Anf-03 vi.iii.xxi Pg 3
The argument (p. 673, note 6,) is conclusive, but not clear. The disciples of John must have been baptized by him, (Luke vii. 29–30) and “all the people,” must have included those whom Jesus called. But, this was not Christ’s baptism: See Acts xix. 2; 5. Compare note 8, p. 673. And see the American Editor’s “Apollos.”
Anf-03 vi.iii.xxi Pg 3
The argument (p. 673, note 6,) is conclusive, but not clear. The disciples of John must have been baptized by him, (Luke vii. 29–30) and “all the people,” must have included those whom Jesus called. But, this was not Christ’s baptism: See Acts xix. 2; 5. Compare note 8, p. 673. And see the American Editor’s “Apollos.”
Anf-02 vi.iv.ix Pg 226.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.ix Pg 226.3
Anf-02 vi.iv.ix Pg 226.4
Anf-03 v.iv.v.xxxii Pg 3
Luke xv. 1–10.
Was it not the loser? But who was the loser? Was it not he who once possessed4768 4768 Habuit.
them? Who, then, was that? Was it not he to whom they belonged?4769 4769 Cujus fuit: i.e., each of the things respectively.
Since, then, man is the property of none other than the Creator, He possessed Him who owned him; He lost him who once possessed him; He sought him who lost him; He found him who sought him; He rejoiced who found him. Therefore the purport4770 4770 Argumentum.
of neither parable has anything whatever to do with him4771 4771 Vacat circa eum.
to whom belongs neither the sheep nor the piece of silver, that is to say, man. For he lost him not, because he possessed him not; and he sought him not, because he lost him not; and he found him not, because he sought him not; and he rejoiced not, because he found him not. Therefore, to rejoice over the sinner’s repentance—that is, at the recovery of lost man—is the attribute of Him who long ago professed that He would rather that the sinner should repent and not die.
