Romans 5:19

Many sinned by following Adam, but not all. Likewise, many are justified by faith in Christ, but not all.

For as by one man's disobedience sin entered, and death obtained [a place] through sin; so also by the obedience of one man, righteousness having been introduced, shall cause life to fructify in those persons who in times past were dead. And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil ("for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground"), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for "all things were made by Him," and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin. If, then, the first Adam had a man for his father, and was born of human seed, it were reasonable to say that the second Adam was begotten of Joseph. But if the former was taken from the dust, and God was his Maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God, to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin. Why, then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so that the formation should be made of Mary? It was that there might not be another formation called into being, nor any other which should [require to] be saved, but that the very same formation should be summed up [in Christ as had existed in Adam], the analogy having been preserved.

"For as through the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one many shall be made righteous." It can indeed be the case that, according to what we have observed above, Paul, wishing to veil the more secret mysteries, puts "many" where elsewhere he had said "all," lest perhaps, if he had said that through the disobedience of one "all" were made sinners, and had necessarily added, "so also through the obedience of one" all "shall be made righteous," he should seem, by the security of such a promise, to unnerve the souls of those for whom it is expedient to be under fear. And therefore we, preserving the counsel of a faithful and prudent steward in the word of God, ought rather to give an account of this: how through the disobedience of one not all, but many, were made sinners. For how through the obedience of one not all, but many, are made righteous will present no difficulty to the understanding, according to that which the Lord says in the Gospel: "For many shall come from the East and the West, and shall recline with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God," and he did not say, All shall come. But we must show how sinners are seen to be many and not all, since the same Apostle says that "all have sinned." It is one thing to sin, another to be a sinner. He is called a sinner who by transgressing in many things has already come into the habit, and, so to speak, into the eager pursuit of sinning; just as, on the contrary, he is not called righteous who has once or twice done something of righteousness, but he who by always acting justly holds righteousness in practice and habit. For if someone is unjust in almost all other things, but once or twice has done some just work, he indeed will be said to have acted justly in that work in which he held to righteousness, yet he will not on this account be called righteous. […]

Note that Paul says "many" and "not all," for we find some among the ancients who did not sin, e.g., Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, the patriarchs and those who succeeded in keeping the law. On the other hand, after the coming of grace, there were many …

What he says seems indeed to involve no small question: but if any one attends to it diligently, this too will admit of an easy solution. What then is the question? It is the saying that through the offence of one many were made sinners. For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner. What then does the word "sinners" mean here? To me it seems to mean liable to punishment and condemned to death. Now that by Adam's death we all became mortals, he had shown clearly and at large. But the question now is, for what purpose was this done? But this he does not go on to add: for it contributed nothing to his present object. We are so far from taking any harm from this death and condemnation, if we be sober-minded, that we are the gainers even by having become mortal, first, because it is not an immortal body in which we sin; secondly, because we get numberless grounds for being religious. For to be moderate, and to be temperate, and to be subdued, and to keep ourselves clear of all wickedness, is what death by its presence and by its being expected persuades us to. But following with these, or rather even before these, it hath introduced other greater blessings besides. For it is from hence that the crowns of the martyrs come, and the rewards of the Apostles.