Third-Century Eastern Fathers
Now that we’ve looked in detail at Origen’s view of the eventual restoration of all, we can examine the eschatological views of the other third-century church fathers. As we’ll see, universalism became the dominant view in the eastern church over the third century, most likely due to Origen’s influence. All of the major church fathers in the East during this period had connections to Origen and were plausibly universalists. Let’s begin by looking at the views of Dionysius of Alexandria.
Dionysius “the Great”
Dionysius “the Great” was the bishop of Alexandria from 248 to 264. He was a direct student of Origen at the catechetical school of Alexandria, and eventually succeeded him as leader of the school. The later Alexandrian church father Athanasius saw him as an illustrious predecessor, and was concerned to defend him against charges of heresy (see De Sententia Dionysii).
Like Origen, Dionysius understood the term aiōn (and related phrase eis ton aiōna) to refer, not to “eternity” or “forever,” but to an indefinite and lengthy period of time, an “age” or “aeon.” Commenting on Ecclesiastes 1:4, which says that “the earth remains into the aeon” (eis ton aiōna), he replies, “Yes, into the aeon, but not into the aeons.” On Ecclesiastes 3:11, he comments, “the end of this aeon – that is, our present life – is a thing of which we are ignorant.”
Dionysius believed that it is impossible for God to desire evil, but that he rather “wills to give us good exceedingly above what we ask or think... His will, therefore, is the perfect will, as the Beloved himself knew, and often he says that he has come to do that will” (Comm in Luke 22:48). Like Paul, he contrasts the death that comes through Adam with the resurrection of the dead that comes through “the new Adam,” Christ (Comm in Eph 3:4). In his limited surviving writings, there are no explicit affirmations of universal restoration, but I find it nearly impossible to believe that he wasn’t a universalist based on his closeness with Origen, his use of the word aiōn, and these few other statements of his.
Gregory Thaumaturgus
Gregory “the Miracle-Worker” (Thaumaturgus) was the bishop of Neocaesarea in the mid-3rd century. He became a student of Origen early in his life, when both of them happened to be in the city of Caesarea in Palestine. In his public farewell oration to Origen before leaving Palestine, he considered this initial meeting to have happened by providence (Oration 4–5). His teacher clearly had a substantial and lasting impact on him and his theology. The later church father Basil of Caesarea held Gregory in high esteem, and said that by both friends and enemies of the church he “was regarded as a second Moses” (De Spiritu Sancto 74).
Gregory Thaumaturgus used the terms aiōn and aiōnios in the same way that they are used throughout Scripture and by Origen, to refer to a lengthy and indeterminate period of time, an “aeon.” [1] Like them, he did not use aidios (“eternal”) to refer to punishment or death. On the contrary, it is the heathen who believe death to be “an eternal [aidion] evil which brings us to nothing,” and in doing so they ignore the judgment that comes after death (Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes 11). [Note that he does not say that this judgment results in hopeless punishment, only that there is judgment, on which Origen and all other patristic universalists agree.]
In Gregory’s farewell oration to Origen, he refers to Christ as “the common Savior of all” and “the Savior of all people, even those who are half dead and despoiled, the Protector and Physician of all, the Logos, the tireless Keeper of all” (Oration 4; 17). If his Sectional Confession of Faith is authentic (which, however, seems unlikely), this is even more explicitly universalistic; the incarnation of the Logos took place for “the renewal of humanity... the salvation of (all) the world” (6; 19). The Holy Spirit has the power to “sanctify the whole creation,” and indeed Christ’s life was “for the sanctification of us all” and his resurrection “for the resurrection of us all” (18). In the fifth century, both Rufinus and Jerome in their dispute over Origen can agree that “the great Gregory of Pontus, a man of apostolic virtues” was a universalist (Rufinus, Apology Against Jerome I.43).
Pamphilus of Caesarea
Pamphilus was the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine during the late third and early fourth centuries. In his youth, he traveled to Alexandria where he studied under Pierius, one of Origen’s successors as leader of the catechetical school who was even called “the Younger Origen.” When Pamphilus was in prison during the Diocletianic persecution (from AD 307–309), he composed a five-book apology for Origen together with his student and successor Eusebius, since Origen's ideas had already begun to come under fire in some circles. Pamphilus defended him against the charge of trinitarian heresy (Apology 38–85, 88–126), that he denied the bodily resurrection of the dead (127–149), that he denied the judgment of sinners (150–158), and that he believed in the pre-existence and transmigration of souls (159–188).
