In one person, the intention is rightly condemned and the origin praised, because there are two things to…

Click or tap any sentence to jump there. The side buttons skip a paragraph.

In one person, the intention is rightly condemned and the origin praised, because there are two things to which opposite judgments can be applied. In an infant, however, there is only one thing: nature alone, because there is no will. That one thing, then, must be assigned either to God or to a demon. If nature comes through God, there can be no original evil in it. If it comes from the devil, there will be no basis for claiming the human being as God’s work. Thus anyone who defends original evil is thoroughly Manichaean.

Latin source witness

Latin

"In uno - inquit - homine iure vituperatur intentio et origo laudatur, quia duosunt, quae contrariis adplicentur; in parvulo autem unum est, natura tantum, quia voluntas non est. Illud ergo unum - inquit - aut Deo adscribetur, aut daemoni. Si natura - inquit - per Deum est, non potest in ea esse originale malum; si a diabolo, nihil erit, per quod homo divino operi vindicetur. Perfecte itaque Manichaeus est, qui malum originale defendit". Audiat potius adversum ista quod verum est. In uno homine iure vituperatur intentio et natura laudatur, quia duo sunt, quae contrariis applicentur; sed etiam in parvulo non unum est tantum, id est natura, in qua creatus est homo a Deo bono; habet enim et vitium, quod per unum in omnes homines pertransiit, sicut sapit Apostolus, non sicut desipit Pelagius vel Caelestius vel eorum quicumque discipulus. Horum itaque duorum, quae in parvulo esse diximus, unum adscribitur Deo, alterum diabolo. Et quod utrumque propter unum horum, id est, propter vitium subicitur potestati diaboli, ideo non est incongruum, quia non fit ipsius diaboli potestate, sed Dei; subicitur autem vitium vitio, natura naturae; quia et in diabolo utrumque est, ut, cum dilecti et electi de potestate tenebrarum eruuntur, cui iure subduntur, appareat quid donetur iustificatis bonis a Deo bono bene operante et de malis.

Report a mistake in this passage

About this text

Intermediary extracts Augustine answered in Book Two — compiler framing labeled where needed. Latin context is on each section when recovered.

Julian of Eclanum (c. 386–c. 455) was bishop of Eclanum in southern Italy until 418, when he was deposed and exiled for refusing to condemn Pelagius. The most learned Pelagian controversialist, he pursued Augustine across a decade of pamphlet war.

None of Julian's works survives directly; what remains is preserved in the long quotations of Augustine, who answered him book by book. Reconstructed from those hostile pages, Julian emerges as a formidable defender of free will, marriage, and the goodness of creation.

English follows the extracts Augustine answered in On Marriage and Concupiscence II. Compiler framing is labeled where needed.

Printed text used

Translated from Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence II (Latin · Extracts of Julian)

We have not yet re-checked this work against its source. We made this study translation with AI help. No scholar has yet certified it as faithful and complete. Open Latin on any section, or the Latin source link, to see the source text. It is not a critical edition.

Report a mistake