To Florus 4.45
Having settled this in the present work as far as a matter already treated required, I come to your statement that this natural desire was not in Christ. For this is how you object to me: “But amid all these things he was unwilling to name the desire of the flesh, which is not from the Father but from the world. The devil is called the ruler of this world. He did not find this desire in the Lord, because the Lord came among human beings as a man without it” (John 14:30) (Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.2.5; compare John 14:30). You have therefore pronounced that Christ, whom the catholic faith confesses to be a true human being in every respect, did not have in his flesh the desire spoken of by the apostle John. But John, as his words showed, declares that the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes, together with the whole world, are not from the Father (1 John 2:16). I have explained how this ought to be understood.
Latin
Hoc igitur in praesenti opere, quantum res acta pertulit, absoluto, venio ad illud quod dixisti, in Christo hanc naturalem concupiscentiam non fuisse. Sic enim obloqueris mihi: Sed iste in his omnibus noluit nominare concupiscentiam carnis, quae non est a Patre, sed ex mundo est; cuius mundi princeps dictus est diabolus; qui eam in Domino non invenit, quia Dominus homo non per ipsam ad homines venit [n79] . Pronuntiasti ergo Christum, quem verum per omnia hominem fides catholica confitetur, hanc concupiscentiam, quam dicit Ioannes apostolus, in sua non habuisse carne. Sed Ioannes, ut eius dicta docuerunt, concupiscentiam carnis, et concupiscentiam oculorum, cum omni mundo ex Patre non esse pronuntiat [n80] ; quod nos quemadmodum intellegi deberet ostendimus.