To Florus 4.121
You say Jovinian hurled this insult at him (compare Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.5.15), though I think you are lying here. But let us grant that you may at least be truthful in accusing Jovinian, and that he called Ambrose a Manichaean. That was plainly insane. He could not rightly be called a Manichaean when he preached that nature was good, sins voluntary, marriage instituted by God, and infants made by God. So if Jovinian thought that preferring virginity amounted to accusing marriage, he had no idea what he was saying. Opposition is one thing, ranking another. Praise of a good is a step toward better things; defamation of nature is a road to Manichaeus.
Since Ambrose did not condemn marriage or call marital union either the devil’s work or a necessity for sinning, Jovinian acted wickedly in comparing him with Manichaeus and thinking there was no difference between an accuser and a praiser of marriage. For if Ambrose said that those generated from lawful bodily union instituted by God had lied of their own will after they began to use reason, following the example of upright people, he nevertheless did not intend that union to seem a necessity for lying, but an indication of universality. His statement, “Those born from parents lie,” is like saying, “Every human being who governs his own choice has lied at some time.” (John 7:8–10) For he knew that no one except Christ had existed without the union of parents. Thus this sensible man meant marital activity to indicate not injustice but generality. He declared that Christ had avoided every lie, identifying him by the miracle of the woman who bore him. This thunders powerfully against Jerome, whose follower you are, who specifically tried to fasten a lie on Christ (compare John 7:8–10). Therefore someone who repeatedly praised creatures against your error was not rightly called a Manichaean, if he was called one at all.
Latin
Quod dicis ei convicium a Ioviniano factum [n172] , in quo mentiri te tamen arbitror; sed annuamus vel Ioviniani te criminatorem verum esse posse, Ambrosiumque ab illo Manichaeum vocatum; at id constat insanum fuisse. Non enim sane poterat Manichaeus vocari, qui bonam naturam, qui peccata voluntaria, qui a Deo institutas nuptias, qui a Deo fieri parvulos praedicabat. Si ergo ille praelationem virginitatis nuptiarum accusationem putavit, nesciit omnino quid diceret. Aliud est enim contrarium, aliud ordinatum. Boni quippe laudatio ad meliora gradus est; infamatio autem naturae ad Manichaeum via est. Cum ergo non damnaret Ambrosius nuptias; nec commixtionem coniugum, vel opus diaboli, vel necessitatem diceret esse peccati; improbe fecit Iovinianus, ut eum conferret Manichaeo, putaretque nihil interesse inter nuptiarum accusatorem et laudatorem. Nam si de legitima et a Deo instituta corporum coniunctione generatos, posteaquam usum coeperunt habere rationis, sponte propria proborum imitatione mentitos dixit Ambrosius; non tamen hanc coniunctionem, mendacii voluit necessitatem videri, sed universitatis indicium. Tale est enim quod dixit: Nati ex parentibus mentiuntur, quale si dixisset: Omnis homo, dumtaxat sui rector arbitrii, aliquando mentitus est; sciebat quippe neminem sine commixtione parentum, praeter Christum, exstitisse. Igitur opere coniugali non iniquitatem, sed generalitatem vir prudens voluit indicari. Christum vero pronuntiavit omne cavisse mendacium, quem miraculo parientis ostendit; quod quidem vehementer contra Hieronymum, cuius tu assecla es, fremit; qui mendacium signatissime Christo est conatus affigere. Non ergo iure vocatus est Manichaeus (si tamen vocatus), qui contra errorem vestrum frequentavit laudationem creaturarum.