To Florus 4.19
I said that you used language entirely belonging to Manichaeus because, although some of these words occur in the apostle John’s letter, it is certain that this teacher of the Church meant nothing there about the flesh, its sensation, or marital desire like what Manichaeus constructs by appropriating his words. I therefore rightly called them the words of the man whose meaning they served: language should be judged according to the intention behind it. In Saint John these words deserve reverence for their apostolic dignity, because they convey truth; in Manichaeus they appear as obscured traces of those words, not their faithful expression.
Latin
Ideo autem dixi eloquiis te usum omnino Manichaei, quia etsi in apostoli Ioannis Epistola nonnulla ex his verba teneantur; tamen quia certum est, non ibi illum Ecclesiae magistrum aut de carne, aut de sensu carnis, aut de concupiscentia nuptiali, quidquam tale sensisse, quale Manichaeus verborum eius usurpatione componit; non iniuria eius verba esse dixi, cuius sensui serviebant, ut eloquia intentionis suae merito censeantur; et sicut apud sanctum Ioannem apostolica sunt dignitate reverenda, quia insinuant veritatem, ita apud Manichaeum obumbrata illorum signa non expressa videantur.