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 is possible that St. Ambrose of Milan and St.
John Cassian did endorse the doctrine, however the textual evidence from their
writings is ambiguous. A similar ambiguity can be found in the writings of Ambrosiaster.
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,
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 )
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.
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 (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.
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
Ambrose also seemed to view the eschatological
punishments as spiritual and not physical[1]:
“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)
I found two English translations of Ambrose’s
commentary on the Gospel of Luke here (already quoted above). They confirm the
report of Balthasar noted above about the nature of Hell’s torments[2].
Also, there is an intriguing part in which Ambrose comments on the parables of Luke
15 (I quote two excerpts):
“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 )
Here is how
the ChatGPT translation renders the passage:
“208. Who are these, father, pastor, woman?
Isn't God the Father, Christ the shepherd, and the Church the woman? Christ
carries you with his body, who has taken your sins upon himself, the Church
seeks, the Father receives. Like a shepherd gathers, like a mother inquires,
like a father clothes. The first is mercy, the second is intercession, the
third is reconciliation. Each corresponds to the other: the redeemer helps, the
Church intercedes, the author reconciles. The same mercy of divine work, but a
different grace for our merits. The weary sheep is called back by the shepherd:
the lost coin is found: the son returns to the Father following in his
footsteps, and full of repentance, he returns from his condemned error. Hence
it is well written: You will save men and animals, O Lord (Psalm 35:8). What
are these animals? The prophet said: The seed of Israel in the seed of men, and
Judah in the seed of animals (Jeremiah 31:27). So Israel is saved like a man,
like a sheep Judah is gathered. Therefore, I would rather be a son than a
sheep; for a sheep is sought by the shepherd, but the Son is honored by the
Father.
209. Let us therefore rejoice, because that sheep which was lost in Adam is
raised up in Christ. The shoulders of Christ are the arms of the cross. There I
have put off my sins, there I have rested on the noble neck of the gallows.
That sheep is one in kind, not in species: For we are all one body, but have
many members. (I Cor. X, 17); and therefore it is written: But you are the body
of Christ, and members of member (Ibid., 15). The Son of man came to save what
was lost (Luc. XIX, 10); namely, all. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ
all shall be made alive (I Cor. XV, 22).
210. Therefore, the rich shepherd of whom we all are a hundredth part possesses
both Angels and Archangels, Dominions, Powers, Thrones, and countless other
hosts whom he has left in the mountains. And since they are rational, it is not
without reason that they rejoice in the redemption of humanity. Although this
also promotes the incentives of goodness, if each person believes that their
conversion will be pleasing to the assemblies of angels, whose protection they
should either seek or fear offending. And let the angels of joy rejoice at your
return.” (Expos. Evang. Sec. Lucam VII, 208-10, translated by ChatGPT;
source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Ambrose%2520of%2520Milan%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Luke.html
)
At the same
time, Ambrose seems to have also interpreted texts like 1 Timothy 2:3-4 and 1
Timothy 4:10 in a non-universalist way:
“Take another example: How good, he says, is
the God of Israel to those with pure hearts! Is God not good to everyone then?
Indeed, He is good to everyone, because He is the Savior of all, especially the
faithful [cf. 1 Tim 4:10]; and for this reason the Lord Jesus came, to save
what was lost: He came to take away the sin of the world, to heal our wounds.
But because not everyone seeks the medicine, but many refuse it, lest the force
of the ulcer be aggravated by the remedies, He who desires to heal does not
compel the unwilling. Therefore, those who seek medicine receive health; but
those who reject the physician and do not seek him cannot perceive the goodness
of the physician whom they have not experienced. However, he who is treated
is also healed; therefore, the physician is good to those whom he has healed.
