To Florus 4.10
For I say: “What, then, does the devil recognize as his own in the sexes, so that, as you say, he rightly possesses their offspring? Their difference? But that exists in the bodies God made. Their union? But it is defended by the privilege of God’s blessing no less than by his institution. Or perhaps fertility itself? But that is the very reason marriage was instituted.” What was new here? What disagreed with the previous conclusion you had approved, so that you thought you should blame it after praising it? Certainly nothing. What follows, then, from such disgusting inconsistency? Clearly, since my argument has not changed while your assessment of my words has altered, your intention is utterly foul and your reasoning weak.
Latin
Aio enim: Quid ergo suum diabolus cognoscit in sexibus, ut fructum eorum, sicut dicis, iure possideat? Diversitatem? Sed haec in corporibus est, quae Deus fecit. Commixtionem? Sed non minus benedictionis, quam institutionis privilegio vindicatur. An forte ipsam fecunditatem? Sed ipsa est instituti causa coniugii. Quid hic ergo novum fuit; quid a superiore quam probaveras conclusione dissentiens, quod post laudem vituperandum putares? Certe nihil: ac per hoc quid de tam foeda varietate colligitur? Cum a me videlicet disputatio innovata non sit, a te vero sit aestimatio meorum dictorum permutata, teterrimam esse intentionem tuam, et rationem imbecillam.