and that parents, insofar as they are parents, are joined to one another lawfully and legitimately for the procreation of children; and forthwith you add — as though you had spoken the foregoing while asleep — that the crime is transmitted to posterity by generation. For if they beget only insofar as they are parents; and insofar as they are parents, they are joined lawfully and legitimately; and this union is not disapproved by the Apostle, because it is by God not only instituted but also blessed; with what mouth, by what law, with what face, do you affirm this generation to be the cause of guilt, a root of crimes, a slave of the devil? Augustine: I know not now how many times these things have been said, and answered. By your verbosity you stir up for yourself a fog which does not permit you to distinguish the malice of vices from the goodness of nature;
and, repeating the same things by the same things even to the point of hateful tedium, you still do not say how it is to be taken, that through one man sin entered into the world. Even you perceive it when you dissent. Julian: Therefore it does not deserve to be censured by the Apostle, yet is possessed by the devil; it is instituted by God, yet is the source of crimes; it is finally, as you confess, blessed by God, yet is accused by you as a devilish shoot. Augustine: God blessed marriage, not the concupiscence of the flesh resisting the spirit, which did not exist before sin; but sin, just as neither that concupiscence which resists the spirit, God did not bless.
Furthermore, the marriage which he blessed — if sin, by which nature was vitiated, had not been committed — would either use the genital members just as we use the others, obedient to the will without any lust; or shameful lust would not be there, since it would never resist the will, such as it now certainly is not; which indeed even you perceive, when you dissent from it as it solicits and entices. Yet marriage even now is praiseworthy; because it neither institutes this evil in men, but finds it; and it makes good use of that evil by the intention of begetting, although those who are begotten draw from it original sin, on account of which they must be regenerated. Now at least. Julian:
That you have accomplished nothing with me, the erudition of all letters testifies; but how you strive against the Apostle, and rave against God, the conflict of your own opinions demonstrates. But now that it has been shown that these things cannot be joined which the nature of things dissociates, let us also question the Apostle, lest there be thought to reside in his meaning that barbarity which is proven to be in your opinions. Augustine: Say now at least the thing you were putting off by such windings. An example of sin entered into the world through him who sinned by imitating no one. Julian: I hear, then, Paul declaring that: 'Through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death; and so it passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.'
Which you affirm was said not on account of the example of sin, but on account of generation; and you call us heretics, who refer it to example; and you think yourself aided by this argument: 'Assuredly,' you say, 'if the Apostle had wished imitation to be understood, he would have said that sin entered not through one man, but through the devil, and passed through all men. For concerning the devil it is written: They imitate him who are of his part. But he said through one man for this reason — from whom the generation of men certainly began — in order to teach that original sin has gone through all by generation.'
But I see that the Apostle has brought forth nothing that would look toward the defamation of human generation, nothing toward the condemnation of natural innocence, nothing toward the crime of the divine work. Augustine: You keep saying, for a long time, 'Nothing'; and when you have ceased to repeat this word, you will be going to say nothing. For who would not laugh at you, trying to persuade that what the Apostle says — 'through one man sin entered into the world' — does not pertain to generation; whereas that man himself was not begotten by anyone from whom the rest might be begotten; but you say it pertains to example, whereas the example of sin, which those who came after might imitate, did not enter into the world except through him who sinned by imitating no one? For he sinned first.
