Now, one passage in which Pseudo-Dionysius develops the doctrine of apokatastasis as the restoration of unity and of the image and likeness of God, in the same way as Origen conceived it, is DN 1:4. (The use of the present tense instead of the future or the past is typical of Pseudo-Dionysius, and motivated by the fact that God transcends temporality):
You will find, so to say, that the whole hymnology of the theologians disposes the divine names in a revealing and hymnic way according to the beneficial procession of the principle of the divinity. Therefore, in practically all the theological teaching, we see that the principle of the divinity is celebrated as “Monad and Henad” because of the simplicity and unity of its supernatural indivisibility. By it we are unified as by a unifying power, and by a supramundane act of reunion of our divisible alterity we are assembled into a monad that is the image of God and a union that is in God’s likeness.
In Princ. 2:1:1 Origen calls the original unity of creation “Henad” (according to a Greek fragment); Rufinus glosses “unity and concord” (unitas et concordia, which emphasizes the concord of wills and rules out the direct identification of this creatural Henad with God, whom Origen defined as “Monad and Henad”). Pseudo-Dionysius also called God Monad and Henad, since he was inspired by Origen. Ps. Dionysius seems to be clearer, in the above-quoted passage, that the unity of the Henad is the original divine unity that is recovered in the final apokatastasis. In that unity, human beings also recover the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26). They will become a creaturely Monad and Henad, analogous to God’s Monad-Henad. The “unifying power” of which Pseudo-Dionysius speaks is probably the Intellect or nous; in DN 7:2 the “intellectual power” is in the image of God and tends to achieve unity. In particular, it realizes unity in the soul by bringing it to its state of image and likeness of God—as it was in God’s original plan—by means of a “contraction of the divisible alterities.” This is Platonic language meaning both the qualities of the body and the relevant movements of the soul (a similar idea occurs in Gregory of Nyssa’s dialogue On the Soul and the Resurrection). This intellectual unifying power, for the Christian Pseudo-Dionysius, is Christ. Christ’s prayer for unity in the Last Supper discourse (John 13–17) and sacrifice for unity (John 11:51–52) was applied already by Origen to unity in the eventual restoration (e.g., Princ. 3:5:4). Dionysius, in turn, commenting on Christ’s title “Peace,” declares that Christ is “the only and universal Principle and Cause that, superior to all beings in indivisibility, as with chains that embrace together the various separated beings, determines and limits all things.” In EH 1:1 Jesus is said to be the Intellect that “unifies again the many alterities and makes us perfect in the divine life that is an image of the Henad.” This perfectly corresponds to the initial passage of DN 1:4.337
Pseudo-Dionysius constructs apokatastasis as the third Neoplatonic movement, that of “return” (after “immanence” of the first Principle, the Godhead, in itself, and the “procession” of all beings from that Principle in creation):
The Cause of all is “all in all” according to Scripture [1 Cor 15:28], and must certainly be praised for being the Giver of existence to all, the originator of all beings, which brings all of them to perfection. It holds them together and protects them. It is their seat, and has all of them come back to itself, and this in a unified, irresistible, absolute, and transcendent manner. (DN 1:7)
Indeed, God is “the cause of the perfecting of all beings.” This is consistent with a universalistic perspective, and there seems to be more to this. Pseudo-Dionysius informs readers that he has written extensively, also on the basis of biblical quotations, on the universal peace and restoration that have been planned from eternity and will be realized when, thanks to Christ, God will be “all in all.” He says that he expounded all this in his Outlines of Theology, which came before his treatise On Divine Names (DN 1:1), but is now lost.338 The reference to 1 Corinthians 15:28 makes it even clearer that in his Outlines Pseudo-Dionysius tackled apokatastasis and buttressed this theory with Scripture and perhaps the authority of former theologians. Among these, Origen was almost certainly prominent.
