To Florus 2.39

If, then, the apostle does not accuse the infant of a personal will, understanding that such a will could not yet have existed, he certainly declares that no sign of guilt appears in the infant. This is especially true when the judge is justice, which imputes no sin except one from which abstention is possible. But, not content to grant this alone, you add: ‘Nor does the apostle accuse marriage, insofar as it is marriage, which has not only its institution but also its blessing from God’ (Augustine, Marriage and Desire 2.45). This by itself could equally suffice to overthrow natural sin. For if the apostle knows, as he does know, that marriage is not to be accused, and if the pleasurable union of the sexes, instituted and blessed by God, belongs to marriage as its means and instrument of union, then no possession by the devil can sprout from marriage. Nor is its fruit guilty, especially before that justice which imputes no sin except one from which abstention is possible.