Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During Its First 500 Years

by John Wesley Hanson

J.W. Hanson's classic work. Kindle enhanced edition.

Genres: Theology, Christianity, Religion, Christian, History, Nonfiction

524 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1899

About the author

From Wikipedia:
John Wesley Hanson D.D. (1823–1901) was an American Universalist minister and a notable Universalist historian advancing the claim that Universalism was the belief of early Christianity.[1] He was born at Boston.

He is also notable for his eyewitness accounts of his time as chaplain to one of the Unattached Companies Massachusetts Volunteer Militia during the American Civil War and for publishing his own New Testament "Hanson's edited New Testament" (1885), which was a revision of the English Revised Version with "baptism" changed for "immersion" and other changes.

He was the eldest of five siblings.[2] His younger sister was Harriet Hanson Robinson (1825–1911) wife of William Stevens Robinson (1818–1876), social reformers in Malden, Massachusetts.[3]

In 1845 he arrived in Wentworth, New Hampshire as Universalist minister. In the 1860s he was chaplain to the Sixth regiment of Massachusetts volunteers. In the 1870s he went as a Universalist missionary to Britain, becoming the pastor of St. Paul's Universalist Church, Glasgow, Scotland.[4] He then became minister of the Universalist New Covenant Church of Chicago, where he worked on his New Testament.[5][6]

He is best known for his history arguing that universalism dominated early church thought before Augustine; Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church (1899)[7] which followed Universalist Hosea Ballou's Ancient History of Universalism. (1828)[8] His view of early church history was carried on by George T. Knight. Hanson is cited as a primary source in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, and New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1908–14) articles on Universalism. Hanson and Knight's reading of church history has been challenged,[9][10] but has also found defenders, such as Ilaria Ramelli.[11]

Brother of Harriet Hanson Robinson https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...

Reviews

[B.N. Carman · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book should be required reading--it proves a temporary, redemptive hell.

By scholars' standards, this book unequivocally proves that the Church Fathers and most of the Church were Universalist during the first five-hundred years of Christianity. The evidence is overwhelming. It's not just one or two proofs presented here that confirm this, it's over twenty. One important evidence is that the Pharisees and Pagans both use two Greek terms they use that mean eternal punishment, and they explain it at length. But Jesus and the Church Fathers use a very different term which means temporary rather than eternal. Also, the Greek words Jesus and the Church Fathers use for punishment and judgment are specifically words used that mean correctional, where as the word the Pagans and Pharisees used to describe hell was a vindictive type of punishment. Also, Universalim is never once condemned in the first 500 years of the Church until the days of Augustine, a natural born Pagan who admitted he hated the Kline Greek of the New Testament and could not read it. As long as the Church Fathers were native Greek speakers, they understood the Bible to teach temporary punishment that purified people and got them to Heaven. But the Latin Church Fathers were a vile bunch who ushered in one of the worst ages of the Church. And yet of them, only Augustine condemned Universalism. The council refused to condemn Universalism even after Justinian ordered them to do so. This boom should be required reading for all Christians and scholars.

[Russ Jarvis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book will likely get me in some kind of trouble with four decades of evangelical friends, but the arguments are totally persuasive. The Apostle Paul calls Christians to a transformed life led by a "renewed mind." This book has opened a whole new path for me in personal devotion to God and as a Christian leader. What makes it so mind-changing are the thoughtful arguments from Scripture and the exhaustive look at what early Christian leaders believed and taught, especially in the Eastern church. Being an heir of Western Christianity, I hadn't learned this before now (age 60). What used to be heresy to me is now the core of my blessed hope.

I encourage any Christian minister, chaplain, or evangelist to read this. It will make you rethink your vision of the Gospel. Sin is serious and our choices matter, but God is not angry with us. He will find a way to gather all of us to Himself while not violating our free will (which is another concept I plan to rethink). The sooner we grasp the truth that God has been and always will be for us, the better.

[Chet · Rating 4 out of 5]

Required reading. Thoroughly researched and yet easy to read. Bonus points for the author being a delightful curmudgeon. 4 out of 5 stars simply because JHW shows his presuppositions a little too much at times. I remember a professor saying that, for Brueggemann, there is no good Solomon. And, for Hanson, there is no good Augustine. Still, I recommend this work to anyone deconstructing hell as an eternal geographical place of torment.

[Brett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Powerful and revelatory

loved this great book! absolute truth that universalism was the prevailing doctrine in the earliest centuries and the Latin half pagan churches that came later with their corruption and ignorance of the Greek text could not remove it until after the 5th century AD!

