Augustine: CONTRA SECUNDAM IULIANI RESPONSIONEM

1. Iulianus. Commode nobiscum ageretur, si aut apud eruditos iudices negotium veritatis tueri daretur facultas aut, quia hoc interim negatur, vel nullo imperitorum obverberaremur tumultu.

1. Julian. It would go conveniently with us, if either the faculty were granted to defend the business of truth before erudite judges, or, since this meanwhile is denied, at least we were not battered by any tumult of the inexpert.

Augustinus. Tales certe eruditos iudices quaeris, qui nisi fuerint exculti et ornati liberalibus discipli nis, neque ignoraverint, quid senserint etiam huius mundi philosophi, de tuis dictis iudicare non possint. Talis hic erat Ambrosius, quem iudicem si non refugis, dubitare non debes iustissime te esse damnatum.

Augustine. Surely you seek such erudite judges, who, unless they have been cultivated and adorned with the liberal disciplines, and have not been ignorant of what even the philosophers of this world have thought, could not judge concerning your sayings. Such a one here was Ambrose; if you do not shun him as judge, you ought not to doubt that you have been most justly condemned.

Ille enim dixit: Omnes homines sub peccato nascimur, quorum ipse ortus in vitio est ¹; ut his verbis suis, Christum Salvatorem, hoc est Iesum ostenderet parvulis necessarium; cui tu cum contradicis, fatendum tibi est, ita te habere velle iudices eruditos, ut nolis habere iudices catholicos christianos.

For he said: All men are under sin we are born, whose very birth is in vice ¹; in order by these his words to show Christ the Savior, that is, Jesus, to be necessary for little ones; and when you contradict this, you must confess that you wish to have learned judges in such a way that you do not wish to have Catholic Christian judges.

Damna perpetimur.

We suffer damages.

2. Iul. Et quia obtollendi in Ecclesiarum salutem tropaei damna perpetimur, quod bonae causae prudentia cognitorum miris erat delatura suffragiis; vel nihil aliud ad contumelias nostras vulgi valeret assensio. De his ergo, quas dixi, hominum partibus una nobis prodesset, altera nihil noceret, si aut illa potestatem obtineret, aut ista verecundiam.

2. Iul. And because, for the Churches’ salvation, in the raising of a trophy we are enduring losses, whereas the prudence of the well-informed judges of a good cause was going to bring wondrous suffrages; or the assent of the vulgar crowd would avail for nothing else than to our contumelies. Therefore, of these parties of men which I have mentioned, the one would profit us, the other would do us no harm, if either the former should obtain authority, or the latter modesty.

Verum quia rerum est magna confusio, et stolidorum maxima multitudo; eripiuntur Ecclesiae gubernacula rationis, ut erecto cornu velificet dogma populare.

But since there is a great confusio of affairs, and a very great multitudo of the dull-witted; the helms of the Church’s ratio are snatched away, so that, with horn upraised, the populare dogma may set sail.

Aug. Si hoc quod asserimus, dogma populare est, non est ergo dogma Manichaeorum hoc, quod in populis christianis mente perdita oppugnas. Manichaeorum quippe dementiam in paucis merito contemnis, sed habes et tuam, qua nomine Manichaeorum, eos populos, quos iudices refugis, reddere nobis conaris infestos; quasi possint populi tua loquacitate decepti Manichaeum dicere Ambrosium, Manichaeum dicere Cyprianum, qui propter salutem etiam parvulorum docuerunt esse originale peccatum.

Aug. If this which we assert is popular dogma, then this is not the dogma of the Manichaeans, which you, with a lost mind, assail among Christian peoples. Indeed you rightly despise the madness of the Manichaeans in a few, but you have your own, by which, under the name of the Manichaeans, you try to render hostile to us those peoples whom, as judges, you shun; as if the peoples, deceived by your loquacity, could call Ambrose a Manichaean, could call Cyprian a Manichaean, who, for the sake of the salvation even of little ones, taught that there is original sin.

Tales autem populos non fecit, sed invenit Ambrosius; non fecit, sed invenit etiam ipse Cyprianus; tales populos in Ecclesia invenit etiam pater tuus, quando baptizatus es, ut dicitur, parvulus ²; tales postremo populos catholicos invenistis et vos. Compescite vos; fatemur dogma nostrum esse populare; quia populus eius sumus, qui propterea est appellatus Iesus, quia salvum facit populum suum a peccatis eorum ³; a quo populo cum separare parvulos vultis, vos ipsos potius separatis.

Such peoples, however, Ambrose did not make, but found; he did not make, but even Cyprian himself found; such peoples in the Church your father also found, when you were baptized, as it is said, a little child ²; such, finally, Catholic peoples even you yourselves found. Restrain yourselves; we confess our dogma to be popular; because we are his people, who for this reason is called Jesus, because he saves his people from their sins ³; from which people, when you wish to separate little children, you rather separate yourselves.

Nolite de paucitate gloriari.

Do not glory in paucity.

3. Iul. Ita cum prudentibus parum licet, vilibus autem quod libet etiam licet seditionum decreto exclusa est de Ecclesiis censura virtutum; nobisque hoc apud homines vulgi officit, quod accessio erroris esse renuimus; vulgi, inquam, qui sententiae meritum de prosperitatibus ponderans, eam veriorem aestimat quam pluribus placere conspexerit.

3. Jul. Thus, while little is permitted to the prudent, yet to the base sort whatever they please is even permitted, and by a decree of seditions the censure of virtues has been excluded from the Churches; and this hinders us among the men of the crowd, that we refused to be an accession of error; of the crowd, I say, who, weighing the merit of an opinion by prosperities, judges that to be truer which he has observed to please the more.

Aug. Numquid Manichaeus pluribus placet? Nonne sicut parricidae, et pauci, et pessimi sunt?

Aug. Does the Manichaean please the many? Are they not, like parricides, both few and most wicked?

Nolite ergo de paucitate gloriari et, quod est vanius, dicere, quod pluribus placeat dogma nostrum, et obicere nobis detestabilium dogma paucorum.

Do not therefore glory in paucity, and—what is more vain—say that our dogma pleases more people, and object to us the dogma of a few detestable men.

Non dicuntur nostra subtiliter.

Our things are not said subtly.

4. Iul. Quodque ait, in Epicurum Tullius, manifesto argumento non dici illa subtiliter, quod cuiuscemodi homines passim sibi ea profitentur placere ⁴. Id isti, sicut omnia, more perverso, ad sapientiae putant testimonium pertinere.

4. Jul. And what Tullius says against Epicurus, with a manifest argument, that those things are not being said subtly, because men of every sort everywhere profess that they find them pleasing ⁴. These people, as in everything, in perverse fashion think that this pertains to a testimony of wisdom.

Aug. Sed Tullium vicit atque convicit in hac sententia ille qui dicit: Laudate Dominum, omnes gentes; laudate eum, omnes populi ⁵. Quos tu quaeris, non veraciter docere, sed subtiliter fallere aliquos eorum, et vestrae addere paucitati, subtilitatem paucorum philosophorum saecularium praedicando, et nos reprehendendo quod non dicantur nostra subtiliter, et ideo cuiuscemodi homines passim sibi ea profiteantur placere. Me tamen aliquoties dixisti, nihil magis agere, quam ut non intellegar; quomodo ergo id quod defendo, multitudini placet, nisi quia multitudo ista catholica est, cui merito vestra haeresis displicet?

Aug. But he has conquered and convicted Tully on this point, the one who says: Praise the Lord, all nations; praise him, all peoples ⁵. Those whom you seek, not to teach truthfully, but to deceive some of them subtly, and to add to your paucity by proclaiming the subtlety of a few secular philosophers, and by reproaching us because our things are not said subtly, and therefore that men of whatever sort everywhere profess to themselves that these things please them. Yet you have said of me more than once that I do nothing so much as to act so as not to be understood; how then does that which I defend please the multitude, unless because this multitude is Catholic, to whom your heresy deservedly is displeasing?

Animae castae.

Chaste souls.

5. Iul. Delectat enim prorsus subantes animas infamare, quidquid umquam et usquam sanctorum fuit, ne clarorum operum castigentur exemplis.

5. Jul. For it positively delights panting souls to defame whatever of the saints has ever and anywhere existed, lest they be chastised by the examples of illustrious works.

Aug. Subantes ergo animae post te potius currunt, qui libidinem laudas; nam castae animae vituperando arguunt, quod expugnando laudantur.

Aug. Therefore the panting souls run after you rather, you who praise libido; for chaste souls, by reproving, arraign that which, by conquering, they are praised.

Quid delectat animas libidinosas.

What delights lustful souls.

6. Iul. Delectat prorsus et penitus afficit, causari imbecillitatem naturae, dicere carnem congenitis obnoxiam esse peccatis, nec in voluntate hominis emendationis effectum locare, sed studiorum crimina officia vocare membrorum; catholicam hanc fidem esse, ut liberum confiteatur arbitrium, sed per quod homo malum facere cogatur, bonum velle non possit.

6. Iul. It altogether delights and deeply affects, to plead the imbecility of nature, to say that the flesh is liable to congenital sins, and not to place the effect of emendation in the will of man, but to call the crimes of desires the offices of the members; that this is the catholic faith, that it confesses free will, but that, through which a man is compelled to do evil, he cannot will good.

Aug. Quid nobis irasceris, qui emendationis effectum tanto certius appetimus, quanto fidelius eum a Domino petimus? Frustra inflatam linguam voce superbiente dilatas; nolumus prorsus, nolumus eis annumerari qui confidunt in virtute sua ⁶. Anima nostra Deo sitit ⁷, cui dicit: Diligam te, Domine, virtus mea ⁸. Potest enim homo bonum velle; sed praeparatur voluntas a Domino ⁹; in malum vero libens vergit vitiata, propter quod est sananda natura.

Aug. Why are you angry with us, we who pursue the effect of emendation all the more surely, the more faithfully we ask it from the Lord? In vain you stretch out an inflated tongue with a proud voice; we do not at all wish, we do not wish to be numbered among those who trust in their own virtue ⁶. Our soul thirsts for God ⁷, to whom it says: I will love you, O Lord, my strength ⁸. For a man can will the good; but the will is prepared by the Lord ⁹; toward evil, however, when vitiated it willingly inclines, on account of which the nature is to be healed.

Sine gratia Dei non potest homo liberari a malo.

Without the grace of God man cannot be freed from evil.

7. Iul. Vanos vero hominum haereticosque sermones, qui asserant Deum iustum ad bonum opus liberum hominem condidisse, et esse in uniuscuiusque potestate recedere a malo, ac studiis splendere virtutis, ut his qui flagitia in necessitatem carnis refundunt, sollicitudinum et timorum aculeus infigatur.

7. Iul. But vain indeed are the human and heretical discourses which assert that the just God has created a free man for good work, and that it is in the power of each and every one to recede from evil and to shine with pursuits of virtue, so that into those who shift their flagitious deeds onto the necessity of the flesh, the goad of solicitudes and of fears may be driven.

Aug. Non dicimus hominum vanos haereticosque sermones, qui asserunt Deum iustum ad bonum opus liberum hominem condidisse. Talem quippe Adam condidit, in quo fuimus omnes; sed peccando perdidit se, et omnes in se. Unde nunc non est in potestate filiorum hominis a malo liberari, nisi gratia Dei det potestatem filios Dei fieri ¹⁰. Propter hoc, non his qui flagitia, sicut dicis, in necessitatem carnis refundunt; sed his qui ut in tentationes flagitiorum non inferantur, preces Deo fundunt, figitur aculeus sollicitudinis et timoris, ne consentiant superbissimis et Deo ingratissimis disputationibus vestris.

Aug. We do not call vain and heretical the discourses of men who assert that a just God created man free for a good work. He did indeed create Adam such, in whom we all were; but by sinning he lost himself, and all in himself. Whence now it is not in the power of the sons of man to be freed from evil, unless the grace of God gives the power to become sons of God ¹⁰. On this account, not to those who, as you say, throw their flagitious deeds back upon the necessity of the flesh, but to those who pour forth prayers to God that they may not be brought into temptations of flagitious deeds, there is fixed the goad of solicitude and fear, lest they consent to your most proud and most ungrateful-to-God disputations.

Originalis passio.

Original passion.

8. Iul. Postremo, in Ecclesiis quae magnum honorem et magnum populum possideant, praedicari tantam vim esse peccati, ut ante membrorum formam, ante initium adventumque animae, iactis seminibus supervolans, in secretum matris invadat, et reos faciat nascituros, ortuque ipso antiquior exspectet culpa substantiam; quae lex peccati habitans deinceps in membris, captivum hominem cogat servire criminibus, non castigatione in turpitudinibus, sed misericordia digniorem; quandoquidem quod nos vitia pravae voluntatis esse dicimus, id in Ecclesia a viris et feminis magnisque pontificibus originalis passio nuncupatur.

8. Jul. Finally, in the Churches which possess great honor and a great people, it is preached that there is such a force of sin, that before the formation of the members, before the beginning and advent of the soul, after the seeds have been cast, flying over it invades the mother’s secret place, and makes those about to be born guilty, and, older than the very birth, the fault awaits the substance; this law of sin, dwelling thereafter in the members, compels the captive man to serve crimes, more deserving not of chastisement in turpitudes, but of mercy; since what we say are the vices of a perverse will, this in the Church by men and women and by great pontiffs is named “original passion.”

Aug. Respondet tibi Ambrosius pontifex magnus, haeresiarchae vestri excellenter ore laudatus, et dicit: Male Eva parturivit, ut partus relinqueret mulieribus haereditatem, atque unusquisque concupiscentiae voluptate concretus, et genitalibus visceribus infusus, et coagulatus in sanguine, in pannis involutus, prius subiret delictorum contagium, quam vitalis spiritus munus hauriret ¹¹. Sananda est itaque, Iuliane, humana, Deo miserante, natura; non, te inaniter declamante, tamquam sana laudanda.

Aug. Ambrose, the great pontiff, highly praised by the mouth of your heresiarch, responds to you and says: Eve travailed ill, so that childbirth would leave an inheritance to women, and that each person, concreted by the pleasure of concupiscence, and infused into the genital viscera, and coagulated in blood, wrapped in swaddling-clothes, would undergo the contagion of offenses sooner than he would draw the gift of the vital spirit ¹¹. Therefore, Julian, human nature, God having mercy, is to be healed; not, with you declaiming vainly, to be lauded as though sound.

Non solum patienter, sed etiam gratulanter.

Not only patiently, but also with rejoicing.

9. Iul. Haec ergo Manichaeorum scorta dogmatum impurissimorum lenocinantur auribus.

9. Iul. Therefore these harlots of the Manichaeans’ most impure dogmas pander to the ears.

Aug. Ambrosium, si audes, criminare Manichaeum. Attende in quem dicas, quod vis videri tamquam in me dicere; et si ullus tibi vel Dei timor, vel humanus pudor est, conticesce.

Aug. Accuse Ambrose as a Manichaean, if you dare. Attend to whom you are speaking, that which you wish to seem to be saying as if against me; and if there is in you any fear of God or human shame, be silent.

Me oportet cum talibus tua convicia, non solum patienter, verum etiam gratulanter audire; sed tu debes in talibus lacerandis et humana erubescere et divina iudicia formidare.

It behooves me, together with such men, to hear your invectives not only patiently but even with rejoicing; but you ought, in lacerating such men, both to blush before human beings and to dread divine judgments.

Urtica pungente prurit.

It itches when the nettle stings.

10. Iul. Haec in utroque sexu positos inimicos nostros urtica commovit, quae olim quidem vitio malae consuetudinis mordax, tamen exhortationum salutarium velut quibusdam curabatur unguentis.

10. Jul. This nettle has stirred our enemies placed in both sexes, which once indeed, by the vice of bad consuetude, was mordacious, yet was being cured, as it were, by certain unguents of salutary exhortations.

Aug. Urtica pungente prurit, sed qui libidinem laudat. Si autem propter malam consuetudinem, sicut sapis, clamat homo: Non quod volo, facio bonum; sed quod nolo malum, hoc ago ¹²; certe vel in isto fatemini humanam voluntatem vires bonorum operum perdidisse, cui nisi divinae gratiae subveniat adiutorium, quid ei prodest copiosum et ornatum cuiuslibet exhortantis eloquium?

Aug. The nettle, with its pricking, makes one itch; but so does the man who praises libido. But if, on account of bad custom, as you suppose, a man cries out: Not what I will do I do—the good; but what I do not will—the evil—this I do ¹²; surely at least in this you admit that the human will has lost the strength for good works; and unless the succor of divine grace come to its aid, what does the copious and ornate eloquence of any exhorter profit it?

Deus frequenter desperatas temporum levavit ruinas.

God has frequently alleviated the desperate ruins of the times.

11. Iul. At nunc, postquam pro medicamine coepit offerri, et delectationi accessit auctoritas, ut consensu pene mundi, membripotens regina mentium, expugnatrix honestatis, et invicta animorum omnium captivatrix turpitudo baccharetur; nobis quanto honestior, tanto durior tuendae veritatis causa facta est. Quia contra praecipites populos et suis remediis infensos, non multum valet raritas oratione medicantium.

11. Jul. But now, after it began to be offered as a medicament, and authority has been added to delectation, so that, by the almost universal consensus of the world, turpitude might revel—the limb-mighty queen of minds, the assailant of honesty, and the unconquered captivator of all souls—the cause of defending the truth has become for us the more honorable, the more arduous. For against precipitate peoples and men hostile to their own remedies, the rarity of those healing by oration does not avail much.

Quid igitur? Horumne intuitu, receptui canere debebimus, et contumelias nostras ultum ire silentio, ac de conscientiae portu aliorum ridere naufragia? Verum contradicit huic odio, primo benignitas quam generi debemus humano; deinceps spes et fides, quam habemus in Deum, qui extra id quod frequenter desperatas temporum levavit ruinas; constantiam tamen quam usque ad mortis horam exerceri voluit, etiamsi nullus in praesentiarum sequeretur effectus, aeterna remuneratione donavit.

What then? Ought we, in view of these things, to sound the retreat, and to go to avenge our contumelies by silence, and from the harbor of conscience to laugh at the shipwrecks of others? But opposing this hatred is, first, the benignity which we owe to the human race; next, the hope and the faith which we have in God, who, over and above the fact that he has frequently lifted the desperate ruins of the times, has, moreover, endowed with eternal remuneration the constancy which he willed to be exercised even to the hour of death, even if no effect in the present should follow.

Aug. Quomodo levat Deus ruinas malarum voluntatum (per quas utique tempora vituperantur, quando recte vituperantur), nisi bonas voluntates operando in cordibus hominum? Aut si possunt, ipsae se levent, sicut dementissime sentiendo, magna ruina facti estis.

