APPENDIX L
The Historical Witness to Universal Restoration
Early and Later Christian Voices on the Final Restoration of All Things
Introduction
Scripture First, History as Confirmation
The doctrine of the Restoration of All Things (Acts 3:21), as unfolded in this book, rests entirely on the testimony of Scripture: the Torah and the Prophets, the teaching of the Lord Jesus, and the witness of the Apostles. The ordered ages, the universal resurrection, the distinction between the resurrection of life and the resurrection of judgment, the reality of Gehenna in the Seventh Day, and the renewal of creation in the Eighth Day have all been drawn from the biblical text, not from later theologians. Yet it is instructive, and often reassuring, to see that this hope of ultimate restoration has deep roots in the history of Christian thought. What later came to be called “universalism” was not, in its classical form, a denial of judgment or a sentimental refusal of divine holiness. It was, in many of its noblest exponents, an attempt to confess both the severity of God’s purifying fire and the breadth of His purpose to reconcile all things in Christ (Colossians 1:20).
This appendix offers a brief historical survey, drawn largely from the work of John McClintock and James Strong, who compiled their Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature in the nineteenth century and devoted an extended entry to the history of universalist teaching. Their work shows that belief in the eventual restoration of all was held, defended, and debated by many of the most learned and influential Christian thinkers, especially in the East, from the early centuries onward. At the same time, history also records opposition, controversy, and periods of suppression. Our purpose here is not to make the fathers or later writers the foundation of doctrine, but to show that the hope of restoration has been a significant and persistent thread in Christian theology, rather than a modern novelty.
The Early Centuries: Alexandrian and Antiochene Witnesses
Strong’s survey begins with the early centuries, where the doctrine of universal restoration appears prominently in the great catechetical centers of Alexandria and Antioch. Clement of Alexandria, who led the catechetical school in the late second century, spoke of all divine punishment as remedial, ordered toward the healing and correction of the soul rather than its endless ruin. His most famous successor, Origen Adamantius, combined profound learning with intense devotion and tireless missionary labor. He taught that the punishments of the coming age would be real, severe, and purifying, and that the light of truth, once fully perceived, would eventually lead all rational creatures to repentance, harmony, and union with God. Strong notes that Origen never denied future punishment; rather, he insisted that such punishment was purifying and salutary, aimed at restoration rather than unending torment.
Origen’s influence spread widely through his teaching in Alexandria and in the theological school at Caesarea. Distinguished pupils such as Gregory Thaumaturgus admired and defended his views. Pamphilius and Eusebius, the first great church historian, both responded to Western criticisms by citing Origen’s own writings, which affirm both future punishment and its corrective character. Gregory of Nyssa, one of the most respected Cappadocian fathers, likewise advocated universal restoration, seeing the ultimate triumph of God’s goodness over all resistance. Didymus the Blind, a successor of Origen in the Alexandrian school, taught the same hope and passed it on to his students, including Jerome, who in his early commentaries and letters set out Origen’s teaching on restoration even while later vacillating in his own position.
In the Antiochene tradition, Diodore of Tarsus, a renowned exegete who opposed allegorical excess and adhered closely to the literal sense of Scripture, defended universal salvation on the ground that the mercy of God surpasses the deserts of sin. His greatest pupil, Theodore of Mopsuestia, called “the crown and climax of the school of Antioch,” and revered by the Nestorians as “the interpreter of the Word of God,” taught that sin is a tragic but passing stage in the education of the human race, and that God would overrule it to establish all finally in good. The liturgy attributed to Theodore, used in the Nestorian churches of the East, contains explicit statements of this hope. Theodoret of Cyrus, another Antiochene bishop and student of Theodore, also held to universal restoration in line with his teacher’s views.
It was not until the sixth century that Origen’s doctrine of universal salvation was formally condemned at a local council convened by the emperor Justinian in Constantinople, together with a related condemnation of certain Nestorian positions. Even then, Strong notes that opposition to the endlessness of punishment remained widespread, and that many learned fathers, even in the West, cherished the hope of a limit to future torments and a final restoration of all rational beings. Augustine himself, though he opposed this hope, testifies that “some—nay, very many” softened the severe statements of Scripture concerning eternal punishment and interpreted them in a milder sense.
The Middle Ages: Flickers of Restoration in the Dark
During the period commonly called the Dark Ages, universal restoration did not wholly disappear, though its advocates were fewer and often subject to ecclesiastical censure. In the seventh century, Maximus the Confessor, a Greek monk and theologian, taught forms of universal restoration. In the eighth century, Clement of Ireland was deposed from the priesthood for declaring that when Christ descended into hell He restored all the damned. In the ninth century, the philosopher John Scotus Erigena, one of the most brilliant minds at the court of Charles the Bald, boldly defended a doctrine of universal restoration in his speculative theology.
Medieval movements such as the Albigenses, described by papal sources as holding universalist views, and later groups in Bohemia and Austria sometimes called Lollards, influenced by the broader reform currents flowing from John Wycliffe, also carried this hope. Individual churchmen, including Raynold, abbot of St. Martin’s in France, and Solomon, bishop of Basra, were accused or known proponents of universal restoration. Mystical writers such as the German Tauler of Strasbourg and John Wessel, sometimes called “Reformers before the Reformation” and admired by Luther, drew on earlier mystical sources to teach a form of universal reconciliation grounded in God’s love and the purifying nature of His judgments.
These witnesses did not form a continuous, organized movement, but they show that the hope of restoration survived under the surface of a dominant theological culture that increasingly emphasized unending torment. Even where such hope was condemned or suppressed, it reappeared, often in connection with more contemplative or mystical currents of thought that were dissatisfied with the harshness of eternal-damnation schemes.
The Reformation and Early Modern Period: Renewed Debate
With the Reformation, debate over the duration and nature of future punishment resurfaced with new energy. Certain Anabaptist groups in the sixteenth century openly taught the eventual end of punishment and the salvation of all. The seventeenth article of the Augsburg Confession in 1530 was framed in part to condemn Anabaptists who maintained that the punishments of the damned and the devils would come to an end. Figures such as Denk, Hetzer, and Stanislaus Pannonius defended universal restoration during this period.
In the seventeenth century, Ernest Sonner, a professor of philosophy at Altdorf, published a theological and philosophical demonstration arguing that endless punishment would impugn, rather than display, the justice of God. Samuel Huber, a professor of divinity at Wittenberg, taught universal restoration and was compelled to relinquish his position and go into exile rather than retract his views. John William Petersen, a court preacher and later superintendent at Lüneburg, embraced universal restoration with such conviction that he was censured and forced into retirement. In his seclusion he produced a massive three-volume work, The Mystery of the Restoration of All Things, between 1700 and 1710, cataloguing many defenders of the doctrine and helping to ignite a century of vigorous controversy on the subject.
The Everlasting Gospel, attributed to Paul Siegvolk (a pseudonym for George Klein-Nicolai), offered another influential defense of universal restoration, passing through multiple editions in Germany despite persecution. The Berleburg Bible, an eight-volume German translation and commentary published between 1726 and 1742 by John Henry Haug and his circle, drew heavily on mystical writers and advocated universal restoration from that perspective. Its compilers suffered opposition, had to operate their own press, and eventually saw their community dispersed; some of them emigrated to America with their printing press.
In 1727, Ludwig Gerhard, at one time a professor of theology at Rostock, published a comprehensive work titled The Everlasting Gospel of the Restoration of All Things and the Baseless Opposite Doctrine of Eternal Damnation, which provoked at least fourteen volumes in response. In the later eighteenth century, Jung-Stilling, a defender of Christianity against rationalism, also championed universal restoration. Nineteenth-century scholars such as Tholuck and Olshausen observed that belief in the final restoration of all had a deep root in noble minds and that by their time the doctrine of eternal torment was widely questioned or rejected in many circles.
The English-Speaking World: Anglican and Free-Church Witnesses
In the Church of England, the Forty-two Articles of 1552 included an article condemning universal restoration. A decade later, when the Articles were reduced to thirty-nine, that specific condemnation was omitted, and from that time forward universal restoration was not formally proscribed in Anglican confessions. Over the centuries, a number of Anglican divines espoused or leaned toward universal restoration, including Henry More, Sir George Stonehouse, Bishop Thomas Newton, David Hartley, William Whiston, Thomas Burnet, Frederick W. Robertson, Charles Kingsley, Stopford Brooke, and Canon F. W. Farrar; Archbishop Tillotson is often cited as having spoken in ways sympathetic to the hope of restoration.
Outside Anglicanism, various English Nonconformists and spiritual writers also embraced universal restoration. Henry Vane the younger, a statesman who served as governor of Massachusetts and later as a member of Parliament, held such views. During the mid-seventeenth century, the Presbyterian Parliament passed a law against multiple heresies, including the claim “that all men shall be saved,” punishable by imprisonment, though this law was short-lived. In that climate, Gerard Winstanley published works advocating universal restoration. William Earbury preached it openly. Richard Coppin defended it in print and faced repeated trials. Samuel Richardson, an eminent Baptist, argued strongly for the doctrine. Jeremy White, one of Cromwell’s chaplains, preached and published in its favor. Mystical writers such as Jane Lead and literary figures like Henry Brooke also affirmed universal restoration. William Law, author of A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life, declared in his letters, “As for the purification of all human nature, I fully believe it, either in this world or some after ages.”
Some English advocates developed distinctive systems, such as James Relly, who argued in the eighteenth century for a radical union of Christ with all humanity, concluding that Christ’s atoning work had already effected a complete justification of the whole world and that the only remaining condemnation was unbelief and darkness, whether in this life or beyond. His writings influenced others, though his particular scheme did not endure as a distinct movement.
