To Florus 2.122
Once you accepted this, it became clear that there was no necessity to stir up slander against human nature merely to avoid saying that baptism’s grace has different effects according to people’s ages. With this pretext for persuasion removed, if you have any strength, intelligence, or power, struggle to prove natural sin, which you see destroyed by reason, authority, and justice. What consideration deceived you into calling the union of bodies instituted by God—and sexual pleasure, which brings about that union—the devil’s work and shrub? This pleasure flourishes in human beings and animals alike, and points as its author to the very one it indicates as the bodies’ creator.
Latin
Quod cum receptum est a te, apparuit nullam fuisse necessitatem naturae humanae calumniam concitandi ob hoc solum, ne baptismatis magis gratia varios habere pro aetatibus diceretur effectus. Quo persuasionis colore sublato, si quid nervorum habes, si quid ingenii, si quid virtutis, annitere probare naturale peccatum, quod vides ratione, auctoritate, aequitate destructum. Quo enim es deceptus intuitu, ut commixtionem corporum, quae Deus instituit, et conciliatricem ipsius commixtionis, voluptatem sexuum, quae tam in hominibus quam in pecoribus vigens auctorem suum eum, quem corporum indicat conditorem, diaboli opus et fruticem vocares?