A Larger Hope 1

by Ilaria L E Ramelli

  293. I quote, with small changes, the translation of The Book of the Bee by E. A. Wallis Budge, Oxford: Clarendon, 1886, 139–41.

  294. Esp. his commentary on Psalm 48:8.

  295. Liber Scholiorum, 2:63.

  296. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, 3:1:324.

  297. This universal submission is the object of Diodore’s reflection also in Comm. in Ps. 45 and 8, where he also develops the so-called theology of the image, one of the pillars with which Origen and Gregory Nyssen buttressed their theory of apokatastasis.

  298. On the importance of providence in Diodore’s Commentary on the Psalms see Wayman, Diodore the Theologian. Its close link to apokatastasis is pointed out in my Apokatastasis, section on Diodore.

  299. PL 48:232.

  300. See, e.g., Perczel, “Maximus on the Lord’s Prayer,” 229, based on the studies of David Evans, Leontius and “Leontius.”

  301. Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos 3; on Leontius see now the important work by Brian Daley, Leontius of Byzantium: Complete Works.

  302. See my “Origen’s Exegesis of Jeremiah,” 59–78.

  303. Likewise, commenting on Ephesians 1:10, Theodoret, who followed supporters of apokatastasis such as Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, attributes to Christ “the restoration of the whole creation,” when “all rational creatures” will be in concord and peace.

  304. The protoplasts here are Adam and Eve, created by God at the beginning (from prōtos, “first,” and plasma, “created by molding”). See also my section on the Antiochenes in Apokatastasis; “The Doctrine of Apokatastasis in the Antiochene Theologians,” Invited Patristics Seminar, Oxford University, April 2012, and “Isacco di Ninive teologo della carità divina e fonte della perduta escatologia antiochena” in La teologia dal V all’VIII secolo tra sviluppo e crisi, 749–68. On Titus see my review of Paul-Hubert Poirier, Agathe Roman, Thomas Schmidt, Eric Crégheur, José H. Declerck, eds., Contra Manichaeos Libri IV: Graece et Syriace; cum excerptis e Sacris Parallelis Iohanni Damasceno attributis Titus Bostrensis, Hugoye 18.2 (2015) 446–52.

  8

  The Latin Origenians

  The influence of Origenian theology spread from the eastern church to the western church. In part, the school in Egypt played a role in this dissemination, as we will see in this chapter, for two influential scholars active also in the West, Jerome of Stridon and Rufinus of Aquileia, both studied there and both acquired a deep admiration of Origen there. Both played a part in making his works available in Latin to churches in the West.

  Jerome and Rufinus Supporters of Universal Salvation. Jerome’s U-Turn & Rufinus’ Program

  Jerome

  Jerome (c.347–420) at various times worked in Rome, where he also worked for Pope Damasus, Gaul, and Alexandria (where he studied with Didymus the Blind), ending his days in a cave near Bethlehem. He was one of the great scholars of the early church, best known for the Vulgate, his translation of the Bible into Latin.305 Between the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century, Jerome embraced the doctrine of universal salvation as well as the rest of Origen’s thought and exegesis, being a fervent admirer of Origen, whom he deemed “the greatest teacher of the ancient church.” In his Commentary on Nahum he took over Origen’s therapeutic notion of otherworldly punishments, and on this basis argued that in the end all the world, and even the devil, will be cured and thus saved. Indeed, in this commentary and in that on Habakkuk, Jerome criticized heretics of the past, but never Origen. In Comm. in Eph. 4:16 (PL 26:503) Jerome speaks overtly of “universal restoration” (restitutio omnium), as the reconstitution of all into their original state, in which even “the fallen angel will begin to be what it was created to be.” He adds: “In the universal restoration [in restitutione omnium], when Jesus Christ, the true Physician, will come to heal the body of the whole church, now dispersed and lacerated, each creature will recover its place or condition according to the measure of its faith and knowledge of the Son of God; . . . [each] will recover its original condition and will begin to be again what it had originally been.” In Comm. in Eph. 1 he had no problem in admitting the eventual salvation of all rational beings, including the devil.306 In these commentaries, indeed, Jerome almost translated Origen literally or paraphrased his commentaries.

