Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine Of The
Christian
Church During Its First Five Hundred
Years ...... By J.W. HANSON, D.D.
Introduction
The surviving writings of the Christian Fathers, of the first four or five
centuries of the Christian Era, abound in evidences of the prevalence of the
doctrine of universal salvation during those years. This important fact in the
history of Christian eschatology was first brought out prominently in a volume,
very valuable, and for its time very thorough: Hosea Ballou's "Ancient History
of Universalism," (Boston, 1828, 1842, 1872). Dr. Ballou's work has well been
called "light in a dark place," but the quotations he makes are but a fraction
of what subsequent researches have discovered. Referring to Dr. Ballou's third
edition with "Notes" by the Rev. A. St. John Chambre, A. M. and T. J. Sawyer,
D.D. (1872), T. B. Thayer, D.D., observes in the Universalist Quarterly, April,
1872: "As regards the additions to the work by the editors, we must say that
they are not as numerous nor as extensive as we had hoped they might be. It
would seem as if the studies of our own scholars for more than forty years since
the first edition, and the many new and elaborate works on the history of the
church and its doctrines by eminent theologians and critics, should have
furnished more witnesses to the truth, and larger extracts from the early
literature of the church, than are found in the 'Notes.' With the exception of
three or four of them no important addition is made to the contents of the work.
If the Notes are to be considered as final, or the last gleanings of the field,
it shows how thoroughly Dr. Ballou did his work, notwithstanding the poverty of
his resources, and the many and great disadvantages attending his first efforts.
But we cannot help thinking that something remains still to be said respecting
some of the apostolic fathers and Chrysostom, Augustine and others; as well as
concerning the gnostic sects, the report of whose opinions, it must be
remembered, comes to us mostly from their enemies, or at least those not
friendly to them." The want here indicated this volume aims to supply.
Dr. Ballou's work was followed in 1878 by Dr. Edward Beecher's "History of
the Doctrine of Future Retribution," a most truthful and candid volume, which
adds much valuable material to that contained in Dr. Ballou's work. About the
same time Canon Farrar published "Eternal Hope" (1878), and "Mercy and Judgment"
(1881), containing additional testimony showing that many of the Christian
writers in the centuries immediately following our Lord and his apostles, were
Universalists. In addition to these a contribution to the literature of the
subject was made by the Rev. Thomas Allin, a clergyman of the English Episcopal
Church, in a work entitled "Universalism Asserted." Mr. Allin was led to his
study of the patristic literature by finding a copy of Dr. Ballou's work in the
British Museum. Incited by its contents he microscopically searched the fathers,
and found many valuable statements that incontestably prove that the most and
the best of the successors of the apostles taught the doctrine of universal
salvation. The defects of Mr. Allen's very scholarly work, from this writer's
standpoint are, that he writes as an Episcopalian, merely from the view-point of
the Nicene creed, to show by the example of the patristic writers that one can
remain an Episcopalian and cherish the hope of universal salvation; and that he
regards the doctrine as only a hope, and not a distinct teaching of the
Christian religion. Meanwhile, the fact of the early prevalence of the doctrine
has been brought out incidentally in such works as the "Dictionary of Christian
Biography," Farrar's "Lives of the Fathers," and other books, the projecting
statements and facts in all which will be found in these pages, which show that
the most and best and ablest of the early fathers found the deliverance of all
mankind from sin and sorrow specifically revealed in the Christian Scriptures.
The author has not only quoted the words of the fathers themselves, but he has
studiously endeavored, instead of his own words, to reproduce the language of
historians, biographers, critics, scholars, and other writers of all schools of
thought, and to demonstrate by these irrefragable testimonies that Universalism
was the primitive Christianity.
The quotations, index, and other references indicated by foot notes, will
show the reader that a large number of volumes has been consulted, and it is
believed by the author that no important work in the abundant literature of the
theme has been omitted.
The plan of this work does not contemplate the presentation of the
Scriptural evidence--which to Universalists is demonstrative--that our Lord and
his apostles taught the final and universal prevalence of holiness and
happiness. That work is thoroughly done in a library of volumes in the
literature of the Universalist Church. Neither is it the purpose of the author
of this book to write a history of the doctrine; but his sole object is to show
that those who obtained their religion almost directly from the lips of its
author, understood it to teach the doctrine of universal salvation.
Not only are ample citations given from the ancient Universalists
themselves, but theorys and summarys of their opinions, and testimonials as to
their scholarship and saintliness, are presented from the most eminent authors
who have written of them. No equal number of the church's early saints has ever
received such glowing eulogies from so many scholars and critics as the ancient
Universalists have extorted from such authors as Socrates, Neander, Mosheim,
Huet, Dorner, Dietelmaier, Beecher, Schaff, Plumptre, Bigg, Farrar, Bunsen,
Cave, Westcott, Robertson, Butler, Allen, De Pressense, Gieseler, Lardner,
Hagenbach, Blunt, and others, not professed Universalists. Their eulogies found
in these pages would alone justify the publication of this volume.
BACK
Forward
The purpose of this book is to present some of the evidence of the
prevalence in the early centuries of the Christian church, of the doctrine of
the final holiness of all mankind. The author has endeavored to give the
language of the early Christians, rather than to paraphrase their words, or
state their sentiments in his own language. He has also somewhat amply quoted
the statements of modern scholars, historians and critics, of all sides of
opinion, instead of condensing them with his own pen.
The large number of extracts which this course necessitates gives his pages
a somewhat mosaic appearance, but he has preferred to sacrifice mere literary
form to what seems larger usefulness.
He has aimed to present irrefragable proofs that the doctrine of Universal
Salvation was the prevalent sentiment of the primitive Christian church. He
believes his investigation has been somewhat thorough, for he has endeavored to
consult not only all the fathers themselves, but the most distinguished modern
writers who have considered the subject.
The first form of his manuscript contained a thousand abundant notes, with
citations of original Greek and Latin, but such an array was thought by
perceptive friends too formidable to attract the average reader, as well as too
voluminous, and he has therefore retained only a fraction of the notes he had
prepared.
The opinions of Christians in the first few centuries should predispose us
to believe in their truthfulness, inasmuch as they were nearest to the divine
Fountain of our religion. The doctrine of Universal Salvation was nowhere taught
until they instilled it. Where could they have obtained it but from the source
whence they claim to have derived it--the New Testament?
The author believes that the following pages show that Universal Restitution
was the faith of the early Christians for at least the First Five Hundred Years
of the Christian Era. ---- ---- J.W. Hanson - Chicago, October 1899
BACK
UNIVERSALISM IN THE EARLY
CENTURIES
Chapter 1
The Earliest Creeds
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles
An examination of the earliest Christian creeds and declarations of
Christian opinion discloses the fact that no formulary of Christian belief for
several centuries after Christ contained anything incompatible with the broad
faith of the Gospel--the universal redemption of mankind from sin. The earliest
of all the documents pertaining to this subject is the "Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles."1 This work was discovered in manuscript in the library of the Holy
Sepulchre, in Constantinopole, by Philotheos Bryennios, and published in 1875.
It was bound with Chrysostom's "Synopsis of the Works of the Old Testament," the
"Epistle of Barnabas," A.D. 70-120--two epistles of Clement, and less important
works. The "Teaching" was quoted by Clement of Alexandria, by Eusebius and by
Athanasius, so that it must have been recognized as early as A.D. 200. It was
undoubtedly composed between A.D. 120 and 160. An American edition of the Greek
text and an English translation were published in New York in 1884, with notes
by Roswell D. Hitchcock and Francis Brown, professors in Union Theological
Seminary, New York, from which we quote. It is entirely silent on the duration
of punishment. It describes the two ways of life and death, in its sixteen
chapters, and indicates the rewards and the penalties of the good way and of the
evil way as any Universalist would do--as Origen and Basil did. God is thanked
for giving spiritual food and drink and "aeonian life." The last chapter exhorts
Christians to watch against the terrors and judgments that shall come "when the
earth shall be given unto his (the world's deceiver's) hands. Then all created
men shall come into the fire of trial, and many shall be made to stumble and
perish. But they that endure in their faith shall be saved from this curse. And
then shall appear the signs of the truth; first, the sign of an opening in
heaven; then the sign of the trumpet's sound; and, thirdly the resurrection from
the dead, yet not of all, but as it hath been said: 'The Lord will come and all
his saints with him. Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of
heaven.'" This resurrection must be regarded as a moral one, as it is not "of
all the dead," but of the saints only. There is not a whisper in this ancient
document of endless punishment, and its testimony, therefore, is that that dogma
was not in the second century regarded as a part of "the teaching of the
apostles." When describing the endlessness of being it uses the word athanasias,
but describes the glory of Christ, as do the Scriptures, as for ages (cis tous
aionas). In Chapter 11 occurs this language: "Every sin shall be forgiven, but
this sin shall not be forgiven" (the sin of an apostle asking money for his
services); but that form of expression is clearly in accordance with the
Scriptural method of adding force to an affirmative by a negative, and vice
versa, as in the word (Matt. 18:22): "Not until seven times, but until seventy
times seven." In fine, the "Teaching" shows throughout that the most ancient
doctrine of the church, after the apostles, was in perfect harmony with
universal salvation. Cyprian, A.D. 250, in a letter to his son Magnus, tells us
that in addition to the baptismal formula converts were asked, "Dost thou
believe in the remission of sins and eternal life through the holy church?"
The Apostles' Creed
"The Apostles' Creed," so called, the oldest existing authorized declaration
of Christian faith in the shape of a creed was probably in existence in various
modified forms for a century or so before the beginning of the Fourth Century,
when it took its present shape, possible between A.D. 250 and 350. It is first
found in Rufinus, who wrote at the end of the Fourth and the beginning of the
Fifth Century. No allusion is made to it before these dates by Justin Martyr,
Clement, Origen, the historian Eusebius, or any of their contemporaries, all
whom make declarations of Christian belief, nor is there any hint in preceding
literature that any such document existed. Individual declarations of faith were
made, however, quite unlike the pseudo Apostles' Creed, by Irenieus, Tertullian,
Cyprian, Gregory Thaumaturgus, etc. Hagenback2 assures us that it was "probably
inspired of various confessions of faith used by the primitive church in the
baptismal service. Mosheim declared: "All who have any knowledge of antiquity
confess unanimously that the opinion (that the apostles composed the Apostles'
Creed) is a mistake, and has no foundation.3"
The clauses "the Holy Catholic Church," "the communion of Saints," "the
forgiveness of sins," were added after A.D. 250. "He descended into hell" was
later than the composing of the original creed--as late as A.D. 359. The
document is here given. The portion in Roman type was probably adopted in the
earlier part or middle of the Second Century4 and was in Greek; the Italic
portion was added later by the Roman Church, and was in Latin:
"I believe in God the Father Almighty (maker of heaven and earth) and it
Jesus Christ his only son our Lord, who was (conceived) by the Holy Ghost, born
of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified (dead) and
buried, (He descended into hell). The third day he arose again from the dead; he
ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of (God) the Father
(Almighty). From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe
in the Holy Ghost, the Holy (Catholic) Church; (the communion of saints) the
forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; (and the life everlasting)5.
Amen."
It will be seen that not a word is here uttered of the duration of
punishment. The later form speaks of "aionian life," but does not refer to
aionian death, or punishment. It is incredible that this declaration of faith,
made at a time when the world was ignorant of what constituted the Christian
belief, and which was made for the purpose of informing the world, should not
convey a hint of so vital a doctrine as that of endless punishment, if at that
time that dogma was a tenet of the church.
The Oldest Credal Statement
The oldest credal statement by the Church of Rome says that Christ "shall
come to judge the quick and the dead," and announces belief in the resurrection
of the body. The oldest of the Greek constitutions declares belief in the
"resurrection of the flesh, remission of sins, and the aionian life." And the
Alexandrian statement speaks of "the life," but there is not a word of
everlasting death or punishment in any of them. And this is all that the most
ancient creeds contain on the subject.6
In a earliest form of the Apostle's Creed, Irenaeus, A.D. 180, says that the
judge, at the final judgment, will cast the wicked into aionian fire. It is
supposed that he used the word aionian, for the Greek in which he wrote has
perished, and the Latin translation reads, "ignem aeternum."
As Origen uses the same word, and expressly says it denotes limited
duration, Irenaeus's testimony does not help the doctrine of endless punishment,
nor can it be quoted to reinforce that of universal salvation. Dr. Beecher
thinks that Irenaeus taught "a final restitution of all things to unity and
order by the annihilation of all the finally unrepentant"7--a
pseudo-Universalism.
Tertullian's Belief
Even Tertullian, born about A.D. 160, though his personal belief was
fearfully partialistic, could not assert that his pagan-born doctrine was
generally accepted by Christians, and when he formed a creed for general
acceptance he entirely omitted his lurid theology. It will be seen that
Tertullian's creed like that of Irenaeus is one of the earlier forms of the
so-called Apostles' Creed:8 "We believe in only one God, omnipotent, maker of
the world, and his son Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified under
Pontius Pilate, raised from the dead the third day, received into the heavens,
now sitting at the right hand of the Father, and who shall come to judge the
living and the dead, through the resurrection of the flesh." Tertullian did not
put his private belief into his creed, and at that time he had not discovered
that worst of dogmas relating to man, total depravity. If fact, he states the
opposite. He says: "There is a portion of God in the soul. In the worst there is
something good, and in the best something bad." Neander says that Tertullian
"held original goodness to be lasting."
The Nicene Creed
The next oldest creed, the first declaration authorized by a consensus of
the whole church, was the Nicene, A.D. 325; completed in 381 at Constantinopole.
Its sole reference to the future world is in these words: "I look for the
resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world (aeon) to come." It does not
contain a syllable referring to endless punishment, though the doctrine was then
professed by a portion of the church, and was insisted upon by some, though it
was not generally enough held to be stated as the average belief.
So dominant was the influence of the Greek fathers, who had learned
Christianity in their native tongue, in the language in which it was announced,
and so little had Tertullian's cruel ideas prevailed, that it was not even
attempted to make the horrid sentiment a part of the creed of the church.
Moreover, Gregory Nazianzen presided over the council in Constantinople, in
which the Nicean creed was finally shaped--the Niceo-Constantinopolitan
creed--and as he was a Universalist, and as the clause, "I believe in the life
of the world to come," was added by Gregory of Nyssa, an "unflinching advocate
of extreme Universalism, and the very flower of orthodoxy," it must be apparent
that the consensus of Christian sentiment was not yet anti-Universalistic.
General Sentiment in the Fourth Century
This the general sentiment in the church from 325 A.D. to 381 A.D. demanded
that the life beyond the grave must be stated, and as there is no hint of the
existence of a world of torment, how can the conclusion be escaped that
Christian faith did not then include the thought of endless woe? Would a
council, composed even in part of believers in endless torment, permit a
Universalist to preside, and another to shape its creed, and not even attempt to
give expression to that idea? Is not the Nicene creed a witness, in what it does
not say, to the broader faith that must have been the religion of the century
that adopted it?
It is historical (See Socrates's Ecclesiastical History) that the four great
General Councils held in the first four centuries--those at Nice,
Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon--gave expression to no condemnation of
universal restoration, though, as will be shown, the doctrine had been prevalent
all along.
In the Nicene creed adopted A.D. 325, by three hundred and twenty to two
hundred and eighteen bishops, the only reference to the future world is where it
is said that Christ "will come again to judge the living and the dead." This is
the original form, subsequently changed. A.D. 341 the assembled bishops at
Antioch made a declaration of faith in which these words occur: "The Lord Jesus
Christ will come again with glory and power to judge the living and the dead."
A.D. 346 the bishops presented a declaration to the Emperor Constans affirming
that Jesus Christ "shall come at the consummation of the ages, to judge the
living and the dead, and render to every one according to his works." The synod
at Rimini, A.D. 359, affirmed that Christ "descended into the lower parts of the
earth, and disposed matters there, at the sight of whom the door-keepers
trembled--and at the last day he will come in his Father's glory to render to
every one according to his deeds." This declaration opens the gates of mercy by
recognizing the proclamation of the Gospel to the dead, and, as it was believed
that when Christ preached in Hades the doors were opened and all those in ward
were released, the words recited at Rimini that he "disposed matters there," are
very significant.
The Nicene and Constantinopolitan creeds, printed in one, will exhibit the
nature of the changes made at Constantinople, and will show that the "life to
come" and not the after-death woe of sinners, was the chief though with the
early Christians. (The Nicene is here printed in Roman type, and the
Constantinopolitan in Italic.)
The Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of (heaven and earth,
and) all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only
begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds,) only begotten,
that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of Light, very God of
Very God, begotten not made; being of one substance with the Father, by whom all
things were made, [transposed to the beginning] the things in heaven and things
in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down (from heaven) and was
incarnate (of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary) and made man (and was
crucified for us under Pontius Pilate), and suffered (and was buried), and rose
again the third day (according to the Scriptures), who ascended into heaven (and
sitteth on the right hand of the Father) and cometh again (in glory) to judge
quick and dead (of whose kingdom there shall be no end). And in the Holy Ghost,
(the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father
and the Son, together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the prophets; in
one holy Catholic, Apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the
remission of sins; and we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of
the world to come.)" 9
This last clause was not in the original Nicene creed, but was added in the
Constantinopolitan. The literal rendering of the Greek is "the life of the age
about to come."
The first Christians, it will be seen, said in their creeds, "I believe in
the aeonian life;" later, they modified the phrase "aeonian life," to "the life
of the coming aeon," showing that the phrases are equivalent. But not a word of
endless punishment. "The life of the age to come" was the first Christian creed,
and later, Origen himself declares his belief in aeonian punishment, and in
aeonian life beyond. How, then, could aeonian punishment have been regarded as
endless?
The differences of opinion that existed among the early Christians are
easily accounted for, when we remember that they had been Jews or heathens, who
had brought from their previous religious associations all sorts of ideas, and
were disposed to retain them and reconcile them with their new religion. Faith
in Christ, and the acceptance of his teachings, could not at once eradicate the
old opinions, which, in some cases, remained long, and caused honest Christians
to differ from each other. As will be shown, while the Sibylline Oracles
predisposed some of the fathers of Universalism, Philo gave others a tendency to
the doctrine of annihilation, and Enoch to endless punishment.
Statements of the Early Councils
Thus the credal declarations of the Christian church for almost four hundred
years are entirely void of the lurid doctrine with which they afterwards blazed
for more than a thousand years. The early creeds contain no hint of it, and no
whisper of condemnation of the doctrine of universal restoration as taught by
Clement, Origen, the Gregories, Basil the Great, and multitudes besides.
Discussions and declarations on the Trinity, and contests over homoousion
(consubstantial) and homoiousion (of like substance) engrossed the energy of
disputants, and filled libraries with volumes, but the doctrine of the great
fathers remained unchallenged. Neither the Concilium Nicaeum, A.D. 325, nor the
Concilium Constantinopolitanum, A.D. 381, nor the Concilium Chalcedonenese, A.D.
451, lisped a syllable of the doctrine of man's final woe. The silence of all
the ancient formularies of faith concerning endless punishment at the same time
that the great fathers were proclaiming universal salvation, as appeared later
on in these pages, is strong evidence that the former doctrine was not then
accepted. It is apparent that the early Christian church did not dogmatize on
man's final destiny. It was engrossed in getting established among men the great
truth of God's universal Fatherhood, as revealed in the incarnation, "God in
Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." Some taught endless punishment for
a portion of mankind; others, the annihilation of the wicked; others had no
definite opinion on human destiny; but the larger part, especially from Clement
of Alexandria on for three hundred years, taught universal salvation. It is
insupposable that endless punishment was a doctrine of the early church, when it
is seen that not one of the early creeds embodied it" 11 BACK
1 *GR 2 Text-book of Christian Doctrine:
Gieseler's Text Book: Neander. 3 Murdoch's Mosheim Inst., Eccl.
Hist.4 Bunsen's Hippolytus and His Age. 5 Aionian, the original of
"everlasting." 6 The Apostles' Creed at first omitted the Fatherhood of
God, and in its later forms did not mention God's love for men, his reign,
repentance, or the new life. Athanase Coquerel the Younger, First Hist.
Transformations of Christianity, page 208. 7 History, Doct. Fut. Ret.,
pp. 108-205. 8 See Lamson's Church of the First Three Centuries. 9
Hort's Two Dissertations, pp. 106, 138-147. 10 *GR 11 The germ of
all the earlier declarations of faith had been formulated even before A.D. 150.
The reader can here consult the original Greek of the earliest declaration of
faith as given in Harnack's Outlines of the History of Dogma, Funk &
Wagnall's edition of 1893 pp. 44,45: *GR
Chapter 2
Early Christianity - A Cheerful
Religion
Darkness at the Advent
When our Lord announced his religion this world was in a condition of
unutterable corruption, wretchedness and gloom. Slavery, poverty, vice that the
pen is unwilling to name, almost universally prevailed, and even religion
partook of the general degradation.1 Decadence, depopulation, insecurity of
property, person and life, according to Taine, were everywhere. Philosophy
taught that it would be better for man never to have been created. In the first
century Rome held supreme sway.2 Nations had been destroyed by scores, and the
civilized world had lost half of its population by the sword. In the first
century forty out of seventy years were years of famine, accompanied by plague
and pestilence. There were universal depression and deepest melancholy. When men
were thus overborne with the gloom and horror of error and sin, into their night
of darkness came the religion of Christ. Its announcements were all of hope and
cheer. Its language was, "Come unto me, all ye who labor and are heavy laden and
I will give you rest." "Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice."
"We rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." Men were invited to accept
the tidings of great joy. John, the herald of Jesus, was a recluse, mortifying
body and spirit, but Jesus said, "John come neither eating nor drinking, but the
Son of Man came eating and drinking." He forbade all anxiety and care among his
followers, and exhorted all to be as trustful as are the lilies of the field and
the fowls of the air. Says Matthew Arnold, "Christ professed to bring in
happiness. All the words that belong to his mission, Gospel, kingdom of God,
Savior, grace, peace, living water, bread of life, are brimful of promise and
joy." And his cheerful, joyful religion at once won its way by its messages of
peace and tranquillity, and for a while its converts were everywhere
characterized by their joyfulness and cheerfulness. Haweis writes: "The three
first centuries of the Christian church are almost idyllic in their simplicity,
sincerity and purity. There is less admixture of evil, less intrusion of the
world, the flesh, and the devil, more simple-hearted goodness, earnestness and
reality to be found in the space between Nero and Constantine that in any other
three centuries from A.D. 100 to A.D. 1800."3 De Pressense calls the early era
of the church its "blessed childhood, all calmness and simplicity."4 Cave, in
"Lives of the Fathers," states: "The noblest portion of church history, the most
considerable age of the church, the years from Eusebius to Basil the Great."
"Sweetness and Light"
Christianity was everywhere at first a religion of "sweetness and light."
The Greek fathers exemplified all these qualities, and Clement and Origen were
ideals of its perfect spirit. But from Augustine downward the Latin reaction,
prompted by the tendency of men in all ages to escape the requirements laid upon
the soul by thought, and who flee to external authority to avoid the demands of
reason, was away from the genius of Christianity, until Augustinianism ripened
into Popery, and the beautiful system of the Greek fathers was succeeded by the
nightmare of the theology of the medieval centuries, and later of Calvinism and
Puritanism.5 Had the church followed the prevailing spirit of the ante-Nicene
Fathers it would have conserved the best thought of Greece, the divine ideals of
Plato, and joined them to the true interpretation of Christianity, and we may
venture to declare that it would thus have continued the career of progress that
had rendered the first three centuries so marvelous in their character; a
progress that would have continued with accelerated speed, and Christendom would
have widened its borders and deepened its sway immeasurably. With the prevalence
of the Latin language the East and the West grew apart, and the latter, more and
more discarding reason, and controlled, by the iron inflexibility of a
semi-pagan secular government, gave Roman Catholicism its opportunity.
Oriental Asceticism
The influence of the ascetic religions of the Asiatic countries, especially
Buddhism, contaminated Christianity, resulting later in celibacy, monasteries,
convents, hermits, and all the worser elements of Catholicism in the Middle
Ages.6 At the first contact Christianity absorbed more than it modified, till in
the later ages the alien force became supreme. In fact, orientalism was already
beginning to mar the beautiful simplicity of Christianity when John wrote his
Gospel to counteract it. Schaff, in his "History of the Christian Church,"
remarks: All the germs of (Christian) asceticism (severe self-discipline) appear
in the third century. The first two Christian hermits were not till Paul of
Thebes, A.D. 250, and Anthony of Egypt, A.D. 270, appeared. Asceticism was in
existence long before Christ. Jews, Nazarites, Essenes, Therapeutae, Persians,
Indians, Buddhists, all originated this Oriental heathenism. The religion of the
Chinese, Buddhism, Brahmanism, the religion of Zoroaster and of the Egyptians,
more or less leavened Christianity in its earliest stages. So did Greek and
Roman paganism with which the apostles and their followers came into direct
contact.
The doctrines of substitutional atonement, resurrection of the body, native
depravity, and endless punishment, are not listed in the earliest creeds or
formulas.7 The earliest Christians (Allen: Christian Thought) taught that man is
the image of God, and that the in-dwelling Deity will lead him to holiness.
In Alexandria, the center of Greek culture and Christian thought, "more
thoroughly Greek than Athens it its days of renown," the theological atmosphere
was more nearly akin to that of the Universalist church of the present day than
to that of any other branch of the Christian church during the last fifteen
centuries.8
Wonderful Progress of Christianity at First
The wonderful progress made during the first three centuries by the simple,
pure and cheerful faith of early Christianity shows us what its growth might
have been made had not the gloomy spirit of Tertullian, reinforced by the "dark
shadow of Augustine," transformed it. As early as the beginning of the second
century the heathen Pliny, the propraetor of Bithynia, reported to the emperor
that his province was so filled with Christians that the worship of the heathen
deities had nearly ceased. And they were not only of the poor and despised, but
of all conditions of life--omnis ordinis. Milner thinks that Asia Minor was at
this time quite thoroughly evangelized. As early as the close of the Second
Century there were not only many converts from the humbler ranks, but "the main
strength of Christianity lay in the middle, perhaps in the merchants classes."
Gibbon says the Christians were not one-twentieth part of the Roman Empire, till
Constantine gave them the sanction of his authority, but Robertson estimates
them at one-fifth of the whole, and in some districts as the majority.9 Origen:
"Against Celsus" says: "At the present day (A.D. 240) not only rich men, but
persons of rank, and delicate and high-born ladies, receive the teachers of
Christianity; and the religion of Christ is better known than the teachings of
the best philosophers." And Arnobius testifies that Christians included orators,
grammarians, rhetoricians (those who effectively expressed), lawyers,
physicians, and philosophers. And it was precisely their bright and cheerful
views of life and death, of God's universal fatherhood and man's universal
brotherhood--the divinity of its ethical principles and the purity of its
professors, that account for the wonderful progress of Christianity during the
three centuries that followed our Lord's death. The pessimism of the oriental
religions; the corruption and folly of the Greek and Roman mythology; the
unutterable wickedness of the mass of mankind, and the universal depression of
society invited its advance, and gave way before it. Justin Martyr wrote that in
his time prayers and thanksgivings were offered in "the name of the Crucified,
among every race of men, Greek or barbarian." Tertullian states that all races
and tribes, even to farthest Britain, had heard the news of salvation. He
declared: "We are but of yesterday, and lo we fill the whole empire--your
cities, your islands, your fortresses, your municipalities, your councils, nay
even the camp, the tribune, the decory, the palace, the senate, the forum."10
Chrysostom testifies that "the isles of Britain in the heard of the ocean had
been converted."
God's Fatherhood
The complete and consecrated word of the Alexandrian fathers, as of the New
Testament, was FATHER. This word, as now, unlocked all mysteries, solved all
problems, and explained all the enigmas of time and eternity. Holding God as
Father, punishment was held to be remedial, and therefore restorative, and final
recovery from sin universal. It was only when the Father was lost sight of in
the judge and tyrant, under the spiritually deadly poisonous reign of
Augustinianism, the Deity was hated, and that Catholics transferred to Mary, and
later, Protestants gave to Jesus that supreme love that is due alone to the
Universal Father. For centuries in Christendom after the Alexandrine form of
Christianity had waned, the Fatherhood of God was a lost truth, and most of the
worst errors of the modern creeds are due to that single fact, more than to all
other causes.
It was during those happy years more than in any subsequent three centuries,
that, as Jerome observed, "the blood of Christ was yet warm in the breasts of
Christians." Says the accurate historian, Cave, in his "Primitive Christianity:"
"Here he will find an active and zealous devotion, shining through the blackest
clouds of malice and cruelty; afflicted innocence triumphant, notwithstanding
all the powerful or political attempts of men or devils; a patience
unconquerable under the biggest temptations; a charity truly universal and
unlimited; a simplicity and upright manner in all transactions; a sobriety and
temperance remarkable to the admiration of their enemies; and, in short, he will
see the divine and holy precepts of the Christian religion drawn down into
action, and the most excellent genius and spirit of the Gospel breathing in the
hearts and lives of these good old Christians."
Christianity, a Greek Religion
"Christianity," says Milman, "was almost from the first a Greek religion.
Its primal records were all written in Greek language; it was made known with
the greatest rapidity and success among nations either of Greek descent, or
those which had been Grecized by the conquest of Alexander. In their organized
structure the Grecian churches were a federation of republics." At the first,
art, literature, life, were Greek, cheerful, sunny, serene. The Latin type of
character was sullen, gloomy, characterized, says Milman, by "adherence to legal
form; severe subordination to authority. The Roman Empire extended over Europe
by a universal code, and by subordination to a spiritual Caesar as absolute as
he was in civil obedience. Thus the original simplicity of the Christian belief
structure was entirely subverted; its pure democracy became a spiritual
dictatorship. The presbyters developed into bishops, the bishop of Rome became
pope, and Christendom reflected Rome." But during the first three centuries this
change had not taken place. "It is there, therefore, among the Alexandrine
fathers that we are to look to find Christianity in its pristine purity. The
language, organization, writers, and Scriptures of the church in the first
centuries were all Greek. The Gospels were everywhere read in Greek, the
commercial and literary language of the Empire. The books were in Greek, and
even in Gaul and Rome Greek was the liturgical language. The Octavius of
Minucius Felix, and Novatian on the Trinity, were the earliest known works of
Latin Christian literature.11
An Impressive Thought
The Greek Fathers derived their Universalism directly and solely from the
Greek Scriptures. Nothing to suggest the doctrine existed in Greek or Latin
literature, mythology, or theology; all current thought on matters of
eschatology was utterly opposed to any such view of human destiny. And,
furthermore, the unutterable wickedness, degradation and woe that filled the
world would have inclined the early Christians to the most pessimistic view of
the future consistent with the teachings of the religion they had espoused. To
know that, in those dreadful times, they derived the divine optimism of
universal deliverance from sin and sorrow from the teachings of Christ and his
apostles, should predispose every modern to agree with them. On this point
Allin, in "Universalism Asserted," eloquently says: "The church was born into a
world of whose moral rottenness few have or can have any idea. Even the sober
historians of the later Roman Empire have their pages tainted with scenes
impossible to translate. Lusts the foulest, debauchery to us happily
inconceivable, raged on every side. To assert even faintly the final redemption
of all this rottenness, whose depths we dare not try to sound, required the
firmest faith in the larger hope, as an essential part of the Gospel. But this
is not all; in a peculiar sense the church was militant in the early centuries.
It was engaged in, at times, a struggle, for life or death, with a relentless
persecution. Thus it must have seemed in that age almost an act of treason to
the cross to teach that, though dying unrepentant, the bitter persecutor, or the
ones bound and devoted to abominable lusts, should yet in the ages to come find
salvation. Such considerations help us to see the extreme weight attaching even
to the very least expression in the fathers which involves sympathy with the
larger hope, especially so when we consider that the idea of mercy was then but
little known, and that truth, as we conceive it, was not then esteemed a duty.
As the vices of the early centuries were great, so were their punishments cruel.
The early fathers wrote when the wild beasts of the arena tore alike the
innocent and the guilty, limb from limb, amid the applause even of
gently-nurtured women; they wrote when the cross, with its living burden of
agony, was a common sight, and evoked no protest. They wrote when every minister
of justice was a torturer, and almost every criminal court a petty inquisition;
when every household of the better class, even among Christians, swarmed with
slaves liable to torture, to scourging, to mutilation, at the impulse of a
master or the frown of a mistress. Let all these facts be fully weighed, and a
conviction arises irresistibly, that, in such an age, no idea of Universalism
could have originated unless inspired from above. If, now, when criminals are
shielded from suffering with almost morbid care, men, the best of men, think
with very little concern of the unutterable woe of the lost, how, I ask, could
Universalism have arisen of itself in an age like that of the fathers? Consider
further. The larger hope is not, we are informed, in the Bible; it is not, we
know, in the heart of man naturally; still less was it there in days such as
those we have described, when mercy was unknown, when the dearest interest of
the church forbade its avowal. But it is found in many, very many, ancient
fathers, and often, in the very broadest form, embracing every fallen spirit.
Where, then, did they find it? Whence did they import this idea? Can we doubt
that the fathers could only have drawn it, as their writings testify, from the
Bible itself?"
Testimony of the Catacombs
An illuminating side-light is cast on the opinions of the early Christians
by the inscriptions and emblems on the monuments in the Roman Catacombs.12 It is
well known that from the end of the First to the end of the Fourth Century the
early Christians buried their dead, probably with the knowledge and consent of
the pagan authorities, in subterranean galleries excavated in the soft rock
(tufa) that underlies Rome. These ancient cemeteries were first uncovered A.D.
1578. Already sixty excavations have been made extending five hundred and
eighty-seven miles. More than six, some estimates say eight, million bodies are
known to have been buried between A.D. 72 and A.D. 410. Eleven thousand epitaphs
and inscriptions have been found; few dates are between A.D. 72 and 100; the
most are from A.D. 150 to A.D. 410. The galleries are from three to five feet
wide and eight feet high, and the niches for bodies are five tiers deep, one
above another, each silent tenant in a separate cell. At the entrance of each
cell is a tile or slab of marble, once securely cemented and inscribed with
name, epitaph, or emblem.13 Haweis beautifully says in his "Conquering Cross:"
"The public life of the early Christian was persecution above ground; his
private life was prayer underground." The emblems and inscriptions are most
suggestive. The principal device, scratched on slabs, carved on utensils and
rings, and seen almost everywhere, is the Good Shepherd, surrounded by his flock
and carrying a lamb. But most striking of all, he is found with a goat on his
shoulder; which teaches us that even the wicked were at the early date regarded
as the objects of the Savior's solicitude, after departing from this life.13
Matthew Arnold has preserved this truth in his immortal verse:14
"He saves the sheep, the goats he doth not save!" So rang Tertullian's
sentence on the side
of that unpitying Phrygian sect which cried,-- "Him can no fount of fresh
forgiveness lave, Whose sins once washed by the baptismal wave!" So spake the
fierce Tertullian. But she sighed, The infant Church,--of love she felt the tide
Stream on her from her Lord's yet recent grave, And then she smiled, and in the
Catacombs, With eyes suffused but heart inspired true, On those walls
subterranean, where she hid Her head in ignominy, death and tombs, She her Good
Shepherd's hasty image drew And on his shoulders not a lamb, a kid!
This picture is a "distinct protest" against the un-Christian sentiment then
already creeping into the church from Paganism.
Everywhere in the Catacombs is the anchor, emblem of that hope which
separated Christianity from Paganism. Another symbol is the fish, which plays a
prominent part in Christian symbolry. It is curious and instructive to account
for this symbol. It is used as a code for Christ. The word is a sort of a
description of the name and office of our Lord.
Early Funeral Emblems
The Greek word fish, in capitals would be a secret cypher that would stand
for our Lord's name, when men dared not write or speak it; and the word or the
picture of a fish meant to the Christian the name of his Savior; and he wore as
a charm a fish cut in ivory, or mother-of-pearl, on his neck living, and bore to
his grave to be exhumed centuries after his death an effigy of a fish to signify
his faith. These and the vine, the sheep, the dove, the ark, the palm and other
emblems in the Catacombs express only hope, faith, cheerful confidence. The
horrid inventions of Augustine, the cruel monstrosities of Angelo and Dante, and
the abominations of the medieval theology were all unthought of then, and have
no hint in the Catacombs.
Stll more instructive are the inscriptions. As De Rossi observes, the most
ancient inscriptions differ from those of Pagans "more by what they do not say
than by what they do say." While the Pagans denote the rank or social position
of their dead as clarissima femine, or lady of senatorial rank, Christian
writings is destitute of all mention of distinctions. Only the name and some
expression of endearment and confidence are inscribed. Says Northcote: "They
proceed upon the assumption that there is an incessant interchange of kindly
offices between this world and the next, between the living and the dead."
Mankind is a brotherhood, and not a word can be found to show any thought of the
mutilation of the great fraternity, and the consignment of any portion of it to
final despair. Such are these among the inscriptions: "Paxtecum, Urania;" "Peace
with thee, Urania;" "Semper in D. vivas, dulcis anima;" "Always in God mayest
thou live, sweet soul;" "Mayest thou live in the Lord, and pray for us." They
had "emigrated," had been "translated," "born into eternity," but not a word is
found expressive of doubt or fear, horror and gloom, such as in subsequent
generations formed the staple of the literature of death and the grave, and
rendered the Christian graveyard, up to the beginning of the seventeenth
century, a horrible place. The first Christians regarded the grave as the
doorway into a better world, and expressed only hope and trust in their emblems
and inscriptions.
Following are additional specimen epitaphs: "Irene in Pace." "Here lies
Marcia put to rest in a dream of peace." "Victorina dormit," "Victoria sleeps;"
"Zoticus hic ad dormiendum," "Zoticus laid here to sleep; "Raptus eterne domus,"
"Snatched home eternally." "In Christ; Alexander is not dead but lives beyond
the stars, and his body rests in this tomb." Contrast these with the tone of
heathen funeral inscriptions. In general the pagan epitaphs were like that which
Sophocles expresses in OEdipus, at Colomus:
"Happiest beyond compare Never to taste of life; Happiest in order next,
Being born, with quickest speed Thither again to turn, From whence we came."
"In a Roman monument which I had occasion to publish not long since, a
father (Calus Sextus by name,) is represented bidding farewell to his daughter,
and two words--'Vale AEternam,' farewell forever--give an expressive utterance
to the feeling of blank and hopeless severance with which Greeks and Romans were
burdened when the reality of death was before their eyes." (Mariott, p. 186.)
Death was a cheerful event in the eyes of the early Christians. It was called
birth. Anchors, harps, palms, crowns, surrounded the grave. They discarded
lamentations and extravagant grief. The prayers for the dead were thanksgiving
for God's goodness. (Schaff, Hist. Christ. Church, Vol. 1. p. 342.) Their
language is such as could not have been used by them had they entertained the
views that prevailed from the Sixth to the Eighteenth Century, among the
majority of Christians; and their remains all testify to the cheerfulness of
early Christianity.
Cheerful Faith of the First Christians
"The fathers of the church live in their voluminous works; the lower orders
are only represented by these simple records, from which, with scarcely an
exception, sorrow and complaint are banished; the boast of suffering, or an
appeal to the revengeful passions is nowhere to be found. One expresses faith,
another hope, a third charity. The genius of primitive Christianity--to believe,
to love and to suffer--has never been better illustrated. These 'sermons in
stones' are addressed to the heart and not to the head--to the feelings rather
than to the taste. In all the pictures and scriptures of our Lord's history no
reference is ever found to his sufferings or death. No gloomy subjects occur in
the cycle of Christian art." (Maitland.) Chrysostom says: "For this cause, too,
the place itself is called a cemetery; that you may know that the dead laid
there are not dead, but at rest and asleep. For before the coming of Christ
death used to be called death, and not only so, but Hades, but after his coming
and dying for the life of the world, death came to be called death no longer,
but sleep and repose." The word cemeteries, dormitories, shows us that death was
regarded as a state of repose and thus a condition of hope. If fact, "in this
favorable world,15 now for the first time applied to the tomb, there is manifest
a sense of hope and immortality, the result of a new religion. A star had arisen
on the borders of the grave, dispelling the horror of darkness which had
hitherto reigned there; the prospect beyond was now cleared up, and so dazzling
was the view of an 'eternal city sculptured in the sky,' that numbers were found
eager to rush through the gate of martyrdom, for the hope of entering its starry
portals."16 Says Ruskin: "Not a cross as a symbol in the Catacombs. The earliest
certain Latin cross is on the tomb of the Empress Galla Placidia, A.D. 451. No
picture of the crucifixion till the Ninth Century, nor any portable crucifix
till long after. To the early Christians Christ was living, the one agonized
hour was lost in the thought of his glory and triumph. The fall of theology and
Christian thought dates from the error of dwelling upon his death instead of his
life."17 Farrar adds: "The symbols of the Catacombs, like every other indication
of early teaching, show the glad, bright, loving character of the Christian
faith. It was a religion of joy and not of gloom, of life and not of death, of
tenderness not of severity. We see in them as in the acts of the apostles, that
the keynotes of the music of the Christian life were 'exultation' and
'simplicity.' And how far superior in beauty and significance were these early
Christian symbols to the meaninglessness and pagan broken columns and broken
rose-buds and skulls and weeping women and inverted torches of our cemeteries.
We find in the Catacombs neither the cross of the fifth and sixth centuries nor
the crucifixes of the twelfth, nor the torches and martyrdoms of the
seventeenth, nor the skeletons of the fifteenth, not the cypresses and death's
heads of the eighteenth. Instead of these the symbols of beauty, hope and
peace."18
Dean Stanley's Testimony
From A.D. 70, the date of the fall of Jerusalem, to about A.D. 150, there is
very little Christian literature. It is only when Justin Martyr, who was
executed A.D. 166, that there is any considerable literature of the church. The
fathers before Justin are "shadows, formless phantoms, whose writings are
uncertain and only partially genuine." Speaking of the scarcity of literature
pertaining to those times and the changes experienced by Christianity, says Dean
Stanley: "No other change equally momentous has even since affected its
features, yet none has ever been so silent and secret. The stream in that most
critical moment of its passage from the everlasting hills to the plain below is
lost to our view at the very point where we are most anxious to watch it. We may
hear its struggles under the overarching rocks; we may catch its spray on the
branches that overlap its course, but the torrent itself we see not or see only
by imperfect glimpses. A fragment here, an allegory there; romances of unknown
authorship; a handful of letters of which the genuineness of every portion is
contested inch by inch; the summary explanation of a Roman magistrate; the
pleadings of two or three Christian apologists; customs and opinions in the very
act of change; last, but not least, the faded paintings, the broken sculptures,
the rude epitaphs in the darkness of the Catacombs--these are the scanty, though
attractive materials out of which the likeness of the early church must be
produced, as it was working its way, in the literal sense of the word,
underground, under camp and palace, under senate and forum."19
There were eighty years between Paul's latest epistle and the first of the
writings of the Christian fathers. Besides the writings of Tacitus and Pliny,
the long haitus is filled only by the emblems and inscriptions of the Catacombs.
What an eloquent story they tell of the cheerfulness of primitive
Christianity!20 BACK
1 Martial, Juvenal, Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, and
other heathen writers, describe the well-nigh universal depravity and depression
of the so-called civilized world. In Corinth the Acrocorinthus was occupied by a
temple to the goddess of lust. 2 Uhlhorn's Conflict of Christianity and
Paganism. 3 Conquering Cross. Forewords. 4 Early Years of the
Christian Church. 5 Allen's Continuity of Christian Thought. 6
Milman's Latin Christianity. 7 Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine.
8 The early Christians never transferred the rigidity of the Jewish
Sabbath to Sunday. Both Saturday and Sunday were observed religiously till
towards the end of the second centurty--then Sunday alone was kept. Fasting and
even kneeling in prayer was forbidden on Sunday with the early Christians.
Ancient Christian writers always mean Saturday by the word "Sabbath." 9
The Emperor Maximin in one of his edicts says that "Almost all had abandoned the
worship of their ancestory for the new faith." 10 Hesterni summus et
vestra omnes implevimus urbes, insulas, castella, municipia, conciliabula,
castra ipsa, tribus, decurias, palatium, senatum, forum. Apol. c. XXXVII.
Moshein, however, thinks that the "African orator, who is inclined to
exaggerate, "rhetoricates" a little here. The primitive Christians exulted at
the wonderful progress and diffusion of the Gospel. 11 Milman's Latin
Christianity. "The breadth of the best Greek Fathers, such as Origen, or Clement
of Alexandria, is a thousand times superior to the dry, harsh narrowness of the
Latins." Athanase Coquerel the Younger, First His. Trans. of Christianity, p.
215. 12 Cutts, Turning Points of Church History 13 See DeRossi,
Northcote, Withrow, etc., on the Catacombs. 14 A suggestive thought in
this connection is, that our Lord (Matt. 25:33), calls those on his left hand
"kidlings," "little kids," a term for tenderness and regard. 15
Maitland's Church and the Catacombs. 16 Maitland. 17 Bible of
Amiens. 18 Lives of the Fathers. 19 Christian Institutions.
20 Martineau's Hours of Thought, p. 155. "In the cycle of Christian
emblems the death of Christ holds no place; it was not till six centuries after
his death that artists began to venture upon the representation of Christ
crucified. The crucifix dates only from the end of the Seventeenth
Century."--Athanase Coqueral
Chapter 3
Origin of Endless Punishment
When our Lord spoke, the doctrine of unending torment was believed by many
of those who listened to His words, and they stated it in terms and employed
others, entirely differently, in describing the duration of punishment, from the
terms afterward used by those who taught universal salvation and annihilation,
and so gave to the terms in question the sense of unlimited duration.
For example, the Pharisees, according to Josephus, regarded the penalty of
sin as torment without end, and they stated the doctrine in unambiguous terms.
They called it eirgmos aidios (eternal imprisonment) and timorion adialeipton
(endless torment), while our Lord called the punishment of sin aionion kolasin
(age-long chastisement).
Meaning of Scriptural Terms
The language of Josephus is used by the profane Greeks, but is never found
in the New Testament connected with punishment. Josephus, writing in Greek to
Jews, frequently employs the word that our Lord used to define the duration of
punishment (aionios), but he applies it to things that had ended or that will
end.1 Can it be doubted that our Lord placed his ban on the doctrine that the
Jews had derived from the heathen by never using their terms describing it, and
that he taught a limited punishment by employing words to define it that only
meant limited duration in contemporary literature? Josephus used the word aionos
with its current meaning of limited duration. He applies it to the imprisonment
of John the Tyrant; to Herod's reputation; to the glory acquired by soldiers; to
the fame of an army as a "happy life and aionian glory." He used the words as do
the Scriptures to denote limited duration, but when he would describe endless
duration he uses different terms. Of the doctrine of the Pharisees he says:
"They believe that wicked spirits are to be kept in an eternal imprisonment
(eirgmon aidion). The Pharisees say all souls are incorruptible, but while those
of good men are removed into other bodies those of bad men are subject to
eternal punishment" (aidios timoria). Elsewhere he says that the Essenes, "allot
to bad souls a dark, tempestuous place, full of never-ceasing torment (timoria
adialeipton), where they suffer a deathless torment" (athanaton timorion).
Aidion and athanaton are his favorite terms for duration, and timoria (torment)
for punishment.
Philo's Use of the Words
Philo, who was contemporary with Christ, generally used aidion to denote
endless, and aionian temporary duration. He uses the exact phraseology of Matt.
25:46, precisely as Christ used it: "It is better not to promise than not to
give prompt assistance, for no blame follows in the former case, but in the
latter there is dissatisfaction from the weaker class, and a deep hatred and
aeonian punishment (chastisement) from such as are more powerful." Here we have
the precise terms employed by our Lord, which show that aionian did not mean
endless but did mean limited duration in the time of Christ. Philo adopts
athanaton, ateleuteton or aidion to denote endless, and aionian temporary
duration. In one place occurs this sentence concerning the wicked: *GR "to live
always dying, and to undergo, as it were, an immortal and endless death."2
Stephens, in his valuable "Thesaurus," quotes from a Jewish work: "These they
called aionios, hearing that they had performed the sacred rites for three
entire generations."3 This shows conclusively that the expression "three
generations" was then one full equivalent of aionian. Now, these eminent
scholars were Jews who wrote in Greek, and who certainly knew the meaning of the
words they employed, and they give to the aeonian words the sense of indefinite
duration, to be determined in any case by the scope of the subject. Had our Lord
intended to instill the doctrine of the Pharisees, he would have used the terms
by which they described it. But his word defining the duration of punishment was
aionian, while their words are aidion, adialeipton, and athanaton. Instead of
saying with Philo and Josephus, thanaton athanaton, deathless or immortal death;
eirgmon aidion, eternal imprisonment; aidion timorion, eternal torment; and
thanaton ateleuteton, endless death, he used aionion kolasin, an adjective in
universal use for limited duration, and a noun denoting suffering resulting in a
complete change. The word by which our Lord describes punishment is the word
kolasin, which is thus defined: "Chastisement, punishment." "The trimming of the
luxuriant branches of a tree or vine to improve it and make it fruitful." "The
act of clipping or pruning--restriction, restraint, reproof, check,
chastisement." "The kind of punishment which tends to the improvement of the
criminal is what the Greek philosopher called kolasis or chastisement."