Aug. How does God lift the ruins of evil wills (through which indeed the times are vituperated, when they are rightly vituperated), unless by operating good wills in the hearts of men? Or if they can, let them lift themselves, just as, by thinking most dementedly, you have been made a great ruin.

Unde pro vobis ipsum rogamus, atque utinam sic etiam de te, quemadmodum de fratre Turbantio, nos exaudire dignetur ¹³.

Wherefore we pray to Him on your behalf, and would that He likewise deign to hear us concerning you, just as concerning brother Turbantius. ¹³

Fidei consolatione gaudentes.

Rejoicing in the consolation of faith.

12. Iul. Hac igitur fidei consolatione gaudentes immineamus coepto operi, et disputationum promissa reddamus; non ambigentes hoc ipsum maximam esse praemii partem, quia in eius dogmatis arce constitimus, quod cum tam multorum livor, sed plurium error oppugnet; tamen ita supra casus evasit ancipites, ut invincibilis cluat possessione victoriae.

12. Iul. Therefore, rejoicing in this consolation of faith, let us press upon the undertaken work, and render the promises of our disputations; not doubting that this very thing is the greatest part of the reward, because we are established on the citadel of its dogma, which, though the rancor of so many—and the error of yet more—assaults; nevertheless has so passed above two-edged hazards that it is reputed invincible by the possession of victory.

Aug. Ipse tibi das palmam contra tot antistites Dei, qui ante nos, ea quae oppugnas, in Ecclesia Christi didicerunt, atque docuerunt, bibentes et ministrantes de fontibus Israel ¹⁴. Hoc ergo quod facis, non est victoriae possessione cluere, sed in odiosae arrogantiae cloacam deformiter fluere. Cluere quippe, pollere est; quomodo autem potes victoriae possessione pollere, qui conaris catholica dogmata, antiqua et invicta polluere?

Aug. You yourself award yourself the palm against so many bishops of God, who before us learned in the Church of Christ, and taught, the things you attack, drinking and ministering from the fountains of Israel ¹⁴. Therefore what you do is not to be famed by the possession of victory, but to flow hideously into the sewer of hateful arrogance. For to “cluere” is to “pollere”; but how can you be potent with the possession of victory, you who try to pollute the catholic dogmas, ancient and unconquered?

Falsa loqueris.

You speak falsehoods.

13. Iul. Nam si, ut et superior sermo patefecit, et secuturus docebit, quidquid ratio est, quidquid eruditio, quidquid iustitia, quidquid pietas, quidquid testimoniorum sacrorum, huic quod tuemur dogmati suffragatur; nihil aliud inimici nostri toto adipiscuntur conatu, quam ut doctis quibusque impudentissimi, sanctis contumacissimi, in Deum profanissimi comprobentur.

13. Jul. For if, as both the previous discourse has laid open, and the following will teach, whatever is reason, whatever erudition, whatever justice, whatever piety, whatever of sacred testimonies, gives suffrage to this dogma which we uphold; our enemies obtain nothing else by their entire endeavor than that they be proved, to each learned person, most impudent; to the holy, most contumacious; and toward God, most profane.

Aug. Sed falsa loqueris: nam neque ratio, neque sana eruditio, neque iustitia, neque pietas, neque sacra Testimonia vestro dogmati suffragantur; immo, haec omnia, sicut hi qui recte intellegunt iudicant, vestrum dogma subvertunt. Ratio quippe cernit vix ad aliquid veri se posse pervenire, tarditate impediente naturae; eruditio poenam laboris habet in eadem tarditate naturae; iustitia clamat non ad se pertinere, ut Adam filii gravi iugo premantur a die exitus de ventre matris suae ¹⁵, sine ullo merito peccatorum; pietas adversus hoc malum, divinum poscit auxilium; sacra Testimonia, ut hoc fiat, humanum admonent animum.

Aug. But you speak falsely: for neither reason, nor sound erudition, nor justice, nor piety, nor the sacred Testimonies give their suffrage to your dogma; rather, all these things, as those who understand rightly judge, subvert your dogma. For reason discerns that it can scarcely attain to anything of truth, the slowness of nature hindering; erudition bears the penalty of toil in that same slowness of nature; justice cries out that it does not pertain to itself that the sons of Adam should be pressed by a heavy yoke from the day of their exit from their mother’s womb ¹⁵, without any desert of sins; piety, against this evil, demands divine aid; the sacred Testimonies admonish the human mind that this be done.

Christianae potentiae laudamus officium.

We laud the office of Christian power.

14. Iul. Et quidem quam nihil habeant Traduciani, quod vi qua proteruntur, rationis opponant, ut alia eorum scripta, ita hi, contra quos agimus, testantur libelli, qui directi ad militarem virum (quod etiam ipse profiteri potest), aliis magis negotiis quam litteris occupatum, impotentiae contra nos precantur auxilium, ac pro se sursum deorsum plebicularum, aut ruralium, aut theatralium scita commendant, quae quo sint promulgata consilio, historia nulla commemorat.

14. Jul. And indeed how the Traducians have nothing of reason to oppose to the force by which they are being borne headlong, as their other writings do, so these pamphlets, against whom we are contending, bear witness—pamphlets directed to a military man (which he himself can also avow), occupied more with other business than with letters; they beg the aid of brute force against us, and on their own behalf they hawk up and down plebiscites, or rural, or theatrical enactments, whose purpose in being promulgated no history records.

Aug. Non impotentiae contra vos precamur auxilium; sed pro vobis potius, ut ab ausu sacrilego cohibeamini, christianae potentiae laudamus officium. Vide sane quemadmodum rurales et theatrales dicas, Cyprianum, et Ambrosium, et tot eruditos in regno Dei scribas, socios eorum.

Aug. We do not beg the help of impotence against you; but rather on your behalf, that you may be restrained from sacrilegious daring, we praise the office of Christian potency. See plainly how you call “rurals” and “theatricals” the associates of Cyprian and Ambrose, and of so many learned scribes in the kingdom of God.

Sperat in seipso alterum peccare.

He hopes, in himself, that the other will sin.

15. Iul. Illud tamen nequaquam inficiari possumus, quod plurimum, ut dixi, turbis placeat, luteis tamen delicta voluntatis imputare naturae, et infamatione seminum morum petulantiam vindicare; ut numquam quis emendare conetur, quod sperat in se ipso alterum perpetrare.

15. Jul. Yet this we can by no means deny: that it very greatly, as I said, pleases the crowds—muddy ones, at that—to impute the delicts of the will to nature, and to vindicate the petulance of morals by a defamation of the seeds; so that no one ever tries to amend what he hopes another will perpetrate in his own self.

Aug. Quis tibi dixit, quod alter perpetret peccatum cuiusquam? Quandoquidem etiam ille qui dicit: Iam non ego operor illud, sed id quod in me habitat peccatum; continuo subiciens: Scio enim quia non habitat in me, hoc est in carne mea, bonum ¹⁶; ostendit suum esse, quidquid illud est; quia et ipsa caro ad eum pertinet, qui ex carne constat et spiritu.

Aug. Who told you that someone else perpetrates anyone’s sin? Since even he who says: I now no longer do that, but the sin that dwells in me; immediately subjoining: For I know that no good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh ¹⁶; shows that whatever that is, it is his own; because the flesh itself also pertains to him, who consists of flesh and spirit.

Et tamen non vis cum Ambrosio sapere, quod hoc malum quo caro concupiscit adversus spiritum, praevaricatione primi hominis in naturam verterit ¹⁷. Sed et tu cum dicere soleas in his apostolicis verbis violentiam malae consuetudinis exprimi, quid est, quod modo dicere voluisti: Ut numquam quis emendare conetur, quod scit in se alterum perpetrare? Cum velis utique se ipsum emendare eum qui dicit: Non ego operor illud; et hoc velis fieri viribus propriae voluntatis; cum videas quam sit voluntas eius infirma qui dicit: Non quod volo, ago ¹⁸. Istum saltem, quaeso, permittite divinum poscere auxilium, in quo defecisse cernitis suae voluntatis arbitrium.

And yet you do not wish to be wise with Ambrose, that this evil whereby the flesh concupisces against the spirit has, by the prevarication of the first man, been turned into nature ¹⁷. But you also, though you are wont to say that in these apostolic words the violence of evil custom is expressed, what is it that you have just now wished to say: That one should never try to amend what he knows another perpetrates in him? Since of course you want the man who says, I do not work that, to amend himself; and you want this to be done by the powers of his own will; though you see how weak his will is who says, Not what I will, I do ¹⁸. This man at least, I beg, allow to ask for divine help, in whom you see the free choice of his own will to have failed.

Non potest a Deo peccatum alienum parvulis imputari.

Alien sin cannot be imputed to little ones by God.

16. Iul. Verum imbecillum caecae opinionis patrocinium multiplicat peccata, non minuit. Hic igitur miserorum pruritus et sponte aegrescentium, nullum contra ipsam rationem valebit pondus afferre; sed quia nonnullis Scripturarum locis, et maxime apostoli Pauli sermonibus confirmari asserunt naturale peccatum, quorum expositionem in secundum volumen distuli, eiusque reddendae tempus est; breviter prius (ut fiat lector instructior), et quae sint acta, et quae sint agenda distinguam.

16. Jul. But in truth the feeble advocacy of a blind opinion multiplies sins, it does not diminish them. Therefore this itch of the wretched, and of those who grow ill of their own accord, will be able to bring no weight against Reason itself; but since they assert that natural sin is confirmed by several places of the Scriptures, and most of all by the discourses of the Apostle Paul, the exposition of which I deferred to the second volume, and the time for rendering it has come; briefly first (that the reader may become more instructed), I will distinguish both what things have been done and what things must be done.

Ostensum est ergo, nihil posse per sanctas Scripturas probari, quod iustitia non possit tueri; quia si in lege Dei est perfecta forma iustitiae, nihil per eam adversaria eius, id est, iniustitia sinitur virtutis acquirere; ac per hoc, quod ratio arguit, non potest auctoritas vindicare. Deinde probatum est, Deum nobis notum esse virtutibus; huius ergo iustitiam ut omnipotentiam confitendam; cuius si admittatur excidium, maiestas incipiet tota nutare; quia ita Deus iustus est, ut si probaretur iustus non esse, convinceretur Deus non esse; conclusumque est, nos Deum aequissimum in Trinitate venerari; et irrefutabiliter apparuit, non posse ab eo peccatum alienum parvulis imputari.

It has been shown, therefore, that nothing can be proved through the holy Scriptures which justice cannot defend; because if in the law of God there is the perfect form of justice, through it nothing of its adversary, that is, injustice, is permitted to acquire the credit of virtue; and thus, what reason indicts, authority cannot vindicate. Then it has been proved that God is known to us by his virtues; therefore his justice, like his omnipotence, is to be confessed; if the excision of this be admitted, the whole majesty will begin to totter; for God is so just that, if it were proved that he is not just, God would be convicted of not being; and it has been concluded that we venerate a most equitable God in the Trinity; and it has appeared irrefutably that alien sin cannot be imputed by him to little ones.

Aug. Quare non fateris ab omnipotente iusto grave iugum super filios Adam a die exitus de ventre matris eorum, sine ullo peccati merito non potuisse constitui?

Aug. Why do you not confess that by the just Omnipotent a heavy yoke upon the sons of Adam, from the day of their exit from their mother’s womb, without any merit of sin, could not have been established?

Definitio peccati.

Definition of sin.

17. Iul. Sed ut de definitione iustitiae, ita etiam de peccati conditione dissertum est, quod peccatum apparuit nihil esse aliud quam malam voluntatem, cui esset liberum ab eo, quod prave appetiverat, abstinere.

17. Iul. But just as about the definition of justice, so also about the condition of sin it has been discussed, that sin appeared to be nothing other than an evil will, which was free to abstain from what it had perversely desired.

Aug. Hoc est omnino peccatum primi hominis, unde in homines mali origo descendit. Ei quippe valde liberum fuit, ab eo quod prave appetiverat abstinere; quia nondum erat vitium, quo caro concupisceret adversus spiritum; nondum dicebat: Non quod volo, ago ¹⁹; nondum positus in carne peccati ullum necessarium habebat auxilium de similitudine carnis peccati.

Aug. This is altogether the sin of the first man, whence the origin of evil in men descended. For indeed it was very free to him to abstain from that which he had perversely appetited; because there was not yet a vice whereby the flesh would concupisce against the spirit; he was not yet saying: Non quod volo, ago ¹⁹; nor, as yet placed in the flesh of sin, did he have any necessary aid from the likeness of the flesh of sin.

Sine voluntate non est peccatum.

Without will there is no sin.

18. Iul. Ac per hoc illustrissimo testimonio perdoctum est, in nascentibus non esse peccatum, quod in his usus voluntatis non poterat inveniri.

18. Jul. And through this most illustrious testimony it has been thoroughly taught that in those being born there is no sin, since in them the use of will could not be found.

Aug. Et unde grave iugum, nisi quia ita non habent voluntatis usum, ut obnoxiae tamen habeant originis vinculum?

Aug. And whence the heavy yoke, if not because they do not have the use of will, yet nevertheless have the bond of origin to which they are liable?

Evangelicae reddidimus dignitati.

We have restored to the evangelical dignity.

19. Iul. Liberum autem arbitrium negari ab his, qui dicunt peccata esse naturalia, lucida est disputatione monstratum. Quod quidem Poenus, non suo sermone, ne minus ponderis haberet, sed Evangelii testimonio, quasi auctoratius, denegavit, quod nos exponendo, evangelicae reddidimus dignitati.

19. Jul. But that free will is denied by those who say that sins are natural has been shown by a lucid disputation. Which indeed the Punic man, not by his own speech—lest it should have less weight—but by the testimony of the Gospel, as if more authoritatively, denied; which we, by expounding, have restored to evangelical dignity.

Apostoli quoque Pauli testimonium laqueis calumniatoris exemimus, et bonorum vasorum figulum Deum no strum esse omnium conditorem, Propheta teste monstravimus.

We have also rescued the testimony of the Apostle Paul from the snares of the calumniator, and have shown, the Prophet as witness, that the potter of good vessels—our God—is the creator of all.

Aug. Illic tibi responsum est, et quantum aberraveris a veritate monstratum.

Aug. There you were answered, and it was demonstrated how far you have strayed from the truth.

Quid superest?

What remains?

20. Iul. His igitur maxime actis in primo libro, quorum unum aliquod abunde sufficit ad victoriam veritatis; ex abundanti quidem, superest tamen, ut Magistri Gentium, qua per unum hominem peccatum dixit intrasse in mundum ²⁰, sententiam disputemus; et definitionibus, quas praemisimus, cum necesse fuerit, adiuvandi; et probaturi nihil rationem fuisse mentitam; sed iniustitiae esse crimen, aliorum studia aliorum ortibus imputare; hocque ipsum quod iniquum est, quamvis nemo hinc dubitare debuerit, tamen Deo displicere, et ab eodem prohiberi, testimoniis legis, vel in hoc libro, vel in sequenti docebimus. Ex quibus necessario conficitur, et nos rectissime defendere, neminem cum peccato nasci, et Deum reos non posse iudicare nascentes; ac per hoc, tam integrum esse liberum arbitrium, quam ante voluntatis propriae usum innoxiam in unoquoque naturam.

20. Iul. Therefore, these points having been especially transacted in the first book, any one of which abundantly suffices for the victory of truth; out of superabundance indeed, it nevertheless remains that we dispute the sentence of the Teacher of the Nations, by which he said that through one man sin entered into the world ²⁰; and that, when it shall be necessary, we be aided by the definitions which we have premised; and that we shall be about to prove that reason told no lie, but that it is the crime of injustice to impute the pursuits of some to the births of others; and that this very thing which is iniquitous—though no one ought to have doubted this—nevertheless displeases God and is forbidden by the same, as by testimonies of the Law we shall teach either in this book or in the subsequent one. From which it is necessarily concluded both that we most rightly defend that no one is born with sin, and that God is not able to judge as guilty those being born; and through this, that free will is as intact as the nature in each person is innocuous before the use of one’s own will.

Aug. Dic, videamus, quod de Apostoli testimonio dicturus es, tam inaniter, quam superiora dixisti.

Aug. Say, let us see what you are going to say about the testimony of the Apostle, just as inanely as you said the foregoing.

Pietati et rationi rebelles.

Rebels against piety and reason.

21. Iul. Manichaeos autem et pietati et rationi rebelles, qui putent et ante tempus voluntatis esse peccatum, quod rerum natura non sinit; et Deum esse, quem argumentantur iniustum; et infamare sanctas Paginas, quarum monumentis probari allegant crimen divinitatis; quod cum ex tribus nihil queat ratione monstrari, id est, nec sine voluntate peccatum, nec in Deo iniquitas, nec in lege perversitas; soli illi stulti, impudentes et impii demonstrentur.

21. Iul. But the Manichaeans, rebels both to piety and to reason, who suppose that there is sin even before the time of the will, which the nature of things does not permit; and that God exists, whom they argue to be unjust; and they defame the holy Pages, whose monuments they allege prove an indictment against the divinity; since from these three nothing can be shown by reason, that is, neither sin without will, nor in God iniquity, nor in the Law perversity; let those alone be shown to be fools, impudent, and impious.

Aug. Erubesce: non fuit Ambrosius Manichaeus, cum diceret hominem prius subire delictorum contagium, quam vitalis spiritus munus haurire ²¹, sed nec ista delicta, nisi ex voluntate exstiterunt, unde originem trahunt; et ideo nec in Deo est iniquitas, qui propter hoc posuit nascentibus grave iugum; nec in lege perversitas, in qua hoc discitur esse verissimum; quod et ipsi videretis, nisi vos potius perversos oculos haberetis.

Aug. Be ashamed: Ambrose was not a Manichaean, when he said that a man first undergoes the contagion of sins before he draws the gift of the vital spirit ²¹, but neither did these sins exist except from the will, whence they draw their origin; and therefore neither is there iniquity in God, who on this account placed a heavy yoke upon those being born; nor perversity in the law, in which this is learned to be most true; which you yourselves also would see, if rather you did not have perverted eyes.

Scripturae Sacrae semper tuentur honorem Dei.

The Sacred Scriptures always uphold the honor of God.

22. Iul. Haereat igitur hoc maxime prudentis animo lectoris, omnibus Scripturis sacris solum illud, quod in honorem Dei Catholici sapiunt, contineri, sicut frequentium sententiarum luce illustratur; et sicubi durior elocutio moverit quaestionem, certum quidem esse, non ibi id, quod iniustum est, loci illius auctorem sapuisse; secundum id autem debere intellegi, quod et ratio perspicua, et aliorum locorum, in quibus non est ambiguitas, splendor aperuerit. Iam igitur eius cum quo agimus verba ponamus.

