Augustine in His Own Words
upon the children of Adam from the day of their coming out of their mother's womb is not unjust. How is that heavy yoke not unjust if there is no evil in infants which makes it just that a heavy yoke oppress them? This is the true grace of God: when reality and word are in agreement. How could this be if grace exsufflates one in whom it knows there is nothing to expel, if it washes one in whom it knows there is nothing to wash away?89
Julian on Marriage and
Concupiscence
A second important issue in the clash between Julian and Augustine was their respective evaluations of sexuality and marriage. Julian had gotten married as a young man, and one of Augustine's good friends, Paulinus of Nola, had even composed a poem for the occasion. Julian, at some point, chose a life of continence, likely when he was ordained. We need to bear in mind that both Julian and Augustine spoke from experience; both had lived in long-standing committed sexual relationships, but their respective evaluations were very different. Julian argued for the unequivocal goodness of "concupiscence," of sexual desire, within the confines of marriage. At the same time he ridiculed and caricatured Augustine's views, branding them as a sort of disguised Manicheism in which marriage and sexuality are treated as the devil's making. Here is a sample of Julian's positive (if somewhat clinical) teaching. From Julian, To Turbantius, as quoted by Augustine, Against Julian, Book 3: (3.13.25) It is correct to state that the origin of concupiscence is in the fire of life. It follows that the concupiscence of the flesh must be attributed to the fire through which the life of the flesh is put together. (3.13.26) Its genus is in the vital fire; its species is in the movement of the genitals; its moderation is in the marital act; its excess is in the intemperance of fornication. . . . (3.13.27) The guilt of such appetite is not in its genus or its species or its moderation, but in its excess, because the genus and species are the work of its Maker, and its moderation pertains to its appropriate use, but its excess comes from the fault of the will. . . . (3.14.28) In the married it is exercised appropriately; in the chaste it is restrained by virtue. . . . The excess of that pleasure is practiced by the lascivious; and because this is done in insolence, not from nature, it is condemned by law. . . . (3.15.29) [Marital chastity] is opposed to the unlawful acts of the one extreme and marvels at the other's rejecting even the lawful. Its own domain lies on the farthest boundary. From there it despises the barbarism of those who go beyond the limit and venerates the striking brilliance of those [celi-
89. Contra Julianum 1.4.14–6.5.11 (PL 44:649–829); trans. Schumacher, FOTC 35:16–321.