"Pruning, checking, punishment, chastisement, correction." "Do we want to know
what was uppermost in the minds of those who formed the word for punishment? The
Latin poena or punio, to punish, the root pu in Sanscrit, which means to
cleanse, to purify, tells us that the Latin derivation was originally formed,
not to express mere striking or torture, but cleansing, correcting, delivering
from the stain of sin."4 That it had this meaning in Greek usage, see Plato:
"For the natural or accidental evils of others no one gets angry, or admonishes,
or teaches, or punishes (kolazei) them, but we pity those afflicted with such
misfortune for if, O Socrates, if you will consider what is the design of
punishing (kolazein) the wicked, this of itself will show you that men think
virtue something that may be acquired; for no one punishes (kolazei) the wicked
looking to the past only simply for the wrong he has done--that is, no one does
this thing who does not act like a wild beast; desiring only revenge, without
thought. Hence, he who seeks to punish (kolazein) with reason does not punish
for the sake of the past wrong deed, but for the sake of the future, that
neither the man himself who is punished may do wrong again, nor any other who
has seen him chastised. And he who entertains this thought must believe that
virtue may be taught, and he punishes (kolazei) for the purpose of deterring
from wickedness?"5
Use of Gehenna
So of the place of punishment (gehenna) the Jews at the time of Christ never
understood it to denote endless punishment. The reader of Farrar's "Mercy and
Judgment," and "Eternal Hope," and Windet's "De Vita functorum statu," will find
any number of statements from the Talmudic and other Jewish authorities,
affirming in the most explicit language that Gehenna was understood by the
people to whom our Lord addressed the word as a place or condition of temporary
duration. They employed such terms as these "The wicked shall be judged in
Gehenna until the righteous say concerning them, 'We have seen enough.'"5
"Gehenna is nothing but a day in which the impious will be burned." "After the
last judgment Gehenna exists no longer." "There will hereafter be no Gehenna."6
These quotations might be multiplied indefinitely to demonstrate that the Jews
to whom our Lord spoke regarded Gehenna as of limited duration, as did the
Christian Fathers. Origen in his reply to Celsus (VI, 25) gives an exposition of
Gehenna, explaining its usage in his day. He says it is an analogy of the
well-known valley of the Son of Hinnom, and signifies the fire of purification.
Now observe: Christ carefully avoided the words in which his auditors expressed
endless punishment (aidios, timoria and adialeiptos), and used terms they did
not use with that meaning (aionios kolasis), and employed the term which by
universal consent among the Jews has no such meaning (Gehenna); and as his
immediate followers and the earliest of the Fathers pursued exactly the same
course, is it not demonstrated that they intended to be understood as he was
understood?7
Professor Plumptre in a letter concerning Canon Farrar's sermons, says:
"There were two words which the Evangelists might have used--kolasis, timoria.
Of these, the first carries with it, by the definition of the greatest of Greek
ethical writers, the idea of a reformatory process, (Aristotle, Rhet. I, 10,
10-17). It is inflicted 'for the sake of him who suffers it.' The second, on the
other hand, describes a penalty purely vindictive or retributive. St. Matthew
chose--if we believe that our Lord spoke Greek, he himself chose--the former
word, and not the latter."
All the evidence conclusively shows that the terms defining
punishment--"everlasting," "eternal," "Gehenna," etc., in the Scriptures teach
its limited duration, and were so regarded by sacred and profane authors, and
that those outside of the Bible who taught unending torment always employed
other words than those used by or Lord and his disciples.
Professor Allen concedes that the great prominence given to "hell-fire" in
Christian preaching is a modern innovation. He says: "There is more
'blood-theology' and 'hell-fire,' that is, the vivid setting-forth of
everlasting torment to terrify the soul, in one sermon of Jonathan Edwards, or
one harangue at a modern 'revival,' than can be found in the whole body of
preaching and epistles through all the dark ages put together. Set beside more
modern dispensations the Catholic position of this period (middle ages) is
surprisingly merciful and mild."3
Whence Came the Doctrine? - Of Heathen Origin
When we ask the question: Where did those in the primitive Christian church
who taught endless punishment find it, if not in the Bible?--we are met by these
facts:--1. The New Testament was not in existence, as the canon had not been
arranged. 2. The Old Testament did not contain the doctrine. 3. The Pagan and
Jewish religions, the latter corrupted by heathen additions, taught it
(Hagenbach, I, First Period; Clark's Foreign Theol. Lib. I, new series).
Westcott tells us: "The written Gospel of the first period of the apostolic age
was the Old Testament, interpreted by the vivid recollection of the Savior's
ministry. The knowledge of the teachings of Christ to the close of the Second
Century, were generally derived from tradition, and not from writings. The Old
Testament was still the great store-house from which Christian teachers derived
the sources of consolation and conviction."9 Hence the false ideas must have
been brought by converts from Judaism or Paganism. The immediate followers of
our Lord's apostles do not explicitly treat matters of eschatology. It was the
age of defending truth and not of arousing controversy.10 The new revelation of
the Divine Fatherhood through the Son occupied the chief attention of
Christians, and the efforts seem to have been almost exclusively devoted to
establish the truth of the Incarnation, "God in Christ reconciling the world
unto himself." We may reasonably conclude that if this great truth had been kept
constantly in the foreground, uncorrupted by pagan error and human invention,
there would have been none of those false conceptions of God that gave rise to
the horrors of medieval times,--and no occasion in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth
Centuries for the rebirth of original Christianity in the form of Universalism.
The first Christians, however, naturally brought heathen additions into their
new faith, so that very early the doctrine of the annihilation of the wicked, or
their endless torment, began to be avowed. Here and there these doctrines
appeared from the very first, but the early writers generally either state the
great truths that legitimately result in universal good, or in unmistakable
terms avow the doctrine as a revealed truth of the Christian Scriptures.
"Numbers flocked into the church who brought their heathen ways with them."
(Third Century, "Neoplatonism," by C. Bigg, D.D., London: 1895, p. 160.)
At first Christianity was as a bit of leaven buried in foreign elements,
modifying and being modified. The early Christians had individual opinions and
idiosyncrasies, which at first their new faith did not eradicate; they still
retained some of their former errors. This accounts for their different views of
the future world. At the time of our Lord's advent Judaism had been greatly
corrupted. During the captivity11 Chaldaean, Persian and Egyptian doctrines, and
other oriental ideas had tinged the Mosaic religion, and in Alexandria,
especially, there was a great mixture of borrowed opinions and systems of faith,
it being supposed that no one form alone was complete and sufficient, but that
each system possessed a portion of the perfect truth. "The prevailing tone of
mind was to choose various views from other sources," and Christianity did not
escape the influence.
The Apocryphal Book of Enoch
More than a century before the birth of Christ12 appeared the apocryphal
(questionable authenticity) Book of Enoch, which contains, so far as is known,
the earliest statement still in existence of the doctrine of endless punishment
in any work of Jewish origin. It became very popular during the early Christian
centuries, and modified, it may be safely supposed, the views of Tatian,
Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and their followers. It is referred to or quoted
from by Barnabas, Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian,
Eusebius, Jerome, Hilary, Epiphanius, Augustine, and others. Jude quotes from it
in verses 14 and 15, and refers to it in verse 6, on which account some of the
fathers considered Jude apocryphal; but it is probable that Jude quotes Enoch as
Paul quotes the heathen poets, not to endorse its doctrine, but to illustrate a
point, as writers nowadays quote fables and legends. Cave, in the "Lives of the
Fathers," attributes the prevalence of the doctrine of fallen angels to a
perversion of the account (Gen. 6:1-4) of "the sons of God and the daughters of
men." He refers the prevalence of the doctrine to "the authority of the 'Book of
Enoch,' (highly valued by many in those days) wherein this story is related, as
appears from the fragments of it still existing." The entire work is now
accessible through modern discovery.
A little later than Enoch appeared the Book of Ezra, advocating the same
doctrine. These two books were popular among the Jews before the time of Christ,
and it is supposed, as the Old Testament is silent on the subject, that the
corrupt traditions of the Pharisees, of which our Lord warned his disciples to
beware,13 were obtained in part from these books, or from the Egyptian and Pagan
sources whence they were derived. At any rate, though the Old Testament does not
contain the doctrine,14 Josephus, as has been seen, assures us that the
Pharisees of his time accepted and taught it. Of course they must have obtained
the doctrine from uninspired sources. As these and possibly other similar books
had already corrupted the faith of the Jews, they seem later to have infused
their virus into the faith of some of the early Christians. Nothing is better
established in history than that the doctrine of endless punishment, as held by
the Christian church in medieval times, was of Egyptian origin,15 and that for
purposes of state it and its accessories were adopted by the Greeks and Romans.
Montesquieu states that "Romulus, Tatius and Numa enslaved the gods to
politics," and made religion for the state.
Catholic Hell Copied from Heathen Sources
Classic scholars know that the heathen hell was early copied by the Catholic
church, and that almost its entire details afterwards entered into the creeds of
Catholic and Protestant churches up to a century ago. Any reader may see this
who will consult Pagan literature16 and writers on the opinions of the ancients.
And not only this, but the heathen writers declare that the doctrine was
invented to instill a pseudo-reverence and fear and control the multitude.
Polybius writes: "Since the multitude is ever fickle there is no other way to
keep them in order but by fear of the invisible world; on which account our
ancestors seem to me to have acted soundly, when they contrived to bring into
the popular belief these notions of the gods and of the hell regions." Seneca
says: "Those things which make the hell regions terrible, the darkness, the
prison, the river of flaming fire, the judgment seat, etc., are all a fable."
Livy declares that Numa invented the doctrine, "a most effective means of
governing an ignorant and barbarous populace." Strabo writes: "The multitude are
restrained from vice by the punishments the gods are said to inflict upon
offenders, for it is impossible to govern the crowd of women and all the common
rabble by philosophical reasoning: these things the legislators used as
scarecrows to terrify the childish multitude." Similar language is found in
Dionysius Halicarnassus, Plato, and other writers. History records nothing more
distinctly than that the Greek and Roman Pagans borrowed of the Egyptians, and
that some of the early Christians unconsciously absorbed, or studiously
appropriated, the doctrines of the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans concerning
punishment after death, and gradually corrupted the "simplicity that is in
Christ"17 by the inventions of antiquity, as from the same sources the Jews at
the time of Christ had already corrupted their religion.18 What more natural
than that the small reservoir of Christian truth should be contaminated by the
opinions that converts from all these sources brought with them into their new
religion at first, and later that the Roman Catholic priests and Pagan
legislators should seize them as engines of power by which to control the world?
Coquerel describes the effect of the invasion of Pagans into the early
Christian church: "The gradual entrance and soon rapid invasion of an idolatrous
multitude into the bosom of Christianity was extremely detrimental to the truth.
The Christianity of Jesus was too lofty, too pure, for this multitude escaped
from the degrading cults of Olympus. The Pagans were not able to enter en masse
into the church without bringing to it their habits, their tastes, and some of
their ideas."19 Milman and Neander think20 that old Jewish prejudices could not
be rooted out in the proselytes of the infant church, and that concealed Judaism
lurked in it and was continued into the darker ages. Chrysostom complains that
the Christians of his time (the Fourth Century) were "half Jews." Enfield21
declares that converts from the schools of Pagan philosophy interwove their old
errors with the simple truths of Christianity until "heathen and Christian
doctrines were still more intimately blended and both were almost entirely lost
in the thick clouds of ignorance and barbarism which covered the earth. The
fathers of the church departed from the simplicity of the apostolic church and
corrupted the purity of the Christian faith." Hagenbach reminds us that22 "There
were two errors which the newborn Christianity had to guard against if it was
not to lose its unique religious features, and disappear in one of the already
existing religions: against a relapse into Judaism on the one side, and against
a mixture with Paganism and speculations borrowed from it, and a mythologizing
tendency on the other." The Sibylline Oracles, advocating universal restoration;
Philo, who taught annihilation, and Enoch and Ezra, who taught endless
punishment, were all read by the early Christians, and no doubt exerted an
influence in forming early opinions.
Early Christianity Adulterated
The Edinburgh Review concedes that "upon a full inspection it will be seen
that the corruption of Christianity was itself the effect of the debased state
of the human mind, of which the vices of the government were the great and
primary cause." "That the Christian religion suffered much from the influence of
the Gentile philosophy is unquestionable."23 Dr. Middleton, in a famous "Letter
from Rome," shows that from the pantheon down to heathen temples, shrines and
altars were taken by the early church, and so used that Pagans could employ them
as well as Christians, and retain their old superstitions and errors while
professing Christianity. In other words, that much of Paganism, after the First
Century or two, remained in and corrupted Christianity. Mosheim writes that "no
one objected (in the Fifth Century) to Christians retaining the opinions of
their Pagan ancestors;" and Tytler describes the confusion that resulted from
the mixture of Pagan philosophy with the plain and simple doctrines of the
Christian religion, from which the church in its infant state "suffered in a
most essential manner." The Rev. T. B. Thayer, D. D.,24 thinks that the faith of
the early Christian church "of the orthodox party was one-half Christian,
one-quarter Jewish, and one-quarter Pagan; while that of the gnostic party was
about one-quarter Christian and three-quarters philosophical Paganism." The
purpose of many of the fathers seems to have been to bridge the void between
Paganism and Christianity, and, for the sake of proselytes, to tolerate Pagan
doctrine. Says Merivale: In the Fifth Century, Paganism was assimilated, not
exterminated, and Christendom has suffered from it more or less even since. The
church was content to make terms with what survived of Paganism, content to lose
even more than it gained in an unholy alliance with superstition and idolatry;
enticing, no doubt, many of the vulgar, and some even of the more intelligent,
to a nominal acceptance of the Christian faith, but conniving at the surrender
by the great mass of its own baptized members of the highest and purest of their
spiritual acquisitions."25 It is difficult to learn just how much surrounding
influences affected ancient or modern Christians, for, as Schaff says (Hist.
Apos. Ch. p. 23): "The theological views of the Greek Fathers were modified to a
considerable extent by Platonism; those of the medieval schoolmen, by the logic
and solutions of Aristotle; those of the latter times by the system of
Descartes, Spinoza, Bacon, Locke, Leibnitz, Kant, Fries, Fichte, Schelling, and
Hegel. Few scientific evidences can absolutely emancipate themselves from the
influence of the philosophy and public opinion of their age, and when they do
they have commonly their own philosophy, etc."
Original Greek New Testament
That the Old Testament does not teach even after-death punishment is
universally conceded by scholars, as has been seen; and that the Egyptians, and
Greek and Roman Pagans did, is shown already. That the doctrine was early in the
Christian church, is equally evident. As the early Christians did not obtain it
from the Old Testament, which does not contain it, and as it was already a Pagan
doctrine, where could they have aquired it except from heathen sources? And as
Universalism was nowhere taught, and as the first Universalist Christians after
the apostles were Greeks, perfectly familiar with the language of the New
Testament, where else could they have found their faith than where they declare
they found it, in the New Testament? How can it be supposed that the Latins were
correct in claiming that the Greek Scriptures teach a doctrine that the Greeks
themselves did not find therein? And how can the Greek fathers in the primitive
church mistake when they understand our Lord and his apostles to teach universal
restoration? "It may be well to note here, that after the third century the
descent of the church into errors of doctrine and practice grew more rapid. The
worship of Jesus, of Mary, of saints, or relics, etc., followed each other. Mary
was called 'the Mother of God,' 'the Queen of Heaven.' As God began to be
represented more stern, unappeased anger, cruel, the people worshiped Jesus to
induce him to appease his Father's wrath; and then as the Son was held up as the
severe judge of sinners and the executioner of the Father's vengeance, men
prayed Mary to mollify the anger of her God-child; and when she became unfeeling
or lacked influence, they turned to Joseph and other saints, and to martyrs, to
intercede with their cold, unappeasable superiors. Thus theology became more
hard and merciless --hell was intensified, and enlarged, and eternalized--heaven
shrunk, and receded, and lost its compassion--woman (despite the deification of
Mary) was regarded as weak and despicable--the Agape (the Godly feasts and
celebrations in the early Church where the eucharist [symbolic partaking of
bread and wine] was just a part of) were abolished and the Eucharist itself
deified, and its cup withheld from the people--and woman deemed too impure to
touch it! As among the heathen Romans, faith and reverence decreased as their
gods were multiplied, so here, as objects of worship were increased, familiarity
bred only sensuality, and sensuous worship drove out virtue, respect, and
reverance until, in the language of Mrs. Jameson's "Legends of the Madonna,"
(Int. p. 31): One of the paintings in the Vatican represents Giulia Farnese (a
noted impure woman and mistress of the pope!) in the character of the Madonna,
and Pope Alexander VI. (the drunken, unchaste, beastly!) kneeling at her feet in
the character of a worshipper! Under the influence of the Medici, the churches
of Florence were filled with pictures of the Virgin in which the only thing
aimed at was a sensual beauty. Savonarola thundered from his pulpit in the
garden of S. Marco against these impieties."26 BACK
1 See my "Aion-Aionious, pp. 109-114; also Josephus,
"Antiq." and "Jewish Wars." 2 "De Praemiis" and "Poenis" Tom. II, pp.
19-20. Mangey's edition. Dollinger quoted by Beecher. Philo was learned in Greek
philosophy, and especially reverenced Plato. His use of Greek is of the highest
authority. 3 "Solom. Parab." 4 Donnegan, Grotius, Liddel, Max
Muller, Beecher, Hist. Doc. Fut. Ret. pp. 73-75. 5 The important passage
may be found more fully quoted in "Aion-Aionios." 6 Targum of Jonathan on
Isaiah, xvi: 24. See also "Aion-Aionious" and "Bible Hell." 7 Farrar's
"Mercy and Judgment." pp. 380-381, where quotations are given from the Fourth
Century, asserting that punishment must be limited because aionian correction
(aionian kolasin), as in Matt. xxv: 46, must be terminable. 8 "Christian
Hist. in its Three Great Periods." pp. 257-8. 9 Introduction to Gospels.
p. 181 10 The opinions of the Jews were modified at first by the
captivity in Egypt fifteen centuries before Christ, and later by the Babylonian
captivity, ending four hundred years before Christ, so that many of them, the
Pharisees especially, no longer held the simple doctrines of Moses. 11
Robertson's History of the Christian Church, vol. 1. pp. 38-39. 12 The
Book of Enoch, translated from the Ethiopian, with Introduction and Notes. By
Rev. George H. Schodde. 13 Mark 7:13; Matthew 16:6,12; Luke 21:1; Mark
8:15. 14 Milman Hist. Jews; Warburton's Divine Legation; Jahn,
Archaeology. 15 Warburton. Leland's Necessity of Divine Revelation.
16 Virgil's AEneid. Apollodorus, Hesiod, Herodotus, Plutarch, Diodorus
Siculus, etc. 17 II Cor. 11:3. 18 Milman's Gibbon, Murdock's
Mosheim, Enfield's Hist. Philos., Universalist Expositor, 1853. 19
Coquerel's First Historical Transformations of Christianity. 20 See
Conybeare's "Paul," Vol. I, Chapters 14,15. 21 See also Priestley's
"Corruptions of Christianity." 22 Hist. Doct. I Sec. 22. 23
Vaughan's Causes of the Corruption of Christianity; also Casaubon and Blunt's
"Vestiges." 24 Hist. Doct. Endelss Punishment, pp. 192-193. 25
Early Church History, pp. 159-160. 26 Universalist Quartarly, January
1883.
Chapter 4
Doctrines of "Mitigation" and of
"Reserve"
There was no controversy among Christians over the duration of the
punishment of the wicked for at least three hundred years after the death of
Christ. Scriptural terms were used with their Scriptural meanings, and while it
is not probable that universal restoration was contentiously or dogmatically
announced, it is equally probable that the endless duration of punishment was
not taught until the heathen corruptions had adulterated Christian truth. God's
fatherhood and boundless love, and the work of Christ in man's behalf were dwelt
upon, accompanied by the announcement of the fearful consequences of sin; but
when those consequences, through Pagan influences, came to be regarded as
endless in duration, then the antidotal truth of universal salvation assumed
prominence through Clement, Origen, and other Alexandrine fathers. Even when
some of the early Christians had so far been overcome by heathen error as to
accept the dogma of endless torment for the wicked, they had no hard words for
those who believed in universal restoration, and did not even deny their views.
The doctrines of Prayer for the Dead, and of Christ Preaching to those in Hades,
and of Mitigation, were humane teachings of the primitive Christians that were
subsequently discarded.
"Mitigation" Explained
The doctrine of Mitigation was, that for some good deed on earth, the damned
in hell would occasionally be let out on a respite or furlough, and have ceasing
of torment. This doctrine of mitigation was quite general among the fathers when
they came to advocate the Pagan dogma. In fact, endless punishment in all its
enormity, destitute of all benevolent features, was not fully developed until
Protestantism was born, and prayers for the dead, mitigation of the condition of
the "lost," and other softening features were repudiated.1
It was taught that the worst sinners--Judas himself, even--had furloughs
from hell for good deeds done on Earth. Matthew Arnold embodies one of the
legends in his poem of St. Brandon. The saint once met, on an iceberg on the
ocean, the soul of Judas Iscariot, released from hell for awhile, who explains
his temporary refuge. He had once given a cloak to a leper in Joppa, and so he
says--
"Once every year, when carols wake On earth the Christmas night's repose,
Arising from the sinner's lake' I journey to these healing snows. "I stand with
ice my burning breast, With silence calm by burning brain; O Brandon, to this
hour of rest, That Joppan leper's ease was pain."
It remained for Protestantism to discard all the softening features that
Catholicism had added to the left-overs of heathenism into Christianity, and to
give the world the absolute horror that Protestantism taught from the Sixteenth
to the Nineteenth Century.
The Doctrine of "Reserve"
We cannot read the patristic literature understandingly unless we constantly
bear in mind the early fathers' doctrine of "OEconomy," or "Reserve."2 Plato
distinctly taught it,3 and says that error may be used as a medicine. He
justifies the use of the "medicinal lie." The resort of the early fathers to the
esoteric or exclusivity is no doubt derived from Plato. Origen almost quotes him
when he says that sometimes fictitious threats are necessary to secure
obedience, as when Solon had purposely given imperfect laws. Many, in and out of
the church, held that the wise possessor of truth might hold it in secret. when
its impartation to the ignorant would seem to be fraught with danger, and that
error might be properly substituted. The object was to save "Christians of the
simpler sort" from waters too deep for them. It is possible to defend the
practice if it be taken to represent the method of a skillful teacher, who will
not confuse the learner with principles beyond his comprehension.4 Gieseler
remarks that "the Alexandrians regarded a certain accommodation as necessary,
which ventures to make use even of falsehood for the attainment of a good end;
nay, which was even obliged to do so." Neander declares that "the Orientals,
according to their theology of oeconomy, allowed themselves many liberties not
to be reconciled with the strict laws of adherence to truth."5
Some of the fathers who had achieved a faith in Universalism, were
influenced by the mischievous notion that it was to be held esoterically
(exclusively), cherished in secret, or only communicated to the chosen
few,--withheld from the multitude, who would not appreciate it, and even that
the opposite error would, with some sinners, be more beneficial than the truth.
Clement of Alexandria admits that he does not write or speak certain truths.
Origen claims that there are doctrines not to be communicated to the ignorant.
Clement says: "They are not in reality liars who use roundabout and indirect
expressions6 because of the oeconomy of salvation." Origen said that "all that
might be said on this theme is not appropriate to explain now, or to all. For
the mass need no further teaching on account of those who hardly through the
fear of aeonian punishment restrain their recklessness." The reader of the
Church Father's literature sees this opinion frequently, and unquestionably it
caused many to hold out threats to the multitude in order to restrain them;
threats that they did not themselves believe would be executed.8
The gross and carnal interpretation given to parts of the Gospel, causing
some, as Origen said, to "believe of God what would not be believed of the
cruelest of mankind," caused him to dwell upon the duty of reserve, which he
does in many of his dicourses. He says that he can not fully express himself on
the mystery of eternal punishment in an exoteric (public) statement.9 The
reserve advocated and practiced by Origen and the Alexandrians was, says Bigg,
"the screen of an esoteric belief." Beecher reminds his readers that while it
was common with Pagan philosophers to teach false doctrines to the masses with
the mistaken idea that they were needful, "the fathers of the Christian church
did not escape the infection of the leprosy of pious fraud;" and he quotes
Neander to show that Chrysostom was guilty of it, and also Gregory Nazianzen,
Athanasius, and Basil the Great. The prevalence of this fraus pia in the early
centuries is well known to scholars. After saying that the Sibylline Oracles
were probably forged by a gnostic, Mosheim says: "I cannot yet take upon me to
acquit the most strictly orthodox from all participation in this form of crime;
for it appears from evidence superior to all exception that a destructive
formulation was current, namely, that those who made it their business to
deceive with a view of promoting the cause of truth, were deserving rather of
praise that disapproval."
What Was Held as to Doctrine
It seems to have been held that "faith, the foundation of Christian
knowledge, was fitted only for the rude mass, the animal men, who were incapable
of higher things. Far above these were the privileged natures, the men of
intellect, or spiritual men, whose vocation was not to believe but to know."10
The ecclesiastical historians class as esoteric believers, Chrysostom and
Gregory Nazianzen; and Beecher names Athanasius and Basil the Great as in the
same category; and Beecher remarks: "We cannot fully understand such a
proclamation of future endless punishment as has been described, while it was
not believed, until we consider the influence of Plato on the age. Socrates is
introduced as saying in Grote's Plato: 'It is essential that this fiction should
be circulated and accredited as the fundamental, consecrated, unquestioned creed
of the whole city, from which the feeling of harmony and brotherhood among the
citizens springs." Such principles, as a leprosy, had corrupted the whole
community, and especially the leaders. In the Roman Empire pagan rulers and
priests appealed to punishment in Tartarus, of which they had no belief, to
affect the masses. This does not excuse, but it explains the preaching of
eternal punishment by men who did not believe it. They dared not entrust the
truth to the masses, and so held it in reserve--to deter men from sin."
General as was the confession of a belief in universal salvation in the
church's first and best three centuries, there is ample reason the believe that
it was the secret belief of more than gave expression to it, and that many a one
who proclaimed a partial salvation, in his secret "heart of heart" agreed with
the greatest of the church's fathers during the first four hundred years of our
era, that Christ would achieve a universal triumph, and that God would
ultimately reign in all hearts.
Modern Theologians Equivocal
There can be no doubt that many of the fathers threatened severer penalties
than they believed would be visited on sinners, compelled to utter them because
they considered them to be more beneficially corrective with the masses than the
truth itself. So that we may believe that some of the Church Father writers who
seem to teach endless punishment did not believe it. Others, we know, who
accepted universal restoration employed, for the sake of deterring sinners,
threats that are inconsistent, literally interpreted, with that doctrine. This
inclination to conceal the truth has motivated many a modern theologian. In
Sermon 35, on the eternity of hell torments, Arch-bishop Tillotson, while he
argues for the endless duration of punishment, suggests that the Judge has the
right to omit inflicting it if he shall see it inconsistent with righteousness
or goodness to make sinners miserable forever, and Burnet urges: "Whatever your
opinion is within yourself and in your heart concerning these punishments,
whether they are eternal or not, yet always with the people and when you preach
to them, use the received doctrine and the received words in the sense in which
the people receive them." It is certainly allowable to think that many an
ancient timid teacher discovered the truth without daring to entrust it to the
mass of mankind.
Even Lying Defended
Theophilus of Alexandria proposed making Synesius of Cyrene, bishop. The
latter said: "The philosophical intelligence, in short, while it beholds the
truth, admits the necessity of lying. Light corresponds to truth, but the eye is
dull of vision; it can not without injury gaze on the infinite light. As
twilight is more comfortable for the eye, so, I hold, is falsehood for the
common run of people. The truth can only be harmful for those who are unable to
gaze on the reality. If the laws of the priesthood permit me to hold this
position, then I can accept consecration, keeping my philosophy to myself at
home, and preaching fables out of doors."11 BACK
1 Christian History in Three Great Periods. pp. 257,8.
2 Bigg's Platonists of Alexandria. p. 58. 3 Grote's Plato, Vol.
III, xxxii. pp. 56, 7. 4 J.H. Newman, Arians; Apologia Pro Vita Sua
5 Allin, Univ. Asserted, shows at length the prevalence of the doctrine
of "reserve" among the early Christians. 6 Stromata. 7 Against
Celsus I, vii; and on Romans 2. 8 "St. Basil distinguishes in
Christianity between *GR what is openly proclaimed and *GR which are kept
secret." Max Muller, Theosophy of Psychology, Lect. xiv. 9 Ag. Cels. De
Prin. 10 Dean Mansell's Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second
Centuries. Introduction, p. 10. 11 Neoplatonism, by C. Bigg, D.D. London:
1895, p. 339.
Chapter 5
Two Kindred Topics
Gospel Preached to the Dead
The early Christian church almost, if not quite, universally believed that
Christ made proclamation of the Gospel to the dead in Hades. Says Huidekoper:
"In the Second and Third Centuries every branch and division of Christians
believed that Christ preached to the departed."1 Dietelmaier declares2 this
doctrine was believed by all Christians. Of course, if souls were placed where
their doom was irretrievable salvation would not be offered to them; whence it
follows that the early Christians believed in probation after death. Allin says
that "some writers teach that the apostles also preached in Hades. Some say that
the Blessed Virgin did the same. Some even say that Simeon went before Christ to
Hades." All these testimonies go to show that the earliest of the fathers did
not regard the grave as the dead-line which the love of God could not cross, but
that the door of mercy is open hereafter as here. "The platonic doctrine of a
separate state, where the spirits of the departed are purified, and on which the
later doctrine of purgatory was founded, was approved by all the expositors and
teachers of Christianity who were of the Alexandrian school, as was the custom
of performing religious services at the tombs of the dead. Nor was there much
difference between them and Tertullian in these particulars."
In the early ages of the church great stress was laid on I Pet. 3:19: "He
(Christ) went and preached unto the spirits in prison." That this doctrine was
prevalent as late as Augustine's day is evident from the fact that the doctrine
is banned and cursed in his list of heresies--number 79. And even as late as the
Ninth Century it was condemned by Pope Boniface VI. It was believed that our
Lord not only proclaimed the Gospel to all the dead but that he liberated them
all. How could it be possible for a Christian to entertain the thought that all
the wicked who died before the advent of our Lord were released from bondage,
and that any who died after his advent would suffer endless woe? Eusebius says:
"Christ, caring for the salvation of all opened a way of return to life for the
dead bound in the chains of death." Athanasius: "The devil cast out of Hades,
sees all the shackled beings led forth by the courage of the Savior."3 Origen on
I Kings 28:32: "Jesus descended into Hades, and the prophets before him, and
they proclaimed beforehand the coming of Christ." Didymus observes "In the
liberation of all, no one remains a captive; at the time of the Lord's passion
he alone (Satan) was injured, who lost all the captives he was keeping." Cyril
of Alexandria: "And wandering down even to Hades he has emptied the dark,
secret, invisible treasures." Gregory of Nazianzus: "Until Christ loosed by his
blood all who groaned under Tartarian chains." Jerome on Jonah 2:6: "Our Lord
was shut up in aeonian bars in order that he might set free all who had been
shut up."
Such passages might be multiplied, demonstrating that the early church
regarded the conquest by Christ of the departed as universal. He set free from
bonds all the dead in Hades. If the primitive Christians believed that all the
wicked of all the aeons preceding the death of Christ were released, how can we
suppose them to have regarded the wicked subsequent to his death as destined to
suffer endless torments? Clement of Alexandria is explicit in declaring that the
Gospel was preached to all, both Jews and Gentiles, in Hades;--that "the sole
cause of the Lord's descent to the underworld was to preach the gospel." (Strom.
6) Origen says: "Not only while Jesus was in the body did he win over not a few
only, but when he became a soul, without the covering of the body, he dwelt
among those souls (in Hades) which were without bodily covering, converting such
of them as were fit for it."
The Gospel of Nicodemus
About a century after the death of John appeared the apocryphal Gospel of
Nicodemus, valuable as setting forth current eschatology. It describes the
effect of Christ's preaching in Hades: "When Jesus arrived in Hades, the gates
burst open, and taking Adam by the hand Jesus said, "Come all with me, as many
as have died through the tree which he touched, for behold I raise you all up
through the tree of the cross.'" This book shows conclusively that the
Christians of that date did not regard aeonian punishment as endless, inasmuch
as those who had been sentenced to that condition were released. "If Christ
preached to dead men who were once disobedient, then Scripture shows us that the
moment of death does not necessarily involve a final and hopeless torment for
every sinful soul. Of all the blunt weapons of ignorant controversy employed
against those to whom has been revealed the possibility of a larger hope than is
left to mankind by Augustine or by Calvin, the bluntest is the charge that such
a hope renders null the necessity for the work of Christ. We thus rescue the
work of redemption from the appearance of having failed to achieve its end for
the vast majority of those for whom Christ died. In these passages, as has been
truly said, 'we may see an expansive paraphrase and exuberant variation of the
original Pauline theme of the universalism of the evangelic mission of Christ,
and of his sovereignty over the world;' and especially of the passage in the
Philippians (2:9-11) where all they that are in heaven and on earth and under
the earth, are counted and listed as classes of the subjects of the exalted
Redeemer."5 And Alford observes: "The deduction every intelligent reader will
draw from the fact here announced: it is not purgatory; it is not universal
restitution; but it is one which throws blessed light on one of the darkest
puzzles of divine justice." Timotheus II., patriarch of the Nestorians, wrote
that "by the prayers of the saints the souls of sinners may pass from Gehenna to
Paradise," (Asseman. IV. p. 344). See Prof. Plumptre's "Spirits in Prison," p.
141; Dict. Christ. Biog. Art. Eschatology, etc. Says Uhlhorn (Book 1, ch. 3):
"For deceased persons their relatives brought gifts on the anniversary of their
death, a beautiful custom which vividly exhibited the connection between the
church above and the church below."
"One fact stands out very clearly from the passages of patriarchal
literature, viz.: that all sects and divisions of the Christians in the second
and third centuries united in the belief that Christ went down into Hades, or
the Underworld, after his death on the cross, and remained there until his
resurrection. Of course it was natural that the question should come up, What
did he do there? As he came down from earth to preach the Gospel to, and save,
the living, it was easy to infer that he went down into Hades to preach the same
glad tidings there, and show the way of salvation to those who had died before
his advent."6
Prayers for the Dead
It need not here be claimed that the doctrine that Christ literally preached
to the dead in Hades is true, or that such is the teaching of I Pet. 3:19, but
it is perfectly apparent that if the primitive Christians held to the doctrine
they could not have believed that the condition of the soul is fixed at death.
That is comparatively a modern doctrine.
There can be no doubt that the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is a
corruption of the Scriptural doctrine of the disciplinary character of all God's
punishments. Purgatory was never heard of in the earlier centuries.7 It is first
fully stated by Pope Gregory the First, 'its inventor,' at the close of the
Sixth Century, "For some light faults we must believe that there is before
judgment a purgatorial fire." This theory is a perversion of the idea held
anciently, that all God's punishments are purgative; what the Catholic regards
as true of the errors of the good is just as true of the sins of the worst,--
indeed, of all. The word rendered punishment in Matt. 25:46, (kolasin) implies
all this.
Condition of the Dead not Final
That the condition of the dead was not regarded as unalterably fixed is
evident from the fact that prayers for the dead were customary anciently, and
that, too, before the doctrine of purgatory was formulated. The living
believed--and so should we believe--that the dead have migrated to another
country, where the good offices of supervisors on earth avail. Perpetua begged
for the help of her brother, child of a Pagan father, who had died unbaptized.
In Tertullian the widow prays for the soul of her departed husband. Repentance
by the dead is conceded by Clement, and the prayers of the good on earth help
them.
The dogma of the purifying character of future punishment did not degenerate
into the doctrine of punishment for believers only, until the Fourth Century;
nor did that error crystallize into the Catholic purgatory until later.
Hagenbach says: "Comparing Gregory's doctrine with the earlier, and more
spiritual notions concerning the desired effect of the purifying fire of the
intermediate state, we may adopt the statement of Schmidt that the belief in a
lasting desire of perfection, which death itself cannot quench, degenerated into
a belief in purgatory."
Plumtre ("Spirits in Prison," London, p. 25) has a valuable statement: "In
every form; from the solemn worship systems which embodied the belief of her
profoundest thinkers and truest worshippers, to the simple words of hope and
love which were traced over the graves of the poor, her voice (the church of the
first ages) went up without a doubt or misgiving, in prayers for the souls of
the departed;" showing that they could not have regarded their condition as
unalterably fixed at death. Prof. Plumptre quotes from Lee's "Christian Doctrine
of Prayer for the Departed," to show the early Christians' belief that
intercessions for the dead would be of avail to them. Even Augustine accepted
the doctrine. He prayed after his mother's death, that her sins might be
forgiven, and that his father might also receive pardon. ("Confessions," 9,
13.)8
The Platonic doctrine of a separate state where the spirits of the departed
are purified, and on which the later doctrine of purgatory was founded, was
approved by all the ministers and teachers of Christianity who were of the
Alexandrian school, as was the custom of performing religious services at the
tombs of the dead. Uhlhorn gives similar testimony: "For deceased persons their
relatives brought gifts on the anniversary of their death, a beautiful custom,
which vividly exhibited the connection between the church above and the church
below." Origen's tenet of Catharsis of Purification was absorbed by the growing
belief in purgatory.9
Important Thoughts
Let the reader reflect, (1) that the Primitive Christians so distrusted the
effect of the truth on the popular mind that they withheld it, and only
cherished it exclusively, and held up terrors for effect, in which they had no
faith; (2) that they prayed for the wicked dead that they might be released from
suffering; (3) that they universally held that Christ preached the Gospel to
sinners in Hades; (4) that the earliest creeds are entirely silent as to the
idea that the wicked dead were in irretrievable and endless torment; (5) that
the terms used by some who are accused of teaching endless torment were
precisely those employed by those acknowledged to have been Universalists; (6)
that the first Christians were the happiest of people and infused a wonderful
cheerfulness into a world of sorrow and gloom; (7) that there is not a shade of
darkness nor a note of despair in any one of the thousands of epitaphs in the
Catacombs; (8) that the doctrine of universal redemption was first made
prominent by those to whom Greek was their native tongue, and that they declared
that they derived it from the Greek Scriptures, while endless punishment was
first taught by Africans and Latins, who derived it from a foreign tongue of
which the great teacher of it confesses he was ignorant. (See "Augustine" later
on.) Let the reader give to these considerations their full and proper weight,
and it will be impossible to believe that the fathers regarded the unrepentant
as consigned at death to hopeless and endless woe.
Note.--After giving the emphatic language of Clement and Origen and other
ancient Christians declarative of universal holiness, Dr. Bigg, in his valuable
book, "The Christian Platonists of Alexandria," frequently quoted in these
pages, remarks (pp. 292-3): "Neither Clement not Origen is, properly speaking, a
Universalist. Nor is Universalism the logical result of their principles." The
reasons he gives are two: (1) They believed in the freedom of the will; and (2)
they did not deny the eternity of punishment, because the soul that has sinned
beyond a certain point can never become what it might have been!
To which it is only necessary to say (1) that Universalists generally accept
the freedom of the will, and (2) no soul that has sinned, as all have sinned,
can ever become what it might have been, so the Dr. Bigg's premises would
necessitate Universalism, but universal condemnation!
And, as if to contradict his own words, Dr. Bigg adds in the very next
paragraph: "The hope of a general restitution of all souls through suffering to
purity and blessedness, lingered on in the East for some time;" and the last
words in his book are these: "It is the teaching of St. Paul,--Then cometh the
end, when he shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Father. Then
shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him,
that God may be all in all." And these are the last words of his last note: "At
the end all will be one because the Father's will is all in all and all in each.
Each will fill the place which the mystery of the economy assigns to him."
It would be interesting to learn what sort of monstrosity Dr. Bigg has
constructed, and labeled with the word which he declares could not be applied to
Clement and Origen. BACK
1 An excellent resume of the opinions of the fathers on
Christ's descent into Hades, and preaching the gospel to the dead, is
Huidekoper's "The Belief of the First Three Centuries Concerning Christ's
Mission to the Underworld;" also Huidekoper's "Indirect Testimony to the
Gospels;" also Dean Plumptre's "Spirits in Prison." London: 1884. 2
Historia Dogmatis do Descensu Christi ad Inferos. J. A. Dietelmaier. 3 De
Passione et Cruce Domin. Migne, XXVIII, 186-240. 4 Carm. XXXV, v. 9
5 Farrar's "Early Days of Christianity." ch. vii. 6 Universalist
Quarterly. 7 Archs. Usher and Wake, quoted by Farrar, "Mercy and
Judgment." 8 That these ideas were general in the primitive church, see
Nitzsch, "Christian Doctrine," Sec. III; Dorner, "System of Christian Doctrine,"
Vol. IV (Eschatology). Also Vaughan's "Causes of the Corruption of
Christianity," p. 319. 9 "Neoplatonism," by C. Bigg, p. 334.
Chapter 6
The Apostles' Immediate Successors
The First Christians not Explicit in Eschatological Matters
As we read the writings of the immediate successors of the apostles, we
discover that matters of eschatology do not occupy their thought. They dwell on
the advent of our Lord, and extend its blessings to the world; they give the
proofs of his divinity, and appeal to men to accept his religion. Most of the
surviving documents of the First Century are exhortative. It was an apologetic,
not an age of controversy. A very partisan author, anxious to show that the
doctrine of endless punishment was passed on to their immediate successors by
the apostles, concedes this. He says that the first Christians "touched but
lightly and incidentally on points of doctrine," but gave "the doctrines of
Christianity in the very words of Scripture, giving us often no certain clue to
their interpretations of the language.1" The first Christians were converted
Jews, Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, differing in their theologies, and only
agreeing in accepting Christ and Christianity; their ideas of our Lord's
teaching concerning human destiny and on other subjects were influenced by their
former preferences. Thier doctrines on many points were colored by Jewish and
Pagan errors, until their minds were clarified, when the more systematic
teachers came, -- Clement, Origen and others, who eliminated the errors
Christian converts had brought with them from former associations, and presented
Christianity as Christ taught it. The measures of meal were more or less impure
until the enlightenment of genuine Christianity transformed them. But it is
conceded that there is little left of this apostolic age, out of the New
Testament, to tell us what their ideas of human destiny were.
It is probable, however, that the Pharisaic notion of a partial resurrection
and the annihilation of the wicked was held by some, and the heathen ideas of
endless punishment by others. We know that even while the apostles lived some of
the early Christians had accepted new, or retained ancient errors, for which
they were reprimanded by the apostles. "False teachers" and "philosophy and vain
deceit" were alleged of them, and it is the testimony of scholars that errors
abounded among them, errors that Christianity did not at first expel. But the
questions concerning human destiny were not at all raised at first. True views
and false ones undoubtedly prevailed, brought into the new communion from former
associations. And it is conceded that while very little literature on this
subject remains, there is enough to show that they differed, at first, and until
wiser teachers systematized our religion, and sifted out the wheat from the
chaff.
Views of Clement of Rome
The first of the apostolic fathers was Clement of Rome, who was bishop A.D.
85. Eusebius and Origin thought he was Paul's fellow laborer. His famous first
epistle of fifty-nine chapters in about the length of Mark's Gospel. He appeals
to the destruction of the cities of the plains to illustrate the divine
punishment, but gives no hint of the idea of endless woe, though he devotes
three chapters to the resurrection. He has been thought to have held to a
partial resurrection, for he asks: "Do we then deem it any great and wonderful
thing for the maker of all things to raise up again those who have proudly
served him in the assurance of a good faith?" But this does not prove he held to
the annihilation of the wicked, for Theophilus and Origen use similar language.
He says: "Let us reflect how free from wrath he is towards all his creatures."
God "does good to all, but most abundantly to us who have fled for refuge to his
compassions," etc. God is "the all-merciful and beneficent Father." Neander
affirms that he had the Pauline spirit," with love as the motive, and A. St. J.
Chambre, D.D.,2 thinks "he probably believed in the salvation of all men," and
Allin3 refers to Rufinus and says, "from which we may, I think, infer, that
Clement, with other fathers, was a believer in the larger hope." It cannot be
said that he has left anything positive in relation to the subject, though it is
probable that Chambre and Allin have correctly characterized him. He wrote a
Greek epistle to the Corinthians which was lost for centuries, but was often
quoted by subsequent writers, and whose contents were therefore only known in
fragments. It was probably written before John's Gospel. It was at length found
complete, bound with the Alexandrian manuscript. It was read in church before
and at the time of Eusebius, and even as late as the Fifth Century.
Polycarp, a Destructionist
Polycarp was bishop of the church in Smyrna, A.D. 108-117. He is thought to
have been John's disciple. Irenaeus tells us that he and Ignatius were friends
of Peter and John, and related what they had told them. His only surviving
epistle contains this passage: To Christ "all things are made subject, both that
are in heaven and that are on earth; whom every living creature shall worship;
who shall come to judge the quick and the dead; whose blood God shall require of
them that believe not in Him." He also says in the same chapter: "He who raised
up Christ from the dead, will also raise us up if we do his will," implying that
the resurrection depended, as he thought, on conduct in this life. It seems
probable that he was one of those who held to the Pharisaic doctrine of a
partial resurrection. And yet this is only the most probable guess. There is
nothing decisive in his language. When the proconsul Statius Quadratus wrote to
Polycarp, threatening him with burning, the saint replied "Thou threatenest me
with a fire that burns for an hour, and is presently extinct, but art ignorant,
alas! of the fire of aionian condemnation, and the judgment to come, reserved
for the wicked in the other world." After Polycarp there was no literature, that
has descended to us, for several years, except a few quotations in later
writings, which, however, contain nothing bearing on our theme, from Papias,
Quadratus, Agrippa, Castor, etc.
The Martyria
"The Martyrdom of Polycarp" claims to be a letter from the church of Smyrna
reciting the particulars of his death. But though it is the earliest of the
Martyria, it is supposed to have a much later date than it alledges, and much
has been added onto by its transcribers. Eusebius omits much of it. It speaks of
the fire that is "aionion punishment," and it is probable that the writer gave
these terms the same sense that is given them by the Scriptures, Origen, Gregory
and other Universalist writings and authors.
Tatian states the doctrine of endless punishment very strongly. He was a
philosophical Platonist more than a Christian. He was a heathen convert and
repeats the heathen doctrines in language unknown to the New Testament though
common enough in heathen works. He calls punishment "death through punishment in
immortality,"4 terms used by Josephus and the Pagans, but never found in the New
Testament. His "Diatessaron," a collection of the Gospels, is of real value in
determining the existence of the Gospels in the Second Century.
Barnabas's "Way of Death"
The Epistle of Barnabas was written by an Alexandrian Gnostic, probably
about A.D. 70 to 120, not, as has been claimed, by Paul's companion, and yet
some of the best authorities think the author of the Epistle was the friend of
Paul. Though often quoted by the ancients, the first four and a half chapters of
the Epistle were only known in a Latin version until the entire Greek was
discovered and published in 1863. It is the only Christian composition written
while the New Testament was being written, except the "Wisdom of Solomon." It is
of small value to our subject, and sheds but little light on eschatology. The
first perfect manuscript was found with the Sinaitic manuscript of Tischendorf,
a translation of which is given by Samuel Sharpe. (Williams & Norgate,
London, 1880.) It was the first document after the New Testament to apply
aionios to punishment; but there is nothing in the connection to show that it
was used in any other than its Scriptural sense, indefinite duration. It is
quoted by Origen on Cont. Cels., and by Clement of Alexandria. It is chiefly
remarkable for standing alone among writings contemporary with the New
Testament. The phrase, eis ton aiona, "to the age," mistranslated in the New
Testament "forever" (though correctly rendered in the margin of the Revision),
is employed by Barnabas and applied to the rewards of goodness and the evil
consequences of ill doing. He says, "The way of the Black one is an age-lasting
way of death and punishment," but the description accompanying shows that the
Way and its results are confined to this life, for he precedes it by disclaiming
all questions of eschatology. He says: "If I should write to you about things
that are future you would not understand." And when he speaks of God he says:
"He is Lord from ages and to ages, but he (Satan) is prince of the present time
of wickedness." Long duration but not strict eternity seems to have been in his
mind when he referred to the consequences of wickedness. This is confirmed by
the following language: "He that chooseth those (evil) things will be destroyed
together with his works. For the sake of this there will be a resurrection, for
the sake of this a repayment. The day is at hand in which all things will perish
together with the evil one. The Lord is at hand and his reward." Barnabas
probably held the Scriptural view of punishment, long-lasting but limited,
though he employs timoria (torment) instead of kolasis (correction) for
punishment.
