Anf-03 v.iv.vi.xiii Pg 35
Rom. v. 20.
And wherefore this? “In order,” he says, “that (where sin abounded), grace might much more abound.”5818 5818
Anf-03 v.iv.vi.xiii Pg 36
Rom. v. 20.
Whose grace, if not of that God from whom also came the law? Unless it be, forsooth, that5819 5819 Nisi si: an ironical particle.
the Creator intercalated His law for the mere purpose of5820 5820 Ideo ut.
producing some employment for the grace of a rival god, an enemy to Himself (I had almost said, a god unknown to Him), “that as sin had” in His own dispensation5821 5821 Apud ipsum.
“reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto (eternal) life by Jesus Christ,”5822 5822
Anf-03 v.viii.xxxiv Pg 4
Rom. v. 20.
How, in fact, can he be regarded as saved, who can at the same time be said to be lost—lost, that is, in the flesh, but saved as to his soul? Unless, indeed, their argument now makes it necessary that the soul should be placed in a “lost” condition, that it may be susceptible of salvation, on the ground that is properly saved which has been lost. We, however, so understand the soul’s immortality as to believe it “lost,” not in the sense of destruction, but of punishment, that is, in hell. And if this is the case, then it is not the soul which salvation will affect, since it is “safe” already in its own nature by reason of its immortality, but rather the flesh, which, as all readily allow, is subject to destruction. Else, if the soul is also perishable (in this sense), in other words, not immortal—the condition of the flesh—then this same condition ought in all fairness to benefit the flesh also, as being similarly mortal and perishable, since that which perishes the Lord purposes to save. I do not care now to follow the clue of our discussion, so far as to consider whether it is in one of his natures or in the other that perdition puts in its claim on man, provided that salvation is equally distributed over the two substances, and makes him its aim in respect of them both. For observe, in which substance so-ever you assume man to have perished, in the other he does not perish. He will therefore be saved in the substance in which he does not perish, and yet obtain salvation in that in which he does perish. You have (then) the restoration of the entire man, inasmuch as the Lord purposes to save that part of him which perishes, whilst he will not of course lose that portion which cannot be lost. Who will any longer doubt of the safety of both natures, when one of them is to obtain salvation, and the other is not to lose it? And, still further, the Lord explains to us the meaning of the thing when He says: “I came not to do my own will, but the Father’s, who hath sent me.”7508 7508
Anf-03 v.viii.xlvii Pg 16
Rom. v. 20.
In this way also “shall strength be made perfect in weakness,”7616 7616
Anf-03 v.iv.vi.xiii Pg 40
Rom. v. 21.
His own antagonist! For this (I suppose it was, that) the law of the Creator had “concluded all under sin,”5823 5823
Anf-03 v.viii.xlvii Pg 14
Rom. v. 21.
But how so, unless equally in the flesh? For where the death is, there too must be the life after the death, because also the life was first there, where the death subsequently was. Now, if the dominion of death operates only in the dissolution of the flesh, in like manner death’s contrary, life, ought to produce the contrary effect, even the restoration of the flesh; so that, just as death had swallowed it up in its strength, it also, after this mortal was swallowed up of immortality, may hear the challenge pronounced against it: “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”7614 7614
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, Chapter 9
VERSE (18) - :15,16; 5:20,21 Eph 1:6
