Romans 3:29

One righteous man, then, differs not, as righteous, from another righteous man, whether he be of the Law or a Greek. For God is not only Lord of the Jews, but of all men, and more nearly the Father of those who know Him. For if to live well and according to the law is to live, also to live rationally according to the law is to live; and those who lived rightly before the Law were classed under faith, and judged to be righteous,-it is evident that those, too, who were outside of the Law, having lived rightly, in consequence of the peculiar nature of the voice, though they are in Hades and in ward, on hearing the voice of the Lord, whether that of His own person or that acting through His apostles, with all speed turned and believed. For we remember that the Lord is "the power of God," and power can never be weak.

Undoubtedly there is only one God for everybody. For even the Jews cannot claim that their God is not the God of the Gentiles also, because they believe that the origin of all people is from the one Adam and that no one who comes …

Hence he also fittingly adds in what follows: "Or is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. Since indeed there is one God, who justifies the circumcision from faith, and the uncircumcision through faith." For those who would have the God of the Jews to be one and the God of the Gentiles another — that is, one God of the Law and another of the Gospels — the reply on this point will be narrow and confining enough, since the apostle Paul gives his verdict abundantly enough when he not only says that there is one God of Jews and of Gentiles, but also adds that it is one and the same God who justifies the circumcision from faith and the uncircumcision through faith. And if they should wish to take "circumcision" by way of allegory, so as to say that by this word he called all the holy and spiritual ones, they will at once find a stumbling block in what follows. For if he called the holy ones — or, as they name them, the spiritual ones — "circumcision," it follows that by "uncircumcision" he meant sinners, whom they call "animal" (of the soul). And how will it be fitting that the good God should justify spiritual and animal alike? For them, then, there will be an inextricable knot in these words of the Apostle. But according to us, who say that "circumcision" means those who have believed from among the Jews, and "uncircumcision" no less means those who have been called from among the Gentiles to the faith, the exposition will be plain and easy. For it is one and the same God who justifies believers from either people, not by the privilege of circumcision or of uncircumcision, but by the regard for faith alone. There remains also the difference of a single syllable, in which the Apostle seems to have varied his expression. […]

Is not all humankind one flock of God? Is not the same God both Lord and Shepherd of all nations?

"Is He the God of the Jews only?" As if he said, On what foot does it then seem to you amiss that every man should be saved? Is God partial? So showing from this, that in wishing to flout the Gentiles, they are rather offering an insult to God's glory, if, that is, they would not allow Him to be the God of all. But if He is of all, then He taketh care of all; and if He care for all, then He saveth all alike by faith. And this is why he says, "Is He the God of the Jews only? is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also." For He is not partial as the fables of the Gentiles (cf. Ov. Tr. I. ii. 5. sqq) are, but common to all, and One...