The First Origenist Controversy
As we’ve seen in the past few posts, universalism became very popular in the church (especially the Eastern church) in the third and fourth centuries, largely thanks to the influence of Origen. However, at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, Origen’s ideas began to come under widespread attack in what came to be known as the “First Origenist Controversy.” In this post, we’ll take a look at this controversy, the role that universalism played in it, and the outcome of the controversy.
Epiphanius of Salamis
Epiphanius was the bishop of Salamis toward the end of the fourth century, and he also founded a monastery earlier in his life (around 333). His main work was the Panarion, a heresiological writing that sought to categorize and refute eighty ‘heresies,’ including ‘Origenism.’ In his letter to John II of Jerusalem, he refers to Origen as “the father of Arius and the root and father of all other heresies” (Jerome, Letter 51.3). This charge is certainly unfair: whether or not Origen can be truly regarded as the father of ‘Arianism,’ he’s also the father of anti-‘Arianism,’ since virtually all of the prominent anti-‘Arians’ of the fourth century were influenced by him. Nonetheless, Epiphanius was staunchly opposed to Origen: in 395, he sought unsuccessfully to get Origen’s works condemned by John II of Jerusalem, and later on he assisted in the persecution of the Origenian monks of Egypt.
Epiphanius’ detailed condemnation of ‘Origenism’ can be found in Panarion 64. He accuses Origen of teaching that the Son is of a different essence than the Father (4.5), that the souls of rational creatures preexisted their bodies (4.6–8), that Adam lost the image of God (4.9), and denying the resurrection of the dead (4.10), in support of which he quotes a lengthy excerpt from Methodius of Olympus (11.4–62.15). These mischaracterizations of Origen had already been refuted by Pamphilus at the beginning of the fourth century – he in fact held none of these views – but they were nevertheless popularized by Epiphanius. The radicalized views of Evagrius Ponticus, who did believe in a bodiless origin and restoration for rational creatures, certainly didn’t help matters. Even so, the universal restoration is conspicuously missing from Epiphanius’ condemnation, which implies that it wasn’t in dispute at the time. Later, in his 394 letter to John II of Jerusalem, he condemns the restoration of the devil, but not of other creatures.
Theophilus of Alexandria
Theophilus was the bishop of Alexandria from 385 to 412. When the first Origenist controversy began in 395, he initially sided against Epiphanius and especially opposed his anthropomorphic view of God (Socrates, EH VI.10). At this time, Jerome accused him of harboring Origenist sympathies (Letter 63.3; 82.3). However, the church historian Socrates says that he suddenly switched his views, when the anti-‘Origenist,’ anthropomorphite monks of the desert threatened him and demanded that he condemn Origen along with his view that God is incorporeal (EH VI.7, 10). Theophilus then persecuted and exiled the Origenian monks, including the “Tall Brothers,” who fled to Constantinople where they were harbored by John Chrysostom (EH VI.7, 9; Palladius, Dialogue 7; cf. Jerome, Letter 87; 90).
In his letter condemning ‘Origenism,’ Theophilus provides a list of accusations, including that Origen believed that Christ’s kingdom would end, our resurrection bodies will be mortal, and Christ will be sacrificed again for the demons (Jerome, Letter 92). These charges are false (in fact, Origen explicitly rejected that Christ could ever be sacrificed again in Comm in Rom V.10.12–16), and they even conflict with Epiphanius’ (also false) accusation that Origen denied the bodily resurrection. In another letter, he mentions other charges, including that Origen believed in the preexistence of souls, the eventual disappearance of bodies, and the restoration of the devil (Letter 96).
It’s important to note that Theophilus – like Epiphanius – never condemns the universal restoration of humans, only that of the devil, which Origen did support in a sense (although he denied that this was an accurate characterization of his view; see my post on him). In any case, Theophilus’ opposition to ‘Origenism’ seems to have been more political than theological. After he managed to depose John Chrysostom, he came back into communion with the “Tall Brothers” and began to read Origen’s works once again. According to the church historian Socrates, this hypocrisy made him extremely unpopular among the people (EH VI.16–17).
