Late and Post-Patristic Universalism
The patristic period is generally considered to have ended after John of Damascus (675–749), who was the last great patristic theologian. Although the Christian doctrine of universal restoration didn’t survive well in the period after Constantinople II, there were still some important proponents of this view from the seventh century onward. In my last post, we saw one such proponent (Maximus the Confessor). In this post, we’ll look at several more theologians from the late and post-patristic periods who had something to say about the universal restoration.
John of Damascus
John of Damascus was a systematic theologian whose views were very influential on later Christianity, especially in the East. He was definitely not a universalist, since he says that repentance is impossible after death – people’s wills are simply unchangeable at that point (Contra Manichaeos [PG 94.1573]). His view of hell is similar to Maximus’, and became the predominant Eastern Orthodox view: God will be present to all people, and will bestow good things upon all of them (even the devil), but the wicked will perceive this as suffering since they desire evil and not good [PG 94.1569–70]. In his words, the wicked “suffer without being healed, without God making hell, but because we lay out hell for ourselves.”
John Damascene’s views are relevant to the universal restoration because of his testimony about the meaning of the words aiōn and aiōnios:
It must be understood that the noun “aeon” is polysemic, for it denotes many things. The life of each man is called “aeon”; again, a period of a thousand years is called “aeon”; again, the whole present life is called “aeon,” and the future aeon, the endless one after the resurrection; and again, “aeon” is used to denote, not time nor a part of time, but that which is co-extensive with eternal things [tois aidiois], since what time is for temporal things is what “aeon” is for eternal things [aidiois]... God is spoken of as aeonian and pre-aeonian [proaiōnios], for the aeon is itself his creation... Further, aeonian life and aeonian punishment prove that the future aeon is endless. (De fide orth II.1)
This shows that as late as the eighth century, it was still an established fact that aiōn and aiōnios had many meanings and didn’t necessarily mean “eternal.” John actually presupposes that aeonian life and punishment are endless, and concludes from this that the future aeon is endless, rather than arguing the other way around.
Syriac Universalists
The Church of the East split from the Chalcedonian church in the fifth century over the ‘Nestorian’ controversy, and never accepted Constantinople II’s condemnations of the “Three Chapters” and Origen. They venerated Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia as saints, both of whom were explicitly universalist and were condemned by the Chalcedonian church for allegedly ‘Nestorian’ Christology. For these reasons, the universal restoration was considered more acceptable to Syriac theologians than it was for Eastern Chalcedonians, let alone the Latin-speaking church. Even John of Dara, who was a Syriac dogmatic infernalist, fully admitted that the saints Diodore, Theodore, and Gregory of Nyssa believed in the universal restoration (On the Resurrection IV.21).
Isaac of Nineveh
Isaac was the bishop of Nineveh from 676 to his death in ca. 700, and he is venerated as a saint by the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and the Church of the East. Until 1983, we only had the First Part of his work, which is not explicitly universalist. It does describe the torments of Gehenna as “torments of love,” in that the sinners there are not deprived of God’s love, but experience it as torture (I.28); this is in line with Maximus’ and John Damascene’s views. He also says that we should not call God “just,” citing the parables of the vineyard and the prodigal son, and concluding, “Where then is God’s justice, for when we were sinners Christ died for us!” (I.51) We should understand Isaac to be speaking of retributive justice here, since he certainly accepts restorative punishment for sin.
