To Florus 2.38
In fact, you grant what I asked without hesitation. Seeing what follows from these concessions, you acknowledge that you are powerless against the case we have built. You say the apostle Paul opposes everything we have said, yet introduce him as conceding the same points you had conceded. For you say: ‘The apostle does not accuse the infant’s will, which does not yet exist in the infant as a personal will capable of sin’ (Augustine, Marriage and Desire 2.45). Once this is granted, it is already proved that there cannot be any sin in the infant. For sin, even according to your own definition, has no other nature than the will to commit what justice forbids and from which one is free to abstain.
Latin
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 [n42] ; 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.