An Analysis of Gustav Friedrich Wiggers’s (1777–1860) View of Augustine on the Extent of Redemption

In the near future, this post will analyze Wiggers’s view of Augustine on the extent of redemption. He argued that Augustine held to “limited atonement.” For now I need to post this incomplete material in order to just have a working link for a footnote in someone else’s book that will soon be published. I will complete this post later.

Outline:

1. A Brief Biographical Sketch
2. His Claims About Augustine on the Extent of Redemption

    2.1. De Cor et Gr. 11 (De correptione et gratia)
           2.1.1 Wiggers’s Claim
           2.1.2. The Primary Sources
           2.1.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim
    2.2. On Adulterous Marriages, c. 15
           2.2.1. Wiggers’s Claim
           2.2.2. The Primary Source
           2.2.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim
    2.3. Hom. 48 on John’s Gospel
           2.3.1. Wiggers’s Claim
           2.3.2. The Primary and Secondary Sources
           2.3.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim
    2.4. Ep. 169, c. 1
           2.4.1. Wiggers’s Claim
           2.4.2. The Primary Sources
           2.4.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim
    2.5. De Trin. IV, 13
           2.5.1. Wiggers’s Claim
           2.5.2. The Primary Sources
           2.5.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim
    2.6. De Cor. et Gr. 15 (De correptione et gratia)
           2.6.1. Wiggers’s Claim
           2.6.2. The Primary Sources
           2.6.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim
    2.7 An Analysis of Other Miscellaneous Claims

3. Conclusion

1. A Brief Biographical Sketch

Gustav Adam Friedrich Wiggers (AD 1777–1860) was a German Protestant theologian and university professor at the University of Rostock. In 1821, his main work, Attempt at a pragmatic representation of Augustinism and Pelagianism according to historical development („Versuch einer pragmatischen Darstellung des Augustinismus und Pelagianismus nach der geschichtlichen Entwicklung“ In zwei Theilen. Hamburg 1833), was published. It covers the period from the beginning of the Pelagian disputes to the third ecumenical synod and was translated into English in 1840 by Ralph Emerson, professor of church history at the theological seminary in Andover in Massachusetts.

2. His Claims About Augustine on the Extent of Redemption

To read the following material in English, see Gustav Friedrich Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, trans. Ralph Emerson (Andover; New York: Gould, Newman, & Saxton, 1840), 254–55. Or see here (click).

Wiggers claimed that Augustine held a strict view of Christ’s redemption. He observed that “Augustine’s doctrine of redemption … stands in close connection with his theory of predestination.” There is truth to that, of course, but the limitation is in the application of redemption (or redemption applied), not in the extent of its accomplishment (or redemption accomplished). Failure to make this distinction leads Wiggers astray. This is why he conflated these two categories and asserted that, according to Augustine, “Christ’s redemption could extend only to those whom God had destined to salvation. For the rest, his death even, as well as his whole incarnation, had no object. Christ therefore died and rose again only for the elect.”

Wiggers did not bother to address how many texts in Augustine go against his theory, or any of those Augustinians who argued otherwise (e.g., John Davenant and Richard Baxter), but only gave six instances where he thinks Augustine’s limited view is “peculiarly clear,” indeed, “clear as the sun.” We shall examine these citations in order.

2.1. De Cor et Gr. 11 (De correptione et gratia):

First, Wiggers cited Augustine’s work On Rebuke and Grace.

2.1.1. Wiggers’s Claim:

He wrote,

According to Augustine, therefore, redemption was not universal. God sent his Son into the world, not to redeem the whole sinful race of man, but only the elect. “By this mediator, God showed, that those whom he redeemed by his blood, he makes, from being evil, to be eternally good.” De Cor. et Gr. 11.

Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, 254.