Synesius of Cyrene
Synesius was a Christian Neoplatonist philosopher, the disciple of Hypatia of Alexandria, another (non-Christian) Neoplatonist philosopher who was sadly murdered by a mob of Christians in 415, shortly after Synesius’ death. Throughout his life, he maintained a close relationship with his teacher, and even dictated a letter to her on his deathbed (Letter 16). Like Hypatia, he was interested not only in metaphysics and theology but also science, and he even corresponded to her about his need for scientific equipment (Letter 15). He was appointed by popular support to be bishop of Cyrene, Libya in 410 and confirmed in this position by Theophilus of Alexandria. Synesius composed many hymns to Christ, some of which are still used in hymnals today.
In a letter to his brother, which he intended to be read by Theophilus before his confirmation, he said,
It is difficult, if not quite impossible, that convictions should be shaken, which have entered the soul through knowledge to the point of demonstration. Now you know that [Neoplatonist] philosophy rejects many of those convictions which are cherished by the common people. For my own part, I can never persuade myself that the soul is of more recent origin than the body. Never would I admit that the world and the parts which make it must perish. This resurrection, which is an object of common belief, is nothing for me but a sacred and mysterious allegory, and I am far from sharing the views of the vulgar crowd thereon. (Letter 105.9)
Synesius openly admits his belief in the preexistence of the soul, the eternity of the world, and a “sacred and mysterious” view of the resurrection. This is much closer to ‘Origenism’ than any of Origen’s actual views, but Theophilus evidently considered him orthodox enough to become bishop. This is further proof that Theophilus’ anti-‘Origenism’ had more to do with political opportunism than theological disagreement.
In a letter to an accused murderer, Synesius warns that because the soul “is immortal, it bears immortal judgment,” and so if he is guilty, he should submit to punishments now lest he endure worse punishments later (Letter 44.9–10). However, he also indicates that punishment is restorative, since he says that a person who is not punished, whether by God or humans, is most unfortunate – presumably because they will remain in evil (44.13–15). Like other patristic universalists, Synesius is concerned that it may be dangerous for weaker believers to know deeper philosophical and theological truths (105.9). In his hymns, he alludes to the Neoplatonist concept of emanation-and-return of all beings, which parallels the Christian concept of creation-and-restoration (Hymn 1.9–18; 3.33–35; 6.3–5). He praises Christ for, through his incarnation, death, and resurrection, purifying all of creation including hell and saving the souls there (7.5; 9.4). Thus, Synesius of Cyrene was most likely a believer in the universal restoration.
Rufinus of Aquileia
Tyrannius Rufinus was a monk from Aquileia in Italy, where he formed a friendship with the young Jerome of Stridon. They traveled together to Alexandria and studied under Didymus the Blind in the 370s, and Rufinus left in 380 to found a monastery in Jerusalem with Melania the Elder. There he became friends with Evagrius and John II of Jerusalem, and Jerome also moved to Bethlehem in 386 to start another monastery nearby. However, with the outbreak of the Origenist controversy in 395, Rufinus and Jerome took opposing sides: Rufinus defended Origen while Jerome became a staunch anti-‘Origenist’. Rufinus spent the next decade translating many of Origen’s works, along with Pamphilus’ apology for Origen and some of the writings of the Cappadocians and Evagrius, into Latin, until his death in 411.
In his Apology to Anastasius, written in 400, Rufinus defends himself to the Roman pope against the charge of heresy. He defends his trinitarian orthodoxy (2), his adherence to the Nicene Creed (3), his belief in the bodily resurrection and judgment (4–5), and admits that he’s unsure of the question of the soul’s origin and its relation to the body (6). He says that, according to the Gospel, the devil and his angels (along with those who do his works) will have a portion in the aeternus fire, and that anyone who denies this will also experience the aeternus fire (5). Being proficient in Greek and a translator of Origen, he surely knew of the ambiguity of aeternus when translated from aiōnios (not aidios). Unfortunately, his Apology wasn’t enough, since Anastasius condemned both Rufinus and Origen in a letter to John II of Jerusalem the next year, although he admitted that he knew nothing of Origen before the controversy.
