To Florus 5.20
To ask closely and briefly: when the apostle Paul called it the natural use of the female, do you think he indicated both its possibility and its propriety, or only its possibility? In other words, by ‘natural’ did he mean an act that could and should occur, or one that could occur but should not? If you say, ‘One that could occur, although it should not,’ (Romans 1:27) as happens in adultery, then that other shameful act will not be contrary to nature either, since it is performed with natural organs. But if, recoiling in alarm, you reply with the truth—that the apostle called natural an act directed toward offspring, which could and should be performed honorably because naturally, with the bodies of one woman or several as permitted according to the circumstances of the time—you will undoubtedly confess your argument foolish. By ‘natural use,’ blessed Paul indicated not fornication, as you thought, but the honorable and legitimate union of bodies arranged for fertility.
We therefore rightly defend in general what the Manichaean accused in general. You say this pleasurable union of the sexes was instituted by the devil, is the cause of original sin, and necessitates all crimes. You thus accuse nature itself. What could we more consistently have done than, with the Teacher of the Gentiles as witness, defend on the general ground of nature, and assign to God’s work, what you called naturally evil? Thus, to refute you, we proved that what you call diabolical was naturally instituted. This is the proper and learned way to answer: defend in particular what is accused in particular, and vindicate in general what is accused in general. Mani understood this too. You equal him in crime but not in intelligence. That is why he assigns the whole substance of bodies to the devil; you assign not all of it but, as we said in the preceding book, the better part. Truth has therefore triumphed, surrounded by sacred defenses. Proving through the apostle that married people’s activity is natural, and therefore belongs to God as nature’s creator, it has shattered the inventions of you who swear it comes from transgression, not nature (compare Romans 1:27).
Latin
Utque presse interrogemus et breviter: apostolum Paulum, cum naturalem usum feminae nuncuparet, possibilitatem rei et honestatem, an solam possibilitatem indicasse arbitraris? Id est, hoc nomine naturali, intellegere nos voluit usum qui fieri poterat et debebat; an qui poterat, sed non debebat? Si dixeris, Qui poterat, licet non deberet, qualis in adulteris agitur: ergo et illud aliud flagitium non erit contra naturam, quia membris agitur naturalibus. Si autem expavescens retuleris, quod et veritas habet, Apostolum usum vocasse naturalem, qui fetibus destinatus honeste agi, quippe naturaliter, ut poterat et debebat, id est, in corporibus vel singularum vel plurium feminarum, temporum tamen ratione concessis; fateberis sine dubio inepte argumentatum fuisse; beatumque Paulum nomine naturalis usus, non fornicationem, sicut tu putaveras, sed et honestum et legitimum, qui fecunditati paratus est, corporum indicasse commixtum. Nos ergo merito generaliter defendimus, quod Manichaeus generaliter arguebat. Tu enim dicis commixtionem hanc sexuum cum voluptate, per diabolum institutam, causam originalis esse peccati, et necessitatem omnium criminum; ac per hoc ipsam criminaris naturam; nos quid consequentius facere potuimus, quam ut teste Magistro Gentium, naturae generalitate defenderemus et adscriberemus operi Dei, quod tu naturaliter malum vocabas? Factumque est ut quod tu dicis diabolicum, nos ad refellendum te probaremus naturaliter institutum. Ista est quippe legitima et erudita responsio, ut quod in specie accusatur, defendatur in specie; et quod in genere arguitur, vindicetur in genere. Quod etiam Manichaeus intellexit, quem tu aequas crimine, sed non aequas ingenio; ideo ille omnem substantiam corporum transcribit diabolo; tu autem non universam, sed, sicut in priore libro diximus, meliorem. Triumphavit ergo veritas sacris stipata praesidiis, quae per Apostolum probans naturale coniugum negotium, et per hoc ad Deum pertinere qui esset auctor naturae, vestra figmenta disrupit, qui in praevaricatorium, non naturale iuratis.
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.