The Shepherd or Pastor of Hermas
In the middle of the Second Century, say A.D. 141 to 156, a book entitled
the "Shepherd," or "Pastor of Hermas," was read in the churches, and was
regarded as almost equal to the Scriptures. The author was commissioned to write
it by Clemens Romanus. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius and
Athanasius quote from it, and rank it among the sacred writings. Clement says it
is "divinely expressed," and Origin calls it "divinely inspired." Irenaeus
designates the book as "The Scripture." According to Rothe, Hefele, and the
editors of Bib. Max. Patrum, Hermas teaches the possibility of repentance after
death, but seems to imply the annihilation of the wicked. Farrar says that the
parable of the tower "certainly taught a possible improvement after death: for a
possibility of repentance and so of being built into the tower is granted to
some of the rejected stones." The "Pastor" does not avow Universalism, but he is
much further from the eschatology of the church for the last fifteen centuries,
than from universal restoration. Only fragments of this work were preserved for
a long time, and they were in a Latin translation, until 1859, when one-fourth
of the original Greek was discovered. This, with the fragments previously
possessed, and the AEthiopic version, give us the full text of this ancient
document. The book is a sort of Ante-Nicene Pilgrim's Progress--an incoherent
imitation of Revelation.5 The theology of the "Shepherd" can be evaluated from
his language: "Put on, therefore, gladness, that hath always favor before God,
and is acceptable to Him, and delight thyself in it; for every man that is glad
doeth the things that are good, but thinketh good thoughts, despising grief."
How different this sentiment from that which prevailed later, when saints
mortified body and soul, and made religion the deification of melancholy and
despair.
Of some fifteen epistles ascribed to Ignatius, it has been settled by modern
scholarship that seven are genuine. There are passages in these that seem to
indicate that he believed in the annihilation of the wicked. He was probably a
convert from heathenism who had not gotten rid of his former opinions. He says:
"It would have been better for them to love that they might rise." If he
believed in a partial resurrection he could not have used words that denote
endless consequences to sin any more than did Origen, for if annihilation
followed those consequences, they must be limited. When Ignatius and Barnabas
speak of "eternal" punishment or death, we might perhaps suppose that they
regarded the punishment of sin as endless, did we not find that Origen and other
Universalists used the same terms, and did we not know that the Scriptures do
the same. To find aionion attached to punishment proves nothing of its duration.
In his Epist. ad Trall., he says that Christ descended into Hades and cleft the
aionion barrier.
Ignatius Probably a Destructionist
It seems on the whole probable that while Ignatius did not dogmatize on
human destiny, he regarded the resurrection as conditional. But here, as
elsewhere, the student should remember that the destructive doctrine of
"reserve" or "oeconomy" continually controlled the minds of the early Christian
teachers, so that they not only withheld their real views of the future, lest
ignorant people should take advantage of God's goodness, but threatened
consequences of sin to sinners, in order to supply the incentives that they
thought the masses of people required to deter them from sin. Dr. Ballou thinks
that this father held that the wicked "will not be raised from the dead, but
exist hereafter as spirits without bodies." He was martyred A.D. 107.
Justin Martyr's Views
Justin Martyr, A.D. 89-166, is the first scholar produced by the Church, and
the first prominent father whose authenticity of writings is not disputed. His
surviving works are his two Apologies, and his Dialogue with Trypho. It is
difficult to ascertain his exact views. Cave says: "Justin Martyr maintains that
the souls of good men are not received into heaven until the resurrection that
the souls of the wicked are thrust into a worse condition, where they expect the
judgment of the great day." Justin himself says that "the punishment is age-long
chastisement (aionion kolasin) and not for a thousand years as Plato says, "(in
Phoedra). "It is unlimited; men are chastised for an unlimited period, and the
kingdom is aionion and the chastening fire (kolasis puros) aionion, too. "God
delays the destruction of the world, which will cause wicked angels and demons
and men to cease to exist, in order to their repentance. Some which appeared
worthy of God never die, others are punished as long as God wills them to exist
and be punished. Souls both die and are punished." He calls the fire of
punishment unquenchable (asbeston). He sometimes seems to have taught a
pseudo-Universalism, that is, the salvation of all who should be permitted to be
immortal; at other times endless punishment. Again he favors universal
salvation. He not only condemned those who forbade the reading of the Sibylline
Oracles, but commended the book. His language is, "We not only read them without
fear, but offer them for inspection, knowing that they will appear well-pleasing
to all." As the Oracles distinctly advocate universal salvation, it is not easy
to believe that Justin discarded their teachings. And yet he says: "If the death
of wicked men had ended in unconsciousness," it would have been a "God-send" to
them. Instead, he says, death is followed by aionion punishment. If he used the
word as Origen did, the two statements are reconcilable with each other. Justin
taught a "general and everlasting resurrection and judgment. Body and soul are
to be raised and the wicked with the devil and his angels, and demons, sent to
Gehenna.6 Christ has declared that Satan and his host, together with those men
who follow him, shall be sent into fire, and punished for an endless period.7"
But it may be that he speaks rhetorically or symbolically and not literally. It
is the general opinion, however, that he regarded punishment as limited, to be
followed by annihilation. He himself says: "The soul, therefore, partakes of
life, because God wills it should live; and, accordingly, it will not partake of
life whenever God shall will that it should not live." And yet he says that
bodies are consumed in the fire, and at the same time remain immortal.
Justin was a heathen philosopher before his conversion, and his Christianity
is of a mixed type. He wore a pagan philosopher's robe, or pallium, after his
conversion, calls himself a Platonist, and always seems half a heathen. His
effort appears to be to fuse Christianity and Paganism, and it is not easy to
harmonize his statements. His Pagan idiosyncrasies colored his Christianity.
But, as Farrar says, the theology of the first one or two centuries had not been
crystallized, the "language was fluid and untechnical, and great stress should
not be laid on the expressions of the earliest fathers. He nowhere calls
punishment endless, but aionion; and yet it can not be proved that he was at all
aware of the true philosophic meaning of aionios as a word expressive of
quality, and exclusive of--or rather the absolute opposition to--time. He says
that demons and wicked men will be punished for a boundless age (aperanto
aiona), but in some passages he seems to be at least uncertain whether God may
not will that evil souls should cease to exist."8 When Justin says that
transgressors are to remain deathless (athanata) while devoured by the worm and
fire, may he not mean that they cannot die while thus exposed? So, too, when he
used the word aionios, and says the sinner must undergo punishment during that
period, why not read literally "for ages, and not as Plato said, for a thousand
years only?"
When, therefore, these terms are found unexplained, as in Justin Martyr,
they should be read in the bright light cast upon them by the interpretations of
Clement and Origen, who employ them as forcibly as does Justin, but who explain
them--"eternal fire" and "everlasting punishment"--as in perfect harmony with
the great fact of universal restoration. Doctor Farrar regards Justin Martyr as
holding "views more or less similar to Universalism.9"
We cannot do better here than to quote H. Ballou, 2d D.D.:
"The question turns on the construction of a single passage. Justin had
argued that souls are not, in their own nature, immortal, since they were
created, or begotten; and whatever thus begins to exist, may come to an end.
'But, still, I do not say that souls wholly die; for that would truly be good
fortune to the bad. What then? The souls of the pious dwell in a certain better
place; but those of the unjust and wicked, in a worse place, expecting the time
of judgment. Thus, those who are judged of God to be worthy, die no more; but
the others are punished as long as God shall will that they should exist and be
punished. For, whatever is, or ever shall be, subsequent to God, has a
corruptible nature, and is such as may be abolished and cease to exist. God
alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and, therefore, he is God; but everything
else, subsequent to him, is begotten and corruptible. For this reason, souls
both die and are punished."10
Punishment Not Endless
The Epistle to Diognetus.--This letter was long ascribed to Justin Martyr,
but it is now generally regarded as anonymous. It was written not far from A.D.
100, perhaps by Marcion, possibly by Justin Martyr. It is a beautiful
composition, full of the spirit of the Apostles. It has very little belonging to
our theme, except that at the close of Chapter 10 it speaks of "those who shall
be condemned to the aionion fire which shall chastise those who are committed to
it even unto an end,"11 (mechri telous). Even if aionion usually meant endless,
it is limited here by the word "unto" which has the force of until, as does
aidios in Jude 6,--"aidios chains under darkness, unto (or until) the judgment
of the great day." Such a limited chastisement, it would seem, could only be
believed in by one who regarded God as Diognetus's correspondent did, as one who
"still is, was always, and ever will be kind and good, and free from wrath."
This brief passage shows us that at the beginning of the Second Century
Christians dwelt upon the severity of the penalties of sin, but supplemented
them by restoration wherever they had occasion to refer to the ultimate outcome.
A few years later (as will appear further on) when Christianity was systematized
by Clement and Origen, this was fully shown, and explains the obscurities, and
sometimes the apparent inconsistentsies of earlier writers. The lovely spirit
and sublime ethics of this epistle foreshadow the Christian theology so soon to
be fully developed by Clement and Origen. Bunsen thinks (Hipp. and His Age, I,
pp. 170, 171) the letter "indisputably, after Scripture, the finest monument we
know of sound Christian feeling, noble courage, and manly eloquence."
Irenaeus (A.D. 120, died 202) was a friend of Ignatius, and says that in his
youth he saw Polycarp, who was contemporary with John. He had known several who
had personally listened to the apostles. His principle work, "Against Heresies,"
was written A.D., 182 to 188. No complete copy of it exists in the original
Greek: only a Latin translation is extant, though a part of the first book is
found in Greek in the many quotations from it in the writings of Hippolytus and
Epiphanius. Its authority is weakened by the wretched Latin in which most of it
stands. One fact, however, is indisputable: he did not regard Universalism as
among the heresies of his times, for he nowhere condemns it, though the doctrine
is contained in the "Sibylline Oracles," then in general use, and though he
mentions the doctrine without disapproval in his description of the theology of
the Carpocratians.
Interesting Exposition of Irenaeus
Irenaeus has been quoted as teaching that the Apostles' creed was meant to
instill endless punishment, because in a paraphrase of that document he says
that the Judge, at the final judgment, will cast the wicked into "eternal" fire.
But the terms he uses are "ignem aeternum" (aionion pur.) As just stated, though
he reprehends the Carpocratians for teaching the transmigration of souls, he
declares without protest that they explain the text "until thou pay the
uttermost farthing," as forcing the idea that "all souls are saved." Irenaeus
says: "God drove Adam out of Paradise, and removed him far from the tree of
life, in compassion for him, that he might not remain a transgressor always, and
that the sin in which he was involved might not be immortal, nor be without end
and incurable. He prevented further transgression by the intervention of death,
and by causing sin to cease by the dissolution of the flesh that man ceasing to
live to sin, and dying to it, might begin to live to God."
The Creed or Irenaeus
Irenaeus states the creed of the church in his day, A.D. 160, as a belief in
"one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and the sea, and all
things that are in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became
incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit who proclaimed through the
prophets the dispensation of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin,
and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into
heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his manifestation
from heaven in the glory of the Father 'to gather all things in one,'" (Eph.
1:10) and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to
Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of
the invisible Father, 'every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in
earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to him,'
(Phil. 2:10,11) and that he should execute just judgment towards all; that he
may send 'spiritual wickedness,' (Eph. 6:12) and the angels who transgressed and
became apostates, together with the ungodly and unrighteous, and wicked and
profane among men, into aionion fire; and may in the exercise of his grace,
bestow immortality upon the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept his
commandments, and have persevered in his love, some from the beginning, and
others from their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory."
The reader must not forget that the use of the phrase, aionion fire, does
not give any color to the idea that Irenaeus taught endless punishment, for
Origen, Clement, Gregory Nyssen, and other Universalists conveyed their ideas of
punishment by the use of the same terms, and held that salvation is beyond, and
even by means of the aionion fire and punishment.
Probably a Universalist
Schaff admits that the opinions of Irenaeus are doubtful from his (Schaff's)
orthodox standpoint and says:12 "In the fourth Pfaffian fragment ascribed to him
(Stieren I, 889) he says that 'Christ will come at the end of time to destroy
all evil and to reconcile all things from Col. 1:20--that there may be an end of
all impurity.' This passage, like I Cor. 15:28, and Col. 1:20, looks toward
universal restoration rather than annihilation," but good, orthodox Dr. Schaff
admits that it, like the Pauline passages, allows an interpretation consistent
with eternal punishment. (See the long note in Stieren.) Dr. Beecher writes that
Irenaeus "taught a final restitution of all things to unity and order by the
annihilation of all the finally impenitent. The inference from this is plain. He
did not understand aionios in the sense of eternal; but in the sense claimed by
Prof. Lewis, that is, 'pertaining to the world to come,' " not endless. Irenaeus
thought "that man should not last forever as a sinner and that the sin which was
in him might not be immortal and infinite and incurable."
Bunsen's View
Says Bunsen: "The eternal decree of redemption, is, to Irenaeus, throughout,
an act of God's love. The atonement, is, according to him, a satisfaction paid,
not to God, but to the Devil, under whose power the human mind and body were
lying. But the Devil himself only serves God's purpose, for nothing can resist
to the last, the Almighty power of divine love, which works not by constraint
(the Devil's way) but by persuasion.13 The different statements of Irenaeus are
hard to reconcile with each other, but a fair inference from his language seems
to be that he hovered between the doctrines of annihilation and endless
punishment, and yet learned not a little hopefully to that of restoration. He
certainly says that death ends sin, which forecloses all idea of endless
torments. It is probable that the fathers differed, as their successors have
since differed, according to preceding and surrounding influences, and their own
peculiar mixtures.
Of Christian writers up to date, all assert future punishment, seven apply
the word rendered everlasting (aionios) to it; three, certainly did not regard
it as endless, two holding to annihilation and one to universal restoration.
Remembering, however, the doctrine of Reserve, we can by no means be certain
that the heathen words used denoting absolute endlessness were not used
"pedagogically" (in teaching), to deter sinners from sin.
Quadratus.--Quadratus, A.D. 131, addressed an Apology to the Emperor Adrian,
a fragment of which survives, but there is no word in it relating to the final
condition of mankind.
The Clementine Homilies, once thought to have been written by Clement of
Rome, but properly entitled by Baur "Pseudo Clementine," the work of some
Gnostic Christian--teach the final triumph of good. One passage speaks of the
destruction of the wicked by the punishment of fire, "punished with aionion
fire," but this is more than canceled by other passages in which it is clearly
taught that the Devil is but a temporal evil, a servant of good, and agent of
God, who, with all his evil works, are finally to be transformed into good. On
the one hand, the Devil is not properly an evil, but a God-serving being; on the
other, there is a final transformation of the Devil, of the evil into good. The
sentiments of the discourses seem, however, somewhat contradictory.
It is an important consideration not always realized, when studying the
opinions that prevailed in the primitive church, that the earliest copies of the
Gospels were not in existence until A.D. 60; that the first Epistle written by
Paul--1st Thessalonians--was not written till A.D. 52; that the New Testament
canon was not completed until A.D. 170; that for a long time the only Christian
Bible was the Old Testament;14 that the account of the judgment in Matt. 25 is
never referred to in the writings of the apostolic fathers, who probably never
saw or heard of it till towards the end of the Second Century; and, therefore,
when considering the opinions of the fathers for at least a century and a half,
we must in all cases interpret them by the Old Testament, which scholars of all
churches concede does not reveal the doctrine of endless woe. Probably not a
single Christian writer heretofore quoted ever saw a copy of the Gospels.
Athenagoras and Theophilus
Athenagoras wrote an "Apology," about A.D. 178, and a "Treatise on the
Resurrection." He was a scholar and a philosopher, and made great efforts to
convert the heathen to Christianity. He declared that there shall be a judgment,
the award of which shall be distributed according to conduct; but he nowhere
refers to the duration of punishment. He was, however, the head of the
Catechetical school in Alexandria, before Pantaenus, and must have shared the
Universalist views of Pantaenus, Clement and Origen, his successors.
Theophilus (A.D. 180). This author has left a "Treatise" in behalf of
Christianity, addressed to Autolycus, a learned heathen. He uses current
language on the subject of punishment, but says: "Just as a vessel, which, after
it has been made, has some flaw, is remade or remodeled, that it may become new
and right, so it comes to man by death. For, in some way or other he is broken
up, that he may come forth in the resurrection whole, I mean spotless, and
righteous, and immortal."
The preceding writers were "orthodox," but there were at the same time
Gnostic Christians, none of whose writings remain except in quotations contained
in orthodox authors, with the exception of a few fragments. They seem to have
blended Christianity with Orientalism. But they have been so misrepresented by
their opponents that it is very difficult to arrive at their real opinions on
all subjects. Happily they speak distinctly on human destiny. BACK
1 Dr. Alvah Hovey, State of the Impenitent Dead, pp.
131, 2. 2 Anc. Hist. Univ., Note. 3 Univer. Assorted, p. 105.
4 *GR 5 Bunsen, Hipp. and His Age, Vol. I, p. 182 6 Apol.
1, 8. 7 But Gregory Nyssen the Universalist par excellence, says that
Gehenna is a purifying agency. So does Origen. 8 Lives of the Fathers, p.
112. 9 Eternal Hope, p. 84. 10 Univer. Quar., July, 1846, pp. 299,
300. 11 Migne, II, p. 1184. 12 Vol. I, p. 490. 13
Longfellow gives expression to the same thought: "It is Lucifer, Son of Mystery
And since God suffers him to be, He, too, is God's minister And labors for some
good By us not understood." 14 Westcott Int. to Gospels, p. 181.
Chapter 7
Three Gnostic Sects
Three Gnostic sects flourished nearly simultaneously in the Second Century,
all which accepted universal salvation: the Basilidians, the Valentinians, and
the Carpocratians.
The Basilidians
The Basilidians were followers of Basilides, who lived about A.D. 117-138.
He was a Gnostic Christian and an Egyptian philosopher. He wrote an alleged
Gospel--analytical rather than historical--no trace of which remains. As some of
his theories did not agree with those generally advocated by Christians, he and
his followers were regarded as heretics and their writings were destroyed,
though no evidence exists to show that their view of human destiny was
obnoxious. Greek philosophy and Christian faith are mingled in the mixed beliefs
of the Basilidians. Basilides taught that man's universal redemption will result
from the birth and death of Christ. According to the "Dictionary of Christian
Biography,"1 Hippolytus gives an exposition of the mystic Christian sect.
Basilides himself was a sincere Christian, and "the first Gnostic teacher who
has left an individual, personal stamp upon the age."2 He accepted the entire
Gospel narrative, and taught that the wicked will be condemned to migrate into
the bodies of men or animals until purified, when they will be saved with all
the rest of mankind. He did not pretend that his ideas of transmigration were
obtained from the Scriptures but affirmed that he derived them from philosophy.
He held that the doctrines of Christianity have a two-fold character--one phrase
simple, popular, obtained from the plain reading of the New Testament; the other
sublime, secret, mysteriously imparted to favored ones. His system was a sort of
Egyptian transmigration of souls grafted on Christianity, an Oriental mysticism
attempting to stand on a Christian foundation, and thus solve the problem of
human destiny. Man and nature are represented as struggling upwards. "The
restoration of all things that in the beginning were established in the seed of
the universe shall be restored in their own season."
Irenaeus charges the Basilidians with immortality, but Clement, who knew
them better, denies it, and defends them.3
The Carpocratians
The Carpocratians were followers of Carpocrates, a Platonic philosopher, who
incorporated some of the elements of the Christian religion into his system of
philosophy. The sect flourished in Egypt and vicinity early in the Second
Century. Like the Basilidians they called themselves Gnostics, and instilled a
somewhat similar set of theories. Irenaeus says that the Carpocratians explained
the text: "Thou shalt not go out thence until thou hast paid the uttermost
farthing," as teaching "that no one can escape from the power of those angels
who made the world, but that he must pass from body to body until he has
experience of every kind of action which can be practiced in this world, and
when nothing is wanting longer to him, then his liberated soul should soar
upwards to that God who is above the angels, the makers of the world. In this
way all souls are saved," etc. But while Irenaeus calls the Carpocratians a
heretical sect, and denounces some of their dogmas, he had no hard words for
their doctrine of man's final destiny.
The Valentinians
The Valentinians (A.D. 130) taught that all souls will be finally admitted
to the realms of bliss. They denied the resurrection of the body. Their
doctrines were widely spread in Asia, Africa and Europe, after the death of
their Egyptian founder, Valentine. They resembled the teachings of Basilides in
efforts to solve the problem of human destiny philosophically. Valentine
flourished, in Rome from A.D. 129 to 132. A devout Christian, and a man of the
highest genius, he was never accused of anything worse than heresy. He was "a
pioneer in Christian theology." His was an attempt to show, in dramatic form,
how "the work of universal redemption is going on to the ever-increasing glory
of the indescribable and unfathomable Father, and the ever-increasing
blessedness of souls." There was a germ of truth in the mixed Christian theogony
theology and Hellenic philosophizing that made up Valentinianism. It was a
struggle after the only view of human destiny that can satisfy the human heart.
These three sects were bitterly opposed by the "orthodox" fathers in some of
their teachings, but their Universalism was never condemned.
Phases of Gnosticism
It would be interesting to give an presentation of the Gnosticism that for
some of the earlier centuries agitated the Christian Church; it will suffice for
our purpose here to say that its varied phases were attempts to reach
satisfactory conclusions on the great subjects of man's relations to his Maker,
to his fellow-men, to himself, and to the universe--to solve the problems of
time and eternity. The Gnostic philosophers in the church show the results of
blending the Oriental, the Jewish, and the Platonic philosophies with the new
religion. "Gnosticism,4 was a philosophy of religion," and Christian Gnosticism
was an effort to explain the new revelation philosophically. But there were
Gnostics and Gnostics. Some of the Christian Fathers used the term critically,
and others appropriated it as one of honor. Gnosis, knowledge, philosophy
applied to religion, was deemed all-important by Clement, Origen, and the most
prominent of the Fathers. Mere Gnostics were only Pagan philosophers, but
Christian Gnostics were those who accepted Christ as the author of a new and
divine revelation, and interpreted it by those principles that had long preceded
the religion of Jesus.5 "The Gnostics were the first regular commentators on the
New Testament. The Gnostics were also the first practitioners of the higher
criticism. It (Gnosticism) may be regarded as a half-way house, though which
many Pagans, like Ambrosius or St. Augustine, found their way into the church."
("Neoplatonism, by Rev. Dr. Charles Bigg.) The Valentinians, Basilidians,
Carpocratians, Manichaeans, Marcionites and others were Christian Gnostics; but
Clement, Origen and the great Alexandrians and their associates were Gnostic
Christians. In fact, the Gnostic theories sought a solution of the problem of
evil; to answer the question, "Can the world as we know it have been made by
God?" "Cease," says Basilides,6 "from idle and curious variety, and let us
rather discuss the opinions which even barbarians have held on the subject of
good and evil. I will say anything rather than admit Providence is wicked."
Valentinus declared, "I dare not affirm that God is the author of all this."
Tertullian says that Marcion, like many men of our time, and especially the
heretics, "is bewildered by the question of evil." The generally accepted
Gnostic view was that while the good would at death ascend to dwell with the
Father, the wicked would pass through transformations until purified.
Says Prof. Allen: "Gnosticism is a genuine and legitimate outgrowth of the
same general movement of thought that shaped the Christian dogma. Quite
evidently it regarded itself as the true interpreter of the Gospel." Baur quotes
a German writer as giving a full presentation of one of the latest attempts "to
bring back Gnosticism to a greater harmony with the spirit of Christianity."
Briefly, sophia (wisdom), as the type of mankind, falls, rises, and is united to
the eternal Good. Baur says that Gnosticism declares that "either through
conversion and amendment, or through utter annihilation, evil is to disappear,
and the final goal of the whole world process is to be reached, viz., the
purification of the universe from all that is unworthy and perverted." Harnack
says that Gnosticism "aimed at the winning of a world-religion. The Gnostics
were the theologians of the First Century; they were the first to transform
Christianity into a system of doctrines (dogmas). They essayed to conquer
Christianity for Hellenic culture and Hellenic culture from Christianity."7
Noteworthy Facts
Differing from the so-called "orthodox" Christians on many points, the three
great Gnostic sects of the Second Century were in full agreement with Clement
and Origen and the Alexandrine school, and probably with the great majority of
Christians, in their views on human destiny. They taught the ultimate holiness
and happiness of the human family, and it is noteworthy that though all the
Gnostics advocated the final salvation of all souls, and though the orthodox
fathers savagely attacked them on many points, they never reckoned their
Universalism as a fault. This doctrine was not obnoxious to either orthodox or
unorthodox views in the early centuries. BACK
1 Vol. I, pp. 271, 2. 2 Bunsen's Hipp. and His
Age, Vol. I, p. 107. 3 The standard authorities on the subject of
Gnosticism are Neander, Baur, Matter, Bigg, Mansel (Gnostic Heresies). 4
Baur, Ch. Hist. First Three Cent., I, pp. 184-200. Baring Gould's Lost and
Hostile Gospels, p. 278. 5 Mansel, Baur, etc. 6 Stieren's Irenaeus
V, 901-3. Clem. Strom. IV, 12. 7 Outlines of the Hist. of Dogma, pp.
58,9.
Chapter 8
The Sibylline Oracles
The oldest Christian document since the New Testament, explicitly avowing
the doctrine of universal restoration, is the "Sibylline Oracles."1 Different
portions of this arrangement were written at different dates, from 181 B.C. to
267 A.D. The portion expressing universal salvation was written by an
Alexandrine Christian, about A.D. 80, and the "Oracles" were in general
circulation from A.D. 100 onward, and are referred to with great consideration
for many centuries following.
The Righteous Pray for the Wicked
After describing the destruction of the world, which Sibyl prophesies, and
the assignment of the wicked to aionion torment, such as our Lord teaches in
Matt. 25:46, the blessed inhabitants of heaven are represented as being made
wretched by the thought of the sufferings of the lost, and as imploring God with
united voice to release them. God consents to their request, and delivers them
from their torment and bestows happiness upon them. The "Oracles" declare: "The
omnipotent, incorruptible God shall grant another favor on his worshipers, when
they shall ask Him. He shall save mankind from the destructive fire and immortal
(athanaton) agonies. Having gathered them and safely secured them from the
tireless flame, he shall send them, for his people's sake, into another and
aeonian life with the immortals on the Elysian plain (something like an
after-life Heaven), where flow perpetually the long dark waves of the deep sea
of Acheron."2
The punishments of the wicked are here described in the strongest possible
terms; they are "eternal," (aionion), "immortal" (athanaton), and yet it is
declared that at the request of the righteous, God will deliver them from those
torments.
The Sibyl anticipates the poet Whittier:
"Still thy love, O Christ arisen, Yearns to reach those souls in prison;
Through all depths of sin and loss Drops the plummet of thy cross; Never yet
abyss was found Deeper than that cross could sound; Deep below as high above
Sweeps the circle of God's love."
Holmes expresses the same sentiment:
"What if (a) spirit redeemed, amid the host Of chanting angels, in some
transient lull Of the eternal anthem heard the cry Of its lost darling. Would it
not long to leave the bliss of heaven Bearing a little water in its hand, To
moisten those poor lips that plead in vain With him we call Our Father?"
This famous document was quoted by Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr,
Lactantius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and Augustine. Clement
calls the author "the prophetess." As late as the Middle Ages the "Oracles" was
well known, and its author was ranked with David. When Thomas of Celano composed
the great Hymn of the Judgment, he said:
"Dies Irae, dies illa, Solvet saeclum in favilla, Teste David cum
Sibylla,"--
"the dreadful day of wrath shall dissolve the world into ashes, as David and
the Sibyl testify."
The best scholars concede the Universalism of the "Oracles." Says Musardus,3
the "Oracles" teach "that the damned shall be liberated after they shall have
endured hellish punishments for many ages, which was an error of Origen." And
Opsopoeus adds4 "that the 'Oracles' teach that the wicked suffering in hell
(Gehenna) after a certain period, and through atonings of griefs, would be
released from punishments, which was the opinion of Origen," etc. Hades, and all
things and persons are cast into unquenchable fire for purification; that is,
the fire is unquenchable until it has accomplished its purpose of purification.
Gehenna itself, as Origen afterwards insisted, purifies and surrenders its
prisoners. The wicked are to suffer "immortal" agonies and then be saved.
The Oracles are Early Christian Classics
Dr. Westcott remarks of the "Oracles:" "They stand alone as an attempt to
embrace all history, even it its details, in one great, Divinely sanctioned
view, and to regard the kingdoms of the world as destined to from provinces in a
future Kingdom of God."
While the views of retribution are not elevated, and represent the
punishment of the wicked as in literal fire, and not a moral discipline, such as
Origen taught, they clearly teach universal salvation beyond all aeonian, even
athanaton suffering. A noted writer5 declares: "The doctrine of Universalism is
brought forward in more than one passage of this piece;" though elsewhere Dr.
Deane misstates, inconsistently enough, the language of the Sibyl, thus: "God,
hearkening to the prayers of the saints, shall save some from the pains of
hell." He mistranslates anthropois into "some" instead of "mankind," the meaning
of the word, in order to show that Sibyl "does not, like Origen, believe in
universal salvation." And yet he is forced at add: "This notion of the salvation
of any is opposed to the sentiment elsewhere expressed where in picturing the
torments of hell the writer asserts that there is no place for repentance or any
mercy or hope." But Dr. Deane forgets that the acknowledged Universalists of the
early church employed equally strong terms concerning the duration of
punishment. The use of the terms signifying endless torment employed by the
Sibyl, as by Origen and others, did not prevent the idea of the ultimate
salvation of those thus punished. Origen taught that the most stubborn sins will
be "extinguished" by the "eternal fire," just as Sibyl says the wicked perish in
"immortal" fire and are subsequently saved.
Sir John Floyer's Blunder
In line with Deane's strange contradictions may be mentioned another of the
many curiosities of criticism. An English prose version of the Sibyl's Homeric
hexameters (verses) was made in 1713 by Sir John Floyer.6 He denies that the
"Oracles" teach universal salvation at all, but it order to sustain his position
he omits to translate one word, and mistranslates another! He renders the entire
passage thus: "The Almighty and incorruptible God shall grant this also to the
righteous when they shall pray to him; that he will preserve them (literally
save mankind, anthropois sosai) from the deadly fire and everlasting gnashing of
teeth; and this will he do when he gathers the faithful from the eternal fire,
placing them in another region, he shall send them by his own angels into
another life, which will be eternal to them that are immortal, in the Elysian
fields," etc.
It is only by rendering the words denoting "save mankind," "deliver them,"
that he makes his point. A correct rendering coincides with the declarations of
most scholars, that universal salvation is taught in this unique document.
The Sibyl declares that the just and the unjust pass through "unquenchable
fire," and that all things, even Hades, are to be purified by the divine fire.
And after the unjust have been released from Hades, they are committed to
Gehenna, and then at the desire of the righteous, they are to be removed thence
to "a life eternal for immortals." (B. II, vv: 211-250-340).
Augustine (De Civ. Dei. B., 18) cited the famous acrostic (alphabetical
letters containing a message) on the Savior's name as a proof that the Sibyl
foretold the coming of Jesus. And it is curious to note that in his "City of
God," when stating that certain "merciful doctors" denied the eternity of
punishment, he gives the same reasons they assign for their belief that the
Sibyl names. He quotes the "merciful doctors" as saying that Christians in this
world possess the disposition to forgive their enemies, they will not lay aside
those traits at death, but will pity, forgive, and pray for the wicked. The
redeemed will unite in this prayer and will not God feel pity, and answer the
prayer in which all the saved unite? Augustine presents these unanswerable
objections, and devotes many pages to a very feeble reply to them.
So fully did the Christians of the First Century recognize the "Oracles,"
and appeal to them, that they were frequently styled the Sibylists. Celsus
applied the word to them, and Origen, though he accepted the Sibyl's teachings
concerning destiny, objected that the term was not justly applied. This he does
in "Ag. Cels." V. 61. Clement of Alexandria not only calls the Sibyl a
prophetess, but her "Oracles" a saving hymn.
Lactantius cited fifty passages from the Sibyl in his evidences of
Christianity.
No book, not even the New Testament, exerted a wider influence on the first
centuries of the church, than the "Sibylline Oracles."
Quite a literature of the subject exists in the periodical publications of
the past few years, but there are very few references to the Universalism of the
"Oracles." The "Edinburgh Review" (July, 1867) is an exception. It states that
the "Oracles" declare "the Origenist belief of a universal restoration (V. 33)
of all men, even to the unjust, and the devils themselves." The "Oracles" are
specially valuable in showing the opinions of the first Christians after the
apostles, and, as they aim to convert Pagans to Christ, and employ this doctrine
as one of the weapons, it must at that time have been considered a prominent
Christian principal, and the candid student is forced to conclude that they give
expression to the prevalent opinion of those days on the subject of human
destiny.
The reader must not fail to observe that the "Sibylline Oracles" explicitly
state the deliverance of the damned from the torments of hell. They repeatedly
call the suffering everlasting, even "immortal," yet declare that it shall end
in the restoration of the lost. BACK
1 *GR 2 B. VIII. ii, verses 195-340 Ed.
Opsopoei, Paris: 1667. 3 Historia Deorum Fatidicorum, Vaturn Sibyllorum,
etc., p. 184: (1675.) Dicit damnatos liberandos postquam poenas infernales per
aliquot secula erunt perpessi, qui Origenis fuit error. 4 Notes (p. 27)
to Bib. Orac (Paris:1607). "Impii gehennae supplicio addicti post certi temporis
metas et peccatorum per dolores expiationem, ex poenis liberentur. Quae
sententia fuit Origenis, etc." 5 William J. Deane, Pseudepigrapha, p.
329. 6 "The Sibylline Oracles, Translated from the Best Greek Copies and
Compared with the Sacred Prophecies."
Chapter 9
Pantaenus and Clement
There is nothing known to exist from the pen of Pantaenus, but we learn from
Eusebius that his distinguished scholar and teacher was at the head of the
Catechetical school in Alexandria as early as A.D. 100-120. Tradition asserts
that it was founded by the apostles.1 Jerome says, "a Marco Evangelista sempher
ecclesiastici fuere doctores." It had been up to the time of Pantaenus a school
of proselytes, but he made it a theological seminary, and so was the real
founder of the Catechetical institution.2
Pantaenus, the "Sicilian Bee"
Pantaenus was a convert from Stoicism, and is described by Clement, Jerome,
and others as a man of superior learning and abilities. Clement calls him "that
Sicilian bee gathering the spoil of the flowers of the prophetic and apostolic
meadow;" "the deepest Gnostic," by which he means "the deepest philosophical
Christian, the man who best understood and practiced Scripture." It could not be
otherwise than that the teacher of Clement cherished the religious views with
which his great disciple was graduated, for of Pantaenus, Clement says: "I know
what is the weakness of these reflections, if I compare them with the gifted and
gracious teaching I was privileged to hear." Some of his writings are alluded
to, but though nothing remains, yet in Clement, who was inspired by him, he gave
to the church a priceless legacy.
A.D. 189 Pantaenus went on a missionary tour to India, and Eusebius says
that while there he found the seeds of the Christian faith that had been sown by
previous missionaries, and that he brought home with him the Gospel of Matthew,
in Hebrew, that had been carried to India by Bartholomew. May it not be that
some of the precepts of Buddhism resembling those of Christ, which the best
Oriental scholars admit are of later origin than Buddha, were caught from the
teachings of early Christian missionaries? Pantaenus was martyred A.D. 216.
The Universalism of Clement, Origen and their successors must, beyond
question, have been taught by their great predecessor, Pantaenus, and there is
every reason to believe that the Alexandrine school had never known any contrary
teaching, from its foundation.
The Alexandrine School - Alexandria and its Famous School
At this time Alexandria was the second city in the world, with a population
of 600,000; its great library contained from 400,000 to 700,000 volumes; at one
time 14,000 students are said to have been assembled; and it was the center of
the world's learning, culture, thought; the seekers for truth and knowledge from
all climes sought inspiration at its shrines, and it was most of all in its
interest to us, not only the radiating center of Christian influence, but its
teachers and school made universal salvation the theme of Christian teaching.
"To those old Christians, a being who was not seeking after every single
creature, and trying to raise him, could not be a being of absolute
righteousness, power, love; could not be a being worthy of respect or
admiration, even of philosophic speculation. The Alexandrian Christians taught
and supported Christianity, and adapted it to all classes and conditions of men,
and made the best, perhaps the only, attempt yet made by man to proclaim a true
world-philosophy embracing the whole phenomena of humanity, capable of being
understood and appreciated by every human being from the highest to the lowest."
The result was, "they were enabled to produce, in the lives of millions,
generation after generation, a more immense moral improvement than the world had
ever seen before. Their disciples did actually become righteous and good men,
just in proportion as they were true to the lessons they learnt. They did for
centuries work a distinct and noticeable deliverance on the earth."3
Alexandria was founded by Alexander the Great, 332 B.C., and it speedily
became a great city. After two centuries, however, it declined, until B.C. 30
when Augustine made in an imperial city. In 196 A.D. its municipality, which had
been lost for two centuries, was restored, from this time on it resumed its old
prosperity, which continued until internal dissensions weakened it, and A.D.
640, after a siege of fourteen months, it was taken by the Arabs under Amru, and
among other disasters the great library was destroyed. This library contained
the precious manuscripts of Origen and multitudes of others that might shed
great light on our theme. Abulpharagius relates that John the Grammarian, a
famous wandering philosopher, begged Amru to give him the library. Amru
forwarded the request to Omar, who replied that if the books contained the same
doctrines as the Koran they were not needed; if contrary to it they ought not to
be preserved, and they were therefore ordered to be burnt. Accordingly they were
distributed among the 4,000 public baths of the city, where they furnished the
fuel for six months!
Alexandria continued to decline until the discovery of the route to the East
in 1497 ruined its commerce, and it sank to a population of 6,000. But the
opening of the Mahmoudieh canal in 1820 has increased its prosperity, and it is
now one of the most important cities of the world. In 1871 it had a population
of 219,602. At the time of Christ, and for two hundred years after, Alexandria
was at the height of its greatness. From the time of Ptolemy Soter (306-285
B.C.), the books, scholars and learning of the world were centered in this great
city. The religions and philosophies of the world met here and created an
intense life of thought. Jews, Christians, Pagans were gathered and met in
intellectual conflict as nowhere else. It was here that Clement, Origen, and
their followers exerted their best influence, and that Christianity preserved
its purity for centuries.
"The north of Africa was then crowded with rich and populous cities, and
formed with Egypt the granary of the world. In no part of the empire had
Christianity taken more deep and permanent root. Africa, rather than Rome, was
the parent of Latin Christianity. Tertullian was at this period the chief
representative of African Christianity still later Cyprian, and later still
Augustine. To us, preoccupied with the modern insignificance of the Egyptian
town, it requires an effort of the mind to realize that Alexandria was once the
second largest city in the world, and the second greatest patriarchal center of
the church, the church of Clement, Origen, Athanasius and Cyril. It gives us a
kind of mental shock when we recall that the land of Tertullian, Cyprian and
Augustine is the modern Tunis and Algiers."
Alexandria the Christian Metropolis
"The seat and center of Christianity during the first three centuries was
Alexandria. West of Alexandria the influence of the Latins, Tertullian, Cyprian,
Minucius Felix and Augustine prevailed, and their type of Christianity was
warped and developed by the influence of Roman law. Maine says that in going
from East to West theological speculation passed from Greek metaphysics to Roman
law. The genius of Augustine, thus controlled, gave rise to Calvinism. The
gloomy and precise Tertullian, the forceful and somber Cyprian, bishop of
Carthage, and Augustine, the gloomiest and most materialistic of theologians,
who may almost be said to have invented the hell of the Middle Ages, contributed
the forces that later adulterated the genuine Christian faith. Even yet the
Greek population of the Eastern church, who read the Greek Gospels as we read
the English, are like the Greek fathers of the first ages of the church; they
know nothing of the doctrine invented by the Latin theologians." (Stanley's
Eastern Church, p.49.)
"In such a city as Alexandria--with its museum, its libraries, its lectures,
its schools of philosophy, its splendid synagogue, its avowed atheists, its
deep-thinking Oriental mystics--the Gospel would have been powerless if it had
been unable to produce teachers who were capable of meeting Pagan philosophers
and Jewish Philoists on their own ground. Such thinkers would refuse their
attention to men who could not understand their reasonings, sympathize with
their perplexities, refute their fundamental arguments, and meet them in the
spirit of Christian courtesy.4 Different instruments are needed for different
ends. Where Clement of Rome might have been useless, Clement of Alexandria
became deeply influential. Where a Tertullian would only have aroused contempt
and indignation, an Origen won leading Pagans to the faith of Christ. From
Alexandria came the refutation of Celsus; from Alexandria the defeat of Arius.
It was the cradle of Christian theology.5 "There can be no doubt that the
wonderful advance of Christianity among the cultivated, during the First and
Second Centuries, was made by the remarkable men who founded and maintained the
Alexandrian school of Christian thought. While the common people heard gladly
the simple story of the Gospel, the world's scholars were attracted and won by
the complete, achieved learning and genius of Clement and Origen, and their
assistants." "Pagan thinkers would have paid attention to Clement when he spoke
of Plato as truly noble and half-inspired; they would have looked on the African
father as an ignorant railer, who had nothing better to say of Socrates than
that he was 'the Attic buffoon,' of Aristotle than 'miserum Aristotelem!' Such
arguments as Tertullian's: It is credible because it is absurd, it is certain
because it is impossible, would have been regarded as worse than useless in
reasoning with philosophers." The Alexandrine Universalists met philosophers and
scholars on their own ground and conquered them with their own weapons. Under
God, the agency that gave Christianity its standing and wonderful progress
during the first three centuries, was the Catechetical school of Alexandria, and
the saintly scholars and Christian philosophers who immortalized the famous city
that was the scene of their labors. They met and surpassed the apostles of
culture, and proved at the very beginning that Christianity is no less the
religion of the wise and learned than of the unlettered and simple. The
Universalist Church has never sufficiently recalled and celebrated the great
labors and marvelous successes of the founders in the primitive years of
Christianity.
The Alexandrine Teachers
"Those who are truly called the fathers and founders of the Christian church
were not the simpleminded fishermen of Galilee, but men who had received the
highest education which could be obtained at the time, that is Greek education.
In Alexandria, at the time the very center of the world, it had either to
vanquish the world or to vanish. Christianity came no doubt from the small room
in the house of Mary, where many were gathered together praying, but as early as
the Second Century it became a very different Christianity in the Catechetical
school of Alexandria. What Clement had most at heart was not the letter but the
spirit, not the historical events, but their deeper meaning in universal
history."6
Max Muller's Words
Muller points out the fact that the Alexandrine "current of Christian
thought was never entirely lost, but rose to the surface again and again at the
most critical periods in the history of the Christian religion. Unchecked by the
Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325, that ancient stream of philosophical and religious
thought flows on, and we can hear the distant echoes of Alexandria in the
writings of St. Basil (A.D. 329-379), Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. 332-395), Gregory
of Nazianzus (A.D. 328-389), as well as in the works of St. Augustine (A.D.
364-430)."
The reader of the history of those times cannot help deploring the later
substitutions of Latin Augustinianism and its long train of errors and evils
from Greek Alexandrianism, nor can the Christian student avoid wishing that the
Alexandrine Christians could have been permitted to transmit their beneficial
principles uncorrupted. How different would have been the Middle Ages! How far
beyond its present condition would be the Christendom of today!
Clement of Alexandria
Titus Flavius Clemens, Clemens Alexandrinus, or Clement of Alexandria--born
A.D. 150, died A.D. 220--was reared in heathenism. Before his conversion to
Christianity he had been thoroughly educated in Hellenic literature and
philosophy. It is uncertain whether he was born in Athens of Alexandria. He
became a Christian early in his adult years; was presbyter in the church in
Alexandria, and in 189 he succeeded Pantaenus as president of the celebrated
Catechetical school in Alexandria. During the persecution by Septimius Severus
in 202 he fled, and was in Jerusalem in 211. He never returned to Alexandria,
but died about 220. This is all that is known of his life.
He was the father of the Alexandrine Christian Philosophy, or ancient
Philosophical Christianity. Many of his works have perished; the principle ones
that survive are his "Exhortation to the Heathen," the "Teacher," or
"Pedagogue," and "Stromata," or "Miscellanies," literally "Tapestries," or
freely translated "Carpet Bag."7
It is the verdict of scholars that Clement's "Stromata" is the greatest of
all the Christian apologies except Origen's. It starts "from the essential
relationship between man and God, and goes on to show how, in Christianity, we
have the complete restoration of the normal relation between the creature and
the Creator."
The influence of the Greek philosophers, and especially of Plato, on the
Alexandrine fathers, is conceded.8 Clement held that the true Gnostic was the
perfect Christian. The Alexandrine fathers had no hostility to the word Gnostic,
properly understood; to them it signified the Christian who brings reason and
philosophy to bear on his faith, in differing from the ignorant believer.
Irenaeus had declared "genuine gnosis," or Gnosticism, to be "the doctrine of
the apostles," insisting on "the absolute full use of Scripture, admitting
neither addition nor reduction, and the reading of Scripture, and legitimate and
diligent preaching, according to the word of God." And Justin had handed down to
the Alexandrine school the central truth that the Divine Word is in the germ in
every human being. This great fact was never lost sight of, but was more and
more developed by the three great teachers--Pantaenus, Clement and Origen.
Clement's Philosophy
The materialistic philosophy of Epicureanism, that happiness is the highest
good and can best be procured in a well-regulated enjoyment of the pleasures of
life; the Pantheistic system of Stoicism, that one should live within himself,
superior to the accidents of time; the logical Aristotelianism, and the
Platonism that regarded the universe as the work of a Supreme Spirit, in which
man is a permanent individuality possessing a spark of the divinity that would
ultimately purify him and elevate him to a higher life; and that virtue would
accelerate and sin impede his upward progress--these different systems all had
their devotees, but the noblest of all, the Platonic, was most influential with
the Alexandrine fathers, though, like Clement, they exercised a wise and
rational diversities, in adopting the best features of each system. This Clement
claimed to do, He says: "And by philosophy I mean not the Stoic, nor the
Platonic, nor the Epicurean, nor that of Aristotle; but whatever any of these
sects had said that was fit and just, that taught righteousness with a divine
and religious knowledge, this I call eclectic (singling out from various
sources) philosophy."9
Matters of speculation he solved by philosophy, but his theology he derived
from the Scriptures. He was not, therefore, a mere philosopher, but one who used
philosophy as a help to the interpretation of the religion of Christ. He says;
"We wait for no human testimony, but bring proof of what we assert from the Word
of the Lord, which is the most trustworthy, or, rather, the only evidence."
The thoroughly Greek mind of Clement, with his great imagination, vast
learning and research, splendid ability, and divine spirit, could scarcely
misinterpret or misunderstand the New Testament Scriptures, written as they were
in his mother tongue, and it is not difficult to believe with Bunsen, that in
this seat and center of Christian culture and Christian learning, he became "the
first Christian philosopher of the history of mankind. He believed in a
universal plan of a divine education of the human race. This is the grand
position occupied by Clemens, the Alexandrian, in the history of the church and
of mankind and the key to his doctrine about God and his word, Christ and his
spirit, God and man. A profound respect for the piety and holiness of Clemens is
as universal in the ancient church as for his learning and eloquence. I rejoice
to find that Reinkins, a Roman Catholic, expressed his regret and indignation
that this holy man and writer who is the object of the unmixed admiration of the
ancient Christian, should have been struck out of the catalogue of saints by
Benedict XIV."10
A Transition Period
When Clement wrote Christian doctrine was passing from oral tradition to
written definition, he declares when setting forth the Christian religion that
he is "reproducing an original, unwritten tradition," which he learned from a
disciple of the apostles. This had been communicated by the Lord to the
apostles, Peter and James and John and Paul, and handed down from father to son
till, at length, Clement set forth accurately in writing, what had been before
delivered orally. We can, therefore, scarcely hope to find unadulterated
Christianity anywhere out of the New Testament, if not in the writings of
Clement. Max Muller (Theosophy or Psychological Religion, Preface, p. 14)
declares that Clement, having been born in the middle of the Second Century, may
possibly have known Papias, or some of his friends who knew the apostles, and
therefore he was most competent to represent the teachings of Christ. Farrar
writes: "There can be no doubt that after the date of the Clementine
Recognitions, and unceasingly during the close of the third and during the
fourth and following centuries, the theoretical idea of endlessness was
deliberately faced, and from imperfect acquaintance with the meaning and history
of the word aionios it was used by many writers as though it were identical in
meaning with aidios or endless." Which is to say that ignorance of the real
meaning of the word on the part of those who were not familiar with Greek,
subverted the current belief in universal restoration, cherished, as we shall
directly show, by Clement and the Alexandrine Christians.
Clement's Language
Passages from the works of Clement, only a few of which we quote, will
sufficiently establish the fact that he taught universal restoration. "For all
things are ordered both universally and in particular by the Lord of the
universe, with a view to the salvation of the universe. But needful corrections,
by the goodness of the great, overseeing judge, through the attendant angels,
through various prior judgments, through the final judgment, compel even those
who have become more callous to repent." "So he saves all; but some he converts
by penalties, others who follow him of their own will, and in accordance with
the worthiness of his honor, that every knee may be bent to him of celestial,
terrestrial and infernal things (Phil. 2:10), that is angels, men, and souls who
before his advent migrated from this mortal life." "For there are partial
corrections (padeiai) which are called chastisements (kolasis), which many of us
who have been in transgression are subjected to by falling away from the Lord's
people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are
we by Providence. But God does not punish (timoria), for punishment (timoria) is
retaliation for evil. He chastises however, for good to those who are chastised
collectively and individually."11
This important passage is very instructive in the light it sheds on the
usage of Greek words. The word from which "corrections" is rendered is the same
as that in Hebrews 12:9, "correction" "chastening" (paideia); "chastisement" is
from kolasis, translated punishment in Matt. 25:46, and "punishment" is timoria,
with which Josephus defined punishment, but a word our Lord never employs, and
which Clement declares that God never inflicts. This agrees with the uniform
contention of Universalist scholars.
