THE EARLY FATHERS by Dudley Marvin Canright

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 1, 1879

THE EARLY FATHERS.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT.

THEOPHILUS, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH, A. D. 181.

Theophilus takes this position: “For man had been made a middle nature, neither wholly mortal, nor altogether immortal, but capable of either.” Again: “But some will say to us, Was man made by nature mortal? Certainly not. Was he, then, immortal? Neither do we affirm this. But one will say, Was he, then, nothing? Not even this hits the mark. He was by nature neither mortal nor immortal; for if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God. Again, if He had made him mortal, God would seem to be the cause of his death. Neither, then, immortal nor yet mortal did He make him, but, as we have said above, capable of both; so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandments of God, he should receive, as a reward from Him, immortality, and should become God; but if, on the other hand, he should turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he should himself be the cause of death to himself.”

I commend the above to the careful attention of the reader, both as showing the faith of the church at that time, and as a very reasonable doctrine. What could be more reasonable than this, that God made Adam of a middle nature, capable of gaining immortality or of losing life? This is just what the Bible itself represents. See Genesis, second and third chapters. This we know was the faith of at least several of the prominent church fathers.

The church at Antioch was raised up by the apostles, and here the disciples were first called Christians. Theophilus was the sixth bishop of that church, which was one of the largest in all the world at that time. Besides this, says his editor, he “had a profound acquaintance with the inspired writings.” Hence, we may safely conclude that what he teaches from so high a station was the received orthodox doctrine of the church in that age. No one at that time censured him for thus teaching, so the doctrine of the immortality of the soul was not yet received by the church of God.

IRENÆUS, BISHOP OF LYONS, A. D. 185.

That the wicked will not always continue to exist, he states thus: “He thus speaks respecting the salvation of man: He asked life of Thee, and Thou gavest him length of days forever and ever; indicating that it is the Father of all who imparts continuance forever and ever on those who are saved. For life does not arise from us, nor from our own nature, but it is bestowed according to the grace of God. And therefore he who shall preserve the life bestowed upon him, and give thanks to Him who imparted it, shall receive, also, length of days forever and ever. But he who shall reject it, and prove himself ungrateful to his Maker, inasmuch as he has been created, and has not recognized Him who bestowed the gift upon him, deprives himself of the privilege of continuance forever and ever.” Again he says: To those who “are full of hypocrisy, and covetousness, and all wickedness, has he assigned everlasting perdition by cutting them off from life.” He says that Christ revealed “God to men through many dispensations, lest man, falling away from God altogether, should cease to exist.”

Of his faith Dupin says: “But he seems to have believed, as well as St. Justin, that they [souls] are immortal only through grace, and that those of the wicked shall cease to be, after they have been tormented for a long time.” The author of the Ancient History of Universalism confirms this statement of Irenæus’s faith thus: “Here he appears to think they will be annihilated; he contends that souls, or spirits, like all other created things, depend entirely upon the upholding providence of God for their continuance in being, and that they can ‘exist only so long as he will.’”

Another historian says of the doctrine of Irenæus, “And yet he did not believe that they would be punished endlessly; for he undoubtedly adopted the doctrine of the final annihilation of the disobedient and unrighteous.”

In another place he argues that immortality is a gift of God through Jesus Christ. Thus he says: “For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are [referring to Christ’s assuming flesh and blood], so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that we might receive the adoption of sons!” Again he says, “The friendship of God imparts immortality to those who embrace it.” This plainly shows his faith that none will have immortality except those who are the friends of God. Once more he says to the same effect, “Men therefore, shall see God; that they may live, being made immortal by that sight.”

Dr. Edward Beecher, in his late book on the doctrine of Scriptural Retribution, frankly confesses that Irenæus taught the annihilation of the wicked. Thus he says: “What, then, are the facts as to Irenæus? Since he has been canonized as a saint, and since he stood in such close connection with Polycarp and with John the apostle, there has been a very great reluctance to admit the real facts of the case. Massuetus has employed much sophistry in endeavoring to hide them. Nevertheless, as we shall clearly show hereafter, they are incontrovertibly these: that he taught a final restitution of all things to unity and order by the annihilation of all the finally impenitent. Expressed statements in his creed, and in a fragment referred to by Prof. Schaff, on universal restoration (History, vol. i. p. 490), and in other parts of his great work against the Gnostics, prove this beyond all possibility of refutation. He held that wicked men and devils would be consigned to the punishment of the world to come; and that this, at a time to be decided by the wisdom and justice of God, would result in their annihilation, and thus in the cleansing of the Universe from every form of sin.”

Again he says: “Returning, then, to Antioch, and passing to the north of the Mediterranean, we come to Asia Minor, the field of the seven churches of the Apocalypse and of the apostle John. As the evangelist Mark is said to have founded the school of Alexandria, so the apostle John is regarded as the founder in Ephesus of the school of Asia Minor, from which came Polycarp, Melito, and Irenæus, the great defender of the church against Gnostic heresies, and Hippolytus, his hearer and follower.”

“DR. SCHAFF ON IRENÆUS.”

“Of this father Dr. Schaff says: ‘Irenæus was the leading representative of the Asiatic Johannæan school in the second half of the second century, the champion of Catholic orthodoxy against Gnostic heresy, and the mediator between the Eastern and Western churches. He united a learned Greek education and philosophical penetration with practical wisdom and moderation, and a sound sense of the simple and essential in Christianity. We may plainly trace in him the influence of John.’—Church History, vol. i. p. 488.”

“DR. KURTZ.”

