To Florus 4.86

But if there were a crime in nature, Peter’s statement would have been ignorant. He evidently judged it sufficient testimony to spotless holiness to clear Christ’s actions of crimes, although sin would be believed to dwell in him through natural poison. If Peter had thought anything of natural evil, he would therefore have mentioned this part more carefully and emphatically. He would have written, “Christ left us an example: he neither committed sin nor acquired the sin we inherit at birth.” Then it could fittingly follow that no deceit was found in his mouth (compare 1 Peter 2:21–22). But if Peter had thought this, he would never have mentioned an example. For whom would he have presented for human beings to imitate if the nature of an alien flesh had set Christ apart, and a difference of substance had impeached the authority of his teaching?