  Again following Origen, Jerome in his Commentary on Hosea 11.8 remarks that God does not “strike to destroy forever, but to correct” sinners, the same that he observes commenting on Zechariah 12:9. Jerome clearly follows Origen’s line when in his Commentary on Galatians 5.22 he insists that “no creature perishes eternally.” Likewise in Commentary on Micah 5.8, Jerome, as Origen did, claims that death—meaning the death of the soul—will visit the impious, but only for a limited time, “until their impiety will be consumed.” In the same Commentary on Micah 7.8, he uses Origen’s, Nyssen’s, and Evagrius’ argument that after the payment of the “very last coin” otherworldly punishment will come to an end. And in his Commentary on Jonah 2.6, Jerome declares that thanks to his death and descent to hell, Christ set free all those who had been shut up there (likewise in Comm. in Is. 45.7).

  In Letter 33:5 to Paula (385) Jerome strongly defends Origen against his critics, calling “rabid dogs” those who maintained that at the Roman synod presided over by Pontianus Origen was condemned for dogmatic reasons. Jerome correctly observes that Origen was in fact only criticized for disciplinary reasons, and this out of sheer envy, because his accusers “could not bear the glory of his eloquence and learning, and because when Origen spoke all the others seemed to be mute.” In Letter 42:1 to Marcella, likewise, Jerome praises Origen as a teacher of spiritual life, calling him “really a man of steel [vere Adamantius].” In Vir. Ill. 54, his portrait of Origen is not less celebratory than Eusebius’ portrait of Origen in HE 6 is. All documents are examined in my future Origen monograph.

  By 390 or 391, commenting on the Psalms, Jerome still upheld the eventual elimination of sin in the final restoration. In particular, commenting on Psalm 145(146):9, he stated—like Origen and Gregory of Nyssa—that no creature will ultimately remain outside the number of the saved. At this point Jerome still maintained that demons, who are now opposite powers, will in the end submit to Christ and conform to Christ’s will; indeed Jerome, following Origen, taught that humans will be able to improve themselves or fall not only in the present world, but also in the future.307 Jerome also taught that “at the end of the aeon(s) all beings will be restored into their original condition, and all of us will be made one and the same body and will be reformed into the perfect human being, and thus the Savior’s prayer will be fulfilled in us: ‘Father, grant that, as You and I are One, so too may they be one in Us’ [John 17:22].”

  Rufinus, about whom we shall say more soon, asserts that neither Jerome nor he himself supported an impious doctrine by maintaining universal salvation. In particular, he reports that Jerome said that

  it befits the character of the Trinity, who is good, simple, and immutable, to hypothesize that every creature, at the end of all, will be restored into the state in which it had been created at the beginning, and this will take place after a long punishment, even coextensive with the duration of all the aeons, inflicted by God to every creature, not because God is angry, but in order to correct, because God is not excessive in punishing iniquity, and since the intention of God, as Physician, is that of healing humans, he will put an end to their punishment.308

  Here we see again that recurring Origenian theme: that the eventual universal salvation “befits God.” This is the theodicy that—to Jerome’s mind, at least at that time—is “worthy of God.”

  It is highly significant that Jerome, at the end of the fourth century, in his commentary on Jonah 3 attests, like (Ps.?)Basil and Augustine, that still in his day most people believed in the apokatastasis of all rational creatures, including e
ven Satan: “I know that most people interpret the story of Nineveh and its king as a reference to the eventual forgiveness of the devil and of all logika.” Jerome is most probably speaking here not of the views of ordinary Christians in churches, whose beliefs we know very little about, but of the claims of exegetes. Most of the biblical scholars, he says, believed in the eventual salvation of even the devil. Of course, we need to exercise some caution in how much weight to give this claim, but it remains interesting.

  But then Jerome, at a certain point, for political convenience during the “Origenistic controversy,” changed his mind and his (at least official) evaluation of Origen.309 But even after his U-turn, Jerome did not criticize the eventual salvation of all human beings, but only that of the devil.310 And still in Ep. 85 (400), written long after his volte-face against Origen, he privately recommended to Paulinus of Nola, as the best treatment of the question of free will, the third Book of Origen’s On First Principles, in which universal salvation is most clearly expounded. So, Jerome’s turn against Origen was more pragmatic than principled and was never a complete turn.