Therefore, God is good to those whom he has forgiven their sins; but how can
one estimate a good physician whom they reject, who has an incurable wound in
the ulcer of their mind? Therefore, the Apostle explained excellently, as we
have stated, that God is good to all, for he wishes all men to be saved (I
Timothy 2:4); and this privilege of divine goodness is especially preserved for
the faithful, to whom the will of God helps and the grace aids. But the
Psalmist, saying: How good is God to Israel, to those who are of upright heart!
related it to their sentiment, who do not think otherwise about God, except
that He is good in all things and in everything.” (Four books on the Interrogation
of Jacob and David, book 4, chapter 2; translated by ChatGPT; source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Ambrose%2520of%2520Milan%2FInterrogation%2520of%2520Job%2520and%2520David.html
; bolded mine)
The
ambiguous eschatology of Ambrosiaster
Ilaria
Ramelli, in her book 'A Larger Hope, vol. 1', writes this short passage
on Ambrosiaster, an anonymous Christian writer of the 4th century whose works
were often attributed to St. Ambrose of Milan:
"Commenting on Philippians 2:10,
Ambrosiaster, an anonymous imitator of Ambrose, interprets Paul’s words in the
sense that “the Father has granted to the Son that, after the crucifixion, all
beings should be saved in the Son’s name.” And commenting on Ephesians 1:9–10,
he foretells that “every being, in heaven and on earth, will attain the
knowledge of Christ and be restored to the state in which it was
created.”" (I. Ramelli, A Larger Hope, vol. 1; p. 152)
Here are
the quotes that Ilaria Ramelli refers to:
"(Verses 10, 11, 12) For this reason also
God exalted him and gave him the name which is above every name, so that at the
name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth
and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is
Lord, to the glory of God the Father. It shows what and how much humility
deserves; so that we may seek it more, trampling down pride. Therefore, Solomon
says: God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble (Prov. III, 34).
Therefore, the Lord said: 'Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever
humbles himself will be exalted' (Luke 14:11). This, therefore, is humility, if
someone does not defend for themselves what they do not know is owed to them.
In the end, that Pharisee (Luke 18:11 et seq.), speaking the truth about
himself, was said to have exalted himself; and thus, he was humbled: but Christ
did more, who, although He is God, became flesh and humbled Himself to men. Now
let us see how the name given to Christ, which is above every name, as if the
Son of God lacked or was imperfect; for he who lacks is imperfect. If,
therefore, He was born perfect, how did He lack anything? The Son of God, born
of God the Father, who denies this is an Arian; for before His passion, He
showed Himself equal to God the Father, as I have mentioned above. Hence, it is
evident that He was born perfect; for in His birth, He seems to have attained
all things. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have
been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you
were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the
body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him
in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the
powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead
in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive
together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record
of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside,
nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities[a] and put them
to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. Therefore let no one pass
judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or
a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the
substance belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism
and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without
reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the
whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows
with a growth that is from God. Moreover, in this letter, he reveals all these
things, saying that there are celestial, terrestrial, and infernal things: for
there are no others. However, it seems to some that the name "man"
has been given to him, which is above every name, and which does not agree with
any kind or reason. For if Christ, the Son of God, is the same both God and
man, then God could not have become man, but remaining God, he would have
needed these things which he possessed. Or if, according to his humanity, he
needed these things which are God's, the Son of God himself would have given to
himself, which were lacking to him according to his humanity. Indeed, this is
said because of ignorance. And why is the Father said to have given, when he
himself, who had become a man, had nothing? Or could not the divinity of the
Son provide for his own body and soul, which were lacking? But perhaps because
all things are from God the Father, therefore he is said to have given. If,
therefore, all things are from the Father, why is it not said that he gave all
things to his Son through generation? And although he has begotten a Son equal
to himself, the order still requires that all things be done in the name of the
Father. This the Father granted to the Son after the cross, so that all
things may be saved in the name of the Son. Finally, the Lord says
concerning the disciples to the Father: Father, those whom you have given me, I
have kept; they were yours, and you have given them to me (John 17:12). And to
the disciples he says: Until now you have asked nothing in my name; ask, and
you will receive (John 16:24). Therefore, the Son received this in order to
manifest after the cross what he received from the Father when he was begotten.
