Colo Millz
Active Member
(β) Tradition.—The historical objections to the doctrine of eternal punishment may really be reduced to one head—viz. the views of Origen. In his “De Principiis,” i. 6, this great man gives it as his opinion that even the devils will undergo a long course of purification and be saved at last; and in his commentary on Josue (Hom. viii.) he asserts the same thing of men who have been condemned at the day of judgment. In “Princip.” iii. 6, he puts forward the interpretation of St. Paul’s words, “God will be all in all,” which we combated a little further back. Origen’s piety, genius, and learning, and his reputation as a commentator on the Bible gained for him a wide and an enduring influence in the Church, so that we cannot be surprised to find that other Fathers followed him in his hopes of a universal restoration. Petavius (“De Angelis,” iii. 7) shows that St. Gregory Nyssen did so, that St. Gregory Nazianzen entertained the hope that the punishment of sinners in the next world would not last for ever—a hope which St. Jerome limits to such sinners as had died in the Catholic faith. St. Ambrose, as quoted by Petavius, says that men may, though angels will not, be purified and restored, even after an adverse sentence has been passed upon them at the judgment. Carefully to be distinguished from this error is the opinion of Augustine and other Fathers, viz. that the sufferings of lost souls may be mitigated by the prayers and good works of the faithful. “Concerning this amelioration of the condition of lost men at least” (so Petavius writes in words which Cardinal Newman has made familiar to all) “the Church as yet has laid down nothing as certain, so that for this reason this opinion held by Fathers of high sanctity is not to be dismissed offhand as absurd, though it differs from the common feeling of modern Catholics.”
We have tried to give as fairly as possible the patristic evidence for the view that the torments of hell will come to an end. But the whole stream of tradition runs in the contrary direction. There is no real trace of such a view within the Church before Origen’s time. Theophilus of Antioch (“Apol.” 1, ad fin.) contrasts the eternal joys of heaven with the eternal woes of hell. St. Irenæus (iv. 28, 2) and St. Cyprian (“Ad Demetrium,” cc. 24, 25) express themselves in a way which puts their meaning beyond all possibility of misapprehension. “Those,” says the former, “to whom Christ addresses the words ‘Depart into everlasting fire’ (perpetuum, not œternum) will be always condemned, and those to whom he says, ‘Come ye blessed,’ &c., always obtain the kingdom.” “Hell ever burning,” says St. Cyprian, “will consume those who are given over to it, nor will there be any means by which their torments can ever rest or cease.”
Petavius has collected a catena of passages from later Fathers, some of them expressly reprobating the error of Origen. It is doubtful whether or not his error was condemned at the Fifth General Council. Certainly his name stands in the present text of the eleventh anathema, which is levelled at “Arius, Eunomius, Apollinarius [sic], Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, together with their impious writings,” and Hefele (“Concil.” 2. 898) defends the authenticity of the text as we have it against Garnier and many other critics. But no particular doctrine of Origen is mentioned in the anathema. Cardinal Noris and the Ballerini in their edition of his works tried to show that part of the Acts of the council have perished, and that a special investigation and specific condemnation of Origen’s errors took place. There are plausible grounds for this opinion, which is, however, rejected by Hefele (loc. cit. p. 858) after an elaborate discussion. He thinks that the Church historian Evagrius, one of the chief witnesses cited by Cardinal Noris, confused the general council of 553 with another held ten years earlier at the same place. But whether or no Origen was expressly condemned by a general council, it is a plain matter of fact that a council has defined that the punishment of hell lasts for ever. The Fourth Council of Lateran (anno 1215) speaks of the “everlasting punishment” (pœnam perpetuam) which awaits the reprobate, and the force of the word “perpetuam” cannot be evaded even by those who explain away the word “eternal.” And, apart even from this definition, the question is closed by the constant teaching of the Church through her pastors.
William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary (New York: The Catholic Publication Society Co., 1887), 398–399.
We have tried to give as fairly as possible the patristic evidence for the view that the torments of hell will come to an end. But the whole stream of tradition runs in the contrary direction. There is no real trace of such a view within the Church before Origen’s time. Theophilus of Antioch (“Apol.” 1, ad fin.) contrasts the eternal joys of heaven with the eternal woes of hell. St. Irenæus (iv. 28, 2) and St. Cyprian (“Ad Demetrium,” cc. 24, 25) express themselves in a way which puts their meaning beyond all possibility of misapprehension. “Those,” says the former, “to whom Christ addresses the words ‘Depart into everlasting fire’ (perpetuum, not œternum) will be always condemned, and those to whom he says, ‘Come ye blessed,’ &c., always obtain the kingdom.” “Hell ever burning,” says St. Cyprian, “will consume those who are given over to it, nor will there be any means by which their torments can ever rest or cease.”
Petavius has collected a catena of passages from later Fathers, some of them expressly reprobating the error of Origen. It is doubtful whether or not his error was condemned at the Fifth General Council. Certainly his name stands in the present text of the eleventh anathema, which is levelled at “Arius, Eunomius, Apollinarius [sic], Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, together with their impious writings,” and Hefele (“Concil.” 2. 898) defends the authenticity of the text as we have it against Garnier and many other critics. But no particular doctrine of Origen is mentioned in the anathema. Cardinal Noris and the Ballerini in their edition of his works tried to show that part of the Acts of the council have perished, and that a special investigation and specific condemnation of Origen’s errors took place. There are plausible grounds for this opinion, which is, however, rejected by Hefele (loc. cit. p. 858) after an elaborate discussion. He thinks that the Church historian Evagrius, one of the chief witnesses cited by Cardinal Noris, confused the general council of 553 with another held ten years earlier at the same place. But whether or no Origen was expressly condemned by a general council, it is a plain matter of fact that a council has defined that the punishment of hell lasts for ever. The Fourth Council of Lateran (anno 1215) speaks of the “everlasting punishment” (pœnam perpetuam) which awaits the reprobate, and the force of the word “perpetuam” cannot be evaded even by those who explain away the word “eternal.” And, apart even from this definition, the question is closed by the constant teaching of the Church through her pastors.
William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary (New York: The Catholic Publication Society Co., 1887), 398–399.
Upvote
0
