To Florus 2.56
The apostle showed that he was not saying sin passed on by generation when, naming a human being, he added ‘one.’ One is the beginning of number. Explaining through whom he said sin had entered, he not only named him but also counted him: ‘Through one man sin entered this world’ (Romans 5:12). This one person is sufficient to supply an example for imitation but insufficient to accomplish generation. Sin passed on, but through one. Clearly, then, what is accused here is imitation, not generation, which cannot take place except through two. Either show that generation occurred through Adam alone, without a woman—that would hardly be inconsistent with the refinement of your mind—or else, since you see that generation cannot exist without two, agree at last that the work of two was not accused by the number one. ‘Through one man,’ he says, ‘sin entered the world.’ In saying ‘through one,’ he did not mean us to understand ‘through two.’ Why, I ask, was number brought into these teachings, so that the apostle took such care to name not merely a human being but one human being? We see here the careful language of a lofty purpose: through the Holy Spirit’s revelation it anticipated and disarmed the errors of our times. When the subject required him to recount sin’s beginnings, he said sin passed on through a number that could not fit procreation, so that no one would think he had said anything to slander marriage instituted by God or blessed fertility. Certainly the first two human beings had both sinned, and both can rightly be called models of sin for their descendants. Why, then, did the apostle not say that sin passed on through two, which would have agreed better with the historical account? Nothing could have been wiser than his action. He saw that if he named the two who had provided the beginning and example of transgression, and affirmed that sin passed through them, there would be an opening for error: someone might think that by naming two he had condemned their union and fertility. Very wisely, therefore, he preferred to name one. Insufficient to indicate generation, one was more than enough to signify an example: accusing him would condemn imitation, while counting him would not accuse fertility. To sum up our argument briefly: the fertility instituted in the first human beings cannot operate except through two; but the apostle declares that sin entered through one.
Latin
Ostendit Apostolus non a se dictum esse, peccatum generatione transisse, quando nominans hominem, adiecit: unum; unus enim numeri principium est; et ille explicans per quem diceret intrasse peccatum, non solum eum nominavit, verum etiam numeravit: Per unum, inquit, hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit [n70] . Hic autem unus praebendae imitationi sufficit, generationi implendae non sufficit. Peccatum autem transiit, sed per unum. Manifestum est, imitationem hic, non generationem coargui, quae nisi per duos fieri non potest. Aut igitur ostende, per Adam solum sine muliere generationem exstitisse; nec hoc enim ab elegantia tui abhorret ingenii; aut certe quoniam vides generationem nisi per duos constare non posse, assentire vel sero, accusatum non esse per unum numerum opus duorum. Per unum, inquit, hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, qui dixit: per unum, intellegi per duos noluit. Quid rogo, quaerebat inter haec dogmata numerus, ut Apostolus tanta cura, non solum hominem, sed unum hominem nominaret? Verum apparet cautus augusti sermo consilii, qui revelante Spiritu Sancto, temporum nostrorum praecavit et exarmavit errores; ne in infamationem quippe aliquid instituti a Deo coniugii vel benedictae fecunditatis dixisse putaretur; cum causa posceret ut peccati replicaret exordia, per eum dixit numerum transisse peccatum, qui fetibus non poterat convenire. Et certe primi homines ambo deliquerant, qui ambo merito vocantur forma posteris fuisse peccati; cur non igitur Apostolus per duos ait transisse peccatum; quod et ad fidem magis historiae congruebat? Verum nihil potuit ab eo prudentius fieri; vidit enim, si duos nominasset, qui praevaricationi initium exemplumque praestiterant, et per eos affirmasset transisse peccatum, errori occasionem patere, ut putaretur per duorum nomina coniunctionem fecunditatemque damnasse. Ideoque prudentissime unum maluit nominare, qui non sufficiens ad generationis indicium, ad signum abundaret exempli; atque imitationem accusatus gravaret, nec fecunditatem numeratus argueret. Et ut breviter quod egimus colligatur, fecunditas in primis hominibus instituta, nisi per duos agi non potest; peccatum autem Apostolus intrasse pronuntiat, sed per unum.
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.