To Florus 2.107
What, then, has this argument established? That your understanding does not agree with the apostle. The apostle says that many offenses are forgiven by grace’s generosity. Your doctrine, however, asserts that one natural sin, which you call the law of sin, fashions desires for wickedness in all human beings. Plainly, then, you accuse nature, which is God’s work, while he accuses the will. He ought not to have spoken otherwise than he did: condemnation can result from one sin. For that first man supplied an example of wrongdoing through one sin, and just as one transgression was enough to condemn him, so one fault can suffice to make others guilty. Hence Ecclesiastes says, ‘Whoever sins in one thing destroys much good’ (Ecclesiastes 9:18); and James: ‘If you keep the whole law but stumble in one point, you have become guilty of all’ (James 2:10).
Latin
Quid igitur hac disputatione confectum est? Sensui videlicet tuo et Apostolo non convenire. Apostolus enim ait multa delicta gratiae liberalitate donari; dogma vero tuum asserit unum peccatum naturale, quod legem peccati vocas, in cunctis hominibus desideria iniquitatis effingere. In absoluto itaque est a te naturam, quae est opus Dei, ab illo argui voluntatem. Non autem aliter prorsus eloqui debuit quam elocutus est, id est ex uno condemnationem fieri posse peccato, quia et primus ille homo per unum peccatum delinquendi praebuit exemplum et, sicut illi ipsi ad condemnationem una praevaricatio abundavit, sic etiam ceteris ad reatum una potest culpa sufficere. Propter quod Ecclesiastes: Qui in uno peccaverit, multa bona perdit [n147] ; et Iacobus: Si totam legem observaveris, offendas autem in uno, factus es omnium reus [n148] .