To say that the will is not free, because it must desire good and hate ill as such, is to say freedom or activity cannot belong to a mind endued with the power of willing; since willing means complacency in good, or preferring it, and aversion to evil, desire to avoid it, i.e., it implies a contradiction, viz. willing without willing.

Scottus Eriugena. Treatise on divine predestination.

It is very firmly to be maintained, then, that no sin, that is, no evil deed, and no punishment for it, has its origin elsewhere than in the individual will of man who misuses the freedom of choice. And the true reason does not find it to be otherwise. In order to demonstrate this, use must be made of the argument by comparison. If the will is according to nature human, from this it is very foolish to doubt, and no one does doubt, that it is not the highest will of all, this principally from the evidence that it is changeable. For if it were the highest of all, how could it be changeable? It is not, then, the highest. But since we see that it shares in the highest reason, we cannot doubt that it is a rational substance. Secondly, if rational nature deservedly takes a precedence over irrational, it follows that a changeable rational nature is inferior to an immutable rational one, but greater than an irrational and changeable one. We must, then, believe, that the divine will, the highest of all, in no way has either urged the rational will, which it created, to sin, or compelled it to sin. But how could an irrational will, like that of the animals, overcome a will better than itself, especially as it cannot sin itself, being devoid of reason? How could it have either urged or compelled to sin a will stronger than itself, one indeed making use of reason? There remains on a par with a will, if such exists, which is either free from vice or is vitiated. But if it were to be free from vice, by what means can it either urge or enforce vicious actions in a will equal to itself? For no will that is free from vice effects vice in another will. But if it is vitiated it is not on a par with the human will before sin. For every will free of corruption is better than one not free of it. The conclusion is that every opportunity for evil doing and all punishment for it is in man’s own will.

Alexander of Aphrodisias. On fate.

Moreover the consequence, if all the things that come to be follow on some causes that have been laid down beforehand and are definite and exist beforehand, is that men deliberate in vain about the things that they have to do. And if deliberating were in vain, man would have the power of deliberation in vain. (And yet, if nature does nothing of what is primary in vain, and man’s being a living creature with the power of deliberation is a primary product of nature, and not something that merely accompanies and happens along with the primary products, the conclusion would be drawn that men do not have the power of deliberation in vain.)

That deliberating is in vain if everything comes to be of necessity can easily be realized by those who know the use of deliberating. It is agreed by everyone that man has this advantage from nature over the other living creatures, that he does not follow appearances in the same way as them, but has reason from her as a judge of the appearances that impinge on him concerning certain things as deserving to be chosen. Using this, if, when they are examined, the things that appeared are indeed as they initially appeared, he assents to the appearance and so goes in pursuit of them; but if they appear different or something else appears more deserving to be chosen, he choses that, leaving behind what initially appeared to him as deserving of choice. At any rate there are many things which, having seemed different to us in their first appearances from what they appeared to us subsequently, no longer remained as in our previous notion when reason put them to the test; and so, though they would have been done as far as concerned the appearance of them, on account of our deliberating about them they were not done – we being in control of the deliberating and of the choice of the things that resulted from the deliberation.

(…)

And choice, the peculiar activity of man, is concerned with the same things; for choice is the impulse with desire towards what has been preferred as a result of deliberation. And for this reason choice does not apply to the things that come to be necessarily, nor to those that do so not necessarily but not through us, not even in the case of all the things that do so through us; but in the case of those things that come to be through us over which we have control both to do and not to do them.

Theodore of Beza wrote in his Little book of Christian questions and responses:

If faith is necessary to salvation, and works necessarily flow out of true faith, (as that which cannot be idle), certainly it also follows, that good works are necessary to salvation, yet not as cause of salvation (for we are justified, and thus live, by faith alone in Christ), but as something necessarily attached to true faith.

Therefore, if true faith cannot be idle, is there some human way to recognize true faith but because it yields good works? So, if we cannot separate true faith and good works in reality, why do we separate them in dogma?

