To Florus 1.71
But enough of this; I will now take up what follows. “In the body of this death, then, a body such as certainly did not exist in paradise before sin, another law in our members fights against the law of our mind. Even when we do not will it, do not consent to it, and do not offer our members for it to accomplish what it desires, it nevertheless dwells in them and troubles the mind that resists and fights back. Even if the conflict itself does not merit condemnation, because it does not carry out injustice, it is still a miserable struggle because it has no peace” (Romans 7:23) (Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.6; compare Romans 7:23).
The universal testimony of humanity teaches us that the pleasure of all the senses is natural. That this pleasure and desire existed in paradise before sin is shown by the fact that desire was the route to the offense. After the fruit's beauty excited the eyes, it also stirred up the hope of a pleasant taste (Genesis 3:6). This desire sins when it fails to keep its proper measure, but when it stays within the bounds of what is allowed, it is a natural and innocent feeling. It cannot, I say, have been a fruit of sin when it is shown to have been an occasion of sin, not through its own fault but through the will's. Read my second book on this too; you will find that what we say can convince even your mind.
As for the supposedly clever distinction you made, that the law of sin is indeed in our members but involves sin only when we consent to it, while when we do not consent it merely starts a battle and inflicts misery by disturbing peace, what sensible person would not see the contradiction? If the law of sin, that is, sin and the necessity of sin, is naturally implanted in our members, what good is it not to consent to it, when one must undergo punishment simply because it exists? Or if it is indeed the law of sin but does not sin when I do not consent to it, then the human will has an immeasurable power: if the absurdity may be uttered, it forces sin itself not to sin! But we return to the fact that your statement cannot hold together. If it does not sin, it is not the law of sin. If it is the law of sin, it sins. And if it sins simply by existing, how can one resist it so that sin does not occur, when it cannot be driven away so that sin's activity may cease?
Latin
Se de hoc satis sit, nunc quae sequuntur arripiam. In corpore igitur mortis huius, quale in paradiso ante peccatum, profecto non erat, alia lex in membris nostris repugnat legi mentis; quia et quando nolumus, et quando non consentimus, nec ei membra nostra ut impleat quod appetit exhibemus; habitat tamen in eis, et mentem resistentem repugnantemque sollicitat; ut ipse conflictus etiamsi non sit damnabilis, quia non perficit iniquitatem; sit tamen misera lis, quia non habet pacem [n165] . Naturalem esse omnium sensuum voluptatem, testimonio universitatis docemus. Hanc autem voluptatem et concupiscentiam ante peccatum in paradiso fuisse, res illa declarat, quia ad delictum via per concupiscentiam fuit, quae cum pomi decore oculos incitasset, spem etiam iucundi irritavit saporis. Non ergo potuit haec concupiscentia, quae cum modum non tenet, peccat; cum vero intra limitem concessorum tenetur, affectio naturalis et innocens est; non, inquam, potuit fructus esse peccati, quae docetur, non suo quidem vitio, sed voluntatis, occasio fuisse peccati. Lege et de hoc secundum librum meum: invenies hoc quod dicimus etiam tuo posse animo persuaderi. Quod vero quasi acutule posuisti, legem quidem peccati esse in membris nostris; sed tunc habere peccatum, quando ei consentimus; tunc vero solum proelium suscitare, quando non consentimus, et indicere miseriam pace turbata; quis non prudens pugnare perspiciat? Nam si lex peccati, id est, peccatum, et necessitas peccati membris est inserta naturaliter; quid prodest non ei praebere consensum, cum propter hoc ipsum quod est, necesse sit subire supplicium? Aut si est lex quidem peccati, sed quando ei non consentio non peccat; inaestimabilis potentia voluntatis humanae, quae (si dici permittat absurditas) cogit ipsum non peccare peccatum. Sed revertitur eo, ut quod dicis asystaton sit; nam si non peccat, nec lex peccati est; si lex peccati est, peccat; si vero peccat, solum quia est, quomodo ei obsisti potest ut non peccetur, quae repelli non potest ut a peccati opere desinatur?
About this text
Julian’s six preserved books to Florus, quoted section by section in Augustine’s unfinished reply. Augustine’s refutations are omitted. Latin of Julian’s words is on each section.
Julian’s own books do not survive as a separate manuscript. English follows his words as Augustine quotes them in the Unfinished Work Against Julian. Augustine’s replies are omitted. We do not restore a Julian text independent of Augustine.
Witnesses
- Copy-text Augustine, Unfinished Work Against Julian (Latin · Julian’s words as quoted, Books 1–6)
- Checked print Augustinus.it Latin of the Unfinished Work (Latin · Same work)
- Checked print Migne PL 45 (Latin · Hard cases)
This is an AI-assisted study translation. Source fidelity and completeness have not been independently certified. Open Latin on each section (or the Latin source witness link) for the source text. This is not a complete critical edition.