Rufinus wrote an Apology Against Jerome in 401, in response to Jerome’s letter to Pammachius against ‘Origenism’ (Letter 84). In this work, he argues that Jerome himself is deeply indebted to Origen’s exegesis and followed him closely in his earlier years, so it’s hypocritical of him to now condemn Origen. With regard to the universal restoration, Rufinus quotes Jerome’s commentary on Ephesians in which he supported the eventual restoration of all rational creatures (including the being who became the devil), and cites several other patristic universalists: Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory the Wonder-Worker, Gregory of Nazianzus, and their own teacher Didymus the Blind (Apol I.42–43). [1] Since Jerome accepts all of these as teachers, he’s being hypocritical to condemn Origen for holding the same belief.
Rufinus later says that those who profess the universal restoration – including Jerome formerly – do so out of a desire to
...vindicate the justice of God... [since] it is in accordance with the good and simple and immutable nature of the Trinity to restore every creature, in the end of all things, to the state in which it was created, after long punishment over whole aeons, which God inflicts on each creature not in the spirit of anger but of correction... his design being like a physician to heal people, he will put an end to their punishment. (Apol II.12)
He continues, confessing that he’s not sure whether this doctrine is true, but it certainly “contains little impiety against God, and nothing at all of heathenism,” since its goal is to vindicate God’s justice.
Jerome of Stridon
Jerome was an ascetic and prominent exegete from Stridon in the modern-day Balkans. Together with Rufinus, he studied under Didymus the Blind in Alexandria, as well as Apollinaris of Laodicea and other teachers. At this time, he was a close follower of Origen; in a letter from 384, he refers to Origen as “man of steel” and his opponents as “rabid dogs,” who only condemn him because they “could not tolerate the incomparable eloquence and knowledge which, when he opened his lips, made others seem dumb” (Letter 33.3–4). He also praised Origen in his work, On Illustrious Men, which he wrote in ca. 393 (De Vir 54). In the preface to his On Hebrew Names, he even said that “none but the ignorant will deny [Origen] to be the greatest teacher of the Church after the apostles.”
In light of this, it’s unsurprising that Jerome also adopted Origen’s eschatology at that time. Within his commentary on Ephesians (1:10–12; 4:16), written in 387, he explicitly refers to the eventual restoration of sinners, the devil, and fallen angels, although he’s careful to say that they will not have the same reward (quoted in Rufinus, Apol I.31, 42). In his commentary on Nahum 2:3–7, he says that the devil (qua devil) will be punished while his “substance” will be joyfully subjected and cleansed, which was precisely Origen’s view. Throughout his early commentaries on the minor prophets, written in 390–391, he often says that God’s punishments are restorative for the sinner (e.g., Comm in Nah 1:9; Comm in Mic 1:10–15; 5:7-14; 7:8-13; Comm in Zeph 1:12; 3:9–10), and he also adopts Origen’s interpretation of John 1:3 concerning evil as a privation (Comm in Mic 2:9–10). In a 394 letter to Amandus, he interprets 1 Cor 15:24–28, saying that Christ’s body is the whole of humanity, subjection is salvific, and that God will not become all in all until every unbeliever is thus subjected (Letter 55.5).
After his turn against Origen in ca. 395, Jerome also turned against the universal restoration, at least that of the devil. In his letters detailing his condemnation of Origen, he lists charges such as the preexistence of souls, the ‘Arian’ subordination of the Son, that Christ will be sacrificed again for the demons, the denial of the bodily resurrection, and the restoration of the devil (Letter 84.2–6; 124). He’s opposed to the idea that everyone will ultimately have the same reward (84.7), which he was also opposed to prior to his turn against Origen. Moreover, in his commentary on Jonah, written in ca. 400, he says,
I know that most [plerosque] interpret the king of Nineveh... to be the devil, who at the end of the world – since no rational creature made by God will perish – will descend from his pride and repent, and will be restored to his former place. (Comm in Nah 3:6–9 [PL 25.1141])
This shows that the concept of restoration even of the devil was still widespread at that time, but Jerome denies it on the basis that (1) it removes the fear of punishment, which Origen was also concerned about, and (2) it’s absurd to think that everyone will have the same reward in the end. He also opposes the idea that the devil could repent in Comm in Isa VI.29, written several years later.
