Fourth Century Fathers (part 2)
In my last post, we looked at the eschatological views of some fourth-century church fathers regarding the ultimate fate of unbelievers (i.e., those who fail to believe in Christ in this life). Due to the sheer number of church fathers from this period and the volume of data, I had to split them up into two posts. In this post, we’ll look at the views of eight more church fathers from the late fourth century, leading up to the first Origenist controversy that broke out at the turn of the fifth century.
Basil of Caesarea
Basil “the Great” was the bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia from 370 to 379. Together with Gregory of Nazianzus and his brother Gregory of Nyssa, he is one of the so-called “Cappadocian Fathers” who deeply influenced later Christian theology. His grandmother Macrina the Elder studied under Gregory Thaumaturgus, who was himself a disciple of Origen. Basil had a deep respect for both of these teachers (Letter 28; 204.6; De Spir Sanct 29.73–74), and together with Gregory of Nazianzus, he compiled an anthology of Origen’s writings called the Philocalia. Included among these excerpts is a list of prooftexts supporting the restorative nature of God’s punishments (XXVII.6–9), along with texts on rational creatures’ freedom of choice (XI) and the ontological non-subsistence of evil (XXIV.3–7). Basil himself certainly believed that evil is a privation (e.g., God is Not the Author of Evil).
In a short passage from Basil’s Regulae, a question is posed: if some will be punished with many blows and some with few (Lk 12:47), how can some people say that there is no end to punishment? The response cites several passages that speak of aeonian punishment (Matt 25:41, 46; Mk 9:43–48; Isa 66:24), and says,
But due to a deception of the devil, many people, as though they forgot these and similar statements of the Lord, adhere to the conception of the end of punishment, out of an audacity that is even superior to their sin. For if at a certain moment there is an end to aeonian punishment, aeonian life will certainly have an end as well. And if we do not admit of thinking this concerning life, what reason should there be for assigning an end to aeonian punishment? (Regulae 267)
The ferocity with which this passage condemns the idea of an end to aeonian punishment is surprising, especially considering Basil’s admiration of Origen and Gregory Thaumaturgus. Basil says of his own brother Gregory of Nyssa (who was certainly a universalist) that he wishes he could be the leader of “the whole Church under the sun,” if that were possible (Letter 98.2). It seems odd that he would say that his brother, whom he held in such great esteem, is deceived by the devil. Furthermore, Basil knew that aiōnios doesn’t mean strictly eternal – in fact, in one place he says that “some attribute to the aeons [aiōnes] the description of eternal [tou aidiou],” but he himself rejects this view (Contra Eunomium II.17) – and he uses aidios (“eternal”) to describe future life, but not punishment. [1] Given his familiarity with Origen, he also would have known Origen’s argument that life and death cannot be coeternal (Comm in Rom V.7.8), yet he makes no attempt to refute it here. In light of all this, it seems at least plausible that (as Ramelli argues) this passage is not authentic.
Basil’s commentary on Isaiah, which is likely authentic, clearly supports universal restoration. In this work, he frequently speaks of the restorative nature of punishment: “God is angry in this way, so that he may benefit sinners. For he does not chastise for destruction, but instructs for correction” (Comm in Isa I.54–59; cf. V.179–181; VI.183–186; VII.195; IX.230–231; X.242–244; XVI.306). This is true also of the “fire of the aeon to come,” which will purify those who have sinned “unto death” (IV.137). Even God’s warning that he will not forgive his people “is not a harmful threat, but an instruction preparatory to bringing salvation” (II.84). Commenting on Isaiah 9:7, he says,
The peace from the Lord is co-extensive with all eternity, since it is unlimited and boundless. For all beings will be subjected to him and all will recognize his mastery, and when God will be “all in all,” and those making an uproar by their apostasies are pacified, all in peaceful harmony will praise God with hymns. (IX.226; cf. VIII.222; XVI.306)
This is in line with what Basil writes in his undisputed works. In his Hexaemeron, he states that the world was created “for a useful end and for the great advantage of all beings... the training ground where they learn to know God” (I.6). Basil even considers that “possibly,” the devil himself was able to repent after he sinned, but “maybe” this possibility has since been precluded (Comm in Isa XIV.279).