[Charles Sr. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an excellent resource that reveals the rich heritage of the greater hope in universal reconciliation during the infancy of Christendom. It is a tough read due to the era in which it was written and due to the direct quotes from Christian's during the first five-hundred years AD. Bravo.

[Dave Courtney · Rating 5 out of 5]

This one had been sitting in my personal library for a while. Finally decided to give it a shot. One word- riveting. The amount of detail and research this author brings to the table is pretty exceptional. The title sums up the focus of the book pretty well. He wants to show how the prevailing doctrine of the Chrsitian Church during it's first 500 years was in fact a form of universalism, or at least a universalist leaning faith that had less interest in heavy definitions of heaven and hell and far more interest in the purifying work God is doing in the here and now as we move towards the expectanct new creation.

Now it should be said, to hear the word "universalism" is not to narrow it down into a single definition. One of the things the author brings to the surface is that the diversity of this discussion is actually an important component in understanding what happened after the first 500 years and why things took such a drastic turn, something that has had huge implications on the historic faith, especially here in the Wester where Augustinianism became coopted and given a destructive bent in the development of further judicial analogies in understanding the death of Christ in salvific terms. That the Church of the first 500 years would have felt free to wonder and discuss and banter about regarding the world to come, that was a far cry from the heavily defined and heavily protected dogma we find in Protestantism today, especially when it comes to neo-Calvinist assertions of total depravity, certain depictions of penal substituion and imputation, and a Gospel bent around death and destruction as the way to life. This language would have been largely unfamiliar and even a bit of an affront to the earliest writers, thinkers, and Christians who understood the scriptures and were much closer to the earthly ministry of Jesus.

The author does a summary in his conclusion of all the central points that define the body of this book. There are 31 of them, which should indicate the wealth of information available here. I will say this. For those who think any mention of universalism is an expression of an ill defined "progressivism" and a scandelous affront on the true Gospel, I'm not sure this will change there mind for these two central reasons:
1. He clealry has feelings about Augustinianism. STRONG feelings. I actually found it quite funny how heated up he was in certain places in this book, as he definitely has some stuff to say about it, and doesn't hold back. On a practical front this clearly emotional response, which I 100 perecent get knowing my own personal frustrations with Augustine and its eventual modern experession in modern neo-Calvinism which is arguably worse, does cause him to neglect notes of nuance along the way. Not that this nuance would push back on his eventual conclusion. I think his conclusions are solid given how much evidence there is to support his claims. But this lack of nuance opens the door for some critics to pick out certain pieces that they can scrutinized and interpret differently, and thus cause them to ignore the rest. If he had closed those holes, which I think he very easily could have, it would have tightened up his larger argument that much more.

2. On point number 1, I think the biggest thing critics might narrow in on is his interpretation of the words for "punishment", or more specifically to define the duration of "punishment". He gives an entire section to this titled "The Origin of Endless Punishment" in which, after walking through its uses in the primary historical evidence that we have for the scriptures and the world of Jesus' earthly ministry, he writes,

"Had our Lord intended to inculcate the doctrine of the Pharisees, he would have used the terms by which they described it. But his word defining the duration of punishment was aionian, while their words are aidion, adialeipton, and athanaton. Instead of saying with Philo and Josephus, thanaton athanaton, deathless or immortal death; eirgmon aidion, eternal imprisonment; aidion timorion, eternal torment; and thanaton ateleuteton, interminable death, he used aionion kolasin, an adjective in universal use for limited duration, and a noun denoting suffering issuing in amendment...

He who seeks to punish (kolazein) with reason does not punish for the sake of the past wrong deed, but for the sake of the future, that neither the man himself who is punished may do wrong again, nor any other who has seen him chastised. And he who entertains this thought must believe that virtue may be taught, and he punishes (kolazei) for the purpose of deterring from wickedness?”

Here's the thing. He's not wrong. Even those who adamently disagree with his assessment of universalism would have to agree with these definitions. The problem is moving to make the connection between this definition and our reading of the scriptures themeselves. When it comes to the grip that Protestantism has on the West, it would be easy for someone to simply bypass this chapter and thus set it against scripture as the answer to this problem. When the problem is the use and translation of the word itself, this can end up getting lost in a stand still.

For those willing to consider how the translation and common understanding has been put on scripture rather than read out of it, I think the evidence that surrounds this central argument regarding a single term is nothing short of persuasive and decisive. It's just too much there to ignore.

But back again to point 1. His feelings on Augustinianism might prove to be the biggest obstacle to there even being a chance for this to happen. A couple of examples here that just represent the tip of the iceberg:

"The horrid inventions of Augustine, the cruel monstrosities of Angelo and Dante, and the abominations of the medieval theology were all unthought of then, and have no hint in the Catacombs."