  Rufinus

  While Jerome had made at least a half-turn away from Origen, his fellow Western and former friend Rufinus (340/45–410), who had also been a disciple of the Origenian Didymus the Blind for eight years,311 never abandoned his admiration of the Alexandrian master. After breaking with Jerome, Rufinus returned to Italy and began a program of systematic translation of Origen’s works into Latin, to help all Latin readers see that Origen was no heretic. He began with Pamphilus’ apology for Origen (397) and Origen’s On First Principles for his friend Macarius, who requested this translation in order for him to be able to counter astral determinism, the view that our actions are controlled by the stars. Rufinus was well aware that Origen’s doctrine of rational creatures and their universal salvation had been elaborated and used against astral and “gnostic” determinism. In Apol. c. Hier. 2:12 he observes that the supporters of universal salvation—and of course he was thinking of Origen first of all—wanted

  to defend God’s justice [i.e., theodicy] and thus refute those who claimed that everything is determined by Fate or by accident. . . . [E]ager as they were to defend God’s justice . . . [they maintained that] it becomes that good and immutable and simple nature of the Trinity to restore all of its creatures, in the end, into that condition in which they were created at the beginning, and, after long sufferings over whole aeons, to finally put an end to punishments.

  Again, for Rufinus, just as for Origen and the former Jerome, universal salvation befits God.

  Ambrose and Ambrosiaster: Some Remarks

  Saint Ambrose (c.340–97), a Roman Senator who in the fourth century became the most famous bishop of Milan, exerted a remarkable influence on the early Augustine and can be regarded as the main agent of his conversion. Ambrose, who—unlike Augustine—had a perfect mastery of Greek, having received an education commensurate with his status, knew Origen’s works very well and was profoundly influenced by them. Ambrose was following in Origen’s footsteps (like Eriugena later on: see below) when in On Faith 5.8.106 he declared that “the mystery of God’s inhumanation is the salvation of all creation, according to what is written: ‘That, apart from God, he might taste death for the benefit of all’ . . . as can be read also elsewhere: ‘Every creature will be liberated from enslavement to corruption.’” Even his exegesis of Hebrews 2:9 and Romans 8:21 is the same as Origen’s, who remarked: “The whole creation brings in itself the hope for the liberation from enslavement to corruption, when the children of God, who have fallen and are now dispersed, will be brought back to unity” (Princ. 3.5.4).

  Ambrose’s remarks also resonate with Origen’s and Gregory of Nyssa’s claims, when in On Sacraments 2.6 Ambrose notes that death puts an end to sins and the resurrection remolds human nature into a better state. This is exactly what Gregory of Nyssa argued. Likewise, in Death Is a Good Thing, 4, Ambrose, like Methodius and Gregory, insists that “death is the end of sin.” Commenting on Psalm 44, Ambrose takes up Origen’s line in his Homilies on Jeremiah: Christ first destroys sin, that what is better may be planted afterwards instead of sin.312 The same Ambrose, while commenting on Psalm 1, with specific reference to Psalm 18:42 (“I will destroy them”), notes that what is destroyed by God “is not annihilated, but changed for the better.” This is precisely Origen’s often-repeated point.

  Drawing on St. Paul, in his Exposition of Luke 15.3, Ambrose observes that when the Gospels says that the Son of Man came to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10), this means all human beings, since, just as all humans die in Adam, all will receive life in Christ. Anticipating what Eriugena will articulate, Ambrose in On Faith 5.7–8 not only identifies “the mystery of the inhumanation” of Christ with “the salvation of the whole creation,” as I mentioned, but also offers an exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:28 that is the very same as Origen’s and Nyssen’s: the eschatological submission of Christ to the Father will be achieved when all become obedient and believe and do God’s will; then, and only then, will God be “all in all.” This being “in all” is explained by Ambrose, when commenting on Psalm 62:1, in the sense that God will be in all not simply by his power, as now, but “by their free will.” For all will voluntarily adhere to God. This is universalism.

  Commenting on Philippians 2:10, Ambrosiaster, an anonymous imitator of Ambrose, interprets Paul’s words in the sense that “the Father has granted to the Son that, after the crucifixion, all beings should be saved in the Son’s name.” And commenting on Ephesians 1:9–10, he foretells that “every being, in heaven and on earth, will attain the knowledge of Christ and be restored to the state in which it was created.”