Let’s suppose that I publicly deny Christ even though I believe in Him. Will my inward faith save me or, despite of it, I will be condemned by my hypocrisy?

Gabriel Biel. A defense of apostolic obedience.

Christ, the Lord, before he ascended into heaven, appointed St. Peter, the Apostle, the general pastor, head, ruler, and prelate of his Church. The gospel account reveals this truth: Peter was asked three times (John 21): Peter, do you love me more than these? And each time, he responded: You know, Lord, that I love you. To each response of Peter, the Lord replied: Feed my sheep. In these words, my sheep, the Lord commended his flock undivided to Peter alone as a universal pastor. Instead of designating some portion of the flock, he rather assigns the whole, declares St. Bernard to Pope Eugenius. It is clearly manifest that the Lord addressed these words to Peter only and addressed him personally and not the other disciples…

(…)

All Christians collectively and individually must obey apostolic mandates of this sort that are sufficiently made known to them, and are bound under the threat of eternal damnation to obey these mandates in those matters which concern them.

For in all matters which are not contrary to Holy Writ, divine law, or natural law, the Supreme Pontiff, as the voice of St. Peter, must be obeyed from divine precept and for salvation…

Divine law commands that he who disdains to obey the rulers of the Church be driven out and barred from the sacraments of the faithful. For Christ says “If he will not listen to the church, you must then treat him as you would a pagan or a taxgatherer” (Mt. 18).

Accordingly natural reason dictates that he ought not to possess an office which stands vacant who neglects those things required for the fulfillment of that office. For the welfare of an individual must not be placed above and preferred over the common welfare, as Aristotle teaches (Ethics, Book II).

Reginald Pole. Defense of the unity of the Church.

Now let us first speak about building a man in the Church. The Prophet Jeremias explains this to us in detail in the passage where he is speaking to Jerusalem about the future conversion of the Jews. He adds something about the “building” of these people, which is the same as the question for which we are now seeking and explanation. These are the very words of Jeremias, however, addressed in the person of God to the Jews and the tribes of Israel: “I will bring back the captivity of Juda, and the captivity of Jerusalem; and I will build them as from the beginning” (Jer. 33:7). Behold this building of men! And this statement is immediately subjoined: “And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity; and I will forgive all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned against me, and despised me. And it shall be to me a name, and a joy and a praise, and a gladness before all the nations of the earth” (Jer. 33:8-9). Thus the Prophet spoke. In those few words, indeed, he omitted none of the things we desire to know about the “building” of men. For though man from the beginning was raised up from earth through the workmanship of God -as if he were an impressive edifice, the future dwelling place of God- sin threw this building down to erth again. Sins so destroyed the building that it became a den for wild beasts instead of a house of God.

(…)

This is what is meant, however, by saying that the Church is founded. It does not mean that only one man should be “built” as in the beginning at the “building” of earthly man, but rather it means many people. It signifies the Church that was “built”. The Prophet expresses it in other words having the same meaning: “I shall form the people and it shall be to me a praise” (Jer. 33:7-9). This is just as if he said: “I shall form my people, I shall build my Church”. For the people, the multitude, constitute the Church. The Scriptures wish to express the firm stability of the Church and the fitting connection of its various parts that will never be separated. Thus the Scriptures call these men by the names of things having a most durable connection among themselves. They are called rocks, not careleslly thrown about but built one on top the other. Thus stability and order are signified. These two qualities are clearly understood in the security of a building constructed from rock. In this manner, therefore, all who are in the Church can be called rocks -even rocks placed in an edifice. Thus Peter commonly addresses all who are in the Church as “living stones built up” (1 Pt. 2:5). From these words we can understand that it can be said of all that “you are stones, you are rocks”. Here there is only a difference of words, not of things. So also can it be said of each one that is founded in the Church: “You are a stone, you are a rock”.

But Sampson becomes excited when he hears me say that all Christians are rocks. This is the same thing he would mantain, that he so vehemently asserts. He contends that by the words “Thou art Peter”, all who confess the name of Christ in the Church are rocks; of all who profess the Faith of Christ it can be said “Thou art Peter”. Such is the assurance that Sampson begins to place in himself and his case!

