To Florus 2.48
In fact, you tried to infer by argument what the words themselves had not indicated. You add that, if he had been speaking about imitation, he ought to have mentioned the devil; but because he meant generation, he preferred to say ‘a human being’ (Psalm 37:1;) rather than ‘a demon.’ I therefore ask what gave you occasion for this opinion. What? Do you deny that people sin by imitating human beings? Although so plain a matter needs no scriptural testimony, listen to David: ‘Do not compete with evildoers or envy those who practice injustice’ (Psalm 37:1; LXX/Vulgate 36:1) (Leviticus 18:3); ‘Do not envy the one who prospers in his way’ (Psalm 37:7; LXX/Vulgate 36:7) (Deuteronomy 18:9). Moreover, all the Old Testament Scriptures warn Israel not to imitate the practices of an impious nation (compare Leviticus 18:3; Deuteronomy 18:9). What necessity, then, required the apostle, if he meant imitation, to name the devil rather than a human being, when he knew that people sin by imitating both human beings and the devil? Either prove that no one can sin by imitating human beings and that this is found nowhere in the law, and then maintain that room has been made for your conjecture; or else, since it is evident that nothing has strengthened sins more than the imitation of vices, acknowledge that you inferred with great ignorance that the apostle would certainly have spoken of the devil if he had meant imitation (Psalm 37:7;) (Leviticus 18:3; Deuteronomy 18:9).
Latin
Denique id, quod ipsa verba non indicaverant, tu colligere argumentatione conatus, subdis, quia si de imitatione loqueretur, diabolum commemorare debuerat; sed quia de generatione voluisset intellegi, hominem dicere maluisse, quam daemonem. Interrogo ergo, quae fuerit tibi huius opinionis occasio. Quid enim? Negas tu hominum imitatione delinqui? Et licet res absoluta Scripturarum attestatione non egeat, tamen audi David: Noli aemulari inter malignantes, neque zelatus fueris facientes iniquitatem [n55] ; ne aemulatus fueris eum qui prosperatur in via sua [n56] . Deinde omnes Scripturae Veteris Testamenti commonent Israelem, ne ritum profanae gentis imitetur. Quae igitur necessitas id cogebat, ut Apostolus, si imitationem vellet intellegi, diabolum magis quam hominem nominaret, cum et hominum et diaboli nosset imitatione delinqui? Aut ergo tu proba, non posse hominum imitatione peccari, nec hoc in lege uspiam contineri, et sic assere suspicioni tuae locum paratum; aut certe si manifestum est, nulla magis re quam imitatione vitiorum invaluisse peccata, grandi imperitia collegisti Apostolum de diabolo profecto dicturum fuisse, si imitationem voluisset intellegi.