For He then received a name from the Father, when He began to be known as a
creature; for what He did beforehand, and what He received, is known, for the
things which He did, before He did them. In short, before the cross He said:
All things are delivered unto Me by My Father (Matt. 11:27). How then can this
be referred to His body, that the name of God should be given to the body, when
it is manifest that Christ is both man and God; for neither is it fitting that
God should be changed into flesh, nor is it possible that flesh should be made
God? But perhaps, in order that by adoption God may be Christ, and this is the
color; for Christ will begin to be truly God from part, and from part adoptive,
or two gods. But Scripture signifies something else: for it signifies that
those who emptied themselves, who received the form of a servant, who became
man in the likeness of man, who obeyed the Father, have been given. If man
obeyed God the Father, what great thing is it that the Apostle said? But this
is great, because although he was equal, he obeyed. And what praise is there,
if he was made in the likeness of man; that he be called man made in the
likeness of man? But it cannot happen; for no one becomes like someone else,
unless he is different, before he is made like the one he wants to be like; for
he was made like someone by cause, not by substance. And who is it that emptied
himself? Man. Therefore, he had. And how did he receive? But what could a weak
thing, like man, empty himself? And in the form of God, was man indeed? But
perhaps man was in the form of the Son of God. Now, let us consider, in whose
form was the Son of God? And if indeed man was in the form of God, that is, the
Son of God, then he was perfect before the passion. Therefore, he did not
receive anything after the passion. But let us see what is written about him:
For this reason, God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that
is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in
heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Let us now consider these words
and reflect on the power of language. Certainly, the name that is above every
name is the name of God. But if by nature this name is not certain, then it is
not above every name; for a proper name is only in the word itself, not in the
nobility of nature. And for a creature to not bow down to God, it must not be
created but rather begotten, not adopted. And how can it be that man is in the
glory of God the Father? Even if God is adopted as man, he cannot be in the
glory of God the Father; for this belongs to him who is born of God. For to be
in the glory of God the Father is nothing else than to be equal to God; so that
the glory may be one of the Father and of the Son, through their common
substance and power; for this is the unity of nature. What, I ask, is contrary
to this if the Son is said to have received the gift from the Father, since all
things of the Son are from the Father, from whom they are believed to exist?
But we call the substance of God nature, because Christ is born of it."
(Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Philippians 2:10-2; translated via ChatGPT;
source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Ambrosiaster%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Philippians.html ; bolded mine)
"(Ver. 9, 10.) To make known to us the
mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in
Himself, for the administration of the fullness of times, to restore all things
in Christ, which are in heaven and on earth. It pleased God, whose counsel
cannot be revoked, to show forth in Christ the mystery of His will, in the time
when He willed to reveal it to the acknowledgment of all creatures. And
His will was this, that at that time all those who were in error, whether in
heaven or on earth, might be reconciled to Him by Christ, when He made known
that this is the gift of belief in Christ, so that their sins might not be
imputed to them who receive the faith of Christ. Therefore, every creature in
heaven and on earth, while learning of the knowledge of Christ, is restored to
what it was created for. For when it is imbued with faith in the one
God, having known the mystery of the Savior, it is restored from the error it
had fallen into, knowing for certain that its Creator is the one God and Lord.