2.1.2. The Primary Sources:  

One Latin version says this:

Neque enim metuendum erat, ne isto ineffabili modo in unitatem personae a Verbo Deo natura humana suscepta, per liberum voluntatis peccaret arbitrium, cum ipsa susceptio talis esset, ut natura hominis a Deo ita suscepta, nullum in se motum malae voluntatis admitteret. Per hunc Mediatorem Deus ostendit eos, quos ejus sanguine redemit, facere se ex malis deinceps in aeternum bonos, quem sic suscepit, ut nunquam esset malus, nec ex malo factus semper esset bonus.

The Wallis translation has this:

That nativity, absolutely gratuitous, conjoined, in the unity of the person, man to God, flesh to the Word! Good works followed that nativity; good works did not merit it. For it was in no wise to be feared that the human nature taken up by God the Word in that ineffable manner into a unity of person, would sin by free choice of will, since that taking up itself was such that the nature of man so taken up by God would admit into itself no movement of an evil will. Through this Mediator God makes known that He makes those whom He redeemed by His blood from evil, everlastingly good; and Him He in such wise assumed that He never would be evil, and, not being made out of evil, would always be good.⁴
_______________
4 Some editions have, instead of “and not being made,” etc., “lest being made of evil he should not always be good.”

Augustine of Hippo, “A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace,” in Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 484 (c. 30 [XI).

The more recent Teske translation has this:

This birth which was, of course, gratuitous united man to God, the flesh to the Word, in the unity of the person. Good works followed upon this birth; good works did not merit it. For there was no reason to fear that the human nature assumed in this ineffable way into the unity of the person by God the Word would sin by free choice of the will. This assumption, after all, was such that the nature of the man assumed by God in that way would admit in itself no impulse of an evil will. Through this mediator God has shown that he transforms those whom he redeemed by his blood from evil persons into persons who will thereafter be good for eternity, for he assumed this mediator in such a way that he never was evil and that he never became good after being evil.

Saint Augustine, “Rebuke and Grace,” in Answer to the Pelagians, IV, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Roland J. Teske, vol. 26 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1999), 75; De correptione et gratia, 11.30.

2.1.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim:

Response coming soon.

2.2. On Adulterous Marriages, c. 15:

Second, Wiggers cited Augustine’s work On Adulterous Marriages.

2.2.1. Wiggers’s Claim:

Wiggers wrote:

The following passage is peculiarly clear, and is taken from the first book “on adulterous marriages,” C. 15, a work written about the year 419, and not directed against the Pelagians. “Every one that has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, is a man; though not every one that is a man, has been redeemed by the blood of Christ.”

Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, 254.

2.2.2. The Primary Source:

Chapter 15
(16) However, it cannot be said of those actions which are included here, and which are not expedient, although lawful, that this action is good, but that one is better in the same way that it has been written that ‘He who gives her in marriage does well, and he who does not give her does better’ [1 Cor. 7:38]. For, in this second instance, both courses are lawful, although, at times, the one may be expedient, at times, the other. Doubtlessly, those who cannot remain chaste should marry. This is expedient because it is lawful. For those, however, who have vowed to remain continent, it is neither lawful nor expedient to marry. As a matter of fact, one may lawfully separate from an unbeliever, but it is not expedient. However, if the spouse consents to cohabitate, it is both lawful and expedient to remain with him, because if it were not lawful, it could not be expedient. Therefore, an action can be lawful and not expedient, but what is unlawful cannot be expedient, because not everything that is lawful is also expedient, but everything that is unlawful is inexpedient. For, it is certain that everyone who has been redeemed by the Blood of Christ belongs to the human race; nevertheless, it is likewise true that not every human person has been redeemed by the Blood of Christ. It is just as true that everything that is not lawful is also inexpedient; but, not everything that is inexpedient is likewise unlawful. Certainly, then, there are lawful acts which are inexpedient, just as we have learned from the testimony of the Apostle.

Augustine of Hippo, “Adulterous Marriages,” in Treatises on Marriage and Other Subjects, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. Charles T. Huegelmeyer, vol. 27 of The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1955), 81; B. 1, c. 15.

2.2.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim:

Response coming soon.

