To Florus 4.97
Again, there is a large difference between the propositions. You said, “There is no offense without will,” and answered, “But there is an offense through one person’s will.” Does the following reply, introduced by a preposition taking the accusative case, agree with the earlier definition, secured by a preposition taking the ablative case? The question was whether a crime could exist without will, and it had been established that it could not. You added that sin entered through one man. Yet the issue was not through what it began, but without what it could not exist.
Latin
Deinde quia multa in propositionibus invenitur diversitas, dixeras: Non esse sine voluntate delictum, et respondisti: sed per unius voluntatem esse delictum. Numquid concinit superiori definitioni, quae ablativi casus praepositione munitur, secuta responsio per praepositionem accusativi casus illata? Quaesitum erat utrum esset crimen sine voluntate, quod non posse constiterat; tu subdidisti per unum hominem intrasse peccatum, cum non referret per quid coepisset, sed sine quo esse non posset.