22. Jul. Let this, then, cling chiefly in the prudent mind of the reader: that in all the sacred Scriptures only that is contained which the Catholics savor as being unto the honor of God, as is illustrated by the light of many sentences; and if anywhere a harsher elocution should raise a question, it is certain that the author of that passage did not there think anything unjust; but that it ought to be understood according to that which both clear reason and the splendor of other places in which there is no ambiguity shall have laid open. Now, therefore, let us set down the words of him with whom we are contending.

Equidem in illo capite dictorum suorum, quod usque ad figulum peccatorum Deum suum adduxerat, contra quod libro superiore confliximus, tenuiter dixit, per unum hominem peccatum intrasse in mundum; non est autem in expositione loci ipsius immoratus. Postquam vero multis verbis contra illa excerpta, quae ad se confirmat missa, disseruit, pervenit ad aliquem dictorum meorum locum, quem sibi quasi oppugnaturus obiecit; sed nihil secundum id quod fuerat pulsatus referens, ad hanc Apostoli sententiam convolavit, in qua dicit, per unum hominem peccatum intrasse in mundum; et secundum dogma suum, contextum loci ipsius exponere molitus est; propter quod ego, praetermissis aliis, ad eam properavi partem, ut quia me promiseram hanc esse quaestionem in secundo volumine soluturum ²², et fidem promissionis implerem, et argumentatio illius quae esset ostenderem, ne putarer fecisse fraudem, si illius expositione suppressa, eam quam catholicam fatemur inferrem.

Indeed, in that chapter of his sayings, in which he had brought his God as far as the potter of sins, against which we contended in the former book, he said slightingly that through one man sin entered into the world; but he did not linger in the exposition of that passage. After, however, he had with many words discoursed against those excerpts which he affirms were sent to him for his confirmation, he came to some place of my statements, which he put forward as if about to assail it; but, reporting nothing in accordance with that on which he had been pressed, he flew to this sentence of the Apostle, in which he says that through one man sin entered into the world; and, according to his own dogma, he attempted to expound the context of that passage. Wherefore I, the others being passed over, hastened to that part, so that, since I had promised that I would resolve this question in the second volume ²², I might both fulfill the faith of the promise and show what his argumentation was, lest I should be thought to have practiced fraud, if, his exposition having been suppressed, I were to bring in that which we confess to be Catholic.

Aug. Pelagianam illaturus es, non catholicam. Catholica illa est, quae ostendit iustum Deum in tot ac tantis poenis et cruciatibus parvulorum; quos in paradiso ullus eorum nulla aequitate sentiret, si natura humana vitiata peccato, et merito damnata non esset.

Aug. You are about to introduce the Pelagian, not the Catholic. That is Catholic which shows a just God in so many and such great penalties and torments of little ones; which none of them would experience in paradise with any equity, if human nature were not vitiated by sin and deservedly condemned.

Falsum est me furatum esse.

It is false that I have stolen.

23. Iul. Retractans igitur in primo opere meo sententiam eius, qua dixerat: Nam sicut peccatum, sive hinc, sive inde trahatur a parvulis, opus est diaboli; sic homo, sive hinc, sive inde nascatur, opus est Dei ²³; ita autem a me nunc hic refertur, sicut in meo opere continetur, unde maximam partem fuerat iste furatus.

23. Jul. Retracting therefore in my first work his sentence, wherein he had said: For just as sin, whether from here or from there it be drawn by little ones, is a work of the devil; so man, whether from here or from there he be born, is a work of God ²³; so moreover it is here now related by me, just as it is contained in my work, whence this fellow had stolen the greater part.

Aug. Sic vera disputas, quomodo verum est quod ego illa furatus sim; cum potius ille cuius chartula mihi missa est, quod voluit atque ut voluit, ex opere tuo, arbitrio suo iudicioque transtulerit.

Aug. Thus you argue truly, just as true as that I stole those things; whereas rather the man whose note was sent to me has transferred from your work, by his own arbitrament and judgment, what he wished and as he wished.

Intellege quod ademerit tibi veritas licentiam pervagandi.

Understand that truth has taken from you the license to rove about.

24. Iul. Respondi ergo ibi: Tu quidem (pace magisterii tui dixerim ) tergiversaris, sed intellege quod ademerit tibi veritas licentiam pervagandi. Ecce enim et nos acquiescimus, quia peccatum opus est malae voluntatis, vel opus est diaboli; sed per quid hoc peccatum invenitur in parvulo?

24. Jul. I answered there, then: You indeed (with leave of your magisterium I would say ) are prevaricating; but understand that truth has taken from you the license of roaming everywhere. For behold, we too acquiesce, that sin is a work of evil will, or a work of the devil; but by what means is this sin found in an infant?

Per voluntatem? At nulla in eo fuit. Per formam corporis?

By will? But there was none in him. By the form of the body?

Sed hanc Deus tribuit. Per ingressum animae? Sed nihil debet semini corporali, quae nova a Deo conditur.

But God has bestowed this. By the ingress of the soul? But it owes nothing to the bodily seed, which is created anew by God.

Per nuptias? Sed hae pertinent ad opus parentum, quos in hoc actu non peccasse praemiseras; quod si non vere id concesseras, sicut processus tui sermonis indicat, ipsae sunt exsecrandae, quae causam fecerunt mali. Verum illae substantiam propriam non habent; sed nomine suo personarum opus indicant; parentes igitur, qui conventu suo causam fecere peccato, iure damnabiles.

Through nuptials? But these pertain to the work of parents, whom you had premised not to have sinned in this act; but if you had not truly conceded that, as the process of your discourse indicates, they themselves are to be execrated, who have made the cause of the evil. But those do not have their own substance; but by their own name they indicate the work of persons; therefore the parents, who by their union made a cause for sin, are by right condemnable.

Ambigi ergo iam non potest, coniuges aeterno supplicio mancipari, quorum labore actum est, ut ad dominatum exercendum in homines diabolus perveniret. Quod si concesseris; illud totum quod antea tenuisse videbaris, amittes, id est, quod hominem Dei opus dixeras. Necessario quippe sequitur, quia per commixtionem corporum origo progenitis est, si per originem malum in hominibus, per malum ius diaboli in homines, diabolum esse auctorem hominum, a quo est origo nascentium ²⁴. Post quae ipsius denuo verba repetivi: Nam sicut peccatum, sive hinc, sive inde trahatur, opus est diaboli; sic homo, sive hinc, sive inde nascatur, opus est Dei. Ac protinus insurrexi hoc modo: Cum illam vocem timoris tui cogito, qua dicis nuptias malum non esse, istos alios sermones tuos sine risu considerare non possum.

Therefore it can no longer be doubted that spouses are consigned to eternal punishment, by whose labor it was brought about that the devil came to the exercise of dominion over men. But if you concede this; you will lose that whole thing which you previously seemed to have maintained, that is, that man you had said was the work of God. For it necessarily follows, since by the commixture of bodies the origin for the begotten is, if through origin there is evil in men, through the evil there is the right of the devil over men, that the devil is the author of men, from whom is the origin of those being born ²⁴. After which I again repeated his very words: For just as sin, whether it be drawn from here or from there, is the work of the devil; so man, whether he be born from here or from there, is the work of God. And forthwith I rose up in this manner: When I think of that voice of your fear, in which you say that nuptials are not an evil, I cannot consider these other discourses of yours without laughter.

Si enim credis a Deo homines fieri, et esse coniuges innocentes, vide quam stare non possit, trahi ex his originale peccatum. Certe non peccat iste qui nascitur, non peccat ille qui genuit, non peccat ille qui condidit; per quas rimas, inter tot praesidia innocentiae, peccatum fingis ingressum?

If indeed you believe that human beings are made by God, and that spouses are innocent, see how it cannot stand, that original sin be drawn from these. Surely he who is born does not sin, he who begot does not sin, he who created does not sin; through what crevices, amid so many defenses of innocence, do you feign the ingress of sin?

Aug. Iam his verbis tuis, etiam cum ipsos libros tuos legissem, respondisse me sufficit ²⁵. Verum et hic admoneo, Apostolum potius audiendum esse, quam te, qui non occultam rimam, sed apertissimam ianuam demonstravit, qua peccatum intravit in mundum, et per peccatum mors; et ita in omnes homines pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt ²⁶; quae verba eius, cum secundum vos, non secundum ipsum, exponere coeperis, tunc apparebit cui rectitudini veritatis loquacitate tortuosissima relucteris.

Aug. It is enough that I have already responded to these your words, even when I read your very books ²⁵. But here too I admonish that the Apostle is rather to be listened to than you, who showed not a hidden crack, but a most open door, by which sin entered into the world, and through sin death; and so it passed through unto all men, in that all sinned ²⁶; which words of his, when you begin to expound according to you, not according to him, then it will appear to what rectitude of truth you are resisting with most tortuous loquacity.

Licet cum interpolatione.

Permitted with interpolation.

25. Iul. Hunc ergo de opere meo priore contextum, in hoc secundo libro suo sibi, licet cum interpolatione, proposuit ²⁷. Nam et commemoratam a me formationem corporis, et ingressum animae, quam novam in unoquoque a Deo conditam, tam ratio, quam legis sacrae Ecclesiaeque catholicae confirmat auctoritas, ut spero, arte praeteriit.

25. Iul. Therefore he has set forth this excerpt, woven from my prior work, in this second book of his, albeit with interpolation ²⁷. For he has, as I hope, artfully passed over both the formation of the body recalled by me, and the entrance of the soul, which—new in each person and created by God—both reason and the authority of the sacred Law and of the Catholic Church confirm.

Aug. Qui legit sex libros meos, quibus refutavi quattuor tuos, de quorum primo quae voluit, et sicut voluit, ille decerpsit, cui respondi in libro isto, quem nunc frustra redarguere loquacissima vanitate conaris; sic me tibi in tertio meo respondisse reperiet, ut videat, non me arte praeterisse quod dicis; sed illum potius, cuius chartulae respondebam, hoc de opere tuo noluisse transferre, sive studio brevitatis, sive quia pertinere non putavit ad causam.

Aug. Whoever reads my six books, in which I refuted your four, from whose first he extracted what he wished, and as he wished, the man to whom I replied in this book—which you now are trying in vain to refute with most loquacious vanity—will find that I answered you thus in my third book, so that he may see that I did not pass it by with art, as you say; but rather that he, whose little papers I was answering, did not wish to transfer this from your work, whether out of zeal for brevity, or because he did not think it pertained to the cause.

Ad haec omnia Apostolum mihi respondere.

To all these things the Apostle answers for me.

26. Iul. Iam reliqua, licet aliquibus sermonibus variata, contexuit. Contra has ergo obiectiones meas nihil quo repercuterer excogitavit; sed verum me collegisse, argumentandi inopia confessus, dicit mihi ad haec omnia Apostolum respondere debere, qui pronuntiet, per unum hominem peccatum intrasse in hunc mundum.

26. Iul. Now he has woven together the rest, although varied with some expressions. Against these, therefore, my objections he devised nothing with which to rebut me; but, confessing a poverty of argument, that I had gathered the truth, he says that to all these things the Apostle ought to respond to me, who pronounces that through one man sin entered into this world.

In quo loco, quis eum eruditus sanum habuisse caput aestimet, qui non intellexerit aut praetereunda sibi esse, contra quae nihil poterat invenire, aut quaecumque excogitanda, quae referret obiectis, ad quorum confirmationem Apostoli verba coniungeret?

At this point, what educated man would reckon him to have had a sound head, who did not understand either that the points against which he could find nothing ought to be passed over, or that whatever was to be devised should be devised which he might apply to the objections, to whose confirmation he would join the Apostle’s words?

Aug. Sed melius verbis apostolicis refelleris quam meis, nec tamen et apostolicis cedis; sed mavis etiam ipsa pervertere, quam te corrigere.

Aug. But you are better refuted by apostolic words than by mine, nor yet do you yield even to the apostolic; but you prefer even to pervert them themselves rather than to correct yourself.

Navis fallaciarum tuarum.

The ship of your fallacies.

27. Iul. Quaesivi ergo consequentissime, ut omnis mecum eruditio recognoscat, peccatum quod opus est malae voluntatis, et opus diaboli dicitur, per quid inveniretur in parvulo, si per voluntatem; at nullam in eo fuisse, etiam hic, cum quo agimus, confitetur, si per nuptias; sed has pertinere ad opus parentum, nemo qui dubitet, quos in hac commixtione non peccasse praemiserat ²⁸; aut si concessionis huius paeniteret disputatorem, sicut processus operis indicabat; profiteretur esse reos parentes, quorum conventu regnum in imaginem Dei diabolo pararetur; et addidi necessariis disputationum gradibus, per originale peccatum auctorem corporum diabolum definiri; quia si per originem malum in hominibus, per malum ius diaboli in homines; diabolus est auctor hominum, a quo est origo nascentium. Quae quoniam in antro Manichaeorum Traducianos esse clusura deprehenderat; verti clavem, ut praeberem captis effugium, admonuique ut, si vere a Deo crederet homines fieri, pureque confiteretur esse coniuges innocentes, intellegeret trahi non posse ex his originale peccatum.

27. Jul. I therefore asked with the utmost consequence, that all erudition together with me may recognize, the sin which is a work of evil will, and is called the work of the devil, by what it would be found in an infant, if through will; but that there was none in him, even this man with whom we are dealing confesses, if through nuptials; but that these pertain to the work of the parents, there is no one who would doubt, whom he had premised not to have sinned in this commixture ²⁸; or if the disputant repented of this concession, as the progress of his work indicated; let him profess that the parents are guilty, by whose coming together a kingdom in the image of God would be prepared for the devil; and I added by the necessary steps of disputations, that through original sin the devil is defined as the author of bodies; because if through origin evil is in men, through evil the right of the devil over men; the devil is the author of men, from whom is the origin of those being born. And since this closure had detected the Traducianists to be shut up in the cave of the Manichaeans; I turned the key, that I might offer an escape to the captured, and I admonished that, if he truly believed men to be made by God, and purely confessed that spouses are innocent, he should understand that original sin cannot be drawn from these.

Certe non peccat , inquam, iste qui nascitur, non peccat ille qui genuit, non peccat iste qui condidit; per quas rimas, inter tot praesidia innocentiae, peccatum fingis ingressum? ²⁹ Quid potuit, rogo, sanctius, quid verius, quid lucidius, quid brevius firmiusque componi, quam post tria sumpta quae inimico concedente susceperam, inferrem quartum, in quo erat summa conclusio? Nam cum uno nonnumquam, aut duobus sumptis, tertium necessario colligatur, qua lege mihi post tria concessa, quartum quod his adhaeret, non liceret inferre? Et hoc quidem in secunda disputatione; caeterum in priore, quinque mihi aut amplius conceduntur, post quae fit legitima invictaque conclusio.

Surely he does not sin , I say, this one who is born does not sin, he does not sin who begot, this one who created does not sin; through what cracks, amid so many bulwarks of innocence, do you feign the ingress of sin? ²⁹ What could, I ask, be more holy, what more true, what more lucid, what briefer and firmer, than that after the three assumptions which I had taken up with the adversary conceding, I should bring in a fourth, in which was the final conclusion? For since with one, sometimes, or with two assumptions taken, a third is necessarily gathered, by what law would it not be permitted me, after three have been conceded, to bring in a fourth which adheres to these? And this indeed in the second disputation; moreover, in the former, five or more are conceded to me, after which a legitimate and invincible conclusion is made.

Aug. Vide quam per multa vageris, timens ne Apostoli verba sine tuis praeiudiciis audita te damnent, sicut iam Ecclesia catholica iudicante damnarunt. Sed excurre quo volueris, remorare quantum volueris, multiplica gyros tuos quaquaversum volueris; quandocumque ad eadem verba veritatis navis fallaciarum tuarum pervenerit, sine dubio naufragabis.

Aug. See how far and wide you wander, fearing lest the Apostle’s words, heard without your prejudices, condemn you, as already, the Catholic Church judging, they have condemned you. But make your excursions wherever you will, delay as much as you will, multiply your gyres every which way you will; whenever the ship of your fallacies reaches those same words of truth, without doubt you will be shipwrecked.

Nulla remanet rima.

No fissure remains.

28. Iul. Iam igitur ad eum convertamur. Dederas mihi peccatum opus esse voluntatis; potui statim dicere consequenter: Voluntas autem, quae peccet, in parvulis nulla est; peccatum igitur in parvulis non est.

28. Jul. Now then, let us turn to that. You had granted me that sin is a work of the will; I could at once say, consequently: But a will that sins is none in little children; therefore sin is not in little children.

Verum ut pluribus premereris testibus, interrogavi sensim, per quid hoc peccatum inveniretur in parvulo; ne forte per voluntatem? Post quod, te connivente, suscepi nullam in eo fuisse conscientiam voluntatis; adiunxi, ne per primam culpam membrorum lineamenta traxisset. Sed haec a Deo informari, et per hoc bona esse concesseras.

But, in order that you might be pressed by more witnesses, I asked gradually by what means this sin would be found in the little one; perhaps by the will? After which, with you conniving at it, I took up that there had been no consciousness of will in him; I added that he had not, through the first fault, drawn the lineaments of his members. But you had conceded that these are formed by God, and through this are good.

Petivi tertium, utrum per ingressum animae, reatum advectum putares. Sed hanc esse novam, ne quidquam seminibus debere constabat. Intuli deinceps, ne (quia nihil tibi de his remanserat arguendum) nuptias, id est commixtionem corporum, diaboli opus vocares?

I asked a third thing, whether you would think that through the ingress of the soul guilt was brought in. But that this was new, that it owed nothing to seeds, stood established. I brought forward next, whether (since nothing remained for you to be taken to task about in these) you would call nuptials, that is, the commixture of bodies, the devil’s work?

Sed has pertinere ad parentum operam, te quoque annuente, monstravi. Illis igitur omnibus quae supra diximus absolutis, coniuges qui fuerant causa peccati, tradux tua diabolo mancipabat. Post quae omnia, quod tibi propinquabat impegi, ut dicerem credere te diabolum auctorem corporum, cui commixtionis operam, sine qua origo corporum esse non poterat, deputasses.

But that these pertain to the operation of the parents, you also assenting, I showed. Therefore, with all those things which we said above brought to a conclusion, the spouses who had been the cause of sin, your tradux was consigning to the devil. After all this, I struck home what was close to you: namely, to say that you believe the devil to be the author of bodies, to whom you had assigned the operation of commixtion, without which the origin of bodies could not exist.