"The wonderful progress made during the first three centuries by the simple, pure and cheerful faith of early Christianity shows us what its growth might have been made had not the morose spirit of Tertullian, reinforced by the “dark shadow of Augustine."

These statements accompany what are excellently written and detailed sections that help bring the world of the early writers to the surface. His desire on an academic level is to help us see the narrative of history as it pertains to our reading of scripture and our understanding of the Gospel, showing a contrast. Where he stands slightly in danger is perhaps going too far in his emotional investment in trying to show the contrast between early Christianity and the later Christianity that eventually formed the West. But I also totally get it. It's an emotional topic for many of us, even, to be fair, on both sides of the fence. So in some ways I found it endearing and honest.

Where he is positioning this contrast is in this move away from the Greek and towards the Latin, which coincides with a move away from a robust and even diverse community to a community based on politics and power.

"Christianity was everywhere at first, a religion of “sweetness and light.” The Greek fathers exemplified all these qualities, and Clement and Origen were ideals of its perfect spirit. But from Augustine downward the Latin reaction, prompted by the tendency of men in all ages to escape the exactions laid upon the soul by thought, and who flee to external authority to avoid the demands of reason, was away from the genius of Christianity, until Augustinianism ripened into Popery, and the beautiful system of the Greek fathers was succeeded by the nightmare of the theology of the medieval centuries, and later of Calvinism and Puritanism.5 Had the church followed the prevailing spirit of the ante-Nicene Fathers it would have conserved the best thought of Greece, the divine ideals of Plato, and joined them to the true interpretation of Christianity, and we may venture to declare that it would thus have continued the career of progress that had rendered the first three centuries so marvelous in their character; a progress that would have continued with accelerated speed, and Christendom would have widened its borders and deepened its sway immeasurably. With the prevalence of the Latin language the East and the West grew apart, and the latter, more and more discarding reason, and controlled, by the iron inflexibility of a semi-pagan secular government, gave Roman Catholicism its opportunity."

He goes on to write,
"The contrast between Origen’s system and Augustine’s is as that of light and darkness; with the first, Fatherhood, Love, Hope, Joy, Salvation; with the other, Vengeance, Punishment, Sin, Eternal Despair. With Origen God triumphs in final unity; with Augustine man continues in endless rebellion, and God is defeated, and an eternal dualism prevails. And the effect on the believer was in the one case a pitying love and charity that gave the melting heart that could not bear to think of even the devil unsaved, and that antedated the poet’s prayer."

To which he can say,
"The doctrines of substitutional atonement, resurrection of the body, native depravity, and endless punishment, are not listed in the earliest creeds or formulas.7 The earliest Christians (Allen: Christian Thought) taught that man is the image of God, and that the in-dwelling Deity will lead him to holiness... To the early Christians Christ was living, the one agonized hour was lost in the thought of his glory and triumph."

It is this moving away from resurrection towards an implementing of the death of Jesus in accordance with the power systems of this later world dominated by Latin Christianity that becomes a window through which to see the larger narrative, including many of what he sees as the destructive doctrines of the Church that came to be seen as the primary Gospel tenants that must be protected at all cost. So much has suffered and been lost to this language and marriage of faith to power, including the world of the early Christians themselves, out of which we come to the NT scriptures.

On a final note, here is the summary from the final chapter that gives you a fuller sense of what the book tackles and unpacks through the chapters. I would like to say this. This work leaves room for anyone that falls somewhere with a more specfifically defined universalism to somone like me, who holds to a "universalist leaning" position with open hands and an open heart for Christ to do the necessary work in unveling the mystery of the promised transformation with an emphasis on the good work of God in Christ and God's heart for ALL people as my steadfast markers. The writer leaves room for this diversity of views while making it clear what he believes needs to be dismantled in order for the Gospel of Christ as present in the early church and writers to emerge once again in the hardened West. For that I am really appreciative of this work.

