To Florus 1.72

Or what good is moderation in something whose very presence accuses it? See where your clever distinctions take you. First, nature sins without will, which is impossible. Second, it is sin and does not sin: the same thing both is and is not. Next, when it disturbs peace it is miserable, but is not punished for so great a crime as destroying tranquillity; when it carries out injustice, however, it merits condemnation. Yet the law of sin, just as it itself deserves torment, excuses the human will. A law that compels, is natural, and never departs certainly cannot be overcome by will; no one is guilty for what he could not avoid. But the law itself does not sin either, because it could not do anything else. God, however, counts unavoidable things as guilt, and no one compels him to commit so great an evil. Everyone else is therefore acquitted, and he alone is found guilty: with astonishing effrontery he imputes necessity to others while himself doing wrong without necessity.

Well done for your wise virtue, most noble debater! By the steps of African dialectic, to commend gifts you have overturned judgments; to pretend grace you have overthrown justice; to defame nature you have accused humanity's Creator. You have accused him in such a way that your God appears more guilty not only than some sinner but than the very law of sin. After this you most profanely insult catholic priests, saying that they deny the grace of Christ whose fairness they defend. We praise the mercy of the remedies, but maintain the justice of the laws (compare Romans 7:23).