Pseudo-Dioysius offers the following table of contents of his Outlines:339 affirmative theology, that is, divine nature one and triune, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit; the Father is the supreme and undivided Good, and from the heart of this Goodness lights have sprung forth, meaning the Son; the Son became human, and the rest that has been revealed by Scripture or the sages. The Outlines of Theology, Pseudo-Dionysius explains, were much shorter than his Symbolic Theology, because they proceeded from God, the first Principle, to the creatures and “the last things.” Thus, like Origen in his First Principles, Pseudo-Dionysius in his Outlines began with the Trinity as first Principle and proceeded to the creatures, arriving at eschatology, which depends on Christ’s “admirable gifts.” It is no accident that it seems to have been an eschatology close to that of Origen, who also thought that universal salvation depends on Christ’s gifts. Nicephorus Callistus (1256–1335) mentions the Outlines among Pseudo-Dionysius’ lost works.340 In the first Syriac tradition, on the contrary, this work is not declared to have been lost, and some references may even give the impression that it was read, as I shall show in a moment. At any rate, if Pseudo-Dionysius composed his Outlines and these dealt with universal salvation, it is easy to guess how it is that this work was (intentionally) lost.
Pseudo-Dionysius displays the ontological premises underpinning the restoration of all creatures, including even demons (DN 4:23–26). Here he draws on the metaphysical tenet of the ontological non-substantiality of evil, which “does not exist per se,” but is a “kind of lack,” and, with Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Evagrius, argues that no creature is evil by nature: neither souls, nor demons, nor irrational animals. “In the whole of nature” evil does not exist. If demons were evil by nature, they would not come from the Good and would not even be. But at the beginning they were good, their very essence (ousia) is good, and insofar as they exist they are good. They have become evil in that they have ceased to possess and exert the divine goods; even in their case, evil is a perversion of their own nature. However, as Dionysius goes on to argue, with Origen and Gregory Nyssen, evil is “unstable”—for stability belongs to the Good only—and cannot possibly endure forever. Not even demons will be evil eternally. Nor will they cease to exist, because in that they are, and live, and think, they are good (qua creatures of God the Good).
Emiliano Fiori notes that in his extremely few explicitly eschatological passages Dionysius speaks of punishments (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 7.3.6–7; Divine Names 4.35).341 These, however, are not said by him to be eternal. Also, Fiori remarks that when Dionysius speaks of apokatastasis and salvations he is not referring to eschatology, since the verb tense is the present. However, Dionysius uses the present tense on account of the atemporal eternity of God (emphasized by his philosophical model, Proclus), and not because he is not referring to eschatology.
It is remarkable that the Origenian thinker who wrote the Corpus Dionysianum chose to ascribe his teaching to Dionysius, the Athenian philosopher who converted to Christianity. In this way, Pseudo-Dionysius wanted to present the Origenian theological tradition, including the doctrine of restoration, as the true Christian philosophy.342
Pseudo-Dionysius’ works enjoyed wide diffusion and success among West Syriac authors and were immediately translated into Syriac by Sergius of Resh‘aina, himself an Origenian and Evagrian, who also wrote an important introduction to his own translation. The manuscript containing his translation is the most ancient manuscript in the world that includes the Corpus Dionysianum and is anterior to all Greek manuscripts that include it.343 While often scholars deem the Outlines of Theology a fiction—i.e., Pseudo-Dionysius never wrote this work, but he wanted his readers to believe that he had written it—Sergius in his introduction (117) cites this work together with the Divine Names as the most important Dionysian work,
in that it deals with the loftiest science. Sergius gives the impression that he has read the Outlines, in which Pseudo-Dionysius treated universal restoration.344
In summary, while Pseudo-Dionysius does not proclaim universal salvation from the roof tops, the influence of the Origenian tradition on his work seems clear once one is open to look for it and that influence included the theology of apokatastasis: nothing is evil by nature, for evil is non-being; rather, all things came from the Good God, and are ontologically good by virtue of that reality, and through Christ all things will return to unity in God.
