Chapter IV.

“Just as any teacher in christianity towered aloft, so in proportion did he the more hold and defend the termination of penalties at some time in the future.”—Doederlin, Inst. Theol.

“Indeed, beside Origen, Gregory of Nyssa also, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, Ambrose himself, and JEROME, taught everywhere the universal restitution of things, asserting simultaneously with it, an end of eternal punishment.”—C. B. Schleuter, prcf. in Erig, (Migne.)

Pfaff says “The ultimate restoration of the lost was an opinion held by very many Jewish teachers, and some of the Fathers.”—Frag. anec.

Reuss says, “The doctrine of a general restoration of all rational creatures has been recommended by very many of the greatest thinkers of the antient church, and of modern times.”—Hist. de la theol. Apost.

“From two theological schools there went forth an opposition to the doctrine of everlasting punishment.”—Neander, Church Hist. iv. p. 444, Lond., 1853.

“The dogma of Origen had many, and these the most celebrated defenders.”—Page, In. Bar. ann. A.D. 410, p. 103.

“The school of Antioch had no hesitation in hoping for an end of the pains of the other world.”—Munter.

“Universalism in the fourth century drove its roots down deeply, alike in the East and West, and had very many defenders.”—Dietelmaier.—Comm. fanat.

The learned and candid Huet names several Fathers as in sympathy with the larger hope.—Origen. ii, pp. 159, 205: Cologne, 1685.

Gieseler says, “The belief in the inalienable power of amendment in all rational creatures, and the limited duration of future punishment was general even in the West.”—Text Book i. p. 212. Phil. 1836.

I Trust the candid reader will weigh the above testimonies with all care, coming as they do, so far as I know, in almost every case from those who are not friendly to universalism. We shall see how they are supported by a vast body of evidence, from all quarters, in the earliest centuries; and confirmed by the express testimony (which I shall quote) of co-temporary witnesses so famous as Augustine, Jerome, Basil, (and Domitian of Ancyra,) who attest the very wide diffusion of the larger hope in their age. The following pages will, I hope, shew clearly how groundless is the wide-spread opinion which represents universalism as the outcome of modern sentimentality, and will establish clearly (1) That it prevailed very widely in the primitive Church, especially in a form embracing all fallen spirits. (2.) That those who believed and taught it, more or less openly, or held kindred views, were among the most eminent and the most holy of the christian Fathers. (3.) That it not only has never been condemned by the Church, but is, far more than any other view, in harmony with the ancient catholic Creeds. (4.) That in our Prayer Book are some passages, which shew a leaning towards universalism. Such an enquiry seems indispensable, not alone because this branch of the question has been usually neglected, and the argument for universalism thereby weakened; nor because to many minds the Fathers speak with special weight, as a link connecting us with the Apostolic age, and preserving Apostolic tradition; but on grounds common to every serious student. For all such will surely admit that in dealing with a historic faith like christianity, its doctrines cannot be adequately treated, their growth and development rightly comprehended, or studied with intelligence, except when viewed from the standpoint of history, as well as of the moral sense, and of Holy Scripture.

Further, if this historical enquiry were not entered on, we should have no sufficient answer to a very possible, and very fair objection, viz.: why, if the larger hope be in the Bible, did not those great minds of old find it there? And our faith in the larger hope will gain fresh vigour, as we see it very widely taught by many of the wisest and best men in primitive times, and taught (a) not alone on the direct authority of the Bible, but (b) by those especially to whom Greek was a living tongue, was indeed their native tongue. It is a striking fact that the weight of opposition to universalism in primitive times is found in the Latin Church, is found most vigorous where, as in Augustine’s case, the Greek language was never really mastered.

The period into which I propose to enquire will fall naturally into three divisions—(1.) Down to the opening years of the 4th century. (2.) Thence during the Church’s “Augustan era,” to the year 430 or 440 A.D. (3.) From that period to the 11th or 12th century. The two earlier divisions may be said to include all that is of most value and originality in patristic literature. These centuries are especially characterised by the preponderance of the Eastern theologians, and their broad and hopeful teaching. All the early influences that moulded christian thought are of the East, and not of the West. The language hallowed by the New Testament, carried to the East by the tide of conquest and colonisation, and there naturalised, continued for several centuries the language of theology. The earliest christian writings, even in the Church of Rome, are in Greek. The great councils that fixed the Creed of the Church were all held in the East, and there, too, were the early schools of theology—centres of christian light and learning. At first the East was active, while the West, North Africa excepted, slumbered: Italy, Spain, and Greece were sunk in theological torpor, while Alexandria and Cæsarea were vigorous and active. Not only what is Roman, but in a wider sense what is Latin, counted at first as almost nothing in the theological scale, till the fatal genius of an African turned the balance, and the dark shadow of S. Augustine’s cruel and novel theology fell as a blight on the whole Western Church.

Before we can hope to understand the Fathers, or rightly to estimate the force of the testimony they bear to universalism, we must try to place ourselves mentally where they stood. The Church was born into a world of whose moral rottenness few have, or can have, any idea. Even the sober historians of the later Roman empire have their pages tainted with scenes impossible to translate. Lusts the foulest, debauchery to us happily inconceivable, raged on every side. To assert even faintly the final redemption of all this rottenness, whose depths we dare not try to sound, required the firmest faith in the larger hope, as an essential part of the Gospel. But this is not all: in a peculiar sense the Church was militant in the early centuries. It was engaged in, at times, and always liable to, a struggle for life or death, with a relentless persecution. Thus it must have seemed in that age almost an act of treason to the Cross to teach that, though dying unrepentant, the bitter persecutor, or the votary of abominable lusts, should yet in the ages to come find salvation. Such considerations help us to see the extreme weight attaching even to the very least expression in the Fathers, which involves sympathy with the larger hope,—a fact to be kept in mind in reading these pages. Especially so when we consider that the idea of mercy was then but little known; (and that truth, as we conceive it, was not then esteemed a duty.)

As the vices of the early centuries were great, so were their punishments cruel. The early Fathers wrote when the wild beasts of the arena tore alike the innocent and the guilty, limb from limb, amid the applause even of gently nurtured women; they wrote when the cross, with its living burden of agony, was a common sight, and evoked no protest. They wrote when every minister of justice was a torturer, and almost every criminal court a petty Inquisition: when every household of the better class, even among christians, swarmed with slaves, liable to torture, to scourging, to mutilation, at the caprice of a master or the frown of a mistress. Let all these facts be fully weighed, and a conviction arises irresistibly that, in such an age, no idea of universalism could have originated, unless inspired from above. If, now, when criminals are shielded from suffering with an almost morbid care, men, the best men, think with very little concern of the unutterable woe of the lost, how, I ask, could universalism have arisen of itself in an age like that of the Fathers?

Consider further. The larger hope is not—we are informed—in the Bible; it is not we know in the heart of man naturally: still less was it there in days such as those we have described, when mercy was unknown, when the dearest interest of the Church forbad its avowal. But it is found in many, in very many, antient Fathers, and often in the very broadest form, embracing every fallen spirit. Where, then, did they find it? Whence did they import this idea, not taught in the Old Testament and forbidden by the New Testament, as we are assured: totally out of harmony with every prevailing belief: totally at variance with the obvious interests of the Gospel in such days? Whence, I repeat the question, Whence did this idea come? Can we doubt that the Fathers could only have drawn it, as their writings testify, from the Bible itself?

I am aware that it will be said that patristic teaching is often not consistent on the question of the larger hope. This inconsistency, so far as it exists, it may be confidently said in reply, (a) is precisely what we might expect under the circumstances; (b) is very largely apparent only, and due to the use of ambiguous phrases which are misunderstood; (c) and where it is real, it is amply accounted for by the remarkable doctrine of Reserve. These propositions I hope now to establish clearly, taking the last first. It is the fashion to confine the doctrine of Reserve to the duty of suppressing a truth deemed inexpedient to disclose. I am prepared to shew by the Fathers’ own words that it went very much farther, e.g., to the advocacy of falsehood as a distinct duty, when the supposed interests of piety were at stake, a limitation to be carefully noted.

In considering this doctrine, we must remember that the principle of a so-called fraus pia pervaded the whole legislation of antiquity. So great a teacher as Plato regarded falsehood as a kind of moral medicine. Thence this teaching passed to Philo; thence in turn to Alexandria, the birth-place of theology. The fruits of such teaching are only too apparent in the early centuries. A swarm of apocryphal Gospels and forged writings appear; fraudulent Oracles, Acts and Canons of Councils, Gospels, Legends abound. Writings were interpolated, glossed, mutilated, even wholly forged. “For a good end,” says an eminent scholar (speaking of the innocent primitive times), “they made no great scruple to forge whole books.”—Dallæus, De usu Pat. The illustrious scholar Casaubon speaks very strongly. “This vehemently moves me, that I see in the first times of the Church how many there were, who thought it a palmary deed, that heavenly truth should be aided by their own figments. These falsehoods they call dutiful, excogitated with a good end; from which fountain, without doubt, sprang 600 books, which that and the next age saw published, under the name even of the Lord Jesus, and other saints.”—Exerc. i. N. x, Baroni App. in Ann. Of the 4th century Mosheim says, an error, almost publicly adopted, was “that to deceive and lie is a virtue, when religion can be promoted by it.”—Eccles. Hist. i. p. 357, words that not unfairly describe the teaching prevalent in the early centuries. Thus Epiphanius tells us that Catholics blotted out from S. Luke’s Gospel a statement “that Jesus wept.”—Ancor. xxxi.

I cite this story (which may not be true), as clear proof that Catholics were thought capable of most fraudulent usage of Holy Scripture. At Carthage, 419 A.D., Faustinus tendered the canons of Sardica as though genuine canons of the Council of Nice. Only thirty years later Leo attempted the same fraud. Cassian, a friend of Chrysostom, is author of a collection of spiritual precepts; one of his chapters bears this striking heading: “Even the Apostles teach us that falsehood is very often permissible, and the truth hurtful!”—Coll. xvii. 20. S. Chrysostom openly advocates deceit (apate) as a spiritual medicine,—De sacer. lib. i. and ii., and having planned and carried out a fraud, and thus entrapped his friend Basil into ordination, he exults in his success, and defends by Scripture his deceit. He also maintains that S. Peter and S. Paul were merely dissembling in the scene recorded in Galatians (ch. ii.) And this was the common opinion since Origen’s time, and is asserted by S. Jerome very earnestly. He even says, writing to Augustine, “Tu veritatis tuæ saltem unum adstipulatorem proferre debebis,”—Ep. lxxxix., words which any comment would weaken. What is this but to attribute a lie to the Apostle, and, in some sense, a partnership in lying to the Spirit of inspiration? Nor is this strange, for several Fathers do not hesitate to attribute dissimulation to our Lord Himself; e.g., the author of ninety-two sermons found in some editions of S. Ambrose (possibly Maximus of Turin, 422, A.D.), says of Christ, “sitire se simulat,”—Ser. xxx.: this he repeats, adding that Christ circumvented the devil by fraud.—ib.xxxv. Compare a striking passage in an old writer—De sanc. Trin. (in S. Chrysostom’s works). S. Gregory, of Nyssa, remarks that our Lord used deceit for purposes of salvation.—Cat. or. xxvi. S. Hilary asserts that Christ in saying He was ignorant of that day, was not in fact ignorant of it, De Trin. lib. ix., and that Christ’s fear, and sadness, and suffering in His Passion were not real.—ib. lib. x. p. 235. S. Ambrose says, “Neque fallitur Pater neque fallit Filius, verum ea est in Scripturis consuetudo * * ut Deus dissimulet se scire quod novit. Et in hoc ergo unitas divinitatis in Patre * * probatur et Filio, si quemadmodum Deus Pater cognita dissimulat, ita Filius, etiam in hoc imago Dei, qui sibi sunt nota dissimulet.”—De fide lib. v. 8. The Son of God se fingit infantem.—S. Zeno. lib ii. tract viii. S. Basil teaches that Christ pretends ignorance.—Ep. cxli. ad Cesar.: Adv. Eun. hom. iv. and he expressly commends fraud employed for a good end.—Hom. in prin. prov.