2.3. Hom. 48 on John’s Gospel:

Third, Wiggers cited Augustine’s 48th Homilies on the Gospel of John.

2.3.1. Wiggers’s Claim:

Wiggers wrote:

Hence the words in John 10:26, ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep, according to Hom. 48. on John's gospel, mean as much as this, Ye believe not, because ye are not bought for eternal life by my blood.

Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, 254–55.

Others have also appealed to this passage to maintain that Augustine taught a stricter view of Christ’s redemption, such as Gottschalk, Ratramnus, Remigius, and recently Raymond A. (Randy) Blacketer.

2.3.2. The Primary and Secondary Sources:

Latin Text:

Quia videbat eos ad sempiternum interitum praedestinatos, non ad vitam aeternam sui sanguinis pretio comparatos.

From Augustinus.it and the Catholic Library.

4. This, as a great matter, the Jews enquired of Christ; in order that if He should say, I am Christ, then, upon the conception which alone they entertained of the Seed of David, they might accuse Him of arrogating to Himself kingly power. What He told them in reply is more than that: they wished to make matter of accusation out of the Son of David: He told them that He was the Son of God. And how? Hear (v. 25, 26). Jesus answered them, I tell you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in My Father’s Name, they bear witness of Me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep. Ye have already learned above which are the sheep. Be ye sheep. Sheep are such in believing, sheep in following the Shepherd, sheep in not despising the Redeemer, sheep in entering in by the door, sheep in going out and finding pasture, sheep in enjoying eternal life. How then said He to these, Ye are not of My sheep? Because He saw them predestinated to everlasting destruction, not purchased (comparatos; See Note A, at the end of the volume) by the price of His blood unto eternal life.

S. Augustine, “Homily XLVIII (John 10:22–42), in Homilies on the Gospel according to St. John, and His First Epistle: Hom. 1–124, S. John 1–21 and Hom. 1–10, 1 S. John, vol. 1 & 2 of A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Anterior to the Division of the East and West: Translated by Members of the English Church (Oxford; London: John Henry Parker; F. and J. Rivington, 1848–1849), 639; Hom. 48.4; italics original.

4. The Jews asked this of Christ for an important reason, so that if he said, “I am the Christ,” they would, according to the little that they knew about the seed of David, accuse him of claiming royal power for himself. His answer to them went further. They wanted to make a false charge about the son of David; he said that he was the Son of God. And how? Listen: Jesus answered them, I tell you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in the name of my Father, these bear witness to me, but you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. (Jn 10:25–26) You already learned earlier on who the sheep are (See Homily 45, 9–15). Be sheep! The sheep are such by believing, the sheep are such by following the shepherd, the sheep are such by not disdaining the Redeemer, the sheep are such by going in through the gate, the sheep are such by going out and finding pasture, the sheep are such by enjoying eternal life. Why, then, did he say to them, You are not of my sheep (Jn 10:26)? Because he saw that they were predestined to eternal destruction,¹⁷ not bought for eternal life at the price of his blood.
_______________
17 At this point in Augustine’s career, “predestination” means God’s foreknowledge (and not God’s predestining anyone to damnation), as it also does in section 6. See Homilies 42, 16; 45, 12–13; 48, 6.

Saint Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John 41–124, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald and Boniface Ramsey, trans. Edmund Hill, vol. 13 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2020), 99–100.

