To Turbantius — fragments in Against Julian — Book 1
Julian of Eclanum (c. 386–c. 455) was bishop of Eclanum in southern Italy until 418, when he was deposed and exiled for refusing to condemn Pelagius. The most learned Pelagian controversialist, he pursued Augustine across a decade of pamphlet war.
None of Julian's works survives directly; what remains is preserved in the long quotations of Augustine, who answered him book by book. Reconstructed from those hostile pages, Julian emerges as a formidable defender of free will, marriage, and the goodness of creation.
This volume gathers the surviving arguments: the six books To Florus with the earlier fragments and letter material, each with its source locator.
© 2026 SaneApps. This translation is free to share and adapt, even commercially, as long as you credit SaneApps. Draft translation, prepared with AI assistance and not yet independently reviewed. Verify against the original before citing.
“Evil is not a substance, but a way of behaving that comes solely from the will.” “Those who have brought…§§1.5.16–1.7.30
1.5.16“Evil is not a substance, but a way of behaving that comes solely from the will.”
“Those who have brought the sickness of their conduct upon themselves by their own will.”
“This way of behaving, which arises as something added, can very easily be separated from the will of those who are sick.”
“If evil had arisen in such a way that it could no longer be removed from the will—that is, if, although it was something added, it had been added in a way that made it impossible ever to separate it from the will—one could rightly say that evil was not a substance, but that the substance itself could no longer exist without the evil added to it. But if evil was added, and the starting point of its addition was the will rather than the substance, evil can easily be separated from the substance. Then the substance subject to the will can be kept completely pure, so that not even any traces of evil remain.”
1.5.17“If chastity is a virtue, but the body were evil in its very substance, it would be impossible to find a chaste body. A body belonging to shameful conduct could not become a body belonging to virtue. But when it is made holy, it becomes a body of virtue. Thus virtue shares in the body, and the body in virtue; through virtue it also becomes God’s temple (1 Corinthians 6:19). If every body belonged to sexual immorality, it would certainly be impossible to find chastity in bodies. Only then could we count evil as belonging to the very nature of bodies. But if the body has attained such worth, has been adorned with so much honor, and has put on such a garment of purity that it deserves to be its Maker’s house and becomes the bridal chamber of God’s Son—so that the Father and the Son are pleased to come and choose bodies as their dwelling (John 14:23)—how can the Manichaean claim fail to be exposed as detestable and absurd?”
1.6.21Saint John of Constantinople denies that there is original sin in infants. In the homily he gave about those who had been baptized, he says:
“Blessed is God, who alone has done wonders (Psalm 72:18), who made everything and transforms everything. Look: those who were captives a little while ago now enjoy the peace of freedom. Those who wandered as strangers are now citizens of the church (Ephesians 2:19). Those who were in the confusion of sin now share in righteousness. They are not only free, but holy; not only holy, but righteous; not only righteous, but sons; not only sons, but heirs; not only heirs, but Christ’s brothers; not only Christ’s brothers, but fellow heirs (Romans 8:15–17); not only fellow heirs, but members of his body (1 Corinthians 12:27); not only members, but a temple (1 Corinthians 6:19); not only a temple, but instruments of the Spirit.
“You see how many gifts baptism gives. Some people think that heavenly grace consists only in the forgiveness of sins. We, however, have counted ten honors. This is why we baptize infants too, although they are not stained by sin: so that holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, and brotherhood with Christ may be added to them, and so that they may be his members.”
1.7.29Since it is plainly clear that this is the sound and true position, supported first by reason and then by the authority of Scripture, and always upheld by the learning of holy men—who did not give truth its authority by agreeing with it, but received a good testimony and glory from sharing in it—let no prudent person be disturbed by a conspiracy of the lost.
1.7.30One man has come forward who wants people to think that the whole battle depends on him.
Latin · §§1.5.16–1.7.30
§1.5.16
Non esse substantiam, sed conversationem, quae de sola voluntate contingat
iis qui aegritudinem conversationis de voluntate propria collegerunt
Hanc conversationem ex accidenti venientem facillime - dicit - posse ab aegrotantium voluntate separari
si evenisset malum, ita ut non valeret ulterius a voluntate removeri, id est, quamvis accidisset, si ita accidisset ut separari ulterius a voluntate non valeret; merito dici posset, substantiale quidem malum non esse, sed ipsam substantiam sine malitia quae accidit, iam esse non posse. Si autem accessit - inquit - et principium accessionis non substantiam habuit, sed voluntatem; facile potest malum a substantia separari, ut et subiecta voluntati substantia munda possit per omnia possideri, ita ut nullius mali vel signa remaneant
Facile posse malum a voluntate vel a substantia separari
ab ea posse facile separari
ut subiecta substantia voluntati
munda possit per omnia possideri, sic
ut nullius mali vel signa remaneant
§1.5.17
Si castitas virtus est, corpus vero substantialiter malum esset, impossibile erat castum corpus inveniri; quia corpus turpitudinis, virtutis non fieret corpus; cum autem sanctificatur, virtutis efficitur, et ita communicat virtus corpori corpusque virtuti, per quam et templum efficitur Dei. Unde si omne corpus fornicationis esset, impossibile utique erat castitatem in corporibus inveniri: tumque demum naturae corporum possemus malum substantiale deputare. Si vero usque eo corporis merita processerunt, tantoque honore decoratum est, ac tale indumentum pudicitiae suscepit, ut domus sui factoris esse mereretur, ac fieret thalamus Filii Dei, ut venientes Pater et Filius habitationem corporum eligere dignarentur; quomodo non exsecrabilis et ridendus Manichaei sermo convincitur?