But Sampson, if I appear to gratify you in this by saying that all Christians are rocks, I shall also add something more that I think will be even more gratifying to youso you may know that in other matters where I disagree with you, I disagree unwillingly and by compulsion. I am not accustomed, of my own will, to disagree with anyone. I now, therefore, add this concerning those rocks such as I say all Christians are. I say these Christians have virtues of such a kind that when they have been “built” they can place genuine, associated rocks on the “building” of other virtues. These virtues so erected in this building may assist in the attainment of life eternal. For thus Paul writes: “Edify one another” (1 Thes. 5:11). Wherefore, on this account, all who are living rocks can be edified by all. Each can also be strengthened in the faith, by each.

But here, now, Sampson will rejoice. He will chant a hymn of victory. He will now condemn me since I have been conquered by truth and have fallen down to his own opinion. For did Sampson undertake in his whole book to show anything other that that what others says is appropriate to Peter alone -that he is a rock- can also be said in general of all who are in the Church? What if it be conceded that all are rocks, that all might mutually edify one another? Then what is left specifically for Peter? Sampson mantains that the controversy is now over. His own case remains unvanquished.

Hear me, Sampson, and restrain yourself for a moment if you can. If you think that you have conquered because I have conceded to you that all Christians are rocks and can mutually edify one another, you do not understand what I have conceded to you. For in the first place the question does not revolve around attributing the name rock to other Christians. There is no controversy between us on this point. Not one of those whom your disagreement with the Church has made an oponent, has any quarrel with you. But when I concede that the name of rock was common to all Christians -for all have been made rocks by Christ- I say there is a very great difference in this common use of the name. This difference depends on the rank of diginity and excellence. For all do not hold equal positions of excellence in this edifice.

You, on the contrary, deny this. This denial makes the controversy. This, I say, is the axle around which the whole case revolves. It is a question of superiority, of whether or not Peter holds the position of first rock in this edifice, of whether he is the rock upon whom Christ testified He wanted to erect His edifice when He said: “Thou art Peter: And upon this rock I will build my Church” (Mt. 16:18). You, Sampson, deny this. I, with the Church, affirm it. But now we might expect proofs. For again we are called into battle.

Our arguments concern this rock. You maintain it should be removed from its place in the foundation where Christ placed it. I shall not allow you to do this. As I rely upon the forces of the Church, I trust I shall always so defend this rock against you that you will withdraw your position, or rather that you cannot even arrive at it. I shall immediately present facts that will to the highest degree strengthen this rock in this place, for it greatly pertains to this question. Without any difficulty at all, I can show from Paul himself, that though all Christians are rocks there is a difference among these rocks as far as dignity and excellence is concerned. Paul, using bodily members as an example, clearly declares that they differ among themselves in excellence. For although all are called members, one is superior to the other as is the eye to the foot. This one authority alone would conclude this whole controversy in my favor. But since I have begun this simile of rocks, I shall not abandon it now. There is a passage in Issaias that makes clear the differences among themselves in this matter concerning the “building” of men under the name of stone. In this passage the Prophet, speaking in the person of God, concerning the “building” of the Church under the name of Jerusalem says this: “Behold I will lay thy stones in order, and will lay thy foundations with sapphires. And I will make thy bulwarks of jasper; and thy gates of graven stones, and all thy borders of desirable stones” (Is. 54:11-12).