(1) During the First Century the primitive Christians did not dwell on matters of eschatology, but devoted their attention to apologetics; they were chiefly anxious to establish the fact of Christ’s advent, and of its blessings to the world. Possibly the question of destiny was an open one, till Paganism and Judaism introduced erroneous ideas, when the New Testament doctrine of the apokatastasis was asserted, and universal restoration became an accepted belief, as stated later by Clement and Origen, A.D. 180-230.
(2) The Catacombs give us the views of the unlearned, as Clement and Origen state the doctrine of scholars and teachers. Not a syllable is found hinting at the horrors of Augustinianism, but the inscription on every monument harmonizes with the Universalism of the early fathers.
(3) Clement declares that all punishment, however severe, is purificatory; that even the “torments of the damned” are curative. Origen explains even Gehenna as signifying limited and curative punishment, and both, as all the other ancient Universalists, declare that “everlasting” (aionion) punishment, is consonant with universal salvation. So that it is no proof that other primitive Christians who are less explicit as to the final result, taught endless punishment when they employ the same terms.
(4) Like our Lord and his Apostles, the primitive Christians avoided the words with which the Pagans and Jews defined endless punishment aidios or adialeipton timoria (endless torment), a doctrine the latter believed, and knew how to describe; but they, the early Christians, called punishment, as did our Lord, kolasis aionios , discipline, chastisement, of indefinite, limited duration.
(5) The early Christians taught that Christ preached the Gospel to the dead, and for that purpose descended into Hades. Many held that he released all who were in ward. This shows that repentance beyond the grave, perpetual probation, was then accepted, which precludes the modern error that the soul’s destiny is decided at death.
(6) Prayers for the dead were universal in the early church, which would be absurd, if their condition is unalterably fixed at the grave. (
7) The idea that false threats were necessary to keep the common people in check, and that the truth might be held esoterically, prevailed among the earlier Christians, so that there can be no doubt that many who seem to teach endless punishment, really held the broader views, as we know the most did, and preached terrors pedagogically.
(8) The first comparatively complete systematic statement of Christian doctrine ever given to the world was by Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 180, and universal salvation was one of the tenets.
(9) The first complete presentation of Christianity as a system was by Origen (A.D. 220) and universal salvation was explicitly contained in it.
10) Universal salvation was the prevailing doctrine in Christendom as long as Greek, the language of the New Testament, was the language of Christendom. (11) Universalism was generally believed in the best centuries, the first three, when Christians were most remarkable for simplicity, goodness and missionary zeal. (12) Universalism was least known when Greek, the language of the New Testament was least known, and when Latin was the language of the Church in its darkest, most ignorant, and corrupt ages.
(13) Not a writer among those who describe the heresies of the first three hundred years intimates that Universalism was then a heresy, though it was believed by many, if not by a majority, and certainly by the greatest of the fathers.
14) Not a single creed for five hundred years expresses any idea contrary to universal restoration, or in favor of endless punishment.
15) With the exception of the arguments of Augustine (A.D. 420), there is not an argument known to have been framed against Universalism for at least four hundred years after Christ, by any of the ancient fathers.
16) While the councils that assembled in various parts of Christendom, anathematized every kind of doctrine supposed to be heretical, no oecumenical council, for more than five hundred years, condemned Universalism, though it had been advocated in every century by the principal scholars and most revered saints. (17) As late as A.D. 400, Jerome says “most people” (plerique). and Augustine “very many” (quam plurimi), believed in Universalism, notwithstanding that the tremendous influence of Augustine, and the mighty power of the semi-pagan secular arm were arrayed against it.
(18) The principal ancient Universalists were Christian born and reared, and were among the most scholarly and saintly of all the ancient saints.
(19) The most celebrated of the earlier advocates of endless punishment were heathen born, and led corrupt lives in their youth. Tertullian one of the first, and Augustine, the greatest of them, confess to having been among the vilest.
(20) The first advocates of endless punishment, Minucius Felix, Tertullian and Augustine, were Latins, ignorant of Greek, and less competent to interpret the meaning of Greek Scriptures than were the Greek scholars.
(21) The first advocates of Universalism, after the Apostles, were Greeks, in whose mother-tongue the New Testament was written. They found their Universalism in the Greek Bible. Who should be correct, they or the Latins?
(22) The Greek Fathers announced the great truth of universal restoration in an age of darkness, sin and corruption. There was nothing to suggest it to them in the world’s literature or religion. It was wholly contrary to everything around them. Where else could they have found it, but where they say they did, in the Gospel? (23) All ecclesiastical historians and the best Biblical critics and scholars agree to the prevalence of Universalism in the earlier centuries.
(24) From the days of Clement of Alexandria to those of Gregory of Nyssa and Theodore of Mopsuestia (A.D. 180-428), the great theologians and teachers, almost without exception, were Universalists. No equal number in the same centuries were comparable to them for learning and goodness.
(25) The first theological school in Christendom, that in Alexandria, taught Universalism for more than two hundred years.
(26) In all Christendom, from A.D. 170 to 430, there were six Christian schools. Of these four, the only strictly theological schools, taught Universalism, and but one endless punishment.
27) The three earliest Gnostic sects, the Basilidians, the Carpocratians and the Valentinians (A.D. 117-132) are condemned by Christian writers, and their heresies pointed out, but though they taught Universalism, that doctrine is never condemned by thosewho oppose them. Irenaeus condemned the errors of the Carpocratians, but does not reprehend their Universalism, though he ascribes the doctrine to them.
28) The first defense of Christianity against Infidelity (Origen against Celsus) puts the defense on Universalistic grounds. Celsus charged the Christians’ God with cruelty, because he punished with fire. Origen replied that God’s fire is curative; that he is a “Consuming Fire,” because he consumes sin and not the sinner.
29) Origen, the chief representative of Universalism in the ancient centuries, was bitterly opposed and condemned for various heresies by ignorant and cruel fanatics. He was accused of opposing Episcopacy, believing in pre-existence, etc., but never was condemned for his Universalism. The very council that anathematized “Origenism” eulogized Gregory of Nyssa, who was explicitly a Universalist as was Origen. Lists of his errors are given by Methodius, Pamphilus and Eusebius, Marcellus, Eustathius and Jerome, but Universalism is not named by one of his opponents. Fancy a list of Ballou’s errors and his Universalism omitted; Hippolytus (A.D. 320) names thirty-two known heresies, but Universalism is not mentioned as among them. Epiphanius, “the hammer of heretics,” describes eighty heresies, but he does not mention universal salvation, though Gregory of Nyssa, an outspoken Universalist, was, at the time he wrote, the most conspicuous figure in Christendom.
30) Justinian, a half-pagan emperor, who attempted to have Universalism officially condemned, lived in the most corrupt epoch of the Christian centuries. He closed the theological schools, and demanded the condemnation of Universalism by law; but the doctrine was so prevalent in the church that the council refused to obey his edict to suppress it. Lecky says the age of Justinian was “the worst form civilization has assumed.”
31) The first clear and definite statement of human destiny by any Christian writer after the days of the Apostles, includes universal restoration, and that doctrine was advocated by most of the greatest and best of the Christian Fathers for the first five hundred years of the Christian Era.