"The divine nature is not angry but is at the farthest from it, for it is an
excellent crafty promotion to frighten in order that we may not sin. Nothing is
hated by God."12 So that even if aionios meant endless duration, Clement would
argue that it was used to instruct--to restrain the sinner. It should be said,
however, that Clement rarely uses aionion in connection with suffering.
Clement insists that punishment in Hades is remedial and restorative, and
that punished souls are cleansed by fire. The fire is spiritual, purifying13 the
soul. "God's punishments are saving and disciplinary (in Hades) leading to
conversion, and choosing rather the repentance than the death of the sinner,
(Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11, etc.,) and especially since souls, although darkened by
passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly
because of their being no longer obstructed by the petty vile flesh."14
He again defines the important word kolasis our Lord uses in Matt. 25:46,
and shows how it differs from the wholly different word timoria used by Josephus
and the Greek writers who believed in irremediable suffering. He says: "He (God)
chastises the disobedient, for chastisement (kolasis) is for the good and
advantage of him who is punished, for it is the amendment of one who resists; I
will not grant that he wishes to take vengeance. Vengeance (timoria) is a
repayment of evil sent for the interest of the avenger. He (God) would not
desire to avenge himself on us who teaches us to pray for those who despitefully
use us (Matt. 5:44).15 Therefore the good God punishes for these three causes:
First, that he who is punished (paidenomenos) may become better than his former
self; then that those who are capable of being saved by examples may be drawn
back, being lovingly rebuked; and thirdly, that he who is injured may not
readily be despised, and be apt to receive injury. And there are two methods of
correction, the instructive and the inflicting of punishment,16 which we have
called the disciplinary."
The English reader of the translations of the Greek fathers is misled by the
indiscriminate rendering of different Greek words into "punish." Timoria should
always be translated "vengeance," or "torment;" kolasis, "punishment," and
paideia "chastisement," or "correction."
"If in this life there are so many ways for purification and repentance, how
much more should there be after death! The purification of souls, when separated
from the body, will be easier. We can set no limits to the agency of the
Redeemer; to redeem, to rescue, to discipline, is his work, and so will he
continue to operate after this life."17
Clement did not deem it well to express himself more fully and frequently
respecting this point of doctrine, because he considered it a part of the
Gnostic or esoteric knowledge which it might not be well for the unenlightened
to hear lest it should result in the injury of the ignorant; hence he says: "As
to the rest I am silent and praise the Lord." He "fears to set down in writing
what he would not venture to read aloud." He thinks this knowledge not useful
for all, and that the fear of hell may keep sinners from sin. And yet he can not
resist declaring: "And how is he Savior and Lord and not Savior and Lord of all?
But he (Christ) is the Savior of those who have believed, because of their
wishing to know, and of those who have not believed he is Lord, until by being
brought to confess him they shall receive the proper and well-adapted blessing
for themselves which comes by Him."
This extension of the day of grace through eternity is also expressed in the
"Exhortation to the Heathen" (9): "For great is the grace of his promise, 'if
today we hear his voice.' And that today is lengthened out day by day, while it
is called today. And to the end the today and the instruction continue; and then
the true today, the never ending day of God, extends over eternity." His
reference to the resurrection shows that he regarded it as deliverance from the
ills of this state of being. Before the final state of perfection the purifying
fire which makes wise will separate errors from the soul; the purging punishment
will heal and cure.
Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, wrote to Origen on the death of Clement,
says Eusebius, "for we know these blessed fathers who have gone before us and
with whom we shall shortly be, I mean Pantaenus, truly blessed and my master;
and the sacred Clement, who was my master and profitable to me." This passage
would indicate the fraternity of feeling between these three, and seems to show
that there was no suspicion of the heresy of the others on the part of
Alexander.
Further words of Clement
Clement distinctly shows that the perversion of the truth so long taught,
that the coming of Christ placated the Father, had no place in primitive
Christianity. He says: God is good on his own account, and just also on ours,
and he is just because he is good, for before he became Creator he was God. He
was good. And therefore he wished to be Creator and Father. And the nature of
that love was the source of righteousness; the cause too of his lightning up his
sun, and sending down his own son. The feeling of anger (if it is proper to call
his admonition anger) is full of love to man, God condescending to emotion on
man's account, etc. (Paed. I, 10. Strom. I, 27.)
He represents that God is never angry; he hates sin with unlimited hatred,
but loves the sinner with unlimited love. His omnipotence is directed by
omniscience and can and will overcome all evil and transform it to good. His
threats and punishments have but one purpose, and that the good of the punished.
Hereafter those who have here remained hardened and unyielding will be chastened
until converted. Man's freedom will never be lost, and ultimately it will be
converted in the last and wickedest sinner.
Fire is an emblem of the divine punishments which purify the bad.18
"Punishment is, in its operation, like medicine; it dissolves the hard heart,
purges away the filth of uncleanness, and reduces the swellings of pride and
haughtiness; thus restoring its subject to a sound and healthful state."
"The Lord is the propitiation (overcomer), not only for our sins, that is of
the faithful, but also for the whole world (I John 2:2); therefore he truly
saves all, converting some by punishments, and others by gaining their free
will, so that he has the high honor that unto him every knee should bow, angels,
men and the souls of those who died before his advent."
That the foregoing passage from Clement distinctly state the exalted and
inspiring sentiments we have supposed them to express; which will fully appear
from those who have made the most careful study of his opinions, and whose
interpretations are unprejudiced and just. Says one of the most thoughtful of
modern writers, the candid Hagenbach:
"The works of Clement, in particular, abound with passages referring to the
love and mercy of God. He loves men because they are kindred with God. God's
love follows men, seeks them out, as the bird the young that has fallen from its
nest."19
Clement, like Tertullian, denied original depravity, and held that "man now
stands in the same relation to the tempter in which Adam stood before the Fall."
Clement's doctrine of the Resurrection was like that of Paul; it is not a mere
rising from death, but a standing up higher, in a greater fullness of life, and
a better life, as the word anastasis properly signifies.
Allen's Statement
Allen in his valuable work, "Continuity of Christian Thought," is typical of
the teachings of Clement in language that describes the Universalistic
contention. "The judgment is not conceived as the final judicial investigation
of the universe in some remote future, but as a present, continuous element in
the process of human education. The purpose of the judgment, as of all the
divine penalties, is always remedial. Judgment enters into the work of
redemption as a constructive factor. God does not teach in order that he may
finally judge, but he judges in order that he may teach. The rebukes, the
punishments, the judgments of God are a necessary element of the educational
process in the life of humanity, and the motive which underlies them is goodness
and love. The idea of life as an education under the immediate superintendence
of a Divine instructor who is God himself indwelling in the world, constitutes
the central truth in Clement's theology. There is no necessity that God should
be reconciled with humanity, for there is no schism in the divine nature between
love and justice which needs to be overcome before love can go forth in free and
full forgiveness. The idea that justice and love are distinct attributes of God,
differing widely in their operation, is regarded by Clement as having its origin
in a mistaken conception of their nature. Justice and love are in reality the
same attribute, or, to speak from the point of view which distinguishes them,
God is most loving when he is most just, and most just when he is most loving.
God works all things up to what is better. Clement would not tolerate the
thought that any soul would continue forever to resist the force of redeeming
love. Somehow and somewhere in the long run of ages, that love must prove
weightier than sin and death, and vindicate its power in one universal triumph."
Bigg on Clement
One of the best modern statements of the views of the Alexandrine fathers is
given by Bigg in Christian Platonists, pp. 75,89,112: Clement regarded the
object of kolasis as "threefold; reformation, example, and protection of the
weak. Strom. 1:26,168; 4:24,154; 6:12,99. The distinction between kolasis and
timoria, Strom. 4:14, 153; Paed. 1:8, 70, the latter is the rendering of evil
for evil and this is not the desire of God. Both kolasis and timoria are spoken
in Strom. 5:14, 90, but this is not to be pressed, for in Strom. 6:14, 109, the
distinction between the words is dropped and both signify a purging
chastisement. Fear, he has handled in the truly Christian spirit. It is not the
fear of the slave who hates his master; it is a reverence of a child for its
father, of a citizen for the good ruler. Tertullian, an African and a lawyer,
dwells with fierce satisfaction on terrible visions of torment. The cultivated
Greek shrinks not only from the idea of punishment which it implies. He is never
tired of repeating that justice is but another name for mercy. Chastisement is
not to be dreaded but to be embraced." Here or hereafter God's desire is not
vengeance but correction. Though Clement's view of man's destiny is called
restorationism (apokatastasis) it was "not as the restitution of that which was
lost at the Fall, but as the crown and consummation of the destiny of man
leading to a righteousness such as Adam never knew, and to heights of glory and
power as yet unscaled and undreamed. His books are in many ways the most
valuable monument of the early church; the more precious to all intelligent
students because he lived, not like Origen, in the full stream of events, but in
a quiet backwater where primitive thoughts and habits lingered longer than
elsewhere." "Clement had no enemies in life or in death." The great effort of
Clement and Origen seems to have been to reconcile the revelation of God in
Christ with the older revelation of God in nature.
Says De Pressense: "That which strikes us in Clement is his serenity. We
feel that he himself enjoys that deep and abiding peace which he urges the
Corinthians to seek. It is impressed on every page he writes, while his thoughts
flow on like a broad and quiet stream, never swelling into a full impulsive
brash tide. We feel that this man has a great love for Jesus Christ." Compare,
contrast rather, his serenity and peacefulness with the stormy violence of
Tertullian, his "narrow and passionate realism," and we see a demonstration of
the power and beauty of the Restorationist faith.
Frederick Denison Maurice's Eulogy
Frederick Denison Maurice declares:20 "I do not know where we shall look for
a purer or a truer man that this Clemens of Alexandria. He seems to me that one
of the old fathers whom we should all have reverenced most as a teacher, and
loved best as a friend."
Baur remarks; "Alexandria, the birthplace of Gnosticism, is also the
birthplace of Christian theology, which in fact in its earliest forms, aimed at
being nothing but a Christian Gnosticism. Among the fathers, Clement of
Alexandria and Origen stand nearest to the Gnostics. They rank gnosis
(knowledge) above pistis (faith), and place the two in such an deep inner
relation to one another that neither can exist without the other. Thus they
adopt the same point of view as the Gnostics. It is their aim, by drawing into
their service all that the philosophy of the age could contribute, to interpret
Christianity in its historical connection, and to take up its subject-matter
into their thinking consciousness."21
A candid historian observes: "Clemens may, perhaps, be esteemed the most
profoundly learned of the fathers of the church. A keen desire for information
had prompted him to explore the regions of universal knowledge, to dive into the
mysteries of Paganism, and to dwell upon the more difficult doctrines of Holy
Writ. His works are richly stored with various illustrations and extracts from
the poets and philosophers with whose sentiments he was familiarly acquainted.
He lays open the curiosities of history, the secrets of varied superstitions,
and the fantasies of speculative wanderers, at the same time that he develops
the cast of opinions and peculiarities of discipline which distinguished the
members of the Christian state."22
Daille writes: "It is manifest throughout his works that Clement thought all
the punishments that God inflicts upon men are remedial. Of this kind he reckons
the torments which the damned in hell suffer. Clemens was of the same opinion as
his scholar Origen, who everywhere teaches that all the punishments of those in
hell are purging, that they are not endless, but will at length cease when the
damned are sufficiently purified by the fire."23
Farrar gives Clement's views, and shows that the great Alexandrian really
anticipated substantially the thought for which our church has contended for a
century:
"There are very few of the Christian fathers whose fundamental conceptions
are better suited to correct the narrowness, the rigidity and the formalism of
Latin theology. It is his lofty and wholesome doctrine that man is made in the
image of God; that man's will is free; that he is redeemed from sin by a divine
education and a corrective discipline; that fear and punishment are but remedial
instruments in man's training; that Justice is but another aspect of perfect
Love; that the physical world is good and not evil; that Christ is a Living not
a Dead Christ; that all mankind from one great brotherhood in Him; that
salvation is an ethical process, not an external reward; that the atonement was
not the pacification of wrath, but the revelation of God's eternal mercy. That
judgment is a continuous process, not a single sentence; that God works all
things up to what is better; that souls may be purified beyond the grave."
Lamson says that Clement declares: "Punishment, as Plato taught, is
remedial, and souls are benefited by it by being set free from all shortcomings.
Far from being incompatible with God's goodness it is a striking proof of it.
For punishment is for the good and benefit of him who is punished. It is the
bringing back to righteousness and sound judgment of that which was swerved from
it."24
It may be stated that neither original sin, depravity, infant guilt and
damnation, election, vicarious atonement, and endless punishment as the penalty
of human sin, in fact, "none of the individual doctrines or dogmas which have so
long been the object of dislike and criticism to the modern theological mind
formed any constituent part in Greek theology."25 They were abhorrent to
Clement, Origen, and their associates.
The views held by Clement and taught by his predecessor, Pantaenus, and, as
seems apparent, by Anathegoras and his predecessors beckons to the apostles
themselves, and by their successor Origen, and, as will appear on following
pages by others down to Didymus, (A.D. 395), the last president of the greatest
theological school of the Second and Third Centuries, were substantially those
taught by the Universalist church of today, so far as they included the
character of God, the nature and final destiny of mankind, the effect of the
resurrection, the judgment, the nature and end of punishment, and other related
themes. In fact Clement stands on the subject of God's purpose and plan, and
man's ultimate destiny, as substantially a representative of the Universalist
church of the Nineteenth Century, as well as a type of ancient scholarship.
BACK
1 Robertson Hist. Ch., Vol. I, p. 90. Bingham, Vol.
III, 10, 5; Neander Hist., Ch. 2, 227; Mosheim Com. I, p. 263; Butler's Lives of
the Saints VII pp. 55-59. 2 Similar institutions were in Antioch, Athens,
Edessa, Nisibis and Caesarea. 3 Kingsley's Alexandria and Her Schools.
4 Matter's Hist. de l'Ecole d'Alexandrie; Kingsley's Alexandria and Her
Schools. 5 Farrar's Lives of the Fathers, I, pp. 262, 263. 6 Max
Muller, Theosophy or Psychological Religion, Lecture XIII. 7 The edition
of Clemens used in preparing this work is Bibliotheca Sacra Patrum Ecclesiae
Graecorum, Pars. III. Titi Flaui Clementis Alexandrini Opera Omnia Tom. I, IV.
Recognouit Reinholdus Klotz. Lipsiae, Sumptibus, E. B. Schwickertl, I, 182. Also
Migne's Patrologue. 8 Norton's Statement of Reasons, pp. 94, 95;
Cudworth; Brucker. The extent to which early Christians appealed to the Pagan
philosophies may be gauged from the fact that in Origen thirty-five allusions
are made to the Stoics, six to the Epicureans, fifteen to the Platonists, and
six to the Phytagoreans; it Tertullian five to the Stoics and five to the
Epicureans; in Clement of Alexandria, repeatedly. Huidekoper's Inderect
Testomony to the Gospels. 9 Strom. i: 7. 10 Hipp. and His Age, I.
11 Strom, VII, 2; Pedag. I, 8; on I Joh2:2 Comments on sed etiam pro toto
mundo, etc. ("Proinde universos quidem salvat, sed alios per supplicia
convertens, alios autem spontanea, assequentes, voluntate, et cum honoris
dignitate (Phil. ii: 10) ut omne genu flectatur ei, caelestium, terrestrium et
infernorum; hoc est angeli, homines, et animae quae ante adventum ejus de hac
vita migravere temporali.") Strom. VII, 16. 12 Paed I, viii. 13
*GR Strom. VII, vi. 14 VI, vi; VII, xvi; VI, xiv; VII, ii. 15
Poedag. I, viii. 16 Strom. IV, xxiv. 17 Quoted by Neander.
18 *GR 19 Christian Doct., Period I, Sec. 39. 20 Lectures
on the Ecc. Hist. of the First and Second Centuries, pp. 230-239. 21
Church Hist. First Three Centuries. 22 Hist. Christ. Church, Second and
Third Centuries, Jeremie, p. 38. 23 Hom. VI., 4, in Exod. Qui salvus fit
per ignem salvus fit, ut, si quid forte de specie plumbi habuerit admixtum, id
ignis decoquat et resolvat, ut efficiantur omnes aurum purum. 24 Church
of the First Three Centuries, p. 158. 25 Continuity of Christian Thought,
p. 19.
Chapter 10
Origen
Early Opposition to Origen
Origen Adamantius was born of Christian parents, in Alexandria, A.D. 185. He
was early taught the Christian religion, and when a mere boy could recite long
passages of Scripture from memory. During the persecution by Septimus Severus,
A.D. 202, his father, Leonides, was imprisoned, and the son wrote to him not to
deny Christ out of tenderness for his family, and was only prevented from
surrendering himself to voluntary martyrdom by his mother, who hid his clothes.
Leonides died a martyr. In the year 203, then but eighteen years of age, Origen
was appointed to the presidency of the theological school in Alexandria, a
position left vacant by the flight of Clement from heathen persecution. He made
himself proficient in the various branches of learning, traveled in the Orient
and acquired the Hebrew language for the purpose of translating the Scriptures.
His fame extended in all directions. He won eminent heathens to Christianity,
and his instructions were sought by people of all lands. He renounced all but
the barest necessities of life, rarely eating flesh, never drinking wine, slept
on the naked floor, and devoted the greater part of the night to prayer and
study. Eusebius says that he would not live upon the bounty of those who would
have been glad to maintain him while he was at work for the world's good, and so
he disposed of his valuable library to one who would allow him the daily
pittance of four obols; and rigidly acted on our Lord's precept not to have "two
coats, or wear shoes, and to have no anxiety for the morrow."1 Origen is even
said to have mutilated himself (though this is disputed) from an erroneous
construction of the Savior's command (Matt. 19:12), and to guard himself from
trickery and/or slander that might proceed from his association with female
students. This act he lamented in later years. If done it was from the purest
motives, and was an act of great self-sacrifice, for, as it was forbidden by
canonical law, it debarred him from clerical promotion. He was ordained
presbyter A.D. 228, by two bishops outside his church district, and this
irregular act performed by others than from his own district gave grounds to
Demetrius of Alexandria, in whose jurisdiction he lived, to manifest the envy he
had already felt at the growing reputation of the young scholar; and in two
councils composed and controlled by Demetrius, A.D. 231 and 232, Origen was
deposed.2 Many of the church authorities condemned the action. In this
persecution Origen proved himself as grand in spirit as in mind. To his friends
he said: "We must pity them rather that hate them, pray for them rather than
curse them, for we were made for blessing, not for cursing." Origen went to
Palestine A.D. 230, opened a school in Caesarea, and enjoyed a continually
increasing fame. The persecutions under Maximinus in 235, drove him away. He
went to Cappadocia, then to Greece, and finally back to Palestine. Defamed at
home he was honored abroad, but was at length called back to Alexandria, where
his pupil Dionysius had succeeded Demetrius as bishop. But soon after, during
the persecution under Decius, he was tortured and condemned to die at the stake,
but he lingered, and at length died of his injuries and sufferings, a true
martyr, in Tyre, A.D. 253 or 254, at the age of sixty-nine. His grave was known
down to the Middle Ages.
Professor Schaff on Origen
The historian Schaff declares: "It is impossible to deny a respectful
sympathy to this extraordinary man, who, with all his brilliant talents, and a
host of enthusiastic friends and admirers, was driven from his country, stripped
of his sacred office, excommunicated from a part of the church, then thrown into
a dungeon, loaded with chains, racked by torture, doomed to drag his aged frame
and dislocated limbs in pain and poverty, and long after his death to have his
memory branded, his name cursed and banned, and his salvation denied; but who,
nevertheless, did more than all his enemies combined to advance the cause of
sacred learning, to refute and convert heathens and heretics, and to make the
church respected in the eyes of the world. Origen was the greatest scholar of
his age, and the most learned and genial of all the ante-Nicene fathers. Even
heathens and heretics admired or feared his brilliant talents. His knowledge
embraced all departments of the philology (historical languages), philosophy and
theology of his day. With this he united profound and fertile thought, keen
penetration, and glowing imagination. As a true divine he consecrated all his
studies by prayer, and turned them, according to his best conventions, to the
service of truth and piety."3
While chained in prison, his feet in the stocks, his constant theme was: "I
can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth me." His last thought was for
his brethren. "He has left the memory of one of the greatest theologians and
greatest saints the church has ever possessed. One of his own words strikes the
key-note of his life: 'Love,' he says again and again, "is an agony, a passion;'
'Caritas est passio." To love the truth so as to suffer for it in the world and
in the church; to love mankind with a tender sympathy; to extend the arms of
compassion ever more widely, so as to pass over all barriers of dogmatic
difference under the far-reaching impulse of this pitying love; to realize that
the essence of love is sacrifice, and to make self the unreserved and willing
victim, such was the creed, such was the life of Origen."4
He described in letters now lost, the sufferings he endured without the
martyrdom he so longed for, and yet in terms of patience and Christian
forgiveness. Persecuted by Pagans for his Christian fidelity, and by Christians
for heresy, driven from home and country, and after his death his morals
questioned, his memory branded, his name abominated and denounced, and even his
salvation denied.5 There is not a character in the annals of Christendom more
unjustly treated.
Eusebiues relates how Origen bore in his old age, as in his youth, fearful
sufferings for his fidelity to his Master, and carried the scars of persecution
into his grave. No nobler witness to the truth is found in the records of
Christian fidelity. And, as though the terrible persecutions he suffered during
life were not enough, he has for fifteen hundred years borne ill repute,
slander, reproach, and denunciation from professing Christians who were unworthy
to loosen his shoe latchets. Most of those who decried him during his lifetime,
and for a century later, were men whose characters were of an inferior, and some
of a very low order; but the candid Nicephorus, a hundred and fifty years after
his death, wrote that he was "held in great glory in all the world."
This greatest of all Christian apologists and Bible teachers, and the first
man in Christendom since Paul, was a distinctive Universalist. He could not have
misunderstood or misrepresented the teachings of his Master. The language of the
New Testament was his mother tongue. He derived the teachings of Christ from
Christ himself in a direct line through his teacher Clement; and he placed the
defense of Christianity on Universalistic grounds. When Celsus, in his "True
Discourse," the first great assault on Christianity, objected to Christianity on
the ground that it taught punishment by fire, Origen replied that the threatened
fire possessed a disciplinary, purifying quality that will consume in the sinner
whatever evil material it can find to consume.
Gehenna Denotes a Purifying Fire
Origen declares that Gehenna is an analogy of the Valley of Hinnom and
suggests a purifying fire6 but implies that it is not prudent to go further,
showing that the idea of "reserve" controlled him from saying what might not be
sound judgment. That God's fire is not material, but spiritual remorse ending in
reformation, Origen teaches in many passages. He repeatedly speaks of punishment
as aionion (mistranslated in the New Testament "everlasting," "eternal") and
then elaborately states and defends as Christian doctrine universal salvation
beyond all aionion suffering and sin. Says the candid historian Robertson: "The
great object of this distinguished teacher was to harmonize Christianity with
philosophy. He sought to combine in a Christian scheme the fragmentary truths
scattered throughout other systems, to establish the Gospel in a form which
should not present obstacles to the conversion of Jews, of Gnostics, and of
cultivated heathens; and his errors arose from a too eager pursuit of this
idea.7"
The effect of his broad faith on his spirit and treatment of others, is in
strong contrast to the bitter and cruel disposition exhibited by some of the
early Christians towards heretics, such as Tertullian and Augustine. In reply to
the charge that Christians of different creeds had a lot of animosity toward
each other, he said, "Such of us as follow the doctrines of Jesus, and endeavor
to be conformed to his teachings and principles, in our thoughts, words and
actions; being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed,
we entreat. Nor do we say injurious things of those who think differently of us.
They who consider the words of our Lord, Blessed are the peaceable, and Blessed
are the meek, will not hate those who corrupt the Christian religion, not give
scornful names to those who are in error."
When he was a young teacher his zeal and firmness vindicated his name
Adamantius, man of steel or adamant. Says De Pressense: "The example of Origen
was of much force in sustaining the courage of his disciples. He might be seen
constantly in the prison of the pious captives carrying to them the consolation
they needed. He stood by them till the last moment of triumph came, and gave
them the parting kiss of peace on the very threshold of the arena or at the foot
of the stake." One day he was carried to the temple of Serapis, and palms were
placed in his hands to lay on the altar of the Egyptian god. Brandishing the
branches, he exclaimed, "Here are the triumphal palms, not of the idol, but of
Christ." In a work of Origen's now only existing in a Latin translation is the
characteristic thought: "The fields of the angels are our hearts; each one of
them therefore out of the field which he cultivates, offers first fruits to God.
If I should be able to produce today some choice interpretation, worthy to be
presented to the Supreme High Priest, so that out of all those thinks which we
speak and teach, there should be somewhat considerable which may please the
great High Priest, it might possibly happen that the angel who presides over the
church, out of all our words, might choose something, and offer it as a kind of
first fruits to the Lord, out of the small field of my heart. But I know I do
not deserve it; nor am I conscious to myself that any interpretation is
discovered by me which the angel who cultivates us should judge worthy to offer
to the Lord, as first fruits, or first born."8
His Critics are his Eulogists
Origen's critics are his eulogists. Gieseler remarks: "To the wide extended
influence of his writings it is to be attributed, that, in the midst of these
furious controversies (in the Fifth Century) there remained any freedom of
theological speculation whatever." Bunsen: "Origen's death is the real end of
free Christianity and, in particular, of free intellectual theology." Schaff
says: "Origen is father of the scientific and critical investigation of
Scripture." Jerome says he wrote more than other men can read. Epiphanius, an
opponent, states the number of his works as six thousand. His books that survive
are mostly in Latin, more or less mutilated by translators.
Eusebius says that his life is worthy of being recorded from "his tender
infancy." Even when a child "he was wholly borne away by the desire of becoming
a martyr," and so divine a spirit did he show, and such devotedness to his
religion, even as a child, that his father, frequently, "when standing over his
sleeping boy, would uncover his breast, and as a shrine consecrated by the
Divine Spirit, reverently kiss the breast of his favorite offspring. As his
doctrine so was his life; and as his life, so also was his doctrine." His
Bishop, Demetrius, praised him highly, till "seeing him doing well, great and
illustrious and celebrated by all, was overcome by human infirmity," and
slandered him throughout the church.
Origen was followed as teacher in the Alexandrine school by his pupil
Heraclas, who in turn was succeeded by Dionysius, another pupil, so that from
Pantaenus, to Clemens, Origen, Heraclas and Dionysius, to Didymus, from say A.D.
160 to A.D. 390, more than two centuries, the teaching in Alexandria, the very
center of Christian learning, was Universalistic.
The struggles of such a spirit, scholar, saint, philosopher, must have been
a martyrdom, and illustrate the power of his sublime faith, not only to sustain
in the terrific trials through which he passed, but to preserve the spirit he
always manifested--akin to that which cried on the cross, "Father, forgive them,
they know not what they do."
The Death of Origen
The death of Origen marks an epoch in Christianity, and signalizes the
beginning of a period of decadence. The republicanism of Christianity began to
give way before the monarchical tendencies that ripened with Constantine (A.D.
313) and the Nicean council (A.D. 325). Clement and Origen represented freedom
of thought, and a rational creed founded on the Bible, but the evil change that
Christianity was soon to experience, was fairly seen, says Bunsen, about the
time of Origen's death. "Origen, who had made a last attempt to preserve liberty
of thought along with a rational belief in historical facts based upon the
historical records, had failed in his gigantic efforts; he died of a broken
heart rather than of the wounds inflicted by his heathen torturers. His
followers retained only his mystical scholasticism, without possessing either
his genius or his learning, his great and wide heart, or his free,
truth-speaking spirit. More and more the teachers became bishops, and the
bishops absolute governors, the majority of whom strove to establish as law
their speculations upon Christianity.
His comprehensive mind and vast sympathy, and his intense tendency to
generalization, caused Origen to entertain hospitality in his philosophical
system many ideas that now are seen inconsistent and intenable (questionable?);
but his fantastic, allegorical interpretation of Scripture, his whimsical
notions concerning pre-existence, and his disposition to include all themes and
theories in his system, did not swerve him from the truths and facts of
Christian revelation. His defects were but as spots on the sun. And his notions
were by no means in excess of those of the average theologian of his times.
A Christian Philosopher
Origen considered philosophy as necessary to Christianity as is geometry to
philosophy; but that all things essential to salvation are plainly taught in the
Scriptures, within the comprehension of the ordinary mind. "Origen was the
prince of schoolmen and scholars, as subtle as Aquinas, as deeply learned as
Routh or Tischendorf. He is a man of one book, in a sense. The Bible, its text,
its exposition, furnished him with the motive for incessant toil."
(Neoplatonism, by C. Bigg, D.D., London, 1895, p. 163.) The truths taught in the
Bible may be made by philosophers themes on which the mind may indefinitely
expand; and those competent will find interior, spiritual, concealed meanings
not seen on the surface. Yet he constantly taught "that such a harmonious
relationship exists between Christianity and human reason, that not only the
grounds, but also the forms, of all Christian doctrines may be explained by the
dictates of philosophy. That it is vastly important to the honor and advantage
of Christianity that all its doctrines be traced back to the sources of all
truth, or be shown to flow from the principles of philosophy; and consequently
that a Christian theologian should exert his ingenuity and his industry
primarily to demonstrate the harmony between religion and reason, and to show
that there is nothing taught it the Scriptures but what is founded in reason."
A Bible Universalist
He held to the "most scrupulous Biblicism and the most conscientious regard
for the rule of faith, joined with the philosophy of religion." He "was the most
influential theologian in the Oriental church, the father of theological
science, the author of ecclesiastical dogmatics. An orthodox traditionalist, a
strong Biblical theologian, a keen idealistic philosopher who translated the
content of faith into ideas, completed the structure of the world that is
within, and finally let nothing pass save knowledge of God and of self, in
closest union, which exalts us above the world, and conducts unto edification.
Life is a discipline, a conflict under the permission and leading of God, which
will end with the conquest and destruction of evil. According to Origen, all
spirits will, in the form of their individual lives, be finally rescued and
glorified (apokatastasis)."9 Mosheim considered these fatal errors, while we
should regard them as valuable principles. The famous historian assures us the
Origen was entirely ignorant of the doctrine of Christ's substitutional
sacrifice. He had no faith in the idea that Christ suffered in man's stead, but
taught that he died in man's behalf.
The Works of Origen
The known works of Origen consist of brief "Notes on Scripture," only a few
fragments of which are left; his "Commentaries," many of which are in Migne's
collection; his "Contra Celsum," or "Against Celsus," which is complete and in
the original Greek; "Stromata," only three fragments of which survive in a Latin
translation; a fragment on the "Resurrection;" practical "Essays and Letters,"
but two of the latter remaining, and "Of Principles," "De Principiis," or *GR.
Nearly all the original Greek of this great work has perished. The Latin
translation by Rufinus is very loose and inaccurate. It is frequently a mere
paraphrase. Jerome, whose translation is better than that of Rufinus, accuses
the latter of unfaithfulness in his translation, and made a new version, only
small portions of which have come down to modern times, so that we cannot
accurately judge of the character of this great work. A comparison of the Greek
of Origen's "Against Celsus" with the Latin version of Rufinus exhibits great
discrepancies. Indeed, Rufinus confesses that he had so "smoothed and corrected"
as to leave "nothing which could appear discordant with our belief." He claimed,
however, that he had done so because "his (Origen's) books had been corrupted by
heretics and malevolent persons," and accordingly he had suppressed or enlarged
the text to what he taught Origen ought to have said! And having acknowledged so
much he swears to all by their "belief in the kingdom to come, by the mystery of
the resurrection from the dead, and by the everlasting fire prepared for the
devil and his angels" to make no further alterations! He reiterates his
confession elsewhere, and says he has translated nothing that seems to him to
contradict Origen's other opinions, but has passed it by, as "altered and
forged." For the sake of "briefness," he says he has sometimes "curtailed."
Says De Pressense: "Celsus collected in his quiver all the objections
possible to be made, and there is scarcely one missing of all the arrows which
in subsequent times have been aimed against the supernatural in Christianity."
To every point made by Celsus, Origen made a triumphant reply, anticipating, in
fact, modern objections, and "gave to Christian antiquity its most complete
apology. Many centuries were to elapse before the church could present to the
world any other defense of her faith comparable to this noble book." "It remains
the masterpiece of ancient apology, for solidity of basis, vigor of argument,
and breadth of eloquent exposition. The apologists of every age were to find in
it an inexhaustible mine, as well as incomparable model of that royal, moral
method inaugurated by St. Paul and St. John."
An illustration of his manner may be given in his reference to the attack of
Celsus on the miracles of Christ. Celsus dares not deny them, only a hundred
years after Christ, and says: "Be it so, we accept the facts as genuine," and
then proceeds to rank them with the tricks of Egyptian sorcerers, and asks: "Did
anyone ever look upon those impostors as divinely aided, who for hire healed the
sick and wrought wonderful works?" If Jesus did work miracles it was through
sorcery, and deserves therefore the greater contempt." In reply Origin insists
on the miracles, but places the higher evidence of Christianity on a moral
basis. He says: "Show me the magician who calls upon the spectators of his
prodigies to reform their life, or who teaches his admirers the fear of God, and
seeks to persuade them to act as those who must appear before him as their
judge. The magicians do nothing of the sort, either because they are incapable
of it, or because they have no such desire. Themselves charged with crimes the
most shameful and infamous, how should they attempt the reformation of the
morals of others? The miracles of Christ, on the contrary, all bear the impress
of his own holiness, and he ever uses them as a means of winning to the cause of
goodness and truth those who witness them. Thus he presented his own life as the
perfect model, not only to his immediate disciples, but to all men. He taught
his disciples to make known to those who heard them, the perfect will of God;
and he revealed to mankind, far more by his life and works than by his miracles,
the secret of that holiness by which it is possible in all things to please God.
If such was the life of Jesus, how can he be compared to mere charlatans, and
why may we not believe that he was indeed God manifested in the flesh for the
salvation of our race?"10
The historian Cave says: "Celsus was an Epicurean philosopher contemporary
with Lucian, the witty atheist, a man of wit and parts, and had all the
advantages which learning, philosophy, and eloquence could add to him; but a
severe and incurable enemy to the Christian religion, against which he wrote a
book entitled 'The True Discourse,' wherein he attempted Christianity with all
the arts of insinuation, all the wicked reflections, antagonistic slanders,
plausible reasons, whereunto a man of parts and malice was capable to assault
it. To this Origen returns a full and solid answer, in eight books; wherein, as
he had the better cause, so he managed it with that strength of reason,
clearness of argument, and convictive evidence of truth, that were there nothing
else to testify the abilities of this great man, this book alone were enough to
do it."
The Final Answer to Skepticism
Eusebius declared that Origen "not only answered all the objections that had
ever been brought, but had supplied in anticipation answers to all that ever
could be brought against Christianity." Celsus, the ablest of all the assailants
of Christianity, wrote his "True Discourse" about a century before Origen's
time. It is the fountain whence the enemies of Christianity have obtained the
materials for their attacks on the Christian religion. In garbled texts,
confounds the different heresies with the accepted form of Christianity, and
employs the keenest logic, the bitterest sarcasm, and all the weapons of the
most accomplished and unscrupulous controversy, and exhausts learning, argument,
irony, falsehoods, slander, and all the skilled resources of one of the ablest
of men in his assault on the new religion. Origen's reply, written A.D., 249,
proceeds on the ground already established by Clement: the essential relation
between God and man; the universal operation of God's grace; the preparation for
the Gospel by Paganism; the residence of the genius of divinity in each human
soul; the resurrection of the soul rather than of the body, and the curative
power of all the divine punishments. He triumphantly meets Celsus on every
point, argument with argument, attack with attack, satire with satire, and
through all breathes an inspiring and lofty spirit, immeasurably superior to
that of his opponent. He leaves nothing of the great skeptic's unanswered.
Among the points made by Celsus and thoroughly disposed of by Origen were
some that have in recent years been presented: that there is nothing new in
Christian teaching; that the pretended miracles were not by the supernatural act
of God; that the prophecies were misapplied and unfulfilled; that Christ
borrowed from Plato, etc.
The First of Christian Theologians
The first system of Christian theology ever framed--let it never be
forgotten--was published by Origen, A.D. 230, and it declared universal
restoration as the issue of the divine government; so that this eminent
Universalist has the grand pre-eminence of being not only the founder of
scientific Christian theology, but also the first great defender of the
Christian religion against its assailants. "De Principiis" is a profound book, a
fundamental and essential element of which is the doctrine of the universal
restoration of all fallen beings to their original holiness and union with God.
Origen's most learned production was the "Hexapla." He was twenty-eight
years on this great Biblical work. The first form was the "Tetrapla," containing
in four columns the "Septuagint," and the texts of Aquila, Symmachus, and
Theodotion. This he enlarged into "Hexapla" with the Hebrew text in both Hebrew
and Greek letters. Many of the books of the Bible had two additional columns,
and some a seventh Greek version. This was the "Octapla." This immense monument
of learning and industry consisted of fifty volumes. It was never transcribed,
and perished, probably destroyed by the Arabs in the destruction of the
Alexandrian Library.11
Origen was of medium height, but of such vigor and physical endurance that
he acquired the title Adamantius, the man of steel, or adamant. But he
constantly wore a demeanor of graciousness and majesty, of kindliness and
Godliness, that won all with whom he came in contact.
Quotation of Origen's Language
The following statements from the pen of Origen, and theories of his views
by eminent authors of different creeds, will show the great scholar's ideas of
human destiny. Many more than are here given might be presented, but enough are
quoted to demonstrate beyond question that the great philosopher and divine, the
equally great scholar and saint, was a Universalist. There is no little
difficulty in reaching Origen's opinions on some topics--happily not on man's
final destiny--in consequence of most of his works existing only in Latin
translations confessedly inaccurate. He complained of perversions while living,
and warned against misconstruction.12 But no believer in endless punishment can
claim the sanction of his great name.
Origen's Exact Words
He writes: "The end of the world, then, and the final consummation will take
place when everyone shall be subjected to punishment for his sins; a time which
God alone knows, when he will bestow on each one what he deserves. We think,
indeed, that the goodness of God, through his Christ, may recall all his
creatures to one end, even his enemies being conquered and subdued. For thus
says Holy Scripture, 'The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, until
I make thine enemies thy footstool.' And if the meaning of the prophet be less
clear, we may ascertain it from the apostle Paul, who speaks more openly, thus:
'For Christ must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet.' But even if
that unreserved declaration of the apostle do not sufficiently inform us what is
meant by 'enemies being placed under his feet,' listen to what he says in the
following words: "For all things must be put under him.' What, then, is this
'putting under' by which all things must be made subject to Christ? I am of
opinion that it is this very subjection by which we also which to be subject to
him, by which the apostles also were subject, and all the saints who have been
followers of Christ. For the word 'subjection,' by which we are subject to
Christ, indicates that the salvation which proceeds from Him belongs to his
subjects, agreeably to the declaration of David, 'Shall not my soul be subject
unto God? From him cometh my salvation.'" "Seeing, then, that such is the end,
when all enemies will be subdued to Christ, when death--the last enemy--shall be
destroyed, and when the kingdom shall be delivered up by Christ (to whom all
things are subject) to God the Father; let us, I say, from such an end as this,
contemplate the beginnings of things." "The apostolic teaching is that the soul,
having a substance and life of its own, shall, after its departure from the
world, be rewarded according to its deserts, beings destined to obtain either an
inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have acquired
this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt
of its crimes shall have brought it down to this." De Prin. I, vi: 1, 2.
Unquestionably Origen, in the original Greek of which the Latin translation
only exists, here used "aionion" (inaccurately rendered everlasting and eternal
in the New Testament) in the sense of limited duration; and fire, as an emblem
of purification, for he says:
"When thou hearest of the wrath of God, believe not that this wrath and
indignation are passions of God; they are condescensions of language designed to
convert and improve the child. So God is described as angry, and says that he is
indignant, in order that thou mayest convert and be improved, while in fact he
is not angry."13
Origen severely condemns those who cherish unworthy thoughts of God,
regarding him, he says, as possessing a disposition that would be a slander on a
wicked savage. He insists that the purpose of all punishment, by a good God,
must be medicinal.14
Meaning of Aionios
In arguing that aionios as applied to punishment does not mean endless, he
says that the sin that is not forgiven in the aeon or the aeon to come, would be
in some one of the aeons following. His argument that age (undoubtedly aion in
the original, of which, unfortunately, we have only the Latin translation) is
limited, is quite complete in "De Principiis." This word is an age (saeculum,
aion) and a conclusion of many ages (seculorum). He concludes his argument by
referring to the time when, beyond "an age and ages, perhaps even more than ages
of ages," that period will come, viz., when all things are no longer in an age,
but when God is all in all.15
He quotes the Scripture phrase "Forever and ever and beyond" (in saeculum et
in saeculum et edhuc, forever and further), and insists that evil, being a
negation, cannot be eternal.
Dr. Bigg sums up Origen's views: "Slowly yet certainly the blessed change
must come, the purifying fire must eat up the dross and leave the pure gold. One
by one we shall enter into rest, never to stray again. Then when death, the last
enemy, is destroyed, when the tale of his children is complete, Christ will
'drink wine in the kingdom of his Father.' This is the end, when 'all shall be
one, as Christ and the Father are one,' when 'God shall be all in all.'"
Origen never dogmatizes; rests largely on general principles; says that
"justice and goodness are in their highest manifestations identical; that God
does not punish, but has made man so that in virtue only can he find peace and
happiness, because he has made him like himself; that suffering is not a tax
upon sin, but the wholesome reaction by which the diseased soul struggles to
cast out the poison of its malady; that, therefore, if we have done wrong it is
good to suffer, because the anguish of returning health will cease when health
is restored, and cannot cease till then. Again, that evil is against the plan of
God, is created not by Him but by ourselves; is therefore, properly speaking, a
negation, and as such cannot be eternal. These are, in the main, Greek thoughts,
their chief source is the Gorgias of Plato; but his final appeal is always to
Scripture."
Huet quotes Leontius as saying that Origen argued from the fact that aionion
means finite duration, the limited duration of future punishment. Origen's
argument for the terminability of punishment was based on the meaning of this
word aionios.16 Surely he, a Platonist in his knowledge of Greek, should know
its signification.17
Origen on the Purifying Fire
On I Cor. 3:2, he says (Ag. Cels. V. 15.): The fire that will consume the
world at the last day is a purifying fire, which all must pass through, though
it will impart no pain to the good. In expressing eternity Origen does not
depend upon aion, but qualifies the word by an adjective, thus:---ton apeiron
aiona. Barnabas, Hermas, "Sibylline Oracles," Justin Martyr, Polycarp,
Theophilus and Irenaeus all apply the word aionios to punishment, but two of
these taught annihilation, and one universal salvation beyond aionion
punishment.
God is a "Consuming Fire," Origen thinks, because he "does indeed consume
and utterly destroy; that he consumes evil thoughts, wicked actions, and sinful
desires when they find their way into the minds of believers." He teaches that
"God's consuming fire works with the good as with the evil, annihilating that
which harms his children. This fire is one that each one kindles; the fuel and
food is each one's sins."18 "What is the meaning of eternal fire?" he asks:
"When the soul has gathered together a multitude of evil works, and an abundance
of sins against itself, at a suitable time all that assembly of evils boils up
to punishment, and is set on fire to chastisement," etc. Just as physicians
employ drugs, and sometimes "the evil has to be burned out by fire, how much
more is it to be understood that God our Physician, desiring to remove the
defects of our souls, should apply the punishment of fire." "Our God is a
'consuming fire' in the sense in which we have taken the word; and thus he
enters in as a 'refiner's fire' to refine the rational nature, which has been
filled with the lead of wickedness, and to free it from the other impure
materials which adulterate the natural gold or silver, so to speak, of the
soul." Towards the conclusion of his reply to Celsus, Origen has the following
passage: "The Stoics, indeed hold that when the strongest of the elements
prevails all things shall be turned into fire. But our belief is that the Word
shall prevail over the entire rational creation, and change every soul into his
own perfection; in which state every one, by the mere exercise of his power,
will choose what he desires, and obtain what he chooses. For although, in the
diseases and wounds of the body, there are some which no medical skill can cure,
yet we hold that in the mind there is no evil so strong that it may not be
overcome by the Supreme Word and God. For stronger than all the evils in the
soul is the Word, and the healing power that dwells in him; and this healing he
applies, according to the will of God, to every man. The consummation of all
things is the destruction of evil, although as to the question whether it shall
be so destroyed that it can never anywhere rise again, it is beyond our present
purpose to say. Many things are said obscurely in the prophecies on the total
destruction of evil, and the restoration to righteousness of every soul; but it
will be enough for our present purpose to quote the following passage from
Zephaniah," etc. Ag. Cels. VIII. 1xxii.
Thus Origen interprets "fire" in the Bible not only as a symbol of the
sinner's suffering but of his purification. The "consuming fire" is a "refiner's
fire." It consumes the sins, and refines and purifies the sinner. It burns the
sinner's works, "hay wood and stubble," that result from wickedness. The torture
is real, the purification sure; fire is a symbol of God's service, certain, but
remedial and beneficially corrective discipline. God's "wrath" is apparent, not
real. There is no passion on his part. What we call wrath is another name for
his disciplinary process. God would not tell us to put away anger, wrath (Origen
says) and then be guilty himself of what he prohibits of us. He declares that
the punishment which is said to be by fire is understood to be applied with the
object of healing, as taught by Isaiah, etc. (13:16; 47:14,15; 10:17). The
"eternal fire" is remedial, serving to cure.
Origen on Gehenna
Gehenna and its fires have the same signification: "We find that what was
termed 'Gehenna' or 'the Valley of Ennom,' was included in the lot of the tribe
of Benjamin, in which Jerusalem also was situated. And seeking to ascertain what
might be the inference from the heavenly Jerusalem belonging to the lot of
Benjamin, and the Valley of Ennom, we find a certain confirmation of what is
said regarding the place of punishment, intended from the purification of such
souls as are to be purified by torments, agreeably to the same,--'the Lord
cometh like a refiner's fire and like fuller's soap; and he shall sit as a
refiner and purifies of silver and of gold.'" Ag. Cels., VI. 26.
Views of "Foolish Christians" on Fire
In reply to the charge of Celsus that Christians teach that sinners will be
burnt up by the fires of judgment, Origen replies that such thoughts had been
entertained by certain foolish Christians, who were unable to see distinctly the
sense of each particular passage, or unwilling to devote the necessary labor to
the investigation of Scripture. And perhaps, as it is appropriate to children
that some things should be addressed to them in a manner befitting their
infantile condition, to convert them, so such ideas as Celsus refers to are
taught." But he adds that "those who require the administration of punishment by
fire" experience it "with a view to an end which is suitable for God to bring
upon those who have been created in his image." In reply to the charge of Celsus
that Christians teach that God will act the part of a cook in burning men,
Origen says,--"not like a cook but like a God who is a benefactor of those who
stand in need of discipline of fire." V. 15, 16.
Origen declares that sinners who are "incurable" are converted by the threat
of punishment. "As to the punishments threatened against the ungodly, these will
come upon them after they have refused all remedies, and have been, as we may
say, visited with an incurable malady of sinfulness. Such is our doctrine of
punishment; and the instilling of this doctrine turns many away from their
sins."19
Pamphilus and Eusebius in their "Apology for Origen" quote these words from
him: "We are to understand that God, our physician, in order to remove those
disorders which our souls contract from various sins and abominations, uses that
painful mode of cure, and brings those torments of fire upon such as have lost
the health of the soul, just as an earthly physician in extreme cases subjects
his patients to burning to destroy bad tissue."
But Origen always makes salvation depend on the consenting will; hence he
says, (De Prin. II, 1:2), "God the Father of all things, in order to ensure the
salvation of all his creatures through the delightly indescribable plan of his
Word and wisdom, so arranged each of these, that every spirit, whether soul or
rational existence, however called, should not be compelled by force, against
the liberty of his own will, to any other course than to which the motives of
his own mind led him."
Origen teaches that in the final estate of universal human happiness there
will be differing degrees of blessedness. After quoting I Thess. 4:15-17, he
says: "A diversity of translation and a different glory will be given to every
one according to the merits of his actions; and every one will be in that order
which the merits of his work have acquired for him."