4. The Jews were seeking this from Christ as an important matter, so that if he were to say, I am the Christ, as far as they understood [him] to be only of the seed of David, they would falsely accuse him of claiming royal power for himself. What he answered them is more; they wanted to accuse him as the son of David. He answered that he was the Son of God. And how? Listen. “Jesus answered them, ‘I speak to you and you do not believe. The works which I do in my Father’s name, these give testimony concerning me. But you do not believe because you are not of my sheep.’ ” You have already earlier learned who the sheep are (Cf. Tractate 45:9–13). Be sheep! By believing they are sheep, by following the Shepherd they are sheep, by not despising the Redeemer they are sheep, by going in through the gate they are sheep, by going out and finding pasture they are sheep, by enjoying eternal life they are sheep. How then did he say to these, “You are not of my sheep”? Because he saw that they were predestined for eternal destruction, not purchased at the price of his blood for eternal life.¹²
_______________
12 That God foreknows that some are condemned poses a theological problem in view of the orthodox teaching that Christ died for all and by his death and resurrection redeemed all. As in all matters touching predestination, Augustine’s view is complex, difficult, and somewhat obscure. It would appear that he holds that God does will the salvation of all men and in a general sense he does so by providing all with the power and the means for salvation. But he also, for his own reasons, gives men the freedom to choose or refuse salvation and then he foreknows that some will choose salvation and some damnation. He could intervene, but wills not to do so; were he to intervene freedom of will would be meaningless. Since he foreknows that some will refuse redemption and does not intervene, then in an absolute sense he wills the damnation of some. Why he chooses this kind of world over the many possible dispositions of creation is a mystery. See Browne, 29.1238–46, and E. Portalie, A Guide to the Thought of Saint Augustine, 215–23. But the situation is probably more complex than this, as all men’s acts are the results of freely given, unmerited graces. Why are some not given graces to enable their perseverance? Augustine, then, would seem to take a rather rigid view of predestination: that God, for his own reasons, in fact wills the damnation of some. This tractate seems to support such a view. See J. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 366–69, for a good, brief account of the latter position.

Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on the Gospel of John 28–54, ed. Thomas P. Halton, trans. John W. Rettig, vol. 88 of The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1993), 230; In Evangelium Iohannis tractatus, 48.4.

4. The Jews made this inquiry of Christ, chiefly in order that, should He say, I am Christ, they might, in accordance with the only sense they attached to such a name, that He was of the seed of David, calumniate Him with aiming at the kingly power. There is more than this in His answer to them: they wished to calumniate Him with claiming to be the Son of David. He replied that He was the Son of God. And how? Listen: “Jesus answered them, I tell you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me: but ye believe not; because ye are not of my sheep.” Ye have already learned above (in Lecture XLV.) who the sheep are: be ye sheep. They are sheep through believing, sheep in following the Shepherd, sheep in not despising their Redeemer, sheep in entering by the door, sheep in going out and finding pasture, sheep in the enjoyment of eternal life. What did He mean, then, in saying to them, “Ye are not of my sheep”? That He saw them predestined to everlasting destruction, not won to eternal life by the price of His own blood.

Augustine of Hippo, “Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel according to St. John,” in St. Augustin: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Soliloquies, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. John Gibb and James Innes, vol. 7 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 266–267; Tractate 48.4.

I asked several Latinists online what they thought was the best out of the four following English translations:

1. “Because He saw them predestinated to everlasting destruction, not purchased by the price of His blood unto eternal life.”
2. “Because he saw that they were predestined to eternal destruction, not bought for eternal life at the price of his blood.”
3. “Because he saw that they were predestined for eternal destruction, not purchased at the price of his blood for eternal life.”
4. “That He saw them predestined to everlasting destruction, not won to eternal life by the price of His own blood.”

Antigone Journal (@AntigoneJournal) said: “Translation 2. The ellipse of esse is by the bye [sic] for Augustine, and this rendering is most faithful to the text.”

Cathedralulus (@Cathedralulus) said: “Translations 1 and 3. 2 if you think the construction as ellipses where esse is missing.”

Michael J. Lynch (@reformedtexan) said: “Translations 1 or 3.”

LatinPerDiem (@LatinPerDiem) did not make a choice,  but asked, “Also, why “bought” for comparari?”

Aquinas is an interesting secondary source:

Augustinus. Hoc autem dixit, quia videbat eos ad sempiternum interitum praedestinatos, non ad vitam aeternam sui sanguinis pretio comparatos: oves enim sunt credendo, pastorem sequendo.

From Aquinas.cc.