[Dennis Geoffroy · Rating 5 out of 5]

A summary from the author

"Summary of Conclusions.

A few of the many points established in the foregoing pages may here be named:

(1) During the First Century the primitive Christians did not dwell on matters of eschatology, but devoted their attention to apologetics; they were chiefly anxious to establish the fact of Christ's advent, and of its blessings to the world. Possibly the question of destiny was an open one, till Paganism and Judaism introduced erroneous ideas, when the New Testament doctrine of the apokatastasis was asserted, and universal restoration became an accepted belief, as stated later by Clement and Origen, A.D. 180-230.

(2) The Catacombs give us the views of the unlearned, as Clement and Origen state the doctrine of scholars and teachers. Not a syllable is found hinting at the horrors of Augustinianism, but the inscription on every monument harmonizes with the Universalism of the early fathers.

(3) Clement declares that all punishment, however severe, is purificatory; that even the "torments of the damned" are curative. Origen explains even Gehenna as signifying limited and curative punishment, and both, as all the other ancient Universalists, declare that "everlasting" (aionion) punishment, is consonant with universal salvation. So that it is no proof that other primitive Christians who are less explicit as to the final result, taught endless punishment when they employ the same terms.

(4) Like our Lord and his Apostles, the primitive Christians avoided the words with which the Pagans and Jews defined endless punishment aidios or adialeipton timoria (endless torment), a doctrine the latter believed, and knew how to describe; but they, the early Christians, called punishment, as did our Lord, kolasis aionios, discipline, chastisement, of indefinite, limited duration.

(5) The early Christians taught that Christ preached the Gospel to the dead, and for that purpose descended into Hades. Many held that he released all who were in ward. This shows that repentance beyond the grave, perpetual probation, was then accepted, which precludes the modern error that the soul's destiny is decided at death.

(6) Prayers for the dead were universal in the early church, which would be absurd, if their condition is unalterably fixed at the grave.

(7) The idea that false threats were necessary to keep the common people in check, and that the truth might be held esoterically, prevailed among the earlier Christians, so that there can be no doubt that many who seem to teach endless punishment, really held the broader views, as we know the most did, and preached terrors pedagogically.

(8) The first comparatively complete systematic statement of Christian doctrine ever given to the world was by Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 180, and universal salvation was one of the tenets.

(9) The first complete presentation of Christianity as a system was by Origen (A.D. 220) and universal salvation was explicitly contained in it.

(10) Universal salvation was the prevailing doctrine in Christendom as long as Greek, the language of the New Testament, was the language of Christendom.