The Condemnation of Origen in the Sixth Century
The radicalization of Origenism among monks in Palestine in the first half of the sixth century, also favored by the circulation of Evagrian works and expressed in the Book of the Holy Hierotheus (in which apokatastasis espoused forms of Christian pantheism), precipitated the so-called condemnation of Origenism wanted by Emperor Justinian in 543 and 553. This condemnation was not directed against Origen’s own thought (though Justinian was oblivious to this), but rather at a misconstruction of his ideas and a number of distortions and radicalizations of Origen’s doctrines. This is the way in which Justinian received an account of Origen’s ideas from his theological counsellors, who were hostile to the radical Origenism of their own day.345 A contemporary source, Cyril of Scythopolis, traces sixth-century Origenism back to “Pythagoras, Plato, Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus” (Vita Cyriaci 12). The same was done by Justinian and his counsellors; thus doctrines of sixth-century Origenism were misattributed to Origen himself.
The above-mentioned association of Origen with Plato and Pythagoras is telling: it points to a believed link between Origen’s ideas—and specifically that of apokatastasis—and the idea of the transmigration of souls (i.e., reincarnation). However, while the notion of transmigration of souls (metensomatosis) was supported by both Pythagoras and Plato, it was not defended by Origen, who explicitly rejected it as being opposed to the “end of the world” foretold by Scripture. So against metensomatosis Origen set forth the Christian doctrine of ensomatosis (which did not imply the transmigration of a soul from one body to another).346 It is a doctrine of apokatastasis embedded within that of the transmigration of souls that was condemned by Justinian’s Fifth Ecumenical Council (553), not Origen’s own doctrine of apokatastasis. In the earlier Provincial Council of Constantinople in 543, after Justinian’s exhortation, it was declared that, “If anyone claims or maintains that the punishment of demons and of impious men is of limited duration and will come to an end sooner or later, or that there will be the complete restoration [apokatastasis] of demons and impious men, let this be anathema.” In the Second Council of Constantinople (553), one of the fifteen anathemas—which were, however, formulated by Justinian before the opening of the council and appended to its proceedings—sounds: “If anyone supports the monstrous doctrine of apokatastasis, let this be anathema.” The reference, as mentioned, was to a doctrine of restoration inscribed within that of the preexistence of souls. This is suggested by looking at the anathemas as a whole, and by the fact that the doctrine of apokatastasis was also held by Gregory Nyssen, yet no mention is made of him in either 543 or 553. Certainly, Gregory did not embrace a doctrine of apokatastasis embedded within that of the transmigration of souls—but neither did Origen.
Moreover, the aforementioned association between Origen and the Greek philosophers corresponds to an old heresiological cliché (that is, a commonplace used by heresiologists, those who collected and denounced “heresies” or deviant doctrines, mostly asserting that these derived from philosophy), which both Cyril of Scythopolis and Justinian in his Letter to Patriarch Mennas of Constantinople used against Origen. This also fits very well with Justinian’s hostility to both Origenism and the “pagan” Neoplatonic School of Athens, which he shut down. Justinian’s Letter to Mennas attacks a number of doctrines that he attributed to Origen himself, but were certainly not Origen’s, such as the coeternity of creatures with God, the preexistence of disembodied souls, the sphericity of the risen body (but also the denial of the risen body and the eschatological destruction of the body, ascribing two inconsistent theses to Origen!), besides the transmigration of souls mentioned above. In particular, Justinian linked the preexistence of disembodied souls to metensomatosis in Origen, while Origen himself rejected both doctrines.347 In his letter, Justinian also criticized apokatastasis for making people lazy in obeying God’s commandments, but this was already Origen’s own pastoral concern. This is why, as we have seen, Origen reserved the doctrine of apokatastasis only for those who were advanced, and did good not out of fear but out of love for the Good—God.
