Possible traces of universalism in the writings of Latin Christians
Possible
traces of universalism in the writings of Latin Christians
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
seems that St. Ambrose of Milan and St. John Cassian did endorse the doctrine.
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 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, he
seemed to have believed that all the baptized or even all human beings shall be
saved.
‘‘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, he seems to
endorse the same interpretation of 1 Cor 15:28 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 )
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 18th 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 the 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. However, I still find interesting that here he seems
to suggest that the ‘rich man’ might be released from punishments.
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 )
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 doctrine 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 ).
As 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 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’:
“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 )
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’.
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)
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.” ( DE
MORIBUS ECCLESIAE CATHOLICAE ET DE MORIBUS MANICHAEORUM, 2.6.8-2.7.9)
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.”
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 11.32-34, On the Trinity, source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330211.htm; see later ).
Comments
Post a Comment