AUG He saw that they were persons predestinated to eternal death, and not those for whom He had bought eternal life, at the price of His blood. The sheep believe, and follow the Shepherd.

Augustine. (Tract. xlviii. c. 4.) He saw that they were persons predestinated to eternal death, and not those for whom He had bought eternal life, at the price of His blood. The sheep believe, and follow the Shepherd.

Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. John, ed. John Henry Newman (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1845), 359.

2.3.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim:

Response coming soon.

2.4. Ep. 169, c. 1:

Wiggers referenced Epistle 169 by Augustine written to Bishop Evodius (c. AD 415).

2.4.1. Wiggers’s Claim:

He wrote:

“No one perishes of those for whom Christ died.” Ep. 169, c. I.

Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, 254.

2.4.2. The Primary Sources:

Latin Texts:

4. Nam si propter eos solos Christus mortuus est, qui certa intellegentia possunt ista discernere, pene frustra in Ecclesia laboramus. Si autem, quod veritas habet, infirmi populi credentium ad medicum currunt, sanandi per Christum, et hunc crucifixum, ut ubi abundavit peccatum, superabundet gratia; miris fit modis per altitudinem divitiarum sapientiae et scientiae Dei, et per inscrutabilia iudicia eius, ut et nonnulli a corporibus incorporea discernentes, cum sibi ex hoc magni videntur, et irrident stultitiam praedicationis, qua salvi fiunt credentes, ab unica via longe exerrent, quae ad vitam aeternam sola perducit: et multi in cruce Christi gloriantes, et ab eadem via non recedentes, etiamsi ista quae subtilissime disseruntur, ignorant, quia non perit unus pusillus mortuus est (Matt 18:14), ad eamdem perveniant aeternitatem, veritatem, caritatem, id est ad stabilem, certam, plenamque felicitatem, ubi manentibus, videntibus, amantibus sunt cuncta perspicua.

From Augustinus.it.

et multi in cruce Christi gloriantes, et ab eadem via non recedentes, etiamsi ista quae subtilissime disseruntur, ignorant, quia non perit unus ex illis pro quibus mortuus est, ad eamdem perveniant aeternitatem, veritatem, charitatem, id est ad stabilem, certam, plenamque felicitatem, ubi manentibus, videntibus, amantibus sunt cuncta perspicua.

Epistola CLXIX, Cap. 1, §4, PL 33:744 (2).

It is important to note that the above PL edition notes a manuscript discrepancy. It says:

1. Mss. duo v., non perit unus ex pusillis. Prope accedit Sulpitian. Cod., qui habet: Non perit unus pusillus, pro quibus, etc.

One AI translation puts it this way:

1. Two manuscripts, not one of the little ones perishes. Closely follows the Sulpitian. Cod., which has: Not one of the little ones perishes, for whom, etc.

Another AI translation has this:

1. Ms. two versions: None of the little ones perishes. The Sulpitian Codex approaches this, which has: None of the little ones perishes, instead of which, etc.

English Translations:

4. For if Christ died only on account of those who can distinguish these things with certain intelligence, we labor in the Church to almost no purpose. But if, as the truth has it, the weak people among the faithful run to the physician to be healed by Christ, and by him crucified, so that where sin has abounded (See Rom 5:20) grace might abound even more, it comes about in marvelous ways through the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God and through his inscrutable judgments (Rom 11:33) that some who can distinguish incorporeal things from bodies think that for this reason they are important people and mock the foolishness of preaching by which believers are saved, while they themselves wander far from the one path that alone leads to eternal life. But many who boast in the cross of Christ and do not depart from the same path, even those who do not know those things that are discussed with great subtlety, because not a single infant perishes for whom he has died,⁵ come to the same eternity, truth, and love, that is, to solid, certain, and complete happiness, where everything is clear for those who remain, see, and love.
_______________
5 Though the manuscripts and the contexts favor this reading, the passage seems open to the interpretation given by Jansenius that Christ did not die for all infants.

