To Florus 1.98
You are joined to Jovinian on one point. In the second book of his work he says that a baptized person cannot sin, while before baptism a person can both sin and refrain from sin. With you, then, he thinks that from the time of baptism a necessity of good is imposed on human beings. This is just as false as your belief that before baptism human beings possess a necessity of doing evil. For when you say, “A human being cannot will anything good unless helped by the one who cannot will evil” (Augustine, Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 1.7), you mean that through sharing in grace and a good nature a person obtains the capacity to do good; you say, however, that this can happen from the time of baptism. Caught between impiety and fear, you have therefore fled to Jovinian's company, but have not yet left Mani's brothel. Yet Jovinian is as much more innocent than you as Mani is more profane than Jovinian.
To gather up our argument still more briefly: the Manichaean says, “In all human beings the nature of darkness, which inspires the evil will, sins and cannot do anything else.” You say, “In all human beings nature, infected by the darkness of the first sin and therefore the author of an evil will, sins and cannot will good.” Jovinian says, “The human will does indeed sin, but only up to baptism; afterward it can will nothing but good.” Catholics, that is, we, say that from beginning to end there is no compulsion from anything belonging to nature. In each person it is the will that sins, including before baptism; at the very time it sins it has the power to depart from evil and do good, so that freedom remains a reality.
None of you therefore possesses true doctrine. Nevertheless, since you set out from a single starting point of error, it would at least have been less dishonorable to accept the consequences. Since you say with Mani that sin occurs through an evil nature, that is, through defective freedom, you should also have said with him that it cannot be cleansed in any way. You do affirm this elsewhere; but you should have added its necessary consequence, that it therefore has no need of baptism's sacraments. Or if you assert with Jovinian that good desires are imprinted from the time faith is received, you should have said with him that nature was good even before baptism: although it had the capacity for evil, it did not have its necessity, and so by consecration it reached an unmistakable good. In this way, even if you opposed reason, at least you would not contradict the doctrines of those you follow.
Latin
Ioviniano autem in una parte coniungeris; nam dicit in secundo operis sui libro, baptizatum hominem non posse peccare; ante Baptisma autem et peccare et non peccare posse. Tecum ergo putat, a tempore Baptismatis imponi hominibus necessitatem boni; quod aeque falsum est, quam quod tu putas, ante Baptisma inesse hominibus necessitatem faciendi mali. Nam cum dicis tu: Non potest homo boni aliquid velle, nisi adiuvetur ab eo, qui malum non potest velle [n257] ; participatione utique gratiae et naturae bonae vis hominem possibilitatem consequi faciendi boni; quod dicis tamen a tempore Baptismatis posse contingere. Inter impietatem igitur medius et timorem, ad Ioviniani consortium confugisti, sed Manichaei lupanar necdum reliquisti. Verumtamen tanto te innocentior Iovinianus, quanto Ioviniano profanior Manichaeus. Ut enim adhuc brevius quod egimus colligatur, Manichaeus dicit: In omnibus hominibus inspiratrix malae voluntatis tenebrarum natura delinquit, et aliud facere non potest. Tu dicis: In cunctis hominibus primi peccati tenebris infecta, et per hoc malae voluntatis auctor natura delinquit, et bonum velle non potest. Iovinianus dicit: Voluntas quidem hominum, sed usque ad Baptisma delinquit; postea autem nisi bonum velle non potest. Catholici, id est nos, dicimus, quod ab initio usque ad finem sine aliquo naturalium coactu, voluntas et ante Baptisma in unoquoque delinquit, quae illo ipso tempore quo peccat, potestatem habet recedere a malo, et facere bonum, ut constet ratio libertatis. Vestrum itaque nulli quidem veritas dogmatum constat; tamen cum ab uno principio erroris fueritis egressi, vel minus inhonestum erat, si quae consequuntur admitteres, et quia cum Manichaeo dicis, natura mala, id est, manca libertate delinqui, diceres cum eodem, nullo illam pacto posse mundari; quod quidem alibi affirmas; sed quod necessario consequebatur, adiungeres ideo ei opus non esse baptismatis sacramentis. Aut si cum Ioviniano, a tempore susceptae fidei imprimi asseris bonas cupiditates; diceres cum eodem, bonam et ante Baptisma fuisse naturam, quae licet haberet possibilitatem mali, non tamen habuerit necessitatem, ac per hoc ad indissimulabile bonum consecrata pervenerit. Hoc enim modo, etsi rationi, nequaquam tamen eorum, quos sequeris, dogmatibus contravenires.
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.