Pamphilus quotes Origen’s statements about punishment being restorative while defending him against the charge that he denied punishment of sinners (Apology 153, 155). He repeats Origen’s Scriptural justification for this claim, citing the theme of punishment-and-restoration throughout the prophets (Isa 4:4; 47:14–15; 66:16–17; Mal 3:3). Unfortunately, without any explicit statements from Pamphilus on eschatology, we can’t be absolutely certain that he was a universalist, but it’s hard to imagine that he wasn’t, given his belief in restorative punishment and his closeness to Origen.
Methodius of Olympus
Methodius was the bishop of Olympus in Lycia during the late third and early fourth centuries. Unlike the other third-century church fathers we’ve seen, he wasn’t an Origenian, but in fact an opponent of what he thought to be Origen’s views (which, as Pamphilus was careful to demonstrate, were not actually Origen’s views). He composed a book, On the Resurrection, in defense of the bodily resurrection against the supposedly Origenian incorporeal resurrection. Even so, his thought closely parallels Origen’s actual thought in some important respects, and he was very plausibly a universalist.
In his defense of the resurrection, Methodius claims that physical death was instituted for a restorative purpose, “so that humanity might not be an undying or ever-living evil, as would have been the case if sin were dominant in him, as it had sprung up in an immortal body” (On the Resurrection I.4). And again, God put “an end to sin by means of death, lest humanity living as an immortal sinner, and sin living in him, should be liable to eternal curse... by means of [physical] death [God] frees his sons from [spiritual] death” (Symposium IX.2). We’ve already seen this idea – that death was instituted to prevent humanity from sinning eternally and thereby deserving eternal punishment – in Theophilus of Antioch and Origen. In addition to his belief in restorative punishment, Methodius held to the privation theory of evil in his polemics against the predestinationist ‘gnostics,’ arguing that every substance created by God is fundamentally good, and evil is a result of the free choices of rational creatures (On Free Will; cf. Symposium VIII.15–16).
Methodius takes a very universalistic line in his Symposium on virginity. He interprets the marred and restored vessel of Jeremiah 18:3–4 as humanity, which was ruined by the sin of Adam and restored by Christ – who will find even the final lost sheep (interpreted as humanity), so that sin and condemnation are destroyed, and “the sentence... that had gone forth on all” is reversed, and in Christ “all will be made alive” (Symposium III.5–6). The ontological asymmetry of good and evil ensures that the latter will ultimately disappear (III.7). The closing hymn celebrates the end of death and ignorance, which is conceived as a return to the beginning (XI.2.21–22). His Oration on the Psalms ends with a declaration that, because of Christ’s death and resurrection, he will be “equally adored by all creatures, for to him every knee shall bow in heaven, on earth, and under the earth” (7).
Anthony “the Great”
Anthony “the Great” was the first of the Desert Fathers in Egypt, and his outsize influence on Christian monasticism earned him the posthumous title “Father of All Monks.” Anthony was certainly exposed to and influenced by Origen’s writings, which spread widely in the Egyptian desert during the early monastic movement. [2] The later church father Athanasius of Alexandria, who was also a supporter of Origen, wrote a Life of St. Anthony which greatly influenced later monasticism. Fortunately, we have seven letters from Anthony to his followers which are probably authentic, so we can learn something of his thought.
Anthony conceived of the original state of rational creatures as unity, and salvation as a return to that unity (Letter 2; 5; 6). He repeatedly speaks of salvation as restoration to the “first beginning,” which is to be “one in God” (Letter 2; 6). Not just humans, but angels, heavenly bodies, demons, the devil, and all other rational creatures share a common nature (Letter 5; 6). Every rational creature was made in the image of Jesus Christ, in virtue of which he is “the head of all creation and his body, the church” (Letter 6). Origen likewise held that Christ’s body, properly speaking, is the entire rational creation, which is why the subjection of every enemy constitutes the subjection of Christ to God (De Princ III.5.7; on 1 Cor 15:24–28). Anthony repeatedly speaks of the division of rational creation through sin as a “wound” to this body, which Christ came to heal; he came to teach us that “we are members one of another.”
Anthony refers to some, including the demons, whose “portion is to be in hell,” who are “in this world... condemned to death” and prepared “to inherit gehenna” (Letter 6). The coming of Christ will bring punishment for some (Letter 2). Those who neglect their salvation may be deprived of aeonian life and the kingdom of light (Letter 5), and the wound of one who sins against God is “incurable” (Letter 4). But an “incurable” wound can still be cured by God; it “could not be healed by any creature, only by the goodness of the Father” (Letter 6). Origen also held “the goodness of God” to be the active agent of universal restoration (De Princ I.6.1; cf. III.6.5).