  Augustine: From Supporter to Opposer of Universal Salvation

  Augustine (354–430) was a native of North Africa, a teacher in Carthage, then Rome, and finally Milan. It was here that, after a long spiritual search, he converted to Christianity, very much under the influence of Ambrose, of whom we have just spoken. He moved back to Africa and was ordained a priest in 391 then Bishop of Hippo in 395. Without question, Augustine is among the most important theologians in the history of the Christian church, exerting a massive theological influence on the western church. Origen’s influence on Augustine will make the object of a specific research.

  In the 420s Augustine was engaged in a polemic against Pelagianism,313 which he and others mistakenly believed to have been inspired by Origen’s thought. In this context, he felt the need to oppose Origen’s ideas and in particular rebuked “those merciful Christians who refuse to believe that torments in hell will be eternal.”314 Among these, Origen was “the most merciful of all” in that he even hypothesized the eschatological salvation of the devil.315 Augustine had been misinformed (also by Orosius’ Commonitorium) about Origen’s exact doctrine of restoration; he was convinced that Origen had taught “unending shifts between misery and beatitude, and the infinite fluctuation between these states” (CD 21:17).316 On the contrary, Origen thought that these vicissitudes will definitely come to an end with the end of all aeons, in the eventual universal restoration.

  Here Augustine insisted that suffering in hell will be eternal and that it is a Platonic and Origenian mistake to understand it as limited.317 Augustine was only seeking to be true to Scripture, but he knew little or no Greek and was unaware that “aeternus (eternal) fire” in his Latin Bible translated the Greek “αἰώνιον/aiōnion fire,” which, as we have seen, does not necessarily mean “eternal fire,” but “otherworldly fire” or “long-lasting fire.” Unfortunately, in Latin, both ἀΐδιος/aïdios and αἰώνιος/aiōnios were rendered with aeternus (eternal), which generated a terrible confusion that surely facilitated the birth of the idea of “eternal” punishments in hell.318 Because of his lack of awareness, Augustine in his To Orosius (5:5; 8:10) argued that the fire of hell must be “eternal,” otherwise the eternal beatitude of the just could not be eternal.319 Ag
ain, falling into the same linguistic misunderstanding, in De gest. Pel. 1:3:10 Augustine declares that the church does well to criticize Origen and his followers who think that “the torment of the damned will end at a certain point, while the Lord called it ‘eternal’ [aeternum].” But, of course, the Lord only called these torments “eternal” in the Latin translation of the Bible, which unfortunately was all Augustine was able to fully understand. And this Latin translation, alongside Augustine’s huge influence on the western church, played a significant role in marginalizing Christian universalism for many hundreds of years to come.

  But Augustine had not always been a defender of eternal torment. Many years earlier, when the target of Augustine’s polemic was not yet Pelagianism, but rather Manichaeism, Augustine used against the latter the same metaphysical arguments that Origen used against “gnostics.”320 This, especially in his double treatise On the Customs of the Catholic Church and on the Customs of the Manichaeans.321 It is not accidental that in this same work Augustine also embraced the doctrine of universal restoration, whether he knew that it was Origen’s or not. For in De mor. 2:7:9 he declared: “God’s goodness [Dei bonitas] . . . orders all creatures [omnia] that have fallen . . . until they return to the original state from which they fell.” This is the very same notion that Origen had expressed in Princ. 1:6:1, which may have reached Augustine in a compilation or partial translation anterior to Rufinus’: “God’s goodness [bonitas Dei], by means of his Christ, calls back all creatures [universam creaturam] to one and the same end.”322 God’s goodness, for both Origen and the young Augustine, is not simply God’s kindness or generosity or mercy, but first and foremost, on the ontological plane, it is God’s being the absolute Good, and since God is the true Being, evil, which is opposite to God the Good, is non-being. As Augustine explains in the rest of the passage in question (De mor. 2:7), the creatures that have fallen are precisely rational creatures, who, with their free choices, acquire merits or demerits. On the basis of these, God assigns them to different orders—in Origen’s view, the orders of angels, humans, and demons—all the while never abandoning them and never allowing them to end up by disappearing into evil-non-being. God’s providence guides these creatures until they return to the original condition from which they have fallen.