To Florus 3.144
A little later you add: ‘Human nature, whether born from marriage or adultery, is God’s work. If it were evil, it should not be generated; if it had no evil, it should not be regenerated. To sum up both points in one word: if human nature were evil, it ought not to be saved; if no evil were within it, it would not need to be saved. Whoever says it is not good denies a good Creator to the nature that was created. Whoever denies it contains evil begrudges a merciful Savior to the nature that was corrupted. Therefore, in the birth of human beings, adultery must not be excused because of the good created from it by the good Creator; nor must marriage be condemned because of the evil that the merciful Savior must heal there’ (Augustine, Marriage and Sexual Desire 2.36).
I have quoted these many passages from your writings, in which you endured great labor of thought to seem to say something clever. In keeping with our practice of using no tricks, and in confidence in the truth, they ought to be distinguished through our restatement, because your words are scarcely intelligible. You said, then, that the Manichaeans condemn flesh’s nature and maintain that humanity was made by mixing two natures, one good and the other evil. You said that we, whom you call heretics, say human nature was made by the good God and is good on its maker’s testimony, but is so healthy in infants that they do not need Christ’s medicine. Your own claim is that Adam’s nature was once good, made by the good God, but was corrupted by sin and therefore needs Christ’s medicine.
In the first book of this work I set your opinions beside the Manichaeans’ and showed that your faith differed in no way from their irreverence, from which it clearly sprang. There it appeared that fear unites you with Jovinian, but love wholly unites you with Mani. We must discuss this in the present context too, but first I distinguish our views, then yours. You correctly said we maintain that the good God made human nature good. But only this much is ours. You either failed to notice or suppressed one part needed to complete our position and inserted another of your own that is not ours. For we do not merely say God made human nature good in Adam. We say that in all infants it is created good by the same God who made that first human being. That is why we affirm that he creates all people.
Latin
Et post modicum addis: Quoniam natura humana, quae nascitur vel de coniugio vel de adulterio, Dei opus est. Quae, si malum esset, non esset generanda, si malum non haberet, non esset regeneranda; atque ut ad unum verbum utrumque concludam, natura humana, si malum esset, salvanda non esset; si ei mali nihil inesset, salvanda non esset. Qui ergo dicit eam bonum non esse, bonum negat conditae Creatorem; qui vero negat ei malum inesse, misericordem vitiatae invidet Salvatorem. Quapropter in hominibus nascentibus nec excusanda sunt adulteria per bonum, quod inde a Conditore bono creatum est, nec accusanda coniugia per malum, quod ibi a misericordi Salvatore sanandum est [n192] . Haec tam multa, quae de tuis scriptis posui, quoniam grandem in his aerumnam cogitationis pertuleras, ut acute aliquid dicere videreris, et ex more nostro, quo versute nihil agimus, et ex veritatis securitate, quoniam tuis sermonibus vix intellegi queunt, nostra oportet repetitione distingui. Dixisti ergo Manichaeos carnis vituperare naturam atque asserere hominem factum ex commixtione duarum naturarum, unius bonae, alterius malae, nos autem, quos haereticos vocas, dicere a bono Deo conditam humanam naturam testimonio auctoris sui bonam in infantibus ita esse sanam, ut Christi non habeant necessariam medicinam, te autem dicere bonam quidem a Deo bono conditam aliquando Adae fuisse naturam, sed tamen peccato esse vitiatam et ideo Christi indigere medicina. In primo quidem libro praesentis operis, quam nullo distaret fides vestra a Manichaeorum profanitate, quippe ex qua eam natam esse manifestum est, iunctis amborum opinionibus indicavi, ubi apparuit Ioviniano te per timorem copulari, Manichaeo autem omnino per amorem. Hoc ergo etiam in praesenti nobis genere disserendum est, sed prius nostra, post vestra distinguo. Verum ergo dixisti nos dicere a bono Deo naturam humanam bonam conditam, sed huc usque nostrum est; unam enim partem, qua suppletur nostra sententia, aut non vidisti aut suppressisti, aliam autem de tuo, cum non sit nostra, posuisti; nos enim non solum dicimus naturam hominis bonam a Deo esse conditam in Adam, sed in omnibus parvulis bonam ab eo Deo condi, qui primi illius auctor fuit, propter quod illum omnium hominum asserimus conditorem.