Hence, it is from this that John says in the Apocalypse: 'I saw Michael and his
angels fighting against the dragon and his army in heaven' (Rev. 12:7). This
contradiction is partly due to error, partly due to the presumption of usurped
tyranny." (Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Ephesians 1:9-10; translated via
ChatGPT; source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Ambrosiaster%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Ephesians.html)
The quotes
above sound definitely universalist. However, in another Commentary (on 1
Timothy 2:1-4) attributed to Ambrosiaster, the author seems to reject an
universalist view:
"(Vers. 1-4.) Therefore, I exhort first of
all to make supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings for all
men, for kings, and for all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and
peaceful life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable
in the sight of our Savior God, who desires all men to be saved and to come to
the knowledge of the truth. This is the ecclesiastical rule, handed down by the
master of the Gentiles, which our priests use to supplicate for all, praying
for the kings of this world, so that they may have subject nations, so that we
may be able to serve our God in peace, with a calm mind and quiet spirit. Also
praying for those to whom lofty power is entrusted, that they may govern the
republic in justice and truth, with an abundance of resources, so that joy may
succeed the removal of disturbance and strife; for bread strengthens the heart,
and wine gladdens the mind (Psalm 104:15). Also requesting for those who are in
various needs, that they may be rescued and freed, and praise God, the author
of their well-being. Also offering thanks for the daily providence of God that
is granted to us for life, so that in all these things, God the Father may be
praised, from whom all things come (1 Corinthians 8:6); and His Son, through
whom all things exist, so that with all opposition and enmity subdued, we may
be able to serve God with affectionate piety and chastity; for disturbance and
captivity do not preserve piety or chastity. For where is the pious man, who is
naked? And where is the chaste man, where his authority is not? So that these
things can be preserved, rest is necessary; so that pleasing obedience to God
may be rendered, who desires all men to be saved and to know the truth. This is
eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ,
whom thou hast sent (John 17:3). If indeed God, who is called omnipotent,
desires all men to be saved, is his will not fulfilled? But in every expression
the meaning and condition is hidden; hence Peter the apostle says: All
Scripture needs interpretation (II Peter II, 20). For indeed God
desires all men to be saved, but if they come to Him; for He does not will it
so, that they be saved against their will: but He desires that they be saved,
if they themselves also desire it. For certainly He who gave the law to all,
has made no exception for salvation. Does a physician not therefore propose in
public, that he desires to save all; if he is indeed asked by the sick? For
there is no true salvation if it is bestowed upon someone unwillingly: nor can
one rejoice in the received salvation if they have accepted the medicine
against their will, if it is indeed possible; not to mention that medicine
cannot have an effect unless the sick mind has accommodated itself to it; for
this medicine is not physical but spiritual, which is neither beneficial to the
doubtful nor to the unwilling. For faith is what gives salvation, and unless
the entire mind has embraced it willingly, it will not only be of no benefit
but also harm. For indeed faith has this power, that it may bestow divine
healing upon the devout, and inflict disease upon the unbelievers, by which the
whole man may perish." (Ambrosiaster, Commentary on 1 Timothy 2:1-4;
translated via ChatGPT; source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Ambrosiaster%2FCommentary%2520on%25201%2520Timothy.html ; bolded mine; St. Ambrose of
Milan says something similar as we have seen before)
Similarly,
we find a rejection of the universalist interpretation of Romans 5:18-9 (he
seems to reject the universality of both 'all' and 'the many' in both parts of
the verses):
"(Ver. 18.) Therefore, as through one
offense judgment came to all men to condemnation; even so through one
righteousness the free gift came to all men to justification of life. For as by
the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so also by the obedience of
one many shall be made just. And if by one man's offense death reigned through
one, much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift and of
justice shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by the
offense of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one,
unto all men to justification of life. And as by the disobedience of one man
many were made sinners, so also by the obedience of one many shall be made
just. Now the law entered in that sin might abound. And where sin abounded,
grace did more abound. That as sin hath reigned to death so also grace might
reign by justice unto life everlasting through Jesus Christ our Lord. But
it is not true, because not everyone believes.
