To Florus 6.10
Now let us prove what we said: your doctrine differs in no respect from the Manichaeans’. There is no doubt at all that Adam’s own nature was made utterly evil if it was formed with this condition: a necessity of evil but no necessity of good. A crime, even if conceived by will, would become natural in a nature in which goodness would not become natural. Such a person is falsely said to have sinned voluntarily, since he labored under the prior disadvantage of a thoroughly evil condition. How bound to evil he was is obvious, if he was destined to be filled with inseparable guilt.
What worse substance could I find than one made so that it could fall into injustice but could not leave injustice? If it had suffered this compulsion on goodness’s side, even losing free will, it would still have brought no accusation against its author: no one would challenge him over an abundance of kindness. But when such domination is placed on evil’s side, it accuses no one more than humanity’s maker himself. Flattery from his own accusers—that is, from you—uselessly strokes a god proved the closest friend of wickedness by the ugliness of what he created.
Who can be persuaded that he did not destine the first human for crimes if he deprived him of the capacity for reform; if he gave him so twisted a mind that his own error could not displease him, leaving no return to honor and no improvement through experience; if, to prevent him ever feeling a desire to recover uprightness, he tore out the very possibility of correction? If his condition was such that a single fall cost him the power to reform for as long as he lived, he was plainly established for no other purpose than to fall. Indeed, it is more accurate to say he always lay fallen than that he fell, if he is not allowed to rise in respect of conduct.
What sort of freedom, then, was supposedly bestowed on him at first, if among two contrary qualities he received the worse as necessary and the better as changeable—indeed, if, occupied by the tyranny of guilt, he was stripped of the capacity to come to his senses? The first human’s condition was therefore utterly repulsive from the outset, if God established it so unhappily that his coming fall into crime bound him to perpetual necessity of sinning.
Latin
Nunc igitur approbetur quod diximus, nullo a Manichaeis vestrum dogma differre. Non est omnino dubium, factam pessimam ipsius Adae naturam, si hac est conditione formata, ut haberet mali necessitatem, quae non habebat boni; id est, ut crimen, etiamsi fuisset voluntate conceptum, tamen fieret in ea naturale, in qua bonitas non fieret naturalis; falsoque dicitur voluntate peccasse, qui nequissimae conditionis praeiudicio laboravit. Apparet enim, quam vinctus malo fuerit, qui erat crimine inseparabili farciendus. Quid enim peius ea quibo invenire substantia, quae facta est ut in iniquitatem posset incidere, et recedere ab iniquitate non posset? Hanc si in boni parte violentiam pertulisset, si liberum perdidisset arbitrium, tamen nihil accusasset auctorem; quia nemo ei de copiis benignitatis quaestionem moveret; cum vero in mali parte dominatio talis collocatur, neminem magis quam ipsum hominis arguit conditorem, et supervacua criminatorum suorum, id est, vestra, Deus talis adulatione palpatur, qui amicissimus malitiae, creationis suae foeditate convincitur. Cui enim persuaderi potest, primum hominem non destinasse criminibus, si illum emendationis facultate privavit; si tam pravo affecit animo, ut error suus ei displicere non posset, ut nullum haberet ad honestatem regressum, nec fieret post experimenta correctior, ac ne forte recuperandae probitatis umquam sentiret affectum, ipsam ei possibilitatem correctionis evellit? Prorsus si talis eius conditio fuit, ut quamdiu in hac vita erat, uno lapsu virtutem emendationis amitteret, non est ob aliud quam ut caderet institutus; immo nec corruisse, sed iacuisse semper verius dicitur, qui non sinitur, quantum ad mores spectat, exsurgere. Qualis ergo fuit illa libertas, quae ei collata prius creditur, si e duabus contrariis qualitatibus peiorem a necessario, meliorem a mutabili capessebat; immo a tyrannide criminis occupata, despoliabatur resipiscentiae facultate. Teterrimus ergo primi hominis status ab ipso exordio, si a Deo est tam infeliciter institutus, ut ruiturus in crimen perpetua peccandi necessitate ligaretur.
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.