Mosheim and Robertson
Mosheim thus expresses Origen's views: "As all divine punishments are
remedial and useful, so also that which divine justice has inflicted on debased
souls, although it is a great evil, is nevertheless remedial and beneficial in
its tendency, and should conduct them to blessedness. For the tiresome conflict
of opposite inclinations, the onsets of the passions, the pains and sorrows and
other evils arising from the connection of the mind with the body, and with a
sensation-experienced soul, may and should excite the captive soul to long for
the recovery of its lost happiness, and lead it to concentrate all its energies
in order to escape from its misery. For God acts like a physician, who employs
harsh and bitter remedies, not only to cure the diseased, but also to induce
them to preserve their health and to avoid whatever might impair it."20
The candid historian Robertson gives an accurate statement of Origen's
eschatology, with references to his works, as follows: "All punishment, he
holds, is merely corrective and remedial, being ordained in order that all
creatures may be restored to their original perfection. At the resurrection all
mankind will have to pass through a fire; the purged spirits will enter into
Paradise, a place of training for the consummation; the wicked will remain in
the 'fire,' which, however, is not described as material, but as a mental and
spiritual misery. The matter and food of it, he says, are our sins, which, when
swollen to the height, are inflamed to become our punishment; and the outer
darkness is the darkness of ignorance. But the condition of these spirits is not
without hope, although thousands of years may elapse before their suffering
shall have wrought its due effect on them. On the other hand, those who are
admitted into Paradise may abuse their free will, as in the beginning, and may
consequently be doomed to a renewal of their sojourn in the flesh. Every
reasonable creature-even Satan himself-may be turned from evil to good, so as
not to be excluded from salvation."21
Notwithstanding Robertson's doubt, expressed elsewhere in his history,
whether Origen taught the salvability of "devils," Origen's language is clear.
He says: "But whether any of these orders who act under the government of the
Devil will in a future world be converted to righteousness or whether persistent
and established wickedness may be changed by the power of habit into nature, is
a result which you yourself, reader, may approve of;" but he goes on to say that
in the eternal and invisible worlds, "all those beings are arranged according to
a regular plan, in the order and degree of their merits; so that some of them in
the first, others in the second, some even in the last times, after having
undergone heavier and severer punishments, endured for a lengthened period, and
for many ages, so to speak, improved by this stern method of training, and
restored at first by the instruction of the angels, and subsequently by the
powers of a higher grade and thus advancing through each stage to a better
condition, reach even to that which is invisible and eternal, having traveled
through, by a kind of training, every single office of the heavenly powers. From
which, I think, this will appear to follow as an inference that every rational
nature may, in passing from one order to another, go through each to all, and
advance from all to each, while made the subject of various degrees of
proficiency and failure according to its own actions and endeavors, put forth in
the enjoyment of its power of freedom of will."22
The "Dictionary of Christian Biography"
Says the "Dictionary of Christian Biography:" Origen "openly proclaims his
belief that the goodness of God, when each sinner shall have received the
penalty of his sins, will, through Christ, lead the whole universe to one end."
"He is led to examine into the nature of the fire which tries every man's work,
and is the penalty of evil, and he finds it in the mind itself--in the memory of
evil. The sinner's life lies before him as an open scroll, and he looks on it
with shame and anguish unspeakable. The Physician of our souls can use his own
processes of healing. The 'outer darkness' and Paradise are but different stages
in the education of the great school of souls, and their upward and onward
progress depends on their purity and love of truth. He who is saved is saved as
by fire, that if he has in him any mixture of lead the fire may melt it out, so
that all may be made as the pure gold. The more the lead the greater will be the
burning, so that even if there be but little gold, that little will be purified.
The fire of the last day, will, it may be, be at once a punishment and a remedy,
burning up the wood, hay, stubble, according to each man's merits, yet all
working to the destined end of restoring man to the image of God, though, as
yet, men must be treated as children, and the terrors of the judgment rather
than the final restoration have to be brought before those who can be converted
only by fears and threats. Gehenna stands for the torments that cleanse the
soul, but for the many who are scarcely restrained by the fears of eternal
torments, it is not expedient to go far into that matter, hardly, indeed, to
commit our thoughts to writing, but to dwell on the certain and inevitable
retribution for all evil. God is indeed a consuming fire, but that which he
consumes is the evil that is in the souls of men, not the souls themselves."
(Dr. A. W. W. Dale.)
Translation of Origen's Language on Universal Restoration
Crombie's translation (Ante-Nicene Library, Edinburgh, 1872) thus renders
Origen: "But as it is in mockery that Celsus says we speak of 'God coming down
like a torturer bearing fire' and thus compels us unseasonably to investigate
words of deeper meaning, we shall make a few remarks. The divine Word says that
our 'God is a consuming fire' and that 'He draws rivers of fire before him;'
nay, that he even entereth in as 'a refiner's fire, and as a fuller's herb' to
purify his own people. But when he is said to be a 'consuming fire' we inquire
what are the things which are appropriate to be consumed by God. And we assert
that they are wickedness and the works which result from it, and which, being
figuratively called 'wood, hay, stubble,' God consumes as a fire. The wicked
man, accordingly, is said to build up on the previously laid foundation of
reason, 'wood, and hay, and stubble.' If, then, any one can show that these
words were differently understood by the writer, and can prove that the wicked
man literally builds up 'wood, or hay, or stubble,' it is evident that the fire
must be understood to be material, and an object of sense. But if, on the
contrary, the works of the wicked man are spoken of figuratively, under the
names of 'wood, or hay, or stubble,' why does it not at once occur (to inquire)
in what sense the word 'fire' is to be taken, so that 'wood' of such a kind
should be consumed? For the Scripture says: "The fire shall try each man's work
of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he
shall receive a reward. If any man's work be burned, he shall suffer loss.' But
what work can be spoken of in these words as being 'burned,' save all that
result from wickedness?" Ag. Cels: IV. 13; 94.
One of the unaccountable mysteries of religious thinking is that all
Christians should not have agreed with Origen on this point. "God is Love;"
love, which from its nature can only consume that which is adverse to its
object,--Man, and not man himself.
Again, "If then that subjection be good and wholesome by which the Son is
said to be subject to the Father, it is an extremely rational and logical
inference to deduce that the subjection also of enemies which is said to be made
to the Son of God, should be understood as being also beneficial and useful; as
if, when the Son is said to be subject to the Father, the perfect restoration of
the whole of creation is signified, so also, when enemies are said to be
subjected to the Son of God, the salvation of the conquered and the restoration
of the lost is in that understood to consist. This subjection, however, will be
accomplished in certain ways, and after certain training, and at certain times;
for it is not to be imagined that the subjection is to be brought about by the
pressure of necessity (lest the whole world should then appear to be subdued to
God by force), but by word, reason and doctrine; by a call to a better course of
things; by the best systems of training; by the employment also of suitable and
appropriate threatenings, which will justly impend over those who despise any
care or attention to their salvation and usefulness." De Prin. III, 5. "I am of
opinion that the expression by which God is said to be 'all in all,' means that
he is 'all' in each individual person. Now he will be 'all' in each individual
in this way: when all which any rational understanding cleansed from the dregs
of every sort of vice, and with every cloud of wickedness completely swept away,
can either feel, or understand, or think, will be wholly God; and when it will
no longer behold or retain anything else than God, but when God will be the
measure and standard of all its movements, and thus God will be 'all,' for there
will no longer be any distinction of good and evil, seeing evil nowhere exists;
for God is all things, and to him no evil is near. So, then, when the end has
been restored to the beginning, and the termination of things compared with
their commencement, that condition of things will be reestablished in which
rational nature was placed, when it had no need to eat of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil; so that, when all feeling of wickedness has been
removed, and the individual has been purified and cleansed, he who alone is the
one good God becomes to him 'all,' and that not in the case of a few
individuals, or of a considerable number, but he himself is 'all in all.' And
when death shall no longer anywhere exist, nor the sting of death, nor any evil
at all, then verily God will be 'all in all.'" Thus the final restoration of the
moral universe is not to be wrought in violation of the will of the creature:
the work of 'transforming and restoring all things, in whatever manner they are
made, to some useful aim, and to the common advantage of all," no "soul or
rational existence is compelled by force against the liberty of his own will."
DePrin. III, 6.
Again: "Let us see now what is the freedom of the creature, or the
termination of its bondage. When Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to
God, even the Father, then also those living things, when they shall have first
been made the kingdom of Christ, shall be delivered, along with the whole of
that kingdom, to the rule of the Father, that when God shall be all in all, they
also, since they are a part of all things, may have God in themselves, as he is
in all things." Origen regarded the application to punishment of the word
aionios, mistranslated everlasting, as in perfect harmony with this view, saying
that the punishment of sin, "though 'aionion,' is not endless." He observes
further: "The last enemy, moreover, who is called death, is said on this account
(that all may be one, without diversity) to be destroyed that there may not be
anything left of a mournful kind, when death does not exist, nor anything that
is adverse when there is no enemy. The destruction of the last enemy, indeed, is
to be understood not as if its substance, which was formed by God, is to perish,
but because its mind and hostile will, which came not from God, but from itself,
are to be destroyed. Its destruction, therefore, will not be its non-existence,
but its ceasing to be an enemy, and (to be) death. And this result must be
understood as being brought about not suddenly, but slowly and gradually, seeing
that the process of amendment and correction will take place imperceptibly in
the individual instances during the lapse of countless and unmeasured ages, some
outstripping others, and tending by a swifter course towards perfection, while
others again follow close at hand, and some again a long way behind; and thus,
through the numerous and uncounted orders of progressive beings who are being
reconciled to God from a state of enmity, the last enemy is finally reached, who
is called death, so that he also may be destroyed and no longer be an enemy.
When, therefore, all rational souls shall have been restored to a condition of
this kind, then the nature of this body of ours will undergo a change into the
glory of the spiritual body."
In "Contra Celsum" (B.VIII.), Origen says: "We assert that the Word, who is
the Wisdom of God, shall bring together all intelligent creatures, and convert
them into his own perfection, through the instrumentality of their free will and
of their own exertions. The Word is more powerful than all the diseases of the
soul, and he applies his remedies to each one according to the pleasure of
God--for the name of God is to be invoked by all, so that all shall serve him
with one consent."
Mercy and Justice Harmonious
The heresy that has wrought so much harm in modern theology, that justness
and goodness in God are different and hostile attributes was advocated, Origen
says, by "some" in his day, and he meets it admirably (De Prin. II, 5:1-4), by
showing that the two attributes are identical in their purpose. "Justice is
goodness," he declares. "God confers benefits justly, and punishes with
kindness, since neither goodness without justice, nor justice without goodness,
can display the dignity of the divine nature."
Origen's Grand Statement
Origen argues that God must be passionless because unchanging. Wrath,
hatred, repentance, are ascribed to him in the Bible because human infirmities
require such a presentation. Punishment results from sin as a legitimate
consequence, and is not God's direct work. In the Restitution God's wrath will
not be spoken of. God really has but one passion--Love. All he does illustrates
some phase of this divine emotion. He declares that with God the one fixed point
is the End, when God shall be all in all. All intelligent work has a perfect
end. Of Col. 1:20 and Heb. 2:19, he says: Christ is "the Great High Priest, not
only for man but for every rational creature." In his Homilies on Ezekiel, he
says: "If it had not been conductive to the conversion of sinners to employ
suffering, never would a compassionate and benevolent God have inflicted
punishment." Love, which "never faileth," will preserve the whole creation from
all possibility of further fall; and "God will be all in all," forever.
Note.--Celsus seems to have been the first heathen author to name the
Christian books, so that they were well-known within a century of our Lord's
death. We, undoubtedly, have every objection, advanced by him against
Christianity, preserved in Origen's reply. He not only attacks our faith on
minor points, but his chief assaults are directed to show that the new religion
is not a special revelation; that its doctrines are not new; that it is not
superior to other religions; that its doctrines are unreasonable; that if God
really spoke to men, it would not be to one small nation, in an obscure corner;
that the miracles (though actual occurrences) were not wrought by divine power;
that Jesus was not divine, and did not rise from the dead; that Christianity is
an evolution. He took the same view as Renan, Strauss and modern "Rationalists,"
charging the supposed appearance of Jesus after his crucifixion to the
imaginings of "a distracted woman," or to the delusions of those who fancied
what they desired to see.
Celsus sometimes selected the views of unauthorized Christians, as when he
charged that they worshipped Christ as God. Origen's reply proves that Christ
was held to be divine, but not Deity. He says: "Granted that there may be some
individuals among the multitude of believers who are not in entire agreement
with us, and who incautiously assert that the Savior is the most High God; we do
not hold with them, but rather believe him when he says: "The Father who sent me
is greater than I." Had Christians then held Christ to be God, he could not have
said this.
Celsus was the father of "Rationalism," and Origen the exponent of a
reverent and rational Christian belief. BACK
1. Eusebius Eccl. Hist. VI. Butler's Lives of the
Saints, Vol. IV, pp. 224-231, contains quite a full sketch of Origen's life,
though as he was not canonized he is only embalmed in a foot note. 2.
Demetrius is entitled to a paragraph in order to show the kind of men who
sometimes controlled the scholarship and opinions of the period. When the
patriarch Julian was dying he dreamed that his successor would come next day,
and bring him a bunch of grapes. Next day this Demetrius came with his bunch of
grapes, an ignorant rustic, and he was soon after seated in the episcopal chair.
It was this ignoramus who tyrannically assumed control of ecclesiastical
affairs, censured Origen, and compelled bishops of his own appointing to pass a
sentence of degradation on Origen, which the legitimate presbyters had refused.
3. Hist. Christ. Church, I, pp. 54-55. 4. De Pressense' Martyrs
and Apologists II, p. 340. 5. Bayle, Dict. Hist. Art. Origene. 6.
Cont. Cels. VI. 25. 7. Consult also, Mosheim, Dorner and De Pressense.
8. Homily XI in Numbers, in Migne. 9. Harnack's Outlines, pp.
150-154. 10. Uhlhorn (B, II, c. ii) says that in Celsus's attack "Every
argument is to be found which has been brought against Christianity up to the
present day." "The True Word of Celsus is to be found almost entire in the
treatise which Origen wrote in reply." Neoplatonism, by C. Bigg, D.D. 11.
Kitto Cyclo; Davidson's Biblical Criticism, Vol. I. 12. De Principiis,
Crombie's Translation. Epist. ad Amicos. 13. In Jeremiah Hom. xviii: 6,
Ag. Cels. IV. xxii. 14. Selecta in Exodum: *GR Also, De Prin. I, vi: 3.
15. De Prin. II. iii: 5. 16. Canon Farrar says in Mercy and
Judgment, p. 409, "For an exhaustive treatment of this word aionios see Hanson's
Aion Aionios." 17. Some of the texts Origen quotes in proof of universal
salvation: Luke 3:16; I Cor. 3:15; Isa. 16:4; 12:1; 24:22; 46:14,15; Micah 7:9;
Ezek. 16:53,55; Jer. 25:15,16; Matt. 18:30; John 10:16; Rom. 11:25,26; Rom.
11:32; I Pet. 3:18-21, etc. 18. De Prin. II, x: 3, 4. I, i. Ag. Cels. iv,
13. 19. Ag. Cels. VIII. xxxix. xl. 20. Com. II, pp. 194,195.
21. Hist. Christ. Church, I, p. 114. 22. Origen held that *GR
meant limited duration, and consequently that *GR must mean limited. See De
Prin. I, vi: 3.
Chapter 11
Origen--Continued
The students, biographers and critics of Origen of all schools of thought
and theology mainly agree in representing him as an explicit outspoken promoter
of Universalism. Canon Westcott styles him the great corrector of that
Africanism which since Augustine has dominated Western theology. He thus defines
his views: "All future punishments exactly answer to individual sinfulness, and,
like punishments on earth, they are directed to the amendment of the sufferers.
Lighter offenses can be chastised on earth; the heavier remain to be visited
hereafter. In every case the uttermost farthing must be paid, though final
deliverance is promised."
Blunt on Origen
Blunt, in his excellent work, describes the heathen admixtures and
corruptions in manner, custom, habit, conduct and life that began to prevail
during the latter part of the Third Century, as the influence of the great
Alexandrine fathers waned, and the Latinizing of the church began to assert
itself.1
Dr. Bigg on Origen
"There will come a time when man, completely subjected to Christ by the
operation of the Holy Ghost," says Bigg, epitomizing Origen, "shall in Christ be
completely subjected to the Father. But now," he adds, "the end is always like
the beginning. The manifold diversity of the world is to close in unity, it must
then have sprung from unity. His expansion of this theory is in fact an
elaborate commentary upon the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans and
the fifteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Those, he felt,
were the two keys, the one to the eternity before, and other to the eternity
after. What the church cannot pardon, God may. The sin which has no forgiveness
in this aeon or the aeon to come, may be atoned for in some one of the countless
aeons of the vast hereafter." This exegesis serves to show us how primitive
church treated the "unpardonable sins." (Matt. 12:32.) The sin against the Holy
Ghost "shall not be forgiven in this world (aion, age) nor in the world (aion,
age) to come." According to Origen, it may be in "some one of the countless
aeons of the vast hereafter."
The historian Schaff concedes that among those quickened and inspired to
follow Origen were Pamphilus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Didymus of Alexandria,
Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa; and
among the Latin fathers, Hilary and Jerome. And he feels obliged to add:
"Gregory of Nyssa and perhaps also Didymus, even adhered to Origen's doctrine of
the final salvation of all created intelligences."2
Bunsen on Origen
Bunsen declares that Origen cites in "De Principiis," in favor of "the
universality of final salvation," the arguments of "nearly all the "Ante-Nicene
fathers (pre- 325AD) before him." And Bunsen proceeds to show that the
conviction that so broad a faith would not enable top clergy to control the
people, inclined his opponents to resort to the terrors of an indefinite, and to
their apprehension, infinite and eternal punishment, which has vengeance and not
reformation for its end. "Away with Origen! What is to become of virtue, and
heaven, and--clerical power, if the fear of eternal punishment is not forever
kept before men's eyes as the prop of human and divine authority?" So thought
Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria in 230. Bunsen adds that Origen taught that "the
soul, having a substance and life of her own, will receive her reward, according
to her merits, either obtaining the inheritance of eternal life and blessedness,
or being delivered over to eternal death and torments," after which comes the
resurrection, the anastasis, the rising into incorruption and glory, when
"finally at the end of time, God will be all in all; not by the destruction of
the creature, but by its gradual elevation into his divine being. This is life
eternal, according to Christ's own teaching." Of the grand faith in universal
redemption, Prof. Plumptre says: "It has been, and is, the creed of the great
poets whom we accept as the spokesmen of a nation's thoughts."3
Origen Cruelly Treated
The treatment experienced by Origen is one of the abnormalities of history.
The first hostility to him, followed by his removal and excommunication, A.D.
232, is conceded to have been in consequence of his opposition to the Episcopal
(excessive overseeing) tendencies of Bishop Demetrius, and the envy of the
bishop. His Universalism was not in question. Lardner says that he was "not
expelled from Alexandria for heresy, but for envy." Bunsen says: "Demetrius
persuaded a numerous council of Egyptian bishops to condemn as heretical
Origen's opinion respecting the universality of final salvation." But Bunsen
seems to contradict his own words by adding: "This opinion he had certainly
stated so as even to hold out a prospect of the conversion of Satan himself by
the irresistible power of the love of the Almighty," bet he was condemned
"'not,' as says St. Jerome, who was no friend to his theology, 'on account of
novelty of doctrine--not for heresy--but because they could not bear the glory
of his learning and eloquence.'" The opposition to Origen seems to have begun in
the petty anger of Demetrius, who was incensed because of Origen, a layman,
delivered discourses in the presence of bishops (Alexander and Theoctistus),
though at their request, and because he was ordained our of his diocese
(district). Demetrius continued his persecutions until he had degraded Origen
from the office of presbyter (priest or elder), though all the ecclesiastical
authorities in Palestine refused to recognize the validity of the sentence. His
excommunication, however, was disregarded by the bishops of Palestine, Arabia
and Greece. Going from Alexandria to Greece and Palestine, Origen was befriended
by Bishop Firmilian in Cappadocia for two years; and was also welcomed in
Nicomedia and Athens.4
Huet says: "Everyone, with hardly an exception, adhered to Origen." And
Doucin: "Provided one had Origen on his side, he believed himself certain to
have the truth."
Origen's Theology Generally Accepted
That his opinions were not obnoxious is proved by the fact that most of his
friends and followers were placed in charge of the most important churches. Says
De Pressense: "The Eastern church of the Third Century canceled, in fact, the
sentence passed upon Origen under the influence of the hierarchical party. At
Alexandria itself his disciples maintained the higher position, and at the death
of Demetrius, Heraclas, who had been the most intimate friend and trusted
disciple of Origen, was raised to the Episcopal dignity by the free choice of
the elders. Heraclas died A.D. 249 and was succeeded by another disciple of
Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria. He was an diligent disciple of Origen, and with
his death the peaceful days of the school of Alexandria were now over. Dionysius
was the last of its great masters." It is to be deplored that none of the
writings of Dionysius are known to exist.
Theophylact, Bishop of Caesarea, expressed the most zealous friendship for
Origen, and offered him a refuge in Caesarea, and a position as teacher.
Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, received Origen during Maximin's
persecution, and was always a fast friend. The majority of the Palestinian
bishops were friendly. Jerome mentions Trypho as a disciple of Origen. He was
author of several commentaries on the Old Testament. Hippolytus is spoken of as
"a disciple of Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria, 'the Origen of the West'"
attracted to Origen "by all the affinities of heart and mind."
His Universalism Never Condemned
The state of opinion on the subject of universal salvation is shown by the
fact that through Ignatius, Irenaenus, Hippolytus and others wrote against the
prevalent heresies of their times, Universalism is never named among them. Some
of the alleged errors of Origen were condemned, but his doctrine of universal
salvation, never. Methodius, who wrote A.D. 300; Pamphilus and Eusebius, A.D.
310; Eustathius, A.D. 380; Epiphanius, A.D. 376 and 394; Theophilus, A.D.
400-404, and Jerome, A.D. 400; all give lists of Origen's errors, but none name
his Universalism among them. Besides, some of those who condemned his errors
were Universalists, as the school of Antioch. And many who were opponents of
Origenism were mentioned by Origen's enemies with honor notwithstanding they
were Universalists, as Clement of Alexandria, and Gregory of Nyssa.
Pamphilus and Eusebius, A.D. 307-310, jointly wrote an Apology for Origen
that contained declarations from the ancient fathers endorsing his views of the
Restitution. This work, had it survived, would undoubtedly be an invaluable
storing of evidence to show the general prevalence of his views on the part of
those whose writings have not been preserved. All Christians must regret with
Lardner the loss of a work that would have told us so much of the great
Alexandrian. It seems to have been the fashion with the ancient Latin
theologians to burn the books they could not refute.
Farrar names the distinguished ancients who mention Origen with greatest
honor and respect. Some, like Augustine, do not accept his views, but all utter
eulogistic words, many adopt his sentiments, and Eusebius added a sixth book to
the production of Pamphilus, in consequence of the detractions against Origen.
While he had his opponents and defamers, the best and the most of his
contemporaries and immediate successors either accepted his doctrines or
eulogized his goodness and greatness.
Origen bitterly complained at the misrepresentation of his views even during
his lifetime. How much more might he have said could he have foreseen what would
be said of him after his death.
Pamphilus, who was martyred A.D. 294, and Eusebius, in their lost Apology
for Origen, which is mentioned by at least two writers who had seen it, gave
many testimonies of fathers preceding Origen, favoring Universalism,5 and
Domitian, Bishop of Ancyra, complains that those who condemn the restorationism
of Origen "cursed and banned all those saints who preceded and followed him,"
implying the general prevalence of Universalism before and after the days of
Origen.
Origen's Contemporaries
Among the celebrated contemporaries and immediate successors of Origen whose
writings on the question of man's final destiny do not survive, but who, from
the relations they sustained to this greatest of the Fathers, must have
sympathized with his belief in universal restoration, may be mentioned
Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem (A.D. 216), a fellow student; Theoctistus, Bishop
of Caesarea (A.D. 240-260); Heraclas, Bishop of Alexandria (A.D. 200-248);
Ambrose (A.D. 200-230); Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea (A.D. 200-270);
Athenodore, his brother (A.D. 210-270); all friends and loyal followers of
Origen. They must have cherished what was at the time the prevalent sentiment
among Oriental Christians--a belief in universal restoration--though we have no
testimonies from them.
On the unsupported statement of Jerome, Origen is declared to have protested
his orthodoxy to the reigning Pope, Fabian, A.D. 246, and solicited re-admission
to the communion of the church. He is said to have laid the blame of the
publication of some of his unorthodox sentiments to the haste of his friend
Ambrose. But as Origen continued to teach Universalism all the rest of his life
the statement of Jerome must be rejected, or universal restoration was not among
the unorthodox doctrines. At the time Origen is said to have written the letter,
his pupil and friend, Dionysius, was Patriarch of Alexandria, and he wrote to
Pope Fabian and other bishops, it is probable, to effect a reconciliation, to
which Dionysius and most of the bishops would be favorable. Besides, Origen is
on record as classing all bishops as of equal stature, except as goodness gave
them superior rank, so that he could not have regarded Fabian as pope. That the
general sentiment during Origen's times and for some time after was
universalistic is thus made apparent.6
Ancient Universalist Schools
Dr. Beecher's Testimony
Dr. Beecher says: "Two great facts stand out on the page of ecclesiastical
history. One, that the first system of Christian theology was composed and
issued by Origen in the year 230 after Christ, of which a fundamental and
essential element was the doctrine of the universal restoration of all fallen
beings to their original holiness and union with God. The second is, that after
the lapse of a little more than three centuries, in the year 544, this doctrine
was for the first time condemned, cursed, and banned (anathematized) as
heretical. From and after this point (A.D. 553) the doctrine of eternal
punishment reigned with undisputed sway during the Middle Ages that preceded the
Reformation. What, then, was the state of facts as to the leading theological
schools of the Christian world, in the age of Origen, and some centuries after?
It was in brief this: There were at least six theological schools in the church
at large. Of these six schools, one, and only one, was decidedly and earnestly
in favor of the doctrine of future eternal punishment. One was in favor of the
annihilation of the wicked, two were in favor of the doctrine of universal
restoration on the principles of Origen, and two in favor of universal
restoration on the principles of Theodore of Mopsuestia. It is also true that
the prominent defenders of the doctrine of universal restoration were decided
believers in the divinity of Christ, in the Trinity, in the incarnation and
atonement, and in the great Christian doctrine of regeneration; and were in
piety, devotion, Christian activity, and missionary enterprise, as well as in
learning and intellectual power and attainments, inferior to none in the best
ages of the church, and were greatly superior to those by whom, in after ages,
they were condemned and anathematized. From two theological schools there went
forth an opposition to the doctrine of eternal punishment, which had its ground
in a deeper Christian interest; inasmuch as the doctrine of a universal
restoration was closely connected with the entire dogmatic systems of both of
these schools, namely that of Origen (Alexandrian), and the school of Antioch."
"Three at least of the greatest of the ancient schools of Christian
theology--the schools of Alexandria, Antioch and Caesarea--leaned on this
subject to the views of Origen, not in their details, but in their general
hopefulness. The fact that even these Origenistic fathers were able, with
perfect honesty, to use the current phraseology, shows that such phraseology was
at least capable of a different interpretation from that (now) commonly put upon
it." The school in Northern Africa favored the doctrine of endless punishment;
that in Asia Minor annihilation. The two in Alexandria and Caesarea were
Universalistic of the school of Origen; those at Antioch and Edessa were
Universalistic of the school of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus.
"Decidedly the most powerful minds (300 to 400 A.D.) adopted the doctrine of
universal restoration, and those who did not adopt it entered into no
controversy about it with those who did. In the African school all this was
reversed. From the very beginning they took strong ground in favor of the
doctrine of eternal punishment, as an essential part of a great system of law of
which God was the center."7
It should be noted, however, that the schools in Asia Minor and Northern
Africa, where annihilation and endless punishment were taught, were not strictly
divinity schools, but mere seminaries.
The one school out of the six in Christendom that taught endless punishment
was in Africa, and the doctrine was derived by Latins from misunderstanding a
foreign language, through mis-translations of the original Greek Scriptures, and
was obtained by infusing the virus of Roman secularism into the simplicity of
Christianity. Maine in his "Ancient Law" attributes the difference between
Eastern and Western theology to this cause. The student of primitive
Christianity will see than Tertullian, Cyprian, Minucius Felix, down to
Augustine, were influenced by these causes, and created the theological travesty
that ruled the Christian world for dark and sorrowful centuries.
On this point (that Origen's views were general) Neale observes: "In reading
the works of Origen, we are not to consider his beliefs and opinions as those of
one isolated doctor;--they are rather an embodiment of the doctrines handed down
in the Catechetical school of Alexandria. And this school was the type, or
model, according to which the mind of the Alexandrine church was cast; the
philosophy of Pantaenus descended to Clemens,--and from him it was caught by
Origen."8
Origen Misrepresented
From these facts it is easily seen that the heresies of which Origen was
accused did not touch the doctrine of universal restoration. They were for
teaching inequality between the persons of the Trinity, the pre-existence of the
human soul, denying the resurrection of the body, affirming that wicked angels
will not suffer endless punishment, and that all souls will be absorbed into the
Infinite Fountain whence they sprang, like drops falling into the sea. This
latter accusation was a perversion of his teaching that God will be "all in
all." Some of these doctrines are only found in alleged quotations in the works
of his opponents, as Jerome and others who wrote against him. His language was
sometimes misunderstood, and oftener ignorantly or purposely perverted. Many
quotations are from works of his not in existence. Insertions and alterations
were made by his enemies in his works even during his lifetime, as he
complained. Epiphanius "attacked Origen in Jerusalem after he was dead, and
tried to make Bishop John denounce him. Failing here he tried to compel Jerome,
through fear for his reputation for orthodoxy, to do the same, and succeeded so
far as to disgrace Jerome forever for his meanness, and cowardice, and double
dealing. The Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, came to his aid in anathematizing
Origen. He called a synod A.D. 399, in which he condemned Origen and
anathematized all who should read his works." "After this, Epiphanius died. But
his followers pursued the same work in his spirit, until Origen was condemned
again by Justinian;" this time for his Universalism, but, as will be seen
hereafter, the church did not sustain Justinian's attack.9
Dr. Pond's Misrepresentation of Origen
The reprehensible practices to which the odium theologicum (deliberate
negative changes in others theological position out of spite??) has impelled
good men, is illustrated by Dr. Enoch Pond, professor in Bangor Theological
Seminary. Displeased with the wonderfully candid statements of Dr. Edward
Beecher, in his articles in "The Christian Union," afterwards contained in
"History of the Doctrine of Future Retribution," he reviewed the articles in the
same paper, and in order to convict Dr. Beecher of inaccuracy, Dr. Pond quotes
from Crombie's translation of Rufinus's Latin version instead of from Crombie's
rendering of the actual Greek of Origen, and this, too, when not only does
Rufinus confess that he has altered the sense but in the very book (III) from
which Dr. Pond quotes is Crombie's translation of the Greek, and the following
note from Crombie is at the beginning of the chapter: "The whole of this chapter
has been preserved in the original Greek, which is literally translated in
corresponding portions on each page, so that the differences between Origen's
own words and the amplifications and alterations of the paraphrase of Rufinus
may be at once patent to the reader." It almost seems that there is a fatality
attendant upon all hostile critics who deal with Origen. The injustice he
received in life seems to have dogged his name in every age.
The manner in which theological questions were settled and creeds
established in those days, is shown by Athanasius. He says that when the Emperor
Constantius at the council of Milan, A.D. 355, commanded the bishops to
subscribe against Athanasius and they replied that there was no ecclesiastical
canon to that effect, the Emperor said, "Whatever I will, let that be esteemed a
canon."
Universalism in Good Repute in the Fifth Century
A.D. 402, when Epiphanius came for Cyprus to Constantinople with a Church
council decree condemning Origen's books without excommunicating Origen, he
declined Chrysostom's invitation to lodge at the Episcopal palace, as Chrysostom
was a friend and advocate of Origen. He urged that clergy of the city to sign
the decree, but, Socrates says, "many refused, among them Theotinus, Bishop of
Scythia, who said, 'I choose not, Epiphanius, to insult the memory of one who
ended his life piously long ago; not dare I be guilty of so impious an act, as
that of condemning what our predecessors by no means rejected; and specially
when I know of no evil doctrine contained in Origen's books. Those who attempt
to fix a stigma on these writings are unconsciously casting a dishonor upon the
sacred volume where their principles are drawn.' Such was the reply which
Theotinus, a high ranking clergyman, highly distinguished for his piety and
uprightness of life, made to Epiphanius." In the next chapter (13), Socrates
states that only worthless characters disparaged Origen. Among them he mentions
Methodius, Eustathius, Apollinaris and Theophilus, as "four revilers," whose
"disapproval and criticizing of him was his commendation." Socrates was born
about A.D. 380, and his book continues Eusebius's history to A.D. 445, and he
records what he received from those who knew the facts. This makes it clear that
while Origen's views were rejected by some, they were in good repute by the most
and the best, two hundred years after his death.
Even Augustine admits that "some, nay, very many" (nonnulli, quam plurimi),
pity with human feeling, the everlasting punishment of the damned, and do not
believe that it is so."10 The kind of people thus believing are described by
Doederlein, "The more highly distinguished in Christian antiquity any one was
for learning, so much the more did he cherish and defend the hope of future
torments sometime ending."
Different Opinions on Human Destiny
Previous to A.D. 200 three different opinions were held among
Christians--endless punishment, annihilation, and universal salvation; but, so
far as the literature of the times shows, the subject was never one of
controversy, and the last-named doctrine prevailed most, if the assertions of it
in literature are any test of its acceptance by the people. For a hundred and
fifty years, A.D. 250 to 400, though Origen and his heresies on many points are
frequently attacked and condemned, there is scarcely a whisper on record against
his Universalism. On the other hand, to be called an Origenist was a high honor,
from 260 to 290. A.D. 300 on, the doctrine of endless punishment began to be
more explicitly stated, notably by Arnobius and Lactantius. And thenceforward to
370, while some of the fathers taught endless punishment, and others
annihilation, the doctrine of most is not stated. One fact, however, is
conspicuous: though all kinds of heresy were attacked, Universalism was not
considered sufficiently heretical to entitle it to disapproval.11
BACK
1 Copious references have already been made on this
point. 2 "The theology of Christendom and its character for the first
three centuries was shaped by three men. Ignatius, Irenaeus and Cyprian gave its
organization; Clement and Origen its form of religious thought." British
Quarterly Review, 1879. 3 Spirits in Prison, p. 13. Dr. Ballou in his
Ancient History of Universalism, p. 95, note, gives at length references to the
passages in Delarue's edition of Origen in which the doctrine of universal
salvation is expressed in Origen's own words. 4 De Pressense charges the
acrimony of Demetrius to Origen's opposition to the encroachments of the
Episcopate and to his disapproval of the ambition of the hierarchy. Martyrs and
Apologists, p. 332. 5 Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, iii, p. 498. 6 "At
the close of the Second Century the church in Alexandria was wealthy and
numerous. Demetrius, the bishop, gave the finishing stroke to the
congregationalism of the church by censuring Origen and by appointing suffragan
bishops whom he persuaded to pass a sentence upon Origen which the presbyters
had refused to sanction." Redepenning, as quoted by Bigg. 7 Hist. Doct.
Fut. Ret. 8 Holv Eastern Church. p. 37. 9 Socrates, the
ecclesiastical historian, defends Origen from the attacks of his enemies, and
finding him sound on the co-eternity of Christ with God, will not hear of any
heresy in him. Eccl. Hist., b. vi, ch. xiii. 10 Enchirid. ch. 112.
11 According to Reuss "The doctrine of a general restoration of all
rational creatures has been recommended by very many of the greatest thinkers of
the ancient church and of modern times.
Chapter 12
The Eulogists of Origen
This chief Universalist of the centuries immediately succeeding the apostles
was, by general consent, the most deeply learned and saintly of all the
Christian fathers. Historians, scholars, critics, men of all shades of thought
and opinion emulate one another in exalting his name, and praising his
character. This volume could be filled with their tributes. Says one of the most
discerning historians: "If any man deserves to stand first in the catalogue of
saints and martyrs, and be annually held up as an example to Christians, this is
the man, for except the apostles of Jesus Christ, and their companions, I know
of no one among all those enrolled and honored as saints who excel him in virtue
and holiness."1 A discriminating critic declares: "His work upon the text of
Scripture alone would entitle Origen to undying gratitude. There has been no
truly great man in the church who did not love him a little."2 Bunsen remarks:
"Origen's death is the real end of free Christianity, and in particular, of free
intellectual theology."3
The Tributes of Scholars
The learned author of "The Martyrs and Apologists" truthfully observes:
"Origen never swerved from this Christian outpouring, and he remains the model
of the theologian persecuted by haughty bigotry. Gentle as Fenelon under
religous hierarchical anathemas, he maintained his convictions without
faltering, and neither retracted nor rebelled. We may well say with the candid
Tillemont that although such a man might hold heretical opinions he could not be
a heretic, since he was utterly free from that spirit which constitutes the
guilt of heresy."4 Canon Westcott writes: "He examines with a reverence, an
insight, a grandeur of feeling never surpassed, the questions of the inspiration
and the interpretation of the Bible. The intellectual value of the work may best
be characterized by one fact: a single sentence taken from it was quoted by
Butler as containing the basics of his 'Analogy.' After sixteen hundred years we
have not yet made good the positions which he marked out as belonging to the
domain of Christian philosophy. His whole life was 'one unbroken prayer' to use
his own language of what an ideal life should be."5 The sober historian Lardner
records only a candid appreciation of the man when he says: "He had the
happiness of uniting different accomplishments, being at once the greatest
preacher and the most learned and voluminous writer of the age; nor is it easy
to say which is most admirable, his learning or his virtue."6 Plumptre vies with
Origen's other eulogists, and Farrar in all his remarkable books can never say
enough in his praise. A brief extract from him will suffice: "The greatest of
all the fathers, the most apostolic man since the days of the apostles, the
father who on every branch of study rendered to the church the deepest and
widest services--the immortal Origen. The first writer, the profoundest thinker,
the greatest educator, the most laborious critic, the most honored preacher, the
holiest confessor of his age. We know no man in the whole Christian era, except
St. Paul, who labored so incessantly, and rendered to the church such unlimited
services. We know of no man, except St. Paul, who had to suffer from such black
and bitter ingratitude. He, the converter of the heathen, the strengthener of
the martyrs, the profoundest of Christian teachers, the greatest and most
learned of the interpreters of Scripture--he to whom kings and bishops and
philosophers had been proud to listen--he who had refuted the ablest of all the
assailants of Christianity--he who had founded the first school of Biblical
exegesis and Biblical philology (linguistics and literary studies)--he who had
done more for the honor and the knowledge of the Oracles of God not only than
all his assailants (for that is not saying much), but than all the then bishops
and writers of the church put together--he who had known the Scriptures from
infancy, who had vainly tried to grasp in boyhood the crown of martyrdom, who
had been the honored teacher of saints, who had been all his life long a
confessor--he in the very errors of whose life was more of nobleness than in the
whole lives of his assailants,--who had lived a life more apostolic, who did
more and suffered more for the truth of Christ than any man after the first
century of our era, and whose accurately measurable services stand all but
unapproachable by all the centuries--I, for one, will never mention the name of
Origen without the love, and the admiration, and the reverence due to one of the
greatest and one of the best of the saints of God."
A Catholic Eulogy
Even modern Catholics--in spite of the ban of pope and council--join the
great army of Origen's eulogists. Says the "Catholic World:"
"Alexandria, the cradle of Eastern genius at that time, became the Christian
Thermopylae (Grecian city), and Origen the Christian Leonidas. It was he who
headed the forces, and, by the splendor of his genius, prepared in his school
illustrations men to lead on the van. He vindicated the truth from slander,
supported it by facts, disengaged it from the sometimes plausible sounding
fallacies and deceptions in which enemies had obscured it, and held it up to
view in all its natural beauty and attraction. Heathens were delighted with his
language, full of soothing earnestness and charm, and the literary intellects of
the age, who had been lost in the intricacies of Aristotle, the obscurities of
Plato, and the absurdities of Epicurus, wondered at the young Christian
philosopher."7
Referring to the hard words that most advocates of universal redemption who
are past middle life have received, Red. Edward Beecher, D.D., declares, in his
"History of the Doctrine of Future Retribution:" "An evil spirit was developed
at that time in putting down Origen which has ever since poisoned the church of
all denominations. It has been as a leprosy in all Christendom. Nor is this all:
measures were then resorted to for the suppression of error which exerted a
deadly hostility against all free investigation, from the influence of which the
church universal has not yet recovered."
The Encyclopedia Britannica, article Origen, (Prof. Adolf Harnack), voices
the conclusions of the scholarly world:
"Of all the theologians of the ancient church, with the possible exception
of Augustine, Origen is the most distinguished and the most influential. He is
the father of the church's science; he is the founder of a theology which was
brought to perfection in the Forth and Fifth Centuries, and which still retained
the stamp of his genius when in the Sixth Century it disowned its author. It was
Origen who created the dogmatic of the church and laid the foundations of the
scientific criticism of the Old and New Testaments. He could not have been what
he was unless two generations before him had labored at the problem of finding
an intellectual expression and a philosophic basis for Christianity: (Justin,
Tatian, Athenagoras, Pantaenus, Clement.) But their attempts, in comparison with
his, are like a schoolboy's essays beside the finished work of a master. By
proclaiming the reconciliation of science with the Christian faith, of the
highest culture with the Gospel, Origen did more than any other man to win the
Old World to the Christian religion. But he entered into no diplomatic
compromises; it was his deepest and most solemn conviction that the sacred
oracles of Christendom embraced all the ideals of antiquity. His character was
as transparent as his life was blameless; there are few church fathers whose
biography leaves so pure an impression on the reader. The atmosphere around him
was a dangerous one for a philosopher and theologian to breathe, but he kept his
spiritual health unimpaired and even his sense of truth suffered less injury
than was the case with most of his contemporaries. Orthodox theology has never,
in any of these confessions, ventured beyond the circle which the mind of Origen
first measured out."
Fourth Century Universalists Ideal Christians
We conclude these eulogies, which might be multiplied indefinitely, by
giving the high authority of Max Muller: "Origen was as honest as a Christian as
he was as a philosopher, and it was this honesty which made Christianity
victorious in the Third Century, and will make it victorious again whenever it
finds supporters who are determined not to sacrifice their philosophical
convictions to their religious faith or their religious faith to their
philosophical convictions. If we consider the time in which he lived, and study
the testimony which his contemporaries bore of his character, we may well say of
him, as of others who have been misjudged by posterity:
'Denn wer den Besten seiner Zeit genug gelebt, Der hat genug gelebt fur alle
Zeiten.'"8
If any man since the death of Paul should rank as the patron saint of the
Universalist church, it is the greatest and best of all the ancient fathers,
Origen Adamantius.
Note.--It has been asserted that Origen did not actually
teach the ultimate salvation of all souls, because he insisted that the human
will is eternally free, and therefore it is argued that he must have held that
souls may repent and be saved, and sin and fall forever. But this is not true,
for Origen taught that at some period in the future, love and holiness will be
so absorbed by all souls that, though, theoretically, they will be free, they
will so will that lapse will be impossible. Jerome, Justinian, Dr. Pond, and
others are explicitly confuted by the great scholar and saint. In his comments
on Romans 6:9,10, he says: "The apostle decides, by an absolute decision, that
now Christ dies no more, in order that those who live together with him may be
secure of the endlessness of their life. Free-will indeed remains, but the power
of the cross suffices for all orders, and all ages, past and to come. And that
free-will will not lead to sin, is plain, because love never faileth, and when
God is loved with all the heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, and our
neighbor as ourselves, where is the place for sin?" In his great work "De
Principiis," he declares: "The nature of this body of ours will be changed into
the glory of the spiritual body, in which state we are to believe that it will
remain always and immutably by the will of the Creator," etc. Though Origen
insisted that the human will must forever be free, he did not admit that the
soul could abuse its freedom by continuing forever to lapse into
sin.BACK
1 Mosheim, Hist. Com. in Christ, before Constantine,
ii, p. 149. 2 Christ. Plat. of Alex., p. 303. 3 Hipp. and his Age,
pp. 285, 286. 4 Bunsen, pp. 326, 327. 5 Essays, pp. 236-252.
6 Cred. Gos. Hist., Vol. II, p. 486. 7 April, 1874. 8
Theos. or Psych. Rel. Lect. XIII.
Chapter 13
A Third Century Group
While we mourn that so little of the literature of the early days of our
religion remains, the wonder is that we have so much, rather than so little. The
persecutions of Decius and Diocletian--especially of the latter--were most
unrelenting towards Christian books.1 "The volumes which escaped from the perils
of those days were like brands snatched from the fire." "A little
dust--precious, indeed, as gold--in a few buried vases, is all that now
remains." And later, the burning of the Alexandrine library by the Arabs, the
destructive persecutions of heretics, the ban of council, and the curse of pope
and priest, in the church's long eclipse, destroyed innumerable volumes, so that
there is ample reason to believe that, could we inspect all that Clement, Origen
and others wrote, in the original Greek, untampered with, we should have pages
where we now have sentences avowing Universalism. Occasionally an ancient volume
is yet found, accidentally buried, as was the Philosophumena of Hippolytus,
formerly attributed to Origen, discovered by a learned Greek in a monastery on
Mount Athos, in the year 1842. Of the ten books contained in the volume, the
second, the third, and the beginning of the fourth are gone.
Hippolytus
Hippolytus (about A.D. 220) enumerates and comments on thirty-two heresies,
but universal restoration is not named among them.2 And yet, Clement of
Alexandria, and Origen--then living--were everywhere regarded as the great
teachers of the church, and their view of man's future destiny was generally
prevalent, according to Augustine, Jerome and others. It could not then have
been regarded as a "heresy" or Hippolytus would have named it. What a force
there is in fact that not one of those who wrote against the heresies of their
times ever named universal salvation as one of them! Hippolytus mentions
thirty-two. Epiphanius wrote his Panarion and epitomizes it in his
Anacephalaeosis or Recapitulation, but not one of the heresy-hunters includes
our faith in any of their severest criticisms. Can there be stronger evidence
than this fact that the doctrine was not then heretical?
Dean Wordsworth's Error
It is curious to notice how the mind of a theologian can be prejudiced. Dean
Wordsworth in his translation of Hippolytus gives the language of that
contemporary of Origen, to show that the former had no sympathy with the broad
faith of the latter. He quotes Hippolytus thus: "The coming curse of the
judgment of fire, and the dark and hopeless aspect of tartarus, not enlightned
by the voice of the Word, and the surge of the everflowing lake, generating
fire, and the eye of tartarean (a form of hell, only mentioned in II Peter 2:4)
avenging angels ever fixed in cursedness," etc. The Dean unwarrantably, because
inaccurately, translates kolaston "avenging," a meaning it does not possess. It
is rendered punish, chastise, correct, but never carries the sense of revenge.
Furthermore, disregarding the fact that the acknowledged Universalist fathers
denounce the sinner with words as intense as is the above language, which may be
literally fulfilled and yet restoration ensue beyond it all, the Dean renders
the very next paragraph thus: "You will have your body immortal (*GR) and
incorruptible (*GR), together with your soul" (*GR, life). Now had Hippolytus
intended to teach the absolutely endless duration of the "tartarean fire," would
he not have used these stronger terms, aphtharton and athanaton, which are never
employed in the New Testament to teach limited duration, and is not the fact
that he used the weaker word to describe punishment, evidence that he did not in
this passage in the "Philosophumena" intend to teach the sinner's endless
torment?
Not less surprising is the language of Dean Wordsworth, and his misreading
of the facts of history, when he comments on the harsh and bitter tone of
Hippolytus, in his treatment of heretics, in the "Philosophumena." Contrasting
the harsh temper of Hippolytus with the sweetness of Origen, Dean Wordsworth
says:
"The opinion of Origen with regard to future punishments is well known. The
same feelings which induced him to alleviate the errors of heretics, diverted
him into exercising his ingenuity in tampering with the declarations of
Scripture concerning the eternal duration of the future punishment of sin. Thus
false charity betrayed him into heresy."3
This is a sad reversal of cause and effect. Why not say that the inspiration
of God's goodness resulting in universal salvation, created in Origen's heart
that generous charity and divine sweetness that caused him to look with pity
rather than with anger on human error, in imitation of the God he worshipped?
Theophilus
Theophilus of Antioch, who wrote about A.D. 180, and was bishop of Antioch,
speaks of aionian torments, and aionian fire, but he must have used the terms as
did Origen and the other ancient Universalists, for he says: "For just as a
vessel which, after it has been made, has some flaw, is remade or remolded, that
it may become new and bright, so it comes to man by death. For in some way or
other he is broken up, that he may come forth in the resurrection whole, I mean
spotless, and righteous, and immortal."4
Tertullian
Tertullian (Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus) was born in Carthage,
Africa, about A.D. 160, and died A.D. 220. He had a fine Pagan education in
Roman law and rhetoric, but lived a heathen into mature manhood, and confesses
that his life had been one of vice and immorality.5 Converted to Christianity he
became in later years a chruch official. He lived a moral and religious life
after his conversion, but the heathen doctrines he retained rendered his spirit
harsh and bitter. About A.D. 202 he joined the Montanists, a separate, somber
sect. Those who sympathized with him were known as Tertullianists as late as the
Fifth Century. His abilities were great, but, as Schaff says, he was the
opposite of the equally genial, less vigorous, but more learned and
comprehensive Origen.
