupino soluamur affectu. omnes oportet nos ante tribunal Christi adsistere, ut recipiat unusquisque quod gessit, siuebonum siue malu m. 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 patietur, potest tamen perignem etipse 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 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; see, for the Latin text: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Expositio_in_psalmum_David_CXVIII_(Ambrosius)/20 )

Significantly shortly before the above quote, Ambrose seems to envision an eventual end of punishments for the ‘rich man’ in the story of the ‘rich man and Lazarus’ in Luke 16:19-31. However, he seems to envisage temporal punishments for some sinners and unending punishments for the ‘strangers’ (this passage is also referenced by J.W. Hanson in the 18^th chapter of his book ‘Prevailing view’: https://www.tentmaker.org/books/prevailing/upd18.html ):

Google translation: “There is also hope in the mercy of the judge. The prison bars are harder than exile itself, and no return is forever barred to all who are banished. If this is what human judgment works, how much more should Christ's be sought by all! The judgment of the devil is deferred; that he may always be guilty of punishments, always bound by the chains of his own wickedness, and may forever bear the judgment of his own conscience. Therefore that rich man in the Gospel (Luke XII, 20), although a sinner is pressed by penal afflictions, that he may escape more quickly: but the devil is shown to have never come to judgment, to be in no way yet subject to punishments; except those which he himself, conscious of so many crimes, releases in perpetual fear, lest he should ever be secure. Nay, to speak more truly, the holy one comes to judgment, the wicked one does not come: For the wicked shall not rise again in judgment (Ps. I, 5). The one asks to be acquitted, the other to be released after being restrained. But he who is not judged, has not believed, but is himself punished by the judgment of his own wickedness. Among these emperors, barbarians are not punished for crimes they have committed in their own nation, because they are not their subjects, but are considered enemies with a more serious name, who are punished for their private crimes without question. So also Christ chastises His own whom He loves, and condemns strangers to eternal punishment as if bound by a general condemnation of impiety.” (Exposition Psalmi CXVIII, 20, par. 23-24)

“Spes est etiam de judicis misericordia. Ipso exsilio claustra carceris duriora sunt, nec reditus in perpetuum omnibus intercluditur relegatis. Si haec operatur humanum examen, quanto magis Christi est omnibus expetendum! Differtur diaboli judicium; ut sit semper in poenis reus, semper improbitatis suae innexus catenis, conscientiae suae in perpetuum sustineat ipse judicium. Ideo dives ille in Evangelio (Luc. XII, 20), 1229 licet peccator poenalibus urgetur aerumnis, ut citius possit evadere: diabolus autem nequaquam pervenisse ad judicium demonstratur, nequaquam adhuc poenis esse subjectus; nisi quas ipse tantorum conscius scelerum solvit timore perpetuo, ne aliquando securus sit. 24. Immo ut verius dicam, sanctus ad judicium venit, impius non venit: Quoniam non resurgunt impii in judicio (Psal. I, 5). Hic petit ut absolvatur, alius ut coercitus dimittatur. Qui autem non judicatur, non credidit, sed impietatis suae judicio ipse punitur. Apud imperatores istos non puniuntur sceleris rei barbari, quod in sua gente commiserint; quia non sunt sibi subditi, sed graviore nomine hostes habentur, qui sine interrogatione privati sceleris puniuntur. Ita et Christus suos castigat quos diligit, alienos tamquam generali damnatione impietatis adstrictos poenae donat aeternae” (Exposition Psalmi CXVIII, 20, par. 23-24)

This texts suggests that Ambrose wasn’t an universalist, after all (or that he changed his views). However, I still find interesting that here he seems to suggest that the ‘rich man’ might be released from punishments.

*Update (12/06): A reader made me notice that the Latin text has a reference to a passage of a 'rich man' in Luke 12 (Luke 12:13-21, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012%3A13-21&version=NIV , to be precise), which is different from the passage of the 'rich man and Lazarus' present in Luke 16 (Luke 16:19-31, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016%3A19-31&version=NIV). Here we read a parable of Jesus about a 'rich man' that is neglectful and is only interested in thinking about how to store as much of 'grain' as possible. He is then called 'fool' by God and his life is taken suddenly that 'very night'.  Hanson seemed to have assume that Ambrose referred to the passage in Luke 16, rather than that in Luke 12. 