Saint Augustine, Letters (Epistulae) 156–210, trans. Roland Teske, ed. Boniface Ramsey, vol. II/3 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2004), 108; italics original.

4. For if Christ died for those only who with clear intelligence can discern these things, our labour in the Church is almost spent in vain. But if, as is the fact, crowds of common people, possessing no great strength of intellect, run to the Physician in the exercise of faith, with the result of being healed by Christ and Him crucified, that “where sin has abounded, grace may much more abound” (Rom. 5:20), it comes in wondrous ways to pass, through the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God and His unsearchable judgments, that, on the one hand, some who do discern between the material and: the spiritual in their own nature, while pluming themselves on this attainment, and despising that foolishness of preaching by which those who believe are saved, wander far from the only path which leads to eternal life; and, on the other hand, because not one perishes for whom Christ died (John 17:12),3 many glorying in the cross of Christ, and not withdrawing from that same path, attain, notwithstanding their ignorance of those things which some with most profound subtlety investigate, unto that eternity, truth, and love,—that is, unto that enduring, clear, and full felicity,—in which to those who abide, and see, and love, all things are plain.

Augustine of Hippo, “Letters of St. Augustin,” in The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. G. Cunningham, vol. 1 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 540.

For, if Christ died for those only who are able to discern these truths with sure understanding, our labor in the Church is almost worthless. But if, as truth holds, the believers among the peoples run to their Physician in their sickness to be healed by Christ, and Him crucified, so that ‘where sin abounded grace might more abound’ (Cf. Rom. 5:20), it happens in marvellous ways, ‘through the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God,’ and by ‘his unsearchable judgments’ (Cf. Rom. 11:33) that some, because they can distinguish incorporeal from corporeal things, seem great to themselves, mock at the foolishness of the preaching through which they believed and were saved, and wander far from the one way which alone leads to eternal life. On the other hand, many who glory in the cross of Christ and do not withdraw from that same way, though ignorant of those points which are so subtlely debated, because not one little one perishes for whom He died (Matt. 18:14; John 17:12), attain to that same eternity, truth, charity, that is, to a fixed, sure, and complete happiness where all things are clear to those who remain faithful, who see, and who love.

Augustine of Hippo, Letters (165–203), ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Wilfrid Parsons, vol. 30 of The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1955), 53–54.

2.4.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim:

Response coming soon.

Referencing? NKJ Matthew 18:14 "Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

This text is referenced in the footnote of the Augustinus.it version above.

Or this? NKJ John 17:12 "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

2.5. De Trin. IV, 13:

Wiggers next referenced Augustine’s work On the Trinity.

2.5.1. Wiggers’s Claim:

He wrote:

Nay, according to his theory, Augustine would have no mediator between God and the whole human race, but only a mediator between God and the elect. “Christ redeemed the sinners who were to be justified (justificandos peccatores).” De Trin. IV. 13.

Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, 255.

2.5.2. The Primary Sources:

Latin text:

Quocirca etiam ipso Domino se credebat diabolus superiorem, in quantum illi Dominus in passionibus cessit; quia et de ipso intellectum est quod in Psalmo legitur: Minuisti eum paulo minus ab Angelis 119, ut ab iniquo velut aequo iure adversus nos agente, ipse occisus innocens eum iure aequissimo superaret, atque ita captivitatem propter peccatum factam captivaret, nosque liberaret a captivitate propter peccatum iusta, suo iusto sanguine iniuste fuso mortis chirographum delens 120 et iustificandos redimens peccatores.

From Augustinus.it.

Quocirca etiam ipso Domino se credebat diabolus superiorem, in quantum illi Dominus in passionibus cessit; quia et de ipso intellectum est quod in Psalmo legitur, Minuisti eum paulo minus ab Angelis (Psal. VIII, 6): ut ab iniquo velut aequo jure adversum nos agente, ipse occisus innocens eum jure aequissimo superaret, atque ita captivitatem propter peccatum factam captivaret (Ephes. IV, 8), nosque liberaret a captivitate propter peccatum justa, suo justo sanguine injuste fuso mortis chirographum delens, et justificandos redimens peccatores.

