To Florus 4.80
The devil would therefore have found a natural crime in him if any such crime existed. He would have held the body liable if he had poisoned it either in the first parent or in the very woman who bore him. It would not matter whether a late and ineffective intention of the will resisted the conditions of its own material. Struggling against nature, it would not cleanse the one born but would provoke the tyrant—all the more since the will could not be free if nature were captive. So if sin lay in the very sensation and condition of the flesh, if human nature itself belonged to the demon’s dominion, Christ would either have been guilty or would not have been human. If, then, a curse is assigned to human nature, the one who became flesh to dwell among us must likewise either be assigned guilt or be deprived of humanity (compare John 1:14) (John 1:14).
Latin
Invenisset ergo in eo diabolus naturale crimen, si ullum esset; teneret corpus obnoxium, si illud vel in primo parente, vel in ipsa pariente venenasset; nec referret, utrum conditionibus materiae suae sera et inefficax resultaret voluntatis intentio; contra naturam nitens, non expiaret natum, sed exasperaret tyrannum; salvo eo quod non posset esse voluntas libera, si fuisset natura captiva. Si ergo esset in ipsius carnis sensu et conditione peccatum, si ipsa natura hominum ad dominium daemonis pertineret; Christus aut reus erat futurus, aut homo non futurus. Ergo si adscribitur maledictum naturae humanitatis; illi quoque, qui caro factus est ut habitaret in nobis, aut crimen dabitur, aut humanitas auferetur.