From this evidence (which might be easily increased) it plainly follows, that such writers would have had no scruple whatever in employing threats, which were not true, to terrify obstinate sinners.

Those desiring further information may consult Fabricius.—Bibl. græc.— “Tot fraudes a preposterâ pietate profectæ;” MILMAN—Hist. of Christ, iii. p. 358; S. Gregory, of Nazianzus,—Orat. xxxvi.; Tertullian—De pud. xix.; Rufinus—Orat. xvi.; Dionysius of Alexandria—On S. Luke 22; Victorinus—De Phys. lib. xxiii.-vi.; Proclus—Or. xiii. In san. Pasch.; S. Leo—In Nat. Dom. Ser. ii.; De Pas. Dom. Ser. xvii.; Clement of Alexandria—Strom. vi.; Huet—Orig. ii. prop. fin. and lib. iii. 2, 3; Dodwell—De pœn. mart. xiii. and viii.; Neander—Eccl. Hist. vi. 325: Cave—Hist. Liter., on S. John Damascene; Gieseler—Eccles. Hist. i. 298; ed. Philad. 1836. Grotius—de jur. bell. iii. 1. In fact the evidence seems clearly to shew that this dissimulation was regarded as perfectly legitimate, and even as a duty, when (as in the case of the larger hope), the good of others seemed to require it. I am not for a moment charging the Fathers with a general advocacy of lying. I am but stating, in their own words, the limits they set to the duty of truth in one particular direction, and in that only.

Finally, let me place side by side the two following views of this doctrine:—

S. Hilary.

Commenting on Ps. 15:2, “And speaketh the truth in his heart,” this Father, after enforcing the duty of truth, proceeds thus: “But this is difficult by reason of the sins and vices of the age. For a lie is very often necessary. (Est enim necessarium plerumque mendacium), and sometimes falsehood is useful; as when we tell a lie to an assassin lying in wait, or upset evidence on behalf of one who is in danger, or deceive a sick man as to the difficulty of cure.”

Dr. Pusey.

“The principle of accommodation was that of our Lord. ‘I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now’ * * its limit was not declaring as yet all the truth on a given subject, never in saying what was untrue.”—“What is of faith as to everlasting punishment.”—p. 250. [The italics are mine.]

Dr. Pusey’s book is so often quoted by those who do not read the Fathers, that a striking instance of the way he has done his work will be useful. I might add much more, but forbear, desiring no controversy with an honoured name, and letting facts speak for themselves.

I turn next to shew the wholly inconclusive nature of the arguments drawn from the patristic use of such epithets as eónios, &c., when applied to future punishment. The least reflection will suffice to shew that everything depends upon the sense in which these terms are used. No early universalist hesitates to use eónios, which the Bible admittedly uses of future punishment. So far is this from proving the traditional creed, that it is even asserted, by both Cæsarius (?)—Dial iii., and by Leontius, that Origen and his adherents argued from the very term eónios, as being finite, that future punishments were temporary.—Huet, Orig. ii. p. 161. In fact we should remember what our own experience amply teaches. Almost every conversation we take part in, every book we read, offers ample proof that such terms as “for ever,” “eternal,” “ceaseless,” &c., are habitually used in a purely conventional sense, without so much as a thought of absolute endlessness. And this is even more true of the Fathers, whose training was largely rhetorical; whose whole habit of mind was totally unscientific.

To come to definite proofs: just as the prophet calls that incurable, of which in a moment after he asserts the cure—Jer. 30:12, 17, just so do the Fathers often employ, in a limited sense, words that seem to assert the opposite. Thus S. Jerome, commenting on Zeph. 2:9, explains the eternal desolation of Amon as ending in their conversion. See, too, his comment to the same effect on Ezek. 25:4. Of Jerusalem, he says on Ezek. 24, that the city was burnt with eternal fire by Hadrian. He says Israel is delivered over to eternal woe.—In Amos viii.: a flame is kindled against them which shall not be quenched (in Jer. 7:20); yet he asserts repeatedly the final salvation of Israel—In Hos. xiii., in Zeph. 3, in Ezek. 39, 21, 35, &c. Again, he says that Edom is to be banished to eternal desolation.—In Ezek. xxxv., that Edom and the host of Egypt are to lie (slain) in a perpetual sleep.—In Ezek. xxxiii.: And God is wroth with Esau (Edom) for ever, a fact S. JEROME repeats three times over; yet Edom is to be finally converted.—In Obad. i.: And Egypt is represented as restored and converted.—In Ezek. xxix. To S. Jerome the “outer darkness” permits an escape; and after “the uttermost farthing” is paid, salvation comes.—In Micah viii. Nay, JONAH’S three days’ imprisonment in the whale is “eternal” night!—In Jon. ii. And the very fire of “hell” (Gehenna) cleanses (and is, therefore, temporary).—In Nahum iii. In S. Jerome’s works I have noted many cases in which æternus (&c.) means in fact temporary. Nay, so wholly ambiguous and inconclusive are such terms that we shall see Origen asserting that obstinate sins are to be extinguished by the “eternal fire.” So, the antient author of the second Sybilline book tells us (in words that recall the statement in Rev. 20:14, about the second death), “hell” (Hades) and all things and persons are cast into “unquenchable fire” for cleansing. The author of the sermons printed in S. Ambrose’s works, ed. Par. 1569, who bids his hearers consider “the day of judgment” and the “unquenchable” flames of hell, yet says that baptism extinguishes the flame of hell, and opens Tartarus.—Ser. xxxi. So Domitianus says those assigned to eternal punishment are saved.—Fac, Pro def. tr. cap. iv. 4. Another old writer, as we shall see, tells us that the worm “that dieth not” dies.

Leo (Augustus) says eternal prisoners were released from hades by Christ.—Or. vii. Eusebius twice calls unquenchable the brief fire which consumes a martyr.—Church Hist. vi. 41. Origen calls, without hesitation, that fire eternal which he believed to be finite. He even says that obstinate sins are to be extinguished by the eternal fires.—Hom. xiv. in Lev: (So De la Rue, his best editor, reads) a sentiment he repeats in Hom. viii. in Josh. Again, in the rival school of Antioch, Theodore of Mopsuestia (a strong opponent of Origen) agreed with him in calling “eternal” that future penalty which he taught would be in all cases temporary. Or if we take other writers we may find a similar usage: thus to Pamphilus, “limitless” ages, and to Rufinus, “infinite” ages have an end.—Apol. pro. Orig.: as also to S. Jerome—In Jonah iii. S. Gregory of Nazianzus, calls ceaseless (apaustos) that which is terminable.—Adv. Jul. Or. ix. Next, let us take S. Ambrose: He says—Christ freed the dead from perpetual chains.—In Ps. xliv. ad fin., and says the rejection of the Jews is their perpetual death.—In Ps. cxix. 9, 10. And he very strikingly teaches deliverance from the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, for he says that Dives is to be set free.—In Ps. cxix.: and teaches distinctly that Dives was in this very fire.—ib. v. 17. An old author in Epiphanius’ Works, Paris, 1622, says that eternal bars, and eternal gates are shattered.—In. sep. Christi. Patristic usage, again, is well illustrated by no less an authority than S. Athanasius, who calls the sin against the Holy Ghost “unpardonable,” and its punishment “eternal;” and yet asserts that this “unpardonable” and “eternal” sin might, on repentance, be pardoned.—See Bingh ii. p. 970. And let us carefully note that this eminent writer states, that this was the general opinion of the Ancients—a very suggestive fact. The author of Christus Patiens begs to be loosed from bonds which “cannot be loosed.”—v. 2540.

A similar instance may be found in Athanasius.—Rescrip. ad Lib. So Clement of Alexandria calls that incurable which he goes on to shew may be cured.—Strom. i. Theodoret intimates that “eternal” death admits an escape.—In Zach. ix., and that “eternal” disgrace may be only temporary.—In Jer. xxiii. S. Hilary, like S. Jerome, says Jonah escaped from “eternal” bars.—In Ps. lxix. And such teaching is common as to the meaning of “eternal” S. Gregory of Nyssa calls an interval limitless, and says it can be crossed over.—In Ps. tract ii. ch. xiv.; and he calls an interval which has an end, and a beginning eternal.—ib. i. ch. vii. He describes even the “second death” as cleansing.—De an. et. Res., and in two passages, in the same work, plainly treats “the eternal fire” as purifying.—ib. pp. 658, 691, ed. Par. 1615. S. BASIL teaches that “sins unto death” admit a cure.—In Isa. iv. 4, and that God’s wrath, that “will not cease,” ceases on repentance.—In Isa. i. 24. He teaches also that where it is said, Moab shall be shut out “eternally” (from God), this “eternal” is not really more than temporal.—In Ps. lx. 8.

We have seen S. Jerome calling the flame of Gehenna, purifying, and S. Gregory of Nyssa teaching the same of “eternal” fire: and Origen asserting that these fires extinguished what sin. So does S. Chrysostom term incurable what may be cured in many passages, e.g.,—In Ps. cxlv. 8-9 and 110; In Gen. 6. Hom. xxii. He calls perpetual (dienekes) what is temporary.—In Heb. ii. Hom. iv., and in Eph. 4. Hom. xiii. He also calls the fire which destroyed Sodom (the eternal fire of S. Jude) beneficial.—In Ps. cxi. Similar phrases occur in the antient homilies printed in most editions of this Father, e.g., the sleepless, i.e., undying worm is said to die.—In trid. Res.

An old commentator on the Psalter (in S. Jerome’s works) calls the eternal blotting out of the wicked their conversion. Prudentius calls the brief darkness at the Crucifixion eternal.—Hymn. ix.: and the gloom of a martyr’s prison eternal.—Hymn. ad Vincen. I have not exhausted the instances I might adduce: but I have brought very ample evidence to shew, how absolutely groundless is the argument still commonly urged in favour of endless penalty, from the mere use of terms like eónios, &c., &c. If the “eternal” can be finite, if the “incurable” can be cured, if the “undying” worm does in fact die, if hell (Gehenna) cleanses, how vain to build on the mere use of such terms a proof in favor of a penalty literally endless.

Canon Farrar gives good reasons for thinking that even the terrible threats of such writers as Dr. Watts, the poet Young and Jeremy Taylor cannot be literally pressed. Mercy and Judg., pp. 275-6, 401. I will give a stronger instance, viz.: Dr. Burnet in his De statu mort, p. 366, after teaching the larger hope, uses these significant words: “Whatever your opinion is within yourself, concerning these punishments, whether they are eternal or not, yet always with the people, and when you preach to the people, use the received doctrine, and the received words in the sense in which the people receive them.”

These considerations fully dispose of very many passages quoted as proof that the Fathers teach endless penalty.

