To Florus 2.140
Consider, then, what the whole argument has established. If Christ’s grace and Adam’s fault were judged equal in their opposite effects—equal at least in the number of their operations, though differing in kind—it would have to be shown that grace benefited as many as the fault harmed, so that the balance and weight of the scale in which they were weighed remained fair. The medicine should therefore have helped in precisely the places and parts where the disease had settled. If the ancient crime had done anything to genital movements, the sensations of those coupling, the shamefulness of bodily parts, or the misery of newborn children, grace should have brought remedies by changing those things. Otherwise, it would be striking evidence of a feeble and useless medical art that it failed even to find the disease’s location, and, while the natural functions lay sick and ruined, applied ineffective soothing treatments to people’s wills.
Latin
Attende igitur, quid disputatio tota confecerit. Si gratia Christi et Adae culpa in diversis effectibus aequaliter censerentur, ut vel numero operationum pares essent, quae operationum genere dissidebant, docendum erat tantis profuisse gratiam, quantis culpa nocuisset, ut appensionis illius, qua trutinabantur, aequitas et momenta constarent. Subvenire ergo debuit etiam illis omnino locis illisque partibus medicina, quibus insederat aegritudo, id est si aliquid in motibus genitalium, in sensibus coeuntium, in obscaenitate membrorum, in infelicitate nascentium antiquum crimen effecerat, immutatione horum, quae diximus, remedia contulisset; alioquin grande testimonium imbecillae artis nihilque profuturae nec locum aegritudinis invenisse et languentibus eversisque naturalibus inertia fomenta voluntatibus admovisse.