But that this was not Adam, but the devil, what Christian is ignorant? What is it, then, that pleases you, except both not to be silent and to say nothing? Do you deny that men sin by imitation? Julian: Finally, that which the very words had not indicated, you, trying to gather by argumentation, add: that if he were speaking of imitation, he ought to have mentioned the devil; but that because he wished it to be understood of generation, he preferred to say 'man' rather than 'demon.' I ask, then, what was the occasion of this opinion for you. For what? Do you deny that men sin by imitation? And although the matter, being settled, does not need the attestation of the Scriptures, yet hear David: 'Do not emulate among the malicious, nor be envious of those who work iniquity;'
do not emulate him who prospers in his way. Then all the Scriptures of the Old Testament admonish Israel not to imitate the rite of the profane nation. What necessity, then, compelled this — that the Apostle, if he wished imitation to be understood, should name the devil rather than man, since he knew that men sin by the imitation both of men and of the devil? Either, therefore, prove that it is impossible to sin by the imitation of men, and that this is nowhere contained in the law, and thus assert that a place is prepared for your suspicion; or else, if it is manifest that by nothing more than by the imitation of vices have sins gained strength, you have gathered with vast ignorance that the Apostle would assuredly have spoken of the devil, if he had wished imitation to be understood. Augustine:
Did I not say before that you would say nothing, O man who most loquaciously speaks by speaking nothing? There are indeed sins of imitation in the world, when men follow the examples of sinning men; yet the sin which the sinners imitate did not enter into the world through those men whom anyone imitates, but through him who first, imitating no one, sinned; this is the devil, whom all imitate who are of his part. So too the sin which is committed not by imitating, but is drawn by being born, entered into the world through him who first begot a man. You have therefore said nothing, and only in order to deceive certain readers, to weary certain readers, you were unwilling to be silent. The sin of imitation entered into the world through the devil. Julian:
Since, therefore, it is plain that the imitation of evil men is spoken of not only consistently but even necessarily, it is meanwhile evident that this argument of yours falls flat. But as for what you add — that it is written concerning the devil: They imitate him who are of his part — I too agree that it was prudently said by whoever is the author of that book; but it does not profit you that certain men are written to sin by the imitation of the devil, unless you teach that it is impossible to sin by the imitation of men. Augustine: The question here is not whether one sins by the imitation of men; for who does not know that one sins even by the imitation of men? But the question is, what kind of sin entered into the world through one man — whether that which is committed by imitating, or that which is drawn by being born.
Because the former, that is, that which is committed by imitating, entered into the world only through him who first, imitating no one, introduced to the rest who would imitate an example of sinning — that is, the devil; but the latter, that is, that which is drawn by being born, entered into the world only through him who first, begotten by no one, brought in for the rest who would be begotten the beginning of origin — this is Adam. Understand, then, that concerning the imitation of angels and men you say nothing pertaining to the matter, but only that you were unwilling to be silent. For we are disputing not about any sinner whatever, who at any time sinned in the world, but about that one through whom sin entered into the world; where, if the example of imitation be sought, the devil is found;
if the contagion of generation, Adam. Accordingly, when the Apostle says, 'Through one man sin entered into the world,' he wished the sin of generation to be understood. For the sin of imitation entered into the world not through one man, but through the devil. Through the sense of imitation, Adam could not be indicated. Julian: For since both are customarily said — sometimes that one, imitating the devil, envies; sometimes that, emulating a man, he is smeared either with envy or with the filth of the shameful — this name of imitation could suit either person, that is, both when it is said of a man and when it is said of the devil; you wished, most ridiculously, to play the fool, saying that through the sense of imitation Adam could not be indicated. Augustine:
Did sin enter into the world through any man whatsoever whom another imitates in sinning? Say, if you can, what this is: 'Through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death; and so it passed upon all men' — whether death, or sin, or rather sin together with death. For the sin by whose imitation men sin entered into the world only through the devil, who first did without imitating what others would do by imitating. This point must still be pressed. Julian: My discourse hastens to the remaining points, but this point must still be pressed, so that by divisions as brief as we can make them, both the understanding of the matter and the memory of it may be supplied to the reader. In almost all things, indeed, is found the condition of homonyms, which we call equivocals.
Augustine: You had promised that you would supply understanding to the reader, and you speak of homonyms and equivocals; how, then, will even the Pelagians themselves understand you, unless they are first sent to the schools of the dialecticians, wherever on earth they can be found, to learn these things? Or perhaps, expounding to them the very categories of Aristotle before they read your books, you yourself will read them? Why do you not do even this, most ingenious man, since you feed at ease upon deceived wretches? Imitation is of the mind. Julian: But that our discourse may now be about the present matters, generation is properly imputed to the sexes, but imitation is always of minds.
This affection of the mind, therefore — according to what the imitator could possibly will — either accuses a man or advances him, according to the diversity of causes; and so it comes about that in the good one is said to imitate God, and the angels, and the apostles: God — 'Be perfect, as your Father is perfect'; the angels — 'Thy will be done, as in heaven so on earth'; the apostles — 'Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ.' But in the evil one imitates the devil, as it is said: 'They imitate him who are of his part'; men are imitated — 'Do not be sad like the hypocrites, who disfigure their faces'; animals are imitated, when it is commanded: 'Do not become like the horse and the mule, which have no understanding.'