An important testimony to Basil’s views is provided by the fifth-century church historian Orosius. In his work Against the Priscillianists and the Origenists, he says that “Saint Basil the Greek” taught several Origenian doctrines “in the most holy way,” even though “they were not correct as I [Orosius] now understand.” One of these doctrines is that “eternal fire” describes the torment of the sinner’s conscience, and this fire is not endless because “eternal [aeternum] according to its Greek etymology [i.e., aiōnios] does not mean unending [perpetuum],” for which he appeals to Scriptural usage. Therefore, the souls of all sinners will be purified and “return to the unity of the body of Christ,” and possibly even the substance of the rational being that became the devil (which is not in itself evil) will be saved. [2] This testimony is clear and shows that Basil was probably a universalist.
Gregory of Nazianzus
Gregory of Nazianzus was the close friend of Basil, one of the “Cappadocian Fathers,” and the bishop of Constantinople from 380 to 381. He presided over the Council of Constantinople in 381 which defined trinitarian orthodoxy and promulgated the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Together with Basil he compiled the Philocalia, an anthology of Origen’s writings. This Philocalia includes a number of texts on freedom of choice (XI), the ontological non-subsistence of evil (XXIV.3–7), and the restorative nature of God’s punishment (XXVII.6–9). The Nazianzen even describes Origen as “the whetstone of us all.”
Gregory was definitely a universalist, as I will show, but he held strongly to the ‘doctrine of reserve’ which Origen also held (e.g., Contra Celsum VI.26): that certain truths (including universal restoration) should be held from new or spiritually weak believers. This concern can be seen in his Oration 40.45 (where, it should be noted, one of the basic doctrines of the faith is that “evil has no substance or kingdom, either unoriginate or self-existent or created by God”). Gregory speaks of “the worm which devours eternally [aidiōs],” which he represents as a nightmare of a sinner’s guilty conscience, sent by God as a “medicine for salvation” (Carm mor 7.191–199 [PG 37.662–3]). This is the only place where he describes punishment as “eternal” (aidios), and it shows his understanding of the importance of threats.
In one of Gregory’s sermons to the people of Nazianzus, delivered in 373, he emphasizes the cleansing nature of punishment in this world, to which he contrasts the future punishments, which “is the time of punishment, not cleansing”; even here he interprets these punishments not as physical, but as being cast out from God and having a guilty conscience (Orat 16.6–9). In another sermon, delivered in 381, he distinguishes between the cleansing fire that burns away evil and the future fire “which is not cleansing, but avenging... unless someone prefers to think, even in this case, that this fire is applied out of love for humans, in a way worthy of the one who punishes” (40.36). Here he stops just short of affirming that this is true; but in other sermons, speaking of the punishment of physical death, he says,
Here too he [i.e., the human] makes a gain: death, and the cutting off of sin, so that evil should not be immortal. Thus punishment became an act of love for humanity; for I am persuaded that this is the way in which God punishes. (Orat 38.7; 45.8)
In both places, Gregory speaks of God’s punishment being out of love for humanity (philanthrōpia), and in the latter he confirms that this is his own view. Moreover, he adopts the same interpretation of the curse of physical death as Origen and others, that it was instituted so that sin and evil would not be eternal. Elsewhere he also takes a purifying view of the future punishment, which he refers to as the baptism of fire, “that extreme baptism, which is more painful and longer, which consumes matter like straw and the lightness of all evil” (39.15, 19).
In a poem, he says that in the next life people will either meet fire or God; “but will all [partake of] God later on? Let this be established elsewhere” (De se ipso 544–546 [PG 37.1010]). Once again, Gregory stops just short of affirming this, although he did just describe the eschatological fire as purifying (De se ipso 522–525). See also his Oration 45.24, where he urges his listeners to consider whether Christ descended to hades “to save all men absolutely... or there, too, only those who believe.” In his theological sermon on the Son, he says,
God will be “all in all” in the time of restoration, when we will no longer be many, as we are now, with movements of the will and passions, and we will not have in us little or nothing of God, but we will all be entirely conformed to God, able to receive God wholly and alone. This is the perfection to which we aspire, and it is above all Paul who guarantees this. (Orat 30.5–6)
This will be precisely because of the Son’s incarnation and sacrifice. It’s because of his suffering that “all of us, not just some and not the others, have been restored; all of us who partake of the same Adam, and were deceived by the serpent and killed by sin, have been saved by the heavenly Adam” (Orat 33.9). Finally, during Rufinus’ and Jerome’s dispute over Origen, they both agreed that Gregory of Nazianzus was in fact a universalist (Rufinus, Apology Against Jerome I.43). Based on this, we can be sure that he was a universalist, albeit one who employed the ‘doctrine of reserve’ liberally.