They no less apply to any similar expressions, that may be brought forward from those Fathers I am about to claim as universalists. And if any passages remain, that seem too positive to admit of this explanation, I point at once to the doctrine of Reserve, which quite distinctly authorised dissimulation, and specially applied to such questions as the larger hope. And this is to state the case moderately and to refrain from pressing this doctrine, to its legitimate bounds. For plainly, any one holding it may continuously deny universalism, and yet secretly believe it. But I merely apply it to cases of so-called inconsistency, i.e., where the larger hope is apparently at once held, and yet contradicted by the same Fathers. Such I claim as universalists, because no other view can possibly explain all the facts. Therefore I feel obliged to lay down this simple rule as the fair test of the Father’s real meaning, viz., that no hypothesis other than strong conviction of its truth can account for universalistic teaching; while the desire to terrify sinners, added to the ambiguous character of most or all of the terms they employ; and lastly the doctrine of Reserve, easily account for apparent, or even real, inconsistency which we find in certain of the Fathers.

I may sum up by saying that the method usually employed in case of these writers, seems to violate every rule of fair criticism. Practically it takes account of but a single factor in their writings, and misunderstands that; e.g., if eónios, or kindred terms, are applied to future punishment, such a writer is at once labelled as teaching endless sin and pain. But (i.) this is (very often) to neglect that most important indication, viz., a writer’s tone and general drift. Next (ii.) this is to assume that such terms are used in a strict and extreme sense, which, as we have seen, is certainly not (necessarily) the case, or even usually so. (iii.) It is to ignore the highly significant doctrine of Reserve; (iv.) and it is no less to ignore the great mass of evidence, direct and indirect, in so many Fathers, which admits of no explanation other than sympathy with, or belief in the larger hope. This I shall now adduce; premising that evidence abundant enough to fill a volume must, I fear, suffer in cogency when compressed into a few pages. The quotations I shall make will fall under these heads—(a), shewing a drift and tone of thought totally out of harmony with the perpetuity of evil; (b), involving the larger hope by fair inference; (c), or by direct statement; (d), at times teaching the restoration of every fallen spirit.

But first, it is well to note a fact, which it seems to me vain to deny, viz., that some very early writers appear to have held the final annihilation of the wicked. Thus Clemens (Romanus) seems to confine the Resurrection to the righteous. “Can we think it strange,” he asks, “if the Maker of all shall cause a Resurrection of those who serve Him holily.”—ch. xxvi. Compare a passage in ch. l. The epistle of the Pseudo-Barnabas, 120 A.D., seems to teach annihilation. Perhaps the most decisive passage is that in which he says, (ch. 21), that “the wicked shall perish with the wicked one,” meaning apparently the cessation of existence. There are also passages in the Ignatian epistles—Ad Smyr. ch. vii.: Ad Trall. ch. ix.—and in S. Polycarp—Ad Phil. ch. ii. and v.—that seem to indicate that they expected a resurrection of the just only. The Didache ton Apostolon, while devoting a considerable space to eschatology seems to speak of the resurrection of the righteous only. This is perhaps the teaching of Hermas—Lib iii. simil. vi. v. 11—3: simil. viii. vv. 54, 59, 63, 68, 69, &c—ed. Glasg., 1884.

Justin Martyr also almost certainly takes this view; for though his language is hardly consistent, yet the terms applied by him to the lot of the wicked, seem to imply their final extinction. God delays the destruction of the world, he says, “by which wicked angels, and demons, and men shall cease to exist.”—Second Apol. ch. vii. “Some which have appeared worthy of God never die, others are punished so long as God wills them to exist.”—Dial. ch. v. “Souls both die, and are punished.”—ib. “The soul partakes of life since God wills it to live. Thus, then, it will not even partake of life, when God does not will it to live.”—ib. ch. vi. A fragment (Ex Leont. Adv. Eut. ii.) seems to take the same view. Irenæus also, I believe, teaches annihilation: it is true that he ascribes a natural immortality to the human soul and spirit.—Adv. her. lib. v. ch. 4, 7, 13,—perhaps as surviving the body. For elsewhere he argues in a way that involves the final annihilation of the evil: e.g., souls and spirits endure “as long as God wills,” he who rejects life “deprives himself of continuance for ever.”—ib. lib. ii. ch. 34. See also the argument—lib. iii. ch. 19, ad fin.: lib. v. ch. 2 ad fin.: and ib. ch. 27.

Further proof of the existence in very early times of a belief in conditional immortality is afforded by Origen’s words, which are given by Epiphanius—Hær. lxiv. 10. To the early writers who teach the final extinction of the wicked should be added Hermogenes.—Neander, Eccles. Hist. ii. p. 350. I may point out that Theodoret (referred to by Neander) adds that Hermogenes taught the final extinction of all evil spirits.—Hær. fab. com. i. 19. And I believe Theophilus of Antioch, 168 A.D., to have maintained the final extinction of the wicked.—Ad. Autol. ii. ch 26-7. The Clementine homilies, though inconsistent, teach in one or two passages the annihilation of the wicked, e.g.,—Hom. iii. 6. Arnobius, 303 A.D., is the latest writer whom I can name as holding similar opinions. He speaks at length on this subject.—Adv. gent. lib. ii. 14, 19, 31—6, &c. The soul is, according to him, of intermediate quality, i.e., not naturally immortal, yet capable of immortality by God’s grace, cut off from which it perishes absolutely. This phase of opinion, though short-lived, and confined to but few writers, is of interest, because appearing at such an early date: and because it affords fresh and distinct evidence of the very slender claims, which the dogma of endless evil has to being the genuine representative of primitive teaching. The annihilation of the wicked was, it may be noted, the teaching of certain Jewish Rabbis, in our Lord’s day and later. If dogmatic considerations were not so certain to warp the judgment, I believe no doubt would be thrown on the existence of this remarkable phase of early teaching.

I now turn to the task of adducing a portion, and it can only be a portion (on account of my limited space), of the mass of evidence which exists, both direct and indirect, in favour of primitive universalism. Our first class of proofs shall be drawn from the very remarkable doctrine of Christ’s descent into hades. The number of texts formerly alleged in proof of this was very large, e.g., from the Old Testament were quoted Isa. 9:2; 45:2, 3; 49:9, 25; Zech. 9:11—2; Ps. 68:18; 69:33; 107:16. From the New Testament, not only S. Peter’s famous statement, 1 Pet. 3:21, but S. Matt.12:29; Phil. 2:9, 10; Col. 2:15; Eph. 4:8, 9, were alleged. Very striking is the contrast between the universal acceptance of this doctrine in primitive days, and its universal disregard^[1] in our days. Very instructive, too, is this contrast; for, doubtless, the explanation is, that the Gospel preached to the dead, and still more to those who were in life disobedient to direct preaching (and who died so) was felt instinctively to strike a blow fatal to the traditional creed. To us this doctrine is thus of the highest interest; the more so when we regard the widespread belief of antiquity in the liberation from hades^[2] of all souls by Christ. It is surely impossible to deny that this involves universalism as a necessary conclusion. For if all the dead, without any exception, were delivered by the preaching of Jesus Christ; then, as an eminent writer has tersely put the case, “it argues absolute fatuity to suppose that those who lived after the Incarnation can be worse off than if they had lived before it.” I do not mean that this view was everywhere held, nor do I mean that all the writers holding it were themselves universalists. It is enough for our argument to shew that the doctrine so held does logically involve universalism.

A very early statement of this doctrine is that of the Gospel of Nicodemus (The Gospel of Nicodemus is probably of later date than the 2nd century, and of Gnostic origin.). “Of course, to us, this fiction speaks with an authority no greater than that of the Pilgrim’s Progress. But just as from Bunyan’s great allegory we might very safely infer what the puritan conception of the christian life was in the seventeenth century, so from this Gospel of Nicodemus, we may very safely infer what conception the christians of the second century formed of Christ’s descent into hades.”—Salv. Mundi. The story is told dramatically. A great voice echoes through hades, crying, “Lift up your heads, ye gates, and the King of glory shall come in.” Immediately the brazen gates are shattered, and all those bound come out; and hades (personified) exclaims, “Not one of the dead has been left in me.” Jesus then turns to Adam, extending His right hand and raising him. Then to the rest He says, “Come all with me, as many as have died through the tree which he (Adam) touched, for behold I raise you all up through the tree of the Cross.”^[3]

We may note also that the ancient (so-called) Acts of the Apostle Thomas addressed Christ as the “Saviour of every creature * * Thou Who wentest down even to hades. * * And didst bring out thence those shut in for many ages.” A statement, perhaps even earlier, of the same fact is given by Eusebius, as found by him at Edessa, in the archives, to the effect that Christ had descended into hades * * and brought up the dead. Origen, on Ps. 68:18, says, that Christ drew up and set free from the recesses of hades, the souls that were held in captivity. I quote next from an interesting homily, probably by Eusebius of Alexandria, 289 A.D. He supposes that John the Baptist^[4] announced in hades the descent of Christ.—Hom. xiii. Another homily says “Christ will descend that in order that all, both on earth and in heaven and in hades, may obtain salvation from Him.”—Hom. xii. Eusebius of Cæsarea, 315 A.D., writes as follows: “Christ, caring for the salvation of all * * and bursting the eternal gates, opened a way of return to life for the dead bound in chains of death.”—Dem. evan. iv. 12. To S. Athanasius is ascribed a treatise (certainly very ancient)—De pass. et cruce Dom. It says, “While the devil thought to kill one he is deprived of all * * cast out of hades, and sitting by the gates, sees all the fettered beings led forth by the courage of the Saviour.” In a treatise, certainly genuine, this Father tells how Christ broke the bonds of the souls detained in hades.—De Inc. Christi.

I quote next an antient homily—perhaps by Basil of Seleucia. “That which happened to the visible tomb (of Christ—i.e., its being emptied on His rising), the same happened to hades the invisible.”—In sanc. Pascha. (apud Athanas. ed. Col. 1686) I take next S. Hilary, 354 A.D., who says, “Christ ascending on high * * took (captured) those who had been captured by the devil.”—In Ps. lxviii. 18. M. F. Victorinus, 360 A.D., says, “The Saviour descends into hades by that Passion of the Cross in order that He may set free every soul.”—In Eph. ch. 4. In a translation, or paraphrase, of Didymus, 370 A.D.—De Spir. Sanc., by S. Ambrose, are these words: “In the liberation of all no one remains a captive; at the time of the Lord’s Passion he alone (the devil) was injured, who lost all the captives he was keeping.” S. Basil, 370 A.D., seems to teach this universal liberation, for he says the true Shepherd brought out of the prison of hades, and handed over to the holy angels, the sheep for whom He died.—In Ps. xlix. 14. But Christ died for all. S. Ephrem (Syrus), as will be seen in the note on him in this chapter, teaches the liberation of all from hades.

From S. Gregory of Nazianzus, 385 A.D., I take the following: “Until Christ loosed by His blood all who groan under Tartarean chains.”—Carm. xxxv, v. 9, ed. Lyons, 1840. In this Father’s works a remarkable poem is usually printed, entitled Christus Patiens; it is of antient, but uncertain, authorship. Speaking of Christ’s descent, it says: All of whom (i.e., the dead) Thou shalt bring forth as Thy spoils from hades.”—v. 1391-2. So again: “I believe Thou wilt bring forth from hades as mortals as it has imprisoned.”—ib. v. 1934-5. From S. Ambrose 375 A.D., I take the following: “The Lord descends to the infernal world, in order that even those, who were in the infernal abodes, should be set free from their perpetual bonds.”—Enar. in Ps. xliv. Here note that perpetual bonds are really temporary. Elsewhere S. Ambrose says, Christ, when amongst the dead, “gave pardon to those in the infernal abodes, destroying the law of death.”—De Incarn. ch. v.