Advocates Endless Torment
Tertullian was the first of the Africo-Latin writers who commanded the
public ear, and there is strong ground for supposing that since Tertullian
quotes the sacred writings continually and frequently, the earliest of those
many Latin versions noticed by Augustine and on which Jerome grounded his
vulgate, were African. "Africa, not Rome, gave birth to Latin Christianity." A
learned writer states: "His own authority is small, he was not a sound divine,
became unorthodox, and fell away into one of the heresies of his times."6 The
fountain of Paganism in the heart of Tertullian discharged its noxious waters
into into the larger reservoir in the mighty brain of Augustine, and then in the
Sixth Century it submerged Christendom with a deluge that lasted for a thousand
years,--now happily subsiding, to give place to those original Christian truths
that were in the hearts of Clement and Origen. Tertullian and Origen were as
unlike as the churches they represent,--the Latin and the Greek. Narrow, Pagan,
cruel, un-Christian, the dark path of the Tertullian-Augustine type of
Christianity through the centuries is strewn with the wrecks of ignorance and
sorrow. He retained his heathen notions and gave them a Christian label. He
makes the Underworld, like the heathen, divided by an impassable gulf into two
parts. The abode of the righteous is sinus Abrahae, that of the wicked ignis or
inferi. Tertullian was probably the first of the fathers to assert that the
torments of the lost will be of equal duration with the happiness of the saved.
"God will compensate his worshipers with life eternal; and cast the profane into
a fire equally continual without ceasing."7
In Tertullian's Apology are fifty arguments for the Christian religion, but
not once does he state that endless punishment was one of the doctrines of the
church. He seems to have been half-inclined to the truth, for he speaks of the
sinner as being able, after death, to pay "the uttermost farthing."
Tertullian illustrates the effect of the doctrine he advocated in his almost
abominable rejoicings over the future torments of the enemies of the church.
"How I shall admire, how I shall laugh, how rejoice," he cries with fiendish
glee, "to see the torments of the wicked." "I shall then have a better chance of
hearing these tragic ones call louder in their own distress; of seeing the
actors more lively in the dissolving flame; of beholding the charioteer glowing
in his fiery chariot; of seeing their wrestlers tossing on fiery waves instead
of in their gymnasium," etc.8 Referring to the "spectacles" he anticipates, he
says: "Faith grants us to enjoy them even now, by lively anticipation; but what
shall the reality be of those things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor
hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive? They may well compensate,
surely, the circus and both amphitheatres and all the spectacles the world can
offer." No wonder DePressense says, "This joy in the anticipation of the doom of
the enemies of Christ is altogether alien to the spirit of the Gospel; that
mocking laugh, ringing across the bottomless pit which opens to swallow up the
persecutors," etc. But why "alien," if a God of love ordained, and the gentle
Christ executes, the appalling doom? Was not Tertullian nearer the mood a
Christian should cultivate than are those who are shocked by his description, if
it is true? Max Muller calls attention to the fact that Tertullian and the Latin
fathers were obliged to cripple the Greek Christian thought by being destitute
of even words to express it. He has to use two words, verbum and ratio, to
express Logos. "Not having Greek tools to work with," he says, "his verbal
picture often becomes blurred."
Hase says that Tertullian was a "gloomy, fiery character, who conquered for
Christianity, out of the Punic Latin, a literature in which ingenious rhetoric,
a wild imagination, a gross, sensuous perception of the ideal, profound feeling,
and a legalistic understanding struggled with each other."
Ambrose of Alexandria
Ambrose of Alexandria, A.D. 180-250, was of a noble and wealthy family.
Meeting Origen he accepted Christianity as taught by the magister orientis, and
urged and stimulated his great teacher to write his many books, and used his
fortune to further them. Thus we owe generally, it is said, nearly all the
exegetical works of Origen to Ambrose's influence and money; and especially his
commentary on St. John. It was at his request also that Origen composed his
greatest work, the answer to Celsus. He left no writings of his own except some
letters, but his devotedness to Origen, and his agency in promoting the
publication of his works, should convince us that Origen's views are
substantially his own.9
The Manichaeans
The Manichaeans, followers of Mani, were a considerable sect that had a
following over a large part of Christendom from A.D. 277 to 500. Eusebius is
very bitter in describing the sect and its founder. "He was a madman," and his
"ism, patched up of many faults and impious heresies, long since extinct."
Socrates calls it "a kind of heathenish Christianity," and says it is composed
of a union of Christianity with the doctrines of Empedocles and Pythagoras
(Greek philosophers from the fifth and sixth centuries BC). Lardner quotes the
evident misrepresentations of Eusebius and Socrates and exposes their
inaccuracies. A large amount of literature was expended on some of their
doctrines, but not on their denial of endless torment. In fact, Didymus the
Blind, as well as Augustine, seems to have opposed their errors, though the
"merciful doctor" gives them, as Lardner says, "no hard names," while the father
of Calvinism treats them with characteristic severity, ignoring what he himself
acknowledges elsewhere, that for eight or nine years he accepted their tenets.
Referring to the vile practices and doctrines with which they are charged,
Lardner says: "The thing is altogether incredible, especially when related of
people who by profession were Christians; who believed that Jesus Christ was a
perfect model of all virtues; who acknowledged the reasonableness and excellence
of the precepts of the Gospel, and that the essence of religion lies in obeying
them." The consensus of ancient authorities proves the Manichaeans to have been
an unpopular but reputable Christian sect.
Manichaean Doctrines
Mani was a Persian, a scholar, and a Christian. Beginning his debate with
Archelaus, he says: "I, brethren, am a disciple and an apostle of Jesus Christ;"
and he and his followers everywhere claim to be disciples of our Lord. Among
their dogmas, was one that denied endless existence to the devil, who was then
considered to be almost the fourth person in the popular Godhead,--they
repudiated the resurrection of the body and clearly taught universal
restoration. Lardner quotes Mani in his dispute with Archelaus, as saying: "All
sorts of souls will be saved, and the lost sheep will be brought back to the
fold." And after quoting their adversaries as stating that the Manichaeans
taught the eternity of hell torments, Lardner says, quoting Beausobre: "All
which means no more than a privation of happiness, or a labor and task, rather
than a punishment. Indeed it is reasonable to think the Manichaeans should allow
but very few, if any, souls to be lost and perish forever. That could not be
reckoned honorable to the Deity, considering how souls were sent into matter."10
Lardner is certainly within bounds when he says: "But it is doubtful whether
they believed the eternity of hell torments."
Prof. Shedd's Historical Inaccuracy
The astonishing way in which, as Wendell Phillips once said, "what passes
for history," is written, may be seen in Professor William G. T. Shedd's
"History of Christian Doctrine." He says: "The punishment inflicted upon the
lost was regarded by the fathers of the ancient church, with very few
exceptions, as endless. The only exception to the belief in the eternity of
future punishment in the ancient church appears in the Alexandrine school. Their
denial of the doctrine sprang logically out of their anthropology. Clement of
Alexandria, and Origen, we have seen, asserted with great earnestness the
principle of a absolute and inalienable power in the human will to overcome sin.
The destiny of the soul is thus placed in the soul itself. The power of free
will cannot be lost, and if not exerted in this world, it still can be in the
next; and under the full light of the eternal world; and under the stimulus of
suffering there experienced, nothing is more probable than that it will be
exerted. The views of Origen were almost wholly confined to this school. Faint
traces of a belief in the remission of punishments in the future world are
visible in the writings of Didymus of Alexandria, and in Gregory of Nyssa. With
these exceptions, the ancient church held that the everlasting destiny of the
human soul is decided in this earthly state."11 The reader who will turn to the
sketches of Didymus and Gregory will discover what Prof. Shedd denominates
"faint traces," and in the multitudes of quotations from others of the fathers
who were not of the Alexandrine school, he will see how utterly inaccurate is
this religious historian. Numerous quotations flatly contradict his assertion.
The verbal resemblance of Dr. Shedd's language to that of Hagenbach, cannot be
wholly due to accident.12 Prof. Shedd, however, contradicts what Schaff and
Hagenbach declare to be the truth of history. He says that the Alexandrine
school was the only exception to a universal belief in endless punishment,
except the faint traces in Gregory of Nyssa; while Hagenbach insists that
Gregory is more explicit, and Neander affirms that the school of Antioch as well
as that of Alexandria, were Universalistic. Furthermore, Prof. Shedd does not
seem to have remembered the words he had written with his own pen in his
translation of Guerike's Church History:13 "It is noticeable that the
exegetico-grammatical school of Antioch, as well as the allegorizing
Alexandrian, adopted and maintained the doctrine of restoration." Says
Hagenbach, "Some faint traces of a belief in the final remission of punishments
in the world to come are to be found in those writings of Didymus of Alexandria,
which are yet extant. Gregory of Nyssa speaks more distinctly upon this point,
pointing out the corrective design of the punishments inflicted upon the
wicked." Hagenbach expressly places Gregory and Didymus as differing, while
Shedd makes them agree. But Neander declares: "From two theological schools
there went forth an opposition to the doctrine of everlasting punishment, which
had its ground in a deeper Christian interest; inasmuch as the doctrine of a
universal restoration was closely connected with the entire dogmatic systems of
both these schools, namely, that of Origen, and the school of Antioch."14
BACK
1 Wordsworth's St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome,
p. 144. 2 Philosophumena or Refutation of Heresy. 3 Hippolytus
followed up at Rome the Alexandrine doctrine and position of Pantaenus and
Clemens, and was the predecessor of Origen, etc. Bunsen. 4 Ad Autolicum,
lib. II, cap. 26, Vol. VI, Migne's Patrologiae 5 De resur. carn., chap.
59. "Ego me scio neque alia carne adulteria commisso, neque nunc alia carne ad
continentian eniti." 6 Oxford Tracts for the Times, No. XVII. 7
Apol., cap. 18. 8 Quid admirer? quid rideam? ubi gaudeam, ubi exsultem,
spectans tot et tantos, etc. De Spectaculis, xxx. 9 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. B.
vi. 10 Beausobre, Hist. de Manich. I, 9, chs. 7-9. See the remarkable
quotations concerning Mani in Lardner Vol. III. 11 Vol. II, pp. 414-416.
12 Hist. Doct. II, Sec. 142. Edin. Ed. 1884. 13 P. 349, note.
14 Vol. II, p. 676.
Chapter 14
Minor Authorities
Several Fathers
Among the celebrated fathers who have left no record of their views of human
destiny but who from their positions and the relations they sustained, beyond
all rational doubt must have been Universalists, may be mentioned Athenodorus,
who was a student of Origen's, and a bishop in Pontus; Heraclas, a convert of
Origen's, his assistant and successor in the school at Alexandria, and bishop of
Alexandria; Firmilian, a scholar of Origen's, and bishop of Caesarea; and
Palladius, bishop in Asia Minor.
Firmilian, though he wrote little, and is therefore not much known, was
certainly very conspicuous in his day. His theology may be gauged from the fact
that "he held Origen in such high honor that he sometimes invited him into his
own district for the benefit of the churches, and even journeyed to Judea to
visit him, spending long periods of time with him in order to improve in his
knowledge of theology."1 He was a warm friend of Dionysius, Cyprian, and Gregory
Thaumaturgus, and was chosen president of the Council of Antioch.
Dionysius--styled by Eusebius "the great bishop of the doctrine. He says:
"My guardian angel, on our arrival to Caesarea, handed us over to the care and
tuition of Origen, that leader of all, who speaks in undertones to God's dear
prophets, and suggests to them all their prophesy and their mystic and divine
word, has so honored this man Origen as a friend, as to appoint him to be their
interpreter." As Origen spoke, Gregory tells us he kindled a love "in my heart I
had not known before. This love induced me to give up country and friends, the
aims which I had proposed to myself, the study of law of which I was proud. I
had but one passion, one philosophy, and the God-like man who directed me in the
pursuit of it." He became bishop of Caesarea, and was regarded as the
incarnation of the orthodoxy of his times. Almost nothing of his writings has
survived, but Rufinus, the apologist and defender of Origen, gives a passage,
says Allin, showing that he taught the divine truth he learned from his master.
Pamphilus, A.D. 250-309, was one of the greatest scholars of his times. He
founded the famous library of Caesarea, which contained some of the most ancient
supplements of the New Testament, and also Origen's books in their original
Greek. Pamphilus wrote an "Apology" and defense of Origen, with whom he was in
full sympathy. Eusebius wrote the biography of Pamphilus in three books.
Unfortunately it has been lost, so that nothing survives of the works of this
eminent Christian writer and scholar. The esteem in which he was held by
Eusebius may be gauged from the fact that after his death Eusebius, "the father
of ecclesiastical history," changed his own name to "Pamphilus's Eusebius." The
"Apology" contained "very many testimonies of fathers earlier than Origen in
favor of restitution."3 How grievous that these "testimonies" are lost! What
light they would shed on early opinion on the great theme of this book. As
Origen was born about ninety years after St. John's death, these very numerous
"testimonies" would carry back these doctrines very close, or altogether to the
apostolic age.
"With Pamphilus, the era of free Christian theology of the Eastern church
ends." Pamphilus, according to Eusebius, was "a man who excelled in every virtue
through his whole life whether by a renunciation and contempt of the world, by
distributing his substance among the needy, or by a disregard of worldly
expectations, and by a philosophical exemplary conduct and self-denial. But he
was chiefly distinguished above the rest of us by his sincere devotedness to the
sacred Scriptures, and by an untiring diligence in what he proposed to
accomplish, by his great kindness and cheerful eagerness to serve all his
relatives, and all that approached him." He copied, for the great library in
Caesarea, most of Origen's manuscripts, with his own hands.
Eusebius was probably born in Caesarea. He was a friend of Origen, and
fellow-teacher with him in the Caesarean school, and published with Pamphilus a
glowing defense of Origen in six books, of which five are lost. He also copied
and edited many of his works. Dr. Beecher, in his "History of Future
Retribution," asserts the Universalism of Eusebius, though Dr. Ballou, in his
"Ancient History" does not quote them.
On I Cor. 15:28, Eusebius says: "If the subjection of the Son to the Father
means union with him, then the subjection of all to the Son means union with
him. Christ is to subject all things to Himself. We ought to conceive of this as
such a wholesome subjection as that by which the Son will be subject to Him who
subjects all to Him."4 Again on the second Psalm: "The Son breaking in pieces
His enemies for the sake of remolding them as a potter his own work, as Jer.
18:6, is to restore them once more to their former state." Jerome distinctly
says of Eusebius: "He, in the most evident manner, consenting in Origen's
principles." His understanding of terms is seen where he twice calls the fire
that consumed two martyrs unquenchable" (asbesto puri). Eusebius is as severe in
describing the sinner's woes as Augustine himself. He says: "Who those were
(whose worm dieth not) he showed in the beginning of the prophecy, 'I have
nourished and brought up children and they have set me as nothing.' He spoke
darkly then of those of the Jews who rejected the saving grace. Which end of the
ungodly our Savior Himself also appoints in the Gospel, saying to those who
shall stand on the left hand, 'Go ye into the aionian fire, prepared from the
devil and his angels.' As then the fire is said to be aionion, se here
'unquenchable,' one and the same substance encircling them according to the
Scriptures."
In varied and extensive learning, and as a theologian and writer, and most
of all as an historian, Eusebius was far before most of those of his times; and
though high in the confidence of his Emperor, Constantine, he did not make his
influence contribute to his own personal notoriety. He was so kind toward the
Arians, with whom he did not agree, that he was accused of Arianism by such as
could not see how one could differ from another without hating him. Most of his
writings have perished. Of course his name is chiefly immortalized by his
"Ecclesiastical History."
Athanasius (A.D. 296-373). This great man was a student of Origen and speaks
of him with favor, defends him as orthodox, and quotes him as authority. He
argues for the possibility and pardon for even the sin against the Holy Ghost.
He says: "Christ captured over again the souls captured by the devil, for that
he promised in saying, 'I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me.'" On
Ps. 68:18: "When, then, the whole creation shall meet the Son in the clouds, and
shall be subject to him, then, too, shall the Son himself be subject to the
Father, as being a faithful Apostle, and High Priest of all creation, that God
may be all in all."5 Athanasius nominated Didymus the Blind as president of the
Catechetical school of Alexandria, where he presided sixty years, an
acknowledged Universalist, which is certainly evidence of the sympathies, if not
of the real views of Athanasius. He called Origen a "wonderful and most
laborious man," and offers no condemnation of his eschatology.
Didymus, "the illustrations," the Blind, was born, it is supposed, in
Alexandria, A.D. 309. He became entirely blind when four years of age, and
learned to write by using tablets of wood. He knew the Scriptures by heart,
through hearing them read. He died, universally esteemed, A.D. 395. He was held
to be strictly orthodox, though known to cherish the views of Origen on
universal restoration. After his death, in the councils of A.D. 553, 680, and
787, he was anathematized for advocating Origen's "Abominable doctrine of the
transmigration of souls," but nothing is said in condemnation of his pronounced
Universalism.
Of the Descent of Christ into Hades, he says,--as translated by Ambrose: "In
the liberation of all no one remains a captive; at the time of the Lord's
passion, he alone (the devil) was injured, who lost all the captives he was
keeping."6 Didymus argues the final remission of punishment, and universal
salvation, in comments on I Timothy and I Peter. He was condemned by name in the
council of Constantinople and his works ordered destroyed. Were they in
existence no doubt many extracts might be given. Jerome and Rufinus state that
he was an advocate of universal restoration. Yet he was honored by the best
Christians of his times. Schaff says: "Even men like Jerome, Rufinus, Palladius,
and Isadore sat at his feet with admiration." After Jerome turned against Origen
(See sketch of Jerome) he declares that Didymus defended Origen's words as pious
and Catholic, words that "all churches condemn." And he adds: "In Didymus we
extol his great power of memory, and his purity of faith in the Trinity, but on
other points, as to which he unduly trusted Origen, we draw back from him."
Schaff declares him to have been a faithful follower of Origen. Socrates calls
him "the great bulwark of the true faith," and quotes Antony as saying:
"Didymus, let not the loss of your bodily eyes distress you; for although you
are deprived of such organs as bestowed a faculty of perception common to gnats
and flies, you should rather rejoice that you have eyes such as angels see with,
by which the Deity himself is discerned, and his light comprehended." According
to the great Jerome, he "surpassed all of his day in knowledge of the
Scriptures." He wrote voluminously, but very little remains.
He says: "For although the Judge at times inflicts tortures and anguish on
those who merit them, yet he who more deeply scans the reasons of things,
perceiving the purpose of his goodness, who desires to amend the sinner,
confesses him to be good."
Again he says: "As men, by giving up their sins, are made subject to him
(Christ), so too, the higher intelligences, freed by correction from their
willful sins, are made subject to him, on the completion of the dispensation
ordered for the salvation of all. God desires to destroy evil, therefore evil is
(one) of those things liable to destruction. Now that which is of those things
liable to destruction will be destroyed." He is said by Basnage to have held to
universal salvation.
These are samples of a large number of extracts that might be made from the
most celebrated of the Alexandrine school, representing the type of theology
that prevailed in the East, during almost four hundred years. They are not from
a few isolated authorities but from the most eminent in the church, and those
who gave tone to theological thought, and shaped and gave expression to public
opinion. There can be no doubt that they are true exponents of the doctrines of
their day, and that man's universal deliverance from sin was the generally
accepted view of human destiny, prevalent in the Alexandrine church from the
death of the apostles to the end of the Fourth Century. And in this connection
it may be repeated that the Catechetical school in Alexandria was taught by
Anaxagoras, Pantaenus, Origen, Clement, Heraclas, Dionysius, Pierius,
Theognostus, Peter Martyr, Arius and Didymus, all Universalists, so far as is
known. The last teacher in the Alexandrine school was Didymus. After his day it
was removed to Sida in Pamphylia, and soon after it ceased to exist.7
The historian Gieseler records that "the belief in the inalienable
capability of improvement in all rational beings, and the limited duration of
future punishment, was so general, even in the West, and among the opponents of
Origen that, whatever may be said of its not having risen without the influence
of Origen's school, it had become entirely independent of his system." So that
doctrine may be said to have prevailed all over Christendom, East and West,
among "orthodox" and unorthodox alike.
Epiphanius
Epiphanius, a narrow-minded, gullible, violent-tempered, but sincere man,
A.D. 310-404, was bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, A.D. 367. He bitterly opposed
Origen, and denounced him for a multitude of errors, but he does not hint that
his views of restoration were objectionable to himself, or to the church, at the
time he wrote. He "began those miserable Origenistic controversies in which
monkish fanaticism combined with personal hatreds and jealousies to brand with
heresy the greatest theologian of the primitive church."8 To his personal hatred
and bitterness is due much, if not most, of the opposition to Origenism that
began in the latter part of the Fourth Century. In an indictment of eighteen
counts, published A.D. 380, we find what possibly may have been the first
intended censure of Universalism on record, though it will be observed that its
animosity is not against the salvation of all mankind, but against the
salvability of evil spirits. Epiphanius says: "That which he strove to establish
I know not whether to laugh at or grieve. Origen, the renowned doctor, dared to
teach that the devil is again to become what he originally was--to return to his
former dignity. Oh, wickedness! Who is so mad and stupid as to believe that holy
John Baptist, and Peter, and John the Apostle and Evangelist, and that Isaiah
also and Jeremiah, and the rest of the prophets, are to become fellow-heirs with
the devil in the kingdom of Heaven!"9 The reader can here see the possible
origin of the familiar argument of recent times.
In his book against heresies, "The Panarion," this "hammer of heretics"
names eighty; but universal salvation is not among them. The sixty-fourth is
"Origenism," but, as is seen elsewhere in this volume, that stood for other
dogmas of Origen and not for his Universalism.
Methodius, bishop of Tyre (A.D. 293). His writings, like so many of the
works of the early fathers, have been lost, but Epiphanius and Photius have
preserved extracts from his work on the resurrection. He says: "God, for this
cause, pronounced him (man) mortal, and clothed him with mortality, that man
might not be an undying evil, in order that by the dissolution of the body, sin
might be destroyed root and branch from beneath, that there might not be left
even the smallest particle of root, from which new shoots of sin might break
forth." Again, "Christ was crucified that he might be adored by all created
things equally, for 'unto him every knee shall bow,'" etc. Again: "The
Scriptures usually call 'destruction' the turning to the better at some future
time." Again: "The world shall be set on fire in order to purification and
renewal."10
The general drift, as well as the definite statements of the minor
authorities cited in this chapter, show the dominant sentiment of the times.
BACK
1 Eusebius, VI:26. 2 Holy Eastern Church, I:84.
Eusebius repeatedly speaks of him in the loftiest terms. 3 Routh, Rel.
Sac., III, p. 498. Oxford ed., 1846. 4 De Eccl. Theol., Migne, Vol. XXIV,
pp. 1030-33. 5 Sermon Major de fide. Migne, vol. XXVI, pp. 1263-1294.
6 De Spir. Sanct., Ch. 44. 7 Neander, Hist. Christ. Dogmas, I, p.
265 (London, 1866), who cites Nieder (Kirchengeschichte), for full description
of the different theological schools. 8 Dict. Christ. Biog., II, p. 150.
9 Epiph. Epist. ad Johan. inter Hieron. Opp. IV, part. ii, in Ballou's
Anc. Hist, p. 194. 10 De Resurr., VIII.
Chapter 15
Gregory Nazianzen
Bishop of Constantinople
Gregory of Nazianzus, born A.D. 330, was one of the greatest orators of the
ancient church. Gibbon sarcastically says: "The title of Saint has been added to
his name, but the tenderness of his heart, and the elegance of his genius,
reflect a more pleasing radiance and splendor on the memory of Gregory
Nazianzen." The child of a Christian mother, Nonna, he was instructed in youth
in the elements of religion. He enjoyed an early acquaintance with Basil, and in
Alexandria with Athanasius. With Basil his friendship was so strong that Gregory
says it was only one soul in two bodies. A.D. 361, he became presbyter, and in
379 he was called to the charge of the small, divided orthodox church in
Constantinople, which had been almost annihilated by the prevalence of Arianism.
He so strengthened and increased it, that the little chapel became the splendid
"Church of the Resurrection." A.D. 380 the Emperor Theodosius deposed the Arian
bishop, and transferred the cathedral to Gregory. He was elected bishop of
Constantinople in May, 381, and was president of the OEcumenical council in
Constantinople, while Gregory Nyssa added the clauses to the Nicene creed. He
resigned because of the hostility of other bishops, and passed his remaining
days in religious and literary pursuits. He died A.D. 390 or 391. He was second
to Chrysostom as an orator in the Greek church. More than this, he was one of
the purest and best of men, and his was one of the five or six greatest names in
the church's first five hundred years. Prof. Schaff styles him "one of the
champions of Orthodoxy."
Gregory says: "God brings the dead to life as partakers of fire or light.
But whether even all shall hereafter partake of God, let it be elsewhere
discussed." Again he says: "I know also of a fire not cleansing (*GR) but
chastising (*GR), unless anyone chooses even in this case to regard it more
humanely, and creditably to the Chastiser." This is a remarkable instance of the
esoteric, and well may Petavius say: "It is manifest that in this place St.
Gregory is speaking of the punishments of the damned, and doubted whether they
would be eternal, or rather to be estimated in accordance with the goodness of
God, so as at some time to be terminated." And Farrar well observes: "If this
last sentence had not been added the passage would have been always quoted as a
most decisive proof that this eminently great father and theologian held,
without any modification, the severest form of the doctrine of endless
torments."
The Penalties of Sin
Gregory tells us: "When you read in Scripture of God's being angry, or
threatening a sword against the wicked, understand this rightly, and not
wrongly, how then are these metaphors used? Figuratively. In what way? With a
view to terrifying minds of the simpler sort. "He writes again: "A few drops of
blood renew the whole world, and become for all men that which rennet (part of
the lining of a calf's stomach used to curdle milk in making cheese) is for
milk, uniting and drawing us into one." Christ is "like leaven for the entire
mass, and having made that which was damned one with himself, frees the whole
from damnation." And yet Gregory describes the penalties of sin in language as
fearful as though he did not teach restoration beyond it. He says: "That
sentence after which is no appeal, no higher judge, no defense through
subsequent work, no oil from the wise virgins or from those who sell, for the
failing lamps; but one last fearful judgment, even more just than formidable,
yea, rather the more formidable because it is also just; when thrones are set
and the Ancient of Days sitteth, and books are open, and a stream of fire
sweepeth and they who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment (where) the
torment will be, with the rest, or rather above all the rest, to be cast off
from God, and that shame in the conscience which hath no end."1
The character of Gregory shows us the kind of mind that leans to the larger
hope, or, perhaps, the disposition that the larger hope produces. Says Farrar:
"Poet, orator, theologian; a man as great theologically as he was personally
winning2 the sole man whom the church has suffered to share that title
(Theologian) with the Evangelist St. John, the most learned and the most
eloquent bishop in one of the most learned ages of the church, whom St. Basil
called 'a vessel of election, a deep well, a mouth of Christ;' whom Rudinus
calls 'incomparable in life and doctrine." Gregory of Nazianzus deserved the
honor of sainthood if any man has ever done, being as he was, one of the bravest
men in an age of confessors, one of the holiest men in an age of saints." "In
questions of eschatology he seems more or less to have shared, though with
wavering language, in some of the views of Origen, which the church has partly
adopted and partially uncondemned--the view, especially, that there shall be
hereafter a probatory and purifying fire, and that we may indulge a hope in the
possible cessation, for many, if not for all, of the punishments which await sin
beyond the grave. He speaks indeed far less openly than Gregory of Nyssa, of a
belief in the final restoration of all things, but even this belief lies
involved in his remarks on the prophecy of St. Paul, concerning the day when
'God shall be all in all.'"
Gregory's Spirit
When Gregory and his congregation had been attacked in their church, while
celebrating our Lord's baptism, by the Arian rabble of Constantinople, in
consequence of the report that they were Tritheists, Gregory heard that
Theodorus was about to appeal for redness to Theodosius, whereupon the good man
wrote that while punishment might possibly prevent recurrence of such conduct,
it was better to give an example of long-suffering. "Let us," said he, "overcome
them by gentleness, and win them by piety; let their punishment be found in
their own consciences, not in our resentment. Dry not up the fig-tree that may
yet bear fruit." The Seventh General Council called him "Father of Fathers."
That he regarded punishment after death as limited, is sufficiently evident
from his reference to the heretical Novatians: "Let them, if they will, walk in
our way and in Christ's. If not, let them walk in their own way. Perchance there
they will be baptized with fire, with that last, that more laborious and longer
baptism, which devours the substance like hay, and consumes the lightness of all
evil."3
Neander says: "Gregory of Nazianzen did not venture to express his own
doctrine so openly (as Gregory Nyssen) but allows it sometimes to escape when he
is speaking of eternal punishment. The Antiochan school were led to this
doctrine, not by Origen but by their own thinkings and examinations of the
Scripture. They regarded the two-fold division of the development of the
creature as a general law of the universe. This led to the final result of
universal participation in the unchangeable divine life. Hence the *GR was
taught by Diodorus of Tarsus, in his treatise on the Incarnation of God, and
also by Theodorus. He applied Matt. 5:26, to prove a rule of proportion, and an
end of punishment. God would not call the wicked to rise again if they must
endure punishment without correction."4 BACK
1 Orat. xi, Carm. xxi, Orat. xlii; Migne, Vols. XXXVI,
XXI. 2 See Newman's Hist. Essays, Vol. III. 3 Assemani Bibl.
Orient. Tom. III, p. 323. 4 Hist. Christ. Dogmas, Vol. II. Hagenbach
testifies to the same. Dogmas, Vol. I.
Chapter 16
Theodore of Mopsuestia and the
Nestorians
Theodore of Mopsuestia was born in Antioch, A.D. 350, and died 428 or 429.
He ranked next to Origen in the esteem of the ancient church. For nearly fifty
years he maintained the cause of the church in controversy with various classes
of assailants, and throughout his life his orthodoxy was regarded as
unimpeachable. He was bishop for thirty-six years, and died fill of honors; but
after he had been in his grave a hundred and twenty-five years, the church had
become so corrupted by heathenism that it condemned him for heresy. He was
anathematized for Nestorianism, but his Universalism was not reproached. His
great renown and popularity must have caused his exalted views of God's
character and man's destiny to prevail more extensively among the masses than
appears in the surviving literature of his times.
His own words are: "The wicked who have committed evil the whole period of
their lives shall be punished till they learn that, by continuing in sin, they
only continue in misery. And when, by this means, they shall have been brought
to fear God, and to regard him with good will, they shall obtain the enjoyment
of his grace. For he never would have said, 'until thou hast paid the uttermost
farthing,' unless we can be released from suffering after having suffered
adequately for sin; nor would he have said, 'he shall be beaten with many
stripes,' and again, 'he shall be beaten with few stripes,' unless the
punishment to be endured for sin will have an end."1
Views Defined by Great Scholars
Professor E. H. Plumptre writes: "Theodore of Mopsuestia teaches that in the
world to come those who have done evil all their life long will be made worthy
of the sweetness of the divine beauty." And in the course of a statement of
Theodore's doctrine, Prof. Swete observes2 that Theodore teaches that "the
punishments of the condemned will indeed be in their nature eternal, being such
as belong to eternity and not to time, but both reason and Scripture lead us to
the conclusion that they will be remissible upon repentance. 'Where,' he asks,
'would be the benefit of a resurrection to such persons, if they were raised
only to be punished without end?' Moreover, Theodore's fundamental conception of
the mission and person of Christ tells him to believe that there will be a final
restoration of all creation."3 Theodore writes on Rom. 6:6: "All have the hope
of rising with Christ, so that the body having obtained immortality, then the
tendency to evil should be removed. God redeemed all things in Christ as though
making a complete renewal and restoration of the whole creation to him. Now this
will take place in a future age, when all mankind, and all powers possessed of
reason, look up to him as is right, and obtain mutual harmony and firm peace."4
Author of Nestorian Declarations
Theodore is said to have introduced universal restoration into the liturgy
of the Nestorians, of which sect he was one of the founders. His words were
translated into the Syriac, and constituted the office of devotion among that
remarkable people for centuries. His works were circulated all through Eastern
Asia, through which, says Neander, the Nestorians spread Christianity. This
great body of Christians exerted a mighty influence until they were nearly
annihilated by the merciless Tamerlane (Islamic conquerer - 1336-1405). He is
still venerated among the Nestorians as the "Interpreter."
In Theodore's confession of faith he says, after stating that Adam began the
first and mortal state, "But Christ the Lord began the second state. He in the
future, revealed from heaven, will restore us all into communion with himself.
For the apostle says: 'The first man was of the earth earthly, the second man is
the Lord from heaven,' that is, who is to appear hereafter thence, that he may
restore all to the likeness of himself."5
Dorner on Theodore
The moderate and evangelical Dorner becomes eulogistic when referring to
this eminent Universalist: "Theodore of Mopsuestia was the crown and climax of
the school of Antioch. The compass of his learning, his sharp perception, and as
we must suppose also, the force of his personal character, combined with his
labors through many years as a teacher both of churches and of young and
talented disciples, and as a prolific writer, gained for him the title of
Magister Orientis."6 He "was regarded with an appreciation the more widely
extended as he was the first Oriental theologian of his time." Theodore held
that evil was permitted by the Creator, in order that it might become the source
of good to each and all. He says:
"God knew that men would sin in all ways, but permitted this result to come
to pass, knowing that it would ultimately be for their advantage. For since God
created man when he did not exist, and made him ruler of so extended a system,
and offered so great blessings for his enjoyment, it was impossible that he
should not have prevented the entrance of sin, if he had not known that it would
be ultimately for his advantage." He also says that God has demonstrated that
"the same result (that is seen in the example of Christ) shall be effected in
all his creatures." God has determined "that there should be first a
dispensation including evils, and that then they should be removed and universal
good take their place." He taught that Christ is an illustration of universal
humanity, which will ultimately achieve his status.
Unity in Diversity
It may be mentioned that though Origen and Theodore were Universalists, they
reached their conclusions by different processes. Origen exalted the freedom of
the will, and taught that it could never be hindered, so that reformation could
never be excluded from any soul. He held to man's pre-existence, and that his
native sinfulness resulted from misconduct in a previous state of being. He was
also extremely mystical, and allegorized and spiritualized the Scripture. Its
literal meaning was in his eyes of secondary account. Theodore, on the other
hand, developed the grammatical and historical meaning of the Word, and
discarded Origen's mysticism and allegorizing, and his doctrine of man's
pre-existence, and instead of regarding man as absolutely free, considered him
as part of a divine plan to be ultimately guided by God into holiness. Both were
Universalists, but they pursued different routes to the same divine goal. It is
interesting to note the emphasis the early Universalists placed upon different
points. The Gnostics argued universal salvation from the disciplinary process of
transmigration; the Sibylline Oracles from the prayers of the good who could not
tolerate the sufferings of the damned; Clemens Alexandrinus proved it from the
remedial influence of all God's punishments; Origen urged the foregoing, but
added the freedom of the will, which would ultimately embrace the good; Diodorus
put it on the ground that God's mercy exceeds all the desert of sin; Theodore of
Mopsuestia, that sin is an incidental part of human education, etc.
After the condemnation of Origen, Theodore and Gregory, most of their works
were destroyed by their bigoted enemies. The loss to the world by the
destruction of their writings is irreparable. Some of Theodore's works are
thought to exist in Syriac, in the Nestorian literature. The future may recover
some of them, as the recent past has rescued the Sinaitic codex, the "Book of
Enoch," and other ancient manuscripts.
The liturgies of the Nestorians, largely composed by Theodore, breathe the
spirit of the universal Gospel. In the sacramental liturgy he introduces Col.
1:19,20, to sustain the idea of universal restoration: "For it pleased the
Father that in him should all fullness dwell, and having made peace through the
blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by Him, I say,
whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."7
The Nestorians
The creed of the Nestorians never did, and does not in modern times, contain
any recognition of endless punishment. Mosheim says: "It is to the honor of this
sect that, of all the Christian residents of the East, they have preserved
themselves free from the numberless superstitions which have found their way
into the Greek and Latin churches."
A.D. 431, Nestorius and his followers were ex-communicated from the orthodox
church for holding that Christ existed in two persons instead of two natures.
They denied the accusation, but their enemies prevailed. Nestorius refused to
call Mary "The Mother of God," but was willing to compromise between those who
held her to be such, and those who regarded her as "Mother of man," by calling
her "Mother of Christ."8 The wonderful preservation and Christian zeal of the
Nestorians under the yoke of Islam is one of the marvels of history.
The Nestorian Liturgies
The worse than heathen Athanasian creed is not contained in any Nestorian
ritual. Nor is the so-called Apostles creed. But the Nicene is recognized. Among
those immortalized in the "Gezza" are Gregory, Basil, Theodore or Mopsuestia,
and Diodore, all Universalists. In the liturgy, said to be by Nestorius himself,
but in which Theodore probably had a hand, occurs this language: "All the dead
have slept in the hope of Thee, that by thy glorious resurrection Thou wouldest
raise them up in glory."9
Subsequent hands have corrupted the faith of Nestorius and Theodore. For
example, the "Jewel," written by Mar Abd Yeshua, A.D. 1298, says that the wicked
"shall remain on the earth" after the resurrection of the righteous, and "shall
be consumed with the fire of remorse, this is the true Hell whose fire is not
quenched and whose worm dieth not." But the earlier faith did not contain these
ideas. The litany in the Khudra, for Easter eve, has these words: "O Thou Living
One who descendest to the abode of the dead and preached a good hope to the
souls which were detained in Sheol, we pray thee, O Lord, to have mercy upon
us." "Blessed is the king who hath descended into Sheol and hath raised us up,
and who, by his resurrection, hath given the promise of regeneration to the
human race."
Dr. Beecher on Theodore
After giving numerous testimonials to the educational, missionary and
Christian zeal of the Nestorians and other followers of Theodore, Beecher says
that these advocates of ancient Restorationism were "in all other respects
Orthodox," and that their views did not prevent them "from establishing
wide-spread systems of education, from illuminating the Arabs, and through them
the dark churches who had sunk into midnight gloom." The Universalism of
Theodore was beneficial in its effects on himself and his followers. It did not
"cut the nerve of missionary enterprise."
Instructive Facts
It is then apparent in the writings of the fathers, during the first
centuries of the Christian Era, that whatever views they entertained on human
destiny,--whether they taught endless punishment, the annihilation of the
wicked, or universal salvation, they use the word aionios to describe the
duration of punishment, showing that for around five-hundred years the word did
not possess the sense of endlessness. And it is noticeable that there is no
controversy on the apparent difference of opinion among them on the subject of
man's destiny. And it is probable that many of the writers who say nothing
explicit, held to the doctrine of universal restoration, as it is seen that as
soon as an author unmistakably accepts endless punishment he warmly advocates
it.
Character of Early Universalists
And can the fact be otherwise than significant, that while Tertullian and
other prominent defenders of the doctrine of endless punishment were reared as
heathen, and even confess to have lived corrupt and vicious lives in their
youth, Origen, the Gregories, Basil the Great, Didymus, Theodore, Theodorus and
others were not only the greatest among the saints in their maturity, but were
reared from birth by Christian parents, and grew up "in the nature and
admonition of the Lord?"
Dr. Beecher pays this remarkable testimony: "I do not know an unworthy, low,
or mean character in any prominent, open, and avowed Restorationist of that age
of freedom of inquiry which was inaugurated by the Alexandrine school, and
defended by Origen. But besides this it is true that these ancient believers in
final restoration lived and toiled and suffered, in an atmosphere of joy and
hope, and were not loaded with a painful and crushing burden of sorrow in view
of the endless misery of innumerable multitudes. It may not be true that these
results were owing mainly to the doctrine of universal restoration. It may be
that their views of Christ and the Gospel, which were decidedly Orthodox,
exerted the main power to produce these results. But one thing is true: the
doctrine of universal restoration did not hinder them. If not, then the inquiry
will arise, Why should it now?" "In that famous age of the church's story, the
period embracing the Fourth and the earlier years of the Fifth Century,
Universalism seems to have been the creed of the majority of Christians in East
and West alike; perhaps even of a large majority and in the roll of its teachers
were most of the greatest names of the greatest age of primitive Christianity.
And this teaching, be it noted, is strongest where the language of the New
Testament was a living tongue; i.e., in the great Greek fathers; it is strongest
in the church's greatest era, and declines as knowledge and purity decline. On
the other hand, endless penalty is most strongly taught precisely in those
quarters where the New Testament was less read in the original, and also in the
most corrupt ages of the church." 10 BACK
1 Assemani Bib. Orient. Tom. III. 2 Dict.
Christ. Biog. II, p. 194. 3 Ibid. IV, p. 946. 4 "Omnia
recapitulavit in Christo quasi quandam compendio-sam renovationem et
adintegrationem totius faciens creaturae per eum hoc autem in futuro saeculo
erit. quando homines cuncti necnon et rationabiles virtutes ad illum inspiciant,
ut fas exigit, et condordiam inter se pacemque firmam obtineant" 5 "The
doctrine of universal restoration in the Nestorian churches disappeared by a
nearly universal extermination of those churches." Beecher, Hist. Doc. Fut.
Ret., p. 290. 6 Doct. and Per. of Christ., Div. II, Vol. I, p. 50.
7 Renaudot's Oriental Liturgies, Vol. II, p. 610. 8 Theodoret,
Hist. of Ch., pp. 2,3. Theodore wrote two works on Heresies in whic he professes
to condemn all the heresies of his times, but he does not mention Universalism.
9 Badger's Nestorians and their Rituals, Vol. II.; Gibbon, Chap. XLVII.
Draper, Hist. Int. Dev. Europe; Layard's Nineveh. 10 Universalism
Asserted, p. 148. Note.--Olshausen declares that the opposition to the doctrine
of endless punishment and the advocacy of universal restoration has always been
found in the church, and that it has "a deep root in noble minds." His language
is (Com. I., on Matt. 12:32.)
Chapter 17
A Notable Family
The family group of which Basil the Great, Macrina the Blessed, the
distinguished bishop of Nyssa, Gregory, and the less-known Peter of Sebaste were
members, deserves a volume rather than the few pages at our command. Three of
the four were bishops at one time. Macrina, her father and mother, her
grandmother Macrina, and three of her brothers were all canonized as saints in
the ancient church. We are not surprised that Butler, in his "Lives of the
Fathers," should say: "We admire to see a whole family of saints. This prodigy
of grace, under God, was owing to the example, prayers and exhortation of the
elder St. Macrina, which had this wonderful influence and effect."1
"Macrina the Blessed"
Macrina was born A.D. 327. By her intellectual ability, force of character,
and earnest piety she became the real head of the family, and largely shaped the
lives of her distinguished brothers. She early added the name Thecla to her
baptismal name, after the proto-martyr among Christian women. She was educated
with great care by her mother, under whose direction she committed to memory
large portions of the Bible, including the whole of the Psalms.
Her rare personal beauty, great accomplishments and large fortune attracted
many suitors; Gregory says she surpassed in loveliness all of her age and
country. She was betrothed to a young advocate, who was inspired and stimulated
by her ambition and zeal, but was cut off by an early death. She then regarded
herself as a wife in the eyes of God, and confident of a reunion hereafter,
refused to listen to offers of marriage, saying that her betrothed was living in
a distant realm, and that the resurrection would reunite them.
A Saintly Woman
A.D. 349, when she was thirty-two, her father died, and then she devoted
herself to the care of her widowed mother and the family of nine children, and
large estates which were scattered through three provinces. Her rare executive
ability and personal devotedness to her mother and brothers and sisters were
phenomenal, descending to the most minute domestic offices.
After the death of her father, and on the death of her brother Naucratius,
A.D. 357, she never left her home, a beautiful place in Annesi, near
Neo-Caesarea.
A.D. 355, on the return of her brother Basil from Athens, full of conceit
and the ambition inspired by his secular learning, Macrina filled his mind and
heart with the love for a life of Christian service that animated herself, and
he located himself near his sister. In 355 she established a religious
sisterhood with her mother, and consecrated her life to retirement and religious
meditation, holy thoughts and exercises--as she said, "to the attainment of the
angelical life." The community consisted of herself, her mother, her female
servants and slaves, and soon devout women of rank joined them, and the
community became very prosperous.
Peter was made a church official in A.D. 371. Her mother died in 373 and her
distinguished brother in 379. Her own health had failed, when, some months after
Basil's death, her brother Gregory visited her.2 He found her in an incurable
fever, stretched on planks on the ground, and, according to the stern ideas then
beginning to prevail, the planks barely covered with sackcloth. Gregory relates
what followed with great minuteness. He was overwhelmed with grief at Basil's
death. Macrina comforted him, and even rebuked him for mourning like a heathen
when he possessed the Christian's hope. He described the persecutions he had
experienced, whereupon she chided and reminded him that he ought rather to thank
his parents who had qualified him to be worthy of such experiences. Gregory
relates that she controlled all evidences of suffering, and that her countenance
continually wore a angelic smile.
Macrina's Religious Sentiments
He probably gives us her exact sentiments in his own language on universal
restoration, in which she rises into a grand description of the purifying
effects of all future punishment, and the separation thereby of the evil from
the good in man, and the entire destruction of all evil. Her words tell us their
mutual views. On the "all in all"3 of Paul she says:
"The Word seems to me to lay down the doctrine of the perfect obliteration
of wickedness, for if God shall be in all things that are, obviously wickedness
shall not be in them." "For it is necessary that at some time evil should be
removed utterly and entirely from the realm of being. For since by its very
nature evil cannot exist apart from free choice, when all free choice becomes in
the power of God, shall not evil advance to utter annihilation so that no
receptacle for it at all shall be left?"
In this conversation in which the sister sustains by far the leading part,
the resurrection (anastasis) and the restoration (apokatastasis) are regarded as
synonymous, as when Macrina declares that "the resurrection is only the
restoration of human nature to its pristine condition."4
On Phil. 2:10, Macrina declares. "When the evil has been exterminated in the
long cycles of the aeons nothing shall be left outside the boundaries of good,
but even from them shall be unanimously uttered the confession of the Lordship
of Christ."5
She said: "The process of healing shall be proportioned to the measure of
evil in each of us, and when the evil is purged and blotted out, there shall
come in each place to each immortality and life and honor."
Her Last Days
Seeing the weariness of her brother she bade him rest. Revisiting her at the
close of the day she reviewed thankfully her past life and rejoiced that she had
never in her life refused any one who had asked a charity of her, and had never
been compelled to ask a charity for herself.
Next morning, Gregory says, she consoled and cheered him as long as she
could talk, and when her voice failed she conversed with her hands and silent
lips. Repeating the sign of the cross to the latest moment she finished her life
and her prayers together. Her last words were in advocacy of the doctrine of
universal salvation, of which Gregory's writings are full.6
She was buried by her brother in the grave of her parents, in the Chapel of
the "Forty Martyrs."
Macrina a Representative Universalist
We have here a most suggestive picture to contemplate. Macrina at the head
of a sisterhood, consisted of several hundred women of all grades, from her own
rank down to salves. Their sole object was the cultivation of the religious
life. Can it be otherwise than that the views of human destiny she held were
dwelt upon by her in the religious exercises of the institution, and must they
not have been generally sympathized with by the devout in mates? And can we
doubt that those who had here retired from the world to cultivate their
religious natures, were representative in their views of human destiny of the
Christian community generally? The fact that Macrina and her brothers, who were
high functionaries in the church, express Universalism without controversy or
disputings but as a matter uncontested, should persuade us that it was the
unchallenged sentiment of the time.
Curiously enough, Cave, in his "Lives of the Fathers," questions Macrina's
Universalism. In his life of Gregory he says, after sketching Macrina's life:
"She is said by some to have been infected with Origen's opinions, but finding
it reported by no other than Nicephorus, I suppose he mistook her for her
grandmother, Macrina, auditor of St. Gregory, who had Origen for his tutor."
This is a specimen instance of the manner in which historians have read history
through theological spectacles, and written history in ink squeezed from their
creeds.
There is no doubt that the elder Macrina was of the same faith as her
granddaughter, for she was a disciple of Gregory Thaumaturgus, who idolized
Origen. On the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa, "the blessed Macrina" lived a holy
life and died the death of a perfect Christian, molded, guided and sustained by
the influence and power of Universalism. And the careful reader of the history
of those early days can but feel that she represents the prevailing religious
faith of the three first and three best centuries of the church.
Basil the Great
Basil the Great was born in Caesarea, A.D. 329. His family were wealthy
Christians. The preceding sketch shows that his grandmother Macrina, and his
mother, Emmelia, were declared saints. His brothers, Gregory of Nyssa, and Peter
of Sebaste, and his sister Macrina are all saints in both the Greek and the
Roman churches. His was a most lovable and loving spirit. His works abound in
descriptions of the beauties of nature, which is something rare in ancient
literature, outside the Bible. He resided for many years in a romantic locality,
with his mother and sister. A.D. 364, against his will, he was made an elder,
and in 370 was elected bishop of Caesarea. He died A.D. 379. He devoted himself
to the sick, and founded the splendid hospital Basilias, for lepers, of whom he
took care, not even neglecting to kiss them in defiance of contagious disease.