§1.6.21
Sanctus Ioannes - inquis - Constantinopolitanus negat esse in parvulis originale peccatum. In ea quippe homilia, quam de baptizatis habuit: Benedictus - inquit -, Deus qui fecit mirabilia solus, qui fecit universa, et convertit universa. Ecce libertatis serenitate perfruuntur qui tenebantur paulo ante captivi, et cives Ecclesiae sunt qui fuerunt in peregrinationis errore, et iustitiae in sorte versantur qui fuerunt in confusione peccati. Non enim tantum sunt liberi, sed et sancti: non tantum sancti, sed et iusti: non solum iusti, sed et filii: non solum filii, sed et heredes: non solum heredes, sed et fratres Christi: nec tantum fratres Christi, sed et coheredes: non solum coheredes, sed et membra: non tantum membra, sed et templum: non tantum templum, sed et organa Spiritus. Vides quot sunt Baptismatis largitates: et nonnulli deputant caelestem gratiam in peccatorum tantum remissione consistere: nos autem honores computavimus decem. Hac de causa etiam infantes baptizamus; cum non sint coinquinati peccato, ut eis addatur sanctitas, iustitia, adoptio, hereditas, fraternitas Christi, ut eius membra sint
§1.7.29
Cum igitur liquido clareat hanc sanam et veram esse sententiam, quam primo loco ratio, deinde Scripturarum munivit auctoritas, et quam sanctorum virorum semper celebravit eruditio, qui tamen veritati auctoritatem non suo tribuere consensu, sed testimonium et gloriam de eius suscepere consortium, nullum prudentum conturbet conspiratio perditorum
§1.7.30
In libris eius praecipue fidem lucere Romanam, qui scriptorum inter Latinos flos quidam speciosus enituit, ita ut eius fidem et purissimum in Scripturis sensum reprehendere nec inimicus auderet
conspiratio perditorum
Unum - dicis - egressum
qui in se summam proelii sitam optat intellegi
You oppose us with only the crowd’s murmuring.§§1.7.31–1.9.44
1.7.31You oppose us with only the crowd’s murmuring.
1.7.32This position cannot find a defender among so large a multitude.
1.8.39Since, according to the Gospel’s judgment, a tree should be recognized by its fruits (Matthew 7:16–18), should this man be listened to when he says that marriage is good, yet declares that nothing but evil comes from it?
1.8.40Evil things cannot come from good things.
1.8.41Sin cannot be transmitted through nature, because the devil’s work is not allowed to pass through God’s work.
1.9.42Original sin has disappeared, because the root of evil cannot be placed in what you call a gift of God.
1.9.43The nature of things does not allow evil to be brought forth from good, or anything unjust from what is just.
1.9.44That from which, and through which, bad fruit has appeared must itself be evil.
Latin · §§1.7.31–1.9.44
§1.7.31
solum populi murmur opponimus
§1.7.32
de tanta moltitudine assertorem non potest invenire
§1.8.39
Cum secundum sententiam Evangelii, ex fructibus suis arbor debeat agnosci, hic audiendus putetur, qui dicit bonum esse coniugium, de quo nihil aliud quam malum prodire definite
De natura - inquis - humana, quae in adulteris quoque Dei opus est, non ipsorum
§1.8.40
mala ex bonis esse non posse
§1.8.41
Trahi peccatum per naturam non potest, quia per opus Dei opus diaboli transire non sinitur
Opus diaboli per opus Dei non transire
Per opus - inquis - Dei malum transire non sinitur
§1.9.42
Evanuit - inquis - originale peccatum, quia non potest mali radix in eo quod donum Dei vocas locari
Radicem mali locari non posse in dono Dei
Radicem mali locari non posse in dono Dei
mali radicem in dono Dei locari non posse
non posse in dono Dei locari radicem mali
§1.9.43
Rerum ratio non sinit ut de bono malum et de iusto iniquum aliquid proferatur
§1.9.44
Quid ergo est - inquit - malitia, nisi boni indigentia?
Ex bonis igitur mala orta sunt. Non enim sunt mala, nisi quae privantur bonis: per mala tamen factum est ut bona eminerent. Ergo indigentia boni, radix malitiae est
Ex bonis mala orta sunt
Necesse est malum esse, ex quo et per quod malus fructus apparuit
Per opus Dei opus diaboli transire non sinitur
In dono Dei radix mali locari non potest
Rerum ratio non sinit ut de bono malum, ac de iusto iniquum aliquid proferatur
Si rerum ratio non sinit ut de bono malum aliquid proferatur