“Of this school Dr. Kurtz says that it was ‘distinguished for its firm adherence to the Bible, its strong faith, its scientific liberality, its conciliatory tone, and its trenchant polemics against heretics.’—Text Book of Church History, p. 137, Philadelphia.

“It is therefore the more remarkable that the doctrine of future eternal punishment was not taught by any of this school so far as we know, nor the doctrine of universal restoration, but, on the other hand, the doctrine of the final annihilation of the wicked was clearly taught by so eminent a man as Irenæus. Thus, in five out of six of the early theological schools we do not find the doctrine of eternal punishment.”

“Irenæus, like Justin, calls those ‘heretics’ who expected the saints’ glorification to follow immediately after death, and before their resurrection.”

From these statements, it appears that Irenæus did not believe in the natural immortality of man, nor in the eternal conscious existence of the wicked. He was one of the most famous church fathers, and bishop of a noted church. He was instructed by the venerable Polycarp, who had conversed with the apostle John; hence he was well acquainted with the doctrines of the apostles. The fact, then, that he taught the mortality of man and the annihilation of the wicked is an important item in this history.

POLYCRATES, BISHOP OF EPHESUS, A. D. 196.

Polycrates bears this interesting testimony: “In Asia, great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again in the day of our Lord’s appearing, in which he will come with glory from Heaven, and will raise up all the saints; Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters; … moreover, the blessed Papirius, and Melito, the eunuch, whose walk and conversation were together under the influence of the Holy Spirit, who now rests at Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from Heaven, when he shall rise from the dead.” Here we have this ancient bishop of a church which Paul had planted and Timothy watered, and where John died, bearing a good witness to the faith of the church in that age in the sleep of the dead, the advent of Christ, and the resurrection. These saints were not in Heaven, but asleep, waiting for Christ.

THE LUCIANISTS.

Buck, in his “Theological Dictionary,” mentions a sect, about this time, called the Lucianists, who denied the immortality of the soul. Of their leader he says, “He denied the immortality of the soul, asserting it to be material.”

In all stages of the history of the church we find witnesses for God’s truth on this subject.

THE HERMOGENIANS.

Neander, in his “History of the Christian Religion,” mentions the Hermogenians, who denied the immortality of the soul. Of their leader he says: “At all events, Hermogenes denied the natural immortality of the soul, and regarded immortality only as a consequence of the new divine life imparted by Christ; hence he considers believers only to be immortal. All evil, evil spirits, and men who have not become partakers of the divine life, were finally to be resolved into the matter from whence they originally sprang.” Here we have still another evidence that this doctrine always had adherents in the Christian church.

THE ARABIANS, A. D. 244–249.

As we have shown in another chapter, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul began quite largely to be received by professed Christians in the first half of the third century. The primitive Scriptural doctrine of the mortality of man and the sleep of the dead was now quite largely abandoned. Yet here and there we find, as late as this, those who had not yet apostatized from the Bible faith, though they were so few as to be counted heretics. Thus of the Arabians, A. D. 244–249, Eusebius writes:—

“But about this time, also, other men sprang up in Arabia as the propagators of false opinions. These asserted that the human soul, as long as the present state of the world existed, perished at death and died with the body, but that it would be raised again with the body at the time of the resurrection. And as a considerable council was held on account of this, Origen, being again requested, likewise here discussed the point in question with so much force that those who had been before led astray, completely changed their opinions.”

1. They denied all consciousness of the dead till the resurrection. 2. Both soul and body were to live again at the resurrection. 3. The believers in this doctrine were so numerous as to require “a considerable council” to put them down; hence their number and influence must have been large. 4. “Origen, being again requested, likewise here discussed the point in question,” says Eusebius. This shows that Origen had, in other cases and

before this, been called upon to defend his doctrine of the immortality of the soul. We have seen that it was chiefly through his great influence that it came into the church. The learned Dr. Neander thus candidly states the facts in the above case: “We must, however,” he says, “still mention that among the Christians of Arabia at that time, a party had caused a controversy, by maintaining that the soul died with the body, and that it would be raised again only at the general resurrection, at the same time with the body. *It was an old Jewish notion that immortality was not founded upon the nature of the soul, but was a peculiar gift of divine grace; a representation which had been transferred from Judaism to Christianity, traces of which we find in the theory of the Gnostics about the nature of the Psychici, in the doctrine of Clementine, and in the opinions of Justin and Tatian. Perhaps, also, in this district, the position of which placed it in close connection with the Jews, it was no new doctrine, but the predominant one from ancient times; and perhaps the influence of Origen (in whose system the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul necessarily obtained a place) first effected the change that this latter should obtain universal acceptance among the church teachers of that district; and that the small party, which still maintained the old opinion, should appear heretical, although the predominant opinion had previously really pronounced itself against it (the new opinion). Hence we may understand how the convocation of a great synod was considered necessary in order to allay these controversies. When they were unable to agree, Origen was invited by the synod, and his influence prevailed upon the opposers of the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul, to acknowledge their error and renounce it.”

These admissions from such an eminent historian as Dr. Neander fully confirm all I have claimed on this question. It will be remembered that Neander was a converted Jew, and hence well qualified to state what was the original Jewish doctrine of immortality. The Arabians held to the old and ancient doctrine of the people of God, the sleep of the dead, and denied the immortality of the soul. It was not till the middle of the third century, and even then only by a mighty effort, that they were drawn from it. Dr. Good confirms Neander’s statements, by saying that the Arabians never believed in the immortality of the soul.