In his first letter, Anthony distinguishes three types of believers: those who love God from their first calling, those who convert out of fear of punishment, and those who are converted through punishment, thereby “entering into knowledge... they also attain the true manner of life, like” the other two groups. God has “mercy shown to the whole creation, which in these members once was sick” (Letter 1). For “God always loves his creatures” (Letter 5), and “God always visits his creatures, and bestows his goodness upon them” (Letter 7). In addition to his belief in restorative punishment, Anthony held to the privation theory of evil, claiming that sin and evil are “foreign and unnatural to our substance,” which is fundamentally good (Letter 7). Based on all this, it’s very likely that Anthony the Great was an Origenian universalist.
Third-Century Western Fathers
Based on what we’ve seen, universalism became the dominant view in the eastern church during the third century, thanks to the direct and indirect influence of Origen. But what about the third-century western church? Here we see a much wider range of views, corresponding to all three eschatological schools of thought (annihilationism, universalism, and infernalism). Probably thanks to Tertullian’s influence, along with the translation of aiōnios (“aeonian”) into Latin as aeternus (“eternal”), infernalism gained a wider purchase in the Latin-speaking church during this period.
Hippolytus of Rome
Hippolytus was a prolific Christian commentator and theologian in the early third century, but not much is known for certain about his life. He may have been a bishop in Rome from ca. 222 to 235. Jerome says that Origen was himself influenced by Hippolytus to write his many commentaries on Scripture (De Viris Illustribus 61). The heresiological work Refutation of All Heresies is often attributed to him, but this work is anonymous, and it’s uncertain whether it was authored by the same person as Hippolytus’ commentaries.
The author of the Refutation doesn’t propound a clear eschatological view, much less an infernalist one; in fact, this work was at first attributed to Origen. At the end, he gives a detailed description of the punishments that the ‘heretics’ can expect if they fail to repent (Refutation X.30), but given the polemical nature of the work, we can’t be sure if the author believed these punishments to be truly hopeless. In the same description, the author refers to these punishments as kolaston, which may carry the sense of restorative as opposed to retributive punishment (cf. Aristotle, Rhet 1369B; Clement, Strom VII.16). The author doesn’t cite universalism, infernalism, or annihilationism as ‘heresies,’ which suggests that these were acceptable theologoumena to him.
In his commentaries, which are the only writings that definitely belong to him, Hippolytus speaks of the “aeonian fire of punishment” which will “consume” all but those who fear God (Comm in Dan IV.14.3). This punishment is not only aeonian, but “unending” (IV.12.1). In his commentary on Susannah, he glosses “aeonian punishment” with “death” (I.22.3), and this death “will never cease”. On the other hand, in Against Plato, which is doubtfully attributed to Hippolytus, the author provides a clearly infernalist vision of hell wherein “no death will deliver them from punishment” (3). Based on this, Hippolytus was most likely an annihilationist but possibly an infernalist.
Cyprian of Carthage
Cyprian was the bishop of Carthage from AD 248 to 258 during the lapsi controversy, over whether Christians who had lapsed during Roman persecution could rejoin the church. Among his influences were Tertullian and the Latin apologist Minucius Felix, who was also an infernalist (Octavius 35). It seems that Cyprian was also an infernalist, based on what he wrote in his polemic against the anti-Christian proconsul of Africa Demetrianus:
When the day of judgment shall come, what joy of believers, what sorrow of unbelievers; that they should have been unwilling to believe here, and now that they should be unable to return that they might believe! An ever-burning Gehenna will burn up the condemned, and a punishment devouring with living flames; nor will there be any source whence at any time they may have either respite or end to their torments. Souls with their bodies will be reserved in infinite tortures for suffering... The pain of punishment will then be without the fruit of penitence; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late they will believe in eternal punishment who would not believe in eternal life. (Treatise V.24)
This is as clear of an affirmation of infernalism as we could hope for, although we shouldn’t forget the polemical context. Cyprian also occasionally refers to the threat of “eternal punishment” in his letters (30.7; 54.14, 19; 76.6). Ilaria Ramelli points to Cyprian’s affirmation of restorative punishment, in the context of his promoting the restoration of the lapsi, as evidence that he might have been a universalist (Letter 51.22–23). [3] However, it seems clear to me that he’s talking about repentance in this life, before it’s too late. Therefore, he can be safely classified as an infernalist.
