To Florus 4.103

Thus it is to lose its own condition through its own condition, and exist without what it was defined as unable to exist without! This is denying reality. What comparable thing did Anaxagoras do when he said snow was black? You invent the claim that a thing’s nature is denied by its own fruits. Necessity and will are opposites, so that, as I showed above, they destroy one another by mutual conflict. Yet through a new and impossible alliance and a monstrous relationship, you make one arise as the other’s effect. You say necessity grew from the fruits of will, so that will erased itself by multiplying itself and changed its own condition through its activity. To state the matter in its own terms: after will began to be will, it ceased to be will. What could be imagined, I will not say more stupid, but more insane? Since these two, necessity and will, cannot coexist, and since you have confirmed my statement that an offense cannot exist without will, while also agreeing that infants have no will, you are dragged by the throat into admitting that there is no sin in them, since you professed that sin cannot exist without will.