However, the phrase "although a sinner is pressed by penal afflictions" suggests that the 'rich man' Ambrose referred to was tormented and there is no indication that the one in Luke 12 was being tormented. Moreover, even if Ambrose referred to the 'rich man' in Luke 12, that imaginary person is presented as a clear counter-example to not follow. If such a foolish 'rich man' will be tormented for a limited time, it is still means, in my opinion, that at least some sinners will receive temporary torments.

Also, Someone translated the whole commentary of Psalm 118 into English using ChatGPT: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Ambrose%2520of%2520Milan%2FExposition%2520On%2520Psalm%2520118.html *

*Update (17/07): I found two English translations ( https://schoolofmary.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Commentary-of-Saint-Ambrose-on-the-Gospel-According-to-Saint-Luke.pdf  and https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Ambrose%2520of%2520Milan%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Luke.html ) of Ambrose’s commentary on the Gospel of Luke here (already quoted above). They confirm the report of Balthasar noted above. Also, there is an intriguing part in which Ambrose comments on the parables of Luke 15 (I quote an excerpt):

“208. Who are they, this father, this shepherd, this woman? I would say that the father is God, the shepherd is Christ, and the woman is the Church. Christ carries you on His own shoulder, having taken on Himself your sins; the Church goes looking for you; the Father welcomes you. Asa shepherd He carries you, as a mother He searches for you, as a father He clothes you. In the first place comes mercy, then follows assistance, and thirdly there is reconciliation. Every detail fits perfectly into place: the Redeemer comes to our help, the Church assists us, the Father is reconciled with us. All is the same mercy, all is the same divine work, but grace varies according to the merits of each. The weary sheep is carried home by the shepherd; the lost coin is found; the son, truly sorry for what he has done, turns back and goes home to his father. So Scripture puts it very aptly when it says: “To both man and beast you give protection” (Ps 335: 7). What beasts are these? The prophet has told us that the seed of Israel is a seed of men, and that of Judah is a seed of beasts. (cfr. Jr 37:27). So Israel is saved as a man, and Judah is gathered home as a sheep. I would prefer to be a son rather than a sheep, for the sheep is carried home by the shepherd, but the son is welcomed by his father with feasting and rejoicing.

209. We ought to be happy, very happy, that the sheep which was lost in Adam is recovered in Christ. Christ's shoulders are the arms of the Cross. It is there that I lay down my burden of sins. On the noble neck of Christ's gibbet, I rest my head. Though one sheep is spoken of, it represents our race, for “we all form one body" (I Co 10:77). It is, of course, a body made up of many members, for as Scripture says: “You are the body of Christ, and members of His members" (1 Co 12:27). For “the Son of man came to save what was lost” (Lk 19:10), that is to say, since “all died in Adam, so all come to life in Christ” (I Co 15:22)

210. He must be a very rich shepherd, if we form only one percentage of His inheritance. He possesses innumerable flocks of angels, archangels, dominations, powers, thrones (cfr. Col 1:16), and many others, All these He leaves on the heights. Since these are rational beings they think it right to rejoice over the redemption of the human race. Is it not a further incentive to be good, when you consider that your conversion gives joy to woops of angels? Indeed, we should — each one of us try to obtain their patronage, and we should dread giving them offence. Friend, be a joy to the angels, and then they will surely rejoice when 'you come Home.” (Expos. Evang. Sec. Lucam VII, 208-10, translated by Fr. Michael Mee; source: https://schoolofmary.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Commentary-of-Saint-Ambrose-on-the-Gospel-According-to-Saint-Luke.pdf ) *

St. John Cassian (c. 360-435)

In the 13th conference of St. 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) that 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 (e.g. something like "all humans being will be saved", "at the end no human being will perish" etc) but (i)-(ii)-(iii), unless I am missing the obvious, do seem to imply universal salvation as a logical consequence.

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 Hewills 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? Those then who perish, perish against His will, 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, 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. (John Cassian, Conference 13.7, source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/350813.htm )

*Update (14/06): The same reader, to whom I want to express gratitude and that made me notice the reference, also brought to my attention this passage from Cassian's Conference 1, chapter 14  In this passage, a certain abbot Moses says:

"Wherefore every one while still existing in this body should already be aware that he must be committed to that state and office, of which he made himself a sharer and an adherent while in this life, nor should he doubt that in that eternal world he will be partner of him, whose servant and minister he chose to make himself here: according to that saying of our Lord which says If any man serve Me, let him follow Me, and where I am, there shall My servant also be. John 12:26 For as the kingdom of the devil is gained by consenting to sin, so the kingdom of God is attained by the practice of virtue in purity of heart and spiritual knowledge. But where the kingdom of God is, there most certainly eternal life is enjoyed, and where the kingdom of the devil is, there without doubt is death and the grave.
...