Novatian
Novatian was a bishop of Rome in the year 251, during the schism in the western church over the lapsi controversy. Unlike Cyprian and the rest of the mainstream Latin church, he refused to readmit any lapsed Christians back into the church. Shortly after he became antipope, he was excommunicated, but the schismatic church he established (the “Novatianists”) survived for centuries afterward. Despite his extreme exclusivism about restoration in this life, however, his thought parallels that of Origenian universalists at some important points, which has led some scholars to argue that he was directly aware of Origen’s writings and perhaps even the first to translate them into Latin. [4]
Much like them, Novatian viewed physical death as a restorative punishment that prevented humanity from incurring eternal guilt: “he is prevented from touching the tree of life... lest, living forever without Christ’s previous pardon of his sins, he should always bear with him for his punishment an immortality of guilt” (De trin 1). Moreover, he believed that rational creatures have freedom to choose good or evil, and that evil is not created by God but is a departure from God (De trin 1; 4). Finally, he also held that God’s anger and wrath are always intended for our restoration, “displayed for our medicine” (De trin 5). All of the elements of Origenian universalism are here. But unfortunately, Novatian doesn’t talk explicitly about universal restoration in his single surviving work.
Arnobius of Sicca
Arnobius was a Christian apologist from Sicca in north Africa during the late third and early fourth centuries. His only surviving work is a seven-book apology for Christianity titled “Against the Heathen” (Adversus nationem). In this work, he gives perhaps the clearest exposition of annihilationism from the early church:
For [souls] are cast in [to the lake of fire], and being annihilated, pass away vainly in everlasting destruction. For theirs is an intermediate state, as has been learned from Christ’s teaching; and they are such that they may on the one hand perish if they have not known God, and on the other be delivered from death if they have given heed to His threats and proffered favors. And to make manifest what is unknown, this is man’s real death, this which leaves nothing behind. For that which is seen by the eyes is only a separation of soul from body, not the last end — annihilation; this, I say, is man’s real death, when souls which know not God shall be consumed in long-protracted torment with raging fire (Adv nat II.14)
Arnobius believes that the souls of the wicked will undergo lengthy torment and finally be annihilated, leaving nothing behind. He explicitly opposes this view to Plato’s concept of eternal torment, which he thinks is close to the truth, but still wrong since the soul is not immortal. For Arnobius, the idea that the soul is immortal is absurd and promotes moral laxity, since it removes the fear of annihilation, which is worse than torment (Adv nat II.14ff).
Lactantius
Lactantius was a student of Arnobius of Sicca, also from North Africa, who wrote in the early fourth century. He became a Christian advisor to the emperor Constantine and was regarded very highly within the early and medieval church. Unlike his teacher Arnobius, however, Lactantius was clearly an infernalist who believed that some people would be tormented eternally. All people will be resurrected with indestructible flesh and tested with fire, but the fire will not harm the saints, and the wicked will feel pain from the fire forever (Divine Institutes VII.11, 21). Lactantius gave much more weight to the testimony of the Greek philosophers than Arnobius, and repeatedly cited them in support of the soul’s immortality (VII.7–13).
Conclusion
The third century saw the spread of both universalism and infernalism, the former in the East and the latter in the West. As Origen’s influence spread, universal restoration became the dominant view of the eastern, Greek-speaking church, and was held by all the major eastern church fathers of this period. In contrast, the western, Latin-speaking church remained divided between infernalism (Minucius Felix; Cyprian; Lactantius), annihilationism (Hippolytus?; Arnobius), and universalism (Novatian?). It appears that all of these views were considered to be acceptable theologoumena by the third-century church.
Part 6: Fourth-Century Fathers (1/2)
______________________________
[1] Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan, Terms for Eternity: Aiônios and Aïdios in Classical and Christian Texts (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013), 129–30.
[2] Samuel Rubenson, “Origen in the Egyptian Monastic Tradition of the Fourth Century,” Origeniana VII (1999): 319–38; Charles Kannengiesser, “Origen’s Doctrine Transmitted by Antony the Hermit and Athanasius of Alexandria,” Origeniana VIII (2003): 889–901.
[3] Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, 236.
[4] Manlio Simonetti, “Origene in Occidente prima della controversia,” Augustinianum 46, no. 1 (2006): 25–34; György Heidl, The Influence of Origen on the Young Augustine (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009), 237–72.
No comments:
Post a Comment