From the Catholic Library.

English Translations:

Wherefore also the devil thought himself superior to the Lord Himself, inasmuch as the Lord in His sufferings yielded to him; for of Him, too, is understood what is read in the Psalm, “For Thou hast made Him a little lower than the angels:” (Ps. 8:5) so that He, being Himself put to death, although innocent, by the unjust one acting against us as it were by just right, might by a most just right overcome him, and so might lead captive the captivity wrought through sin (Eph. 4:8), and free us from a captivity that was just on account of sin, by blotting out the handwriting, and redeeming us who were to be justified although sinners, through His own righteous blood unrighteously poured out.

Augustine of Hippo, “On the Trinity,” in St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Arthur West Haddan, vol. 3 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 78; 4.13.17.

And on this account the devil believed himself to be superior even to the Lord Himself, inasmuch as the Lord yielded to him in His sufferings, for what is written in the Psalm is to be also understood of Him: ‘Thou hast made him a little less than the angels’ (Ps. 8:6); thus He Himself, the innocent One, would be put to death by the sinful one, acting against us by a just right, in order that He might overcome him by a more just right, and so might take captive the captivity that was brought about by sin (Eph. 4:8), and liberate us from the captivity that was just on account of sin, by cancelling the handwriting of death and redeeming us who, though sinners, were to be justified through His just blood, that was unjustly poured out.

Augustine of Hippo, The Trinity, ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Stephen McKenna, vol. 45 of The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1963), 153.

For this reason the devil thought himself superior even to the Lord, seeing that the Lord gave way to him in his sufferings, because it is of him that the psalm text is to be understood, You have made him a little less than the angels (Ps 8:6). Yet in being slain in his innocence by the wicked one, who was acting against us as it were with just rights, he won the case against him with the justest of all rights, and thus led captive the captivity (Eph 4:8; Ps 68:19) that was instituted for sin, and delivered us from the captivity we justly endured for sin, and by his just blood unjustly shed cancelled the I.O.U. (Col 2:14) of death, and justified and redeemed sinners.

Saint Augustine, The Trinity (De Trinitate), ed. John E. Rotelle, Second Edition., vol. I/5 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2017), 203.

2.5.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim:

Response coming soon.

2.6. De Cor. et Gr. 15 (De correptione et gratia):

Lastly, Wiggers cited Augustine’s work On Rebuke and Grace.

2.6.1. Wiggers’s Claim:

He wrote:

Against Augustine’s limitation view of redemption, just presented, which is clear as the sun from the passages adduced, some doubtful expressions of his, and therefore proving nothing, may indeed be adduced; and especially one passage, which seems, at first view, to declare a directly contrary doctrine, viz., the universality of the work of redemption. This passage is found in De Cor. et Gr. 15. He there says, “Who has more loved the weak, than he who became weak for all and was crucified for all?” It would now be very remarkable for Augustine to have presented so contradictory a view, in this little book in which, as appears from so many passages already quoted, he so definitely and emphatically maintained the limitation. But the connection fully shows, that Augustine would by no means here maintain the universality of redemption. He is here calling to admonition and reproof, because we cannot know who is predestinated, and adduces as a reason for the call, the example of Christ. He had become man and endured the death of the cross for all, viz., those whom the Father would free from the misery of sin. To understand the passage as referring to the efficacy of the redeeming death as sufficient for all men, if they were to have been redeemed, would not accord with the spirit of Augustine. To him, as well as to his whole age, the speculation respecting the power of Christ’s atoning death, was foreign.

Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinianism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, 255.

2.6.2. The Primary Sources:

Latin texts:

Et quis magis dilexit infirmos, quam ille qui pro omnibus est factus infirmus, et pro omnibus ex ipsa infirmitate crucifixus?

From Augustinus.it.

Et quis magis dilexit infirmos, quam ille qui pro omnibus est factus infirmus, et pro omnibus ex ipsa infirmitate crucifixus?