(Verse 19) For just as through the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one man, many will be made righteous. The word 'many' here signifies a greater number and multitude. For many followed Adam's sin by transgressing, but not all. And many will be made righteous through faith in Christ, but not all. Therefore, death did not reign over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression." (Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Romans 5:18-9; translated via ChatGPT; source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Ambrosiaster%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Romans.html ; bolded mine)
Also, while
commenting 1 Corinthians 3:15, the author says the following:
"(Verse 15.) If someone's work burns, they
will suffer loss. The work that is said to burn is bad doctrine, which will
perish. For all evil things will perish, like the path of the wicked; because
they are not substances, but perverse assertions. However, to suffer loss is to
endure punishment. For who, when placed in punishment, does not incur loss? But
he himself will be saved, yet as if through fire. He said he will be saved,
because the substance on which it is based will not be destroyed, just as bad teaching
will be destroyed, because it is an accidental cause. Therefore, he said: yet
as if through fire; so that this salvation is not without punishment, because
he did not say: he will be saved through fire; so that, not being consumed by
fire through his own merit, he may be saved, but when he says: yet as if
through fire, he shows that he will indeed be saved, but will suffer the
punishments of fire; so that, purified by fire, he may be saved, and
not be tormented eternally like the unfaithful in the eternal fire: so that
to some extent it is worth believing in Christ. For it is always necessary that
one who sees himself defend the false as true should be ashamed; and in a
similar way, one who has cast off falsehood and followed the truth will always
have confidence in God; and one who has rejected impiety has submitted to
piety. For whatever is outside the Catholic Church is contrary."
(Ambrosiaster, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 3:15; translated via ChatGPT;
source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Ambrosiaster%2FCommentary%2520on%25201%2520Corinthians.html; bolded mine)
This,
again, excludes an universalist interpretation of the passage as he limits the
'salvation through fire' only to imperfect believers.
How can we
explain these seeming inconsistencies? In the case of Ambrosiaster, it might be
the case that the 'seemingly universalist' and 'seemingly anti-universalist'
commentaries might have been authored by different individuals. If, instead, we
assume that the author is the same, it might be the case that the author
changed his mind. Or, perhaps, there are other reasons. However, Ramelli
doesn't seem to address the ambiguity in a proper way.
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 )
The same reader that I referred to in the
section about Ambrose, 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’ (as well as supporters of
pre-existence of souls) 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[3].
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[4],
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 )
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 )
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.
Interestingly enough, I found out that the
early Jerome in his Commentary on Ephesians might have believed in a
‘tiered universalism’, i.e. that there will be different degrees of glory at
the end. Here is how the scholar Elisabeth Clark characterizes Jerome’s early
position:
“A fourth way indicative of how
Jerome's Ephesians Commentary moves away from Origenist interpretation-and a
way central to our argument-is this: Jerome hints that the "oneness"
of the future restoration or the heavenly afterlife will leave room for
gradation on the basis of moral rank. Thus although the devil and his angels
will be part of Christ's future reign, they will not receive "the praise
of his glory", for they followed God only out of necessity, not
voluntarily, and Jerome insists that "for diversity of hopes, diverse
rewards will be received" . His concern for hierarchy in heaven is further
revealed in his statement that the "rules, authorities, powers, and
dominions" will be ranked in the future life just as officers within a
government: surely God, the King of kings, will not be satisfied with a single
order of servants when mere human kings are not ?” (The place of Jerome’s
Commentary on Ephesians in the Origenist Controversy: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/elizabeth-clark-on-jerome-and-universalism-2.pdf )
There are indeed some texts from Jerome’s
commentary on Ephesians that seem to support this:
“However, those who do not support
this doctrine, that we hoped in Christ before we lived in this body, will
transfer this understanding, saying: In the coming of the Lord and Savior, when
every knee shall bow in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Phil 3), with all things subject to him,
some by choice and others by necessity, those who previously hoped in him will
be for the praise of his glory, and will be called ἀπηλπικότας, but those who found themselves believing out
of necessity, hoping at a time when even the devil and his angels cannot deny
that he reigns, will not be to the praise of his glory. And we can see that
this is partly fulfilled now because the reward is different for those who
follow God voluntarily and those who do so out of necessity. Nevertheless,
whether by opportunity or by truth, as long as Christ is announced, as long as
it is understood, hoped for, and previously hoped for, it is known that
different rewards are received according to the diversity of hope.” (Commentary
on Ephesians 1:12; translated via ChaGPT; source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Jerome%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Ephesians.html )
“ These divisions of duties
will exist not only in the present, but also in the future age: so through each
progress, honor, ascent, and even descent, one may increase or decrease, and
become subject to different powers, virtues, principalities, and dominions. We
little humans, soon to be turned to ashes and dust, if we are lifted up by the
agreement of people to be kings, have as many differences and multitudes of
ministers as we can more easily feel than say: for instance, that the Prefect
has his own judges, provinces, and order in the civil realm; again, militarily,
the army is divided into so many counts, leaders, and tribunes, and do we think
that God, Lord of Lords and King of Kings, is content with such a simple
ministry?” (Commentary on Ephesians 1:21; translated via ChaGPT; source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Jerome%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Ephesians.html )
“Thus, if someone is a member of the
Church and not separated from its spirit, then he will consequently be in one
hope of his calling. But it is asked how there can be only one hope of the
calling when there are many mansions in the Father's house. To this we answer
that we say the one hope of the calling to be the kingdom of heaven, like the
one house of God the Father, and that in one house there are many mansions.