Gregory of Nyssa
Gregory of Nyssa was the third “Cappadocian Father” who was bishop of Nyssa from 372 to 394, and with his brothers played an important role in shaping later Christian theology. Gregory came to be highly venerated in the later church; at the Council of Nicaea II in 787, it was declared that “all have called [him] the Father of Fathers”. He was also the most overtly universalist of the three Cappadocians, to the extent that after universalism fell out of favor in the church, his works were thought to have been changed and interpolated by ‘Origenists’ (e.g., Photius, Bibliotheca 233). His eschatological views resound all throughout his works, but especially In Illud (his commentary on 1 Cor 15) and On the Soul and the Resurrection (written in remembrance of his late brother Basil).
In his comments on 1 Cor 15:28, Gregory is unequivocal:
What therefore does Paul teach us? It consists in saying that evil will come to nothing and be completely destroyed. The divine, pure goodness will contain in itself every rational nature; no being created by God will be excluded from his kingdom, once everything mixed with some elements of base material has been consumed by refinement in fire. Such things had their origin in God; what was made in the beginning did not receive evil. Paul says this is so. (14)
He appeals to the fact that evil is a privation, and every rational nature is ontologically good, which he says is supported by Paul (17); therefore, if evil is destroyed, every being will be left with the Good alone, that is, God.
Moreover, this will take place thanks to the Son’s incarnation: in this act he assumed “the entire human nature,” so “it is through this man that all humanity is joined to the Divinity.” “Christ’s body, as it is often said, consists of human nature in its entirety, to which he has been united” (21). Right now, only some people are united to him through faith, but eventually “all creation resounds as one voice, when every being in heaven, on earth and under the earth [Phil 2:10]... has become one body and is joined in Christ through obedience to one another... faith means that no being will be outside the saved” (18–21). In his exegesis of 1 Cor 15:24–28, he also distinguishes four types of “subjection” in Scripture, and shows that only the last type – salvation (Ps 62:1 LXX) – could possibly apply here, lest the subjection of the Son be degrading as the “heretics” claim (4–7; cf. Contra Eunomium II.14). Therefore, he concludes,
When all enemies have become God’s footstool, they will receive a trace of divinity in themselves. Once death has been destroyed... then we will be subjected to him; but this is not understood by some sort of servile humility. Our subjection, however, consists of a kingdom, incorruptibility and blessedness living in us; this is Paul’s meaning of being subjected to God. (23)
Thus, Gregory of Nyssa presents three intertwined arguments – philosophical, Christological, and exegetical – for universal salvation in In Illud.
In On the Soul and the Resurrection, which is presented as a philosophical discourse between Gregory and his sister Macrina the Younger, there is more of a focus on the purifying nature of punishment. Those who fail to divest themselves of evil in this life will have to be purified in the next; it will be more painful the more a soul attaches itself to evil, but this is out of “love for humanity,” to drag all creatures to God (97–100). The parable of Dives and Lazarus is interpreted in this way (81–89). The purpose of this is to annihilate evil: “since evil does not exist in nature, outside of will, once each will has come to be in God evil will be reduced to complete disappearance, since no receptacle will be left for it... as the Apostle says, God will be ‘all in all’” (100–105). Phil 2:9–11 is interpreted as referring to the universal restoration, and the Feast of Tabernacles is seen as foreshadowing it (132–136).
This is found all throughout Gregory’s writings. In his On the Life of Moses, he interprets the three days of darkness over Egypt followed by light as the eventual restoration of those who are punished in Gehenna (II.82–83). In his Catechetical Oration, he argues strongly that Christ’s incarnation and death secured the benefit and healing of all people, and even “the originator of evil [i.e., the devil] himself,” although some will require painful chastisement until “a harmony of thanksgiving arises from all creation” (26). In his last work, the Homilies on the Song of Songs, he says that God will achieve his will for “all to be saved” (IV; cf. 1 Tim 2:4), and he concludes his homilies with a reference to the universal restoration (XV).
