Was St. Ambrose of Milan an Universalist? A case study

 

Was St. Ambrose of Milan an Universalist? A case study

While studying the eschatological views of the Church Fathers, one of the most frustrating finding was to find out how ambiguous was the textual evidence. As an example, I’ll treat St. Ambrose of Milan (fl. 4th century). As far as I know, unlike, say, his contemporaries or near contemporaries St. Gregory of Nyssa[1], Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia[2], or even Jerome of Stridon[3] (before his explicit repudiation of Origen of Alexandria and his followers) his writings never created controversy in the matter of eschatology. As far as I know, no one in Antiquity ever quoted (approvingly or disapprovingly) as an universalist. In one passage of his Commentary on Psalms he seems quite clear that some will not be punished with a corrective aim:

 “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)[4]

Here, St. Ambrose seems clear: God will indeed punish therapeutically but only those who are ‘His own whom He loves’ and this seems to refer to a subset of humanity, not the whole (whreas the others are punished forever). However, there is another text, hi ‘On Fide’ in which he seems to, instead, support an universalist view:

“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?”[5] (St. Ambrose of Milan, On Faith, Book V; source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34045.htm)

Here, he seems to support universalism: “one spirit in the hearts of all people” and the fact that he explicitly distinguish the present state in which some are unbelievers and the final state in which all will be believers.

So, the textual evidence is indeed mixed and the answer to the question: “Was St. Ambrose an universalist or a supporter of endless conscious torment?” remains unknown. Perhaps he did change his mind (after all, we all do). Perhaps, the ‘universalist’ passages weren’t meant to be read in ‘universalist’ way. Perhaps when he wrote as a supporter of unending punishments, he was using a pedagogical language. The fact that there seems to be no controversy in Ancient and Medieval times regarding his views makes the identification of him as an universalist rather difficult. And yet one gets this impression when reading some of his passages. Anyway, this lack of discussion in Ancient and Medieval times is quite frustrating to me.

 

 


[4] Translated via Google from the Latin text: “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; source: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Expositio_in_psalmum_David_CXVIII_(Ambrosius)/20 ). Another translation via ChatGPT is available here: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Ambrose%2520of%2520Milan%2FExposition%2520On%2520Psalm%2520118.html 

[5] Latin text: “182. Sicut nos ergo in illo sedemus per corporeae communitatem naturae, ita et ille qui per susceptionem nostrae carnis maledictum pro nobis factus est; cum maledictum utique in benedictum Filium Dei non cadat: ita, inquam, et ille per obedientiam omnium erit subjectus in nobis; cum Gentilis crediderit, cum Judaeus agnoverit, quem crucifixit; cum Manichaeus adoraverit, quem in carne venisse non credidit; cum Arianus omnipotentem confessus fuerit, quem negavit; cum postremo in omnibus fuerit sapientia Dei, justitia, pax, charitas, resurrectio. Per sua igitur opera Christus et genera diversa virtutum erit in nobis Patri subditus; cum vitiis abdicatis, et feriante delicto, unus in omnibus Deo coeperit in uno sensu populorum omnium spiritus adhaerere, tunc erit Deus omnia et in omnibus (I Cor. XV, 28).

…

183. Conclusionem igitur totius absolutionis breviter colligamus. Unitas potestatis opinionem injuriosae subjectionis excludit: evacuatio  potestatum, et victoria de morte quaesita, triumphatoris utique non minuit potestatem: subjectionem operatur obedientia, obedientiam Christus assumpsit, obedientia usque ad crucem, crux ad salutem. Ergo ubi opus, ibi et auctor est operis. Cum igitur omnia Christo subjecta fuerint per obedientiam Christi, ut in nomine ejus omnes genu flectant, tunc erit ipse omnia in omnibus; nunc enim, quia non omnes credunt, non videntur omnes esse subjecti. Cum omnes ergo crediderint, et Dei fecerint voluntatem, erit omnia et in omnibus Christus: cum Christus fuerit omnia et in omnibus, erit omnia et in omnibus Deus; quia Pater manet semper in Filio. Quomodo ergo infirmitatis arguitur, qui redemit infirmos? ” (source: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_fide_(Ambrosius)#5%C2%A0 )

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ in Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ [1] in  Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia Introduction In this text, witnesses of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s and Diodore of Tarsus’ eschatological ‘universalist’ views, are reported.  As shall we see, the attestations of Diodore’s endorsement of a form of apokatastasis are always accompanied by an attestation of his disciple, Theodore, endorsing the same view. All these common testimonies are from Syriac sources, both Eastern-Syriac - Isaac of Nineveh (fl. 7 th century in his Second Part, 39.7-14; for Theodore only in his Second Part, 3.3.94 ), Solomon of Basra (fl. 13 th century in his book of the Bee, 60 ), Theodore bar Konai (fl. 8 th century in his Liber Scholiorum 2.63 ) - and Western-Syriac - John of Dara (fl. 9 th century in his On the Resurrection of Human Bodies 4.21 ). There is a brief comparison of a passage in Isaac’s Third Part (discourse 6) about eschatological punishments and the cont...
Read more

On the presence of universalism in East Syrian tradition

On the presence of universalism [1] in East Syrian tradition East Syrian theologians were influenced by Diodore of Tarsus (fl. 4 th century), his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia (fl. 4-5 th century) who is called the ‘Interpreter/Exegete/Expositor’ in the East Syrian church (also called ‘Church of the East’), and Evagrius Ponticus (fl. 4 th century) [2] .  The point of this text is to show that there a was significant prevalence of the idea in this tradition (this doesn’t necessarily mean that it was a majority view). For more details about Diodore and Theodore see my previous post: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/01/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of_28.html An updated version of this post can be found here:  https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/03/on-presence-of-universalism-in-east.html  A testimony of an opponent: Babai the Great (fl. 6 th century): Let me start with the testimony of an opponent of ‘universalism’ in the East-Syrian Ch...
Read more

On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors

  On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors Introduction In what follows, I’ll present some evidence for the presence of a doctrine or a sympathy of universalism (i.e. the belief that all human beings will be ultimately saved) in some Latin Fathers. There are some suggestive passages in the writings of Ambrose of Milan and John Cassian. Also, Rufinus of Aquileia, in his quarrel against Jerome of Stridon, while admitting that the fate of the wicked is a mystery shows a clear sympathy for the doctrine of universalism. However, it should be noted that none of the figures I quote in this post have been cited as universalists (as far as I know) before the 19 th century and, also, the interpretation of their texts never seem to have caused controversy among later writers (again, as far as I know) about the possible presence of genuine universalist beliefs or interpolations in their texts. While this fact alone doesn’t exclude an universalist...
Read more