Quite as emphatic is the Ambrosiaster in his teaching. “Christ descending to the infernal abodes condemned death, taking from him those whom he was keeping.”—In 1 Tim. ii. 6, 7. “Christ snatched from hades all * * the devil, lost, together with Christ, all whom he was keeping.”—In Rom. iii. 22-4. My next witness shall be an early treatise (wrongly ascribed to S. Ambrose), which says: “Christ went down to the depths of hell (Tartarus) and recalled (the) souls, bound by sin, to life, out of the devil’s jaws.” The context seems to imply the rescue of all sinners.—De myst. Pasch.

Next I take the words of an old writer (Maximus of Turin?) whose sermons are bound in S. AMBROSE’S works.—Ed. Paris, 1569. He says: “hell (Tartarus) yields up those it contains to the upper world: the earth sends to heaven those whom it buries.”—Serm. lii. S. Jerome, 378 A.D., bears clear testimony to the same effect: “Our Lord descends * * and was shut up in (the) eternal bars, in order that He might set free all who had been shut up.”—In Jonah ii. 6. “In the blood of Thy Passion Thou didst set free those who were being kept bound in the prison of hell (inferni).”—In Zech. ix. 11. We may note that, in the context, S. Jerome asserts that Dives was kept in this prison; the inference being, that, in his opinion, the “great gulf” may be crossed by Christ. Indeed, the words that I next give, seem to say so quite plainly. “The Lord descended to the place of punishment and torment, in which was the rich man, in order to liberate the prisoners.”—In Isa. xiv. 7. This liberation of all (as it seems) is taught in an old document, perhaps by Cæsarius of Arles, printed in S. Jerome’s works.—Ed. Paris, 1623. “The eternal night of hell (infernorum) is illuminated as Christ descends * * the bonds of the damned, torn asunder, fell away * * every cry of groaning is still * * The captive souls loosed from bonds go forth from hell (Tartarus), and the Apostle’s words come true, i.e., in Jesus’ name every knee bends of things in heaven, and earth, and under the earth.”—De Res. Dom.

Here note that the eternal night is only temporary,—the whole is worth reading as a specimen of early teaching. An old homily in EPIPHANIUS’ works (Paris, 1622), says, “Christ, like a swift-winged hawk, snatched away all that He had from the beginning, from the devil and left him deserted.”—In Assump. Christi. Another homily affirms that “Christ arose, and the prison of hades was emptied.”—In Res. Christi. I take next the testimony of S. Chrysostom, 398 A.D. (from whom further evidence will be quoted in the next chapter). He writes: “While the devil imagined that he had got hold of Christ (in hades), he lost all in fact whom he was keeping.”—In Col. ii. In this Father’s works are usually included some homilies of antient, but uncertain, authorship. Anonymous writings of this sort, of which I have already quoted a few, afford excellent proof of the beliefs then current among christians. “The wood of the Cross recalls from hades those who went down thither.”—In sacr. Pascha. “I see the earth trembling * * (the) dead preparing their escape * * Jesus Christ receives all.”—In sanc. et magn. Par. Another homily teaches that Christ puts forward (pretends) fear to draw on the devil, so that, attacking Him as man, he should be routed, and all be set free who were held captive by him.—De sanc. Trin. This whole description is highly characteristic and suggestive. A passage perhaps even more striking is the following: “The fire of hell (Gehenna) is extinguished, the sleepless worm (evidently the ‘worm that dieth not’) dies * * those who were in hades are set free from the bonds of the devil.”—In trid. Res.

Another witness is S. Asterius, Bishop of Amasea, 401 A.D., who writes: “Death swallowed up life, and becoming sick, vomited forth even those it had previously swallowed.”—Hom. xix. Few Fathers have taught the deliverance of all from hades more clearly, (see especially his Paschal homilies,) than CYRIL of Alexandria, 412 A.D. He describes Christ as having spoiled hades, and “left the devil there solitary and deserted.”—Hom. Pasch. vii. And again, “Christ, wandering down even to hades, has emptied the dark, hidden, unseen treasuries.”—Glaphy in Gen. lib. ii. I understand Maximus of Turin, 422 A.D., to teach the same. “Christ,” he says, “carried off to heaven man (mankind) whose cause He undertook, snatched from the jaws of hades.”—In Pent. Hom. ii. From Theodoret, 430 A.D., I take the following: Christ says to the devil, “I mean to open the prison of death for the rest, but will shut up thee only * * Thou wast justly despoiled of all thy subjects.”—De prov. Or. x. My next quotations are from S. Peter Chrysologus, 433 A.D.: “The rule of hell perishes * * and all obtain pardon (?)” (constat de venia jam totum).—Ser. lxxiv. Proclus, 434, A.D., Bishop of Constantinople, says: “To-day Christ emptied the entire treasury of death.”—In Dom. Pass. Or. xi. “All the dead, wondering at His Passion, cry for joy, ‘we are healed by His stripes.’”—In Dom. Res. Or. xii.

My readers can now judge of the significance rightly attaching to such a catena of authorities, (which I might increase,) comprising as it does almost all the greatest names in the first four or five centuries. Fresh evidence might very easily be given down to the tenth or eleventh century, did space permit. I am wholly unable to perceive any reasonable grounds on which the argument can be met, which regards universalism as the logical outcome of such teaching. If Christ delivered from hades every soul of Adam’s race up to the time of His Incarnation; if, e.g., every murderer, if every blasphemer and adulterer, though dying unrepentant, were at last evangelised and saved by Christ, then on what grounds can it be fairly or reasonably asserted that less mercy will be extended to that half of our race, who differ in this, that by no fault of their own they were born after the Incarnation? Is salvation—the final salvation or damnation of millions of immortal spirits—a question of chronology?

Those who are students of this subject may be asked to draw their own inference from the significant silence in which writers, on the traditional side, e.g., Dr. Pusey, have left this branch of the question. I have already noticed the very striking fact of the disappearance, practically, in modern days, of this truly primitive and scriptural doctrine; and will now sum up, in the following beautiful lines of Whittier:—

• “Still Thy Love, O Christ arisen,
• Yearns to reach those souls in prison:
• Through all depths of sin and loss,
• Drops the plummet of Thy Cross;
• Never yet abyss was found
• Deeper than that Cross could sound.”

Before dealing with the more direct evidence for early universalism, I may as well here notice a significant element in many Father’s writings, i.e., their attitude towards the question of evil. Pressed by the Manichean controversy, the Fathers were forced to consider this question. Their answers to the difficulty are often very significant; they frequently prove their point, either by asserting that all evil shall one day cease, or else that evil is nothing. Even Augustine is forced to make admissions, which seem to involve the final disappearance of evil. It is a strange sight to see the great dialectician caught in the toils he has himself set. Any struggle seems to me vain against the inevitable conclusion from his own premises, i.e., the final extinction of evil. Evil, he maintains, tends to what is less, and what is less tends to absolute non-existence. His arguments may be seen,—Cont. Sec. ii. xv., and in the context; and In De Mor. Manich. ii. 2, &c. Augustine no doubt denies the extinction of evil. My point is that his denial seems vain on his own theory. So in the dispute between Archelaus and Manes, 275 A.D., which, if not genuine, is antient, it is said on the catholic side, “that death, has an end, as it had a beginning.”—Ch. xxix. So an old commentator (in S. Jerome’s works), on Rom. 8:20, says: “Vanity is that which at some time comes to an end.” And so S. Ambrose says: “For whatever is of the devil is nothing, which cannot have any perpetuity nor substance.”—De Jacob. ii. 5. S. Gregory of Nyssa, also often asserts the non-perpetuity of evil. From Serapion, the friend of Athanasius, I shall quote a passage to the same effect a few pages further on. Titus of Bostra, quoted in this chapter, teaches the same. The passages just given seem conclusive against any creed which teaches the permanence of evil. I have ventured to call the traditional creed a dualism thinly disguised. Thoughtful readers will note its marked affinity with the Manichean heresy, in so far as both agree in the essential fact of teaching the perpetuity of evil.

To the arguments just stated, which are indirect, but, as it seems to me, significant, may be added, as an indication of primitive teaching, the undoubted fact—that in the very earliest representations of christian thought, in the Catacombs, everything is bright and joyous. Terrorism is conspicuously absent. No figures appear indicating pain, or anxiety; not even the Cross. Flowers, winged genii, and the play of children; such are the prevailing ornaments.

I will now take the more direct testimony in favour of universalism, which abounds in the writings of the Fathers. The earliest of all christian authors, Clemens (Romanus), has left us an Epistle about as long as S. Mark’s Gospel. It is significant that though he devotes three chapters to the Resurrection, not a line can be quoted from him in favour of the traditional creed. This, though important, is negative evidence only, but there is a passage in Rufinus—Inv. in Hier., lib. i., prop. fin.—from which we may, I think, infer, that Clement, with other Fathers, was a believer in the larger hope. We have already noted that the ancient Didache ton Apostolon is silent as to any endless punishment. Again, if we turn to the striking epistle to Diognetus, which probably dates from about the middle of the second century, we shall find the author describing God as One Who always was, is, and will be, “wrathless,”—ch. viii.; he describes the “eternal” (æonian) fire as chastising not “without an end,” but “up to an end.” (Mechri telous)—ch. x.

For many years after the apostolic days we possess but scanty records of christian thought, yet we are able to supply the blank indirectly. Pamphilus, the martyr, 294 A.D., wrote, in conjunction with Eusebius, an Apology for Origen, which has almost wholly perished; but we possess very valuable information as to its contents. Two early writers, anonymous, it is true, but whose testimony there seems no reason to doubt, agree in stating that this Apology contained very many testimonies of Fathers earlier than Origen, in favour of restitution (and pre-existence).—Routh, Rel. sac. iii. p. 498. Now, as Origen was born about ninety years after S. John’s death, these very numerous testimonies would carry back these doctrines very close, or altogether up to, the apostolic age. Nor is this all: Domitianus, Bishop of Ancyra, whose words are quoted farther on, writing in the sixth century, is very positive indeed. He seems to assert the universality of such teaching before and after Origen’s days: a very significant statement. To this evidence must be added that of the passage respecting Clement just referred to. Indeed, when the great scantiness of early records, during the three first quarters of the second century, is considered, it is cause for deep thankfulness that we possess such strong evidence, as that just quoted, of the extreme antiquity of the doctrine of universalism.