Gregory of Nyssa gives fearful descriptions of aeonian punishment in various places (e.g., Hom in Beat V.8), and was not afraid to use it as a threat (Hom in Song pref. 12; I.16), but does not describe it as “eternal” (aidios). He was well aware of the distinction in terminology, since in his argument against the ‘Arian’ Eunomius, he says that “the eternal [aidios] existence... is not measured by ages [aiōsi]” (Contra Eunomium I.41) Thus, he was clearly a universalist. [3]
Evagrius Ponticus
Evagrius Ponticus was a prominent monk and theologian in the late 4th century, one of the most influential of the Desert Fathers. He was ordained by Basil of Caesarea and studied under Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa (Palladius, HL 38.2), so he was steeped in the trinitarian and eschatological thought of the Cappadocians. In fact, his trinitarian views were so close to those of the Cappadocians that his own letter On the Faith was misattributed to Basil. In this letter, he interprets various New Testament texts in order to refute ‘Arianism’ and other trinitarian heresies. One such text is 1 Cor 15:24–28, which is interpreted to refer to the restoration, “when God, who is one, comes to be in each one and unifies all, so that the number is lost in the indwelling of unity” (7); and the subjection of the enemies is interpreted as salvific (8).
Evagrius died just before the outbreak of the Origenist controversy, but he was later accused by Jerome of being an ‘Origenist’ (Letter 133.3). Indeed, he inherited many aspects of Origen’s thought via the Cappadocians, and seems to have taken them in a more extreme direction. He begins his magnum opus, the Kephalaia Gnostica (“Chapters on Knowledge”), by proving the ontological non-subsistence of evil, which has its origin in the movement of the created wills (I.1–2, 39–41, 51, 89). No being is therefore evil in itself, not even the demons (III.53, 59; IV.59). It is because of this that evil will eventually disappear:
There was when evil did not exist, and there will be when it no longer exists, but there was never when virtue did not exist and there will never be when it does not exist, for the seeds of virtue are indestructible. (Keph Gnos I.40)
Even the rich man in hell still possesses seeds of virtue, for he felt compassion (which is a virtue) for his brothers (I.40; cf. Lk 16:28). When evil is eliminated, so too will ignorance be from all rational beings, since “ignorance is the shadow of evil” (IV.29). Both paradise and hell are for the instruction of rational beings, the former for the righteous and the latter for the unrighteous (VI.8; cf. III.9; VI.76); one day both groups, represented as children, will reach adulthood (IV.15). This will be when Christ subjects all enemies under his feet, since subjection is salvific (VI.15; cf. Sch in Ps 21.29); then “all the natures of the rational beings will prostrate before the name of the Lord,” for which Evagrius cites Ps 85:9 and Phil 2:9–11 (VI.27). Evagrius takes precisely the same view of the aeons that Origen did; they are natural periods, at the end of each being a resurrection and judgment, set up to instruct rational beings in the knowledge of God (III.36, 38; VI.67). The universal restoration will then take place at the end of the aeons, after which there will be no more aeon (IV.38; V.89; VI.33–34).
Evagrius, however, had a more extreme view of the restoration than Origen or the Cappadocians. This can be seen in his “great letter” to Melania the Elder, another influential ascetic and Desert Mother, in which he says,
And there will be a time when the body, the soul, and the intellect will cease to be separate from one another, with their names and their plurality, since the body and the soul will be elevated to the rank of intellect, in accordance with the words, “That they may be one in us, just as you and I are one.” Thus there will be a time when the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and his rational creation, which constitutes his body, will cease to be separate, with their names and their plurality. And this conclusion can be drawn from the words, “God will be all in all.” (Ep ad Mel 22)
Like many other fathers, Evagrius believes that the entire rational creation constitutes Christ’s body and cites 1 Cor 15:24–28 along with John 17:21–23 to describe the universal restoration. However, he also believes that the final state will be an entirely incorporeal one, without bodies, unlike those other fathers (including Origen, who thought that created beings are inherently corporeal). [4] This is because, in his view, rational creatures were first incorporeal and bodies came after the fall (Ep ad Mel 26; cf. Keph Gnos VI.20). Furthermore, the entire rational creation will be subsumed into the Trinity; the hypostases of Father, Son, and Spirit will remain distinct, since they had no beginning, but creatures will become “one nature” with God (Ep ad Mel 23–30). Evagrius’ nearly pantheistic view of the restoration comes a step closer to the ‘Origenism’ that was condemned in the sixth century.