By these words, then — both exhorting and deterring — the affection of imitation is shown, which assuredly, if it could not exist, would not be enjoined to be guarded against. Augustine: But the sin of imitation, that is, that which is done by imitation, did not enter into the world except through him who, in order that men might sin by imitation, sinned without imitation; and this is certainly not Adam, but the devil. For he who said, 'It entered into the world,' shows the beginning of this sin; which beginning is manifestly made not through a man, but through the devil, if we are willing to attend to the sin which sinners would imitate. It remains, therefore, that the sin which entered into the world through one man can rightly be attributed not to imitation, but to generation.
We give thanks to God indeed that, in speaking against your error, you have confessed — as though the truth flashed upon you — that the good will by which we imitate the good is to be attributed not to the powers of our own free choice, but to the help of God; since you have shown that, in order that we may imitate the angels, it is not to be presumed by us, but to be asked of the Lord, thus expounding what we pray and say: 'Thy will be done, as in heaven so on earth.' He who imitates the malignity of the devil is a son of the devil. Julian: But just as the word of imitation is manifestly common to diverse things, so generation truly and properly indicates the substance that generates; but not properly, rather abusively, is it applied to pursuits.
And yet, because this is now the customary usage of speech, and what it signifies is recognized, it is not permitted to prejudice the proper meanings of words. The devil, then, is said to beget sinners, according to what the Lord says in the Gospel: 'You,' He says, 'are of your father the devil.' By this saying He called him the father of the wicked, whose malice they were convicted of imitating; and yet the meaning stands complete in itself, since by this name, namely of 'father,' neither is sex ascribed to the devil, nor an airy substance to those men. Now, therefore, let it be plain what we mean to establish from this. If a man were never properly judged to imitate a man, and yet the Apostle had said that all sinned through Adam;
then I would freely lay it down that the Apostle must be vindicated by the usage of the Scriptures, so that just as the Lord had called the devil a father, who could not beget by substance, so the Apostle had written of a man to be imitated, lest he be believed to have taught anything against clear reason. Augustine: Was Adam the first who could be imitated in sin, so that this kind of sin might rightly be said to have entered the world through him? Was not the devil first found imitable in sin? Therefore the Apostle would say that sin entered the world through him, if he had wished sin—which others commit by imitating—to be understood in that passage. The Apostle says that the first man was an example to those who sinned after him. 54. Julian:
But now, if I gather together those things in the Gospel that are spoken loosely, they do not bear the weight; much more did the Apostle Paul give no occasion for error, who said nothing improper, if he declared that the first man, a sinner, was an example to those who sinned after him. Augustine: He ought not, then, to have set forth these two, the one for sin, the other for righteousness, namely Adam and Christ. For if he had placed Adam as the first sinner on account of the sin which the rest imitated, he would surely place, as the first righteous man whose righteousness the rest should imitate, not Christ but Abel; for Abel indeed was the first who, imitating no man but himself to be imitated by the rest, was righteous.
But knowing what he was saying, the Apostle placed Adam for sin, Christ for righteousness; because he knew the former to be the author of generation, the latter of regeneration. The evil both of man and of the devil passes over only by imitation. 55. Julian: And by this you have argued most stupidly, that if the Apostle Paul had wished sin to be understood as passing over by imitation, he would have named the devil rather than Adam; whereas it is plain that the evil both of man and of the devil could pass over only by imitation. But now that what you had built up has been thrown down, not so much by my hands as by those of reason itself, attend to what is now brought forward by us. Augustine:
Those who read the words of us both will judge whether you have thrown down what I built, and whether the hands, not of sound reason, but of your empty opinion, have not in vain been laid upon our structure. The beginning of generation is from the man. 56. Julian: The Apostle showed that it was not said by him that sin passed over by generation, when, naming the man, he added 'one'; for one is the beginning of number; and in explaining through whom he said sin entered, he not only named him but also numbered him: 'Through one man,' he says, 'sin entered into this world.' But this one man suffices for offering an example, and does not suffice for accomplishing generation. But sin passed over, yet through one.