For that they are not idle after the separation from this body, and are not incapable of feeling, the parable in the gospel shows, which tells us of the beggar Lazarus and Dives clothed in purple, one of whom obtained a position of bliss, i.e., Abraham’s bosom, the other is consumed with the dreadful heat of eternal fire." (John Cassian, Conference 1.14, source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/350801.htm)

Perhaps Cassian wasn't an universalist and it is possible that even Chaeremon wasn't one: while universalism seems an implication of what Chaeremon is reported to have said, he never makes explicit statements (like 'all will be saved', 'the torments in the age to come will end' and so on). At the same time, though, it should be noted that Cassian is seemingly reporting the teachings of different people in his Conferences and it might well be the case that those people disagreed with each other. *

Rufinus of Aquleia (c. 340-410):

In his quarrel against St. Jerome (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 claims that that St. Clement of Rome (died around 100), Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-210), Origen of Alexandria (c. 185-254), St. Gregory the Wonderworker (c. 213-270), St. 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 )

I believe that it is possible that St. Melania the Elder (c. 350-410) also endorsed the ‘universalist’ doctrine or at least had a sympathy for it as she had close relation with Evagrius of Ponticus (c. 345-399) and Rufinus himself. Even the Wikipedia article about her claims that Jerome criticized her for her Origenist sympathies (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melania_the_Elder ).  

Jerome of Stridon

As for St. Jerome of Stridon (c.a. 342-420) in his early life, like Rufinus wrote, it seems clear that he did believe in a form of the doctrine of universal reconciliation as also Pope Benedict XVI (1927-2022) recognized[1]. In a letter written in 394 he wrote:

“5. Your third and last question relates to the passage in the same epistle where the apostle in discussing the resurrection, comes to the words: “for he must reign, till he has put all things under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he has put all things under his feet. But when he says, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him that God may be all in all.” I am surprised that you have resolved to question me about this passage when that reverend man, Hilary[2], bishop of Poictiers, has occupied the eleventh book of his treatise against the Arians with a full examination and explanation of it. Yet I may at least say a few words. The chief stumbling-block in the passage is that the Son is said to be subject to the Father. Now which is the more shameful and humiliating, to be subject to the Father (often a mark of loving devotion as in the psalm “truly my soul is subject unto God”) or to be crucified and made the curse of the cross? “For cursed is everyone that hangs on a tree.” If Christ then for our sakes was made a curse that He might deliver us from the curse of the law, are you surprised that He is also for our sakes subject to the Father to make us too subject to Him as He says in the gospel: “No man comes unto the Father but by me”, and “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” Christ then is subject to the Father in the faithful; for all believers, nay the whole human race, are accounted members of His body. But in unbelievers, that is in Jews, heathens, and heretics, He is said to be not subject; for these members of His body are not subject to the faith. But in the end of the world when all His members shall see Christ, that is their own body, reigning, they also shall be made subject to Christ, that is to their own body, that the whole of Christ's body may be subject unto God and the Father, and that God may be all in all. He does not say that the Father may be all in all but that God may be, a title which properly belongs to the Trinity and may be referred not only to the Father but also to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. His meaning therefore is that humanity may be subject to the Godhead. By humanity we here intend not that gentleness and kindness which the Greeks call philanthropy but the whole human race. Moreover when he says that God may be all in all, it is to be taken in this sense. At present our Lord and Saviour is not all in all, but only a part in each of us. For instance He is wisdom in Solomon, generosity in David, patience in Job, knowledge of things to come in Daniel, faith in Peter, zeal in Phinehas and Paul, virginity in John, and other virtues in others. But when the end of all things shall come, then shall He be all in all, for then the saints shall severally possess all the virtues and all will possess Christ in His entirety.” (Letter 55.5, c.a. 394, source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001055.htm ; underline mine)

In his commentary on Micah, he seems to interpret passages like Matthew 5:26 and Luke 12:59 in an ‘universalist’ way, i.e. indicating that the eschatological punishments have a limit (note also the expression ‘outer darkness’):