We may be said to emerge into the full daylight of christian history, with the famous Clement of Alexandria, 190 A.D., head of the catechetical school there, and who perhaps may be called the founder of a christian philosophy. Of the great school of Alexandria I shall not attempt to speak at length, but we should note (a) how early it was founded, (b) how widespread was its influence in leavening christian thought; existing as it did without a rival practically for 150 years; and (c) how that influence was exercised in favour of the doctrine of restoration. As to Clement, I may say that his nearness to the apostolic age (he speaks of having learned from a disciple of the Apostles—Strom. lib. ii.) his wide and various learning, and his sympathetic spirit combine to give special weight to his teaching. Few, if any, of the Fathers, appeal so little to terrorism, or so uniformly dwell on God’s mercy, even in His punishments, as does Clement. “It is manifest,” says the learned Dallæus, “that Clement thought all the punishments God inflicts upon men are salutary, and executed only for reformation.”—De usu Pat. So Clement’s best editor, Potter; so Guericke—De schol. Alex. I proceed to quote:

“All men are Christ’s, some by knowing Him, the rest not yet.” “He is the Saviour, not of some (only) and of the rest not” (i.e., He is actually Saviour of all) * * “for how is He Lord and Saviour if He is not Lord and Saviour of all?” But He is indeed Saviour of those who do not believe Him * * while of those who do not believe in Him, until having become able to confess Him, they obtain through Him the benefit appropriate and suitable (to their case) * * For by Him He has the salvation of all * * For all things have been ordered, both universally and in part, by the Lord of the universe; with a view to the salvation of the universe. * * But needful correction, by the goodness of the great overseeing Judge, through (by means of) the attendant angels, through various prior judgments, through the final (pantelous) judgment, compels even those who have become still more callous to repent.—Strom. lib. vii. pp. 702-6, Cologne, 1688. These words seem to teach all (even those who are callous) are finally restored (a) by correction, (b) or by angelic ministries, (c) by previous judgments, (d) by the final judgment. Thus he says that the evil, by chastisements far harder, shall be moved, though unwilling, to repentance. “The universe has become ceaseless light * * The Sun of righteousness that traverses the universe pervades all humanity alike. * Giving us the inalienable inheritance of the Father * * Writing His laws on our hearts. What laws are those He thus writes? That all shall know God from small to great. * * It is always the purpose of God to save the human flock (humanity).”—Adm. ad gent. p. 71.

Clement’s teaching as to the design of penalty, is conceived in the spirit of the larger hope. God’s “blame is censure concealed in an artful mode of help, ministering salvation under a veil.”—Pæd. lib. 1. ch. ix. p. 123. And again: “David very plainly states the motives of God’s threats (by saying), ‘when He slew them they sought Him and turned to Him.’”—ib. p. 126. Commenting on Deut. 32:23-6, where God uses very bitter threats of destruction, Clement says: “The divine nature is not angry, but is at the very farthest from being so, for it is an excellent artifice to affright, in order that we may not sin.”—ib. ch. viii. p. 116. The drift of Clement’s teaching may be thus stated. God is training the universe with a resolve to save all. If men are disobedient to the message of salvation, by discipline and by punishments, He sooner or later brings all to repentance. He says, “So Christ saves all men. Some He converts by penalties, others who follow Him of their own will * * that every knee may be bent to Him, of those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, i.e., angels, men, and souls, who, before His coming, passed away from this mortal life.”—In 1 John. Before passing on I may point out that Clement, like many of the Fathers, seems to regard death (not of the righteous merely), but death in itself, as a provision designed in mercy for healing sin. He asserts that “when any one falls into incurable evil * * it will be for his good if he is put to death.”—Strom. i. p. 353. Of Sodom, Clement writes: “The just vengeance on the Sodomites became an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men.”—Pæd. iii. ch. viii.

There is much that is interesting in a writer earlier than Clement, Athenagoras, 177 A.D.

He nowhere alludes to endless penalty, though he speaks of future judgment His conception of the Resurrection seems to be that it is the crown and completion of man’s rational nature. “If this takes place (the Resurrection) an end befitting the nature of man follows also.” —ch. xxv. He speaks of the future body as not liable to suffering,—ch. x., and of the Resurrection as a change for the better (apparently in every case) ch. xii. Athenagoras, though little known, writes with a grace and vigor too often wanting in more famous names.

Further evidence of early teaching is afforded by a fragment—assigned to Irenæus by Pfaff, its discoverer, but certainly very antient. “Christ will come at the end of the times in order to annul everything evil, and to reconcile again all things, that there may be an end of all impurities.” Frag. iv. These words fairly express the larger hope.

Further proof of the prevalence of universalist views at a very early date in the Church may be drawn from the so-called Sibylline books, which were composed (except a certain portion, which is pre-christian) at various dates, and by various authors, in the second and following centuries. These books furnish us with most valuable evidence as to the beliefs current in those days. It will be seen how sharp is the contrast between them and our modern notions. In one of them a very striking picture is drawn of the end of the world. All things, even hades, are to be melted down in the divine fire in order to be purified. All, just and unjust, pass through unquenchable fire. The unjust are further committed to hell (Gehenna); they are bound in fetters not to be broken; they pray vainly to God; yet these men—apparently all the lost—are finally to be saved at the request of the righteous. They are to be “removed elsewhere to a life eternal for immortals.”—Lib. ii., vv. 195-340. Another passage—Lib. viii. 412, seems to teach an universal purification. These verses belong perhaps to the second century; so far from exhibiting any sentimentality, the picture drawn of the end of the world is awful:—even infants at the breast wail in the unquenchable fire; how significant then is it to find mercy finally triumphing. “The Sibyl asserts that the pains even of the damned * * are to be terminated.”—Fabric., Bibl. grec. i. p. 203. (So, too, say Opsopoeus, Musardus, Gallæus, &c.) In passing, too, we may at any rate note that the Apocalypse of Moses (in part, probably very antient,) represents God as saying to satan: “There shall not be granted to thee ear, or wing, or limb of all which those have whom thou hast enticed by thy wickedness.” Even if the primary reference be to Adam and Eve, still the drift and spirit of these words is quite in harmony with the larger hope.

I give next a few quotations from the famous Origen, 234 A.D. born at Alexandria, and when only eighteen called to preside over its school of theology.

Writing on 1 Cor. 15:28, he says: “When the Son is said to be subject to the Father, the perfect restoration of the whole creation is signified.”—De prin. iii. ch. v. 7. And again, speaking of the end, “God will be all * * seeing evil nowhere exists, for God is all things.” “When death shall no longer exist, or the sting of death, nor any evil at all, then, verily, God will be All in All.—ib. iii. ch. vi. 3.

“All rational souls shall be re-established in a state of unity * * all rational souls restored.”—ib. vi. 6. “We assert that the Word will subdue to Himself all rational^[5] natures, and will change them into His own perfection.”—Cont. Cels. viii. 72. Such was the teaching that at first leavened all christendom: the fearless assertion of a restoration embracing not all men merely, but all fallen spirits. Such was the teaching of one who stands perhaps foremost, since the Apostle’s day, in the union in one person, of genius, learning, industry, holiness, “whose life was one continuous prayer.” “Everyone with hardly an exception adhered to Origen.”—Huet, Orig. p. 197. “Provided one had Origen on his side, he believed himself certain to have the truth.”—Doucin, Hist. de l’Origenisme. Three points may be briefly noted, (a) the wide diffusion at this early date of the larger hope; (b) the stress Origen frequently lays on the guilt of sin, and the need of retribution; (c) his use of eónios to express a limited punishment.

Another antient universalist, as I think we may conclude, is S. Gregory (Thaumaturgus), 254 A.D. Born of heathen parents, he was converted by Origen, whose friend and pupil he became.

As Bishop of Cæsarea, he was distinguished for orthodoxy and numerous (alleged) miracles. He there converted nearly the whole population to christianity. Bound as he was to Origen by the closest possible ties, he would naturally, in turn, teach the larger hope; and thus, from so important a centre as Cæsarea, a vast district would in turn be leavened. That S. Gregory did, in fact, so teach, we can infer from a passage in Rufinus, Inverc. in Hier. Lib. i. prope fin. Of his writings hardly anything has survived.

I have next to cite some extracts from Methodius, A.D. 293, Bishop of Tyre, and a martyr (probably). Extracts of his work on the Resurrection have been preserved in Epiphanius, and Photius.

His teachings seem logically to involve universalism. Thus he asserts that death was given to the destruction of sin in man: “God for this cause pronounced him mortal and clothed him with mortality, that man might not be an undying evil (i.e., that evil in man might not be endless) * * in order that, by the dissolution of the body, sin might be destroyed root and branch from beneath, there might not be left even the smallest particle of root, from which new shoots of sins might break forth.” He goes on to employ the illustration of a fig tree growing in the walls of a splendid temple, to preserve which the fig tree is torn away by the root and dies. “In the same way also, God, the Builder, dissolved, slaying by the seasonable application of death, man His own temple, that His own temple, when (man) had fostered sin like a wild fig tree * * * in order that the flesh, after sin is withered and dead, may, like a restored temple, be raised up immortal, while sin is utterly destroyed from its foundations.”—Apud Epiph., Hær. lxiv. 24-5. He adds that if the Artist wishes that, on which he has bestowed so much pains, shall be quite free from injury, it must be broken up and recast, in order that all disfigurements * * * may disappear while the image is restored again. “For it is impossible for an image under the hands of (Kata) the original artist to be lost, even if it be melted down again.”—ib. 27. He says that, what the melting down to a statue, is death to man, and the recasting in full beauty is man’s resurrection. It is possible no doubt to minimise and explain away all this, but such teaching as that quoted seems clearly to imply in its natural meaning, that God’s image cannot be lost, and that death and resurrection (the common lot) involve the cure of sin.

To the great Eastern theologians death is in fact a mode of cure—a striking difference. I may add that Methodius says in one passage, “ Death is good, if it be found like stripes to children for correction;” not the death of sin (sinners?) might perish.—ib. 22. He adds that God sent death in order that all sin in man might perish.—ib. 22. He adds that God sent death in order that all sin in man might perish, the power of thinking evil thoughts is eradicated by the presence of natural death.—Cod. ccxxiv. “ Man, after having been formed for God’s worship * * cannot return to discord and corruption.”—Frag. i. from a Hom. on the Cross. “It is incredible that we, who are the images of God, should be altogether destroyed as being without an honour.”—Frag. on Jonah. Christ was sacrificed and rose again, in order that He might “be by all created things equally adored, for to Him ‘every knee shall bow, of things,’“ &c.—Or. on the Palms.—This treatise is in one manuscript assigned to S. Chrysostom.

We may now be said to have entered on the second of those periods into which our enquiry is divided. The years stretching away from the present date to 430 or 440 A.D., are crowded more than any other with names illustrious in the annals of the Church. And it is noteworthy that precisely in this period universalism finds some of its ablest, and most outspoken advocates, as we shall see in the course of these pages.

Eusebius of Cæsarea, 312 A.D., was a notorious Origenist. “He in the most evident manner acquiesced in Origen’s tenets,” (except on the Trinity) says S. Jerome.—Adv. Ruf. lib. ii.

Commenting on Ps. ii., he says: “The Son’s ‘breaking in pieces’ His enemies is for the sake of remoulding them, as a potter his own work; as Jer. 18:6, says: i.e., to restore them once more to their former state.” “Even the impious, when the day of the Lord arrives * * shall cast forth and fling away every false opinion of their mind with regard to idols.”—In Isa. ii. 22.—words that are certainly suggestive when speaking of the universal judgment, as here. “Christ will therefore subject to Himself everything (the universe), and this saving subjection it is right to regard as similar to that, according to which the Son Himself shall be subjected unto Him, Who subjected to Himself all things * * But after the close of everything, He will not dwell in a few. but in all those who are then worthy of the kingdom of heaven. So then shall come to pass (God’s being) all in all, when He inhabits as His people all (absolutely, tous pantas).—De eccles. theol. iii. 16.