Jerome may still have believed in the restoration of all humanity at that point, since in the same commentary he says that Christ frees all the prisoners of Hades (Comm in Nah 2:6–7). However, by the time of the Pelagian controversy – in which Origen was once again implicated (see below) – he held that unbelievers would be punished eternally, while sinning and wicked Christians would have restorative punishment after death (Dial adv Pelag I.28). It should be noted that, although this wouldn’t be considered a form of universalism today, Augustine actually condemned this view (‘universal salvation’ of Christians) alongside the eschatological universalism of Origen (De civ Dei XXI.17–22).
Augustine of Hippo
Augustine was the bishop of Hippo from 396 to 430, and he became one of the most influential Latin theologians of the early Western church. In his anti-Pelagian phase, he popularized the concepts of original sin and predestination. Although these doctrines existed already, they were prominent mostly in ‘gnostic’ groups in the extreme form of the so-called “doctrine of natures” (that different beings have inherently good or evil natures), and he developed a more moderate doctrine for non-‘gnostic’ Christianity. In his earlier anti-Manichaean phase, however, his beliefs were closer to those of Origen, even with regard to the ultimate restoration of creatures. [2]
Before his conversion, Augustine was a Manichee, which was a widespread ‘gnostic’ sect that believed in a dualism of good (spiritual) and evil (material) substances along with a good and an evil deity that created them. After he became a Christian, in response to the Manichees, he adopted Origen’s arguments regarding evil being a privation. His ideas about evil at this stage are fleshed out most fully in De moribus II.1–9. His conclusion is clear: “we say that there is no natural evil, but that all natures are good and that God is the highest nature... other natures are from God and are good insofar as they are [from God]” (De Gen c Man II.43). If a being were to become completely evil, it would therefore cease to exist; but, he continues,
the goodness of God does not permit a being to be brought to this point [i.e., non-existence]. It orders all beings that fall away, so that they occupy the place most suitable to them, until by an ordered movement they return to that from which they fell away... For it has been said that nothing is allowed by the providence of God to go the length of non-existence. (De moribus II.7.9)
This was precisely Origen’s philosophical argument for the universal restoration (De Princ III.6.5). In his later Retractions (I.7.6), Augustine comments on this passage that he doesn’t believe all beings will be restored, only the beings that are to be restored will be restored (sic). Whether this means that the early Augustine was a universalist is debatable. Ramelli and Hedel argue that it does. [3] But since he never indicates in his later anti-universalist writings that he was once a universalist, I find it more likely that he was just using anti-‘gnostic’ arguments developed by earlier Christian universalists, without consciously affirming the logical conclusion of those arguments (i.e., universal restoration).
Augustine doesn’t seem to have been particularly anti-‘Origenist’ during the first Origenist controversy. He even criticized Jerome in 405 for condemning Origen after he had previously praised him so highly (Letter 82.3.23). This changed around the time of the Pelagian controversy of the 410s. Pelagius was a theologian who argued that Christians must remain sinless to be saved, and that God’s grace is external (e.g., the giving of the Law). His views were associated by Jerome, among others, with Origen, probably due to Origen’s great emphasis on creaturely freedom of choice (Dial adv Pel III.19). This charge is certainly false, since Origen explicitly rejected the view that salvation could be achieved without grace (Comm in Rom IV.5), and Pelagius was an anti-‘Origenist’ (Augustine, De gest Pel III.10). Even so, this controversy further entrenched the opposition to ‘Origenism.’
From around 413 onward, Augustine refuted ‘Origenism,’ including the alleged preexistence of souls and the universal restoration, in many passages (e.g., De fide et operibus XV.24; De gest Pel III.10; Ad Orosium). He frequently cites the Scriptural statements of “eternal punishment” as a slam-dunk argument against universalism, which betrays his lack of knowledge of the polysemy of aiōnios. In his City of God (XXI.17–27), he distinguishes seven views of believers whom he considers to be excessively “merciful” (misericordi): (1) that all rational beings will be restored; (2) that all humans will be restored; (3) that all humans will be saved, but only by the intercession of the saints; (4) that all who partake of the Christian sacraments, including heretics, will be saved; (5) all who partake of the Catholic sacraments will be saved; (6) all Catholic believers will be saved, some after purgative punishment; (7) all who give alms will be saved. Notably, this means that Augustine considered Jerome a misericord of the sixth type, since even in his most mature thought Jerome accepted the eventual salvation of wicked Catholics.
