To Florus 5.10
After this he passed over the whole continuous discussion of Abraham and Sarah, who received a son as a gift when their bodies were already as good as dead (Romans 4:19; Genesis 21:1–2). Even an ordinary reader, not only a wise one, understands how strongly their example supports the truth. He passed it over by saying it carried little weight against him. At least this statement, framed as follows, should have recalled him from such shamelessness: ‘To bring this argument’ (Romans 4:19)s main point to a brief conclusion: if the child whom God promised was given through sexual desire, then what fulfilled God’s pledge was undoubtedly good. If he was given without sexual desire, desire cannot harm the offspring, since it was present neither when he was conceived nor when he was born.’ (Genesis 21:1–2)
Latin
Post haec, omnem illum contextum de Abraham et Sara, qui emortuis iam corporibus filium pro munere acceperunt, quorum exemplum quantum veritati suffragetur, non solum sapiens, sed etiam mediocris lector intellegit, sic praeteriit, ut diceret contra se non multum valere. A qua impudentia vel illa eum debuit revocare sententia, quae ita constructa est: Et ut breviter, inquio, disputationis huius summa claudatur; si per concupiscentiam redditus est quem Deus promisit, bona sine dubio quae absolvit Dei fidem; si sine concupiscentia, noxia non potest esse progenito; quae nec cum conciperetur, nec cum pareretur, interfuit.