(11) Universalism was generally believed in the best centuries, the first three, when Christians were most remarkable for simplicity, goodness and missionary zeal.

(12) Universalism was least known when Greek, the language of the New Testament was least known, and when Latin was the language of the Church in its darkest, most ignorant, and corrupt ages.

(13) Not a writer among those who describe the heresies of the first three hundred years intimates that Universalism was then a heresy, though it was believed by many, if not be a majority, and certainly by the greatest of the fathers.

(14) Not a single creed for five hundred years expresses any idea contrary to universal restoration, or in favor of endless punishment.

(15) With the exception of the arguments of Augustine (A.D. 420), there is not an argument known to have been framed against Universalism for at least four hundred years after Christ, by any of the ancient fathers.

(16) While the councils that assembled in various parts of Christendom, anathematized every kind of doctrine supposed to be heretical, no oecumenical council, for more than five hundred years, condemned Universalism, though it had been advocated in every century by the principal scholars and most revered saints.

(17) As late as A.D. 400, Jerome says "most people" (plerique). and Augustine "very many" (quam plurimi), believed in Universalism, notwithstanding that the tremendous influence of Augustine, and the mighty power of the semi-pagan secular arm were arrayed against it.

(18) The principal ancient Universalists were Christian born and reared, and were among the most scholarly and saintly of all the ancient saints.

(19) The most celebrated of the earlier advocates of endless punishment were heathen born, and led corrupt lives in their youth. Tertullian one of the first, and Augustine, the greatest of them, confess to having been among the vilest.

(20) The first advocates of endless punishment, Minucius Felix, Tertullian and Augustine, were Latins, ignorant of Greek, and less competent to interpret the meaning of Greek Scriptures than were the Greek scholars.

(21) The first advocates of Universalism, after the Apostles, were Greeks, in whose mother-tongue the New Testament was written. They found their Universalism in the Greek Bible. Who should be correct, they or the Latins?

(22) The Greek Fathers announced the great truth of universal restoration in an age of darkness, sin and corruption. There was nothing to suggest it to them in the world's literature or religion. It was wholly contrary to everything around them. Where else could they have found it, but where they say they did, in the Gospel?

(23) All ecclesiastical historians and the best Biblical critics and scholars agree to the prevalence of Universalism in the earlier centuries.

(24) From the days of Clement of Alexandria to those of Gregory of Nyssa and Theodore of Mopsuestia (A.D. 180-428), the great theologians and teachers, almost without exception, were Universalists. No equal number in the same centuries were comparable to them for learning and goodness.

(25) The first theological school in Christendom, that in Alexandria, taught Universalism for more than two hundred years.

(26) In all Christendom, from A.D. 170 to 430, there were six Christian schools. Of these four, the only strictly theological schools, taught Universalism, and but one endless punishment.

(27) The three earliest Gnostic sects, the Basilidians, the Carpocratians and the Valentinians (A.D. 117-132) are condemned by Christian writers, and their heresies pointed out, but though they taught Universalism, that doctrine is never condemned by those who oppose them. Irenaeus condemned the errors of the Carpocratians, but does not reprehend their Universalism, though he ascribes the doctrine to them.

(28) The first defense of Christianity against Infidelity (Origen against Celsus) puts the defense on Universalistic grounds. Celsus charged the Christians' God with cruelty, because he punished with fire. Origen replied that God's fire is curative; that he is a "Consuming Fire," because he consumes sin and not the sinner.

(29) Origen, the chief representative of Universalism in the ancient centuries, was bitterly opposed and condemned for various heresies by ignorant and cruel fanatics. He was accused of opposing Episcopacy, believing in pre-existence, etc., but never was condemned for his Universalism. The very council that anathematized "Origenism" eulogized Gregory of Nyssa, who was explicitly a Universalist as was Origen. Lists of his errors are given by Methodius, Pamphilus and Eusebius, Marcellus, Eustathius and Jerome, but Universalism is not named by one of his opponents. Fancy a list of Ballou's errors and his Universalism omitted; Hippolytus (A.D. 320) names thirty-two known heresies, but Universalism is not mentioned as among them. Epiphanius, "the hammer of heretics," describes eighty heresies, but he does not mention universal salvation, though Gregory of Nyssa, an outspoken Universalist, was, at the time he wrote, the most conspicuous figure in Christendom.

(30) Justinian, a half-pagan emperor, who attempted to have Universalism officially condemned, lived in the most corrupt epoch of the Christian centuries. He closed the theological schools, and demanded the condemnation of Universalism by law; but the doctrine was so prevalent in the church that the council refused to obey his edict to suppress it. Lecky says the age of Justinian was "the worst form civilization has assumed."