In his Enchiridion (112), written in 420, he says that those believers who deny the eternity of punishment without also denying Scripture were “indeed very many” (immo quam plurimi). In fact, “very many” doesn’t quite accurately translate this phrase; plurimi is already a superlative of “many,” while quam is a further superlative meaning “as... as possible,” so this phrase should rather be translated “as many as possible” or “large majority.” This is a remarkable admission from Augustine, who by that time had become a hostile witness to universalism within the Catholic Church. [4] Because of his influence, however, the Latin-speaking church after Augustine was overwhelmingly infernalist. [5]
Paulinus of Nola
Paulinus was a Roman poet and senator who converted to Christianity, renounced his wealth and power, and later became bishop of Nola until his death in 431. He played a peripheral role in the first Origenist controversy. Paulinus was a close friend of Rufinus, to whom two of his surviving letters (46; 47) are addressed, and he also admired Melania the Elder (Letter 29.5; Carm 21.836ff). He admired Augustine’s works against the Manichaeans, which are precisely the works in which he most strongly parallels Origen’s ideas (Letter 6.2). Jerome, even after his turn against Origen, recommended On First Principles to Paulinus to answer his question about free will (Jerome, letter 85.2–4).
In his poems and letters, Paulinus seems to support the universal restoration of humans. In his Carmina 7–9, he anticipates the future judgment, and interprets the fire and punishment as burning and punishing people’s sins (7.30ff; 9.46ff). He does speak of eternal fires and punishment (Carm 21.506ff; Letter 1.4; 19.3; 25.3; 36.3; 40.12; 44.6), but he elaborates what he means elsewhere. The punishment will be eternal for the devil, not humanity which was deceived by the devil; the human “was punished for a short time for his improvement, but the deviser of death was doomed to eternal punishment” (Letter 23.44). At the end of his 32nd poem, when expounding God’s grace as revealed in the Son, he says,
[God] realizes that the human is a frail creature who falls easily, and though he rebukes us he will grant the same pardon to all. This is a new concept which I will declare, yet I will not repent of having said it – his fatherly love will be greater than his justice... Then in our joy we will be able to attain the kingdom of heaven, then death itself will be enabled to die, for life will be eternal and enduring. In that blessed abode there will then be no opportunity for sinning, for there is no evil desire. This is the great glory which remains in keeping for God’s faithful people...
He who conquers all is not conquered by anger itself, but judges, investigates, rebukes, spares, and glorifies. We can see from the evidence of the present that this will be... In this way we are shown that salvation will again be enacted for us in the aeon to come, and the devoted love of the eternal Father will remain forever. (Carm 32.214ff)
Paulinus says that God’s love will outlast his justice, so that he grants the same pardon to all, and connects this to the destruction of death; salvation is not limited to this aeon, but will also be enacted in the next aeon, which we can extrapolate from God’s mercy in the present day. His focus on the faith of God’s people doesn’t negate the universalist logic of this passage, since Origen and other patristic universalists believed that all people would be saved precisely through faith. Thus, Paulinus of Nola was most likely a universalist who believed in the eventual restoration of all humans (but not the devil).
John Cassian
John Cassian was an ascetic and theologian who helped spread Christian monasticism to the West. His thought was deeply influenced by Evagrius Ponticus and the Origenian monks of the Egyptian desert. During the first Origenist controversy, Cassian opposed the anti-‘Origenist’ anthropomorphite monks (Conferences X.2–5). He was one of the monks who fled Theophilus of Alexandria’s persecution and took refuge with John Chrysostom; after Chrysostom’s exile, he moved to the West and founded a monastery in Gaul, where he remained until his death in 435. Cassian deeply influenced later Western Christian monasticism, especially through his student Benedict of Nursia, whose “rule” is still followed by many Catholic monks and nuns. The concept of “seven deadly sins” was actually developed on the basis of Cassian’s list of “eight principal faults” (Conf V) which he drew directly from Evagrius.