Et haec quidem disputatio, quo morbo oppressus esses, ostendit; illa autem secunda, et te miserabilem cum eiusmodi sensibus, et Catholicos etiam timoris tui suffragio invictos probavit. Te enim dante, a Deo fieri homines, et esse coniuges innocentes, ac parvulos per se nihil operari; his tribus sumptis, irrefutabiliter illatum est, cum non peccat ille qui nascitur, non peccat ille qui genuit, non peccat iste qui condidit, nullam remansisse rimam, per quam peccatum doceatur ingressum. Tibi ergo si displicet quod collectum est; abnue quod dedisti, et dic aut illum peccasse qui genuit, aut illum qui condidit, aut istum qui natus est; ex quibus unum insanum est, aliud Manichaeum, tertium supra Manichaeos; insanum, si dixeris delin quere parvulos; Manichaeum, si accusaveris coniuges, supra Manichaeos, si peccati Deum aestimaris auctorem.

And this disputation indeed has shown with what disease you were oppressed; but that second both proved you pitiable with such sentiments, and also proved the Catholics unconquered by the suffrage of your fear. For you granting that men are made by God, and that spouses are innocent, and that little ones by themselves operate nothing; these three being assumed, it has been irrefutably inferred that, since he who is born does not sin, he who begot does not sin, he who founded does not sin, no fissure remains through which sin may be taught to have made ingress. Therefore, if what has been collected displeases you; abnegate what you have granted, and say either that he who begot sinned, or he who founded, or this one who was born; of which one is insane, another Manichaean, the third beyond the Manichaeans: insane, if you will have said that little ones commit an offense; Manichaean, if you will have accused spouses; beyond the Manichaeans, if you esteem God the author of sin.

Quod si haec omnia tam aliena sunt a vero, ut adhuc ea metuas libere confiteri; qua impudentia, homo omnium amentissime, hoc quod a nobis illatum est, persistis negare?

But if all these things are so alien from the truth that you still fear to confess them freely; with what impudence, O man most insane of all, do you persist in denying this inference which has been brought forward by us?

Aug. Cum ad verba Apostoli veneris, ibi non rimam invenies, sed apertissimam ianuam, qua peccatum intravit in mundum; quam conaberis quidem claudere, sed ex ore infantium atque lactentium, salvatorem potius Christum, quam te laudatorem quaerentium, et non anfractuosis disputationibus, sed mutis fletibus miseriam suam multo certius contestantium (quam profecto, si primi hominis rectitudo et beatitudo mansisset, nullo modo in paradiso habere potuissent) cum tua tota loquacitate vinceris.

Aug. When you come to the words of the Apostle, there you will find not a crack, but a most open door by which sin entered into the world; which indeed you will try to close, but by the mouth of infants and sucklings—who seek Christ the Savior rather than you the laudator—and, not by anfractuous disputations, but by mute weepings far more surely attesting their own misery (which, in truth, if the rectitude and beatitude of the first man had remained, they could in no way have had in paradise), you will be overcome with all your loquacity.

Quattuor hic personarum causa vertitur.

Here the cause turns on four persons.

29. Iul. Quattuor hic personarum causa vertitur: Dei opificis, duorum parentum de quibus materia praestatur operanti, et parvuli qui nascitur. Dicis tu in hoc choro habitare peccatum; interrogo ego, a quo fiat, utrum a Deo?

29. Jul. Here the case turns on four persons: God the Artificer, the two parents, from whom material is furnished to the worker, and the little child who is born. You say that sin dwells in this company; I ask, by whom does it come to be, whether by God?

Negas: A patre? Totidem negas: A matre? Idem negas: A parvulo?

You deny it: From the father? You deny as much: From the mother? You deny the same: From the infant?

Negas; et adhuc non putas fuisse conclusum, quia non possit esse inter hos quattuor, quod ab his quattuor nullus admittit?

You deny it; and do you still not think it has been concluded, since there cannot be among these four that which none of these four admits?

Aug. Quidquid vis dicas: ad verba Apostoli aliquando venturus es; et quisquis ea per istarum argumentationum tuarum loca singula recordatur, quae nos assidue propter lectoris fastidium repetere nolumus, ipsa sua tibi recordatione respondet.

Aug. Say whatever you wish: you will at some point come to the words of the Apostle; and whoever recalls them, through each several places of these your argumentations—which we are unwilling to repeat continually because of the reader’s weariness—answers you by his very recollection.

Quod sentis non potes definire.

What you feel you cannot define.

30. Iul. Ad quid ergo persuadendum aut Scripturas releges, aut conscios nominabis, qui adhuc quod sentis non potes definire? Quid te iuvat, ut Adam doceas deliquisse, quod ego penitus non refello?

30. Jul. To what end, then, for persuading, will you either re-read the Scriptures or name those privy as witnesses, you who up to now cannot define what you mean? What does it avail you to teach that Adam transgressed, a thing which I by no means refute?

Quaerimus, Adam ante tot saecula mortuo, peccatum, quo in diaboli ius Dei imago transcribitur, per quid inveniatur in parvulo.

We ask, Adam having died so many ages ago, by what means the sin, whereby the image of God is transferred into the devil’s right, is found in the little child.

Aug. Cur nec tu admittis in regnum Dei, nullum habentem secundum te meritum peccati, imaginem Dei? Cur ministratur sanguis, qui de similitudine carnis peccati in remissionem fusus est peccatorum, quem bibat parvulus, ut habere possit vitam, si de nullius peccati origine venit in mortem?

Aug. Why do you not even admit into the kingdom of God the image of God, having, according to you, no merit of sin? Why is the blood administered, which from the likeness of the flesh of sin was poured out for the remission of sins, for the infant to drink, that he may be able to have life, if he comes into death from the origin of no sin?

Si hoc tibi displicet, aperte nega parvulum Christum, aperte nega pro parvulis mortuum, qui unus pro omnibus mortuus est; unde colligitur quod dicit Apostolus: Ergo omnes mortui sunt, et pro omnibus mortuus est ³⁰. Dic aperte: Mortui parvuli non sunt, qui peccatum nullum habent; morte pro se Christi, in qua baptizentur, non opus habent. Iam dic evidenter, quod latenter sentis, quoniam satis prodis tua disputatione quod sentis; dic, inquam, parvulos frustra fieri Christianos; sed vide, utrum te ipsum debeas dicere Christianum.

If this displeases you, openly deny Christ as a little child, openly deny that he died for little children, he who one died for all; whence is gathered what the Apostle says: Therefore all have died, and he died for all ³⁰. Say openly: Little children, who have no sin, are not dead; they have no need of the death of Christ on their behalf, in which they may be baptized. Now say evidently what you feel latently, since by your disputation you sufficiently betray what you feel; say, I say, that little ones are made Christians in vain; but see whether you ought to call yourself a Christian.

Liberum nobis est nascentium innocentiam contueri.

We are at liberty to behold the innocence of the newborn.

31. Iul. Si per commixtionem parentum, damna nuptias professione, quas argumentatione condemnas; et deme nobis laborem, quo te convicimus esse Manichaeum. Sin autem tu non id audes dicere, ac ratione contumax concumbentibus inclinaris, ut per argumentorum hactenus inaudita portenta, dicas libidinem diabolicam esse, eamque in sensu coeuntium positam, ad voluptatem parentum, ad reatum pertinere nascentium; tuam quidem amentiam et turpitudinem prodis; sed precor ne tibi tantum arroges, ut putes nobis liberum non esse cum honore Dei nascentium innocentiam contueri; cum tibi liceat et libeat, cum accusatione Dei a reatu, quem dicis libidinis, libidinantium membra purgare.

31. Jul. If, by the commixture of parents, you damn marriages by profession, which you condemn by argumentation—then spare us the trouble by which we have convicted you of being a Manichaean. But if you do not dare to say this, and, contumacious against reason, you incline to a view about those who have intercourse, so that, by prodigies of argument hitherto unheard-of, you say that libido is diabolic, and that it, placed in the sensation of those who come together, pertains to the parents’ pleasure and to the guilt of those being born—you indeed betray your madness and disgrace; but I pray you do not arrogate so much to yourself as to think that it is not free for us, with honor to God, to behold the innocence of those being born; while it is permitted and it pleases you, with an accusation against God, to purge from guilt—which you say is of libido—the members of those indulging in lust.

Aug. Quolibet pruritu libidinem, id est, concupiscentiam carnis laudes, dicit eam Ioannes apostolus a Patre non esse, sed ex mundo esse ³¹; propter quam recte dicitur diabolus princeps mundi esse ³². Nam scimus quod mundum Deus fecerit. Hoc ergo malo concupiscentiae carnis bene utitur pudicitia coniugalis; eiusque mali reatum a nascentibus tractum solvit regeneratio spiritalis.

Aug. Praise libido with whatever prurience you please— that is, the concupiscence of the flesh— the apostle John says that it is not from the Father, but is from the world ³¹; on account of which the devil is rightly said to be the prince of the world ³². For we know that God made the world. Therefore conjugal pudicity makes good use of this evil of the concupiscence of the flesh; and spiritual regeneration dissolves the guilt of this evil, derived by those being born.

Hoc quamdiu non sapis, non Catholicus, sed Pelagianus futurus es; et Scripturis sanctis, quantumlibet eas defendere tibi videaris, contradicturus es. Me autem quoties propter hoc cui contradicis, Manichaeum dicis; profecto et illum dicis, qui hominem membris genitalibus infusum, et concupiscentiae voluptate concretum, ante dicit excipere delictorum contagium, quam vitalis spiritus munus haurire ³³. Ambrosius est iste, Iuliane, Ambrosium Manichaeum dicis, insane!

As long as you do not have wisdom in this, you will be, not a Catholic, but a Pelagian; and you will be one to contradict the holy Scriptures, however much you may seem to yourself to defend them. But whenever, on account of this to which you object, you call me a Manichaean, you are assuredly calling him so as well, who says that man, infused through the genital members and concreted by the pleasure of concupiscence, receives the contagion of sins before he draws in the gift of the vital spirit ³³. This is Ambrose, Julian; do you call Ambrose a Manichaean, you madman!

Concupiscentia carnis frutex diaboli.

The concupiscence of the flesh is an offshoot of the devil.

32. Iul. Nam cum pronuntias, concupiscentiam carnis a principe tenebrarum in homine fuisse plantatam, eamque esse diaboli fruticem, ex se humanum genus quasi poma propria proferentem; absolute quidem proderis, quod non Deum, sed diabolum dicas hominum conditorem; quo dogmate impiissimo, et coniugiorum negotium, id est, genitalium admixtio, et caro cuncta damnatur.

32. Jul. For when you pronounce that the concupiscence of the flesh was planted in man by the prince of darkness, and that it is a shrub of the devil, bringing forth from itself the human race as if its own fruits; you will indeed betray outright that you call not God, but the devil, the creator of humans; by which most impious dogma both the business of marriages, that is, the admixture of the genitals, and all flesh is condemned.

Aug. Non damnatur: sed non a te quasi sana laudetur, ut etiam te confitente, a suo Conditore ac Salvatore sanetur. Nam hoc in quibus non fit, sine ulla dubitatione damnabitur.

Aug. It is not condemned: but let it not be lauded by you as if sound, so that, even with you confessing, it may be healed by its own Creator and Savior. For in those in whom this is not done, without any doubt it will be condemned.

Nihil de manichaeorum impietate deponis.

You lay aside nothing of the Manichaeans’ impiety.

33. Iul. Cum vero post hoc sacrilegium adiungis, et dicis, profiteri te diabolicam quidem esse gignentium coniugum voluptatem, diabolicam genitalium commotionem; sed tamen et ipsa membra quae moventur, et coniuges qui voluptate afficiuntur, reos non esse; verum pro his omnibus novos homines, id est, rude opus in nascentibus deitatis accusas; nihil quidem de Manichaeorum impietate deponis; sed tam immanem moti capitis ostendis furorem, ut consequentius fovendum, quam amputandum iudicaretur, nisi voluntatem ac studium in hac re tuum, et multorum eversio, et tua obstinatio, et Scripturarum multiplicatio loqueretur.

33. Jul. But when after this sacrilege you add, and say, that you profess the pleasure of married folk who beget to be diabolical, the commotion of the genitals diabolical; yet that both the very members which are moved, and the spouses who are affected by pleasure, are not guilty; but instead, on account of all these, you accuse the new men, that is, the rude work of deity in those being born; you lay aside indeed nothing of the impiety of the Manichaeans; but you display so monstrous a fury of a disordered head, that, as a consequence, it would be judged rather to be fostered than to be amputated, unless your will and zeal in this matter, and the overthrow of many, and your obstinacy, and the multiplication of the Scriptures, were speaking.

Aug. Has contumelias non indignanter audire debeo, cum his Ecclesiae doctoribus, qui per unum hominem in mundum introisse peccatum, sic intellegunt, ut rectus Apostolus loquitur, non ut Iulianus perversissimus opinatur. In his sunt, ut alios taceam, Afer Cyprianus, Gallus Hilarius, Italus Ambrosius, Graecus Gregorius; a quibus eruditissimis prudentissimisque iudicibus, quales te non invenire vana praesumptione conquereris, haeresis vestra prius est damnata quam nata.

Aug. I ought not to hear these contumelies without indignation, since with those doctors of the Church who understand that through one man sin entered into the world, thus as the upright Apostle speaks, not as Julian most perverse opines. Among these are, to be silent about others, Cyprian the African, Hilary the Gaul, Ambrose the Italian, Gregory the Greek; by whom, most erudite and most prudent judges—such as you complain by vain presumption that you do not find—your heresy was condemned before it was born.

Diabolo et libidini blandiris.

You flatter the Devil and libido.

34. Iul. Lege et de hoc quartum operis mei librum: et quantum diabolo, quem patrem tuum dicis, ac libidini matri tuae, sub criminandi specie blandiaris, intelleges.

34. Jul. Read also, on this, the fourth book of my work: and you will understand how much you, under the pretext of crimination, fawn upon the Devil, whom you call your father, and upon lust, your mother.

Aug. Legi etiam quartum tuum, et meo sexto ad eius tibi cuncta respondi; quis autem nostrum vicerit, iudicet pius lector amborum.

Aug. I have also read your fourth, and in my sixth I responded to you on all points concerning it; but who of us has prevailed, let the pious reader of both judge.

Illius unius imitatione transire peccatum.

For sin to pass away by the imitation of that one alone.

35. Iul. Verum iam Apostoli verba videamus, quem mihi ad omnia, quae supra posui, respondere dixisti: Ad omnia ista huic respondit Apostolus, qui neque voluntatem arguit parvuli, quae propria in illo nondum est ad peccandum; neque nuptias, in quantum nuptiae sunt, quae habent a Deo non solum institutionem, verum etiam benedictionem; neque parentes, in quantum parentes sunt, invicem licite atque legitime ad procreandos filios coniugati; sed: " Per unum - inquit - hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per peccatum mors; et ita in omnes homines pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt " ³⁴. Quod isti si catholicis auribus mentibusque perciperent, adversum fidem gratiamque Christi rebelles animos non haberent, neque conarentur inaniter, ad suum proprium et haereticum sensum haec apostolica verba tam dilucida et tam manifesta convertere, asserentes hoc ideo dictum esse, quod Adam peccaverit primum, in quo de cetero, quisquis peccare voluit, peccandi invenit exemplum; ut peccatum scilicet non generatione ab illo uno in omnes homines, sed illius unius imitatione transire, cum profecto, si Apostolus hic imitationem intellegi voluisset, non per unum hominem, sed per diabolum potius, in hunc mundum peccatum intrasse, et per omnes homines pertransisse dixisset. De diabolo quippe scriptum est: " Imitantur eum, qui sunt ex parte ipsius " ³⁵. Sed ideo " per unum hominem " - dixit - a quo generatio utique hominum coepit, ut per generationem doceret isse per omnes originale peccatum ³⁶.

35. Jul. But now let us look at the words of the Apostle, whom you said answered for me to all the things I set out above: To all these the Apostle answered, who neither arraigns the will of the little one, which is not yet its own in him for sinning; nor marriages, insofar as they are marriages, which have from God not only institution but also benediction; nor parents, insofar as they are parents, joined to one another licitly and legally for the procreating of children; but: " Through one," he says, "man sin entered into the world, and through sin, death; and thus it passed through into all men, in whom all sinned" ³⁴. Which, if these people would take in with catholic ears and minds, they would not have rebellious spirits against the faith and grace of Christ, nor would they vainly try to convert these apostolic words, so lucid and so manifest, to their own proper and heretical sense, asserting that this was said for this reason: that Adam sinned first, in whom thereafter whoever wished to sin found an example for sinning; so that sin, to wit, passes over to all men not by generation from that one, but by the imitation of that one—whereas assuredly, if the Apostle had wished imitation to be understood here, he would have said that sin entered into this world not through one man, but rather through the devil, and passed through all men. About the devil, in fact, it is written: " They imitate him, who are of his party " ³⁵. But for this reason he said " through one man "—from whom assuredly the generation of human beings began—that by generation he might teach that original sin has gone through all ³⁶.

Aug. Dixisti verba libri mei, dic iam quemadmodum accipienda sint quae ibi posui verba Apostoli; ut magis magisque manifesteris haereticus, laudatorem te supponendo, ut auferas parvulis Salvatorem.

Aug. You have spoken the words of my book; now say in what manner the words of the Apostle which I set down there are to be received; so that you may be shown more and more to be a heretic, by putting yourself forward as a praiser, so as to take away the Savior from the little ones.

Tu abuteris imperitia faventium tibi.

You abuse the inexperience of those favoring you.

36. Iul. Abuti te imperitia faventium tibi, et delitescere sub ambiguitate verborum, quicumque ille fuerit operum nostrorum eruditus lector, intellegit. Reliquum vero vulgus, de quo Propheta loquitur ad Deum: Aestimasti homines sicut pisces maris ³⁷; mutua praegressione decipitur, ac salutiferae discretionis ignarum, totum putat coniungi posse rebus, quod viderit vocibus esse sociatum.

36. Iul. That you abuse the inexperience of those favoring you, and skulk under the ambiguity of words, whoever he may be, the learned reader of our works understands. But the remaining common crowd, of which the Prophet speaks to God: You have esteemed men like the fish of the sea ³⁷; is deceived by mutual transference, and, ignorant of salutary discretion, thinks that everything can be conjoined in realities which it has seen to be associated in words.

Quid vero sit consequens, quid repugnans, quibusque concessis quid lex inexpugnabilis et veneranda orationis cogat inferri, nisi doctissimus attentissimusque non iudicat.