Eusebius has preserved some fragments of the writings of Marcellus of Ancyra, 315 A.D. I may quote one:—

“For what else do the words mean, ‘Until the times of restitution’ (Acts 3:21) but that the Apostle designed to point out that time, in which all things partake of that perfect restoration.”—Cont. Mar. ii. 4.

I take next a brief passage from Serapion (Athanasius’ friend), 346 A.D.. His words seems certainly to involve the final extinction of evil. In his view, evil, as consisting in choice merely, has no real existence, and easily passes away, leaving no trace behind. “It is of itself nothing, nor can it of itself exist or always; but is in process of vanishing, and by vanishing proved to be unable to exist.”—Adv. Man. ch. iv.

I do not design to discuss S. Athanasius’ teaching at any length. It has never been my intention to deny the existence of a school of thought adverse to universalism, in early times. But I do not feel certain, by any means, that Athanasius belonged to this school.

(a) There is undoubted evidence seeming to point the other way, e.g., the learned and candid Bingham shews that he teaches the possibility of repentance, and pardon, for even the sin against the Holy Ghost. (b) Of Origen he speaks, more than once, with respect and even admiration. (c) In his treatises, De Incarn. V.D., and In illud, Om. mihi trad., there is much teaching as to Christ’s work, &c., which seems in perfect harmony with the larger hope. (d) His teaching as to the Descent into hades is significant. He says, that the whole population of the world, which existed in the four ages, and was detained by death, bend the knee as being freed from it. “For He spake to those in bonds, ‘Come forth’ * * But that they who were formerly disobedient and resisted God were set free, that Peter shewed.”—(1 Peter 3:18.)—Fragm. in verb. Laud. Dom. dracones. “He captured over again the souls captured by the devil, for that He promised in saying, ‘I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto Me.’“—In Ps. lxviii. 18. (e) Let us note the following: “‘But when all things have been subjected unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject, that God may be All in All’; now this is so, as he (Paul) says, we all are made subject to the Son, and are found members of Christ—a subjection of obedience. This seems to teach an universal subjection to Christ, for that He is to the Jews a scandal, and to the Gentiles folly, He proceeds, “when, then, the whole creation shall meet the Son in the clouds, and shall be subject to Him, then, too, shall the Son Himself be subject to the Father, as being a faithful Apostle, and High Priest of all creation, that God may be All in All.”—Serm. maj. de fide. (f) Lastly, I notice a remarkable comment on Ps. 9:5. ‘Thou hast rebuked the nations, Thou hast destroyed the wicked, &c.’—the devil is meant since rebuke (Epitimesis) signifies emendation * * these words may also be understood of the Last Judgment, for then sinners (ton hamartolon—all sinners) being rebuked, the devil who is rightly the wicked one is destroyed.”—Frag. in Ps. ix.

We now turn to S. Hilary, 354 A.D., Bishop of Poictiers, one of the most distinguished champions of orthodoxy. His leaning to Origen is evident, of whom he translated, says Jerome, nearly 40,000 lines.—Adv. Ruf. i.

Of S. Luke xv. 4, he says, “This one sheep is man, the ninety and nine are the entire race is to be understood * * the heavenly angels * * and by us (mankind) who are all one, the number of the heavenly church is to be filled up. And therefore it is that every creature awaits the revelation of the sons of God.”—In S. Matt. xviii.

This extract, in its obvious sense, teaches universalism. The whole human race, who are one, are the one lost sheep, which is destined to be found by the Good Shepherd. Again, S. Hilary has a long and interesting comment on Ps. 2:8-9, pervaded by the spirit of the larger hope. In giving to Christ the ends of the earth as His possession is meant, he says, a dominion, absolutely universal, one to be summed up in S. Paul’s words, which teach: “That every knee of things in heaven, and earth, and under the earth, are to bend in Jesus’ name.” And as to the nature of this supremacy over all, S. Hilary proceeds to say that by “ruling the nations with a rod of iron” is indeed meant the care of the Good Shepherd; and by “breaking them in pieces like a potter’s vessel” is really signified the vessel’s restoration. “In this way God will bruise and break the nations of His inheritance, so as to reform them.” And the breaking of the vessel, he says, takes place “when the body, being dissolved by death, and thus broken up, the restoration shall be effected by the artificer’s will.” This surely is the same process as that in Rev. 19:15, where Christ smites the nations and rules them with His rod of iron, “treading the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God.” But if all this means salvation, do we not arrive at the larger hope? By God’s slaying sinners, he says that their conversion is meant. “‘Wilt Thou not slay sinners,’ can He Who came to save that which was lost, and to redeem the sinner, (really) pray that the sinner may be slain? Far be it from Him to desire that he should be slain. But the sinner is slain when he dies to the world * * In this way is the sinner slain, when the birth of spiritual life is renewed, by the death of all vices and sins.”—In Ps. cxxxix. 19.

This Father is not easy of quotation, being often diffuse, involved, and at times inconsistent; (this latter a fact in perfect harmony with his explicit advocacy of dissimulation), yet his writings convey to me a distinct impression of an inner belief in the larger hope; as, e.g., when writing on Ps. 119:159, he says that the Psalmist knows a life of immortal glory to have been promised to him by the fact of his being formed in Gods image—”an arrangment of unalterable truth,” he adds, (and true of every man.) Or again, take the following comment on Christ’s words: “‘As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh in order that He should give eternal life to all that Thou hast given Him,’ * * so the Father gave all things and the Son accepted all things * * and honoured by the Father, was (in turn) to honour the Father, and to employ the power received in giving eternity of life to all flesh * * now this is life eternal that they may know Thee,” &c.—De Trin. lib. ix., p. 206-7, Paris, 1652. “When the poor in spirit shall have been set free in the heavenly kingdom, every creature, together groaning and mourning, is to be set free from the bondage of corruption.”—In Ps. lxix. 32-3.” Even the abode of hell”—inferni—is to praise God, he says.—ib. v. 34.

Our next witness shall be F. M. Victorinus, 360 A.D., a distinguished rhetorician at Rome (where he was converted to christianity). Though of African birth, this writer’s sympathies are wholly with the Neo-Platonic school and its liberal theology. Such a system whose essence is the outflow of all rational beings from God, and their return to God through Christ, Who is the Universal Word and Saviour, (and Who is also the final centre of unity to all creation,) leads without doubt to the larger hope. Victorinus’ rugged Latinity has prevented due recognition of his merits as a thinker and theologian.

“And because Christ is the life, He is that by Whom all things have been made, and for Whom (in quem into Whom) all things have been made, for all things cleansed by Him return into eternal life.”—Adv. Ar. lib. iii. 3. “In assuming our flesh Christ assumed (the position of) universal word (logos) of flesh * * and therefore succoured all flesh; as is said in Isaiah, ‘All flesh shall see Thee the salvation of God;’ and in the Psalms, ‘To Thee shall all flesh come’ * * for in Him were all things universally—the universal soul and the universal flesh—and these were lifted up on the Cross and cleansed by the life-giving God the Word, by (Him Who is) universally (the Word) of the entire universe. For by Him all things were made.”—ib. “Victorinus’ periods are harsh and involved, but his meaning seems clear. Christ is, he says, universally, i.e., to the entire universe at once, actually Creator, Word (logos), and Saviour—actually the Saviour; for the whole train of thought, excludes any such idea as that of a merely potential salvation. And so, adds, He is Jesus Christ. because He will save all things unto life.”—ib. iii. 8. “Christ fulfilled the mystery in order that all life with the flesh (i.e., after the resurrection,) filled with eternal light, should return free from all corruption into the heavens.”—ib. i. 57. “All things shall be rendered spiritual at the consummation of the world.” (1 Cor. 15:28)—ib. i. 36. “At the consummation all things shall be one.”—ib. 37. “Therefore all things converted to Him, shall become one, i.e., spiritual * * through the Son all things shall be made one, for all things are by Him * * for all things that exist are by Him are ONE, though they be different. For the body of the entire universe is not like a mere heap, which becomes a body only by the contact of its particles; but it is a body chiefly in that—its several parts being closely and mutually bound together—it forms a continuous chain. For the chain is this—God: Jesus Christ: the Spirit: the Intellect (nous): the Soul: the Angelic host: and lastly, all subordinate bodily existences.”—ib. i. 25. To Victorinus the universe is one organic whole: a living chain clasped and bound together to the very throne of God. “The logos was made ‘all in all,’ He begot all things and saved them.”—ib. i. 26. Again, commenting on Eph. i. iv., he says: “Thus the mystery was completed by the Saviour in order that perfection having been completed throughout all things and in all things by Christ, all universally should be made one through Christ and in Christ.”

Victorinus’ system shews clearly, what I have elsewhere maintained (p. 54), the natural connection between the dogma of Christ’s Deity, and the larger hope.

The next witness I shall call is Titus, Bishop of Bostra, 364 A.D., in whose writings we see the larger hope taught in Arabia by one whom his editor, Caillou, describes as “the most learned among the learned bishops of his age, and a most famous champion of the truth.” S. Jerome reckons him as one of those, in whom you are at a loss whether to admire most, their learning or their knowledge of Holy Scripture. On Titus’ Origenism see Huet—Origen. ii. p. 199. From Eusebius we learn that Origen thrice visited Arabia, and taught there, once certainly at Bostra.—Eccles. Hist. lib. vi. 19, 33, 37.

I transcribe a striking passage, in which Titus is speaking of evil spirits. “The very pit itself is a place of torments and of chastisement, but is not eternal * * It was made that it might be a medicine and help to those who sin. Sacred are the stripes which are medicine to those who have sinned * * ‘Therefore we do not complain of the pits (of hell)—abyssis—but rather know that they are places of torment, and chastisement, being for the correction (amendment) of those who have sinned.’”—Adv. Man. lib. i. 32. Such words are very significant, as seeming to teach the salvation of all evil spirits. Again, his view of death is significant, and quite inconsistent with the doctrine of never-ending punishment, or of annihilation. He teaches that death is universally, and from its very nature is a blessing. Indeed, Titus maintains significantly that, “if death were an evil, blame would rightly fall on Him Who appointed it,” (God)—ib. ii. 27. He goes on to say that it comes “not as an injury to the just, nor as a vengeance to the unjust, for that which is natural cannot be a vengeance, but as an example, or for the chastisement of evils (otherwise) incurable.”—ib.

This, I believe, from the context, and his whole tone, to be Titus’ meaning. Thus he teaches that “Death, which is assigned by law to nature, is not evil in what way soever it come.” * * to those who are killed (in war) it brings an end of sin * * for as to the unrighteous death is an end of unrighteousness, so also to the righteous “it is a beginning of their crown.”—ib. ii. 12. “Death is not appointed by God to cause men hurt, but is appointed for the greatest benefit both to the righteous and the unrighteous.” He goes on to say that death if inflicted on a great number is just the same natural event as in the case of individuals, and even indicates more clearly the divine care: for it “by the show of indignation,”— tá katá tó fenómenon aghanaktísi [τὰ κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον ἀγανακτήσει]—(which the death of many causes) “benefits,” as explained, those who die, and converts the living.” Thus, as he remarks elsewhere, we are permitted by God to raise a surmise, that it is for the punishment of sin, “while in fact it is to put an end to sin.”—ib. 12. And thus he teaches that evil has a beginning and an end.—ib. lib. i. 35. I need hardly pause to point out the significance of all this.

I give next a few sentences of a little known author, Macarius Magnes, who flourished about this time.