Every correction for the present time does not seem to be of joy, but of sorrow, and afterwards it will yield the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Therefore, feeling that the soul has sinned and has the wounds of sins, and lives in dead flesh, and needs cauterization, it steadfastly says to the physician: Burn my flesh, cut the wounds, constrict all the harmful humors and discharge with a harsh hellebore potion. It was my fault to be wounded; let it be my pain to endure so many torments, so that afterwards I may receive healing. And the true physician shows the cause of the medicine to the one who is already safe and secure,  and teaches that he has done rightly what he did. Finally, after torture and punishments, the soul is brought out from the outer darkness, and with the last coin restored, it says: I will see his justice, and I will speak: Your judgments are justified, O God. (Commentary on Micah 7:8-13, source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Jerome%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Micah.html ; underline mine)

In the commentary on Jonah, at first he seems to offer an universalist exegesis but later he rejects universal salvation because, according to him, it can’t be true that all shall be given, eventually, the same reward (source https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Jerome%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Jonah.html ):

"Verse 5b-6a. "the weeds were wrapped about my head. I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever:" LXX: 'my head has penetrated to the base of mountains; I descended to into the earth whose bars are eternal bonds'. No one doubts that the ocean covered Jonah's head, that he went down to the roots of mountains and came to the depths of the earth by which as bars and columns by the will of God the earthly sphere is supported. This earth about which is said elsewhere, "I consolidated her columns" [Ps. 74:4]. With regard to the Lord Saviour, according to the two editions, this seems to me to be what is meant. His heart and his head, that is the spirit that he thought worthy to take with a body for our safety, went down to the base of the mountains which were covered by waves; they were restrained by the will of God, the deep covered them, they were parted by the majesty of God. His spirit then went down into hell, into those places to which in the last of the mud, the spirits of sinners were held, so too the psalmist says: "they will go down to the depths of the earth, they will be the lot of wolves" [Ps. 62:10.11]. 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" [Is. 45:2], He went down to the roots of the mountains, and was enclosed by eternal bars to free all the prisoners." (Commentary on Jonah 2:5-6)

"Verses 6-9. "For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?" LXX: 'the message reached the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, took off his robe and covered himself with sackcloth, and he sat down upon the earth. And by the order of the king and his nobles it was announced throughout Nineveh, saying, it is forbidden for any man or beast or oxen or sheep to eat anything, to drink any water. Men and beasts were covered in sackcloth and cried out to the Lord mightily. Let each one turn away from his wicked practises and from the unfairness that was in his hands, saying, who knows if God will turn and repent, if he will not abandon the fierceness of his wrath so that we might not die?'. I know certain men for whom the king of Nineveh, (who is the last to hear the proclamation and who descends from his throne, and forgoes the ornaments of his former vices and dressed in sackcloth sits on the ground, he is not content with his own conversion, preaches penitence to others with his leaders, saying, "let the men and beasts, big and small of size, be tortured by hunger, let them put on sackcloth, condemn their former sins and betake themselves without reservation to penitence!) 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. To support this opinion they use this example of Daniel in which Nebuchadnezzar after seven years of penitence is returned to his former reign. [Dan. 4:24, 29, 33] But because this idea is not in the Holy Scripture and since it completely destroys the fear of God, (for men will slide easily into vices if they believe that even the devil, the creator of wickedness and the source of all sins, can be saved if he does penitence), we must eradicate this from our spirits. Let us remember though that the sinners in the Gospel are sent to the eternal fire [Mt. 25:41], 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" [Is. 66:24]. 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" [Ps. 114:5]. 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. "Mercy and Truth are to be found in our path; Justice and Peace are to be embraced" [Ps. 84:11]. Moreover if all spiritual creatures are equal and if they raise themselves up by their virtues to heaven, or by their vices take themselves to the depths, then after a long circuit and infinite centuries, if all are returned to their original state with the same worthiness to all conflicting, what difference will there be between the virgin and the prostitute? What distinction will there be between the mother of the Lord and (it is wicked to say) the victims of public pleasures? Will Gabriel be like the devil? Will the apostles be as demons? Will the prophets be as pseudoprophets? Martyrs as their persecutors? Imagine all that you will, increase by two-fold the years and the time, take infinite time for torture: if the end for all is the same, all the past is then nothing, for what is of importance to us is not what we are at any given moment, but what we will be forever more." (Commentary on Jonah 3:6-9)