But what is consequent, what repugnant, and, with what things conceded, what the inexpugnable and venerable law of discourse compels to be inferred, no one judges unless he is most learned and most attentive.

Aug. Adhuc circuis quaerendo dialecticos, et vitando ecclesiasticos iudices. Dic iam quomodo accipiendum sit: Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum; melius videlicet hoc intellegens, quam ille qui dixit: Omnes in Adam moriuntur, quia " per unum hominem peccatum intravit in hunc mundum, et per peccatum mors; et ita in omnes homines pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt " ³⁸. Illius igitur culpa mors omnium est ³⁹. Et idem ipse alibi: Fuit Adam, et in illo fuimus omnes; periit Adam et in illo omnes perierunt ⁴⁰. Ambrosius est ille, non quicumque de vulgo, cuius imperitam multitudinem non valentem de tuis disputationibus iudicare, nimis alta cervice et proterva fronte contemnis; Ambrosius est, inquam, cui nulla ex parte in ipsis litteris saecularibus, de quibus multum inflaris, aequaris; in ecclesiasticis vero quis ille sit, audi vel lege Pelagium doctorem tuum, et noli amare sensum a sensu tanti huius doctoris alienum.

Aug. You still go circling about seeking dialecticians and avoiding ecclesiastical judges. Say now how this is to be taken: Through one man sin entered into the world; evidently understanding this better than he who said: All die in Adam, because " through one man sin entered into this world, and through sin death; and thus it passed through unto all men, in whom all sinned " ³⁸. Therefore his fault is the death of all ³⁹. And the same man elsewhere: Adam existed, and in him we all existed; Adam perished and in him all perished ⁴⁰. It is Ambrose—no mere man of the crowd—whose unskilled multitude, not able to judge your disputations, you disdain with a too-high neck and a brazen brow; Ambrose, I say, to whom in no respect in those secular letters, about which you are much inflated, do you equal yourself; but as to who he is in ecclesiastical matters, listen, or read Pelagius your teacher, and do not love a sense alien from the sense of so great a doctor.

In libro tuo agglomeras quod catholici et quod manichaei dicunt.

In your book you agglomerate what the Catholics and what the Manichaeans say.

37. Iul. Et hoc est propter quod maxime, miserantes Ecclesiarum ruinas, ad virorum prudentia illustrium provocamus examen, ut non quid dicatur, sed quid consequenter dicatur appareat. Si enim sub tali concilio disceptaretur, tibi utique non liceret, aut quod negaveras inferre, aut quod affirmaveras denegare; in libro vero tuo, quem nulla pudoris censura castigat, et quod Catholici dicunt, et quod Manichaei, confidenter agglomeras, hac sola opinione contentus, si respondisse dicaris; quid autem habeat ponderis oratio tua, quid constantiae, cogitare etiam ineptum putas.

37. Iul. And this is the reason above all why, pitying the ruins of the Churches, we appeal to the examination of men illustrious for prudence, so that it may appear not what is said, but what is said consistently. For if the matter were being disputed before such a council, it would certainly not be permitted you either to bring in what you had denied, or to deny what you had affirmed; but in your book, which no censure of shame chastises, you confidently agglomerate both what the Catholics say and what the Manichaeans, content with this sole opinion, provided only that you may be said to have answered; but what weight your discourse has, what constancy, you think it foolish even to consider.

Aug. Rogo, dic iam quomodo intellegendum sit: Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum ⁴¹; quid adhuc calumniaris, conviciaris, tergiversaris? Si in concilio, cuius videris desiderare iudicium, sederent Cyprianus, Hilarius, Ambrosius, Gregorius, Basilius, Ioannes Constantinopolitanus, ut alios taceam; numquid doctiores, prudentiores, veraciores iudices quaerere auderes?

Aug. I ask, tell now how it is to be understood: Through one man sin entered into the world ⁴¹; why do you still calumniate, revile, prevaricate? If in a council, whose judgment you seem to desire, there were sitting Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Gregory, Basil, John of Constantinople, to say nothing of others; would you dare to seek judges more learned, more prudent, more veracious?

Ipsi contra dogmata vestra clamant, ipsi scriptis suis vestra scripta condemnant; quid quaeris amplius? Hoc iam in primo et secundo librorum meorum satis docui, quos contra tuos quattuor ego sex edidi; sed ecce adhuc te audire paratus sum; dic iam quomodo sit accipiendum, quod per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum.

They themselves cry out against your dogmas, they themselves by their writings condemn your writings; what do you seek further? This already in the first and second of my books I have taught sufficiently, and against your four I have published six; but behold, I am still prepared to hear you: say now how that is to be taken, that through one man sin entered into the world.

Profiteris te imbecillum esse.

You profess yourself to be feeble.

38. Iul. Denique sine cunctatione tribuens quae poposci, quidque ex his confectum esset aspiciens, profiteris te ad hoc quod exstruximus, imbecillum esse; apostolum Paulum illis omnibus quae diximus, obviare; quem tamen inducis eadem quae tu dederas, concedentem. Ais enim: Apostolus neque voluntatem arguit parvuli, quae propria in illo nondum est ad peccandum ⁴²; quo dato iam convictum est, nec posse in illo quodpiam esse peccatum, cuius nulla alia conditio est, secundum definitionem quoque tuam, quam voluntas admittendi quod iustitia vetat, et unde liberum est abstinere.

38. Jul. Finally, granting without delay the things I asked, and looking at what was made out from them, you profess that, with respect to what we have constructed, you are feeble; that the apostle Paul opposes all those things which we have said; whom nevertheless you introduce as conceding the very same points that you had yourself given. For you say: The Apostle neither arraigns the will of the little child, which in him is not yet proper for sinning ⁴²; this granted, it is already proved that there can be no sin in him whose condition is no other, according also to your definition, than a will of admitting what justice forbids, and from which it is free to abstain.

Aug. Haec definitio peccati est eius, quod non est etiam poena peccati. Nam ubi malae consuetudinis voces esse contenditis, atque ita voces vestri dogmatis suffocatis, dic, si audes, quomodo voluntati hominis liberum sit abstinere a malo, ubi audis.

Aug. This is the definition of sin—of that which is not also the penalty of sin. For where you contend the voices to be of evil custom, and thus suffocate the voices of your dogma, say, if you dare, how it is free for the will of man to abstain from evil, where you hear them.

Non quod volo ago ⁴³, aut nega esse malum, ubi audis: Non quod volo, facio bonum; sed quod nolo malum, hoc ago ⁴⁴. Sed utique agnoscimus, hoc peccatum poenam esse peccati; et ideo discernendum ab illa definitione peccati, ubi voluntas hoc committit, unde liberum est abstinere. Intellege quod dico; et dic iam, quaeso, quomodo sit accipiendum: Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum ⁴⁵.

I do not do what I will ⁴³, or else deny that it is evil, when you hear: Not the good that I will do I do; but the evil that I do not will, this I do ⁴⁴. But assuredly we acknowledge that this sin is the penalty of sin; and therefore it must be distinguished from that definition of sin, where the will commits that from which it is free to abstain. Understand what I say; and tell me now, I pray, how this is to be taken: Through one man sin entered into the world ⁴⁵.

Ne signum quidem criminis in puero.

Not even a sign of crime in the boy.

39. Iul. Ergo si Apostolus non arguit in illo propriam voluntatem, quam intellegit nec esse potuisse; pronuntiat utique, nec signum in eo criminis apparere, ea maxime iudicante iustitia, quae non imputat peccatum, nisi a quo liberum est abstinere. Verum non hoc solum tribuisse conten tus, addis: Neque nuptias arguit Apostolus, in quantum nuptiae sunt, quae habent a Deo non solum institutionem, verum etiam benedictionem ⁴⁶. Quod per se solum aeque posset ad expugnandum peccatum naturale sufficere; quia, si scit Apostolus, ut scit, non esse nuptias arguendas, ad quarum conciliationem et ministerium et instrumentum pertinet a Deo instituta et benedicta sexuum cum voluptate commixtio; non potest de his diabolica germinare possessio, nec fructus earum reus est, apud eam maxime iustitiam, quae peccatum non imputat, nisi unde liberum est abstinere.

39. Jul. Therefore, if the Apostle does not arraign in him a proper will, which he understands could not even have been; he certainly pronounces that not even a sign of crime appears in him, with that justice especially judging, which does not impute sin, except from that whence it is free to abstain. But not content to have granted this alone, you add: Nor does the Apostle arraign marriages, insofar as marriages are what they are, which have from God not only institution but also benediction ⁴⁶. Which by itself alone could equally suffice to refute natural sin; because, if the Apostle knows, as he knows, that nuptials are not to be arraigned, to whose conciliation and ministry and instrument there pertains the with-pleasure commixture of the sexes instituted and blessed by God; from these a diabolical possession cannot germinate, nor is their fruit guilty, before that justice especially which does not impute sin, except from that whence it is free to abstain.

Aug. Noli, obsecro, cum tali voluptate commixtionem coniugum in paradiso suspicari, qualem nunc facit libido, quae non ad nutum voluntatis exsurgit, quae mentes etiam sanctorum, cohibenda quidem, sed tamen importuna sollicitat. Absit ut a fidelibus et prudentibus talis voluptas paradisi, talis illa pax et felicitas cogitetur.

Aug. Do not, I beseech you, suspect in paradise a commixture of spouses with such a pleasure as libido now produces—libido which does not arise at the nod of the will, which, though to be restrained, nevertheless importunately solicits even the minds of the saints. Far be it from the faithful and the prudent that such a pleasure be thought of paradise, of that peace and felicity.

Filii de vi seminum, non de vitiorum obscenitate nascuntur.

Children are born from the power of seeds, not from the obscenity of vices.

40. Iul. Consideremus et tertium, quo benignitas tua in acquiescendi facilitate cernatur. Neque parentes, in quantum parentes sunt invicem licite atque legitime ad procreandos filios coniugati, Apostolus arguit ⁴⁷. Expende quid dixeris, non argui ab Apostolo parentes, in quantum parentes sunt.

40. Jul. Let us also consider a third point, whereby your benignity may be discerned in the ease of acquiescing. Nor does the Apostle arraign parents, inasmuch as they are parents, joined to one another lawfully and legitimately for the procreation of children ⁴⁷. Weigh what you have said: that parents are not arraigned by the Apostle, inasmuch as they are parents.

Ideo ergo eos, in quantum parentes sunt, non posse diabolo fructificare, nec de his aliquid, in quantum parentes sunt, ad diabolum pertinere pronuntiat; filii autem in tantum pertinent ad parentes, in quantum parentes sunt; igitur nec rei, nec sub regno diaboli, nec arguendi a diabolo comprobantur. Ut enim hoc quod diximus, re petitione clarescat: In tantum sexuum coniunctio suboli participat, in quantum qui coniuges sunt, fiunt parentes; si autem aliquid inter se voluerint agere petulantius, vel per illicitos adulteriorum aberrare concubitus, hoc ad filios non potest attinere, qui de vi seminum, non de vitiorum obscaenitate nascuntur.

Therefore he pronounces that they, insofar as they are parents, cannot bear fruit for the devil, nor does anything of theirs, insofar as they are parents, pertain to the devil; moreover, children pertain to parents only to the extent that they are parents; therefore they are shown to be neither guilty, nor under the kingdom of the devil, nor liable to accusation by the devil. For, that what we have said may be made clear by repetition: to this extent the conjunction of the sexes shares in offspring, to the extent that those who are spouses become parents; but if they should wish to do anything among themselves more petulantly, or to stray into illicit concubits of adulteries, this cannot pertain to the children, who are born by the force of the seeds, not from the obscenity of vices.

Aug. Iamne confiteris etiam inter coniuges esse posse petulantiam commixtionis? Ecce quod facit tua illa pulchra suscepta; hoc enim nisi cum ei ceditur non fit, quando ad petulantiam, quam tu quoque reprehendis, etiam coniuges liberorum procreandorum causa copulatos, nulla necessitate serendae prolis impellit; cuius tantus laudator esse voluisti, ut nemo credat quod etiam oppugnator esse audeas; quippe quam sic laudare non erubuisti, ut eam te liberet, nec puderet, etiam in paradisi beatitudine collocare.

Aug. Do you now confess that even between spouses there can be a petulance of commixture? Behold what that fine assumption of yours brings about; for this does not occur unless one yields to it, when it impels even spouses, coupled for the sake of begetting children, to the petulance which you too reprove, with no necessity of sowing offspring; of which you have wished to be so great a praiser that no one would believe you even dare to be its oppugnor; indeed you have not blushed to praise it thus, so as to set it free for you, nor have you been ashamed to place it even in the beatitude of paradise.

Ad nascentes pervehuntur semina, non flagitia.

To the nascent there are conveyed the seeds, not the flagitious acts.

41. Iul. Igitur ad nascentes generantium, non flagitia, sed semina pervehuntur; vim autem seminum Deus instituit, et sicut confiteri cogeris, benedixit.

41. Iul. Therefore to those being born of begetters, not flagitious acts but seeds are conveyed; moreover God instituted the force of the seeds, and, as you are compelled to confess, he blessed it.

Aug. Semina Deus instituit, sed qui possunt in natura vitiata bonum eius a malo eius ita discernere, ut neque putent naturam malum esse, neque vitium naturam esse, ipsi possunt discernere quid horum duorum ad Deum creare pertineat, quid sanare. Sed hoc vos non potestis, quamdiu Pelagiani, non Catholici estis.

Aug. God instituted the seeds, but those who are able, in a vitiated nature, so to discern its good from its evil that they neither think nature to be evil nor the vice to be nature—these themselves can discern what, of these two, pertains to God to create, and what to heal. But this you cannot, so long as you are Pelagians, not Catholics.

Dic iam, rogo, dic iam, quomodo sit accipiendum, quod per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum ⁴⁸.

Say now, I ask, say now, how it is to be taken, that through one man sin entered into the world ⁴⁸.

Peccata parentum ad filios pertinere non possunt.

The sins of parents cannot pertain to children.

42. Iul. Filii igitur nec tunc rei sunt, quando in eorum generatione peccant parentes; quia in tantum ad liberos suos pertinent, in quantum parentes sunt; igitur et tantum filii ad parentes pertinent, in quantum filii sunt. Naturae quippe generantium constat germina communicare, non culpae.

42. Iul. Therefore children are not guilty even then, when, in their begetting, the parents sin; because they pertain to their own children only in so far as they are parents; therefore the children likewise pertain to the parents only in so far as they are children. For it is established that the seeds of those who beget communicate nature, not culpability.

Quod si, ut ratio demonstrat, ita etiam Apostolum confirmare pronuntias; merito nos, eo docente, defendimus peccata parentum ad filios pertinere non posse; quandoquidem et Apostolus Spiritu Sancto clarus, et nos instructi luce rationis, et tu pondere impugnatae a te veritatis oppressus, communiter vereque fateamur, parentes in quantum parentes sunt, reos non esse; in tantum autem ad filios pertinere, in quantum parentes sunt; igitur filios in quantum filii sunt, id est, antequam aliquid per voluntatem propriam operentur, reos esse non posse.

If, then, as reason demonstrates, you also pronounce that the Apostle confirms the same, with good cause, he being the teacher, we defend that the sins of parents cannot pertain to sons; since both the Apostle, illustrious with the Holy Spirit, and we, instructed by the light of reason, and you, oppressed by the weight of the truth assailed by you, let us jointly and truly confess that parents, insofar as they are parents, are not guilty; and that they pertain to their children only insofar as they are parents; therefore children, insofar as they are children, that is, before they do anything by their own will, cannot be guilty.

Aug. Parentes quidem gignendo parentes sunt, et filii nascendo filii sunt; nec gignere autem, nec nasci malum est, quod pertinet ad institutionem Dei, et utrumque sine pudenda libidine posset in paradiso fieri, si nemo peccasset. Pudenda enim libido nisi aut peccato exorta, aut peccato vitiata esset, pudenda non esset; et aut nulla esset omnino, et sine illa ita servirent genitalia membra gignentibus, ut manus serviunt operantibus; aut ita esset subsequens voluntatem, ut numquam posset sollicitare nolentem; qualem nunc eam non esse, castitas docet, quae tales motus eius expugnat, et in coniugatis, ne vel inter se indecenter lasciviant, vel in adulteria prolabantur, et in quibusque continentibus, ne huic consentiendo, deiciantur.

Aug. Parents indeed are parents by begetting, and sons are sons by being born; neither to beget, however, nor to be born is an evil, since it pertains to the institution of God, and either could have been done in paradise without shameful libido, if no one had sinned. For libido would not be shameful unless either sprung from sin or vitiated by sin; and either it would not exist at all, and without it the genital members would so serve those begetting as the hands serve those working; or it would so follow the will as never to be able to solicit one who is unwilling; that it is not so now, chastity teaches, which beats back such motions of it, both in the married, lest they either wanton indecently with one another, or slide into adulteries, and in any who are continent, lest by consenting to this they be cast down.

Ecce de qua trahitur originale peccatum; ecce per quam nasci noluit, qui venit, non suum ferre, sed nostrum auferre peccatum.

Behold, whence original sin is drawn; behold, through which he did not wish to be born, he who came not to bear his own sin, but to take away our sin.

Numquam haec instructura potest quassari.

Never can this structure be shaken.

43. Iul. Eant nunc, et omnia quidquid possunt, Manichaeae rationis moliantur ingenia, quam volunt longas patian tur cogitationum aerumnas; non arroganter, sed religiose polliceor, numquam hanc instructuram posse quassari.

43. Jul. Let them go now, and let the ingenuities of Manichaean reason contrive everything whatever they can, let them suffer, for as long as they wish, the long hardships of cogitations; not arrogantly, but religiously I promise that this structure can never be shaken.

Aug. Quam instructuram vocas, tibi ruina est, quae te ita pressit, ut laudare cogeret quod expugnas; si tamen est in te qualiscumque castitas, quae te faciat expugnare quod laudas.

Aug. The construction which you call so is for you a ruin, which has so pressed you that it compelled you to laud what you are storming; if, however, there is in you any sort of chastity, which may make you storm what you laud.

Eadem per eadem repetens.

Repeating the same things by means of the same things.