In his writings, Cassian describes the reality of terrible future punishment (e.g., Conf I.13–14; VI.3). He refers to this punishment as “eternal” (aeternus) in a few places (III.9; VI.9; XXIII.15). He depicts God’s punishment as being cleansing and remedial, even in the most severe cases, but – unlike Origen – conceives of the possibility that the Physician may be unable to cure some sinners (VI.11). Even so, he strenuously objects to the Augustinian concept of limited atonement:
For if he does not will that one of his little ones should perish, how can we imagine without grievous blasphemy that he does not generally will all men to be saved, but only some instead of all? Should some perish, they would perish against his will! (Conf XIII.7)
God’s grace is both necessary and sufficient to bring us to virtue (XIII.6). Because his will that the human being should not perish is immutable, when he sees good in us, he nurses that good since he desires all people to be saved (7). Not only does he do this, but even in those who reject him, he drags them and causes them to desire him, which Cassian repeats throughout Conf XIII.9–18. This doesn’t mean we have no free will – we have both God’s grace and free will equally (11) – but it’s a mystery how “God works all things in us, and yet all can be ascribed to free will” (18). As Ramelli correctly notes, this line of reasoning logically leads to universal salvation, which implies that Cassian was at least a hopeful universalist. [6]
The disciples of Chrysostom
John Chrysostom, whose views I discussed in a previous post, had a wide influence in the Eastern church after him. Some of his students played a peripheral role in the first Origenist controversy and other events surrounding it. For example, Palladius, bishop of Helenopolis in the early fifth century, was a disciple of both Evagrius and Chrysostom. He highly praised both of these teachers and defended them against charges of heresy that had been raised by the anti-‘Origenist’ party (HL 38; Dialogue). His writings are primarily historical, so we can’t know whether he believed in the universal restoration, but given his Evagrian alliances it’s probable that he did.
Another student of Chrysostom was Proclus, who became bishop of Constantinople from 434 to 446. He played a role in the Nestorian controversy of the mid-fifth century, supporting Cyril of Alexandria’s Christology over Nestorius’. The church historian Socrates praised Proclus for his positive attitude toward dead brethren, as opposed to Theophilus’ harsh treatment of the deceased Origen (EH VII.45), which suggests but doesn’t prove that Proclus had Origenian leanings. His writings mostly deal with Christology and Mariology, although Ramelli notes some indications in his homilies that he held to the universal restoration. [7] However, these passages may only indicate that he believed in universal atonement, not necessarily an actual universal restoration.
Isidore of Pelusium was an ascetic and another student of Chrysostom, who supported him during his exile. In his many letters, he focuses on the importance of good works and takes little interest in theological controversies, although he supported a dyophysite and monoprosopic Christology, drawing on the work of Athanasius (letters 23, 303, 323, 405). He was accused of ‘Origenism’ in his lifetime by Severus of Antioch (Lib c imp Gram III.39), but it’s unclear whether he believed in the universal restoration. Overall, in line with Chrysostom’s own alliances, his disciples fell on the Origenian side of the fifth-century controversy.
Peter Chrysologus
Peter was the bishop of Ravenna from 433 to 450. He delivered many theological and exegetical sermons during his time as bishop, which led to his title “Golden-Worded” (Chrysologus) and his popularity in his own day. Many of his sermons have survived to the present day. [8] In them, he speaks of future punishment in Gehenna (e.g., Hom 58.14; 60.16–17; 62.9, 13; 66; 121), but never describes it as “eternal” (aidios), and surprisingly only once describes it as aiōnios (50.3; cf. 52.2, in reference to demons). It is possible for souls to be saved from Gehenna by the intercession of the saints (123.8). In one sermon, he emphasizes that God, being impassible, does not become angry, but punishes as a medicine against the sickness of evil (Hom 45). Peter also inherits Origen’s interpretation of the parable of the lost sheep: this sheep refers to the whole human race in Adam, which was lost but restored through Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection (161.5–6). In light of this, it’s plausible (but not certain) that Peter Chrysologus held to the universal restoration.