When his Second Part was discovered in 1983, it revealed that Isaac was an explicit universalist. He says that God’s love is equal for all his creatures, whether fallen or unfallen, saint or sinner (II.38; 40.1–3). God does not feel anger (a passion), nor exact retribution (II.39.2–3, 15–19), so even physical death was instituted as restorative, to transport us to the future world (II.39.4–5). Isaac is “of the opinion that [God] will manifest some wonderful outcome, a matter of immense and ineffable compassion” with regard to Gehenna, because “[i]t is not the way of the compassionate Maker to create rational beings to deliver them over mercilessly to unending affliction for things of which he knew even before they were fashioned” (II.39.6). He cites Diodore and Theodore, “pillars of the church,” to show that this opinion is orthodox and not novel (II.39.7–14). Thus, he concludes,
That we should further say or think that [Gehenna] is not full of love and mingled with compassion would be an opinion full of blasphemy and insult to our Lord God. By saying that he will even hand us over to burning for the sake of sufferings, torment and all sorts of ills, we are attributing to the divine nature an enmity towards the very rational beings which he created through grace. The same is true if we say that he acts or thinks with spite and with a vengeful purpose, as though he was avenging himself. Among all his actions there is none which is not entirely a matter of mercy, love and compassion: this constitutes the beginning and the end of his dealings with us. (II.39.22)
Isaac goes on to describe the final restoration. In this state, God will bring even demons and sinners “to a single equal state of perfection in relationship to his own Being, in a state in which the holy angels are now... they will be perfected in love for him” (II.40.4). Maybe this is even greater than the state that the angels are in now (II.40.5). “No part belonging to any one of the rational beings will be lost, as far as God is concerned, in the preparation of that heavenly kingdom which is prepared for all worlds” (II.40.7). Most humans will not even have to go to Gehenna, but those who do will be restored when they repent (II.40.8–17). Isaac continues that although Gehenna has a limit, it is the most terrible experience, so we should be careful to avoid laziness and develop virtue (II.41). This concludes his Second Part.
John of Dalyatha
John of Dalyatha (ca. 690–780) was a monk and writer in the Church of the East, whose works were condemned as ‘Messalian’ (a trinitarian heresy) shortly after his death, but he was rehabilitated several decades later. He believed in future punishment in Gehenna, and expounds the view that hell will be precisely God himself, experienced by sinners as suffering (Letter 50.12–16). The unquenchable fire is Christ himself, who purifies us from iniquity (4.6; 15.2; cf. 10.2; 25.2; 29.2; 43.12; 51.2). John describes future beatitude as “without end,” but not future torment (47.2). In his letter 40, he seems to expound the universal restoration, when all beings, even those who are now immature, will be united and perfected by means of Jesus’ action. After contemplating Judgment and Providence, one realizes that there will be no distinction between righteous and sinner, “but Christ appears wholly in everyone” (49.9).
Solomon of Basra
Solomon was the bishop of Basra in the first half of the 13th century, and he authored the Book of the Bee, which details the history of the world from creation to restoration. In the last chapter (60), he explains that there is one view of judgment which is terrifying and “well adapted to the simple-minded and transgressors of the law,” and another merciful view, which is “suitable and adapted to the perfect and those of settled minds and the pious.” In support of this second view, he quotes passages from Isaac of Nineveh, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Diodore of Tarsus. This shows that as late as the 13th century, at least some theologians in the Church of the East were still aware of the doctrine of universal restoration and supported it.
John Scotus Eriugena
John Scotus Eriugena (“the Irish-born”) was a ninth-century theologian who served as head of the Carolingian palace school in France from ca. 850 to his death in ca. 880. His magnum opus was the Periphyseon (“On the Division of Nature”), a work of metaphysics which attempted to synthesize Scripture and the teachings of the church fathers (mainly Origen, the Cappadocians, Ambrose, Ps.-Dionysius, and Augustine) into a coherent framework. Before this, however, he was commissioned by Hincmar of Reims to write a treatise on divine predestination in 850, to counter the monk Gottschalk, who was spreading the view of double predestination (that God predestines both the righteous and wicked to their fates).
