Julian excerpt in the intermediary document
Marriage 2.19.34
Let us learn from the apostle that children born from marriage are good by nature. Speaking of the ungodly, he says: “Abandoning the natural use of the woman, they burned with desire for one another, males doing what is shameful with males” (Romans 1:27). He therefore shows that the use of the woman is natural and, within its proper bounds, praiseworthy; shameful conduct, however, is committed by a person’s own will against the modesty of the created order. So the kind of desire and its proper measure are rightly praised in those who use it well, while its excess is punished in those who act shamefully.
Indeed, at the same time that God revived Abraham’s and Sarah’s bodily organs, withered by age, he punished those same organs at Sodom with a rain of fire (Genesis 18:10–14; 19:24). If, then, you think the vigor of the organs must be condemned because through it the Sodomites became covered in shameful deeds, you will also condemn bread and wine as created things, since divine Scripture indicates that these too were means of their sin. For the Lord says through the prophet Ezekiel: “These, indeed, were the wrongs of your sister Sodom: pride; she and her children overflowed with an abundance of bread and wine, and they did not help the poor and needy” (Ezekiel 16:49). Now choose whichever you prefer: either count the bodily union as God’s work, or likewise declare bread and wine evil as created things. If you do that, you will plainly be proved a Manichaean.
Anyone who keeps natural desire within bounds uses a good thing well; anyone who fails to keep it within bounds uses a good thing badly. Why, then, do you say: “The good of marriage cannot be condemned because of the original evil derived from it, just as the evil of adultery cannot be excused by the natural good born from it”? With these words you have granted what you denied and taken away what you granted. Nothing occupies you more than making yourself hard to understand.
Show bodily marriage without sexual union, or give this activity a single name and call marriage either good or evil. You certainly promised to define marriage as good. If marriage is good, if the human being who is the fruit of marriage is good, and if this fruit, God’s work, cannot be evil when born through good from good, where, then, is the original evil that so many prior findings have ruled out?
Latin
Adtende sequentia: "Quod autem - inquit - filii ex coniugio suscepti naturaliter boni sunt, Apostolo dicente discamus, qui ait de improbis: Relicto naturali usu feminae exarserunt in desideria sua invicem masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes 70. Ostendit ergo - inquit - usum feminae et naturalem esse et pro suo modo laudabilem; flagitium autem ex voluntate propria exerceri contra institutionis pudorem. Merito itaque - inquit - et in bene utentibus genus concupiscentiae modusque laudatur et in turpibus excessus eius punitur. Denique eodem tempore Deus Abrahae et Sarrae marcentia aevo membra vegetavit, quo in Sodomis ipsa igneo imbre punivit 71. Si igitur putas - inquit - accusandum membrorum vigorem, quoniam per ipsum Sodomitae flagitiis obliti sunt, accusabis etiam creaturam panis et vini, quoniam hinc quoque eos peccasse Scriptura divina significavit; dicit enim Dominus per Ezechielem prophetam: Verumtamen hae iniquitates Sodomae sororis tuae superbia; in saturitate panum et abundantia vini fluebant ipsa et filii eius, et manum pauperis et egentis non adiuvabant 72. Elige iam - inquit - utrum mavis: aut reputa divino operi commixtionem corporum aut creaturam panis et vini similiter malam esse defini. Quod si feceris, aperte Manichaeus esse convinceris. Concupiscentiae autem naturalis qui modum tenet, bono bene utitur; qui modum non tenet, bono male utitur. Quid dicis ergo - inquit - "ita nuptiarum bonum malo originali, quod inde trahitur, non potest accusari, sicut adulteriorum malum bono naturali, quod inde nascitur, non potest excusari"? His sermonibus - inquit - quod negaveras concessisti, quod concesseras sustulisti et nihil magis laboras, quam ut parum intellegaris. Ostende sine commixtione nuptias corporales; aut unum aliquod huic operi nomen imponito, et vel bonum vel malum coniugium nuncupato. Spopondisti utique bona te definire coniugia; si coniugium bonum, si homo fructus coniugii bonus, si hic fructus opus Dei malus esse non potest, qui per bonum ex bono nascitur, ubi igitur originale malum, quod tot praeiudiciis interemptum est?".
About this text
Intermediary extracts Augustine answered in Book Two — compiler framing labeled where needed. Latin context is on each section when recovered.
English follows the extracts Augustine answered in On Marriage and Concupiscence II. Compiler framing is labeled where needed.
Witnesses
- Copy-text Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence II (Latin · Extracts of Julian)
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.