He stands in the highest group of pulpit orators, theologians, pastors, and
rulers, and most eminent writers and noble men of the church's first five
hundred years.
Basil's Language
Basil says: "The Lord's peace is co-extensive with all time. For all things
shall be subject to Him, and all things shall acknowledge his empire; and when
God shall be all in all, those who now stimulate discord by revolts having been
pacified, shall praise God in peaceful harmony." On the words in Isaiah, 1:24:
"My anger will not cease, I will burn them," he says, "And why is this? In order
that I may purify."
Basil was "the strenuous champion of orthodoxy in the East, the restorer of
union to the divided Oriental church, and the promoter of unity between the East
and the West." Theodoret styles him "one of the lights of the world."7
Among other quotable passages is this: "For we have often observed that it
is the sins which are consumed, not the very persons to whom the sins have
befallen." But there are passages to be found in Basil susceptible of sustaining
the doctrine of endless punishment. This great theologian was infected with the
wretched idea prevalent in his day, that the wise could accept truths not to be
taught to the multitude. But the brother of, and co-laborer with, Gregory of
Nyssa, and the "Blessed Macrina," he could but have sympathized with their
inspiring faith.
Cave's Error
Cave scarcely alludes to Basil's views of destiny, but faintly implies
subtly the truth when he says: "For though his enemies, who served their own
ends by blasting his reputation and sometimes charged him with corrupting the
Christian doctrine and entertaining impious and unorthodox sentiments, and that
too in some of the greater articles, yet the objection when looked into did
quickly vanish, himself solemnly professing upon this occasion that however in
other respects he had enough to answer for, yet this was his glory and triumph
that he had never entertained false notions of God, but had constantly kept the
faith pure and intact as he had received it from his ancestors."
Remembering his sainted grandmother, Macrina, and his spiritual fathers,
Origen and Clemens Alexandrinus, we can understand his disclaimer.8
Notwithstanding Basil's probable belief in the final restoration, he employs
as severe language in reference to the sinner's sufferings so do any of the
fathers who have left no record on the subject of man's final destiny. He says:
"With what body shall it endure those unending and unendurable scourges, where
is the quenchless fire and the worm punishing deathlessly, and the dark and
horrible abyss of hell, and the bitter groans, and the vehement wailing, and the
weeping and gnashing of teeth, where the evils have no end."9
Eulogies of Basil
He is said to have had learning the most ample, eloquence of the highest
order, unsurpassed debating ability, literary ability unequaled, "a style of
writing admirable, almost unequaled, proper, clearly expressed, significant,
soft, smooth and easy, and yet persuasive and powerful;" as a philosopher as
wise as he was accomplished as a theologian. Erasmus gives him the pre-eminence
above Pericles, Isocrates and Demosthenes, and ranks him higher than Athanasius,
Nazianzen, Nyssen and Chrysostom. And Cave exhausts eulogy and high praise in
describing his "moral and divine accomplishments," and closes his account by
saying: "Perhaps it is an instance hardly to be paralleled in any age, for three
brothers, all men of note and eminency, to be bishops at the same time."10 He
might have added--and with a sister their full equal.
Basil's grand spirit can be seen in his reply to the emperor, when the
latter threatened him, should he not obey the sovereign's command. His noble
answer compelled the emperor to forego his purpose. Basil said he did not fear
the emperor's threats; confiscation could not harm one who only possessed a suit
of plain clothes and a few books; he could not be banished for he could not find
a home anywhere, as the earth was God's, and himself everywhere a stranger; his
frail body could endure but little torture, and death would be a favor, as it
would only conduct him to God, his eternal home.
The Mass of Christians Universalists
Basil says in one place, in a work attributed to him, "The mass of men
(Christians) say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are
punished."11 If the work is not Basil's, the testimony as to the state of
opinion at that time is no less valuable: "The mass of men say that there is to
be an end of punishment."
Gregory Nyssen
He was born about A.D. 335, and died 390. He was made bishop 372. From the
time he was thirty-five until his death, he, Didymus and Diodorus of Tarsus,
were the unopposed advocates of universal redemption. Most unique and valuable
of all his works was the biography of his sister, described in our sketch of
Macrina. His descriptions of her life, conversations and death are gems of
patristic literature. They overflow with declarations of universal salvation.
Gregory was devoted to the memory of Origen as his spiritual godfather, and
teacher, as were his saintly brother and sister. He has well been called "the
flower of orthodoxy." He declared that Christ "frees mankind from their
wickedness, healing the very inventor of wickedness." He asks: "What is then the
scope of St. Paul's argument in this place? That the nature of evil shall one
day be wholly exterminated, and divine, immortal goodness embrace within itself
all intelligent natures; so that of all who were made by God, not one shall be
exiled from his kingdom; when all the allies of evil that like a corrupt matter
is mingled in things, shall be dissolved, and consumed in the furnace of
purifying fire, and everything that had its origin from God shall be restored to
its original uncorrupted state of purity." "This is the end of our hope, that
nothing shall be left contrary to the good, but that the divine life,
penetrating all things, shall absolutely destroy death from existing things, sin
having been previously destroyed," etc.12 "For it is evident that God will in
truth be 'in all' when there shall be no evil in existence, when every created
being is at harmony with itself, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord; when every creature shall have been made one body. Now the body
of Christ, as I have often said, is the whole of humanity."13 On the Psalms,
"Neither is sin from eternity, not will it last to eternity. For that which did
not always exist shall not last forever."
His language demonstrates the fact that the word aionios did not have the
meaning of endless duration in his day. He distinctly says: "Whoever considers
the divine power will plainly perceive that it is able at length to restore by
means of the aionion purgation and atoning sufferings, those who have gone even
to this extremity of wickedness." Thus "everlasting" punishment will end in
salvation, according to one of the greatest of the fathers of the Fourth
Century.
Gregory's Language
In his "Sermo Catecheticus Magnus," a work of forty chapters, for the
teaching of theological learners, written to show the harmony of Christianity
with the instincts of the human heart, he asserts "the annihilation of evil, the
restitution of all things, and the final restoration of evil men and evil
spirits to the blessedness of union with God, so that he may be 'all in all,'
embracing all things provided with sense and reason" -- doctrines derived by him
from Origen. To save the credit of a doctor of the church of acknowledged
orthodoxy, it has been asserted from the time of Germanus of Constantinople,
that these passages were inserted by heretical writers. But there is no
foundation for this assumption, and we may safely say that "the wish is father
to the thought," and that the final restitution of all things was distinctly
held and taught by him in his writings.
He teaches that "when death approaches to life, and darkness to light, and
the corruptible to the incorruptible, the inferior is done away with and reduced
to non-existence, and the thing purged is benefited, just as the dross is purged
from gold by fire. In the same way in the long circuits of time, when the evil
of nature which is now mingled and implanted in them has been taken away,
whensoever the restoration to their old condition of the things that now lie in
wickedness takes place, there will be a unanimous thanksgiving from the whole
creation, both of those who have been punished in the purification and of those
who have not at all needed purification.
"I believe that punishment will be administered in proportion to each one's
corruptness. Therefore to whom there is much corruption attached, with him it is
necessary that the purging time which is to consume it should be great, and of
long duration; but to him in whom the wicked disposition has been already in
part subjected, a proportionate degree of that sharper and more vehement
punishment shall be diminished. All evil, however, must at length be entirely
removed from everything, so that it shall no more exist. For such being the
nature of sin that it cannot exist without a corrupt motive, it must of course
be perfectly dissolved, and wholly destroyed, so that nothing can remain a
receptacle of it, when all motive and influence shall spring from God alone,"
etc.
Perversion of Historians
The manner in which historians and biographers have been guilty of
suppression by their prejudices or imperceptions to fact, is illustrated by Cave
in his "Lives of the Fathers," when, speaking of this most out-spoken
Universalist, he says, that on the occasion of the death of his sister Macrina,
"he penned his excellent book ('Life and Resurrection,') wherein if some later
hand have scattered among some few Origenian beliefs, it is no more than what
they have done to some others of his tracts, to give his thoughts vent upon
those noble arguments." The "later" hands were impelled by altogether different
principles and suppressed or modified Origen's doctrines, as Rufinus confessed,
instead of inserting them in the works of their predecessors. If Gregory has
suffered at all at the hands of mutilators, it has been by those who have
minimized and not those who have magnified his Universalism. But this defamation
originated with Germanus, bishop of Constantinople (A.D. 730), in harmony with a
favorite mode of opposition to Universalism. In Germanus's Antapodotikos he
endeavored to show that all the passages in Gregory which treat of the
apokatastasis (complete restitution) were changed and falsified by heretics.14
This charge has often been echoed since. But the prejudiced Daille calls it "the
last resort of those who with a stupid and absurd persistence will have it that
the ancients wrote nothing different from the faith at present received; for the
whole of Gregory Nyssen's orations are so deeply stained with the infectious
doctrine in question, than it can have been inserted by none other that the
author himself."15 The conduct of historians, not only of those who were
theologically warped, but of such as sought to be impartial on the opinions of
the early Christians on man's final destiny, is something phenomenal. Even Lecky
writes: "Origen, and his disciple Gregory of Nyssa, in a somewhat hesitating
manner, diverged from the prevailing opinion (eternal torments) and strongly
inclined to the belief in the ultimate salvation of all. But they were alone in
their opinion. With these two exceptions, all the fathers proclaimed the
eternity of torments."16 It is shown in this volume that not only were Diodore,
Theodore, and others of the Antiochan school Universalists but that for
centuries four theological schools taught the doctrine. A most singular fact in
this connection is the Prof. Shedd, elsewhere in this book, denies his own
statement similar to Lecky's, as shown on a previous page. This is the testimony
of Dr. Schaff in his valuable history:
"Gregory adopts the doctrine of the final restoration of all things. The
plan of redemption is in his view absolutely universal, and embraces all
spiritual beings. Good is the only positive reality; evil is the negative, the
non-existent, and must finally abolish itself, because it is not of God.
Unbelievers must indeed pass through a second death, in order to be purged from
the filthiness of the flesh. But God does not give them up, for they are his
property, spiritual natures allied to him. His love, which draws pure souls
easily and without pain to itself, becomes a purifying fire to all who cleave to
the earthly, till the impure element is driven off. As all comes forth from God,
so must all return into him at last." "Universal salvation (including Satan) was
clearly taught by Gregory of Nyssa, a profound thinker of the school of Origen."
In his comments on the Psalms, Gregory says: "By which God shows that
neither is sin from eternity nor will it last to eternity. Wickedness being thus
destroyed, and its imprint being left in none, all shall be fashioned after
Christ, and in all that one character shall shine, which originally was
imprinted on our nature." "Sin, whose end is extinction, and a change to
nothingness from evil to a state of blessedness." On Ps.57:1: "Sin is like a
plant on a house top, not rooted, not sown, not ploughed in in the restoration
to goodness of all things, it passes away and vanishes. So not even a trace of
the evil which now abounds in us, shall remain, etc." If sin be not cured here
its cure will be effected hereafter. And God's threats are that "through fear we
may be trained to avoid evil; but by those who are more intelligent it (the
judgment) is believed to be a medicine," etc. "God himself is not really seen in
wrath." "The soul which is united to sin must be set in the fire, so that that
which is unnatural and vile may be removed, consumed by the aionion fire."17
Thus the (aionion) fire was regarded by Gregory as purifying. "If it (the soul)
remains (in the present life) the healing is accomplished in the life beyond."
*GR (Orat. Catech.)
Farrar tells us: "There is no scholar of any weight in any school of
theology who does not now admit that two at least of the three great
Cappadocians believed in the final and universal restoration of human souls. And
the remarkable fact is that Gregory developed these views without in any way
imperiling his reputation for orthodoxy, and without the faintest reminder that
he was deviating from the strictest paths of Catholic opinion." Professor
Plumptre truthfully says: "His Universalism is as wide and unlimited as that of
Bishop Newton of Bristol."
Opinions in the Fourth Century
The Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, which perfected the Nicene Creed,
was participated in by the two Gregorys; Gregory Nazianzen presided and Gregory
Nyssen added the clauses to the Nicene creed that are in italics on a previous
page in this volume. They were both Universalists. Would any council, in ancient
or modern times, composed of believers in endless punishment, select an avowed
Universalist to preside over its deliberations, and guide its "doctrinal
transactions?" And can anyone consistently think that Gregory's Universalism was
unacceptable to the great council over which he presided?" Some of the strongest
statements of Gregory's views will be found in his enthusiastic reports of
Macrina's conversations, related in the preceding chapter, with which, every
reader will see, he was in the fullest sympathy. Besides the works of Gregory
named above, passages expressive of universal salvation may be found in "Oratio
de Mortuis," "De Perfectione Christiani," etc.
"By the days of Gregory of Nyssa it (Universalism), aided by the unrivaled
learning, genius and piety of Origen, had prevailed and had succeeded in
enlightening, not the East alone, but much of the West. While the doctrine of
annihilation has practically disappeared, Universalism has established itself,
has become the prevailing opinion, even in quarters antagonistic to the school
of Alexandria. The church of North Africa, in the person of Augustine, enters
the field. The Greek tongue soon becomes unknown in the West, and the Greek
fathers forgotten. On the throne of Him whose name is Love is now seated a stern
Judge (a sort of Roman governor). The Father is lost in the stern and legalistic
authoritarianism."18
Dean Stanley candidly ascribes to Gregory "the blessed hope that God's
justice and mercy are not controlled by the power of evil, that sin is not
everlasting, and that in the world to come punishment will be corrective and not
final, and will be ordered by a love and justice, the height and depths of which
we cannot here fathom or comprehend."19 BACK
1 The materials of this sketch and of the article on
Gregory Nyssen were chiefly procured from "Our Holy Father Gregory, Bishop of
Nyssa's Thoughts concerning the Life of the Blessed Macrina, his Sister, to the
Monk Olympius;" and "Dialogue Concerning Life and Resurrection, with the
Opinions of his Sister Macrina;" Leipsic, 1858. The work is in Greek and German.
Also from Migne's Patrologiae, vol. XLVI. 2 Dict. Christ. Biog. III, p.
780. 3 *GR ("all things in all men.") 4 p. 154. Oehler's ed. Life
and Resurrection. 5 Life and Resurrection, p. 68. In this passage Macrina
employs the word aionion in its proper sense of ages. The German version
translates it centuries (jahrhunderte). 6 Butler, "Lives of the Saints,"
Vol. VII. pp. 260,261. This Catholic work does not make the faintest allusion to
Macrina's Universalism. And even our Dr. Ballou, in his valuable Ancient
History, while he mentions the grandmother, overlooks the far more eminent
granddaughter. 7 History of the Church, p. 176. 8 Lives of the
Fathers, II, p. 451. 9 Ep. XLVI, Classis I, ad virginem. 10 Cave,
Lives of the Fathers, II, 397. 11 De Ascetics. 12 Life and
Resurrection and Letter to the Monk Olympius. 13 Cat. Orat. ch. 26,
Migne, Tract. Filius subjicietur,--on I Cor. xv:28--pasa he anthropine phusis,
"The whole of humanity." 14 Photius, Cod., 233. 15 De Usu Patrum,
lib. II, cap. 4. 16 Lecky's Rationalism in Europe, I, p. 316. 17
On the Psalms. 18 Allin, Univ. Asserted, p. 169. 19 Essays on
Church and State.
Chapter 18
Additional Authorities
Going back a little we find several authors whose works in part have escaped
the ravages of time and the destructive hostility of opponents. We have found
ourselves a hundred times wishing, while pursuing these enquiries, that the
literature of the first five centuries could have been printed and scattered to
the world's ends, instead of having been limited, as it was, of course, before
the invention of printing, to a few manuscripts so easily destroyed by the
bigoted opponents of our faith into whose hands they fell. We should have many
fold more testimonies than have survived to tell the story of primitive belief.
Marcellus of Ancyra, A.D. 315, quoted by Eusebius, says: "For what else do
the words mean, 'until the times of the restitution' (Acts 3:21), but that the
apostle designed to point out that time in which all things partake of that
perfect restoration."
Titus of Bostra, A.D. 338-378. The editor of his works says that Titus was
"the most learned among the bishops of his age, and a most famous champion of
the truth." Tillemont unwillingly admits that "he seems to have followed the
dangerous error ascribed to Origen, that the pains of the damned, and even those
of the demons themselves, will not be eternal."1 Certainly Titus's own language
justifies this excellent suspicion. He says:
Words of Titus of Bostra
"Thus the mystery was completed by the Savior in order that, perfection
being completed through all things, and in all things, by Christ, all
universally shall be made one through Christ and in Christ." He says again: "The
very pit of torment is indeed the place of chastisement, but it is not eternal
(aionion) nor did it exist in the original constitution of nature. It was
afterwards, as a remedy for sinners, that it might cure them. And the
punishments are holy, as they are remedial and beneficial in their effect on
transgressors; for they are inflicted, not to preserve them in their wickedness,
but to make them cease from their wickedness. The anguish of their suffering
compels them to break off their vices. If death were an evil, blame would
rightfully fall on him who appointed it."2
Ambrose of Milan
Ambrose of Milan, A.D. 340-398, says: "What then hinders our believing that
he who is beaten small as the dust is not annihilated, but is changed for the
better; so that, instead of an earthly man, he is made a spiritual man, and our
believing that he who is destroyed, is so destroyed that all taint is removed,
and there remains but what is pure and clean. And in God's saying of the
adversaries of Jerusalem, 'They shall be as though they were not," you are to
understand they shall exist substantially, and as converted, but shall not exist
as enemies. God gave death, not as a penalty, but as a remedy; death was given
for a remedy as the end of evils." "How shall the sinner exist in the future,
seeing the place of sin cannot be of long continuance?"3 Because God's image is
that of the one God, it like Him starts from one, and is dispersed to infinity.
And, once again, from an infinite number all things return into one as into
their end, because God is both beginning and end of all things.4 How then, shall
(all things) be subject to Christ? In this very way in which the Lord Himself
said. "Take my yoke upon you," for it is not the untamed who bear the yoke, but
the humble and gentle, so that in Jesus's name every knee shall bend. Is this
subjection of Christ not completed? Not at all. Because the subjection of Christ
consists not in few, but in all. Christ will be subject to God in us by means of
the obedience of all; when vices having been cast away, and sin reduced to
submission, one spirit of all people, in one sentiment, shall with one accord
begin to cleave to God, then God will be all in all, when all then shall have
believed and done the will of God, Christ will be all and in all; and when
Christ shall be all in all, God will be all in all.5 At present he is over all
by his power, but it is necessary that he be in all by their free will:6 So the
Son of man came to save that which was lost, that is, all, for, 'As in Adam all
died, so, too, in Christ shall all be made alive.'"7 "For, if the guilty die,
who have been unwilling to leave the path of sin, even against their will they
still gain, not of nature but of fault, that they may sin no more." "Death is
not bitter; but to the sinner it is bitter, and yet life is more bitter, for it
is a deadlier thing to live in sin than to die in sin, because the sinner as
long as he lives increases in sin, but if he dies he ceases to sin."8
Cave says that Ambrose quotes and adapts many of the writings of the Greek
Fathers, particularly Origen; and Jerome declares that Ambrose was indebted to
Didymus for the most of his de Spiritu Sanctu. Both these, it will be noted,
were Universalists. Augustine tells us that every day after his morning
devotions Ambrose studied the Scriptures, chiefly by the aid of the Greek
commentators, and especially of Origen and Hippolytus, and of Didymus and
Basil.9 Three of these at least were Universalists. "Perhaps his most original
book is 'On the Blessing of Death," in which he takes a singularly mild view of
the punishment of the wicked, expresses his belief in a purifying fire, and
argues that whatever the punishment be, it is a state distinctly preferable to a
sinful life. His eschatology was deeply influenced by the larger hopes of
Origen."10
The language of Ambrose in his comments on Ps. 118 is as follows: "Dives in
the Gospel, although a sinner, is pressed with penal agonies, that he may escape
the sooner."11 Again: "Those who do not come to the first, but are reserved for
the second resurrection, shall be burned till they fill up the times between the
first and second resurrection, or should they not have done so, will remain
longer in punishment."
The Amrbosiaster is by an unknown author, anciently erroneously supposed to
be Ambrose, as it was bound with the works of this father. On I Cor. 15:28, the
Ambrosiaster says: "This is implied in the Savior's subjecting himself to the
Father; this is involved in God's being all in all, namely, when every creature
thinks one and the same thing, so that every tongue of celestials, terrestials,
and those in hell shall confess God as the great One from whom all things are
derived." This sentiment he avows in other passages.
Serapion, the companion of Athanasius, A.D. 346, says of evil: "It is of
itself nothing, nor can it in itself exist, or exist always; but it is in
process of vanishing, and by vanishing proved to be unable to exist."12
Macarius Magnes, A.D. 370, says that death was ordained at the first, "in
order that, by the dissolution of the body, all the sin proceeding from the
connection (of soul and body) should be totally destroyed."13
Marius Victorinus, A.D. 360, was born in Africa, and was a famous
rhetorician, whose writings abound with expressions of the faith of
Universalism. On I Cor. 15:28, he says: "All things shall be rendered spiritual
at the consummation of the world. At the consummation all things shall be one.14
Therefore all things converted to him shall become one, i.e., spiritual; through
the Son all things shall be made one, for all things are by him, for all things
that exist are one, though they be different. For the body of the entire
universe is not like a mere heap, which becomes a body, only by the contact of
its particles; but it is a body chiefly in its several parts being closely and
mutually bound together--it forms a continuous chain. For the chain is this,
God: Jesus: the Spirit: the intellect: the soul: the angelic host: and lastly,
all subordinate bodily existences." On Eph. 1:4, "The the mystery was completed
by the Savior in order that, perfection having been completed throughout all
things, and in all things by Christ, all universally should be made one through
Christ and in Christ. And because he (Christ) is the life, he is that by whom
all things have been made, for all things cleansed by him return into eternal
life."
Hilary
Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, (died, A.D. 368), is said by Jerome to have
translated nearly 40,000 lines of Origen. On Luke 15:4, he says: "This one sheep
(lost) is man, and by one man the entire race is to be understood; the ninety
and nine are the heavenly angels and by us (mankind) who are all one, the number
of the heavenly church is to be filled up. And therefore it is that every
creature awaits the revelation of the sons of God." On Psalm 69:32,33: "Even the
abode of hell is to praise God." Also, "'As thou hast given him power over all
flesh in order that he should give eternal life to all that thou hast given
him,' so the Father gave all things, and the Son accepted all things, and
honored by the Father was to honor the Father, and to employ the power received
in giving eternity of life to all flesh. Now this is life eternal that they may
know thee."15
John Cassian, A.D. 390-440. This celebrated man was educated in the
monastery in Bethlehem, and was the founder of two monasteries in Marseilles. He
wrote much, and drew the fire of Augustine, whose doctrines he strenuously
attacked. Neander declares of him, that his views of the divine love extended to
all men, "which wills the salvation of all, and refers everything to this; even
subordinating the punishment of the wicked to this simple end.16 Ueberweg says
Cassian "could not admit that God would save only a portion of the human race,
and that Christ died only for the elect." Hagenbach states that the erroneous
idea that God "would save only a few" is in the opinion of Cassian ingene
sacrilegium, a great sacrilege or blasphemy. Neander, in his "History of
Dogmas," remarks: "The practical Christian guided him in treating the doctrines
of faith; he admitted nothing which was not suited to satisfy thoroughly the
religious wants of men. The idea of divine justice in the determination of man's
lot after the first transgression did not predominate in Cassian's writings as
in Augustine's, but the idea of a disciplinary divine love, by the leadings of
which men are to be led to repentance. He appeals also to the mysteriousness of
God's ways, not as concerns predestination, but the variety of the leadings by
which God leads different individuals to salvation. In no instance, however, can
divine grace operate independently of the free self determination of man; as the
husbandman must do his part, but all this avails nothing without the divine
blessing, so man must do his part, yet this profits nothing without divine
grace." To which T. B. Thayer, D.D., adds in the "Universalist Quarterly": "It
is a fact worth noting in the connection, that Cassianus went to Constantinople
in A.D. 403, where he listened to the celebrated Chrysostom, by whom he was
ordained as Deacon. Speaking of Chrysostom, Neander says that but for the
necessity of opposing those who made too light of sin and its retributions and
would gladly reason away the doctrine of eternal punishment, 'his mild and
amiable spirit might not otherwise be altogether disinclined to the doctrine of
universal restoration, with which he must have become acquainted at an earlier
period, from being a disciple of Diodorus of Tarsus.' This justifies the remark
of Neander that we may perhaps 'discern in these traits of Cassianus the spirit
of the great Chrysostom, with whom he long lived in the capacity of deacon, and
whose disciple he delighted to call himself.'"
The Blessed
Theodoret, the Blessed, was born A.D. 387, and died 458. He was ordained
Bishop of Cyrus in Syria, 420. He was a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and was
also a student of eloquence and sacred literature of Chrysostom. Dr. Schaff
calls his continuation of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History most valuable.
Neander, Murdoch, and Mosheim rank him high in learning, eloquence and goodness.
He illustrates one of the many contradictions of the assertions of merely
sectarian scholars. Though Dr. Shedd says that "the only exception to the belief
in the eternity of future punishment in the ancient church appears in the
Alexandrian school," yet, Theodoret, Theodore, Diodore and others were all of
the Antiochan school. Dr. Orello Cone first called the attention of our church
to this father, who is not even mentioned by Dr. Ballou, in his "Ancient History
of Universalism," and we quote from his article, copied in part form "The New
York Christian Ambassador" into "The Universalist Quarterly," April, 1866. Dr.
Cone says that Theodoret regarded the resurrection as the elevation and
quickening of man's entire nature. "He gives this higher spiritual view of the
resurrection (anastasis) in his commentary on Eph. 1: 10, 'For through the
dispensation or incarnation of Christ the nature of men arises,' anista, or is
resurrected, 'and puts on incorruption.' He does not say the bodies of men, but
the nature (phusis) is resurrected."
Theodoret says, on "Gathering all things in Christ:" "And the visible
creation shall be liberated from corruption, and shall attain incorruption, and
the inhabitants of the invisible worlds shall live in perpetual joy, for grief
and sadness and groaning shall be done away." On the universal atonement: --
"Teaching that he would free from the power of death not only his own body, but
at the same time the entire nature of the human race, he presently adds: 'And I,
if I be lifted from the earth will draw all men unto me;' For I will not suffer
what I have undertaken to raise the body only, but I will fully accomplish the
resurrection to all men. He has paid the debt for us, and blotted out the
handwriting that was against us, and having done these things, he quickened
together with himself the entire nature of men."
He formed his Christian system on Theodore's, and on that of Diodore of
Tarsus, both Universalists. Allin says, he "was perhaps the most famous, and
certainly the most learned teacher of his age; uniting to a noble intellect a
character and accomplishments equally noble." He published a defense of Diodore
and Theodore, unfortunately lost. On I Cor. 15:28, Theodoret says: "But in the
future life corruption ceasing and immortality being conferred, the passions
have no place, and these being removed, no kind of sin is committed. So from
that time God is all in all, when all, freed from sin, and turned to him, shall
have no inclination to evil." On Eph. 1:23, he says: "In the present life God is
in all, for his nature is without limits, but is not all in all. But in the
coming life, when mortality is at an end and immortality granted, and sin has no
longer any place, God will be all in all.17 For the Lord, who loves man,
punishes beneficially, that he may check the course of irreverence."
Works of Theodoret
Gregory the Great says that the Roman church refused to acknowledge
Theodoret's History because he praised Theodore of Mopsuestia, and insisted that
he was a great doctor in the church. Theodoret says that Theodore was "the
teacher of all the churches, and the opponent of all the sects of heresy," so
that in his opinion Universalism was not heretical.
Evagrius Ponticus
Evagrius Ponticus, A.D. 390. The works of this eminent saint and scholar
were destroyed by the Fifth General Council that condemned him--though not as a
Universalist--a hundred and fifty years after his death. The council
anathematized him with Didymus. It is most apparent that the great multitude of
Christians must have accepted views which were so generally advocated and
unchallenged during those early years, by the best and greatest of the fathers.
Evagrius is said by Jerome in his epistle to Ctesiphon against the Pelagrians,
to have been an Origenist. He wrote three books, the "Saint" or "Gnostic," the
"Monk," and the "Refutation."
Cyril of Alexandria (A.D. 412) says: "Traversing the lowest recesses of the
infernal regions, after that he (Christ) had preached to the spirits there, he
led forth the captives in his strength."18 "Now when sin has been destroyed, how
should it be but that death too, should wholly perish?" "Through Christ has been
saved the holy multitude of the fathers, nay, the whole human race altogether,
which was earlier in time (than Christ's death) for he died for all, and the
death of all was done away in him."19
Rufinus, A.D. 345-410, wrote an elaborate defense of Origen, and in the
preface to "De Principiis" he declares that he excised from that work of Origen
all that was "disagreeable with our (the accepted Christian) belief." As the
work still abounds in expressions of Universalism, not only his sympathy with
that belief, but also the fact that it was then the prevailing Christian belief
can not be questioned. Huet says that he taught the temporary duration of
punishment.20
Dr. Ballou quotes Domitian, Bishop of Galatia, as probably a Universalist
(A.D. 546), who is reported by Facundus to have written a book in which he
declares that those who condemned Origen have "condemned all the saints who were
before him, and who have been after him."21
Diodore of Tarsus
Diodore, Bishop of Tarsus, from A.D. 378 to 394, was of the Antiochan or
Syrian school. He opposed Origen on some subjects, but agreed with his
Universalism. He says: "For the wicked there are punishments, not eternal,
however, lest the immortality prepared for them should be a disadvantage, but
they are to be purified for a brief period according to the amount of malice in
their works. They shall therefore suffer punishment for a short space, but
immortal blessedness having no end awaits them, the penalties to be inflicted
for their many and grave sins are very far surpassed by the magnitude of the
mercy to be showed them. The resurrection, therefore, is regarded as a blessing
not only to the good, but also to the evil."22 The same authority affirms that
many Nestorian bishops taught the same doctrine. The "Dictionary of Christian
Biography" observes: "Diodorus of Tarsus taught that the penalty of sin is not
perpetual, but issues in the blessedness of immortality, and (he) was followed
by Stephanus, Bishop of Edessa, and Salomo of Bassora, and Isaac of Nineveh."
"Even those who are tortured in Gehenna are under the discipline of the divine
charity." "And they were followed in their turn by Georgius of Arbela, and Ebed
Jesu of Soba." Diodore contended that God's mercy would punish the wicked less
than their sins deserved, inasmuch as his mercy gave the good more than they
deserved. He denied that Deity would bestow immortality for the purpose of
prolonging and continual suffering. Diodore and Theodore, the first,
Chrysostom's teacher, and the second his fellow-student, were really the
pioneers in teaching Scripture by help of history, criticism, linguistics and
literature.23 They may be regarded as the forerunners of modern interpretation.
Like so many others of the ancient writings Diodore's works have perished, and
we have only a few quotations from them, contained in the works of others. But
we have enough to qualify him to occupy an honorable place among the
Universalists of the Fourth Century.
Even Dr. Pusey is compelled to admit the Universalism of Diodore of Tarsus,
and Theodore of Mopsuestia. He says, quoting from Salomo of Bassora, 1222, some
eight hundred years after their death: "The two writers use different arguments
and have different theories. Theodorus rests his on Holy Scripture, 'Until thou
hast paid the uttermost farthing,' and 'the many and few stripes,' and
attributes the reformation of those who have done ill all their lives to the
discovery of their mistake. Diodorus says that punishment must not be eternal,
lest the immortality prepared for them be useless to them; he twice repeats that
punishment, though varied according to their deserts, would be for a short time.
His ground was his conviction that since God's rewards so far exceed the deserts
of the good, the like mercy would be shown to the evil."24
Though somewhat later than the projected limits of this work, two or three
authors may be named.
Macarius is said by Evagrius to have been ejected from his see, A.D. 552,
for maintaining the opinions of Origen. Whether universal restitution was among
them is uncertain.
Chrysologus
Peter Chrysologus, A.D. 433, Bishop of Ravenna, in a sermon on the Good
Shepherd, says the lost sheep represents "the whole human race lost in Adam,"
and that Christ "followed the one, seeks the one, in order that in the one he
may restore all."
Stephan Bar-sudaili, Abbot of Edessa, in Mesopotamia, at the end of the
Fifth Century, taught Universalism,--the termination of all punishments in the
future world, and their purifying character. The fallen angels are to receive
mercy, and all things are to be restored, so that God may be all in all.25 He
was at the head of a monastery. Attacked as a heretic he left Edessa and
repaired to Palestine, which in those days seems to have been the refuge of
those who desired freedom of opinion. How many might have sympathized with him
in Mesopotamia or in Palestine cannot be known.
Maximus 580-662
Maximus, the Confessor. As late as the Seventh Century, in spite of the
power of Roman tyranny and Pagan error, the truth survived. Maximus--A.D.
580-662--was secretary of the Emperor Heraclius, and confidential friend of Pope
Martin I. He opposed the Emperor Constans II, in his attempts to control the
religious convictions of his subjects, and was banished, A.D. 653, and died of
ill treatment. He was both scholar and saint. Neander says: "The fundamental
ideas of Maximus seem to lead to the doctrine of a final universal restoration,
which in fact is intimately connected also with the system of Gregory of Nyssa,
to which he most closely adhered. Yet he was too much fettered by the church
system of doctrine distinctly to express anything of the sort." Neander adds,
that in his views "the reunion of all rational essences with God is established
as the final end." "Him who wholly unites all things in the end of the ages, or
in eternity." Ueberweg states that "Maximus taught that God had revealed himself
through nature and by his Word. The incarnation of God in Christ was the
culmination of revelation, and would therefore have taken place even if man had
not fallen. The Universe will end in the union of all things with God."
BACK
1 Tillemont, p. 671. Quoted by Lardner. Vol. III, p.
273. 2 Migne, Vol. XVIII, p. 1118. Observe here that aionios is used in
the sense of endless; also that the word rendered "abyss" is the word translated
"bottomless pit" in Revelation. 3 On Ps. xxxvii. 4 Epis. Lib.
I. 5 De Fide. 6 On Ps. lxii. 7 On Luke, xv. 3. 8
Blessing of Death, Ch. vii. 9 Conf. vi, 3, Ep. xlvii, 1. 10
Farrar: Lives of the Fathers, II, p. 144. 11 Ideo Dives ille in
Evangelio, licet peccator, poenalibus torquetur aerumnis, ut citicus possit
evadere. 12 Adv. Man., Ch. iv. 13 Not. et Frag., xix. 14
Adv. Arium, lib. I: 25; Migne, viii, p. 1059. 15 De Trin. lib. IX.
16 Hist. Christ Ch., ii:628. Hist. Christ. Dogmas, ii:377. 17
Migne, lxxxii, p. 360. 18 Homilia. Pasch. xx. Migne, lxxvii. 19
Glaph. in Ex., lib. II. 20 Origen. II, p. 160. 21 Anc. Hist.
Univ., p. 265. 22 Assemani Bib. Orientalis, III, p. 324. 23
Robertson's Hist. Christ. Ch., I, p. 455. 24 What is of Faith, p. 231.
25 Assemani Bibl. Orient., II, p. 291.
Chapter 19
The Deterioration of Christian Thought
Transition of Christianity
The great transition from the Christianity of the Apostles to the
pseudo-Christianity of the patriarchs and emperors--the transformation of
Christianity to Churchianity--may be said to have begun with Constantine, at the
beginning of the Fourth Century. Its relations to the temporal power experienced
an entire change. Heathenism surrendered to it. As the stones of the heathen
temples were rebuilt into Christian churches, so the Pagan principles held by
the masses modified and corrupted the religion of Christ; while the worldliness
of secular interests derived from the union of church and state, exerted a
debasing influence, and the Christianity of the Catacombs and of Origen became
the church of the popes, of the Inquisition, and of the Middle Ages.
"The writers of the Fourth Century generally contradict those of the Second,
who were in part witnesses, or reported credible evidence and plausible
traditions, whereas those later fathers were only critics, and most of them very
indifferent and biased ones. For they often proceed from systems, historical and
doctrinal, which strongly impair their qualifications for being judges." There
seems an entire change in the church after the Nicene Council. "The Anti-Nicene
age was the World against the Church; the Post-Nicene age is the history of the
World in the Church. As an antagonist the World was powerless; as an ally it
became dangerous and its influence disastrous."1
"From the time of Constantine," says Schaff, "church discipline declines;
the whole Roman world having become nominally Christian, and the host of
hypocritical professors multiplying beyond all control." It was during
Constantine's reign that, among other foreign corruptions, monasticism came into
Christianity, from the Hindu religions and other sources, and gave rise to those
grave, somber organizations so foreign to the spirit of the author of our
religion, and so productive of error and evil. Perhaps the deterioration of
Christian doctrine and life may be dated from the edict of Milan (A.D. 313),
when "unhappily, the church also entered on an altogether new career--that of
patronage and state protection. That which it was about to gain in material
power it would lose in moral force and independence." It is probable that the
beginning of the convent life of women from which grew the nunneries and
convents that covered Christendom in the succeeding centuries, was with Helen,
the mother of the Emperor Constantine, who A.D. 331 closed a pious life at the
age of eighty years. She was accustomed to gather the virgins of the church to
meals, serving them with her own hands at a table and praying in their company.
Robertson says: "Theophilus succeeded Timothy at Alexandria A.D. 385, and
held the see till 412. He was able, bold, crafty, unscrupulous, corrupt, greedy,
plundering, domineering. In the first controversy between Jerome and Rufinus he
had acted the credible part of a mediator. His own inclinations were undoubtedly
in favor of Origen; he had even deposed a bishop named Paul for his hostility to
that teacher, but he now found it expedient to adopt a different line of
conduct." Jerome and Theophilus subsequently joined hands and united in a bitter
and relentless warfare against the great Alexandrian. There seems to have been
very little principle in the course they pursued.
Jerome--331-420
Jerome--A.D. 331-420--was one of the ablest of the fathers of the century in
which he lived--"the most learned except Origen," up to his time. He wrote in
Latin, and was contemporary with Augustine, but did not accept all the Paganism
of the great corruptor of Christianity. He stood in line with his Oriental
predecessors. At first he was an enthusiastic partisan of Origen, but later,
when opposition to the great Alexandrian set in, he became an equally violent
component. Schaff says he was a great organizer and time server, and at length
seemed to acquiesce in the growing influence of Augustinianism. Jerome had
"originally belonged, like the friend of his youth, Rufinus, and John, Bishop of
Jerusalem, to the warmest admirers of the great Alexandrian father.2 But
attacked as he now was, with protests and objections from different sides, he
began out of anxiety for his own reputation for orthodoxy, to separate himself
with the utmost care from the heresies with which he was charged." One of
Origen's works, in the handwriting of Pamphilus, came into Jerome's possession,
who says, owning it, he "owns the wealth of Croesus; it is signed, as it were,
with the very blood of the martyr."
Jerome translated fourteen homilies of Origen on Jerimiah, and fourteen on
Ezekiel, and quotes Didymus as saying that Origen was the greatest teacher of
the church since St. Paul. During his residence in Rome Jerome highly praised
Origen, but soon after, when he found himself accused of heresy for so doing, he
declared that he had only read him as he had read other heretics. In a letter to
Vigilantius he says: "I praise him as an interpreter, not as a dogmatic teacher;
for his genius, not for his faith; as a philosopher, not as an apostle. If you
believe me, I was never an Origenist; if you do not believe me, I have now
ceased to be one."3 But when in Caesarea he borrowed the manuscript of Origen's
Hexapla and examined it, and in Alexandria he passed a month with the great
Universalist, the blind Didymus.
It is curious to notice, however, that Jerome does not oppose Origen's
universal restoration, but erroneously accuses him of advocating the universal
equality of the restored--of holding that Gabriel and the devil, Paul and
Caiaphas, the virgin and the prostitute, will be alike in the immortal world.
The idea of the universal restoration of mankind, divested of pre-existence,
universal equality, the salvability of evil spirits, etc., does not seem to have
been much objected to in the days of Jerome, even by those who did not accept
it.
Jerome's Politic Course
Jerome's later language is: "And though Origen declares that no rational
being will be lost, and gives salvation to the evil one, what is that to us who
believe that the evil one and his satellites, and all the wicked will perish
eternally, and that Christians, if they have been cut off in sin, shall after
punishment be saved." This, however, was after the cautious and politic
churchman had begun to hedge in order to conciliate the growing influence of
Augustinianism. And the words italicized above show that his endless punishment
was very elastic.
Jerome uses the word rendered eternal in the Bible (aionios) in the sense of
limited duration, as that Jerusalem was burnt with aionian fire by Hadrian; that
Israel experienced aionion woe, etc. In his commentary on Isaiah his language
is: "Those who think that the punishment of the wicked will one day, after many
ages, have an end, rely on these testimonies: Rom. 11:25; Gal. 3:22; Mic. 7:9;
Isa. 12:1; Ps. 30:20," which he quotes, and adds: "And this we ought to leave to
the knowledge of God alone, whose torments, no less than his compassion, are in
due measure, and who knows how and how long to punish. This only let us say as
suiting our human frailty, "Lord, rebuke me not in thy fury, not chasten me with
thine anger.'"4
Commenting on Isaiah 24, he says: "This seems to favor those friends of mine
who grant the grace of repentance to the devil and to demons after many ages,
that they too shall be visited after a time. Human frailty cannot know the
judgment of God, nor venture to form an opinion of the greatness and the measure
of his punishment." Jerome frequently exposes his sympathy with the doctrine of
restoration, as when he says: "Israel and all heretics, because they had the
works of Sodom and Gomorrah, are overthrown like Sodom and Gomorrah, that they
may be set free like a brand snatched from the burning. And this is the meaning
of the prophet's words, 'Sodom shall be restored as of old,' that he who by his
vice is as an inhabitant of Sodom, after the works of Sodom have been burnt in
him, may be restored to his ancient state."5
In quoting from this father, Allin says, in Universalism Asserted: "Nor are
these isolated instances; I have found nearly one hundred passages in his works
(and there are doubtless others) indicating Jerome's sympathy with Universalism.
Further, we should note that when towards the year 400 A.D., Jerome took part
with Epiphanius and the disreputable Theophilus against Origen (whom he had
hitherto extravagantly praised), he, as Huet points out, kept a significant
silence on the question of human restoration. 'Though you cite examples,' says
Huet, six hundred testimonies, you thereby only prove that he changed his
opinion.' But did he ever change his opinion? And if so, how far? Thus in his
"Epis. ad Avit.,' where he goes at length into Origen's errors, he says nothing
of the larger hope; and when charged with Origenism he refers time over to his
commentaries on Ephesians, which teach the most outspoken Universalism. As a
specimen of his praise of Origen, he says, in a letter to Paula that Origen was
blamed, "not on account of the novelty of his doctrines, not an account of
heresy, as now mad dogs pretend, but from jealousy," so that to call Origen a
heretic is the part of a mad dog! Note this, from the most orthodox Jerome."
A Miserable Story
Translating Origen's "Homilies," which affirm Universalism continually, he
said in his preface, that Origen was only inferior to the Apostles--"alterum
post apostolum ecclesiarum magistrum." The manner in which he retracted these
sentiments, and became the detractor and enemy of the man to whom he had
admitted his indebtedness is disgraceful to his memory. Farrar accurately calls
the record of his behavior "a miserable story." Jerome's morbid dread of being
held to be heretical, led him, it is feared, to deny some of his real opinions,
and to violently attack those who held them, in order to divert attention from
himself.6
A few if his expressions are here given out of the many quotable. On Eph.
4:16, "In the end of things, the whole body which had been dissipated and torn
into diverse parts shall be restored. Let us understand the whole number of
rational creatures under the figure of a single rational animal. Let us imagine
this animal to be torn so that no bone adheres to bone, nor nerve to nerve. In
the restitution of all things when Christ the true physician shall have come to
heal the body of the universal church every one shall receive his proper place.
What I mean is, the fallen angel will begin to be that which he was created, and
man who has been expelled from Paradise will be once more restored to the
tilling of Paradise. These things then will take place universally." On Mic.
5:8: "Death shall come as a visitor to the impious; it will not be eternal; it
will not annihilate them; but will prolong its visit till the impiety which is
in them shall be consumed." On Eph. 4:13, he says: "The question should arise
who those are of whom he says that they all shall come into the unity of the
faith? Does he mean all men, or all the saints, or all rational beings? He
appears to me to be speaking of all men." On John 17:21, "In the end and
consummation of the Universe all are to be restored into their original
harmonious state, and we all shall be made one body and be united once more into
a perfect man, and the prayer of our Savior shall be fulfilled that all may be
one." In his homily on Jonah he says: "Most persons (plerique, very many),
regard the story of Jonah as teaching the ultimate forgiveness of all rational
creatures, even the devil." This shows us the prevalence of the doctrine in the
Fourth Century. His words are: "The apostate angels, and the prince of this
world, and Lucifer, the morning star, though now ungovernable, licentiously
wandering about, and plunging themselves into the depths of sin, shall in the
end, embrace the happy dominion of Christ and his saints." Gieseler quotes the
following sentence from Jerome's comments on Gal. 5:22, "No rational creature
before God will perish forever," and from this language the historian not only
classes Jerome as a Universalist, but considers it proof that the doctrine was
then prevalent in the West. "The learned, the famous Jerome (A.D. 380-390), was
at this time a Universalist of Origen's school. He was, indeed, a Latin writer;
but it may be more proper to introduce him with the Greek fathers, since he
completed his theological education in the East, and there spent the larger part
of his manhood and old age. A follower of Origen, from whose works he borrowed
without reserve, he nevertheless modified his scheme of universal salvation with
little change. At a later period he was led, by a theological and personal
quarrel, to take sides against this doctrine."7
John Chrysostom, A.D. 347-407, was born of Christian parentage in Antioch,
and became the golden-mouthed orator and one of the most celebrated of the
fathers. He was the intimate friend of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Diodore of
Tarsus, and a pupil of the latter for six years. He was no controversialist, his
works are chiefly expository and exhortative. His praise of his Universalist
friends, Theodore and Diodore, should predispose us to regard him as cherishing
their view of human destiny, notwithstanding his lurid descriptions of the
horrors of future torments.
Chrysostom's Views
In answer to the question, "Whether hell fire have any end," Chrysostom
says, "Christ declares that it hath no end. Well," he adds, "I know that a chill
comes over you on hearing these things, but what am I to do? For this is God's
own command, that it hath no end Christ hath declared. Pail also saith, in
pointing out the eternity of punishment, that the sinner shall pay the penalty
of destruction, and that forever."8 The reasonableness of the apparently
disproportioned penalty he feebly argues. A specimen of the utter inadequacy of
his argument is seen where he comments on the language, "If any man's work be
burned he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."
He says it means "that while the sinner's works shall perish, he shall be
preserved in fire for the purpose of torment." And he gives the very details: "A
river of fire, and a poisonous worm, and endless darkness, and undying
tortures."9 And yet he asks with a significant emphasis that seems to preclude
the thought of the sinner's irremediable suffering: "Tell me on what account do
you mourn for him that is departed? Is it because he was wicked? But for that
very reason you ought to give thanks, because his evil works are put a stop to."
"God is equally to be praised when he chastises, and when he frees from
chastisement. For both spring from goodness. It is right, then, to praise him
equally both for placing Adam in Paradise, and for expelling him; and to give
thanks not alone for the kingdom, but for Gehenna as well. Christ went to the
utterly black and joyless portion of Hades, and turned it into heaven,
transferring all its wealth, the race of man, into his royal treasury."10
Neander and Schaff
Dr. Schaff informs us that "Nitzsch includes Gregory Nazianzen and possibly
Chrysostom among Universalists, and says that Chrysostom praised Origen and
Diodorus, and that his comments on I. Cor. 15:28, looked toward an
apokatastasis."
Dr. Beecher ranks him among the "esoteric believers." Neander thinks he
believed in Universalism, but felt that the opposite doctrine was necessary to
alarm the multitude. On the words, "At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,"
Chrysostom says: "What does this mean of 'things in heaven, on earth, and under
the earth?' It means the whole world, and angels, and men, and demons. Or, it
signifies both the holy and sinners." A pupil of Diodore, of Tarsus, for six
years, and a fellow-student with Theodore of Mopsuestia, both Universalists, he
cannot be regarded as otherwise than in sympathy with them on this theme of
themes. He must have been one of those esoteric believers elsewhere described,
for he says according to Neander, that he had found the doctrine of endless
punishment necessary to the welfare of sinners, and on that account had preached
it. The influence of the Alexandrians was waning, and the heathen environment
was leavening Christianity, which soon assumed a phase wholly foreign to its
beginning purity. BACK
1 Hipp. and his Age. 2 Canon Freemantle in Dict.
Christ. Biog. Vol. III., 1 Art. Hieronymus. 3 Epist. xxxiii. Migne Vol.
XXII. 4 Plumptre, Dict. Christ Biog. II, Art. "Eschatology." 5
Com. on Amos. 6 He calls Origen "that immortal intellect." 7 Univ.