Theodore of Mopsuestia
Theodore was a student of Diodore of Tarsus and a key member of the so-called Antiochian school of theology. He was also a friend of John Chrysostom, and the two corresponded throughout their life (e.g., Chrysostom, Ad Theo laps; letter 204; 212). He became the bishop of Mopsuestia near Antioch from 392 to 428. Like his teacher Diodore, in his struggle against ‘Arianism’ and Apollinarism, he stressed the distinction between Christ’s two natures, which resulted in his Christology being viewed as ‘Nestorian’ after his death. Both he and Diodore were eventually condemned for their Christology, even though they were seen as orthodox theologians in their day.
Diodore and Theodore were also both universalists, and were cited together as such in the writings of later Syriac theologians (e.g., Isaac of Nineveh, Second Part 39.8–13; John of Dara, On the Resurrection IV.21; Theodore bar Konai, Scholion II.63). In an excerpt preserved by Solomon of Basra (Book of the Bee 60), Theodore says that those who have chosen good will receive good in the next world, whereas the wicked will receive punishment until they have learned to choose the good, after which they will be found worthy of divine happiness. In support of this, he cites Matthew 5:26 and Luke 12:47–48, which in his view refer to potentially lengthy but still limited punishments. Like his teacher, Theodore defines aiōn not as eternity, but as “an interval of time, whether short or long” (Comm in Gal 1:4). He looks forward to the “future aeon” when all humans, indeed all rational beings, will harmoniously praise Christ (Comm in Eph 1:10).
Theodoret of Cyrrhus
Theodoret was a student of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia who became bishop of Cyrrhus near Antioch from 423 to 457. He also belonged to the Antiochian school of theology, and he initially defended Nestorius against Cyril of Alexandria’s anathemas, although he later condemned him at the Council of Chalcedon. Like the other members of the Antiochian school, his Christology was later suspected to be ‘Nestorian,’ and he was eventually posthumously condemned. Theodoret believed that God’s punishments are necessarily restorative, and so they cannot extend into eternity (Hom in Ezek VI.6; Comm in Isa XIII). His universalism is clear from his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:28:
“That God may be all in all.” God is already everywhere according to his essence, because his nature is unlimited, and “in him we live and move and have our being,” according to the divine apostle. But according to goodwill, he is not yet “in all.” For he delights in those who fear him, and in those who hope for his mercy. Yet even in these, he is not “all,” since no one is pure of contamination... But in the future life, when corruption ceases and immortality is given, passions will have no place. When these are completely driven out, no kind of sin will be committed anymore. In this way God will then be “all in all,” for all will be liberated from sin and will turn toward God, and there will be no fall into a worse state. (PG 82.360–61)
Theodoret offers the same interpretation in his commentary on Ephesians 1:23 (PG 82.517), where he says that God is not “all in all” because some people are impious and transgressors, but “in the future life” there will be no more possibility of sin.
Cyril of Alexandria
Cyril was the nephew of Theophilus of Alexandria and the bishop of Alexandria from 412 to 444. He was an enormously influential theologian who helped settle the mid-5th century Nestorian controversy in favor of the anti-‘Nestorians’. He convened the Council of Ephesus in 431 before Nestorius and his supporters arrived, which predictably led to the condemnation of Nestorius. The resulting Christological conflict caused the first major split within Christianity, between the miaphysite Oriental Orthodox Church, the ‘Nestorian’ Church of the East, and the ‘Chalcedonian’ Catholic Church (which later split into the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches).