"For the glory of the sun is one, and the glory of the moon another, and
the glory of the stars another" (1 Cor. 15:41). Or certainly it is more
subtly indicated that at the end and consummation of things, everything will be
restored to its original state, when we all become one body and are reformed
into a perfect man, and the prayer of our Savior for us will be fulfilled:
"Father, grant that as I and you are one, so they may be one in us"
(John 17:21)” (Commentary on Ephesians 4:3-4; translated via ChaGPT; source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Jerome%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Ephesians.html )
If these quotes mean that there will be a final
salvation of all with different degrees of glory/blessedness, the objection
that Jerome raised against ‘Origenism’ that all can’t end up in the same state
doesn’t apply to this early Jerome’s alleged view. So, in a sense, Jerome might
have
Notably,
however, the first of these quotes suggests that some will praise God ‘out of
necessity’ and this might indicate that either Jerome in this commentary
perhaps didn’t endorse an universalist view. However, considering what he says
in Letter 55 quoted above (and also Rufinus’ attestations), it is hard
to deny that Jerome was never an universalist.
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):
"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; bolded mine )
Clearly,
this text presents blessedness and punishment as irrevocable.
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. Considering that in
his Confessions he is quite honest about the beliefs he endorsed during
his life, it would be surprising that he never mentioned that he was an
universalist.
[1] This is in contrast to the
interpretation of the same torments presented by St. Augustine, see e.g. City of
God, book 21: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120121.htm
[2] From the ChatGPT translation:
“204.
However, this is not enough, that someone is called to come unless he has the
bridal garment, that is, unless he has faith and charity. And therefore,
whoever does not bring peace and charity to the altars of Christ, will be
taken, with feet and hands bound, and cast into outer darkness. There will be
weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matt. XXII, 13). What are the outer darkness?
Are there also prisons and punishments to be undergone there? No. But whoever
acts outside the promises of heavenly commandments is in outer darkness; for
the commandments of God are light. And whoever is without Christ is in
darkness; for Christ is the light in darkness.
Therefore, there is neither a physical grinding of teeth, nor a perpetual fire
of physical flames, nor is there a physical worm. But these things are
mentioned because just as fevers and worms arise from a lot of impurity, so if
someone does not purge their sins, but rather mixes sins with sins, as if they
contracted a certain impurity of old and recent offenses, they will be burned
by their own fire and consumed by their own worms. Therefore Isaiah says: Walk
in the light of your fire, and in the torches that you have kindled. This is
the fire that is generated by the sadness of sins: it is a worm, because the
irrational sins of the soul prick the mind and senses, and some consume the
depths of conscience: these are born from each one as worms, as from the body
of a sinner. Finally, the Lord declared this through Isaiah, saying: And they
shall go forth and look upon the corpses of the men that have transgressed
against me: and their worm shall not die and their fire shall not be
extinguished.
206. Also, the grinding of teeth reveals the feeling of indignation; because it
is late to repent, it is late to groan, it is late to be angry with oneself,
because one has sinned with such stubborn wickedness.” (Expos. Evang. Sec.
Lucam VII, 205-6, translated by ChatGPT, source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Ambrose%2520of%2520Milan%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Luke.html
)
[3] “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/ )
[4] 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 ).
Comments
Post a Comment