44. Iul. Qua igitur fronte subiungis: Sed " per unum hominem peccatum in mundum intravit, et per peccatum mors; et ita in omnes homines pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt ⁴⁹ "? Quod interpretaris hoc modo, ut peccatum ab illo dicat Apostolus generatione in posteros fuisse transmissum ⁵⁰. Supra concesseras Magistrum Gentium nuptias, quibus Deus benedixerat, nihil accusare; voluntatem ad peccandum in nascente non esse; parentes autem, in quantum parentes sunt, licite sibi legitimeque ad procreandos filios coniugari; et addis illico, quasi dormiens priora dixisses, crimen ad posteros generatione transmitti. Si enim in tantum generant, in quantum parentes sunt; in quantum autem parentes sunt, licite sibi et legitime iunguntur; et haec coniunctio ab Apostolo non improbatur, quia a Deo non solum instituta, verum etiam benedicta est; quo ore, qua lege, qua fronte, hanc generationem reatus causam, radice criminum, servam diaboli, esse confirmas?

44. Iul. With what face, then, do you subjoin: But " through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death; and so it passed through unto all men, in whom all sinned " ⁴⁹? Which you interpret in this way, namely, that the Apostle says sin was transmitted by generation to posterity from that man ⁵⁰. Above you had conceded that the Master of the Gentiles accuses nothing in nuptials which God had blessed; that in the one being born there is no will for sinning; and that parents, insofar as they are parents, are licitly and lawfully joined with one another for the procreation of children; and you add immediately—just as if you had said the former things while asleep—that guilt is transmitted to descendants by generation. For if they generate only insofar as they are parents, and insofar as they are parents they are joined to one another licitly and lawfully; and this conjunction is not disapproved by the Apostle, because it was by God not only instituted but also blessed; with what mouth, by what law, with what face do you confirm this generation to be the cause of guilt, the root of crimes, the slave of the devil?

Aug. Iam nescio quoties haec dicta sunt, eisque responsum est. Multiloquio tibi excitas caliginem, quae te non permittit malitiam vitiorum a naturae bonitate discernere; et usque ad odiosum fastidium eadem per eadem repetens, nondum dicis quomodo sit accipiendum, quod per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum ⁵¹.

Aug. Already I know not how many times these things have been said, and an answer has been given to them. By multiloquy you stir up for yourself a mist, which does not permit you to discern the malice of vices from the goodness of nature; and, repeating the same things through the same things to an odious disgust, you do not yet say how that is to be taken, that through one man sin entered into the world ⁵¹.

Etiam tu sentis quando dissentis.

Even you sense when you dissent.

45. Iul. Non ergo argui meretur ab Apostolo et a diabolo possidetur; a Deo instituitur, et criminum fons est; a Deo postremo, ut confiteris, benedicitur, et a te frutex diabolicus accusatur.

45. Jul. So then it does not deserve to be accused by the Apostle and to be possessed by the devil; it is instituted by God, and is a fount of crimes; lastly, by God, as you confess, it is blessed, and by you it is accused as a diabolic offshoot.

Aug. Nuptias benedixit Deus, non resistentem spiritui concupiscentiam carnis, quae non fuit ante peccatum; peccatum autem, sicut nec illam concupiscentiam quae resistit spiritui, non benedixit Deus. Nuptiae porro, quas benedixit, si peccatum non fuisset admissum, quo natura vitiata est, aut sic uterentur genitalibus membris, quemadmodum aliis utimur, sine ulla libidine oboedientibus voluntati; aut pudenda ibi libido non esset, quoniam numquam resisteret voluntati, qualis nunc utique non est; quod profecto etiam tu sentis, quando ab ea sollicitante atque illiciente dissentis.

Aug. God blessed nuptials, not the concupiscence of the flesh resisting the spirit, which did not exist before sin; but sin, just as he did not bless that concupiscence which resists the spirit, God did not bless. Moreover, the nuptials which he blessed, if sin had not been admitted, whereby nature has been vitiated, would either use the genital members as we use other members, obedient to the will without any libido; or there would not be libido in the pudenda there, since it would never resist the will—which now assuredly it is not; which indeed even you perceive, when you dissent from it as it solicits and entices.

Nuptiae tamen, etiam nunc laudabiles sunt; quia neque instituunt hoc malum in hominibus, sed inveniunt; et eo malo bene utuntur intentione generandi, quamvis trahant inde qui generantur originale peccatum, propter quod sunt regenerandi.

Nuptials, however, even now are laudable; for they neither institute this evil in human beings, but find it; and they use that evil well with the intention of begetting, although those who are begotten draw thence original sin, on account of which they are to be regenerated.

Nunc saltem.

Now at least.

46. Iul. Quam mecum nihil egeris, litterarum omnium testatur eruditio; quam vero contra Apostolum nitaris, et contra Deum insanias, sententiarum tuarum pugna demonstrat. Sed ostenso iam, non posse haec coniungi, quae rerum natura dissociat; interrogemus et Apostolum, ne illius putetur inesse sensibus, quae in tuis est sententiis probata barbaries.

46. Jul. That you have achieved nothing with me, the erudition of all literature bears witness; but that you strive against the Apostle and rage against God, the conflict of your sentences demonstrates. But since it has now been shown that those things cannot be conjoined which the nature of things dissociates, let us interrogate the Apostle as well, lest there be thought to be in his sense that barbarity which has been approved in your sentences.

Aug. Dic iam nunc saltem, quod tantis anfractibus differebas.

Aug. Say now at least what you were deferring with such great convolutions.

Exemplum peccati intravit in mundum per eum qui peccavit nullum imitando.

The exemplar of sin entered into the world through him who sinned imitating no one.

47. Iul. Audio itaque Paulum pronuntiantem, quia: Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per peccatum mors; et ita in omnes homines pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt ⁵². Quod tu, non propter exemplum peccati, sed propter generationem dictum esse confirmas; nosque haereticos vocas, qui id ad exempla referamus; illoque te iuvari aestimas argumento: Profecto si Apostolus imitationem, inquis, intellegi voluisset, non " per unum hominem ", sed per diabolum peccatum intrasse, et per omnes homines pertransisse dixisset. De diabolo quippe scriptum est: " Imitantur autem eum, qui sunt ex parte ipsius " ⁵³. Sed ideo " per unum hominem " dixit, a quo generatio utique hominum coepit, ut per generationem doceret isse per omnes originale peccatum ⁵⁴. At ego video Apostolum nihil quod ad infamationem generationis spectaret humanae, nihil quod ad condemnationem innocentiae naturalis, nihil quod ad crimen divini operis, protulisse.

47. Jul. I hear therefore Paul pronouncing that: Through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death; and thus it passed through into all men, in whom all sinned ⁵². Which you affirm to have been said not on account of the example of sin, but on account of generation; and you call us heretics who refer that to examples; and you think yourself aided by this argument: Surely if the Apostle had wished imitation, you say, to be understood, he would not have said “through one man” but that sin entered through the devil, and passed through all men. For of the devil it is written: “But they imitate him, who are of his party” ⁵³. But for this reason he said “through one man,” from whom certainly the generation of men began, that by generation he might teach that original sin went through all ⁵⁴. But I see that the Apostle put forth nothing which looked to the defamation of human generation, nothing to the condemnation of natural innocence, nothing to an accusation of the divine work.

Aug. Diu dicis: Nihil, et cum hoc verbum repetere destiteris, dicturus es nihil. Quis enim non te rideat persuadere conantem, non pertinere ad generationem quod ait Apostolus: Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum; cum ipse homo non sit genitus ab aliquo, de quo ceteri gignerentur; sed pertinere dicitis ad exemplum, cum exemplum peccati, quod posteriores imitarentur, non intrarit in mundum, nisi per eum, qui nullum imitando peccavit?

Aug. For a long time you keep saying: Nothing, and when you cease repeating this word, you will say nothing. For who would not laugh at you, as you try to persuade that what the Apostle says—Through one man sin entered into the world—does not pertain to generation; since that man himself was not begotten from someone from whom the rest might be begotten; but you say it pertains to example, though the example of sin, which those coming after would imitate, would not have entered into the world except through him who sinned by imitating no one?

Primus namque peccavit. Hunc autem non Adam, sed diabolum esse, quis Christianus ignorat? Quid est ergo, quod te libet, nisi et non tacere, et nihil dicere?

For he was the first to sin. But that this one is not Adam, but the devil, what Christian is ignorant? What then is it that it pleases you to do, if not both to not keep silence and to say nothing?

Negas tu hominum imitatione delinqui?

Do you deny that delinquency is committed through the imitation of men?

48. Iul. Denique id, quod ipsa verba non indicaverant, tu colligere argumentatione conatus, subdis, quia si de imitatione loqueretur, diabolum commemorare debuerat; sed quia de generatione voluisset intellegi, hominem dicere maluisse, quam daemonem. Interrogo ergo, quae fuerit tibi huius opinionis occasio.

48. Iul. Finally, that which the words themselves had not indicated, you, having tried to collect by argumentation, subjoin, that if he were speaking about imitation, he ought to have commemorated the devil; but because he wished to be understood as about generation, he preferred to say “man” rather than “daemon.” I therefore ask, what was the occasion for you of this opinion?

Quid enim? Negas tu hominum imitatione delinqui? Et licet res absoluta Scripturarum attestatione non egeat, tamen audi David: Noli aemulari inter malignantes, neque zelatus fueris facientes iniquitatem ⁵⁵; ne aemulatus fueris eum qui prosperatur in via sua ⁵⁶. Deinde omnes Scripturae Veteris Testamenti commonent Israelem, ne ritum profanae gentis imitetur.

What then? Do you deny that men are made delinquent by the imitation of men? And although the matter, being absolute, does not need the attestation of the Scriptures, yet listen to David: Do not emulate among the malignants, nor be zealous over those doing iniquity ⁵⁵; do not emulate him who prospers in his way ⁵⁶. Then all the Scriptures of the Old Testament admonish Israel not to imitate the rite of the profane nation.

Quae igitur necessitas id cogebat, ut Apostolus, si imitationem vellet intellegi, diabolum magis quam hominem nominaret, cum et hominum et diaboli nosset imitatione delinqui? Aut ergo tu proba, non posse hominum imitatione peccari, nec hoc in lege uspiam contineri, et sic assere suspicioni tuae locum paratum; aut certe si manifestum est, nulla magis re quam imitatione vitiorum invaluisse peccata, grandi imperitia collegisti Apostolum de diabolo profecto dicturum fuisse, si imitationem voluisset intellegi.

What necessity, then, was compelling this, that the Apostle, if he wished imitation to be understood, should name the devil rather than a man, since he knew that by imitation both of men and of the devil one may sin? Either, then, prove that it is not possible to sin by the imitation of men, nor that this is contained anywhere in the Law, and thus assert that room is afforded to your suspicion; or certainly, if it is manifest that by nothing more than by the imitation of vices have sins grown strong, by great inexperience you have inferred that the Apostle would indeed have spoken of the devil, if he had wished imitation to be understood.

Aug. Nonne ante dixi nihil te esse dicturum, homo nihil loquendo loquacissime? Sunt quidem peccata imitationis in mundo, cum homines peccantium hominum exempla sectantur, non tamen per eos homines, quos quilibet imitantur, peccatum quod peccantes imitarentur, intravit in mundum; sed per eum qui primus nullum imitando, peccavit; hic est diabolus, quem imitantur omnes qui sunt ex parte ipsius ⁵⁷. Sic et peccatum, quod non imitando committitur, sed nascendo trahitur, per hunc intravit in mundum, qui primus hominem genuit.

Aug. Did I not say before that you would say nothing, O man most loquacious while saying nothing? There are indeed sins of imitation in the world, when men follow the examples of sinning men; yet it was not through those men whom anyone may imitate that the sin, which sinners would imitate, entered into the world; but through him who first, imitating no one, sinned; this is the devil, whom all imitate who are on his side ⁵⁷. Thus also the sin which is not committed by imitating, but is drawn by being born, entered into the world through him who first begot man.

Nihil ergo dixisti, et nonnisi ad quosdam decipiendos, quosdam fatigandos lectores, tacere noluisti.

You said nothing, therefore, and you were unwilling to be silent except for deceiving certain readers and fatiguing certain others.

Imitationis peccatum per diabolum intravit in mundum.

The sin of imitation entered into the world through the devil.

49. Iul. Quia ergo claret, imitationem malorum hominum non solum consequenter, sed et necessario dici; hoc interim argumentum tuum iacere perspicuum est. Quod vero addis, de diabolo esse scriptum: Imitantur eum, qui sunt ex parte ipsius ⁵⁸; et ego assentior dictum esse prudenter ab eo, quicumque libri ipsius auctor est; sed tibi non prodest, quod scribuntur quidam diaboli imitatione peccare, nisi docueris non posse hominum imitatione delinqui.

49. Jul. Since therefore it is clear that the imitation of evil men is said not only consequently, but also necessarily, it is plain for the moment that this argument of yours lies prostrate. But as to what you add, that it is written concerning the devil: They imitate him, who are on his side ⁵⁸; I also agree that it was said prudently by him, whoever the author of that book is; but it does not help you that certain people are written to sin by imitation of the devil, unless you have shown that one cannot sin by imitation of men.

Aug. Non hic quaeritur utrum hominum imitatione peccetur; quis enim nesciat, etiam hominum imita tione peccari? Sed quaeritur, quale peccatum per unum hominem intrarit in mundum; utrum quod imitando committeretur, an quod nascendo traheretur.

Aug. It is not asked here whether one sins by imitation of men; for who does not know that even by human imita tione people sin? But what is asked is what sort of sin entered into the world through one man: whether that which would be committed by imitating, or that which would be drawn by being born.

Quia illud primum, id est, quod imitando committeretur, nonnisi per eum intravit in mundum, qui primus neminem imitatus ceteris imitaturis peccandi introduxit exemplum, hoc est, diabolus; hoc autem alterum, id est, quod nascendo traheretur, nonnisi per eum intravit in mundum, qui primus a nemine generatus, generandis ceteris originis ingessit initium; hic est Adam. De imitatione igitur Angelorum et hominum intellege te nihil ad causam pertinens dicere; sed tantum tacere noluisse. Disputamus enim, non de quocumque peccatore, qui quandocumque peccavit in mundo, sed de illo per quem peccatum intravit in mundum; ubi si quaeratur exemplum imitationis, diabolus invenitur; si contagium generationis, Adam.

Because that former thing, that is, what would be committed by imitating, entered into the world only through him who, being first and imitating no one, introduced to the rest, who would imitate, an example of sinning—that is, the devil; but this latter, that is, what would be drawn by being born, entered into the world only through him who, being first and generated by no one, imposed upon those to be generated the beginning of origin; this is Adam. Therefore understand that, concerning the imitation of Angels and men, you are saying nothing that pertains to the cause, but only that you were unwilling to be silent. For we are disputing not about just any sinner who at any time sinned in the world, but about that one through whom sin entered into the world; where, if an example of imitation is sought, the devil is found; if a contagion of generation, Adam.

Proinde, dicens Apostolus: Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum ⁵⁹, peccatum generationis intellegi voluit. Imitationis enim peccatum, non per unum hominem, sed per diabolum intravit in mundum.

Accordingly, when the Apostle says: Through one man sin entered into the world ⁵⁹, he intended the sin of generation to be understood. For the sin of imitation did not enter into the world through one man, but through the devil.

Per imitationis intellectum Adam non potuit monstrari.

By the understanding of imitation Adam could not be demonstrated.

50. Iul. Nam cum utrumque ex more dicatur, aliquando quod diabolum quis imitatus, invideat; aliquando quod hominem aemulatus, aut invidia, aut flagitiosorum sordibus oblinatur; hoc quoque imitationis nomen utrique possit convenire personae, id est, et cum de homine, et cum de diabolo dicitur; tu perridicule ineptire voluisti, per imitationis intellectum Adam non potuisse monstrari.

50. Iul. For since each is said according to custom—sometimes that someone, having imitated the devil, envies; sometimes that, having emulated a man, he is either by envy, or is besmeared with the filths of the flagitious—this name too, imitation, can suit either person, that is, both when it is said of a man and when it is said of the devil; you have wished to trifle very ridiculously, saying that through the understanding of imitation Adam could not be shown.

Aug. Numquid per quemcumque hominem, quem peccando alius imitatur, peccatum intravit in mundum? Dic, si potes, quid sit: Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per peccatum mors; et ita in omnes homines pertransiit ⁶⁰, sive mors, sive peccatum, sive potius cum morte peccatum.

Aug. Is it, perhaps, through whatever man, whom another imitates by sinning, that sin entered into the world? Say, if you can, what it is: Through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin, death; and thus it passed through into all men ⁶⁰, whether death, or sin, or rather sin together with death.

Nam peccatum, cuius imitatione peccatur, nonnisi per diabolum intravit in mundum, qui primus non imitando fecit, quod alii facerent imitando.

For the sin, by the imitation of which one sins, entered into the world only through the devil, who first, not by imitating, did what others would do by imitating.

Premendus adhuc locus est.

The point must still be pressed.

51. Iul. Ad reliqua festinat oratio, sed premendus adhuc locus est, ut divisionibus quam possumus brevibus, lectori et intellegentia rei et memoria suggeratur. In omnibus quidem pene rebus homonymorum, quae aequivoca appellamus, conditio reperitur.

51. Jul. The oration hastens to the remaining matters, but the point still needs to be pressed, so that by divisions as brief as we can, both the understanding of the matter and the memory may be suggested to the reader. In almost all things indeed the condition of homonyms, which we call equivocal, is found.

Aug. Promiseras te intellegentiam suggesturum esse lectori, et loqueris de homonymis et aequivocis; quomodo ergo te ipsi saltem Pelagiani intellecturi sunt, nisi prius ad scholas dialecticorum, ubicumque terrarum potuerint inveniri, propter haec discenda mittantur? An forte et categorias Aristotelis, antequam tuos libros legant, eis exponens ipse lecturus es? Cur non et hoc facias, homo ingeniosissimus, quandoquidem a deceptis miseris pasceris otiosus?

Aug. You had promised that you would supply understanding to the reader, and you speak about homonyms and equivocal terms; how then are the Pelagians themselves, at least, going to understand you, unless first they are sent to the schools of the dialecticians, wherever in the world they can be found, for the sake of learning these things? Or perhaps you yourself are going to read to them, expounding the Categories of Aristotle, before they read your books? Why do you not do this as well, most ingenious man, since you are fed in idleness by the wretches you have deceived?

Imitatio animorum est.

It is an imitation of minds.