The American Context: Early Colonial and Post-Colonial Voices
In America, Strong traces sightings of universal restoration from the colonial period onward. Sir Henry Vane’s presence in New England suggests that such ideas were at least known, even if not explicitly preached. In 1684, Joseph Gatchell of Marblehead, Massachusetts, was tried in court for declaring “that all men shall be saved” and was sentenced to the pillory, where his tongue was to be pierced with a hot iron. Such penalties show how seriously the prevailing authorities regarded the threat of universalist teaching.
In the eighteenth century, George de Benneville, a French-born preacher, arrived in America convinced that God had called him to proclaim the restoration of all things in the New World. He preached widely for more than fifty years in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas, often welcomed among the German “Brethren” or Dunkers. At his urging, Siegvolk’s Everlasting Gospel was translated into English and printed in Germantown, Pennsylvania, likely on the same press once used for the Berleburg Bible.
Within established churches, universal restoration found advocates as well. Richard Clarke, rector of St. Philip’s in Charleston, South Carolina, and later John Tyler, rector in Norwich, Connecticut, both defended universal restoration in print. In New England Congregationalism, Jonathan Mayhew of Boston publicly declared his belief in the salvation of all in a 1762 Thanksgiving sermon. Charles Chauncy, pastor of the First Church in Boston, published a major work titled The Salvation of All Men in 1784, with a second edition in 1787. Joseph Huntington, a pastor in Connecticut, left a posthumous work, Calvinism Improved, arguing that the logic of God’s sovereign grace led to the eventual salvation of all.
These American voices reflect the same tension seen elsewhere: strong attachment to the authority of Scripture, discomfort with the notion of endless torment, and a desire to harmonize the justice and mercy of God in a doctrine of final restoration.
What This Historical Witness Shows—and What It Does Not
The historical record summarized by McClintock and Strong shows that belief in universal restoration has appeared repeatedly across Christian history, from the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools, through medieval mystics, Reformation-era movements, early modern theologians and philosophers, Anglican divines, and various English and American pastors and writers. It has been condemned at certain points and tolerated at others. It has sometimes been entangled with speculative ideas we cannot accept, such as pre-existence of souls. It has sometimes been defended with arguments at odds with the ordered pattern of the ages set out in this book. Yet the sheer breadth and persistence of the hope, especially among those most deeply rooted in Scripture, suggests that they were grappling with the same tension we have addressed: how to affirm both the severity of God’s judgments and the universality of His purpose to reconcile all things in Christ (Colossians 1:20).
This historical witness does not give us our doctrine; Scripture alone does that. Nor does it prove that every form of universalism in history has been faithful to the gospel. Some versions have minimized sin, ignored judgment, or neglected the necessity of repentance and new birth. Others have collapsed the distinction between the gift and the prize, or denied the structured order of resurrection, judgment, and restoration. Where the fathers and later writers deviate from the Apostles, we follow the Apostles. Yet where they echo the scriptural hope that God will ultimately be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28), we recognize them as fellow students of the same mystery.
Conclusion
A Cloud of Witnesses to the Restoration of All Things
The theology presented in this book stands or falls with Scripture, not with history. Nevertheless, it is significant that throughout the centuries many of the church’s most learned and devout teachers could not rest in the doctrine of endless, purposeless torment. Reading the same Bible, often in its original languages, they saw in the character of God, in the work of Christ, and in the promise of the ages a hope that judgment, however severe, is not God’s final word, and that His ultimate will is to restore, reconcile, and bring all things under the headship of Christ. Their testimony has often been marginalized, overshadowed by more dominant voices, or dismissed as aberration. Yet the record, as McClintock and Strong carefully documented, reveals an enduring legacy of hope in the Restoration of All Things under Christ.
We do not look to these witnesses as authorities equal to the Apostles. We look to them as fellow servants who, amid the limitations and errors of their own times, glimpsed something of the breadth and depth of the Father’s purpose. Their presence in the story of the church reminds us that the hope of universal restoration is not an invention of modern sentimentality, but a thread woven into the fabric of Christian reflection from early days. Above them all, and correcting them where they went astray, stands the Lord Jesus, in whom the Father has purposed to sum up all things in heaven and on earth (Ephesians 1:10), and in whom the promise holds firm that, in the end, God will be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28).
As you wrestle with these things in your own heart, it is wise to let this cloud of witnesses encourage you, but not replace the voice of Scripture. Their testimony cannot remove the need for repentance, faith, holiness, and the fear of God in this present age. It can, however, strengthen your confidence that the hope of the Restoration of All Things is not a private invention, but a serious reading of the same Bible held in the hands of many who loved the Lord Jesus deeply. Let their voices steady you as you return again to the Torah, the Prophets, the Lord Jesus, and the Apostles, and as you seek to live now in a way that is worthy of the resurrection of life and the firstborn inheritance.
Restoration Theology Press 