To Florus 2.26
He then assembled the rest, although varying some expressions. Against these objections of mine he devised nothing that could strike back at me. Confessing through his lack of an argument that my conclusion was true, he says that the apostle must answer all these points for him—the apostle who declares that sin entered this world through one man (Romans 5:12). At this point, what educated person could think him sound in the head? He did not understand that he should either pass over objections against which he could find nothing, or think up some answer to them and attach the apostle’s words in support of it.
Latin
Iam reliqua, licet aliquibus sermonibus variata, contexuit. Contra has ergo obiectiones meas nihil quo repercuterer excogitavit; sed verum me collegisse, argumentandi inopia confessus, dicit mihi ad haec omnia Apostolum respondere debere, qui pronuntiet, per unum hominem peccatum intrasse in hunc mundum. In quo loco, quis eum eruditus sanum habuisse caput aestimet, qui non intellexerit aut praetereunda sibi esse, contra quae nihil poterat invenire, aut quaecumque excogitanda, quae referret obiectis, ad quorum confirmationem Apostoli verba coniungeret?