From these words do not all immediately understand the most excellent order among these stones and also the very great difference between them? God had promised that He would lay some sapphires, others jaspers; that He would lay some in the gates, others in the bulwarks, but that all stones would be desirable. And lest his listeners should think thatb by the name of stone they should understand some material structure, he immediately adds and explains the kind of structure and stones that should be understood. “And thy children shall be taught of the Lord: and great shall be the peace of thy children. And thou shalt be founded in justice” (Is. 54:13-14). Now, therefore, the Prophet notes that these stones differ not only in their excellence but also according to rank of position. Therefore, does not the man who was first taught by the Lord justly hold first place? And since it is clear from the Gospel that Peter was the one to whom the Father revealed the excellence of the Architect, should not the Author of this act justly give the position of supreme excellence to Peter? Could He have done this more worthly than by saying to Peter, after God the Father had made the revelation to Peter: “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt. 16:18)? Let us dwell for a moment on these words of the Gospel. “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church”. We might greatly shorten this whole discussion by omitting all other rocks about which there is no controversy here, and by considering only that rock upon which the Church was founded. Now, therefore, you deny that Peter was that rock upon which the Church was founded by Christ. But do you sufficiently realize, Sampson, what you are denying? Do you know what it means to build a Church upon this rock? If I asked you this in your presence, would you reply? You clearly would never reply, because you do not know. You definitely show you do not know since you explain that these deeds do not signify something that must certainly be believed. Rather they signify your own opinion of this rock upon which Christ sais He would build. Your judgement in this matter cannot be considered of any value, since you follow no firm opinion. For now you say that Christ is that rock upon which the Church was founded. Then you say that a confession of faith is that rock. Finally you say that the Church is that rock. But if you had a certain opinion, a carefully considered understanding of these words of Christ when He said that He would build His Church upon a rock, if you knew what was meant by building a Church upon a rock, would your opinion be so vacillating? Does not this very vacillation clearly show that you are beating around in the darkness like a blind man, that you have given no consideration to what you say?

Tertullian. Prescription against heretics.

I come now to the point which (is urged both by our own brethren and by the heretics). Our brethren adduce it as a pretext for entering on curious inquiries, and the heretics insist on it for importing the scrupulosity (of their unbelief). It is written, they say, “Seek, and you shall find.” Matthew 7:7 Let us remember at what time the Lord said this. I think it was at the very outset of His teaching, when there was still a doubt felt by all whether He were the Christ, and when even Peter had not yet declared Him to be the Son of God, and John (Baptist) had actually ceased to feel assurance about Him. With good reason, therefore, was it then said, “Seek, and you shall find,” when inquiry was still be to made of Him who was not yet become known. Besides, this was said in respect of the Jews. For it is to them that the whole matter of this reproof pertains, seeing that they had (a revelation) where they might seek Christ.

“They have,” says He, “Moses and Elias,” Luke 16:29 —in other words, the law and the prophets, which preach Christ; as also in another place He says plainly, “Search the scriptures, in which you expect (to find) salvation; for they testify of me;” John 5:39 which will be the meaning of “Seek, and you shall find.” For it is clear that the next words also apply to the Jews: “Knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” Matthew 7:7 The Jews had formerly been in covenant with God; but being afterwards cast off on account of their sins, they began to be without God. The Gentiles, on the contrary, had never been in covenant with God; they were only as “a drop from a bucket,” and “as dust from the threshing floor,” Isaiah 40:15 and were ever outside the door. Now, how shall he who was always outside knock at the place where he never was? What door does he know of, when he has passed through none, either by entrance or ejection? Is it not rather he who is aware that he once lived within and was thrust out, that (probably) found the door and knocked thereat? In like manner,”Ask, and you shall receive,” Matthew 7:7 is suitably said to one who was aware from whom he ought to ask,—by whom also some promise had been given; that is to say, “the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.” Now, the Gentiles knew nothing either of Him, or of any of His promises. Therefore it was to Israel that he spoke when He said, “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matthew 15:24 Not yet had He “cast to the dogs the children’s bread;” not yet did He charge them to “go into the way of the Gentiles.” Matthew 10:5 It is only at the last that He instructs them to “go and teach all nations, and baptize them,” Matthew 28:19 when they were so soon to receive “the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, who should guide them into all the truth.” John 16:13 And this, too, makes towards the same conclusion. If the apostles, who were ordained to be teachers to the Gentiles, were themselves to have the Comforter for their teacher, far more needless was it to say to us, “Seek, and you shall find,” to whom was to come, without research, our instruction by the apostles, and to the apostles themselves by the Holy Ghost. All the Lord’s sayings, indeed, are set forth for all men; through the ears of the Jews have they passed on to us. Still most of them were addressed to Jewish persons; they therefore did not constitute instruction properly designed for ourselves, but rather an example.