Cyril of Jerusalem
Cyril was the bishop of Jerusalem from ca. 350 to 386, and was exiled from his see by ‘Arian’ leaders twice during this period. His main surviving work is a series of catechetical lectures given to those in Jerusalem around the time of their baptism, possibly toward the beginning of his episcopate. In these lectures, he frequently talks about the importance of faith and repentance for salvation (esp. Cat Lect 2). The Lord saved the thief on the cross after just an hour of faith, and he doesn’t desire sinners to perish, so no one should despair of their salvation (2.5, 19; 5.9–10). Repentance is even “able to quench the fires of hell,” as shown by the story of Daniel’s companions in the furnace (2.16). Faith is so strong that it is even able to save others, in certain cases, as shown by the stories of the paralytic and Lazarus (5.8–9); thus, Cyril offers an intercessory prayer for all sinners, even those who died in their sins (23.8–10).
Whether Cyril believed in the universal restoration is difficult to say. He says in one place that repentance is impossible after death (18.14), but the passages cited above suggest that this may only be a hortatory threat (the universalist Gregory of Nazianzus gave a similar warning in Orat 16.7). He says that sinners are resurrected with different bodies to endure aeonian punishment (4.31; 18.19); but the same was held by Origen, Evagrius, and other universalists.
Cyril believes in freedom of choice, that evil is a privation of the will, and that all rational beings, including the devil, were created good (2.1–4; 4.19–21). He claims that Adam’s curse was intended as restorative, “that seeing from where he had fallen, and from what and into what a state he was brought down, he may be saved by repentance” (2.7). In his comments on 1 Cor 15:24–28, he says that the subjection of the enemies and the Son is not to be interpreted as “perishing,” nor “a forced obedience, but a self-chosen accordance” (15.29–30). Moreover, the Church “brings the whole of humanity into subjection to the Divinity” (18.22). However, Cyril’s remarks are unfortunately not clear enough to say whether he was a universalist or an infernalist.
Diodore of Tarsus
Diodore was a fourth-century theologian who founded a catechetical school at Antioch and was appointed bishop of Tarsus by Basil of Caesarea, where he stayed from 378 to 390. He was influential in his day and played a significant role in the 381 Council of Constantinople, but his Christology later came to be seen as ‘Nestorian,’ and he was condemned together with his pupil Theodore of Mopsuestia over a century later. Diodore was known to have been a universalist, and was cited as one by later theologians in the Syriac church, where his writings were preserved (e.g., Isaac of Nineveh, Second Part 39.12–13; John of Dara, On the Resurrection IV.21; Theodore bar Konai, Scholion II.63). Solomon of Basra provides us with two lengthy excerpts from Diodore, in which he argues that the unrighteous will be tormented in proportion to their sins before entering into blessedness, and shows from Scriptural usage that aiōnios does not mean unending (Book of the Bee 60).
This is consistent with what we read in Diodore’s surviving commentary on the Psalms. There he says that God does everything for our benefit through “providence,” including punishment (Comm in Ps 4:4; 39:11). God is both good and just, therefore his punishments are restorative (25:8–10). He’s well aware that aiōn and aiōnios don’t refer strictly to an unending duration, since “it is customary with Scripture to call temporary things ‘aeonian’” (48:8; cf. 24:7). Diodore interprets subjection to the Lord as a joyful and happy submission (2:9–11), and says that ultimately all people will be subjected (45:4–5). The Logos, by taking the human nature, bestowed a common benefit upon the whole humanity (8:4).