Eriugena’s main arguments against double predestination rest on divine simplicity, which means that God cannot have two separate ‘predestinations’ (De div praed 1.4–3.1), and the ontological non-subsistence of evil, which God did not create, so he can’t be said to have predestined evil (3.2–3; 10.2–5). All evil comes from rational creatures exercising their free will, which humans have essentially at all times, even after the fall (4.6–8.9). Thus, God only has one predestination, by which he predestines the righteous to glory (4.1–5; 11.3–7). Moreover, since God exists beyond time, any talk of him ‘predestining’ or ‘foreknowing’ events is only by metaphor (9). As for punishment, the substance of creatures is good and won’t, indeed can’t, be punished; only the evil wills shall be punished, and they will be punished precisely by their sins (16). The wicked will lack no perfection of nature, only the happiness that comes from grace (19.1–3).
In his De divina praedestinatione, Eriugena relies primarily on Augustine and Gregory the Great, not any of the Eastern fathers. His Periphyseon shows a much greater reliance on the Eastern church fathers, especially Origen, the Cappadocians, Ambrose, Maximus the Confessor, and Ps.-Dionysius. (Between these two works, he translated some writings of Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus, and Ps.-Dionysius into Latin.) The Periphyseon is divided into four parts, corresponding to the four divisions of nature: Book I on that which is not created and creates (God as Beginning); Book II on that which is created and creates (the primordial Causes/Forms); Books III–IV on that which is created and does not create (the corporeal world); and Book V on that which is not created and does not create (God as End).
Eriugena argues for an extremely apophatic theology, relying primarily on Ps.-Dionysius (Periphyseon I:451C–524B; II:586C–98A). Nothing can be properly predicated of God except by metaphor; all we can properly say is that God is beyond substance, beyond power, beyond eternity, and so on. The “nothing” from which the universe was created is the superabundant Nothingness of God – not that he lacks anything but that he is beyond any definition (III:680C–88A). Eriugena’s concern for reconciling the Latin and Greek fathers can be seen in his treatment of the filioque, where he attempts to synthesize the conflicting teachings of the church fathers (II:601B–14B).
Eriugena continues to hold that evil is ontologically non-subsistent, and sin exists only in the will as a privation of good (IV:826A–29B). He quotes Gregory of Nyssa to support the impossibility of anyone resting in evil, and the necessity of eventually turning toward the Good (V:917A–19D). Eriugena’s metaphysics entail the return of all things into their Causes, which means that God is both the Beginning and End of everything (V:867B–72A). According to Maximus, nature is divided in five ways: (1) the division between God and creation, (2) between the sensible and intelligible creation, (3) between heaven and earth, (4) between Paradise and the existing globe, and (5) the division of the human being between male and female due to sin (II:529C–31A; V:893B). These divisions will be undone in the restoration (V:876AB), thanks to Christ’s incarnation and ascension (II:531C–539C). [1] Our bodies and the sensible creation won’t cease to exist, but will be transformed into something greater: the Causes from which they came (II:590BC; V:876B–85B).
Eriugena is clear that the whole human nature, meaning every individual human nature, will be restored, because Christ assumed the whole human nature in his incarnation (V:921B–22C). And since, as Maximus says, humanity is a microcosm of the entire universe (containing both material and spiritual nature) – “by the incarnation of the Son of God every creature in heaven and on earth was saved” (V:910D–13B; cf. IV:763–86C). He quotes Origen and Gregory of Nyssa to support the restoration of the whole humanity, and concludes regarding the wicked, “their eternal damnation will consist in the total abolition of their wickedness and impiety” (V:922C–23D). Later on he cites many Scripture passages that he interprets to support the universal restoration of humanity (V:1001A–06A). Even the substance of the demons, including the devil, is good and will be restored – on this point he cites Origen, Ambrose, and Ps.-Dionysius – thus “only nature will rise again; evil and wickedness will perish in eternal damnation” (V:927B–35B).
