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

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), 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):

2.1.1. Wigger’s Claim:

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

2.2. On Adulterous Marriages, c. 15:

2.2.1. Wigger’s Claim:

2.2.2. The Primary Sources:

2.2.3. An Analysis of Wigger’s Claim:

2.3. Hom. 48 on John’s Gospel:

2.3.1. Wigger’s Claim:

2.3.2. The Primary Sources:

2.3.3. An Analysis of Wigger’s Claim:

2.4. Ep. 169, c. 1:

2.4.1. Wigger’s Claim:

2.4.2. The Primary Sources:

2.4.3. An Analysis of Wigger’s Claim:

2.5. De Trin. IV, 13:

2.5.1. Wigger’s Claim:

2.5.2. The Primary Sources:

2.5.3. An Analysis of Wigger’s Claim:

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

2.6.1. Wigger’s Claim:

2.6.2. The Primary Sources:

2.6.3. An Analysis of Wigger’s Claim: