Page images
PDF
EPUB

ARTICLE XXIII.

Condemnation of Universalism, and Fifth General Council.

THE design of this paper is to unfold, as clearly and succinctly as possible, the circumstances which led to the gradual decline and condemnation of the doctrine of Universal Salvation in the ancient Church.

Tradition affirms that the first formal, general condemnation was accomplished by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople, A. D., 553. The Universalists of the present very largely accept this tradition, in deference, probably, to the opinion of the late and learned Hosea Ballou 2d., D. D. — of blessed memory.

It is not, however, denied that the doctrine was opposed prior to that time. It is certain that some theologians, commencing, perhaps, with Tertullian about the first of the third century, did not favor it, in so far as they appeared to teach, and some actually taught, the endlessness of suffering beyond death.

Nevertheless, there are no evidences that it was branded as heresy by any large body of the Church until about A. D., 544not by the Church, acting professedly as a whole, until the meeting of the Council referred to, if indeed then.

The careful student of the records cannot doubt that the idea of the restoration of all souls to final, endless holiness and happiness was the prevailing faith of the earlier Christians.

The first records, of course, from which the doctrine may be obtained are the sacred Scriptures, especially the gospels and epistles of the New Testament. These are claimed by Universalists as clearly teaching it, in both the letter and spirit of their text. Aside from the Scriptures, we have, for the first hundred and fifty years, the writings of the apostolic

'Ancient History of Universalism, chap. ix. n. r.

Fathers, with the book known as the Shepherd of Hermas,2 and the Sibylline Oracles. The former give no evidence of the dogma of endless punishment; the latter affirm positively the end of sin, the triumph of good, and universal joy in the hereafter.'

Among the Gnostic sects of these centuries, especially among those in Egypt, the faith of Universalism prevailed very extensively, was, in fact, the dominant idea in respect to destiny, so far as we can judge from sources usually prejudiced against them. Whatever of works they prepared and gave to the world have, unfortunately, been almost wholly lost. Yet, as well as from the testimony of opponents, we would judge them to have been Universalists from their philosophical (Oriental) prepossessions, which they largely intermingled with their Christianity.

5

Justin Martyr, who was a Grecian philosopher, and carried his philosophy into his new religion, belongs to the second century. He appeared to think that annihilation awaited. those who should prove incorrigibly wicked (if any such there should be). So also thought Tatian, his disciple. Athenagoras, also a Greek philosopher, was probably a believer in the same doctrine, if we may judge from the little he has said upon destiny.' Of Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, we know only that he believed in future punishment; but that he believed in endless punishment cannot be established, as his αἰωνίους κολάσεις and πῦρ αἰώνιον are common expressions with those of the fathers who are acknowledged by all to have been Universalists. We are inclined to rank Theophilus with such. Irenæus believed in altor punishment; but he thought the wicked would be finally annihilated, though he speaks of æternum ignem, and even of igni inexstinguibili." Clement of Alexandria, one of the most renowned of the

2 Patrum Apostolicorum Opera. Hermæ Pastor. ed Dressel. Lip. 1857.

3 Oracula Sibyllina. Opsopoeo. Paris, 1599.

5 In Dial. cum Trypho. Jud.

[blocks in formation]

6 Orat. adv. Grace.
9 Adv. Hær. ii. 34. 3.

4 Lib. ii. 212.
13 comp. 14.

10 Ibid. v. xxvii. 1.

earlier fathers, appears about the close of the second and first of the third centuries. He was an undoubted Universalist, teaching the "Restitution" distinctly in nearly all his writings." Tertullian, of Africa, who flourished at this same period, is the first who can be at all claimed as a teacher of endless punishment; and his faith in this can be based only on a single sentence." The doctrine would harmonize well with his character. He was a severe ascetic, and harsh and forbidding in disposition. He was looked upon also, even during his life, with suspicion by a large portion of the Church, and charged with heresy on account of his Montanism.

[ocr errors]

The admixture with Christianity of the prevailing philosophies, which was accomplished very early and very widely, gradually changed and corrupted the whole theology, so far as there was a theology, and the entire constitution and Christian life of the Church. Of this condition the admissions are to be found on all sides, and from almost all parties. Nevertheless, while corruption was steadily making its way, the brightest lights of the religion of Christ long held fast to the apostolic doctrine of the salvation of all souls. The renowned Origen, of whom more hereafter, taught this in the third century, very plainly, fully, and frequently, though he used the word airios in reference to punishment beyond this world." He was so popular, especially throughout the East, that his doctrinal statements were almost universally adopted and defended. Indeed, in regard to his Universalism, it could not have been otherwise, as that was so widely held as the truth of revelation. His disciples would, necessarily, and almost to a man, adopt his teachings as a whole. These disciples were numerous, and all exerted more or less influence in their re