52. Iul. Sed ut nunc nobis sermo de praesentibus sit, generatio proprie sexibus imputatur, imitatio au tem semper animorum est. Hic ergo affectus animi, quod possibiliter voluerit imitantis, hominem pro diversitate causarum aut accusat, aut provehit; ita fit ut in bono et Deum, et Angelos, et Apostolos dicatur imitari; Deum: Estote perfecti, sicut Pater vester perfectus est ⁶¹; Angelos: Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra ⁶²; Apostolos: Imitatores mei estote, sicut et ego Christi ⁶³. In malo vero imitatur diabolum, sicut dicitur: Imitantur eum, qui sunt ex parte ipsius ⁶⁴; imitantur homines: Nolite esse tristes sicut hypocritae, exterminantes facies suas ⁶⁵, imitantur animalia, cum mandatur: Nolite fieri sicut equus et mulus, quibus non est intellectus ⁶⁶. His ergo verbis, tam adhortantibus quam deterrentibus, ostenditur imitationis affectus, qui utique si esse non posset, non indiceretur cavendus.

52. Jul. But so that now our discourse may be about present things, generation is properly imputed to the sexes, whereas imitation is always of minds. Therefore this affection of mind—according to what the imitator may possibly have willed—either accuses a man or advances him, according to the diversity of causes; thus it comes to pass that in good he is said to imitate God, and the Angels, and the Apostles; God: Be perfect, as your Father is perfect ⁶¹; Angels: Thy will be done, as in heaven, so also on earth ⁶²; Apostles: Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ ⁶³. In evil, however, he imitates the devil, as it is said: They imitate him who are on his side ⁶⁴; they imitate men: Do not be sad like the hypocrites, disfiguring their faces ⁶⁵; they imitate animals, when it is commanded: Do not become like the horse and the mule, which have no understanding ⁶⁶. By these words, therefore, as much exhorting as deterring, the affection of imitation is shown, which assuredly, if it could not exist, would not be enjoined as something to be guarded against.

Aug. Sed peccatum imitationis, id est, quod imitatione fieret, non intravit in mundum, nisi per eum, qui ut imitatione peccaretur, sine imitatione peccavit; et non est Adam certe iste, sed diabolus. Qui enim dixit: Intravit in mundum ⁶⁷, initium peccati huius ostendit; quod initium manifestum est, non esse factum per hominem, sed per diabolum; si peccatum quod imitarentur peccantes, velimus attendere.

Aug. But the sin of imitation—that is, that which would be done by imitation—did not enter into the world, except through him who, in order that there might be sinning by imitation, sinned without imitation; and this is surely not Adam, but the devil. For he who said: Entered into the world ⁶⁷, pointed out the beginning of this sin; which beginning is manifest not to have been brought about through a man, but through the devil, if we are willing to attend to the sin which sinners would imitate.

Restat igitur ut peccatum quod per unum hominem intravit in mundum, non imitationi, sed generationi recte possit attribui. Agimus sane Deo gratias, quoniam contra vestrum locutus errorem, voluntatem bonam, qua imitamur bonos, non viribus nostri liberi arbitrii, sed auxilio Dei esse tribuendam, velut coruscante tibi veritate confessus es; quandoquidem ut Angelos imitemur, non praesumendum a nobis, sed a Domino demonstrasti esse poscendum, sic exponens quod oramus et dicimus: Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra ⁶⁸.

It remains therefore that the sin which through one man entered into the world can rightly be attributed not to imitation, but to generation. We indeed give thanks to God, since, having spoken against your error, you have confessed that the good will, by which we imitate the good, is to be attributed not to the powers of our free will, but to the aid of God, as with the truth, as it were, flashing upon you; since you have shown that, in order that we may imitate the Angels, it is not to be presumed by us, but is to be asked from the Lord, thus expounding what we pray and say: Thy will be done, as in heaven so also on earth ⁶⁸.

Qui malignitatem diaboli imitatur, filius diaboli est.

He who imitates the malignity of the devil is a son of the devil.

53. Iul. Sed ut imitationis vocabulum rebus diversis manifestum est communiter convenire; ita generatio vere et proprie generantem substantiam indicat; non proprie autem, sed abusive studiis applicatur. Et tamen quia hic est iam usus loquendi et quod indicarit agnoscitur, et proprietatibus praeiudicium afferre non sinitur.

53. Jul. But just as the term “imitation” is manifestly seen to fit diverse things in common; so “generation” truly and properly indicates the generating substance; not properly, however, but abusively is it applied to pursuits. And yet, since this is now the usage of speech and what it has indicated is acknowledged, it is not allowed to bring prejudice to the proprieties.

Dicitur ergo diabolus generare peccantes, secundum quod Dominus in Evangelio: Vos, ait, ex patre diabolo estis ⁶⁹. Quo sermone, eum dixit criminosorum patrem, cuius malignitatem convincebantur imitari; et tamen in absoluto est intellegentia, quia per hoc nomen, videlicet patris, nec diabolo sexus, nec hominibus illis aeria sit adscripta substantia. Iam igitur quid confici hinc voluerimus appareat. Si proprie numquam hominem homo iudicaretur imitari, et Apostolus per Adam omnes peccasse dixisset; ego libere praescriberem usu Scripturarum esse Apostolum vindicandum, ut quomodo Dominus diabolum dixerat patrem, qui substantia generare non poterat; ita Apostolus hominem scripsisset imitabilem, ne quid docuisse contra ratio nem perspicuam crederetur.

Therefore the devil is said to generate sinners, according to what the Lord in the Gospel: You, he says, are from the devil as father ⁶⁹. By this utterance he called him the father of criminals, whose malignity they were convicted of imitating; and yet the understanding is absolute, since by this name, to wit “father,” neither is sex ascribed to the devil, nor to those men an aerial substance. Now therefore let it appear what we have wished to have made good from this. If, strictly, a man would never be judged to imitate a man, and the Apostle had said that all sinned through Adam; I would freely prescribe that, by the usage of the Scriptures, the Apostle must be vindicated, so that just as the Lord had called the devil “father,” who could not generate by substance, so the Apostle had written the man as imitable, lest he be believed to have taught anything against perspicuous reason.

Aug. Numquid Adam prior in peccato imitabilis fuit, ut merito per illum hoc peccati genus intrasse diceretur in mundum? Nonne diabolus prior imitabilis in peccato exstitit?

Aug. Was Adam the prior one imitable in sin, so that rightly through him this genus of sin would be said to have entered into the world? Was not the devil prior, imitable in sin?

Per illum ergo intrasse in mundum peccatum, Apostolus diceret, si peccatum, quod imitando alii facerent, eo loco vellet intellegi.

Therefore, the Apostle would have said that through him sin entered into the world, if he had wished the sin to be understood in that place as the kind which others would do by imitating.

Apostolus dicit primum hominem sequentibus peccantibus exemplum fuisse.

The Apostle says that the first man was an example for subsequent sinners.

54. Iul. Nunc vero si colligam, quae sunt in Evangelio abusive prolata, non sustinent; multo magis apostolus Paulus nullam errori occasionem praebuit, qui nihil dixit improprium, si pronuntiavit, peccatorem primum hominem sequentibus peccantibus exemplum fuisse.

54. Iul. Now indeed, if I should collect the things in the Gospel that are put forth abusively, they do not stand; much more did the apostle Paul give no occasion to error, who said nothing improper, if he pronounced that the first man, a sinner, was an example to those following in sinning.

Aug. Non ergo debuit istos duos proponere, unum ad peccatum, alterum ad iustitiam, Adam scilicet, et Christum. Si enim primum peccatorem, propter peccatum quod imitati sunt ceteri, posuisset Adam; profecto primum iustum, propter iustitiam ceteris imitandum, non Christum poneret, sed Abel; primus quippe Abel, nullum hominum imitans, sed ceteris imitandus, iustus fuit.

Aug. Therefore he ought not to have set forth those two, one for sin, the other for justice—namely Adam and Christ. For if he had posited Adam as the first sinner, on account of the sin which the rest imitated, surely he would set, as the first just man, to be imitated by the others on account of justice, not Christ but Abel; for Abel, first, imitating no human being but to be imitated by the others, was just.

Sciens autem quod loqueretur, Apostolus Adam posuit ad peccatum, Christum ad iustitiam; quia illum noverat generationis, istum regenerationis auctorem.

But knowing what he was saying, the Apostle set Adam with regard to sin, Christ with regard to justice; because he knew that the former was the author of generation, the latter of regeneration.

Malum et hominis et diaboli non nisi imitatione transit.

Evil, both of man and of the devil, is transmitted only by imitation.

55. Iul. Ac per hoc bardissime argumentatus es, quod si apostolus Paulus per imitationem transisse peccatum voluisset intellegi, diabolum magis quam Adam nominasset; cum clareat, et hominis et diaboli malum non nisi imitatione transire potuisse. Verum disiecto quod tu exstruxeras, non tam meis quam ipsius rationis manibus, quid nunc a nobis afferatur attende.

55. Iul. And therefore you have argued most foolishly, that if the apostle Paul had wished it to be understood that sin passed by imitation, he would have named the devil rather than Adam; since it is clear that the evil both of man and of the devil could pass only by imitation. But, with what you had built up demolished, not so much by my hands as by the hands of reason itself, attend to what is now brought forward by us.

Aug. Non te disiecisse quod struxeram, nec sanae rationis, sed vanae tuae opinionis manus te frustra intulisse structurae nostrae, utriusque nostrum verba qui legerint iudicabunt.

Aug. That you have not demolished what I had constructed, nor by the hands of sound reason, but that you have in vain laid the hands of your empty opinion upon our structure, those who will have read the words of each of us will judge.

A viro est generationis initium.

From the man is the initiation of generation.

56. Iul. Ostendit Apostolus non a se dictum esse, peccatum generatione transisse, quando nominans hominem, adiecit: unum; unus enim numeri principium est; et ille explicans per quem diceret intrasse peccatum, non solum eum nominavit, verum etiam numeravit: Per unum, inquit, hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit ⁷⁰. Hic autem unus praebendae imitationi sufficit, generationi implendae non sufficit. Peccatum autem transiit, sed per unum.

56. Jul. The Apostle shows that it was not said by himself that sin passed by generation, since, when naming “man,” he added: one; for “one” is the principle of number; and he, explaining through whom he said that sin entered, not only named him, but even enumerated him: Through one, he says, man sin entered into this world ⁷⁰. This one, however, suffices for imitation to be furnished, he does not suffice for generation to be fulfilled. But sin did pass, yet through one.

Manifestum est, imitationem hic, non generationem coargui, quae nisi per duos fieri non potest. Aut igitur ostende, per Adam solum sine muliere generationem exstitisse; nec hoc enim ab elegantia tui abhorret ingenii; aut certe quoniam vides generationem nisi per duos constare non posse, assentire vel sero, accusatum non esse per unum numerum opus duorum. Per unum, inquit, hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, qui dixit: per unum , intellegi per duos noluit.

It is manifest that imitation here, not generation, is arraigned, which cannot be brought about except through two. Either therefore show that generation existed through Adam alone without a woman; for not even this recoils from the elegance of your genius; or at least, since you see that generation cannot consist except through two, assent, even late, that the work of two is not accused by the one number. Through one, he says, sin entered into the world; he who said: through one , did not wish “through two” to be understood.

Quid rogo, quaerebat inter haec dogmata numerus, ut Apostolus tanta cura, non solum hominem, sed unum hominem nominaret? Verum apparet cautus augusti sermo consilii, qui revelante Spiritu Sancto, temporum nostrorum praecavit et exarmavit errores; ne in infamationem quippe aliquid instituti a Deo coniugii vel benedictae fecunditatis dixisse putaretur; cum causa posceret ut peccati replicaret exordia, per eum dixit numerum transisse peccatum, qui fetibus non poterat convenire. Et certe primi homines ambo deliquerant, qui ambo merito vocantur forma posteris fuisse peccati; cur non igitur Apostolus per duos ait transisse peccatum; quod et ad fidem magis historiae congruebat?

What, I ask, had number to do among these dogmas, that the Apostle with such care named not only “man,” but one man? Truly there appears the cautious discourse of august counsel, which, with the Holy Spirit revealing, foreguarded and disarmed the errors of our times; lest he be thought to have said anything to the defamation of marriage instituted by God or of blessed fecundity. Since the case required that he replicate the beginnings of sin, he said that sin passed through that number which could not be compatible with offspring. And certainly the first humans had both transgressed, who are both with reason called to have been a form of sin for their posterity; why then did the Apostle not say that sin passed through two, which also would have more agreed with the credence of the history?

Verum nihil potuit ab eo prudentius fieri; vidit enim, si duos nominasset, qui praevaricationi initium exemplumque praestiterant, et per eos affirmasset transisse peccatum, errori occasionem patere, ut putaretur per duorum nomina coniunctionem fecunditatemque damnasse. Ideoque prudentissime unum maluit nominare, qui non sufficiens ad generationis indicium, ad signum abundaret exempli; atque imitationem accusatus gravaret, nec fecunditatem numeratus argueret. Et ut breviter quod egimus colligatur, fecunditas in primis hominibus instituta, nisi per duos agi non potest; peccatum autem Apostolus intrasse pronuntiat, sed per unum .

Yet nothing could have been done by him more prudently; for he saw that, if he had named two—those who had supplied the beginning and exemplar of prevarication—and had affirmed that through them sin had passed, an occasion would lie open to error, so that it would be thought that by the naming of two he had condemned conjunction and fecundity. And therefore, most prudently, he preferred to name one, who, not sufficient as an indication of generation, would abound as a sign of example; and by accusing imitation he would lay the weight upon it, nor by numbering would he indict fecundity. And, to gather briefly what we have been urging: fecundity, instituted in the first humans, cannot be carried on except through two; but the Apostle proclaims that sin entered, but through one .

Aug. Praedixeram te nihil esse dicturum; et ita esse, cuivis tardissimo clarum est. Numquid enim Evam non imitantur peccantes, aut peccatum generis humani non magis ex ipsa sumpsit initium?

Aug. I had foretold that you would say nothing; and that this is so is clear to even the very slowest. For do not sinners imitate Eve, or did not the sin of the human race rather take its beginning from her?

A muliere initium factum est peccati, et propter illam, sicut scriptum est, morimur omnes ⁷¹. Cur ergo non vis attendere, propterea potius Apostolum unum dixisse hominem, per quem peccatum intravit in mundum, quia non imitationem, sed generationem volebat intellegi? Sicut enim a muliere initium peccati fuit, sic initium generationis a viro est; prior enim vir seminat, ut femina pariat; ideo per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum ⁷², quia per semen generationis intravit, quod a viro excipiens concepit femina; quo more nasci noluit, qui solus sine peccato est natus ex femina.

From the woman a beginning was made of sin, and on account of her, as it is written, we all die ⁷¹. Why, then, do you not wish to consider that for this reason the Apostle rather said one man, through whom sin entered into the world, because he wanted not imitation but generation to be understood? For just as from the woman there was the beginning of sin, so the beginning of generation is from the man; for the man first sows, that the woman may bring forth; therefore through one man sin entered into the world ⁷², because it entered through the seed of generation, which the woman, receiving from the man, conceived; in which manner he who alone was born without sin from a woman did not wish to be born.

Dicis ab uno homine coepisse generationem.

You say that generation began from one man.

57. Iul. Irrefutabiliter confectum est, peccatum illud ostendi ab Apostolo moribus ad posteros, non seminibus fuisse devectum. Quanta ergo de ore tuo effluxerit falsitas, intuere: Sed ideo " per unum hominem " Apostolus dixit, a quo generatio utique hominum coepit, ut per generationem doceret isse per omnes originale peccatum ⁷³; cum ideo Apostolus per unum hominem ⁷⁴ dixerit, ne putaretur isse per omnes originale peccatum.

57. Jul. It has been incontrovertibly established that that sin is shown by the Apostle to have been conveyed to posterity by morals, not by seeds. Consider, then, how great a falsity has flowed from your mouth: But for this reason " per unum hominem " the Apostle said, from whom assuredly the generation of men began, that through generation he might teach that original sin went through all ⁷³; whereas for this reason the Apostle said per unum hominem ⁷⁴, lest it be thought that original sin went through all.

Ineptis ita, ut vix teneam cachinnum, qui dicis generationem ab uno homine coepisse; cum et diversitas sexuum, et lectio divina testetur, generationem non esse potuisse, nisi duo prius homines, id est vir et mulier, exstitissent.

You are so inept that I scarcely restrain a cachinnation, you who say that generation began from one man; since both the diversity of the sexes and the divine lection bears witness that generation could not have been, unless two human beings, that is, a man and a woman, had previously existed.

Aug. Qui hoc legunt, legant iterum superiorem responsionem meam; aut, si eius bene meminerunt, deliramenta huius irrideant. Quamvis possem dicere, ideo non duos, sed unum hominem dixisse Apostolum, per quem peccatum intravit in mundum, quia scriptum est: Erunt duo in carne una ⁷⁵; unde Dominus ait: Igitur iam non sunt duo, sed una caro ⁷⁶; maxime quando vir adhaeret uxori, et initur concubitus.

Aug. Those who read this, let them read again my prior response; or, if they remember it well, let them mock this man’s ravings. Although I could say that for this reason the Apostle said not two, but one man, through whom sin entered into the world, because it is written: The two shall be in one flesh ⁷⁵; whence the Lord says: Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh ⁷⁶; especially when a man adheres to his wife, and intercourse is entered upon.

De concubitu autem proles gignitur, trahens originale peccatum, vitio propagante vitium, Deo creante naturam; quam naturam coniuges, etiam bene utentes vitio, non possunt tamen ita generare, ut possit esse sine vitio; quod ille qui sine ipso natus est vitio, evacuat in parvulis, etiam nolente Iuliano.

From intercourse, moreover, progeny is begotten, drawing original sin, with vice propagating vice, with God creating nature; which nature spouses, even using the vice well, nevertheless cannot so generate that it can be without vice; which He who was born without that very vice evacuates in little ones, even with Julian unwilling.

Adam ex se concepit et peperit?

Did Adam conceive and give birth from himself?

58. Iul. Aut si forte (quoniam aliter dogma tuum stare non potest) Adam ex se concepisse et peperisse responderis; Apostolum quidem non hoc sensisse nulli dubium; tu vero, quid sexui tuo volueris evenire, monstrabis.

58. Jul. Or if by chance (since otherwise your dogma cannot stand) you answer that Adam conceived and gave birth from himself; that the Apostle did not mean this is doubtful to no one; but you will show what you have wished to befall your sex.

Aug. Non expavescis quod scriptum est: Neque maledici regnum Dei possidebunt ⁷⁷? Neque enim tam foeda convicia nihil te adiuvantia, nisi maledicendi libidine loquereris.

Aug. Do you not shudder at what is written: Neither will revilers possess the kingdom of God ⁷⁷? For indeed, you would not be uttering such foul invectives, which help you not at all, were it not for a lust of reviling.

Hoc quoque contra vestram impietatem valet.

This also has force against your impiety.

