To Florus 4.63
You also said that it is sacrilege to judge anything believed to have been made by God shameful, apart from this desire of the flesh; and that Christ did not have this desire of the flesh, which gives mortals a reason for modesty. Did you not see what follows? Christ should have joined gatherings naked, without any regard for modesty, so as not to incur the sacrilege you invent by being ashamed, in his flesh that had no desire, of his own and his Father’s works. But if he had no such desire and nevertheless observed modesty, then even on your account it is irrefutably proved that modesty is due to the human body, not to its sexual heat.
Latin
Esse autem sacrilegium, pudendum aliquid quod Deus fecisse credatur, praeter hanc carnis concupiscentiam iudicare; Christum vero non habuisse hanc concupiscentiam carnis, quae mortalibus facit causam pudoris. Quid igitur ad haec occurreret, non vidisti, videlicet nudum eum, id est Christum, convencticulis debuisse misceri; nec aliquem verecundiae habere respectum, ne sacrilegium quod commentaris incurreret, in carne videlicet sua, quae concupiscentiam non habebat, de suis et Patris operibus erubescens. Si autem ei et concupiscentia non fuit, et tamen ille est pudoris functus officio; irrefutabiliter etiam secundum te approbatur, verecundiam corpori humano debitam, non calori.