13

11 Comp. Pæd. i. 8; Strom. v. 14, vi. 6, vii. 2. Vid. Frag. Adum. Ep. 1. Johan. on ch. ii. v. 2, 3.

12 Apol. c. 18. Comp. however, De Spec. c. 30, which speaks very fully of future sufferings.

13 Comp. De Princip. i. 6, § 2; ii. 3, § 5; ii. 5, § 3; iii. 6, § 6; Con. Cel. iv. 13; viii. 72.

14 Comp. De Prin. ii. 10, §§ 1, 3; Con. Celsum. iv. 13; viii. 72. Vid. Comm. in Epis. ad Rom. viii.

spective spheres. It may not be possible, always, to clearly trace their Universalism - perhaps because there did not, in these times, appear any great necessity for dwelling specially upon it, as it was so extensively recognized. Many of them left no writings. Others did not treat of that particular doctrine. The works of some have been wholly or in part lost. But we have a right to infer, which we may naturally do, that they followed their great leader in his Universalism as in his other opinions. Ambrosius, the friend and patron of Origen, was undoubtedly a believer in the final Restitution; and the great Gregory Thaumaturgus, a disciple of Origen, certainly was if we may accept the statement of Rufinus.13

The doctrine of endless woe, however, found now its supporters, of whom we know Minucius Felix, an African lawyer, and Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who made Tertullian his guide. The chilling thought of annihilation also found its friends, among others in Arnobius, a rhetorician of Numidia, near Carthage, in the early part of the fourth century. But these views were unquestionably exceptions to the faith, not the faith itself, cherished by the great body of Christians, which was that of universal salvation.

The corruptions of Christianity increased until nearly the whole Church was involved. From the fourth century, onward, especially, the doctrine of Universalism lost ground amid the gathering darkness and evil, while the dogma of interminable misery gained favor proportionately. The Church, also, particularly after the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, was rent with controversies, often bitter and unchristian, and which have left their stings rankling through the ages since. Athanasius, of Alexandria, was strongly endless-miserian. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, did much for the diffusion of this idea, though sometimes he appears to have caught glimpses of brighter and better things. Still, Universalism was advocated by some of the ablest and best men in the ranks of the Christian ministry, through the fourth and fifth centuries, as indeed through all the periods of the Christian history. Titus, Bishop

[ocr errors][merged small]

16

of Bostra, taught it in his writings. Basil the Great, Bishop of Cæsarea, we judge was also a believer from certain remarks which occur through his works." His brother, Gregory of Nyssa, was clear and bold in his teachings upon the subject.18 So also was Didymus the Blind." Jerome taught it clearly, though upon his unfortunate quarrel with Rufinus he tried to evade the fact of his Universalism, as it involved him in the charge of Origenism.20 Gregory Nazianzen certainly favored the doctrine. The same may be said of many others. Nor are we to forget that among the Universalists stood Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia, though upon other points he was an opponent of Origen.

It is to be noticed that thus far the doctrine of Universal Salvation has escaped all censure or condemnation, so far as we have any evidence; nay, it was unquestioned, save in the fact that some believed and taught otherwise. But those who taught endless punishment never dreamed of challenging the Christian character or general orthodoxy of Universalists, because of their Universalism. Nor could this have been done, without violence to the records, which showed nearly all the leading minds of the five first centuries as believers in the final reconciliation of all souls to God. And if the leading minds, such as bishops and professors of theology, even the presidents, in the great divinity school of Alexandria, — upon which the early Church almost wholly depended, were Universalists, we can readily conceive how wide-spread and popular the sentiment must have been.

-

The doctrine of the hereafter, in the opening of the sixth century, stood nearly thus, it being remembered that now the Church had wandered far, by all accounts, from its origi

16 Comp. Contra Manich, 1 et 11.

17 Comp. Comm. in Esaiæ, ix. 19.

18 Comp. Orat. Catechet. 8. 35; the λóyos πepì чvxñs kaì úvaotáoews; and Tract. de infan. qui præmat. abripiuntur, etc.

19 Vid. Comm. in 1 Peter c. iii. v. 22.

Op. iii.

Comp. De Spirit. Sanc. c. 48, where, however, the text has probably been tampered with, perhaps by Jerome.

20 Comp. however, Comm. in Ep. ad Gal. v. 22; Ep. ad Ephes. ii. 7; iv. 4, 13. 21 Orat. xxx. 6, et xl.

« PreviousContinue »