Augustine · Against Fortunatus §21#1
Free Will as the Basis of Sin and Manichaean Contradictions
Summary
Augustine argues that free will is the necessary prerequisite for sin, punishment, and reward, identifying "covetousness" as the root of all evils by citing the Apostle. He then exposes a fatal self-contradiction in the Manichaean doctrine, showing that if the soul is sent to the material world by divine necessity, it is absurd for God to demand repentance and promise forgiveness to it.
§21#1AUG. dixit: Ego dico peccatum non esse, si non propria uoluntate peccatur; hinc esse et praemium. quia propria uoluntate recta facimus.
Aug. said: "I say that there is no sin if it is not sinned by one's own will; hence there is also reward, because we do right things by our own will.
aut si poenam meretur, qui peccat inuitus. debet et praemium mereri, qui bene facit inuitus.
Or, if he deserves punishment who sins unwillingly, he who does good unwillingly ought also to deserve reward.
quis autem. qui dubitet non deferri praemium nisi ei.
But who is there who would doubt that reward is not conferred except on him who has done something with a good will?
qui aliquid bona uoluntate fecerit? ex quo intellegimus et poenam inferri ei. qui uoluntate mala aliquid fecerit.
From which we understand that punishment is also inflicted on him who has done something with a bad will.
sed quoniam me ad priores naturas et substantias reuocas. fides mea est omnipotentem deum, quod maxime animaduertendum est et animo figendum, omnipotentem deum iustum et bonum fecisse bona.
But since you recall me to the prior natures and substances, my faith is that almighty God—which is especially to be observed and fixed in the mind—that almighty God, just and good, made good things.
sed ea. quae ab illo facta sunt, non possunt esse talia, qualis est ipse. qui fecit.
But those things which were made by Him cannot be such as He is Himself who made them.
iniustum est enim et stultum credere. ut opera paria sint artifici et condita conditori.
For it is unjust and foolish to believe that the works are equal to the craftsman and the created things to the creator.
quapropter si pia fides est, ut omnia bona deus fecerit, quibus tamen ipse est multo excellentior longeque praestantior, origo et caput mali est in. peccato, sicut apostolus dixit: radix omnium malorum est cupiditas; quam quidam sequentes naufragauerunt a fide et inseruerunt se doloribus multis. si enim radicem omnium malorum quaeris, habes apostolum dicentem radicem omnium malorum esse cupiditatem.
Wherefore, if it is a pious faith that God made all good things, than which, however, He Himself is much more excellent and far superior, the origin and head of evil is in sin, just as the Apostle said: 'The root of all evils is covetousness; which some following have shipwrecked from the faith and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows.' For if you seek the root of all evils, you have the Apostle saying that the root of all evils is covetousness.
radicem radicis quaerere non possum; aut si est aliud malum, cuius radix non est cupiditas, non erit omnium malorum radix cupiditas.
I cannot seek the root of the root; or if there is another evil whose root is not covetousness, covetousness will not be the root of all evils.
si autem uerum est omnium malorum radicem esse cupiditatem, frustra aliud aliquod mali genus quaerimus.
But if it is true that the root of all evils is covetousness, in vain do we seek any other kind of evil.
tua uero natura contraria, quam inducis — quoniam iam respondi obiectis tuis, quaeso, ut et tu mihi dicere digneris — si illa natura contraria est totum malum neque peccatum potest esse nisi ex illa, poenam ipsa sola debet mereri, non anima, a qua non est peccatum.
But as for your contrary nature, which you introduce—since I have already responded to your objections, I ask that you also deign to tell me—if that contrary nature is the whole evil and sin cannot exist except from it, it alone ought to deserve punishment, not the soul, from which there is no sin.
at si dicis ipsam solam mereri poenam et animam non mereri, quaero, cui data sit paenitentia, quae sit iussa paenitere.
But if you say that it alone deserves punishment and the soul does not deserve it, I ask, to whom is repentance given, who is ordered to repent?
si anima iussa est paenitere, ab illa peccatum et ipsa uoluntate peccauit.
If the soul is ordered to repent, from it is sin and it has sinned by its own will.
nam si cogitur anima facere malum neque illa est, quod malum fecit, nonne stultum est et plenum dementiae, ut gens tenebrarum peccauerit et me paeniteat de peccatis? nonne plenum dementiae est, ut gens tenebrarum peccauerit et mihi detur indulgentia peccatorum? qui possum dicere secundum fidem uestram: quid feci? quid commisi? apud te fui, integer fui, nulla labe contaminatus fui; tu me huc misisti, tu necessitatem passus es, tu cauisti regnis tuis, cum magna eis labes et uastitas inmineret.
For if the soul is forced to do evil and it is not the one that did the evil, is it not foolish and full of madness that the nation of darkness sinned and I repent of sins? Is it not full of madness that the nation of darkness sinned and to me is given the forgiveness of sins? How can I say according to your faith: 'What have I done? What have I committed? I was with you, I was whole, I was contaminated with no stain; you sent me here, you suffered necessity, you took precaution for your kingdoms when a great stain and devastation threatened them.
cum ergo noueris necessitatem, qua hic obpressus sum, qua respirare non potui, cui resistere non potui: quid me accusas quasi peccantem? aut quid promittis indulgentiam peccatorum? ad hoc sine ambagibus responde. si placet, sicut tibi ego sine ambagibus respondi.
Since therefore you know the necessity by which I have been oppressed here, by which I could not breathe, which I could not resist: why do you accuse me as if I were sinning, or why do you promise the forgiveness of sins?' Answer to this without evasion, if you please, just as I have answered you without evasion."
Notes
- §21#1quis autem. qui dubitet — The copula "est" is omitted after the interrogative pronoun "quis" (i.e., "quis autem [est] qui..."). The subsequent "dubitet" is a subjunctive of characteristic in a relative clause, forming a rhetorical question: "Who indeed is there who would doubt...?"
- ¦10¦tua uero natura contraria — A hanging nominative (anacoluthon) used for topicalization. The phrase is placed at the beginning of the sentence to introduce the topic ("as for your contrary nature"), but after a long parenthesis, the subject is reintroduced within a conditional clause ("si illa natura contraria est..."), leaving the initial phrase grammatically suspended.
- ¦20¦ut opera paria sint artifici et condita conditori — A noun clause introduced by "ut" with the subjunctive "sint," explaining the content of the infinitive "credere" (which is the subject of "iniustum est et stultum"). While classical Latin typically employs the accusative with infinitive (A.C.I.) here, late and Christian Latin often uses "ut" with the subjunctive.
- ¦25¦necessitatem — Refers to the "necessity" in Manichaean cosmology, according to which the God of Light was forced by necessity to wage war and sacrifice his own substance (the soul) as a shield against the invading darkness. Augustine utilizes this term to show that if the soul acted under divine necessity, it is logically contradictory and unjust for God to accuse it of sinning or demand repentance.
Cite this passage
Augustine, Against Fortunatus §21#1. Humanitext Reader, https://reader.humanitext.ai/en/text/urn:cts:latinLit:stoa0040.stoa024b.humanitext-lat1:21%231
Please note the AI-draft status of the translation and the date accessed.
Translation, notes and summary are AI-generated drafts, revised through reader feedback.