To Florus 1.24
This has always been the greatest distinction between Manichaeans and catholics, the broadest boundary separating the doctrines of the devout from those of the impious, indeed a vast barrier dividing our opinions as widely as heaven is separated from earth: we assign every sin to an evil will; they assign it to an evil nature. They pursue various errors, all flowing, as it were, from this fountainhead, and consistently arrive at sacrilege and shameful deeds. Catholics, by contrast, start from a good beginning, advance through good steps, and reach the height of religion, fortified by reason and piety. You therefore tried to establish an evil inherent in nature and appropriated the apostle's testimony for an impious purpose, though to no effect. In this very work I show that the apostle held nothing like the view you are trying to persuade us to accept. You contradict yourself: you acknowledge that he was catholic, yet suppose his words support a Manichaean.
Latin
Hoc semper fuit maximum inter Manichaeos Catholicosque discrimen, et limes quidam latissimus, quo a se mutuo piorum et impiorum dogmata separantur, immo magna moles sententias nostras quasi coeli a terra profunditate disiungens, quod nos omne peccatum voluntati malae, illi vero malae conscribunt naturae; qui cum diversos sequuntur errores, sed velut de capite fontis istius effluentes consequenter ad sacrilegia flagitiaque perveniunt; sicut Catholici e regione, a bono inchoantes exordio, bonis aucti processibus, ad religionis summam, quam ratio munit et pietas, pervehuntur. Tu igitur malum naturale conatus asserere profano quidem voto, sed inefficaci intentione usurpasti Apostoli testimonium, quem hac eadem perscriptione ostendo nihil tale sensisse, quale tu persuadere conaris, quod repugnantibus modis et illum catholicum confiteris, et dicta eius Manichaeo aestimas suffragari.