In his late Dialogue Against the Pelagians, he distinguished the fate between the ‘impious sinners’ and ‘Christian sinners’ (this clearly implies that if he was an universalist he ceased to be one in later life):

“28. The argument of the next section is, "In the day of judgment, no mercy will be shown to the unjust and to sinners, but they must be consumed in eternal fire." Who can bear this, and suffer you to prohibit the mercy of God, and to sit in judgment on the sentence of the Judge before the day of judgment, so that, if He wished to show mercy to the unjust and the sinners, He must not, because you have given your veto? For you say it is written in the one hundred and fourth Psalm,⁸⁴ "Let sinners cease to be in the earth, and the wicked be no more." And in Isaiah,⁸⁵ "The wicked and sinners shall be burned up together, and they who forsake God shall be consumed." Do you not know that mercy is sometimes blended with the threatenings of God? He does not say that they must be burnt with eternal fires, but let them cease to be in the earth, and the wicked be no more. For it is one thing for them to desist from sin and wickedness, another for them to perish for ever and be burnt in eternal fire. And as for the passage which you quote from Isaiah, "Sinners and the wicked shall be burned up together," he does not add for ever. "And they who forsake God shall be consumed." This properly refers to heretics, who leave the straight path of the faith, and shall be consumed if they will not return to the Lord whom they have forsaken. And the same sentence is ready for you if you neglect to turn to better things. Again, is it not marvellous temerity to couple the wicked and sinners with the impious, for the distinction between them is great? Every impious person is wicked and a sinner; but we cannot conversely say every sinner and wicked person is also impious, for impiety properly belongs to those who have not the knowledge of God, or, if they have once had it, lose it by transgression. But the wounds of sin and wickedness, like faults in general, admit of healing. Hence, it is written,⁸⁶ "Many are the scourges of the sinner"; it is not said that he is eternally destroyed. And through all the scourging and torture the faults of Israel are corrected,⁸⁷ "For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth." It is one thing to smite with the affection of a teacher and a parent; another to be madly cruel towards adversaries. Wherefore, we sing in the first Psalm,⁸⁸ "The impious do not rise in the judgment," for they are already sentenced to destruction; "nor sinners in the counsel of the just." To lose the glory of the resurrection is a different thing from perishing for ever. "The hour cometh," he says,⁸⁹ "In which all that are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth: they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done ill unto the resurrection of judgment." And so the Apostle, in the same sense, because in the same Spirit, says to the Romans,⁹⁰ "As many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned under law, shall be judged by law." The man without law is the unbeliever who will perish for ever. Under the law is the sinner who believes in God, and who will be judged by the law, and will not perish. If the wicked and sinners are to be burned with everlasting fire, are you not afraid of the sentence you pass on yourself, seeing that you admit you are wicked and a sinner, while still you argue that a man is not without sin, but that he may be. It follows that the only person who can be saved is an individual who never existed, does not exist, and perhaps never will, and that all our predecessors of whom we read must perish. Take your own case. You are puffed up with all the pride of Cato, and have⁹¹ Milo's giant shoulders; but is it not amazing temerity for you, who are a sinner, to take the name of a teacher? If you are righteous, and, with a false humility, say you are a sinner, we may be surprised, but we shall rejoice at having so unique a treasure, and at reckoning amongst our friends a personage unknown to patriarch, prophet, and Apostle. And if Origen does maintain that no rational creatures ought to be lost, and allows repentance to the devil, what is that to us, who say that the devil and his attendants, and all impious persons and transgressors, perish eternally, and that⁹² Christians, if they be overtaken by sin, must be saved after they have been punished?” (Against the Pelagians, 1.28, source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Jerome%2FAgainst%2520the%2520Pelagians%2FBook%25201.html )

*Update (14/06) Another interesting passage from Jerome, this time from his commentary on Zechariah 9:

"(Verse 11, 12.) You also, in the blood of your covenant, have sent forth your prisoners from the pit in which there is no water. Return to the stronghold, you prisoners of hope. Even today I declare that I will restore double to you. LXX: And you, by the blood of your covenant, have sent forth your prisoners from the pit that has no water. You shall sit in the stronghold, prisoners of the assembly, and for one day of your journey I will restore double to you. After the prophet's message, or rather God the Almighty Father Himself, has announced to Zion and Jerusalem that her king will come to them, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey, and his dominion will be from sea to sea and from the rivers to the ends of the earth, he addresses Christ Himself, of whom the prophecy is, and speaks: You also, in the blood of your covenant or pact, have sent forth your prisoners from the pit, in which there is no water. It is understood in this way: In the blood of your passion, you freed those who were held captive in the prison of hell, where there is no mercy, through your mercy. Finally, after the Lord rose, those who were held captive by the sins of Adam, or, as some would have it, the stains of error, and the chains of death, rose with him and appeared in the holy city. Concerning this blood of the covenant, he himself, indicating his coming passion, said to the disciples: Take and drink from this all of you: for this is the chalice of the new testament in my blood (Matthew 26:27-28). In this prefiguration, a lake that does not have water, Joseph was sent by his brothers into the lake (Gen. XXXVII): and Daniel (Dan. VI) and Jeremiah by the Chaldeans and the people of Judah: Benaiah also went down into the lake in the time of snow and cold, to kill a lion there (II Sam. XXIII, 20). But Jeremiah was not thrown into the water of the lake; rather, he was thrown into the mire and mud of the lake, which could suffocate him more than refresh one who was thirsty (Jerem. XXXVII and XXXVIII). Where it is written in the psalm: I am stuck in the mire of the deep, and there is no substance (Ps. LXVIII). In this lake of hell, that once rich man with a purple robe dwelled, whose boastful tongue was consumed by the fires of punishment, and he had no refreshment of any waters to such an extent that he begged for the cooling of water from the tip of the poor man's finger dipped in water (Luke XVI). And again, a word is directed to those who were bound and in need of the mercy of Christ: Turn to the stronghold, you prisoners of hope. And the meaning is: You who are now bound and held in a cruel and terrible hell, who hope for the release of your chains in the coming of Christ, turn to the stronghold, whether you will sit in the stronghold, of which it is written: The stronghold of the holy is the fear of the Lord; so that you may learn: Be to me a protector God and a fortified place, that you may save me (Ps. LXX, 3), and let the prophet also mention you: Behold, a strong city will set our salvation as its wall and bulwark (Isai. XXVI, 1). But this fortress, to which God encourages those bound by hope or bound in hope to the Church, we should not understand as anything other than the dwelling place of paradise, into which the first thief entered with the Lord (Luke 23); and for this reason they are called to the fortress by Zechariah, because even then and from that time the Lord promised that, for a brief tribulation, they would receive eternal rewards. Or, as it is read in the LXX: for one day of your pilgrimage, I will repay you double. For in comparison with eternity, everything that we suffer in the world should be called one day, not of habitation, but of pilgrimage: because we are strangers and pilgrims, like all our fathers. For in the present momentary and light tribulation, an excessive weight of eternal glory works in us, not looking at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen (2 Corinthians 4). For the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." (Commentary on Zechariah, 9:11-12, source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Jerome%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Zechariah.html )

According to another site (https://www.fourthcentury.com/jerome-commentary-on-zechariah/), the commentary dates between 390 and 406. *

St. Hilary of Poitiers

As for St. Hilary of Poitiers (c.a. 310-367), it is clear that his reading of 1 Cor 15 isn’t universalist (in contrast to St. Jerome’s reading in Letter 55 or St. Ambrose’s reading):

“32. The meaning of the abolishing of every power which is against Him is not obscure The prince of the air, the power of spiritual wickedness, shall be delivered to eternal destruction, as Christ says, Depart from Me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which My Father hath prepared far the devil and his angels⁵⁴ . The abolishing is not the same as the subjecting. To abolish the power of the enemy is to sweep away for ever his prerogative of power, so that by the abolition of his power is brought to an end the rule of his kingdom. Of this the Lord testifies when He says, My kingdom is not of this world⁵⁵ : as He had once before testified that the ruler of that kingdom is the prince of the world, whose power shall be destroyed by the abolition of the rule of His kingdom⁵⁶ . A subjection, on the other hand, which implies obedience and allegiance, is a proof of submission and mutability.