Cyril’s main focus throughout his life was Christology, where he strongly emphasized the unity of Christ’s divine and human nature(s). Because the Logos was fully united to human nature, the whole humanity is united to Christ, and it can be truly said that in this sense all humans are in Christ; the purpose of the incarnation is “so that, having all in himself, he might reconcile all in one body to the Father [Col 1:20], as Paul says” (Comm in John 1:14). This universalistic language, absent any contextual qualifiers, is certainly suggestive of the universal restoration. Cyril believed in future punishment – for example, he says that the state of the wicked after the resurrection will be worse than death (Comm in John 3:36; cf. 8:51; 10:16; 11:25–27; 14:21; 19:30), and that the soul as well as the body will be punished (Serm in Luke 87) – as did every patristic universalist. As far as I can tell, he never describes these punishments as aidios (“eternal”), which he does use to describe Christ and future life, although he does call them ametros, “without measure” (Comm in John 19:30).
Cyril knew that eis ton aiōna and aiōnios do not mean strictly “eternal,” since he interprets Jesus’ statement that those who believe in him will not die eis ton aiōna to mean that they will not die “in the future aeon” after the resurrection (Comm in John 8:51; 11:25–27). He clarifies, however, that there is no “limit” (peras) to the coming aeon (Comm in John 8:51). Even so, he does find a spiritual meaning of the Sabbath to refer to the rest of the saints at the “end [telei] of the aeons” (Comm in John 7:24). At the end of his discussion of the Sabbath, he says that this will be when passions and evil will cease, based on the work of Christ’s death, “that he might raise all to newness of life” (ibid.). This all sounds incredibly similar to Origen and/or Gregory of Nyssa, but even more suggestive is his commentary on 1 Cor 15:28:
[Christ] has annihilated the power of death and also eliminated the root of death, which is sin; he threw out the ruler of this world. After doing all this and bringing the whole salvific economy to completion, he will hand to the Father the Kingdom that once upon a time had been stolen from him and had passed under the power of others, so to exert his power over all beings on earth, after restoring them, having them return to himself, once he has annihilated death and satan, who had tyrannised them, the Son will have again, and for the world to come, the excellence of the power over all. [9]
Cyril also uses the language of universal restoration elsewhere in his commentary on John (e.g., Comm in John 8:20; 17:2). I’m not certain if this means that he was a universalist – he may be using hyperbole in these passages – but I find it probable.
Conclusion
The turn of the fifth century saw the outbreak of an Origenist controversy, brought on largely by the misunderstandings of Origen’s actual views spread by Epiphanius. At this stage, the universal restoration of humans wasn’t in dispute, only the restoration of the devil. However, the outsize influence of Augustine popularized anti-universalism in the West, with even the limited purgatory proposed by Jerome (‘universal salvation’ of Christians) being rejected. Even so, universalism – at least hopeful universalism – retained a few proponents in the West, Paulinus of Nola and John Cassian. The concept of universal restoration (of at least humans) remained semipopular in the East, propounded by the theologians of the Antiochian school (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus) and arguably Cyril of Alexandria.
______________________________
[1] Why didn’t Rufinus cite more fathers than this, since there were other universalist teachers in the early church? I think it’s likely that he’s specifically citing those fathers who believed in the eventual restoration of the devil, since that was the main point of contention between him and Jerome, although this still doesn’t explain why he didn’t cite Gregory of Nyssa, who also believed in the restoration of the devil.
[2] See especially György Hedel, The Influence of Origen on the Young Augustine: A Chaper in the History of Origenism (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009); Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, “Origen in Augustine: A Paradoxical Reception,” Numen 60 (2013): 280–307.
[3] Hedel, The Influence of Origen, 189–93; Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, 663–64.
[4] Furthermore, this supports our reading of the earlier church fathers. If – as a minority of scholars implausibly maintain – not even Gregory of Nyssa was a universalist, then who could this “large majority” possibly consist of? But if universalism had become a dominant tradition within the Eastern church, this statement from Augustine makes sense (as does Jerome’s statement in ca. 400 that “most” believe in the eventual restoration of the devil).
[5] For an overview see Brian Daley, The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge University Press, 1991), 124–167, 205–215. Pope Leo I (440–461) is representative of Latin eschatology in this period: “In the underworld there is no correction, nor is any substitute for retributive suffering possible when the activity of the will no longer remains” (Serm 35.4).
[6] Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, 681–86.
[7] Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, 570–71.
[8] English translations of these sermons are available in three volumes of the Fathers of the Church series published by the Catholic University of America Press.
[9] Translation by Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, 599–600.