Death was sent to our first parents “in order that, by the dissolution of the body, all the sin arising from the bond (of body and spirit) should be totally destroyed.”—Not. et. frag. xix.

Of S. Ephrem (Syrus), 370 A.D., it is enough to say that however strong his language may be as to future penalty, yet he teaches very clearly the liberation of all souls from hades.

“Christ burst open the most voracious belly of hades * * seeing this Death trembled * * and sent forth all whom from the first man up to that time he had kept in bonds.”—Serm. xviii. De sanc. Cruce.—Ed. Caillou.

Another very great name there is whose testimony must be given here, S. Gregory of Nazianzus, 370 A.D., president of the second great Ecumenical Council, “the most learned bishop in one of the most learned ages of the Church.” With S. Gregory we come to the first of the very celebrated group of teachers, who, in the fourth century, throw lustre on the Cappadocian school.

(a) Let us take a few examples of the way in which S. Gregory hints, to say the least, his belief in the final salvation of all men Speaking of the dead, he tells us that God brings them to life as partakers either of fire, or of illuminating light. “But whether even all shall hereafter partake of God, let it be elsewhere discussed”—Carm. i. v. 548. This striking statement is concealed in the Latin version.—ed. Col. 1690. S. Gregory says elsewhere—” I know also a fire not cleansing but penal * * which, more to be dreaded than all unless anyone pleases, even in this instance, to understand this more humanely and worthily of Him Who punishes.”—Orat. xl. “It is manifest” says Petavius, “that in this place, Gregory doubted about the pains of the damned, whether they would be endless, or whether they are to be estimated rather in accordance with the mercy of God, so as at some time to be brought to an end.” It is no less manifest that he, Gregory, who was perhaps the foremost man in all christendom, evidently knew of no ecclesiastical objection to teaching the widest hope: nay, there is strong reason to think that he himself believed it.

(b) He teaches that when Christ descended into hades, He liberated not some, but all the souls there in prison. This view, as already shewn, logically implies universalism. “Until He loosed by His blood all who groan under Tartarean chains.”—Carm. xxxv. (ed. Lyons, 1840.) “To-day salvation has been brought to the universe to whatsoever is visible and whatsoever is invisible” (to-day the gates of hades are thrown open.”—Or. xlii.

(c) Again, it is significant that S. Gregory speaks of death as a gain to man, because it puts an end to sin, and of penalty as a mercy. “Adam receives death as a gain, and (thereby) the cutting off of sin; that evil should not be immortal: and so the vengeance turns out a kindness, for thus I am of opinion is it that God punishes.”—Orat. xlii. “When you read in Scripture of God’s being angry or threatening a sword against the wicked * * understand this rightly and not wrongly. How, then, are these metaphors used? Figuratively. In what way? With a view to terrifying the minds of the simpler sort.”—Carm. iamb. xxi. vv.370-85. These words recall at once a striking passage of S. Gregory (of Nyssa), elsewhere quoted—Cat. orat. viii. I believe this is such teaching to be most highly significant S. Basil, too, uses very similar words: “Fear edifies the simpler ones,” speaking of God’s slaying sinners.—Quod Deus non est auct. mal.

(d) Again, S. Gregory seems to treat the human race as made one organic whole by Christ’s death, “A few drops of blood renew the whole world, and become of all men that, which rennet is for milk, uniting and drawing us into one.”—Or. xlii. Again: “Christ, stretching His sacred body to the ends (of the earth), brought thence that which is mortal, and bound it into one man.”—Carm. ii. v. 167. Christ is man that He may be “like leaven for the entire mass (of mankind), and having made that which was condemned (or ‘damned’), one with Himself, frees the whole from condemnation (damnation).”—Or. xxxvi. (e) In a brief iambic poem, he uses language recalling the Neo-Platonic view, saying among other things that God is “end of all things.”—Ad Deum. (f) Again, having used language that seems to favour the ordinary view, S. Gregory goes on to say that “everything (tá pánta [τὰ πάντα]) shall be subdued to Christ, and they shall be subdued by a full knowledge (epíghnosis [ἐπίγνωσις]) of Him, and by a remodelling * * Now God will be All in All at the time of restitution.”—Or. xxxvi.

(g) It is certainly noteworthy again, that this Father speaks of the Novatians (who die in heresy, and in a way that not of Christ), as follows: “Perhaps there (in the other world), with the fire, the last and more laborious, and more protracted baptism, which devours the substance like hay, and consumes the lightness of all evil.”—Or. xxxix. These words are abundantly suggestive. On this “It is clear,” says Petavius, “that pains by no means endless, though very long, are appointed for the lost * * and those dying in heresy.”—De Ang. iii. 7, § 13. The passages just quoted, if read together, can leave little doubt indeed as to S. Gregory’s views, but there remain two pieces of evidence to complete our proof: (i) Is is certain that S. Gregory’s authority as teaching “restoration” was appealed to by the monks of the New Laura early in the sixth century.—Vit. S. Cyril, c. 10. (ii) We have, finally, a passage of Rufinus, a contemporary, from which the same may be inferred.—Invec. i, prop. fin.

Next in the list of Cappadocian teachers are two illustrious names—(brothers) Basil and Gregory, Bishops of Cæsarea and Nyssa respectively, to whom should be added a sister, S. Macrina the younger. Basil’s teacher in childhood had been another S. Macrina, his grandmother, herself a disciple of that Gregory who was Origen’s bosom friend and pupil, and almost without a doubt an universalist. —p. 110. In such a family the larger hope might be expected to find a congenial home. Certain it is that S. Macrina (the younger), to whose holy counsels Basil largely owed his choice of a religious life, was an ardent, nay, an extreme universalist. And no less certain is it that Gregory of Nyssa taught openly and strongly the same creed. I know what may be alleged from Basil’s works to prove that he did not share these views; but I also know that one who scruples not expressly to approve pious frauds, and to attribute dissimulation, for a good end, even to our Blessed Lord, may be supposed very likely in his own person to copy such a pattern. And I feel also quite unable to reconcile with the doctrine of endless evil such passages as I shall here quote from S. Basil.

Take, e.g., these words: “The peace (coming) from the Lord is co-extensive with all time (eternity). For all things shall be subject to Him, and all things shall acknowledge His empire; and when God shall be All in All, those who now excite discords by revolts, having been quite pacified, (all things) shall praise God in peaceful concord.”—In Isa. ix. 6. Such a prospect is in absolute harmony with the larger hope, and with it only. “Therefore, since all are to be made subject to Christ’s rule according to the saying, ‘He must reign till He put His enemies under His feet,’ (the prophet) said His throne shall be restored, (for) the things made subject to His rule are to obtain restoration. That is, Christ’s rule is to be one day universal, and this rule involves the restoration of those who come under it (including His enemies). Again, on Isa. xi. 17 (reading thus): “Every man shall be brought low,” Basil says it means that “every kind of wickedness in man shall cease”—a very remarkable description of the result of the Judgment Day, to which the passage refers: he adds on v. 18 the significant words that “every rational nature shall bear witness that true loftiness and greatness belongs to God alone.”

In another passage this Father teaches that “sins * * require the fire of judgment” (for their cure).—In Isa. iv. 4,—a noteworthy statement. In the same spirit he explains the words: “My fury shall not cease on My enemies,” (reading u páfseté mu o thimós [οὐ παύσεταί μου ὁ θυμός]) “consider the good issue of righteous judgment, I will burn them. And why is this? In order that I may purify. Thus it is that God is angry in order to bestow benefits on sinners.”—In Isa. i. 24. That is, He understands anger to mean mercy. On Isa. ii. 9, he says, reading, “‘I will not forgive,’ even this (the Good (LORD) works for beneficence * * the not being forgiven is not a hurtful threat, but a saving discipline.” This passage refers to the final consummation, it must be remembered, (see Basil’s comment on v. 2). On Isa. 1:28, he says, “Therefore the sinners and transgressors shall be destroyed (crushed) together,’ in order that they may cease to be disobedient and unruly; and ‘they who forsake the Lord shall be consumed,’ i.e., the sin whereby they have offended against God shall no more be committed.” S. Basil goes on to imply the destruction of the Man of sin, by Christ at His coming, is the removal of his sin, as Jerome teaches.—(In Mic. v. 8) “For we have often observed that it is not the very persons to whom (the sins) are consumed, but the sins which happened to here referred to: first they are to be consumed, and here it is added they are to be burned. This burning he refers to Gehenna (hell), and the whole context seems to render it clear that he regards this as a healing and purifying fire. Again, commenting on Ps. lxix. i., this Father says that Zephaniah’s words (ch. 1:8-18) about God’s wrath devouring the earth, at the Last Day, is in order that all men “may call upon the name of the Lord, and serve Him under one yoke.” With this, he says, such Psalms as the present agree, pointing to a time when all things are subdued to Christ, and every knee bends to Him (evidently in harmony). So on Isa. 9:19, God’s burning up the whole earth is, he declares, for the soul’s benefit, for its cleansing. Again, on Isa. 13:19, Babylon’s destruction, is like that of Gomorrha, he says, for its healing. To see the significance of this we must remember (a) that the context threatens Babylon with a final and hopeless ruin, v. 20, and (b) that Sodom and Gomorrha suffer the vengeance of eternal fire (S. Jude).

Before passing on we may relieve the tedium of quotations by noticing a touching family picture, not unworthy to take its place side by side with the famous scene of Augustine and his mother.—Confess. lib. ix. S. Macrina (the younger), of whom I have just spoken, is lying on her death bed, to which S. Gregory (of Nyssa) has come, that they may together mourn for S. Basil, their brother, just taken to his rest. The dying Macrina, strong in faith and in hope, cheers her surviving brother by noble thoughts and assurances of the true extent of Christ’s Redemption—as destined to embrace savingly all humanity, destined to blot from the universe every stain of sin. This most remarkable conversation of two famous saints, in which “The purificatory nature of the fire of hell is unmistakably set forth”—(Dict. of Christ. Biog. iii. p. 780) has been recorded by S. Gregory in a well-known book.—De an. et Res. The list of early female saints contains, I think, no name illustrious in so many ways, as that of S. Macrina; illustrious at once for wisdom and energy in practical life; for the deepest devoutness; and for intellectual vigour.

Our next witness deserves special attention—the famous Gregory of Nyssa, 380 A.D., at once the very flower of orthodoxy, and, like his sister, the most unflinching advocate of extreme universalism, which he teaches in almost countless passages.

I proceed to quote in proof of this. S. Gregory, in a remarkable passage, speaks of Christ as “both freeing mankind from their wickedness, and healing the very inventor of wickedness (the devil).”—Cat. orat. ch. 26. In another treatise the same great Father writes, “for it is needful that at some time, evil shall be removed utterly and entirely from existence * * For since by its very nature evil cannot exist apart from free choice, when free choice becomes in the power of God, shall not evil advance to utter abolition, so that no receptacle for it shall be left?”—De an. et Res., vol. ii. p. 659, Paris, 1615. Here it is quite clear that the saint anticipates the utter extinction of evil at some future day, and bases its extinction largely on man’s free will. Again, writing on Phil. 2:10, S. Gregory says that “in this passage is signified, that when evil has been obliterated in the long circuits of the ages, nothing shall be left outside the limits of good; but even from them (the demons) shall be unanimously uttered the confession of the Lordship of Christ.”—ib. p. 644. “The word seems to lay down the doctrine of the perfect obliteration of wickedness, for if God shall be in all things that exist, obviously wickedness shall not be in existence.”—ib. 661.