(31) The first clear and definite statement of human destiny by any Christian writer after the days of the Apostles, includes universal restoration, and that doctrine was advocated by most of the greatest and best of the Christian Fathers for the first five hundred years of the Christian Era.

In one word, a careful study of the early history of the Christian religion, will show that the doctrine of universal restoration was least prevalent in the darkest, and prevailed most in the most enlightened, of the earliest centuries--that it was the prevailing doctrine in the Primitive Christian Church."

[Stephen Morrison · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best I've read on the subject of universalism and the early church.

[Zack Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

MAN, what a slog.

I’m certain there must be better histories of Christian universalism out there by now: Ilaria Ramelli’s The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis is next on my list when I can make myself dig back in to this.

JW Hanson’s work was groundbreaking for its time, but he is, as others have noted, wading in presuppositions.

I do not buy the premise wholesale, for example, that someone speaking of hope for the salvation of all necessarily believed it to be true. One of his points is that it would be absurd to pray for the dead if they believed in eternal conscious torment: tell that to basically every high-church tradition. Many consider eternal conscious torment to be dogma, and most pray for the dead.

He also routinely drops in little reminders that he was also a unitarian and thus does not believe in the equal nature of the Trinity. Ironic, given that, while universalism was not part of the “Origenism” that was condemned in 553, subordinationism was.

That being said, there are great nuggets of wisdom in this book.

Part of the reason it took so long for me to read is that I would constantly go down rabbit holes reading primary sources of the church fathers.

I’ve learned a ton about historic universalists of the church, including people cited by Hanson and others that were out of the scope of the book. There are a myriad of saints that are actively canonized in the RCC, Eastern Orthodox churches, and the Anglican Communion who were universalists.

Hanson implies that Augustine was the grim reaper, gleefully kicking people into hell, while the real villains were the early Christian emperors.

If it weren’t for the sceptre that cloaked itself in dogma, starting with Justinian and Constantine, who knows what the church would look like now? How many would have been saved from being martyred by fire at the stake, sinners in the hands of an angry church?

[Joshua · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow. Universal restoration really is a true thing that people have known about since Judaism morphed into Christianity. I would like to see an infernalist try to refute this whole book, because if even a tenth of it is accurate, it's pretty convincing evidence that universalism was indeed the prevailing doctrine of the early church.

What happened to the Universalist Church of America? How did it lose its focus and merge with the Unitarians? I don't understand. The truth was rediscovered and was gaining influence and then…what? Maybe it's my job to restart a Christian universalist church in the United States.

Also, this paperback copy of the book is awful. I don't understand why it couldn't just be a facsimile of the one on Google Books. Footnotes got moved to the ends of chapters, which is bad enough, but the note numbers aren't even superscripts, and Greek letters got deleted entirely, and all kinds of other formatting details got messed up. It's really annoying that people can settle for such substandard work. Does that mean I'm an Enneagram One?

(Fri 20 May 2022 11:48:01 PM CDT)

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating read! 3.75 stars because of the bitterness of the writer… ghee whiz he hates Augustine!

When I started this book I was a strong believer in annihilation (it’s very biblical), a hopeful universalist (God can if he wants too) and I don’t hate on believers of eternal conclusion torment (also defensible biblically although not as strong as annihilation). After reading it my opinion has not really changed. I do believe that universalizem is more biblical than I originally thought and defiently not heretical!! but the big argument for me stands on the Greek and Hebrew words translated into “eternal” or “age long still leads to a battle between annihilation and ECT. And because of Gods mercy, love compassion and Justice I really swing towards the death of death and see ECT as a doctrine that feeds on a human view of justice….

Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
— Psalm 146:3

Defiantly worth a read.

[Chris Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

This Book is an amazing historical amalgamation of multiple sources and narratives that compellingly posits the truth of the church's standing with the doctrine of apokatastasis (Christian Universalism). This book does not bother to defend the doctrine of universalism using scripture or philosophy, but instead appeals to the early church and church fathers to show it was a common if not dominant belief. The writing can be clunky but the evidence is well provided and expounded on and by the end of the book you can clearly see the full picture. Universalism is the Christian position and is beautifully taught in scripture, even more so in the Greek. This book would be best if you were familiar with the basics of the doctrine and were aware of the most mainstream church fathers. if you are not the read still speaks for itself but the impact of the book is taken further by the understanding that many of the most vital pillars of the faith were devout universalists.