The so-called “condemnation of Origen”—three centuries after his death!—was in fact a maneuver by Justinian and his counsellors, which was ratified by ecclesiastical representatives only partially, which is not to say not at all.348 The 553 Council of Constantinople was wanted by Emperor Justinian, and not by Vigilius (537–55), the bishop of Rome, or by other bishops. Vigilius was forced to travel to Constantinople by the emperor’s order, and would not agree to declare that the council was open; therefore, Justinian had to do so himself, and Eutychius, the patriarch of Constantinople, presided. Vigilius’ documents, finally emanated by a council that was not even wanted by him, remarkably do not even contain Origen’s name. On May 5, the council began its works against the “Three Chapters,”349 with about 150 bishops, in the Basilica of Haghia Sophia. Pope Vigilius was absent, like the other Italian bishops. On May 14, he published the Constitutum, which condemned sixty passages from Theodore of Mopsuestia, but he refused to anathematize the dead theologian, or Theodoret and Ibas. (This must also have been his position with regard to Origen, who died long before Theodore and in good standing with the church.) Vigilius also forbade the conciliar bishops from going on without his approval. The council, however, cancelled the name of the pope from the diptychs in the seventh session, and Vigilius was imprisoned in Constantinople by Justinian, while his counsellors were exiled. In the eighth and last session, on June 2, the conciliar bishops published fourteen anathemas against the Three Chapters. They also proclaimed the perpetual virginity of Mary (eighth session, canon 2, DS 422: aeiparthenos, “perpetually virgin”). Pope Vigilius, on December 8, finally approved the condemnation of the “Three Chapters” (the aforementioned Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Ibas of Edessa, now considered “heretics” qua their relation to so-called Nestorianism), and in 554 Vigilius published a second Constitutum, which, however, did not even mention the Constantinople Council. The churches of Milan, Aquileia, and Spain did not recognize this council (this was the so-called Three-Chapter Schism), and Isidore of Seville did not hide his hostility to Emperor Justinian, who in fact was its sole promoter.
The anathemas that concern us, fifteen in number, appear in an appendix to the council’s Acts and were already prepared by Justinian before the opening of the council; he simply wanted the bishops to ratify them. So, it is uncertain that these anathemas should be considered conciliar (i.e., proceeding from a council). In them Origen is considered to be the inspirer of the “Isochristoi.” This was the position of the Sabaite opponents of Origen, summarized by Cyril of Scythopolis, who maintained that the council issued a definitive anathema against Origen, Theodore, Evagrius, and Didymus concerning the preexistence of souls and apokatastasis, thus ratifying Sabas’ position (Life of Sabas 90).
Justinian was more of an administrator than of a theologian and cared more for the unity of the church and the empire than for theological doctrines, as Volker Menze also emphasized.350 The main concern of the 553 Constantinople Council was the Christological doctrines of the “Three Chapters,” not Origen. Ancient Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I (556–61), Pelagius II (579–90), and Gregory the Great (590–604) deemed the Second Council of Constantinople as exclusively concerned with “the Three Chapters”; they never mentioned it in connection with Origenism or with apokatastas
is. They never speak as though they were aware of a “condemnation of Origen” stemming from that council. If, as it seems, Origen himself is never named in the authentic acts of the council,351 then Origen was never formally “condemned” by the church.352 However, the condemnations of later Origenistic doctrines were felt to be directed against Origen, as well as against Didymus and Evagrius. This had a significant impact on the future of apokatastasis within Christian theology.
In passing over Gregory of Nyssa for condemnation, the church, which was fast becoming anti-Origenian, had to bring his work into line, for having such a high profile theologian “off message” was not good. Gregory’s ideas concerning the purifying nature of otherworldly suffering were applied to purgatory, rather than Gehenna, to allow for the erroneous conclusion that Gregory admitted of the eternity of hell. Furthermore, the manuscripts that transmitted his works had interpolations and glosses intended to show that Gregory in fact did not support the doctrine of universal salvation,353 clearly because it was highly embarrassing to have a saint in the church who proclaimed such a “heretical” theory. This embarrassment about having a universalist saint is the reason why Germanus of Constantinople in the eighth century expressed the widespread assumption that Gregory’s works were interpolated by heretics who “dared instill in the pure and most holy source of his writings the black and dangerous venom of Origen’s error, surreptitiously ascribing this foolish heresy to a man who is famous for his virtue and learning.”354 In this way Gregory was remolded into a saint more acceptable to changing standards of orthodoxy.
A Larger Hope 1 Page 24