From the Catholic Library.

English Translations:

49. Hence, insofar as it is up to us who are not able to distinguish the predestined from those not predestined and who, for this reason, ought to will that all be saved, we must use a severe rebuke for all as medicine in order that they do not perish or cause others to perish. But it is up to God to make the rebuke beneficial for those whom he has himself foreknown and predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom 8:29). For, if at times we do not give a rebuke out of fear that someone might perish because of the rebuke, why do we not also give a rebuke out of fear that someone might perish for lack of a rebuke?

We, after all, do not have a heart more filled with love than the blessed apostle who says, Rebuke the restless; comfort the fearful; support the weak; show patience toward all; see that no one returns evil for evil (1 Thes 5:14–15). Here we should understand that one returns evil for evil, especially if one does not rebuke a person who needs to be rebuked, but neglects this under a blameworthy pretext. The apostle also says, Rebuke sinners in front of all in order that the rest may have fear (1 Tm 5:20). This should be understood with regard to those sins which are not hidden so that the apostle is not thought to have spoken contrary to the mind of the Lord. For he said, If your brother sins against you, rebuke him privately (Mt 18:15). He himself, nonetheless, carries the severity of a rebuke to such a point that he says, If he does not listen even to the Church, let him be for you like a Gentile or a publican (Mt 18:17). And who loved the weak more than he who became weak for all and was crucified for all because of this weakness (See 2 Cor 13:4)? Since this is so, grace does not prevent a rebuke, nor does a rebuke exclude grace. And for this reason we ought to command righteousness in such a way that we ask from God in faith-filled prayer for the grace by which what we command may be done. And we ought to do both of these without neglecting to give a just rebuke. But let all these actions be done with love because love does not commit sin and covers a multitude of sins (1 Pt 4:8).

Saint Augustine, “Rebuke and Grace,” in Answer to the Pelagians, IV, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Roland J. Teske, vol. 26 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1999), 90–91; De correptione et gratia, 16.49; italics original.

CHAPTER 49.—CONCLUSION

Hence, as far as concerns us, who are not able to distinguish those who are predestinated from those who are not, we ought on this very account to will all men to be saved. Severe rebuke should be medicinally applied to all by us that they perish not themselves, or that they may not be the means of destroying others. It belongs to God, however, to make that rebuke useful to them whom He Himself has foreknown and predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son. For, if at any time we abstain from rebuking, for fear lest by rebuke a man should perish, why do we not also rebuke, for fear lest a man should rather perish by our withholding it? For we have no greater bowels of love than the blessed apostle who says, “Rebuke those that are unruly; comfort the feeble-minded; support the weak; be patient towards all men. See that none render to any man evil for evil” (1 Thess. 5:14). Where it is to be understood that evil is then rather rendered for evil when one who ought to be rebuked is not rebuked, but by a wicked dissimulation is neglected. He says, moreover, “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (1 Tim. 5:20); which must be received concerning those sins which are not concealed, lest he be thought to have spoken in opposition to the word of the Lord. For He says, “If thy brother shall sin against thee, rebuke him between thee and him” (Matt. 18:15). Notwithstanding, He Himself carries out the severity of rebuke to the extent of saying, “If he will not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican” (Matt. 18:17). And who has more loved the weak than He who became weak for us all, and of that very weakness was crucified for us all? And since these things are so, grace neither restrains rebuke, nor does rebuke restrain grace; and on this account righteousness is so to be prescribed that we may ask in faithful prayer, that, by God’s grace, what is prescribed may be done; and both of these things are in such wise to be done that righteous rebuke may not be neglected. But let all these things be done with love, since love both does not sin, and does cover the multitude of sins.

Augustine of Hippo, “A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace,” in Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 491.

2.6.3. An Analysis of Wiggers’s Claim:

Response coming soon.

2.7 An Analysis of Other Miscellaneous Claims:

Response coming soon.

3. Conclusion

Response coming soon.