It is manifest that imitation is here demonstrated, not generation, which cannot take place except through two. Either, then, show that generation took place through Adam alone without the woman—for this too is not foreign to the elegance of your wit—or else, since you see that generation cannot subsist except through two, agree at last that the work of two is not charged under the number 'one.' 'Through one man,' he says, 'sin entered into the world'; he who said 'through one' did not wish it to be understood as through two. What, I ask, was number seeking amid these doctrines, that the Apostle should with such care name not only a man, but one man?
But the cautious speech of the venerable counsel appears, which, by the revelation of the Holy Spirit, took precaution against and disarmed the errors of our times; namely, lest he should be thought to have said anything to the discredit of marriage instituted by God, or of blessed fecundity; since the matter demanded that he unfold the origins of sin, he said that sin passed over by that number which could not be applicable to offspring. And certainly the first human beings had both sinned, both of whom are rightly said to have been a pattern of sin to their descendants; why then did the Apostle not say that sin passed over through two, which would also have accorded better with the faithfulness of the history? But nothing could have been done more prudently by him;
for he saw that if he had named the two who furnished the beginning and example of transgression, and had affirmed that sin passed over through them, occasion for error would lie open, so that it might be thought that through the names of the two he condemned conjugal union and fecundity. And therefore most prudently he preferred to name one, who, not being sufficient for the indication of generation, might abound as a sign of example; and being accused, might burden imitation, but being numbered, might not indict fecundity. And that what we have argued may be briefly summed up: fecundity, instituted in the first human beings, cannot be carried on except through two; but sin the Apostle declares to have entered, yet 'through one.' Augustine: I had foretold that you would say nothing; and that it is so is clear to anyone, however slow.
For do not sinners imitate Eve, or did not the sin of the human race rather take its beginning from her? 'From a woman was made the beginning of sin, and on account of her,' as it is written, 'we all die.' Why then will you not attend to this, that the Apostle rather said 'one man,' through whom sin entered into the world, because he wished not imitation but generation to be understood? For just as the beginning of sin was from the woman, 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, because it entered through the seed of generation, which the woman, receiving from the man, conceived; in which manner He willed not to be born, who alone was born of a woman without sin.
You say that generation began from one man. 57. Julian: It has been irrefutably established that that sin was shown by the Apostle to have been conveyed to posterity by conduct, not by seeds. See then how great a falsehood has flowed out of your mouth: 'But therefore the Apostle said "through one man," from whom the generation of men certainly began, that by generation he might teach original sin to have gone through all'; whereas the Apostle said 'through one man' for this very reason, lest original sin should be thought to have gone through all. You trifle so that I can scarcely restrain my laughter, you who say that generation began from one man;
since both the diversity of the sexes and the divine reading testify that generation could not have been except if two human beings, that is, a man and a woman, had first existed. Augustine: Let those who read this read again my earlier response; or, if they remember it well, let them laugh at this man's ravings. Although I might say that the Apostle said not two but one man, through whom sin entered into the world, because it is written: 'They shall be two in one flesh'; whence the Lord says: 'Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh'; especially when the man cleaves to his wife, and intercourse is entered upon. But from intercourse offspring is begotten, dragging along original sin, the fault propagating fault, while God creates nature;
which nature spouses, even when using the fault well, nevertheless cannot so beget that it can be without the fault; and this He who was born without that very fault does away with in little ones, even though Julian is unwilling. Did Adam conceive of himself and bring forth? 58. Julian: But if perchance (since your doctrine cannot otherwise stand) you should answer that Adam conceived of himself and brought forth, no one doubts indeed that the Apostle did not mean this; but you will show what you wish to befall your own sex. Augustine: Are you not terrified by what is written: 'Nor shall the evil-speakers possess the kingdom of God'? For you would not utter such foul reproaches, which do you no good, except from a lust for reviling. This too avails against your impiety. 59. Julian:
But let us pass these things over, and let us wear down by the force of reason that which appears able to be alleged by you in this place. If, then, you should say that it is written of this commingling that they become two in one flesh, and that in this manner the Apostle said 'through one man,' so as to signify the members of those generating clinging to one another; I will answer that this too avails against your impiety. For it is not said: 'There shall be two men in one man,' but: 'They shall be two in one flesh'; by which name of union it might be taught that that pleasure of those coming together and that lust, which, affecting the sense, prostrates the members, and, as that wise man understood, strives to make one flesh, was instituted by God and inserted into bodies before sin. Augustine:
If nothing but lust could bring it about that two should be one flesh (which lust of yours, taken up entirely such as it now is both praised and assailed by you, which you confess to be shameful and yet without shame so love, you dare even to endow with the possession of paradise); then in no way could it be understood also of Christ and the Church: 'They shall be two in one flesh.' For you do not stray so far from the way of truth as to dare to import this lust even into the union of Christ and the Church.