However, not all will be restored to the same station. There is a difference between nature and grace (examined in V:902D–06C), and although God must restore all beings by nature to their Causes, he only brings some to the height of deification by grace. At the end of the Periphyseon, Eriugena interprets the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–13) to refer to the restoration; all will be restored, but only some (represented by the five wise virgins) will be deified, thus “all... shall return to Paradise, but not all shall enjoy the Tree of Life [which is Christ] – or rather, all shall receive of the Tree of Life, but not all equally” (V:1011A–18D). This would have been the case even if humanity had not sinned; just as God created different classes of angels, he created the elect and non-elect humans by grace (V:1012C–15C). But evil and wickedness will most certainly be destroyed, as Eriugena repeats over and over again:
[R]ight reason shows that nothing contrary to the Divine Goodness and Life and Blessedness can be coeternal therewith. For the Divine Goodness shall consume evil, eternal Life shall swallow up death, Blessedness shall absorb unhappiness. (Periphyseon V:926D)
In this argument against the eternity of evil and torment, Eriugena adopts precisely Origen’s argument against the coeternity of life and death (Comm in Rom V.7.8).
Even so, Eriugena seems to affirm the reality of eternal punishment in one section of the Periphyseon. The torment of the wicked will consist in the fact that although they desire evil, evil will no longer exist anywhere (V:935B–38B). Thus, what is punished is not the nature of the wicked, but their perverted will (V:938B–48D). But how can these punishments be eternal if evil can’t be eternal? The phantasies of the wicked, which lead them to desire evil, are in themselves good, and so can be eternal (V:961C–64A). Eriugena doesn’t answer how anyone could continue to desire evil when wickedness has been completely purged from them. Furthermore, his claim that anyone will be eternally unhappy – rather than simply happy to a lesser degree than the elect, as he suggests elsewhere (see above) – seems to directly contradict his argument that unhappiness can’t be coeternal with blessedness.
It’s possible that these statements are merely a nod to Augustine, and Eriugena didn’t actually believe in eternal unhappiness. He does suggestively mention that “many” believe suffering will not be coeternal with blessedness, even though the Scriptural statements about everlasting fire “seem to be against them” (II:543B). Whether or not Eriugena was actually a universalist, or an infernalist who inconsistently believed in the universal restoration, his attempted synthesis of the Augustinian and Origenian traditions is very relevant to our study. It’s interesting that in the ninth century, a respected theologian like Eriugena could speak of “the blessed Origen... the great Origen, that most diligent enquirer into the nature of things” (V:922C; 929A).
Later Universalists
Eriugena can be considered the last patristic supporter of universal restoration. After him, the Origenian tradition died off, until its resurgence in the seventeenth century among the Cambridge Platonists. [2] However, non-Origenian universalism existed on the fringes of Christianity throughout the medieval period. [3] Aelfric of Eynsham, a prolific writer from tenth-century England, testifies in his homily On the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin (184–186) that certain “heretics” believe Mary and the saints will intercede for and harrow the sinners from the devil. The eleventh-century bishop Theophylact of Ochrid, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:28, says that “some” interpret this verse to refer to “the elimination of evilness, because God will be ‘all in all’ clearly once sin has ceased to exist.”
Amalric of Bena was a teacher of philosophy and theology at the University of Paris in the second half of the twelfth century. Amalric’s actual views are unclear, because his writings have not survived, but he was forced by the Catholic Church to recant his views in 1206, and his views along with the views of Joachim of Fiore were condemned at the 1215 Lateran Council. The followers of both Joachim and Amalric believed that they were on the cusp of the “Age of the Holy Spirit” which would be a utopia for humanity. The Amalricians also had a pantheistic tendency, as they claimed that “God is all things” and “all things are One, because whatever exists is God.” Amalric was influenced by Eriugena’s Periphyseon, which was subsequently condemned in 1225 by Pope Honorius III.
Meister Eckhart (1260–1328) was a theologian, philosopher, and mystic of the Dominican Order. His anthropology and view of the incarnation were influenced by Origen, whom he quotes about fifty times throughout his writings. [4] He was also influenced in his theology by Ps.-Dionysius. Eckhart never develops a clear theory of universal restoration, but his view of hell is that “nothing” burns there, that is, the nothingness of evil which is a privation, and there torments the soul (Sermon 13b). The pain of hell is being separated from God, and to be separated from him even for an instant is to be separated forever (57). But even in hell the soul is inclined toward goodness (32ab), and those in hell retain the “nobility of nature” and existence, so those in hell would not desire to cease to exist (2; 23; 32b; 65; 84; 89). Eckhart cites Origen to say that the seed of goodness that God plants in each being can never be destroyed, and always inclines toward God (The Nobleman).
