To Florus 2.135
What the apostle added—‘As through one man’s offense it came upon all to condemnation, so through one man’s righteousness it came upon all human beings to justification’ (Romans 5:18)—gives us as much support as it brings crashing destruction on your doctrine. By placing ‘all’ on opposite sides, in statements that cannot be combined, he sends us back to scriptural usage, so that we understand that ‘all’ is commonly said for ‘many.’ For on the surface of the words there is a great incongruity. Who are the ‘all’ who come to justification if all have gone to condemnation? Or who are the ‘all’ who go to punishment if all are swept into glory? Making one side universal excludes the other.
Latin
Iam vero quod addidit Apostolus: Sicut per unius delictum in omnes ad condemnationem, ita et per unius iustitiam in omnes homines ad iustificationem [n181] , tantum opis impertit nobis, quantum in dogma tuum movet fragoris. Ponens quippe in contrariis partibus omnes, quibus verbis non potest ulla esse coniunctio, ad Scripturarum nos morem remittit, ut intellegamus omnes dici solere pro " multis ". Nam in ipsa fronte verborum magna barbaries est; qui enim omnes ad iustificationem veniunt, si perrexerunt omnes ad condemnationem? Aut qui omnes ad poenam, si omnes rapiuntur ad gloriam? Generalitas unius partis locum excludit alterius.