In another treatise, the Orat. in 1 Cor. xv. 28, vol. i. p. 844, there is the widest possible assertion of universalism, viz., “At some time the nature of evil shall pass to extinction, being fully and completely removed from existence; and divine goodness shall embrace in itself every rational nature: nothing that has been made by God falling away from the Kingdom of God: when, all the evil that shall be blended with existence by the melting action of the cleansing fire, everything that has had its being from God, shall become such as it was at first, when as yet untainted by evil.” In this strain S. Gregory continues all through this treatise. Every form of evil is to be swept away; every rational creature, without exception, shall bow the knee in love and peace to Jesus Christ. “For it is evident that God will, in truth, be ‘in all’ then when there shall be no evil seen in existence.” And again, “when every created being is at harmony with itself * * and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; when every creature shall have been made one body (then shall the body of Christ be subject to the Father) * * Now the body of Christ, as I have often said, is the whole of humanity.” Again, in the clearest manner S. Gregory maintains that subjection to God is reconciliation to God. Where it is said that God’s enemies shall be subjected to God, “this is meant that the power of evil shall be taken away, and they who, on account of their disobedience, were called God’s enemies, shall be by subjection made God’s friends. * * When, then, all who once were God’s enemies, shall have been made His footstool, because they shall receive in themselves the divine imprint, when death shall have been destroyed * * in the subjection of all, which is not servile humility, but immortality and blessedness, Christ is said, by S. Paul, to be made subject to God.” A favourite doctrine of this Father’s is that the Resurrection involves restoration—as undoing of all the work of the Fall. It brings immortality and incorruption—these, says S. Gregory, peculiar to the divine nature, and in themselves a blessing.

There is a long and striking passage to this effect in the De an. et Res. p. 689. The apostle’s words seem to me to imply “what our definition contains, i.e., that (the) Resurrection is nothing else than the restoration of our nature to its ancient state (of blessedness) * * This corruptible must put on incorruption. But incorruption and honour and glory are confessed to be peculiar to the divine nature. * * So we, too, severally divested of mortality literally—stripped of the form which is like the ear of corn and blended with the earth, are born again in the Resurrection after the fashion of our pristine beauty.” Doubtless, he adds, the evil are to look for great severity from the Judge; but after due creative treatment, and when the fire shall have destroyed all foreign matter, then the nature, even of these, have shall improve by the copious nurture they receive, and at length they too shall regain the divine impress. In this and in a former passage (vol. ii. p. 650), this Father expressly attributes cleansing properties to the “eternal” fire,—a fact concealed in the Latin version.

Let us here note the length to which S. Gregory goes. Universalism, not in isolated sentences, but as the centre of his teaching, and in a form embracing all fallen spirits, characterizes this great Father. And this universalism is as fearless as it is clear. With the Dean of Wells, I say, “That S. Gregory claims to be taking his stand on the doctrines of the Church in this teaching, with as much confidence as when he is expounding the mysteries of the divine nature as set forth in the Creed of Nicæa.” Let me proceed to quote:—

“By which God shews that neither is sin from eternity, nor will it last to eternity. For that which did not always exist shall not last for ever * * (The Lord) will * * In His just judgment, destroy the wickedness of sinners, not the nature being thus destroyed and its imprint being left in none, all shall be fashioned after Christ, and in all one character shall shine, which originally was imprinted on our nature.”—In Ps. Tract ii., ch. viii. On the words, “Arise, O Lord, in Thy wrath, and be exalted over the end of Thine enemies” (so the words run in S. Gregory’s text). “The term ‘wrath,’“ he says, “shews the retributive power of the just judge, and that which follows (shews) the extinction of sin: for that alone is contrary to nature which is seen to be opposed to good, which is sin, and its extinction and a change to nothingness.” He then goes on to explain that to put an end to the enemies of God, means no allow to human life any power of turning to evil; for as the end of disease is health “so here the Psalmist calls the change of the nature of mankind, from evil to a state of blessedness, the end of (God’s) enemies.”—ib. ch. x. Here let us notice the stress laid on wrath, justice, and retribution and the conclusion so strictly drawn, that these involve the termination of sin.

Again, S. Gregory writes on Ps. 57:1: “For the nature of sin is unstable and transitory * * nor lasting for ever in the universe * * It is like a plant on a house top, not rooted, not sown, not ploughed in, and though for the present it may cause trouble with its unsubstantial shoot, yet in the time to come, in the restoration to goodness of all things, it passes away and vanishes. So not even a trace of the evil, which now abounds in us, shall remain in the life that is promised as an object of our hope.—ib. ch. xiv. So, too, writing on Ps. 107:42: “And all iniquity shall stop her mouth,” this Father says: “How blessed is that life in which the mouth of iniquity shall be for ever stopped * * This is the crown of all blessings, the head of all hope * * that nature shall no longer be troubled by wickedness, but that He shall put a stop to all iniquity, that is to say (He shall destroy) the very inventor of iniquity” (the Devil).—In Ps. Tract i. ch. viii. Again, on Ps. 150:5: “Praise Him upon the high-sounding cymbals,” there is a very striking comment. “These cymbals,” he says, “joined with cymbals, shew the (future) harmony between the human and the angelic natures, when human nature shall have attained its end. One cymbal is the heavenly nature of the angels. The other is the rational creation of mankind; but sin separated the one from the other; when, then, the goodness of God shall have united once more with the other, then shall both, brought together, clasp forth that hymn, as the great Apostle says, ‘Every tongue, of things in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, shall confess that Christ is Lord, to the glory the glory of the God the Father.’ Which done, the voice of these cymbals shall chant their song of victory: which arises * * for the extinction of war: which being wholly extinguished and reduced to nothingness, shall there be, with like honour, fully rendered by every spirit alike praise to God for ever: for since praise is not comely in the mouth of a sinner, but then there shall be no sinner, (sin no more existing) every spirit shall by all means praise God for ever.

S. Gregory sums up: Such is the meaning of this final Psalm “in which after the complete abolition of sin, praise shall be sung to God; which praise contain (implies) our being incapable of turning to sin * * when every created being shall be harmonised into one choir * * and when, like a cymbal, the reasonable creation, and that which is now severed by sin * * Then comes the praise of every spirit for ever * * abounding with increase unto eternity.”—ib. chap. ix. It may be questioned^[6] whether a nobler exposition of the true spirit of the Psalter, and the true hope of the Gospel, can be anywhere found than the above.

As some readers may not grasp the full significance of this evidence, let me point out that, even if it stood alone, it should dispose of the pleasing fiction, for such it is, that the Church of the fourth or fifth centuries, was unfriendly to universalism. What are the facts? Very few of his day were so prominent, or so famous, as S. Gregory: none more thoroughly orthodox; a Confessor and most able champion of the Nicene faith; next to Gregory of Nazianzus, the most famous member of the General Council of Constantinople; chosen to draw up that Creed, which we to this day recite; appealed to by subsequent Councils as a very bulwark of the catholic Church. Such was Gregory, this fearless advocate of universalism; nay, of an universalism wide enough to embrace every rational being.

With the celebrated Didymus, 380 A.D., we return to the school of Alexandria, of which he was the last distinguished head. “Didymus,” says S. Jerome, a scholar of his, “surpassed all of his day in knowledge of the Scriptures.” The same Father styles him “a most avowed advocate of Origen.’ But a small portion has survived of his numerous writings, and little, if any, in a perfect condition, mostly in translations, or as fragments in Catenæ.

He argues “that as by the Son all things endowed with reason received their being, so by Him the salvation of all of them has been wrought out.” * * “For Christ brought peace to all things through the blood of His Cross, whether in heaven or on earth” * * “For as men, by giving up their sins, are made subject to Him, so, too, the higher intelligences, freed by correction from their willful sins (correctio spontanea culpis) are made subject to Him, on the completion of the dispensation ordered for the salvation of all.” These words seem to involve the mystery in order that all are to come to the knowledge of the fulness of Christ, i.e., of God made All in All.—In 1 S. John iii. 2. Another passage (the text is unfortunately corrupt) on 1 Pet. 1:12, evidently contains a hint as to the salvability of evil spirits. With many Fathers, Didymus, from the fact that sin resides in the will, argues that his final abolition; and holds that beings who are not voluntarily evil, are from that very fact not essentially evil. Therefore, even the devils themselves are not radically evil; their will has been deflected, but not their substance, not their essential being. Hence all evil spirits are capable of salvation. On Ps. 10:15, we have a striking comment—“Break Thou the arm of the wicked,” &c. This wicked one, Didymus says, is satan, whose arm is broken, and his sin is not found, “receiving its end in its very completion, for evil is no substance, but a quality. And so shall come that end for all things, for the sake of which all things came into being;” evidently these words intimate the final extinction of evil. And so he says, “God desires to destroy evil, therefore evil is (one) of those things liable to destruction. Now that which is of those things liable to destruction will be destroyed.”—Cont. Man. ii. So we find Didymus earnest in teaching that the destruction of God’s enemies is practically their conversion.

Thus, when it is said that God burns up His enemies (Ps. 97:3), Didymus explains this of the removal of their sins. And so again in Ps. lviii. 8, the melting away of God’s enemies is explained by him of life absorbing death. On Ps. xviii. 43, where God is said to beat His enemies “small as the dust before the wind,” Didymus explains this of their conversion. And, he says, God “destroys liars, so far as they are liars.”—In Ps. v. 6. On Ps. ix. 5, a comment to the same effect will be found, and other passages might readily be quoted from this Father to the same effect. I may next point to Didymus’ teaching on penalty; he argues that divine correction (even vengeance), and promise, have the same object in view.—Adv. Man. ch. xviii. I should like to add that he teaches the liberation from hades of every soul by Christ, for he says that Christ “descends to hades and brings back the souls, there detained on account of their sins.”—In Ps. lxxi. 20. See, too, De Trin. lib. iii. 21, &c. I can hardly feel any doubt that Didymus held the final conversion of all evil beings. So, too, think Basnage (Migne Tom. 39, p. 176): Lucke, ib. p. 1740: Guericke, De schol. Alex. pp. 359, 368, 390: cfr. Huet—Orig. p. 199.

1. For although adopted by nearly all commentators, it has never passed into the current theology of the day. (↩)
2. Both Jews and early christians seem to have taught that the spirits of the departed were in one common abode (Sheol—hades—apud inferos), though with separate regions for the just and unjust. Tert., De animâ lv.; Origen, Hom. ii. in lib. reg.; &c. (↩)
3. See also ch. vi. vii., Latin version (and a contradictory passage ch. ix. 2nd Latin vers). ed. Edin., 1870. (↩)
4. This opinion is almost peculiar to Greek Fathers. Some writers teach that the Apostles also preached in hades, e.g., Clement—Strom. ii. p. 379; and vi. p. 637. Col. 1688: Hermas, iii. ix. 156. Some say that the Blessed Virgin did the same. Some even say that Symeon went before Christ to hades.—Photius—fide Leo. All. An old writer in Epiphanius’ works asserts the same of the archangels Gabriel and Michael.—In sep. Christi.—this curious homily is worth perusal. (↩)
5. Some critics think Origen to have taught a possibility of falling away after restoration. This is not certain, but he certainly taught an universal restoration. (↩)
6. Dr. Pusey thinks it fair to describe this Father’s teaching as ‘mists’ (of Origenism): such are the ways of theological controversy. (↩)