John Chrysostom
John Chrysostom was a student of Diodore of Tarsus and the archbishop of Constantinople from 397 to 403. He had a deep respect for his teacher, as is evident from the panegyric that he delivered for Diodore (Laus Diodori). During the Origenist controversy, he received four Origenian monks known as the “Tall Brothers” who had been banished from Egypt by the anti-‘Origenist’ Theophilus of Alexandria. John’s enemies, including Theophilus, managed to get him banished from his episcopate, and he died in exile. Palladius, who was a friend and disciple of both Evagrius and John Chrysostom, wrote a Dialogue in defense of him, in which the intrigue that led to his downfall is described. He has been posthumously vindicated, since he’s now regarded as one of three Ecumenical Teachers in Eastern Orthodoxy and a Doctor of the Church in Catholicism.
John’s Origenian alliances during his life suggest that he wasn’t vehemently opposed to universalism, but within his writings, he indicates that he himself was an infernalist. In his homily on 2 Thess 1:8, he refers to “the retribution that is immortal, the chastisement that is eternal [aidios],” although he does present this as a threat which is a “wholesome medicine” meant to lead to repentance (PG 62.476–80). He continues,
There are many men who place their hopes, not in abstaining from sins, but in thinking that Gehenna is not so terrible as it is said to be, but milder than what is threatened, and temporary, not aeonian, and about this they philosophize much. But I could show from many reasons, and conclude from the very words of Scripture concerning Gehenna, that it is not only not milder, but much more terrible than is threatened. But I do not now intend to discourse concerning these things. For the fear even from bare words is sufficient, though we do not fully unfold their meaning. But that it is not temporary, hear Paul now saying, concerning those who know not God, and who do not believe in the Gospel, that “they shall suffer the punishment of aeonian destruction.” How then is that temporary which is aeonian? (PG 62.479)
In this passage, John acknowledges a “temporary” view of Gehenna and explicitly rejects it. [Although there are some oddities here: no patristic universalist ever claimed that punishment was not “aeonian,” nor did they ever claim that this provided a license to sin (on the contrary, they recognized the importance of threats). Furthermore, he uses “aeonian” in a sense that implies “endless,” but as a disciple of Diodore, he would have known that this isn’t necessarily the meaning of aiōnios.]
In his homily on 1 Corinthians 3:12–15, John Chrysostom offers the question: “How is the rule of justice preserved, if punishment has no end?” In response, he says, “When God has established something, obey his decisions and do not submit what is said to human reasoning.” In order to refute the restorative interpretation of 1 Cor 3:12–15, he interprets Paul’s words, “he shall be saved,” as referring to perpetual damnation in fire (Hom in 1 Cor 9.5–6). Later in the same series of homilies, he says, “retribution will not be such as to have a limit and be abolished, but the chastisement will be aeonian” (Hom in 1 Cor 23.5). Once again, he uses “aeonian” in a sense that clearly implies “endless.”
Although John believes in endless punishment, he also believes that the prayers and almsgiving of the saints can mitigate the punishments of those who died in sin (e.g., Hom in Phil 3; Hom in Acts 21). When comforting believers who have lost loved ones, he addresses the objection, “It is on this very account that I lament, because he died while he was in sin!” In response, he says that the believer should rejoice, since his loved one’s “sins have been broken off and have stopped adding iniquities”; furthermore, he can help them by prayer and almsgiving. John continues,
Let us not be weary in giving aid to the dead and praying for them. For the purification of the whole world [tēs oikoumenēs] is expected. Therefore we pray with confidence for the whole world, and mention them along with the martyrs, the confessors, and the priests. For all of us are one body, although some members are more glorious than others, and it is possible to put together forgiveness for them in every way, with prayers, gifts offered on their behalf, and thanks to those who are mentioned with them. Why therefore do you grieve and complain, since it is in your power to put together so great a forgiveness for the dead? (Hom in 1 Cor 41.5)
In this passage, John says that the whole world – including those who died in their sins, along with the martyrs and confessors – is one body, and is expected to be purified. Finally, in his homilies on Colossians, when Paul says that Christ is the head of the church, John interprets, “when he says ‘church’ he means the whole of humanity” (Hom in Col 3). He continues, commenting on Paul’s statement that Christ reconciles all things to God: “He who is the head of the church says not only, ‘Peace to you,’ but ‘Peace to all,’” for unless all members of the body are at peace, there is no peace (paraphrase). This suggests that John Chrysostom believed in both an eschatological universalism and in the reality of endless punishment, but that every human would avoid the latter through the prayer and almsgiving of the saints.