[TED ADAMS · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent Defense Of Early Church Belief In Universalism

The most excellent history of the early history of the church shows the true doctrine of eternity for all mankind and spiritual beings. The early church were greek and Christian in life as opposed to the eternal torment believers who were only Latin and did not know Greek. They were also known for their lifestyles of sinful practices even after they became Christians. So as universal salvation becomes more common, it is a choice of believing those who taught what the apostles taught and in Greek, or the latin ones who incorporated Roman culture of law and pagan beliefs with the force also of Justinian, Caesar of Rome.

[Mr TG Russell-Jones · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quaint language, revolutionary content

Opened my eyes to the early church 's commitment to radical, universal grace. And that the doctrine of endless torment for 'unbelievers ' is a late heresy.

[Squire Whitney: Hufflepuff Book Reviwer · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars!

“Heathen writers declare that the doctrine [of Hell] was invented to awe and control the multitude. Polybius writes: ‘Since the multitude is ever fickle, there is no other way to keep them in order but by fear of the invisible world . . .’ Seneca says: ‘Those things which make the infernal regions terrible, the darkness, the prison, the river of flaming fire, the judgment seat, etc., are all a fable.’ Livy declares that Numa invented the doctrine, ‘a most efficacious means of governing an ignorant and barbarous populace.’ . . . Similar language is found in Dionysius Halicarnassus, Plato, and other writers. History records nothing more distinctly than that the Greek and Roman Pagans borrowed of the Egyptians, and that some of the early Christians unconsciously absorbed, or studiously appropriated, the doctrines of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans concerning post-mortem punishment . . . as from the same sources, the Jews at the time of Christ had already corrupted their religion. What more natural than that the small reservoir of Christian truth should be contaminated by the opinions that converts from all these sources brought with them into their new religion . . .?”

As another reviewer has remarked, this ought to be required reading for seminary students. I have even read two people saying that Hansen’s work brought them out of belief in eternal conscious torment. In Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church for its First 500 Years, John Wesley Hanson dives deep into church history, examining the earliest Christian creeds and quotes and exploring the views of nearly all the church fathers regarding the afterlife in order to ultimately illustrate that that universal reconciliation was almost certainly the prevailing view of the early church—and, if not, then at least it was regarded as perfectly orthodox. John Wesley Hanson then further illustrates how—while views of postmortem endless torment in fire and/or annihilation were exceptionally common before the time of Jesus (as these views were largely fashioned by pagans and Egyptians in order to control the masses but were eventually adopted by the Jews and the Pharisees, as well)—no society had ever seemed to hold any kind of belief system that was remotely similar to the universal restoration of all things—and the author thus goes on to pose the question of how the early Christian church would have ever arrived at such a notion if not from divine revelation and their understanding of scripture, especially during an era when the Christian church was receiving so much violence and persecution at the hands of their enemies and the church would naturally have very likely craved divine vengeance against anyone who didn’t share their beliefs. He then goes onto show not only how most of the great church fathers before Augustine believed in universal reconciliation but also that those who adopted views of annihilation or eternal torment were almost always raised Pagan and did not speak Greek as their native language—whereas those who believed in the restoration of all things were usually raised Christian and spoke Greek as their native language. Toward the end of the book, Hansen does an excellent job in illustrating how universal reconciliation fell out of favor due largely to the tyrannical emperor Justinian and Augustine (who, by the way, admitted to being bad at Greek), despite the doctrine not being strongly challenged by anyone before this and despite a church council refusing Justitine’s pleas to officially denounce it as heretical.

Another nugget of gold in this book is the part where Hansen explores how Jesus used different language in speaking about postmortem punishment than the Pharisees would use. While the Pharisees most often used the phrase “aidios timoria” to speak of postmortem punishment because “aidios” always meant eternal and “timoria” always meant punishment for the sake of vengeance or justice, Jesus used the phrase “aionios kolasis,” because “aionios” carried various meanings and “kolasis” carried more of a connotation of correction or chastisement. Traditionalists often argue that, since many of the Jews of Jesus’s days believed in eternal punishment, Jesus must have meant for them to understand it in this way; otherwise he would have used different language to challenge their preconceived notions. But maybe he did subtly challenge their views.

And can I just say a thing or two about what a man-crush Hanson seemed to have on Origen and how much he disliked Augustine? It thoroughly amused me. To be clear, though, except for these few parts, the book is quite dry. It is dry and it reads like a text-book. But I do not much care; I learned more than enough in Universalism: The Prevailing View of the Christian Church to warrant it 4.5 stars. I think every Christian ought to read it, whether they end up agreeing with the premises or not.