To Florus 2.22

Above all, then, let the discerning reader hold firmly to this: all sacred Scripture contains only what catholics understand to honor God, as the light of its many statements makes clear. If a difficult expression raises a question, it is certain that the passage’s author did not intend anything unjust. It must be understood in accordance with what clear reason and the brilliance of other, unambiguous passages have disclosed. Let us now set down the words of our opponent. In that part of his argument where he had brought his God to the point of being a potter of sinners—the argument we opposed in the preceding book—he briefly said that sin entered the world through one man, without dwelling on the passage’s explanation (Romans 5:12). After many words against the excerpts he says were sent to him, however, he reached a passage of mine which he set before himself as though to attack it. Yet he offered nothing that answered the attack made on him. Instead, he took refuge in the apostle’s statement that sin entered the world through one man, and tried to explain the passage’s whole sequence in accordance with his own doctrine. For this reason I have passed over other matters and hurried to this part. Since I promised to resolve this question in the second book, I wanted both to keep that promise and to show what his argument actually was. Otherwise I might be thought dishonest for suppressing his explanation and supplying the one we acknowledge as catholic (see Against Julian, Unfinished Work 1.113).