Ambrose of Milan
Ambrose was the bishop of Milan in Italy from 374 to 397 and a staunch anti-‘Arian’. In his day he was highly influential, a friend of the Roman emperor Theodosius I who even gave the eulogy at his funeral. He was also very knowledgeable in Greek and highly influenced by Origen. His views were so close to Origen’s in some respects that Jerome accused him of translating portions of Origen’s works into Latin and passing them off as his own (Rufinus, Apology Against Jerome II.23, 25). Among other things, Ambrose inherited his universalistic interpretation of 1 Cor 15:24–28, as is evident from his interpretation of this passage in On the Faith:
When therefore all beings have become subject to Christ, through Christ’s obedience, so that all bend their knees in his name, then he himself will be all in all. For now, since all do not believe, all do not seem to be in subjection. But when all have believed and done the will of God, then Christ will be all in all. And when Christ is all in all, then will God be all in all; for the Father ever abides in the Son. (De fide V.15.182)
This is the conclusion to Ambrose’s lengthy exegesis of the passage (De fide V.13–15), in which he argues that “subjection” refers to voluntary obedience, that Christ’s body is the whole of humanity, and so Christ’s subjection (in his created nature) cannot occur until every person believes and is saved. As he said earlier in this work, “the mystery of the incarnation of God is the salvation of the whole creation,” by which he means “every creature,” in support of which he cites Heb 2:9 and Rom 8:21 (De fide V.8.105). This is all in order to refute the ‘Arian’ interpretation which degrades the Son.
Ambrose held that evil is a privation, and that every creature (qua created by God) is good (De Isaac vel anima 7.60–61; 8.79). Moreover, like other Origenian universalists, he believed that physical death can be considered a good since it prevents sin and guilt from becoming eternal; he devoted an entire work to this topic (De bono mortis; cf. De sacramentis II.6.17). In his commentary on Psalm 118, he says that human sinners will pass through a baptism of fire to burn up their sins, in contrast to the devil and his angels who will be there everlastingly (Exp in Ps 118 3.14–17).
Ambrose, like every other patristic universalist including Gregory of Nyssa, holds that punishments occur in the next world, and that those who receive excessive temporal goods in this life will tend to receive punishment in the next (De officis I.15–16). He refers to the result of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as aeternus punishment (De Spir Sanct I.3.53), and recognizes the usefulness of the threat of aeternus punishment (De officis I.33.188). As a follower of Origen and proficient in Greek, he surely would have known that aeternus in this case is translated from aiōnios and not aidios (see the comments of Orosius on Basil above). Ambrose, however, does seem to say in one place that the punishment of the devil will have no end (De fide II.13.118), which implies that he only believed in the universal restoration of humans.
Conclusion
In the late fourth century, universalism appears to have increased further in popularity. All three of the “Cappadocian Fathers” (at least the two Gregories) were probably universalists, and were recognized as such by later church fathers. Their student Evagrius Ponticus inherited their trinitarian theology and universalist eschatology, in an even more extreme form (with a nearly pantheistic view of the restoration). Cyril of Jerusalem’s views aren’t entirely clear, but he certainly shared many views with the patristic universalists. Diodore of Tarsus, who founded the catechetical school of Antioch, was definitely a universalist, and his disciple John Chrysostom was an infernalist (but plausibly held an eschatological universalism based on the intercession of the saints). Finally, Ambrose of Milan was one of the first fathers to bring Origen’s views – including his universalism – to the West.
______________________________
[1] Ramelli and Konstan, Terms for Eternity, 189–99.
[2] Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, “Basil and Apokatastasis: New Findings,” Journal of Early Christian History 4 (2014): 116–21.
[3] Unfortunately, due to limitations of space, I couldn’t fully flesh out Gregory’s ideas, but see Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, 372–440 for a fuller overview of his universalism. I also strongly recommend reading Gregory of Nyssa’s Great Catechism for an exposition of his wider views.
[4] Although see Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 7.21, where he speaks of the body and the soul becoming “one in spirit and intellect [nous] and deity [theos], the mortal and mutable being swallowed up by life” in the resurrection.