Quar, May, 1838. 8 Hom. IX on I Cor. 3:12-16. 9 Hom. XI on I Cor. 4:3. 10
Sermon xxxiv; on Ps. 148; Ser. xxx.
Chapter 20
Augustine--Deterioration Continued
Aurelius Augustinus was born in Tagaste, Numidia, November 13, 354, and died
in 420. He was the great fountain of error destined to adulterate Christianity,
and change its character for long ages. In disposition and spirit he was wholly
unlike the amiable and learned fathers who proclaimed an earlier and purer
faith. He fully developed that change in opinion which was destined to influence
Christianity for many centuries. He himself informs us that he spent his youth
in the brothels of Carthage after a mean, thieving boyhood.1 He cast off the
mother of his illegitimate son, Adeodatus, whom he ought to have married, as his
sainted mother, Monica, urged him to do. It is an interesting indication of the
Latin type of piety to know that his mother allowed him to live at home during
his shameless life, but that when he adopted the Manichaean heresy she forbade
him her house. And afterward, when he become "orthodox," though still living
immorally, she received him in her home. His life was destitute of the claims of
that paternal relation on which society rests, and which our Lord makes the
fundamental fact of his religion, Fatherhood. He transferred to God the
characteristics of semi-Pagan kings, and his theology was a hybrid born of the
Roman Code of Law and Pagan Mythology.
Augustine and Origen Contrasted
The contrast between Origen's system and Augustine's is as that of light and
darkness; with the first, Fatherhood, Love, Hope, Joy, Salvation; with the
other, Vengeance, Punishment, Sin, Eternal Despair. With Origen God triumphs in
final unity; with Augustine man continues in endless rebellion, and God is
defeated, and an eternal dualism prevails. And the effect on the believer was in
the one case a pitying love and charity that gave the melting heart that could
not bear to think of even the devil unsaved, and that antedated the poet's
prayer,--
"Oh, wad ye tak a thought and mend,"
and that believed the prayer would be answered; and in the other a
stony-hearted indifference to the misery of mankind, which he called "one damned
batch and mass of perdition."2
Augustine's Acknowledgment
Augustine brought his theology with him from Manichaeism when he became a
Christian, only he added endlessness to the dualism that Mani made temporal.
"The doctrine of endless punishment assumed in the writings of Augustine a
prominence and rigidity which had no parallel in the earlier history of theology
and which savors of the teaching of Mohammed more than of Christ.3 Hitherto,
even in the West, it had been an open question whether the punishment hereafter
of sin unrepented of and not forsaken was to be endless. Augustine has left on
record the fact that some, indeed very many, still fell back upon the mercy and
love of God as a ground of hope for the ultimate restoration of humanity.4 He is
the first writer to undertake a long and elaborate defense of the doctrine of
endless punishment, and to wage a major disagreement and refutation against its
critics. He rails the 'tender-hearted Christians,' as he calls them, who cannot
accept it." About 420 he speaks of his "merciful brethren,"5 or party of pity,
among the orthodox Christians, who advocate the salvation of all, and he
challenges them, like Origen, to advocate also the redemption of the devil and
his angels. Thus though the virus of Roman Paganism was extending, the truth of
the Gospel was yet largely held. And it was the immense power Augustine came to
wield that so dominated the church that it afterwards stamped out the doctrine
of universal salvation.
Augustine's Criticisms, Mistakes, and Ignorance
Augustine assumed and insisted that the words defining the duration of
punishment, in the New Testament, teach its endlessness, and the claim set up by
Augustine is the one still held by the advocates of "the dying belief," that
aeternus in the Latin, and aionios in the original Greek, mean interminable
duration. It seems that a Spanish presbyter, Orosius, visited Augustine in the
year 413, and besought him for arguments to meet the position that punishment is
not to be without end, because aionios does not denote eternal, but limited
duration. Augustine replied that though aion signifies limited as well as
endless duration, the Greeks only used aionios for endless, and he originated
the argument so much resorted to even yet, based in the fact that in Matt.
25:46, the same word is applied to "life," and to "punishment." The student of
Greek need not be told that Augustine's argument is incorrect, and he scarcely
needs to be assured that Augustine did not know Greek. This he confesses. He
says he "hates Greek," and the "grammar learning of the Greeks."6 It is abnormal
in the history of criticism that generations of scholars should take their cue
in a matter of Greek definition from one who admits that he had "learned almost
nothing of Greek," and was "not competent to read and understand" the language,
and reject the position held by those who were born Greeks! That such a man
should contradict and subvert the teachings of such men as Clement, Origen, the
Gregories and others whose mother-tongue was Greek, is passing strange. But his
powerful influence, aided by civil arm, established his doctrine till it came to
rule the centuries. Augustine always quotes the New Testament from the old Latin
version, the Itala, from which the Vulgate was formed, instead of the original
Greek. See Preface to "Confessions." It seems that the doctrine of Origen
prevailed in Northeastern Spain at this time, and that Jerome's translation of
Origen's "Principiis" had circulated with good effect, and that Augustine, to
counteract the influence of Origen's book, wrote in 415, a small work, "Against
the Priscillianists and Origenists." From about this time began the efforts of
Augustine and his followers that subsequently entirely changed the character of
Christian theology.
Milman on Augustinianism
Says Milman: "The Augustinian theology coincided with the tendencies of the
age towards the growth of the strong priestly system; and the priestly system
reconciled Christendom with the Augustinian theology." And it was in the age of
Augustine, at the maturity of his powers, that the Latin church developed its
theological system, "differing at every point from the earlier Greek theology,
starting from different premises, and carried on throughout by another motive,"7
and from that time, for nearly fifteen centuries it held sway, and for more than
a thousand years the sentiment of Christendom was little more or less than the
echo of the voice of Augustine. "When Augustine appeared the Greek tongue was
dying out, the Greek spirit was waning, the Paganism of Rome and its civil
genius were combined, and a Roman emperor usurped the throne of the God of
love."8
Augustine declared that God had no kind purpose in punishing; that it would
not be unjust to torment all souls forever; a few are saved to illustrate God's
mercy. The majority "are predestined to eternal fire with the devil." He held,
however, that all punishments beyond the grave are not endless. He says, "Non
autem omnes veniunt in sempiternas poenas, quae post illud judicium sunt
futurae, qui post mortem sustinent temporales."9
Augustine Less Severe Than Modern Orthodoxy
Augustine, however, held the penalties of sin in a much milder form than do
his degenerate theological descendants in modern times. He teaches that the lost
still retain goodness,--too valuable to be destroyed, and on that account the
worst are not in absolute evil, but only in a lower degree of good. "Grief for
lost good in a state of punishment is a witness of a good nature. For he who
grieves for the lost peace for his nature, grieves for it by means of some
remains of peace, by which it is caused that nature should be friendly to
itself." He taught that while unbaptized children must be damned in a Gehenna of
fire, their torments would be light (levissima) compared with the torment of
other sinners, and that their condition would be far preferable to
non-existence, and so on the whole a blessing. In a limbus infantum they would
only receive a mitissima damnatio. He also taught that death did not necessary
end probation, as is quite fully shown under "Christ's Descent into Hades."
Augustine's idea was reduced to rhyme in the sixteenth century by the Rev.
Michael Wigglesworth, of Malden, Mass., who was the Puritan pastor of the church
in that place. A curious fact in the history of the parish is this,--that the
church in which these ridiculous sentiments were uttered became, in 1828, by
vote of the parish, Universalist, and is now the Universalist church in Malden.
The poem represents God as saying to non-elect infants:
"You sinners are, and such a share As sinners may expect, Such you shall
have, for I do save None but my own elect. Yet to compare your sin with theirs
Who lived a longer time, I do confess yours is much less Though every sin's a
crime. A crime it is, therefore in bliss You may not hope to dwell, But unto you
I shall allow The easiest room in hell!"
Augustine thought that the cleansing fire might burn away pardonable sins
between death and the resurrection. He says: "I do not refute it, because,
perhaps, it is true;"10 and that the sins of the good may be eradicated by a
similar process.
He was certainly an example that might advantageously have been copied by
opponents of Universalism in very recent years. Though he said the church
"detested" it, he kindly added: "They who believe this, and yet are Catholics,
seem to me to be deceived by a certain human tenderness," and he urged Jerome to
continue to translate Origen for the benefit of the African church!11
Decadence and Deterioration
Under such malign influences, however, the broad and generous theology of
the East soon passed away; the language in which it was expressed--the language
of Clement, Origen, Basil, the Gregories, became unknown among the Christians of
the West; the cruel doctrines of Augustine harmonized with the cruelty of the
barbarians and of Roman Paganism combined, and thus Africa smothered the milder
spirit of Christendom, and Augustine secured the shackles that were to imprison
the church for more than ten long centuries. "The triumph of Latin theology was
the death of rational exegesis."
But before this evil influence prevailed, some of the great Latin fathers
rivaled the immortal leaders in the Oriental church. Among these was Ambrose, of
whom Jerome says, "nearly all his books are full of Origenism," which Huet
repeats, while the "Dictionary of Christian Biography" tells us that he teaches
that "even to the wicked death is a gain." Thus the cheerful, warm thought of
Origen was still potent, even in the West, though a harder theology was
overcoming it.
Says Hagenbach: "In proportion to the development of ecclesiastical
orthodoxy into fixed and systematic shape was the loss of individual freedom in
respect to the formulation of doctrines, and the increased peril of becoming
heretical. The more liberal tendency of former theologians, such as Origen,
could no longer be tolerated, and was at length condemned. But, notwithstanding
this external condemnation, the spirit of Origen continued to animate the chief
theologians of the East, though it was kept within narrower limits. The works of
this great teacher were also made known in the West by Jerome and Rufinus, and
exerted an influence even upon his opponents." After Justinian the Greek empire
and influence contracted, and the Latin and Roman power expanded. Latin became
the language of Christianity, and Augustine's system and followers used it as
the instrument of molding Christianity into an Africo-Romano heathenism. The
Apostles' and Nicene creeds were disregarded, and Arianism (the idea that Christ
was a created being who wasn't supposedly fully Deity), Origenism, Pelagianism
(the view that man has a free-will), Manichaeism (a supposed ongoing dual
between God and Satan), and other so-called heresies were nearly or quite
obliterated, and the Augustinian inventions of original and inherited depravity,
predestination, and endless hell torments, became the theology of Christendom.
Christianity Paganized
Thus, says Schaff, "the Roman state, with its laws, institutions, and
usages, was still deeply rooted in heathenism. The Christianizing of the state
amounted therefore to a paganizing and secularizing of the church. The world
overcame the church as much as the church overcame the world, and the temporal
gain of Christianity was in many respects canceled by spiritual loss. The mass
of the Roman Empire was baptized only with water, not with the spirit and fire
of the Gospel, and it smuggled heathen practices and manners into the sanctuary
under a new name." The broad faith of the primitive Christians paled and faded
before the lurid terrors of Augustinianism. It vanished in the Sixth Century,
"crushed out," says Bigg, "by tyranny and the dark weighted ignorance of the
age." It remained in the East a while, was "widely dispersed among the
monasteries of Egypt and Palestine," and only ceased when Augustinianism and
Catholicism and the power of Rome ushered in and fostered the darkness of the
Dark Ages. Says an accurate writer: "If Augustine had not been born an African,
and trained as a Manichee, nay, if he had only faced the labor of learning
Greek--a labor from which he confesses that he had shrunk--the whole stream of
Christian theology might have been purer and more sweet."
Augustinianism Cruel
In no other respect did Augustine differ more widely from Origen and the
Alexandrians than in his intolerant spirit. Even Tertullian conceded to all the
right of opinion. Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose, Athanasius and Augustine
himself in his earlier days, recorded the tolerance that Christianity demands.
But he afterwards came to advocate and defend the persecution of religious
opponents. Milman observes: "With shame and horror we hear from Augustine
himself that fatal proposition which irreverently arranged cruelty in the garb
of Christian charity."12 He was the first in the long line of Christian
persecutors, and illustrates the character of the theology that swayed him in
the wicked spirit that compelled him to advocate the right to persecute
Christians who differ from those in power. The dark pages that bear the record
of subsequent centuries are a damning witness to the cruel spirit that
stimulated these "Christians", and the cruel theology that compelled it.
Augustine "was the first and ablest asserter of the principle which led to
Albigensian crusades, Spanish armadas, Netherland's butcheries, St. Bartholomew
massacres, the accursed infamies of the Inquisition, the vile espionage, the
hideous large fires of Seville and Smithfield, the racks, the gallows, the
thumbscrews, the subterranean torture-chambers used by churchly torturers."13
And George Sand well says that the Roman church committed suicide the day she
invented an implacable God and eternal damnation.14 BACK
1 Confessions, III, Chap. i-iii. 2 Conspersio
damnata, massa perditionis. 3 Allen, Cont. Christ. Thought. 4
Enchiridion cxii: "Frustra itaque nonulli, imo quam plurimi, aeternam damnatorum
poenam et cruciatus sine intermissione perpetuos humano miserantur affectu,
atque ita futurum esse non credunt." 5 Misericordibus nostris. De Civ.
Dei., xxi: 17. 6 Graecae autem linguae non sit nobis tantus habitus, ut
talium rerum libris legendis et intelligendis ullo modo reperiamur idonei, (De
Trin. lib III); and, et ego quidem graecae linguae perparum assecutus sum, et
prope nihil. (Contra litteras Petiliani, lib II, xxxviii, 91. Migne, Vol.
XLIII.) Quid autem erat causae cur graecas litteras oderam quibus puerulus
imbuebar ne nunc quidem mihi satis exploratum est: "But what was the cause of my
dislike of Greek literature, which I studied from my boyhood, I cannot even now
understand." Conf. I:13. This ignorance of the original Scriptures was a poor
outfit with which to furnish orthodox critics for a thousand years. See
Rosenmuller, Hist. Interp., iii, 40. 7 Latin Christ. I. 8 Allen,
Cont. Christ Thought, p. 156. 9 De Civ. Dei. 10 De Civ. Dei. "non
redarguo, quia forsitan verum est." 11 Ep. 8. 12 Latin
Christianity, I, 127. 13 Farrar's Lives of the Fathers. 14 " L'
Eglise Romaine s'est porte le dernier coup: elle a consomme son suicide le jour
on elle a fait Dieu implacable et la damnation eternelle." Spiridion.
Chapter 21
Unsuccessful Attempts to Suppress
Universalism
Historians and writers on the state of opinion in the early church have
quite often erred in declaring that an ecclesiastical council pronounced the
doctrine of universal salvation heretical, as early as the Sixth Century. Even
so learned and accurate a writer as our own Dr. Ballou, has fallen into this
error, though his editor, the Rev. A. St. John Chambre, D.D., subsequently
corrected the mistake in a brief note.
A.D. 399 a council in Jerusalem condemned the Origenists, and all who held
with them, that the Son was in any way subordinate to the Father. In 401 a
council in Alexandria anathematized the writings of Origen, presumably for the
same reason as above. Certainly his views of human destiny were not mentioned.
In 544-6, a condemnation of Origen's views of human salvation was attempted
to be extorted from a small, local council in Constantinople, by the emperor
Justinian, but his edict was not obeyed by the council. He issued an edict to
Mennas, patriarch of Constantinople, requiring him to assemble the bishops
resident, or casually present there, to condemn the doctrine of universal
restoration. Bitterly proclaiming ten anathemas, he especially urged Mennas to
anathematize the doctrine "that wicked men and devils will at length be
discharged from their torments, and re-established in their original state."1 He
wrote to Mennas requiring him to frame a canon in these words: "Whoever says or
thinks that the torments of the demons and of impious men are temporal, so that
they will at length come to an end, or whoever holds to a restoration either of
the demons or of the impious, let him be anathema."
Justinian's Views
It is conceded that the half-heathen emperor held to the idea of endless
misery, for he proceeds not only to defend, but to define the doctrine.2 He does
not merely say, "We believe in aionion kolasin," for that was just what Origen
himself taught. Nor does he say "the word aionion has been misunderstood; it
denotes endless duration," as he would have said, had there been such a
disagreement. But, writing in Greek, with all the words of that ample language
from which to choose, he says: "The holy church of Christ teaches an endless
aeonian (ateleutetos aionios) life to the righteous, and endless (ateleutetos)
punishment to the wicked." If he supposed aionios denoted endless duration, he
would not have added the stronger word to it. The fact that he qualified it by
ateleutetos, demonstrated that as late as the sixth century the former word did
not signify endless duration.
Justinian need only to have consulted his contemporary, Olympiodorus, who
wrote on this very subject, to vindicate his language. In his commentary on the
Meteorologica of Aristotle,8 he says: "Do not suppose that the soul is punished
for endless ages in Tartarus. Very properly the soul is not punished to gratify
the revenge of the divinity, but for the sake of healing. But we say that the
soul is punished for an aeonian period, calling its life, and its allotted
period of punishment, its aeon." It will be noticed that he not only denies
endless punishment, and denies that the doctrine can be expressed by aionios
declares that punishment is temporary and results in the sinner's improvement.
Justinian not only concedes that aionios requires a word denoting endlessness to
give it the sense of limitless duration, but he insists that the council shall
frame a canon containing a word that shall indisputably express the doctrine of
endless woe, while it shall condemn those who advocate universal salvation. Now
though the emperor exerted his great influence to foist his heathen doctrine
into the Church canons, he failed; for nothing resembling it appears in the
canons enacted by the synod council.
The synod voted fifteen canons, not one of which condemns universal
restoration.
Home Synod Canons
The first canon reads thus: "If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of
souls, and the monstrous restitution which follows from it, let him be
anathema."
This condemnation, it will be readily seen, is not of universal salvation,
but of a "monstrous" restitution based on the soul's pre-existence. That this
view is correct appears from the fourteenth anathema:
"If anyone says that there will be a single unity of all rational beings,
their substances and individualities being taken away together with their
bodies, and also that there will be an identity of cognition as also of persons,
and that in the fabulous restitution they will only be naked even as they had
existed in that prae-existence which they insanely introduced, let him be
anathema."
The reader will at once perceive that these canons do not describe any
genuine form of our faith, but only a distorted caricature which no doubt was
thought to represent the doctrine they opposed. But not one of the nine
anathemas ordered by Justinian was sanctioned by the council. They were laid
before the Home Synod, but the Synod did not endorse them. Fifteen canons were
passed, but the Synod refused to condemn universal salvation. Justinian was
unable to compel the bishops under his control to condemn the doctrine he hated,
but which they must have favored. The theory here condemned is not that of
universal salvation, but the "fabulous pre-existence of souls, and the monstrous
restitution that results from it."4
The bishops, says Landon, declared that they adhered to the doctrines of
Athanasius, Basil and the Gregories. The doctrine of Theodore on the Sonship of
Christ was condemned, also the teachings of Theodoret. "Origen was not
condemned."5
The Council Refused to Condemn Universalism
Even the influence of Justinian and his compliant bishop, and his
disreputable queen, failed to force the measure through. The action of this
local Synod has been incorrectly ascribed to the Fifth OEcumenical Council, nine
years later, which has also been inaccurately supposed to have condemned
Universalism, when it merely reprehended some of the wandering notions of
"Origenism"--doctrines that even Origen himself never accepted, but that were
falsely ascribed to him by ignorant or malicious opponents; doctrines that no
more resemble universal restoration, as taught by the Alexandrine fathers, than
they resemble Theosophy or Buddhism. So that, though the Home Synod was called
by the Emperor Justinian expressly to condemn Universalism, and was commanded by
imperial edict to anathematize it, and though it formulated fifteen canons, it
refused to obey the Emperor, and did not say one word against the doctrine the
Emperor wished to anathematize. The local council came to no decision. Justinian
himself had just condemned the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and
Theodoret, and a terrible controversy and division ensued, and Theodorus, of
Cesaraea, declared that both himself and Pelagius, who had sought the
condemnation of Origen, ought to be burnt alive for their conduct.6
In the Fifth General Council of 553 the name of Origen appears with others
in the eleventh canon, but the best scholars think that the insertion of his
name is a forgery.
Whether so or not, there is not a word referring to his views of human
destiny. His name only appears among the names of the heretics, such as "Arius,
Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Eutyches, Origen and other impious men, and
all other heretics who are condemned and anathematized by the Catholic and
Apostolical Church, etc."7 The Fifth Ecumenical Council, which was held nine
years later than the local, neither condemned Origen by name, nor anathematized
his Universalism. The object of this council was to condemn certain Nestorian
doctrines; and Gregory of Nyssa, the most explicit of Universalists, is referred
to with honor by the council, and as the denial of endless punishment by Origen,
and his advocacy of Universalism are not named, we cannot avoid the conviction
that the council was controlled by those who held, or at least did not repudiate
Universalism.
Great confusion exists among the authorities on this subject. The local
council has been confounded with the general. Hefele has disentangled the
perplexities.
It was not even at that late day--three centuries after his death--the
Universalism of Origen that caused the hatred of his opponents, but his
opposition to the policy of having bishops run the church, his insisting on the
triple sense of the Word (including allegorizing), etc., and the peculiar form
of a mis-stated doctrine of the restoration.8
Universalism not Condemned for Five Centuries
Now, let the reader remember that for more than five hundred years, during
which Universalism had prevailed, not a single treatise against it is known to
have been written. And with the exception of Augustine, no opposition appears to
have been aroused against it on the part of any eminent Christian writer. And
not only so, but A.D. 381, at the first great Ecumenical Council of
Constantinople, the intellectual leader was Gregory of Nyssa, who was only
second to Origen as an advocate of universal restoration. Thus his followers,
not only, but his opponents on other topics, accepted the great truth of the
Gospel. As Dr. Beecher pointedly observes: "It is also a striking fact that
while Origen lies under a load of odium as a heretic, Gregory of Nyssa, who
taught the doctrine of the restoration of all things more fully even than
Origen, has been canonized, and stands high on the roll of eminent saints, even
in the orthodox Roman Catholic Church." Beecher's conclusion is, "That the
modern orthodox views as to the doctrine of eternal punishment, as opposed to
final restoration, were not fully developed and established till the middle of
the Sixth Century, and that then they were not established by thorough argument,
but by imperial authority." But the fact is that they were not even then matured
and established.
The learned Professor Plumptre says in the "Dictionary of Christian
Biography": "We have no evidence that the belief in the restitution of all,
which prevailed in the fourth and fifth centuries was ever definitely condemned
by any council of the Church, and so far as Origen was named as coming under the
church's censure it was rather as if involved in the general sentence passed
upon the leaders of Nestorianism, than singled out for special and
characteristic errors. So the council of Constantinople, the so-called Fifth
General Council, A.D. 553, condemns Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius,
Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen in a lump, but does not specify the errors of the
last-named, as though they differed in kind from theirs, and it is not till in
the council of Constantinople, known as in Trullo (A.D. 696) that we find an
anathema which specifies somewhat cloudily the guilt of Theodore of Mopsuestia,
and Origen, and Didymus, and Evagrius, as consists in their 'inventing a
mythology after the manner of the Greeks, and inventing changes and migrations
for our souls and bodies, and impiously uttering drunken ravings as to the
future life of the dead.' It deserves to be noted that this ambiguous anathema
pronounced by a council of no authority, under the weak and vicious Emperor
Justinian II, is the only approach to a condemnation of the eschatology of
Origen which the annals of the church councils present."9
Significant Facts and Conclusions
Now let the reader summarize: (1) Origen during his life-time was never
opposed for his Universalism; (2) after his death Methodius, about A.D. 300,
attacked his views of the resurrection, creation and pre-existence, but said not
a word against his Universalism; (3) ten years later Pamphilus and Eusebius
(A.D. 310) defended him against nine charges that had been brought against his
views, but his Universalism was not among them; (4) in 330 Marcellus of Ancyra,
a Universalist, opposed him for his views of the Trinity, and (5) Eustathius for
his teachings concerning the Witch of Endor, but limited their arraignment to
those items; (6) in 376 Epiphanius assailed his heresies, but he did not name
Universalism as among them, and in 394 he condemned Origen's doctrine of the
salvation of the Devil, but not of all mankind; (7) in 399 and 401, his views of
Christ's death to save the Devil were attacked by Epiphanius, Jerome and
Theophilus, and his advocacy of the subordination of Christ to God was
condemned, but not his teachings of man's universal salvation; and (8) it was
not till 544 and again in 553 that his enemies formulated attacks on that
doctrine, and made a cat's-paw of a half-heathen Emperor, and even then, though
the latter framed a canon for the synod, it was never adopted, and the council
adjourned--owing, it must have been, to the Universalistic sentiment in
it--without a word of condemnation of Origen's Universalism. With the exception
of Augustine, the doctrine which had been constantly advocated, often by the
most eminent, did not evoke a frown of opposition from any eminent scholar or
saint.
The Ancient Councils
The character of these ancient synods and councils is well described by
Gregory Nazianzen, A.D. 382, in a letter to Procopius: "I am determined to avoid
every assembly of bishops. I have never seen a single instance in which a synod
did any good. Strife and ambition dominate them to an incredible degree. From
councils and synods I will keep myself at a distance, for I have experienced
that most of them, to speak with moderation, are not worth much. I will not sit
in the seat of synods, while geese and cranes confused wrangle. Discord is
there, and shameful things, hidden before, are gathered into one meeting place
of rivals." Milman tells us: "Nowhere is Christianity less attractive, and if we
look to the ordinary tone and character of the proceedings, less authoritative
than in the Councils of the Church. It is in general a fierce collision of rival
fact, neither of which will yield, each of which is solemnly pledged against
conviction. Intrigue, injustice, violence, decisions on authority alone, and
that the authority of a turbulent majority, decisions by wild acclamation rather
than after sober inquiry, detract from the reverence, and impugn the judgments,
at least of the later councils. The close is almost invariably a terrible
anathema, in which it is impossible not to discern the tones of human hatred, of
arrogant triumph, of rejoicing at the damnation invoked against the humiliated
adversary."10 Scenes of strife and even murder in connection with ancient
ecclesiastical councils were not uncommon.
There is no evidence whatever to show that it was not entirely allowable for
five hundred years after Christ, to entertain the belief in universal salvation.
Besides, the Council of Nice, A.D. 325, had, as an active member, Eusebius,
Origen's apologist, a pronounced Universalist; the Council of Constantinople,
A.D. 381, had as active members the two Gregories, Nazianzus and Nyssa, the
latter as outspoken a Universalist as Origen himself; the Council of Ephesus,
A.D. 431, declared that Gregory Nyssen's writings were the great bulwark against
heresy. The fact that the doctrine was and had been for centuries prevalent, if
not the prevailing sentiment, demonstrates that it must have been regarded as a
Christian doctrine by the members of these great councils, or they would have
denounced it.
How preposterous the idea that the prevailing sentiment of Christendom was
adverse to the doctrine of universal restoration even as late as the middle of
the Sixth Century, when these great, heresy-hunting bodies met and dispersed
without condemning it, even at the dictation of a tyrannical Emperor, who
expressly demanded its condemnation.
1. Neander and Gieseler say that the name of Origen was foisted into the
declaration of the Fifth Council by forgery at a later date. 2. But if the
condemnation was actually adopted it was of "Origenism," which was synonymous
with other opinions. 3. "Origenism" could not have meant Universalism, for
several of the leaders of the council that condemned Origenism held to universal
restitution. 4. Besides, the council eulogistically referred to the Gregories
(Nazianzen and Nyssen) who were Universalists as explicit as was Origen.
Manifestly, if the Council had meant Universalism by "Origenism," it would not
have condemned as a deadly heresy in Origen what Gregory of Nyssa advocated, and
anathematized the one, and glorified the other.
Justinian's Suppression of the Truth
Justinian not only commanded the council to suppress Universalism, but he
arbitrarily closed the schools in Athens, Alexandria and Antioch, and drove out
the great church centers that theological science that had been its glory. He
had "brought the whole empire under his sway and he wished in like manner to
settle finally the law and the dogmatics of the empire." To accomplish this evil
work he found an aid in Rome, in a "characterless Pope (Vigilius) who, in
gratifying the emperor covered himself with disgrace, and jeopardized his
position in the European continent." But he succeeded in inaugurating measures
that extinguished the broad faith of the greatest fathers of the church.
"Henceforth," says Harnack, "there was no longer a theological science going
back to first principles."11
The historians inform us that Justinian the great opponent of Universalism
was positive, irritable, apt to change his views, and accessible to the
flatteries and influences of those who surrounded him, nevertheless very
opinionated in insisting upon any view he happened at the time to hold, and
prepared to enforce compliance by the free employment of his despotic power," a
"temporal pope."12 The corrupt Bishop Theophilus, the vile Eudoxia and the
equally disreputable, though beautiful, crafty and unscrupulous Theodora,
exercised a malign influence on Justinian, the Emperor, and, thus was dictated
the action of the council described above.
Justinian and His Age
Milman declares: "The Emperor Justinian unites in himself the most opposite
vices,--insatiable plundering and lavish squandering, intense pride and
contemptible weakness, unmeasured ambition and dastardly cowardice. He is the
devoted slave of his Empress, whom, after she had ministered to the licentious
pleasures of the populace as a harlot and so an actress in the most immodest
exhibitions, in defiance of decency, of honor, of the objections of his friends,
and of religion, he had made the partner of his throne. In the Christian Emperor
seemed to meet the crimes of those who won or secured their empire by the
assassination of all whom they feared, the passion for public diversions without
the accomplishments of Nero, the brute strength of Commodus, or the senility of
Claudius." And he was the champion of endless punishment in the Sixth Century!
Justinian is described as austerely disciplined, a scholar, and one who
obnoxiously flaunts his learning, "neither beloved in his life, nor regretted at
his death."
The age of Justinian, says Lecky, that condemned Origen, is conceded to have
been the vilest of the Christian centuries. The doctrine of a hell of literal
fire and endless duration had begun to be an engine of tyranny in the hands of
an unscrupulous priesthood, and a tyrannical emperor, and moral degradation had
kept pace with the theological declination. "The universal verdict of history is
that it constitutes, without a single exception, the most thoroughly base and
despicable form that civilization has yet assumed." Contrasted with the age of
Origen it was as night to day. And the persons who were most active and
prominent in the condemnation of the great Alexandrian were fit implements for
the task. On this point the language of Farrar in "Mercy and Judgment" is
accurate: "Every fresh study of the original authorities only leaves on my mind
a deeper impression that even in the Fifth Century Universalism as regards
mankind was regarded as a perfectly held opinion."
The Divine Light Eclipsed
Thus the record of the times shows, and the testimony of the scholars who
have made the subject a careful study concedes, that though there were sporadic
assaults on the doctrine of universal restitution in the fourth and fifth
centuries; they were not successful in placing the ban of a single council upon
it; even to the middle of the Sixth Century. So far as history shows the sublime
fact which the great Alexandrians made prominent--the
"One divine event to which the whole creation moves,"
had never been reproached by any considerable portion of the Christian
church for at least its first half a millennium of years.
The subsequent history of Christianity shows but too plainly that the
continued influence of Roman law and Pagan theology as incarnated in the mighty
brain of Augustine, came to dominate the Christian world, and at length almost
obliterate the faith once delivered to the saints--the faith that exerted so
vast an influence in the church's earliest and best centuries--and spread the
covering of darkness over Christendom, so that the light of the central fact of
the Gospel was scarcely seen for sad and cruel centuries. BACK
1 Nicephorus, Eccle. Hist., xvii: 27. Hefele, iv: 220.
2 Murdock's Mosheim I, pp. 410-11; Gieseler, Hist. vi, p. 478. Also
Hagenbach and Neander. Cave's Historia Literaria. 3 Vol. 1, p. 282.
Ideler's edition. 4 Mansi IX, p. 395; Hefele, iv: 336. 5 Landon,
pp. 177-8. 6 Landon, Manual of Councils, London, 1846, p. 174. 7
The canon reads: "Si quis non anathematizat Arium, Eunomium, Macedonium,
Apollinarium, Nestorium, Eutychen, Origenem cum impiis eorum conscriptis, et
alios omnes haereticos, qui condemnati et anathematizati sunt a Catholica et
Apostolica Ecclesia," etc. 8 Dietelmaier declares that many of the church
doctors agreed with Origen in advocating the salvability of the devil. 9
Article Eschatology p. 194; also Spirits in Prison, p. 41. 10 Latin
Christ. I, p. 227. 11 Outlines Hist. Dog., pp. 204, 8, 320, 323.
12 Sozomen, Eccl. Hist.; Gibbon, Decline and Fall.
Chapter 22
The Eclipse of Universalism
The submergence of Christian Universalism in the dark waters of Augustinian
Christo-paganism, after having been the prevailing theology of Christendom for
centuries, is one of the strange phenomena in the history of religious thought.
This volume explains, in part, this obscure phenomenon. History testifies that
at the close of what Hagenbach calls the second period, from A.D. 254 to A.D.
730, the opinion in favor of endless punishment had become "more general." Only
a few belonging to the "Origenist humanity still dared to express a glimmer of
hope in favor of the damned the doctrine of the restitution of all things shared
the fate of Origenism, and made its appearance in after ages only in connection
with other heretical notions."
Disappearance of the Truth
Kingsley attributes the decadence and deterioration of the Alexandrine
School and its doctrines and methods, to the abandonment of its intense
activity, to the relinquishment of the great enthusiasm for humanity that
characterized Clement, Origen and their co-workers. He says: "Having no more
Heathens to fight, they began fighting each other; they became dogmatists and
lost the knowledge of God, of righteousness, and love, and peace. That Divine
Logos, and theology as a whole receded farther and farther aloft into abysmal
heights, as it became a mere dreary system of dead scientific terms, having no
practical bearing on their hearts and lives." In a word, their abandonment of
the principles of Clement and his school, left the field open to the more
practical, direct and methodical, though degraded and corrupt theories of
Augustine and his associates. This process continued till toward the middle of
the Seventh Century, when, as Kingsley observes: "In the year 640, the
Alexandrians who were tearing each other in pieces about some Jacobite and
Melchite controversy, to me incomprehensible in the midst of these Jacobite and
Melchite controversies and riots, appeared before the city the armies of certain
wild and uneducated Arab tribes. A short and fruitless struggle followed; and
strange to say, a few months swept away from the face of the earth, not only the
wealth, the commerce, the castles, and the liberty, but the philosophy and the
Christianity of Alexandria; crushed to powder, by one fearful blow, all that had
been built up by Alexander and the Ptolemies, by Clement and the philosophers,
and made void, to all appearance, nine hundred years of human toil. The people,
having no real hold on their hereditary creed, accepted, by tens of thousands,
that of the Mussulman invaders. The Christian remnant became tributaries, and
Alexandria dwindled from that time forth into a petty seaport town."1
The "Universalist Quartarly," January, 1878, attributes the decline and
disappearance of Universalism to an entire absence of argument on the part of
its advocates; and also regarding the doctrine as esoteric, instead of for all;
in other words, the undemocratic methods of those who accepted it. These
factors, no doubt, contributed, but they are not alone sufficient to account for
its disappearance.2
Christianity's Eclipse
It is not a part of the plan of this work to follow its fate after its
almost entire disappearance for centuries. The combined efforts of Augustine and
his assistants and successors, or popes and emperors, of Paganism and Latin
secularism, of ignorant half-converted hordes of heathen barbarians, and of a
hierarchy that could not employ it in its ambitious schemes, at length
crystallized into the pseudo-Christianity that reigned like a nightmare over
Christendom, from the Seventh to the Fifteenth Century. Ignorance, cruelty,
oppression, were well-nigh universal, and the condition of mankind reflected the
views held by the church, of the character of God and of man, of time and of
eternity, of heaven and of hell. Perhaps the darkest hour of the night of ages
was just before the dawn of the Reformation. The prevalent Christian thought was
represented in literature and art, and its best exponents of the sentiment of a
thousand years are the works of the great artist, Michael Angelo, and of the
equally great poet, Dante. They agree in spirit, and black and white, darkness
and light, truth and falsehood are not more contrasting than is the theology of
Dante and Angelo contrasted with the cheerful simplicity, the divine purity of
the primitive Christian faith. "That was a dark night that fell upon
Christianity when its thought became Latinized. When Christianity came to be
interpreted by the straightforward, dull, unspiritual legal mind of Rome, the
Gospel went into a fearful eclipse. When the Greek thought of Christ gave way to
the Latin a night came upon the Christian world that has extended to the present
day. Then were born all those half-views, distorted views, and false views of
Christian doctrine and Christian life that have perverted the Gospel, puzzled
the human intellect and grieved the human heart through all the long centuries
from that day to this."3
The Caricatures of Dante and Angelo
Two great men of genius of the first order, the marvelous artist, Michael
Angelo, and the equally great poet, Dante, on canvas and in verse, gathered at
its culmination the nightmare of unbelief that had darkened the preceding
centuries. In Dante are "Christian heroes appearing in heathenish aspect, and
heathenish poets and thinkers half-warmed by the light of Christianity," a happy
characterization of the mixed product of truth and error that Dante describes,
and that passed for Christianity during the Sixteenth Century, and with
modifications, has since prevailed. The "Last Judgment" of Michael Angelo
harmonizes with the thought of the great poet. It is a Pagan reminiscence--a
hideous heathen dream. The meek and lowly Man of Nazareth who would not break
the bruised reed was travestied by a monstrous caricature. "An unclothed,
broad-shouldered hero, with arms upraised that could strike down a Hercules,
distributing blessings and curses, his hair fluttering like flames which the
storm blows back, and his angry countenance looking down on the condemned with
frightful eyes, as if he wished to hasten forward the destruction in which his
word has plunged them. The whole figure recalls the words of Dante, in which he
calls Christ 'Sommo Giove,'--the most-high Jupiter. This he is here; not the
suffering Son of Man, gentle as the moon, silent rather than speaking, with the
foreboding of his fate written in his sad eyes. Yet, if a Last Judgment were to
be painted, with everlasting condemnation, and Christ as the judge who
pronounces it, how could he appear otherwise than in such terribleness? Such is
Michael Angelo's Last Judgment. While we cherish a feeling that at that day,
whenever it occurs, the love of God will remit all sins as earthly error, the
Roman sees alone anger and revenge, as proceeding from the Supreme Being, when
he comes in contact with humanity for the last time. For the sinner is forever
from now on to be condemned. It is an echo of the old idea, often enough
recurring in the Old Testament, that the Divine Being is an angry and fearful
power, which must be appeased, instead of the Source of good alone, abolishing
at last all evil as an influence that has deceived and diverted mankind. As we
look, however, at the Last Judgment on the wall of the Sistine Chapel, it is no
longer a similarity to us, but a monument of the imaginative spirit of a past
age and of a strange people, whose ideas are no longer ours. Dante created a new
world for the Romanic nations by remodeling the forms of heathen antiquity for
his Christian mythology."4 Materialistic, gross, was the Christianity that ruled
and oppressed mankind for nearly a thousand years, and it is reflected in the
pages of Dante, and on the canvas of Angelo, and it reverberates with ever
decreasing echoes--thank God!--in the subsequent creeds of Christendom. Almost
the only gleam of light, that relieved while it intensified the blackness of the
darkness of Christendom during those dreadful centuries was the worship of Mary.
Re-birth of Universalism
The resurrection of Universalism after an eclipse of a thousand years is as
remarkable as was its strange disappearance. No better illustration can be found
than the history of our faith gives, of the tenacity of life, the immortality,
of truth. It calls to mind the language of the German sage, Schopenhauer:
"Doubtless error can play its part, like owls in the night. But we should sooner
expect the owls to cause the terrified sun to retire to the East, than to see
the truth, once proclaimed, to be so repressed as that ancient error might
recover its lost ground, and re-establish itself there in peace." To truth
belong "God's eternal years," and her emergence after so long a disappearance is
an illustration of her immortal vitality. "Crushed to earth" she has "risen
again," and is fast being accepted by a regenerated Christendom.
The Dawn of Truth
With the invention of printing, the dawn of light in the Reformation,5 and
the increase of intelligence, our distinctive form of faith has not only grown
and extended, but its leavening power has modified the creeds of Christendom,
softening all harsh theories, and unfolding a "rose of dawn" in all Christian
lands. Though, like its author and revealer, it seemed to die, it was, like Him,
to come forth to a new and glorious resurrection, for the views held by the
great saints and scholars in the first centuries of Christianity were
substantially those that are taught by the Universalist Church for the current
century, so far as they include the character of God, the nature and final
destiny of mankind, the resurrection, the judgment, the purpose and end of
punishment, and other related original themes. On these subjects the great
Church fathers stand as representatives of the Universalism of to-day, so that
the progress of Christian ideas that the end of the present century is
witnessing, is not as many think towards something new, but is towards the
position of the early Christians seventeen hundred years ago. It is a re-birth,
a restoration of Christianity to its primitive purity. As Max Muller has
recently written: "If we want to be true and honest Christians, we must go back
to those earliest ante-Nicene authorities, the true fathers of the church."6
This is being done by Christians in all branches of the church. The Bible, which
the hands of ignorance has overwritten into a hideous document, is being read
with something of its divine meaning, and as increasing light pours upon the
sacred page, more and more men are learning to spell its blessed messages
correctly, as they were spoken or written at the beginning--as the ante-Nicene
fathers read them--in harmony with man's intellectual, moral and affectional
nature, and with the character and attributes of the Universal Father.
BACK
1 Alexandria and her Schools. 2 Rev. S. S.
Hebberd. 3 Rev. S. Crane, D.D., in The Universalist. 4 Grimm's
Michael Angelo. 5 "In Germany alone, in six years from the promulgation
of the ninety-five theses at Wittenberg, the number of annual publications
increased twelvefold." Rev. W. W. Ramsay, Methodism and Literature, p. 232.
6 Paper read at the World's Parliament of Religions, Chicago, September,
1893.
Chapter 23
Summary of Conclusions
A few of the many points established in the foregoing pages may here be
named:
(1) During the First Century the primitive Christians did not dwell on
matters of eschatology, but devoted their attention to apologetics; they were
chiefly anxious to establish the fact of Christ's advent, and of its blessings
to the world. Possibly the question of destiny was an open one, till Paganism
and Judaism introduced erroneous ideas, when the New Testament doctrine of the
apokatastasis was asserted, and universal restoration became an accepted belief,
as stated later by Clement and Origen, A.D. 180-230.
(2) The Catacombs give us the views of the unlearned, as Clement and Origen
state the doctrine of scholars and teachers. Not a syllable is found hinting at
the horrors of Augustinianism, but the inscription on every monument harmonizes
with the Universalism of the early fathers.
(3) Clement declares that all punishment, however severe, is for
purification; that even the "torments of the damned" are curative. Origen
explains even Gehenna as signifying limited and curative punishment, and both,
as all the other ancient Universalists, declare that "everlasting" (aionion)
punishment, is in accord with universal salvation. So that it is no proof that
other primitive Christians who are less explicit as to the final result, taught
endless punishment when they employ the same terms.
(4) Like our Lord and his Apostles, the primitive Christians avoided the
words with which the Pagans and Jews defined endless punishment aidios or
adialeipton timoria (endless torment), a doctrine the latter believed, and knew
how to describe; but they, the early Christians, called punishment, as did our
Lord, kolasis aionios, discipline, chastisement, of indefinite, limited
duration.
(5) The early Christians taught that Christ preached the Gospel to the dead,
and for that purpose descended into Hades. Many held that he released all who
were in ward. This shows that repentance beyond the grave, endless probation,
was then accepted, which excludes the modern error that the soul's destiny is
decided at death.
(6) Prayers for the dead were universal in the early church, which would be
absurd, if their condition is unalterably fixed at the grave.
(7) The idea that false threats were necessary to keep the common people in
check, and that the truth might be held esoterically, prevailed among the
earlier Christians, so that there can be no doubt that many who seem to teach
endless punishment, really held the broader views, as we know most did, and
preached terrors as a teacher.
(8) The first comparatively complete systematic statement of Christian
doctrine ever given to the world was by Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 180, and
universal salvation was one of the priniciples.
(9) The first complete presentation of Christianity as a system was by
Origen (A.D. 220) and universal salvation was explicitly contained in it.
(10) Universal salvation was the prevailing doctrine in Christendom as long
as Greek, the language of the New Testament, was the language of Christendom.
(11) Universalism was generally believed in the best centuries, the first
three, when Christians were most remarkable for simplicity, goodness and
missionary zeal.
(12) Universalism was least known when Greek, the language of the New
Testament was least known, and when Latin was the language of the Church in its
darkest, most ignorant, and corrupt ages.
(13) Not a writer among those who describe the heresies of the first three
hundred years intimates that Universalism was then a heresy though it was
believed by many, if not be a majority, and certainly by the greatest of the
fathers.
(14) Not a single creed for five hundred years expresses any idea contrary
to universal restoration, or in favor of endless punishment.
(15) With the exception of the arguments of Augustine (A.D. 420), there is
not an argument known to have been framed against Universalism for at least four
hundred years after Christ, by any of the ancient fathers.
(16) While the councils that assembled in various parts of Christendom,
anathematized every kind of doctrine supposed to be heretical, no oecumenical
council, for more than five hundred years, condemned Universalism, though it had
been advocated in every century by the principal scholars and most revered
saints.
(17) As late as A.D. 400, Jerome says "most people" (plerique), and
Augustine "very many" (quam plurimi), believed in Universalism, notwithstanding
that the tremendous influence of Augustine, and the mighty power of the
semi-pagan secular arm were arrayed against it.
(18) The principal ancient Universalists were Christian born and reared, and
were among the most scholarly and saintly of all the ancient saints.
(19) The most celebrated of the earlier advocates of endless punishment were
heathen born, and led corrupt lives in their youth. Tertullian one of the first,
and Augustine, the greatest of them, confess to having been among the vilest.
(20) The first advocates of endless punishment, Minucius Felix, Tertullian
and Augustine, were Latins, ignorant of Greek, and less competent to interpret
the meaning of Greek Scriptures than were the Greek scholars.
(21) The first advocates of Universalism, after the Apostles, were Greeks,
in whose mother-tongue the New Testament was written. They found their
Universalism in the Greek Bible. Who should be correct, they or the Latins?
(22) The Greek Fathers announced the great truth of universal restoration in
an age of darkness, sin and corruption. There was nothing to suggest it to them
in the world's literature or religion. It was wholly contrary to everything
around them. Where else could they have found it, but where they say they did,
in the Gospel?
(23) All ecclesiastical historians and the best Biblical critics and
scholars agree to the prevalence of Universalism in the earlier centuries.
(24) From the days of Clement of Alexandria to those of Gregory of Nyssa and
Theodore of Mopsuestia (A.D. 180-428), the great theologians and teachers,
almost without exception, were Universalists. No equal number in the same
centuries were comparable to them for learning and goodness.
(25) The first theological school in Christendom, that in Alexandria, taught
Universalism for more than two hundred years.
(26) In all Christendom, from A.D. 170 to 430, there were six Christian
schools. Of these four, the only strictly theological schools, taught
Universalism, and but one endless punishment.
(27) The three earliest Gnostic sects, the Basilidians, the Carpocratians
and the Valentinians (A.D. 117-132) are condemned by Christian writers, and
their heresies pointed out, but though they taught Universalism, that doctrine
is never condemned by those who oppose them. Irenaeus condemned the errors of
the Carpocratians, but does not reprehend their Universalism, though he ascribes
the doctrine to them.
(28) The first defense of Christianity against Infidelity (Origen against
Celsus) puts the defense on Universalistic grounds. Celsus charged the
Christians' God with cruelty, because he punished with fire. Origen replied that
God's fire is curative; that he is a "Consuming Fire," because he consumes sin
and not the sinner.
(29) Origen, the chief representative of Universalism in the ancient
centuries, was bitterly opposed and condemned for various heresies by ignorant
and cruel fanatics. He was accused of opposing Episcopacy (having bishops as
chief ministers in church government), believing in pre-existence, etc., but
never was condemned for his Universalism. The very council that anathematized
"Origenism" eulogized Gregory of Nyssa, who was explicitly a Universalist as was
Origen. Lists of his errors are given by Methodius, Pamphilus and Eusebius,
Marcellus, Eustathius and Jerome, but Universalism is not named by one of his
opponents. Fancy a list of Ballou's errors and his Universalism omitted;
Hippolytus (A.D. 320) names thirty-two known heresies, but Universalism is not
mentioned as among them. Epiphanius, "the hammer of heretics," describes eighty
heresies, but he does not mention universal salvation, though Gregory of Nyssa,
an outspoken Universalist, was, at the time he wrote, the most conspicuous
figure in Christendom.
(30) Justinian, a half-pagan emperor, who attempted to have Universalism
officially condemned, lived in the most corrupt epoch of the Christian
centuries. He closed the theological schools, and demanded the condemnation of
Universalism by law; but the doctrine was so prevalent in the church that the
council refused to obey his edict to suppress it. Lecky says the age of
Justinian was "the worst form civilization has assumed."
(31) The first clear and definite statement of human destiny by any
Christian writer after the days of the Apostles, includes universal restoration,
and that doctrine was advocated by most of the greatest and best of the
Christian Fathers for the first five hundred years of the Christian Era.
In one word, a careful study of the early history of the Christian religion,
will show that the doctrine of universal restoration was least prevalent in the
darkest, and prevailed most in the most enlightened, of the earliest
centuries--that it was the prevailing doctrine in the Primitive Christian
Church. BACK
|