33. So when their authority is abolished, His enemies shall be subjected: and so subjected, that He shall subject them to Himself. Moreover He shall so subject them to Himself, that God shall subject them to Him. Was the Apostle ignorant, think you, of the force of these words in the Gospel, No one cometh to Me, except the Father draw Him to Me⁵⁷ which stand side by side with those other words, No one cometh unto the Father but by Me⁵⁸ : just as in this Epistle Christ subjects His enemies to Himself, yet God subjects them to Him, and He witnesses throughout this, his work of subjection, that God is working in Him? Except through Him there is no approach to the Father, but there is also no approach to Him, unless the Father draw us. Understanding Him to be the Son of God, we recognise in Him the true nature of the Father. Hence, when we learn to know the Son, God the Father calls us: when we believe the Son, God the Father receives us; for our recognition and knowledge of the Father is in the Son, Who shews us in Himself God the Father, Who draws us, if we be devout, by His fatherly love into a mutual bond with His Son. So then the Father draws us, when, as the first condition, He is acknowledged Father: but no one comes to the Father except through the Son, because we cannot know the Father, unless faith in the Son is active in us, since we cannot approach the Father in worship, unless we first adore the Son, while if we know the Son, the Father draws us to eternal life and receives us. But each result is the work of the Son, for by the preaching of the Father, Whom the Son preaches, the Father brings us to the Son, and the Son leads us to the Father. The statement of this Mystery was necessary for the more perfect understanding of the present passage, to shew that through the Son the Father draws us and receives us; that we might understand the two aspects, the Son subjecting all to Himself, and the Father subjecting all to Him. Through the birth the nature of God is abiding in the Son, and does that which He Himself does. What He does God does, but what God does in Him, He Himself does: in the sense that where He acts Himself we must believe the Son of God acts; and where God acts, we must perceive the properties of the Father's nature existing in Him as the Son.

34. When authorities and powers are abolished, His enemies shall be subjected under His feet. The same Apostle tells who are these enemies, As touching the Gospel they are enemies for your sakes, but as touching the election they are beloved far the fathers' sake⁵⁹ . We remember that they are enemies of the cross of Christ; let us remember also that, because they are beloved for the fathers' sake, they are reserved for the subjection, as the Apostle says, I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel shall be saved, even as it is written, There shall come out of Sion a Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: and this is the covenant firm Me to them, when I have taken away their sins⁶⁰ . So His enemies shall be subjected under His feet.

35. But we must not forget what follows the subjection, namely, Last of all is death conquered by Him⁶¹ . This victory over death is nothing else than the resurrection from the dead: for when the corruption of death is stayed, the quickened and now heavenly nature is made eternal, as it is written, For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in strife. O death, where is thy sting? O death, where is thy strife⁶² ? In the subjection of His enemies death is Conquered; and, death conquered, life immortal follows. The Apostle tells us also of the special reward attained by this subjection which is made perfect by the subjection of belief: Who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of His glory, according to the works of His power, whereby He is able to subject all things to Himself⁶³ . There is then another subjection, which consists in a transition from one nature to another, for our nature ceases, so far as its present character is concerned, and is subjected to Him, into Whose form it passes. But by `ceasing' is implied not an end of being, but a promotion into something higher. Thus our nature by being merged into the image of the other nature which it receives, becomes subjected through the imposition of a new form.” (On the Trinity, book 11.32-34, source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Hilary%2520of%2520Poitiers%2FOn%2520the%2520Trinity%2FBook%252011.html )

This seems clearly different from the exegesis offered by St. Ambrose, who didn’t comment on the difference between ‘abolished’ and ‘subjected’.

*Update(16/07) Actually, the following excerpt is more clear about Hilary's view:

"28. … Suppose then we interpret the end as a dissolution, we are forced to acknowledge that, since there is an end for the blessed and for the wicked, the issue levels the godly with the ungodly, for the appointed end of both is a common annihilation. 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.

29. We can therefore no longer doubt that by the end is meant an ultimate and final condition and not a dissolution. "(On the Trinity, book 11.28-9, source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Hilary%2520of%2520Poitiers%2FOn%2520the%2520Trinity%2FBook%252011.html )

 Clearly, this text presents blessedness and punishment as irrevocable.*

*Update(17/07) I am having second thoughts about my reading of Hilary's distinction between 'subjected' and 'abolished'. In paragraph 40 he says: 

“40. In His body, the game body though now made glorious, He reigns until the authorities are abolished, death conquered, and His enemies subdued. This distinction is carefully preserved by the Apostle: the authorities and powers are abolished, the enemies are subjected⁷³ . Then, when they are subjected, He, that is the Lord, shall be subjected to Him that subjecteth all things to Himself, that God may be all in all⁷⁴ , the nature of the Father's divinity imposing itself upon the nature of our body which was assumed."(On the Trinity, book 11.40, source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Hilary%2520of%2520Poitiers%2FOn%2520the%2520Trinity%2FBook%252011.html)