Julian of Norwich (1343–1416) was an influential mystic, who came down with the plague in ca. 1373 and had sixteen visions of Christ. In her thirteenth vision, she questions why God didn’t prevent sin from happening in the first place, since then “all should have been well.” Christ answers: “It was necessary that there should be sin, but all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well.” Julian then sees that sin “has no manner of substance nor any part of being, nor could it be known except by the pain that it causes.” She then considers that she is required to believe in “hell without end” by the Church, and thinks that it is impossible for all manner of things to be well. God responds, “What seems impossible to you is not impossible to me: I will save my word in all things, and I will make all manner of things well.” Like Eckhart, Julian never develops a clear theory of universal restoration, but her views point in that direction.
Christian universalism saw a resurgence among some thinkers in the Radical Reformation, from the sixteenth century onward. [5] The clearest universalist thinker was Gerrard Winstanley, the leader of the Diggers, a dissident religious group in seventeenth-century England that can be reasonably regarded as proto-socialist and proto-anarchist. [6] Winstanley believed that “everything that is in or about the Creature that is of God will stand; but everything that is in or from the Creature that is not of God will fall and perish” (The mysterie of God 20–21). The purpose of hell is that “the Serpent [i.e., the corrupt will] only shall perish, and God will not lose a hair that he made, he will redeem his whole creation from death” (47). In the consummation of creation, God will
take up all his Creation, Mankind, into himself, and will become the only, endless, pure, absolute, and infinite being, even infinitely forever all in all, in every one, and in the whole, that no flesh may glory in itself, but in the Lord only. (13)
Winstanley’s universalism takes an extreme view of the restoration, in which humanity will be “taken up into the Being of God” (18), reminiscent of the radical ‘Origenism’ of the sixth century. As I mentioned earlier, some of the seventeenth-century Cambridge Platonists held to a less radical, more authentically Origenian view of the universal restoration. [2]
Conclusion
Although the doctrine of universal restoration largely died off after the condemnation of ‘Origenism’ in the sixth century, this view survived among some Christian thinkers over the next millennium. In the Church of the East, where Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia were known as universalists and still venerated, universalism was considered a respectable view into the second millennium, and was supported by Isaac of Nineveh, John of Dalyatha, and Solomon of Basra. The Latin theologian John Scotus Eriugena was a proponent of the universal restoration, although it's uncertain whether he was a universalist or infernalist. Meister Eckhart and Julian of Norwich, two medieval theologians and mystics, may have supported the universal restoration.
______________________________
[1] Eriugena believed that the distinction between God and creation would only be undone in the elect, who would be deified by grace. This deification won’t entail the elect transforming into the substance of God, but as Eriugena repeats over and over again, “like air into light.” The elect will become totally ‘transparent’ to God so that in them only God can be seen, just as air is transparent to light.
[2] Christian Hengstermann, “Pre-existence and universal salvation – the Origenian renaissance in early modern Cambridge,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 25 (2017): 971–89.
[3] Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, A Larger Hope? Universal Salvation from Christian Beginnings to Norwich (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2019), 197–210.
[4] Elisabeth Boncour, “Maître Eckhart, lecteur d’Origène,” PhD diss., (Paris, 2014).
[5] Robin Parry and Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, A Larger Hope? Universal Salvation from the Reformation to the Nineteenth Century (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2019), 11–69.
[6] Interestingly, I’ve found that Christian universalism and anarchism have been linked in many key thinkers, from Gregory of Nyssa, to the Diggers, to Jacques Ellul and David Bentley Hart in the modern day (along with myself).
No comments:
Post a Comment