59. Iul. Verum haec omissa faciamus, et illud, quod a vobis apparet posse in hoc loco referri, rationis viribus deteramus. Si ergo dixeris, scriptum esse de hac commixtione, quod fiant duo in carne una, et secundum hunc modum, Apostolum per unum hominem ⁷⁸ dixisse, ut adhaerentia sibi generantium membra signaret; respondebo hoc quoque contra vestram impietatem valere.

59. Jul. But let us set these things aside, and let us, by the forces of reason, wear down that point which seems able to be referred in this place by you. If therefore you should say that it is written about this commixtion, that the two become in one flesh, and that, according to this mode, the Apostle said through one man ⁷⁸, in order to designate the members of the begetters adhering to each other; I will respond that this too has force against your impiety.

Non enim dictum est: Erunt duo homines in uno homine; sed: Erunt duo in carne una ⁷⁹; quo unitionis nomine voluptas illa coeuntium et libido, quae sensum afficiens membra consternat ac, sicut ille prudens intellexit, unam carnem gestit efficere, a Deo instituta et corporibus ante peccatum doceretur inserta.

For it was not said: There shall be two men in one man; but: There shall be two in one flesh ⁷⁹; by which name of unition that pleasure of those coeunting and the libido—which, affecting sense, throws the members into consternation and, as that prudent man understood, eagerly strives to make one flesh—might be taught to have been instituted by God and inserted into bodies before sin.

Aug. Si ut essent duo in carne una, facere nisi libido non posset (quam susceptam tuam talem prorsus, qualis nunc a te et laudatur et expugnatur, quam pudendam confiteris et sine pudore sic diligis, audes etiam paradisi possessione dotare); nullo modo etiam in Christo et in Ecclesia posset intellegi: Erunt duo in carne una. Neque enim tam longe exorbitas a veritatis via, ut etiam coniunctioni Christi et Ecclesiae, hanc audeas importare libidinem. Porro, si possunt sine ista esse duo in carne una Christus et Ecclesia, potuerunt etiam vir et uxor, si nemo peccasset, non pudenda libidine, de qua erubescit et qui eam laudare non erubescit, sed merito laudanda caritate coniungi, et filiorum procreandorum causa esse duo in carne una.

Aug. If, in order that there might be two in one flesh, nothing but libido could bring it about (which you have taken up as your own—precisely such as now by you both is praised and assailed, which you confess to be shameful and without shame thus you love, you even dare to endow with the possession of paradise); then in no way could it be understood even in Christ and in the Church: Erunt duo in carne una. For you do not stray so far from the way of truth as to dare to import this libido even into the conjunction of Christ and the Church. Furthermore, if Christ and the Church can be two in one flesh without that, then husband and wife also could have been—if no one had sinned—joined not by a shameful libido (at which even he blushes who does not blush to praise it), but by a charity deservedly to be praised, and, for the sake of the procreation of children, be two in one flesh.

Unde Dominus cum dicit: Igitur iam non sunt duo, sed una caro ⁸⁰; non utique dicit: Non sunt duae, sed una caro. Quid ergo non sunt duo, nisi homines? Sicut Christus et Ecclesia simul non duo Christi, sed unus est Christus; unde et nobis dictum est: Ergo Abrahae semen estis ⁸¹; cum de illo dictum sit Abraham: Et semini tuo, quod est Christus ⁸².

Whence the Lord, when he says: Igitur iam non sunt duo, sed una caro ⁸⁰; he certainly does not say: Non sunt duae, sed una caro. What then are “not two,” if not human beings? Just as Christ and the Church together are not two Christs, but one Christ; whence also it has been said to us: Ergo Abrahae semen estis ⁸¹; since of him it was said to Abraham: Et semini tuo, quod est Christus ⁸².

Verecundia?

Modesty?

60. Iul. Ac per hoc nihil sibi vel de iucunditate eius, vel de verecundia potest diabolus vindicare.

60. Jul. And therefore the devil can claim nothing for himself either in regard to his jocundity or his modesty.

Aug. Quid est quod dicis: de verecundia? An confusionem nominare confunderis? Et tamen pudendam libidinem, et ante peccatum fuisse dicis in eis, de quibus dicit Scriptura: Nudi erant, et non confundebantur ⁸³.

Aug. What is it that you say: on verecundity? Or are you confounded to nominate “confusion”? And yet you say that a shameful libido existed even before sin in those of whom Scripture says: They were naked, and were not confounded ⁸³.

Non anima de anima.

Not a soul from a soul.

61. Iul. Verumtamen hic Apostolus si quid tale sensisset, per unam carnem, non per unum hominem peccatum intrasse dixisset. Per generationem vero substantia carnis soboli sola participat; quia non anima de anima, sed caro de carne trahitur; in nomine autem hominis, et animus proprie iudicatur et corpus, ac per hoc Apostolus unum hominem nominando, nec negotium fecunditatis ostendit, in quo nihil praeter substantiam carnis impertiri noverat; nec duos intellegi voluit, qui unum inculcavit, ut doceret imitatione transisse, non generatione peccatum.

61. Jul. Nevertheless, if the Apostle had sensed anything of this sort, he would have said that sin entered through one flesh, not through one man. By generation, indeed, the substance of the flesh alone shares in the offspring; because not soul from soul, but flesh from flesh is drawn; but in the name “man,” both spirit and body are properly understood; and therefore, by naming one man, the Apostle neither pointed out the business of fecundity, in which he knew that nothing besides the substance of the flesh is imparted, nor did he wish two to be understood, he who inculcated one, so that he might teach that sin passed by imitation, not by generation.

Aug. Quid est ergo: Iam non sunt duo, sed una caro ⁸⁴, nisi: Non sunt duo homines, propter unam carnem? Cum et ipsa caro possit dici homo, a parte totum; sicut: Verbum caro factum est ⁸⁵; quia homo factus est, de quo dictum est.

Aug. What, then, is the meaning of: They are now not two, but one flesh ⁸⁴, if not this: They are not two men, on account of one flesh? Since even flesh itself can be called “man,” the whole from a part; just as: The Word was made flesh ⁸⁵; because the one of whom it was said became man.

Apostolus etiam quod ait: Exterior homo corrumpitur ⁸⁶; puto quod carnem intellegi voluit. Propter quod recte loquimur, cum dicimus: Hominis sepulchrum; quamvis caro ibi sola sepulta sit. Nec erravit quae dixit: Tulerunt Dominum meum de monumento ⁸⁷; quamvis sola caro ibi posita fuerit.

The Apostle also, where he says: The outer man is corrupted ⁸⁶; I suppose that he wished flesh to be understood. On account of which we speak rightly, when we say: The sepulcher of the man; although flesh alone is buried there. Nor did she err who said: They have taken my Lord from the monument ⁸⁷; although only the flesh had been placed there.

Manente ergo de anima obscurissima quaestione, potuit dici: Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum ⁸⁸; etiamsi ad propaginem sola caro pertineat. Haec itaque attende, et quam nihil dixeris vide.

Therefore, the most obscure question concerning the soul remaining, it could be said: Through one man sin entered into the world ⁸⁸; even if to propagation the flesh alone pertains. Attend to these things, then, and see how nothing you have said.

Exempla culpavit.

He blamed the examples.

62. Iul. Hic iam licet egerit partes suas veritas, tamen ut sit intentus lector, admoneo. Plurimum igitur in hoc conflictu de meo iure deposui, secutusque quo adversarii temeritas provocaverat, adeo sanae fidei scita defendi, ut etiamsi Magistri Gentium verba essent, quibus illum usum Traducianus putavit; liqueret tamen eum nihil de naturali sensisse peccato, qui nominando hominem, sed unum, non utique generationem criminis, sed exempla culpasset.

62. Jul. Here now, although truth has already played its parts, nevertheless I admonish, that the reader may be intent. Therefore I have laid down very much of my right in this conflict, and, following whither the adversary’s temerity had provoked, I have defended the statutes of sound faith to such a degree that, even if they were the words of the Teacher of the Nations, which the Traducianist supposed that he had used, it would yet be clear that he felt nothing about natural sin—he who, by naming “man,” but “one,” would have blamed not the generation of a crime, but the examples of fault.

Aug. Exemplum dedisti, sed vanitatis in te ipso, quia, si exemplum peccati a primo peccatore homine Apostolus poneret, id est, Adam; profecto exemplum iustitiae a primo homine iusto poneret, id est, Abel.

Aug. You have given an example, but of vanity in yourself, because, if the Apostle were to set an example of sin from the first sinful man, that is, Adam; assuredly he would set an example of justice from the first just man, that is, Abel.

Dixit Paulus mortem transisse, non peccatum.

Paul said that death has passed over, not sin.

63. Iul. Constat autem non esse apostolicorum verborum eum ordinem, quem inimicus noster putavit. Argumentatur quippe hoc modo: Si Apostolus imitationem, inquit, voluisset intellegi, non " per unum hominem " ⁸⁹, sed per diabolum peccatum intrasse, et per omnes homines pertransisse dixisset.

63. Jul. It is clear, moreover, that the order of the apostolic words is not that which our enemy supposed. For he argues in this way: If the Apostle had wished imitation, he says, to be understood, he would not have said " per unum hominem " ⁸⁹, but would have said that sin entered through the devil, and passed through all men.

De diabolo quippe scriptum est: " Imitantur eum, qui sunt ex parte eius " ⁹⁰. Sed ideo " per unum hominem " dixit, a quo generatio utique hominum coepit ut per generationem doceret isse per omnes originale peccatum ⁹¹. In hoc ergo mentitur, quod affirmat beatum Paulum pronuntiasse, quia per unum hominem peccatum intraverit in mundum, atque ita in omnes homines pertransierit; hoc, inquam, in Magistri Gentium sermonibus non tenetur; ille quippe non dixit peccatum transisse, sed mortem. Est ergo ordo verborum: Sicut per unum hominem peccatum in mundum intravit, et per peccatum mors; et ita in omnes homines pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt ⁹². Sublimis informator Ecclesiae, quid sibi dicendum esset expendit: Per unum, inquit, hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per peccatum mors; et ita in omnes homines pertransiit. Iam nominaverat mortem, atque peccatum; quid fuit necesse ut in eo quod pertransisse dicebat, mortem a peccati communione separaret, ut signanter ostenderet, in hunc quidem mundum per unum hominem intrasse peccatum, et per peccatum mortem; in omnes vero homines non peccatum transisse, sed mortem, utique iudicii illatam severitate, praevaricationis ultricem, non corporum semina, sed morum vitia persequentem; nisi quia commendare et praemunire curavit, ne vestro dogmati opitulatus aliquid putaretur?

Concerning the devil, indeed, it is written: " They imitate him, who are of his side " ⁹⁰. But for this reason he said " through one man," from whom of course the generation of humankind began, so that through generation he might teach that original sin went through all ⁹¹. In this, therefore, he lies, in that he affirms that blessed Paul pronounced that through one man sin entered into the world, and thus passed through into all men; this, I say, is not maintained in the discourses of the Teacher of the Nations; for he did not say that sin passed, but that death did. Therefore the order of the words is: As through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death; and so it passed through into all men, in whom all sinned ⁹². The sublime instructor of the Church weighed what ought to be said: Through one, he says, man sin entered into the world, and through sin death; and so it passed through into all men. Already he had named death and sin; what need was there that, in that which he was saying had passed through, he should separate death from fellowship with sin, so as to show pointedly that into this world indeed, through one man, sin entered, and through sin death; but into all men there passed not sin, but death—assuredly brought in by the severity of judgment, avenger of the transgression, pursuing not the seeds of bodies, but the vices of morals—unless because he took care to commend and to fortify beforehand, lest he should be thought to have lent any assistance to your dogma?

Aug. In eo quidem loco, ubi dictum est: Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per peccatum mors; et ita in omnes homines pertransiit ; utrum peccatum, an mors, an utrumque per omnes homines pertransisse dictum sit, videtur ambiguum; sed quid horum sit, res ipsa tam aperta demonstrat. Nam si peccatum non pertransisset, non omnis homo cum lege peccati, quae in membris est, nasceretur; si mors non pertransisset, non omnes homines, quantum ad istam conditionem mortalium pertinet, morerentur.

Aug. In that very place where it was said: Through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death; and thus it passed through into all men ; whether it is said that sin, or death, or both have passed through all men seems ambiguous; but which of these it is, the thing itself demonstrates so openly. For if sin had not passed through, not every man would be born with the law of sin, which is in the members; if death had not passed through, not all men, so far as pertains to this condition of mortals, would die.

Quod autem dicit Apostolus: In quo omnes peccaverunt; in quo, non intellegitur nisi in Adam, in quo eos dicit et mori; quia non erat iustum, sine crimine transire supplicium. Quacumque te vertas, nullo modo catholicae fidei fundamenta subvertes; praesertim quia et tu ipse tibi adversaris, qui nunc dicis non peccatum transisse, sed mortem; cum superius dixeris, Apostolum ideo non duos homines, sed unum inculcasse, ut doceret imitatione transisse, non generatione peccatum ⁹³. Transiit ergo cum morte peccatum; quid est quod nunc dicis, non peccatum transisse, sed mortem?

But as to what the Apostle says: In whom all sinned; in whom, “in whom” is understood only as in Adam, in whom he also says that they die; because it was not just that the punishment should pass without a crime. Whichever way you turn yourself, in no way will you overthrow the foundations of the Catholic faith; especially since you are also at odds with yourself, you who now say that not sin passed over, but death; whereas above you said that the Apostle for this reason pressed not two men, but one, in order to teach that by imitation, not by generation, sin passed over ⁹³. Therefore sin passed along with death; what is this that you now say, not that sin passed over, but death?

Quantum distet inter te et Paulum.

How great the distance is between you and Paul.

64. Iul. Quantum igitur inter te et Paulum distet, intende. Ille dicit: Per unum hominem ⁹⁴, tu: Per duos, id est, per generationem.

64. Jul. Therefore, attend to how much difference there is between you and Paul. He says: Through one man ⁹⁴, you: Through two, that is, through generation.

Ille pronuntiat, in primo homine et peccatum et mortem fuisse, ad posteros vero solam transisse mortem; tu contra asseris, et peccatum ad omnes et interitum cucurrisse.

He pronounces that in the first man both sin and death were, but that to posterity only death passed; you, on the contrary, assert that both sin has run to all and that destruction has run as well.

Aug. Iam responsum est: relegant qui volunt, quae supra diximus, ne superfluo eadem iterum iterumque repetamus.

Aug. Already it has been answered: let those who wish reread what we have said above, lest we superfluously repeat the same things again and again.

Impudenter sub umbra Pauli delitescis.

Impudently you skulk beneath the shadow of Paul.

65. Iul. Impudenter igitur sub umbra eius nominis delitescis, cum nimis diversa contrariaque dicatis. Ille enim arguit opus hominum, tu opus Dei; ille studia delinquentium, tu innocentiam vitamque nascentium; ille voluntatem hominum, tu naturam.

65. Jul. Therefore you shamelessly skulk under the shade of his name, since you say things excessively diverse and contrary. For he arraigns the work of men, you the work of God; he the pursuits of delinquents, you the innocence and the life of those being born; he the will of men, you nature.

Aug. Superius ad omnia ista responsum est; unde iam te irridet qui meminit; qui vero non meminit, si illa relegerit, profecto ista tua vana cum irriserit, te dolebit.

Aug. Previously an answer has been given to all those matters; whence now he who remembers derides you; but he who does not remember, if he re-reads those things, assuredly, when he has derided these your vanities, he will grieve for you.

Mors aeterna intravit in mundum cum peccato.

Eternal death entered into the world with sin.

66. Iul. Intravit igitur, secundum Apostolum, per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum et per peccatum mors, quoniam illum et reum et damnationi mortis perpetuae destinatum mundus aspexit. In omnes autem homines mors pertransiit, quia una forma iudicii praevaricatores quosque etiam reliquae comprehendit aetatis; quae tamen mors nec in sanctos nec in innocentes ullos saevire permittitur, sed in eos pervadit, quos praevaricationem viderit aemulatos ⁹⁵.

66. Jul. Therefore, according to the Apostle, through one man sin entered into this world, and through sin death, since the world beheld him both guilty and destined for the damnation of perpetual death. But death passed through unto all men, because one form of judgment also comprehended as transgressors all of the remaining age; which death, however, is permitted to rage neither against the saints nor against any innocents, but it pervades those whom it has seen to have emulated the transgression ⁹⁵.

Aug. Hoc loqueris, quod obiectum est haeresiarchae vestro Pelagio in episcopali iudicio Palaestino, quod ita factus fuerit Adam ut, sive peccaret sive non peccaret, moriturus esset. Hanc enim mortem, qua omnes morimur, de qua dictum est: A muliere initium factum est peccati et propter illam omnes morimur ⁹⁶, non vis ex peccato in omnes fecisse originaliter transitum, ne cogaris fateri simul etiam originaliter transisse peccatum; sentis quippe, quam iniquum sit sine merito transisse supplicium.

Aug. You are saying what was objected against your heresiarch Pelagius in the Palestinian episcopal judgment: namely, that Adam was made in such a way that, whether he sinned or did not sin, he would be going to die. For this death, by which we all die, about which it has been said: From the woman the beginning of sin was made, and because of her we all die ⁹⁶, you do not wish to allow to have made an original passage from sin into all men, lest you be compelled to admit that sin also at the same time passed originally; for you feel how iniquitous it is that a punishment should have passed without desert.

Verumtamen tam catholicum est, quod expugnare conaris, ut hoc ille, cui sicut dixi, obiectum est, nisi damnasset, profecto ex illo iudicio damnatus exisset. Mors ergo et ista, qua spiritus a corpore separatur, et illa, quae dicitur secunda, qua spiritus cum corpore cruciabitur, quantum attinet ad meritum generis humani, in omnes homines pertransiit; sed gratia Dei per eum, qui venit, ut moriendo regnum mortis auferret, ea resurrectione, cuius in illo praecessit exemplum, mortem regnare non sivit. Hoc tenet catholica fides, hoc tenent iudices, quos Pelagius formidavit, hoc non tenent haeretici, quos Pelagius seminavit.

Nevertheless, so catholic is that which you are trying to overthrow, that he, to whom, as I said, it was objected, unless he had condemned it, would assuredly have gone forth from that judgment condemned. Therefore death both this one, by which the spirit is separated from the body, and that which is called the second, by which the spirit with the body will be tormented, as far as pertains to the merit of the human race, has passed into all men; but the grace of God, through him who came in order by dying to take away the kingdom of death, by that resurrection, the example of which preceded in him, did not allow death to reign. This the catholic faith holds; this hold the judges whom Pelagius feared; this do not hold the heretics whom Pelagius has sown.