In paragraph 11.32, he similarly distinguishes subjection and abolition:

“32. The meaning of the abolishing of every power which is against Him is not obscure The prince of the air, the power of spiritual wickedness, shall be delivered to eternal destruction, as Christ says, Depart from Me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which My Father hath prepared far the devil and his angels⁵⁴ . The abolishing is not the same as the subjecting. To abolish the power of the enemy is to sweep away for ever his prerogative of power, so that by the abolition of his power is brought to an end the rule of his kingdom. Of this the Lord testifies when He says, My kingdom is not of this world⁵⁵ : as He had once before testified that the ruler of that kingdom is the prince of the world, whose power shall be destroyed by the abolition of the rule of His kingdom⁵⁶ . A subjection, on the other hand, which implies obedience and allegiance, is a proof of submission and mutability.” (On the Trinity, book 11.32, source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Hilary%2520of%2520Poitiers%2FOn%2520the%2520Trinity%2FBook%252011.html)

So, Hilary seems to say that the enemies will be ‘subjected’ (and hence saved?) whereas the ‘powers’ will be ‘abolished’. In paragraph 11.35 he seems to identify who are the enemies that will be 'subjected':

“When authorities and powers are abolished, His enemies shall be subjected under His feet. The same Apostle tells who are these enemies, As touching the Gospel they are enemies for your sakes, but as touching the election they are beloved far the fathers' sake⁵⁹ . We remember that they are enemies of the cross of Christ; let us remember also that, because they are beloved for the fathers' sake, they are reserved for the subjection, as the Apostle says, I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel shall be saved, even as it is written, There shall come out of Sion a Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: and this is the covenant firm Me to them, when I have taken away their sins⁶⁰ . So His enemies shall be subjected under His feet.” (On the Trinity, book 11.35, source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Hilary%2520of%2520Poitiers%2FOn%2520the%2520Trinity%2FBook%252011.html)

So, here we read that the “enemies of the Cross” will be ‘subjected’ rather than ‘abolished’. Is he referring to only the unbelieving Jews? To all people?  

Hilary seems to clearly deny the ‘subjection’ of fallen angels. However, I’m not sure about the fate of ‘wicked human beings’. Paragraphs 11.28-9 seem to imply that the ‘end’ of both the blessed and the wicked will be definitive. But here the “enemies of the cross” are said to be eventually ‘subjected’ and given the distinction he makes in paragraph 11.32, it does appear to me that he is suggesting that the ‘subjected’ will be saved. To me it isn’t clear anymore that he believed that some human enemies will be ‘abolished’ rather than ‘subjected’.

Given the unclarity of the whole passage, I would still tentatively class Hilary as a supporter of ‘eternal conscious torment’ as a possible fate for human beings but I acknowledge that there is some uncertainty about his views.*

St. Augustine (354-430)

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/index2.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.” ( De moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum , 2.6.8-2.7.9; source: https://www.augustinus.it/latino/costumi/index2.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 the matter 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, by ordered movements, they return to that from which they failed. Therefore, even rational souls, in whom free will is most powerful, He orders, failing by Himself, to the lower degrees of creation, where it is fitting that they should be. Therefore, they become miserable in the divine judgment, while they are suitably ordered according to their merits.”

Does this mean that the early St. Augustine was a supporter of universalism? Not necessarily but interestingly, he used the same arguments used by Origen and felt the need to clarify. Perhaps, on the use of his arguments he was influence by his teacher St. Ambrose.

 

 

---

[1] “Nevertheless, Origen could not wholly let go of his hope that, in and through this divine suffering, the reality of evil is taken prisoner and overcome, so that it loses its quality of definitiveness. In that hope of his, a long line of fathers were to follow him: Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus of Alexandria, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Evagrius Ponticus, and, at least on occasion, Jerome of Bethlehem also.” (source: https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/hell-purgatory-heaven-in-eschatology-death-and-the-eternal-life/ )

[2] Interesting reference to St. Hilary of Poitiers (c.a. 310-367) who, however, seemed to read 1 Cor 15:21-28 in an non-universalist way. Indeed, he seems to say that there is a distinction between the enemies that will be ‘subjected’, i.e. saved, and those who will be ‘abolished’ (Book 11.28-40, On the Trinity, source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330211.htm; see later ).