To Florus 3.161
By overthrowing his first definition, the wedge of reason brought his rooftops crashing to the ground. What hope have you, then, whose three claims stand on ground as slippery as his one? First you say sin is natural. Second, that God is good although he creates, shapes, and extends evils—that is, sins. Third, that an act of will has been mixed into reproductive seed. Each of these three heads of your definitions totters in itself. Totters, I say? Rather, like ropes made of sand, they fall apart before coming together.
One claim—natural sin—already lies destroyed in the direct defeat of Mani. The other two, peculiar to your opinion, fell in the same familiar destruction that struck him. If he could not establish that humans are born guilty through either an evil nature or the prince of darkness, how much more foolish are you, who added an accusation against God to demonstrate newborn children’s crimes! Just as nature cannot be sin—the thunderbolt that shattered Mani’s doctrine—so, conversely, what is sin cannot be natural. An act of will does not pass into the condition of a substance, as you suppose happened. Much more certainly, the good God never creates evil beings. Thus it has become clear that sin cannot exist in a newborn whom God creates.
Latin
Primae igitur definitionis eversu culmina eius in solum cuneus rationis effudit. Quid igitur de te speras, cuius tria sunt ita in lubrico sicut illius unum? Dicis enim primo naturale esse peccatum, secundo bonum Deum, qui mala id est peccata condat informet extendat, tertio vero rem voluntatis immixtam esse seminibus. Haec ergo tria definitionum tuarum capita singula apud semet vacillant; vacillant, inquio, immo ut funes e sabulo dilabuntur, ante quam coeant. Unum ergo id est naturale peccatum iam in Manichaeo ex directo quidem destructum iacet; alia autem duo quae opinionis vestrae sunt propria, Manichaeo totidem intereunte sed consueta ceciderunt. Nam si ille reos nasci homines nec per malam naturam nec per principem tenebrarum potuit vindicare, quanto magis vos stulti, qui ad ostendenda nascentium crimina iunxistis accusationem Dei? Ac per hoc, sicut non potest natura esse peccatum, quo fulmine Manichaei dogma dissiluit, ita recurrit, ut, quod peccatum est, naturale esse non possit; res enim voluntatis non transit in conditionem substantiae, quod tu factum arbitraris. Multo autem magis constat Deum bonum malos numquam creare, apparuit itaque peccatum in nascente, quem Deus creat, esse non posse.
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.