Furthermore, if Christ and the Church can be two in one flesh without this lust, then a man and his wife also could, if no one had sinned, be joined not by shameful lust, at which even he who is not ashamed to praise it blushes, but by rightly praiseworthy charity, and for the sake of procreating children be two in one flesh. Whence when the Lord says: 'Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh,' He does not indeed say: 'They are not two women, but one flesh.' What then are they not two, save human beings? Just as Christ and the Church are together not two Christs, but one Christ; whence it is also said to us: 'Therefore you are the seed of Abraham'; since it was said of that seed of Abraham: 'And to your seed, which is Christ.' Modesty? 60. Julian:
And by this the devil can claim nothing for himself, either of its pleasantness or of its shame. Augustine: What is it that you say: 'of its shame'? Or are you ashamed to name shame? And yet you say that shameful lust existed even before sin in those of whom Scripture says: 'They were naked, and were not ashamed.' Not soul from soul. 61. Julian: But here, if the Apostle had meant anything of that kind, he would have said that sin entered through one flesh, not through one man. But by generation the substance of the flesh alone is shared with the offspring; because not soul is drawn from soul, but flesh from flesh;
but in the name of 'man,' both the soul properly and the body are judged, and by this the Apostle, in naming one man, neither showed the business of fecundity, in which he knew nothing was imparted except the substance of the flesh; nor did he wish two to be understood, he who insisted on one, that he might teach sin to have passed over by imitation, not by generation. Augustine: What then is 'Now they are not two, but one flesh,' except 'They are not two men, on account of one flesh'? Since even the flesh itself can be called 'man,' the whole from a part; as: 'The Word was made flesh'; because He was made man, of whom this is said. The Apostle also, in that he says: 'The outward man is corrupted,' I think that he wished the flesh to be understood. On which account we rightly say, when we say: 'A man's tomb';
although the flesh alone is buried there. Nor did she err who said: 'They have taken away my Lord out of the tomb'; although only the flesh had been laid there. Therefore, while the most obscure question concerning the soul remains, it could be said: 'Through one man sin entered into the world'; even if only the flesh pertains to propagation. Attend, then, to these things, and see how you have said nothing. He blamed examples. 62. Julian: Here, although truth has now played its part, yet, that the reader may be attentive, I give warning. I have therefore in this contest given up very much of my right, and, following where the rashness of my adversary had provoked, I have so defended the decrees of sound faith, that even if they were the words of the Teacher of the Gentiles which the Traducianist thought he had used;
it would nevertheless be clear that he meant nothing of natural sin, who, in naming a man, but one, would surely have blamed not the generation of the crime, but its examples. Augustine: You have given an example, but of vanity in yourself; because, if the Apostle set forth the example of sin from the first man who sinned, that is, Adam, he would surely set forth the example of righteousness from the first righteous man, that is, Abel. Paul said that death, not sin, passed over. 63. Julian: But it is established that the order of the apostolic words is not that which our enemy supposed. For he argues in this manner: 'If the Apostle,' he says, 'had wished imitation to be understood, he would have said that sin entered not "through one man," but through the devil, and passed through unto all men.'
'For it is written of the devil: "They imitate him who are of his part." But therefore he said "through one man," from whom the generation of men certainly began, that by generation he might teach original sin to have gone through all.' In this, then, he lies, in that he affirms that blessed Paul declared that sin entered into the world through one man, and so passed through into all men; this, I say, is not held in the discourses of the Teacher of the Gentiles; for he did not say that sin passed over, but death. The order of the words, then, 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.'