I now purposely relinquish this ground of argument. Let it be granted, that the words, “Seek, and you shall find,” were addressed to all men (equally). Yet even here one’s aim is carefully to determine the sense of the words consistently with (that reason), which is the guiding principle in all interpretation. (Now) no divine saying is so unconnected and diffuse, that its words only are to be insisted on, and their connection left undetermined. But at the outset I lay down (this position) that there is some one, and therefore definite, thing taught by Christ, which the Gentiles are by all means bound to believe, and for that purpose to “seek,” in order that they may be able, when they have “found” it, to believe. However, there can be no indefinite seeking for that which has been taught as one only definite thing. You must “seek” until you “find,” and believe when you have found; nor have you anything further to do but to keep what you have believed provided you believe this besides, that nothing else is to be believed, and therefore nothing else is to be sought, after you have found and believed what has been taught by Him who charges you to seek no other thing than that which He has taught. When, indeed, any man doubts about this, proof will be forthcoming, that we have in our possession that which was taught by Christ. Meanwhile, such is my confidence in our proof, that I anticipate it, in the shape of an admonition to certain persons, not “to seek” anything beyond what they have believed—that this is what they ought to have sought, how to avoid interpreting, “Seek, and you shall find,” without regard to the rule of reason.

Now the reason of this saying is comprised in three points: in the matter, in the time, in the limit. In the matter, so that you must consider what it is you have to seek; in the time, when you have to seek; in the limit, how long. What you have “to seek,” then, is that which Christ has taught, (and you must go on seeking) of course for such time as you fail to find,—until indeed you find it. But you have succeeded in finding when you have believed. For you would not have believed if you had not found; as neither would you have sought except with a view to find. Your object, therefore, in seeking was to find; and your object in finding was to believe. All further delay for seeking and finding you have prevented by believing. The very fruit of your seeking has determined for you this limit. This boundary has He set for you Himself, who is unwilling that you should believe anything else than what He has taught, or, therefore, even seek for it. If, however, because so many other things have been taught by one and another, we are on that account bound to go on seeking, so long as we are able to find anything, we must (at that rate) be ever seeking, and never believe anything at all. For where shall be the end of seeking? where the stop in believing? where the completion in finding? (Shall it be) with Marcion? But even Valentinus proposes (to us the) maxim, “Seek, and you shall find.” (Then shall it be) with Valentinus? Well, but Apelles, too, will assail me with the same quotation; Hebion also, and Simon, and all in turn, have no other argument wherewithal to entice me, and draw me over to their side. Thus I shall be nowhere, and still be encountering (that challenge), “Seek, and you shall find,” precisely as if I had no resting-place; as if (indeed) I had never found that which Christ has taught—that which ought to be sought, that which must needs be believed.

1) Many discrepant translations cause sacred texts to be dispersed: lack of canon; philological anarchy and tirany of scholars.

2) Many sects and interpretations: lack of a detailed rule of faith; indistinction between heretics and infidels.

3) Exegetical relativism: lack of united sense and soundness in moral doctrine; fideism.

4) Secularization: lack of hierarchy; confusion with civil and political power.

Christ is not a message or a mere messenger: He is the living Law of the Old Covenant, and the Head of the New one’s Mystic Body. If He wasn’t God, He wouldn’t be able to hold such high attributes without falling into idolatry.

However, if there are as many interpretations of Christianism as Christians, we don’t have a single head. If we don’t have a single head, Christ is not our head and, therefore, we cannot recognize His divine condition.

Thus, any redemption operated in the name of Christ and avoiding the spiritual communion with the Church is a rhetorical one (Lk. 11:21-23). Jesus’ sacrifice is diluted into a pious example of virtue, His mediation is suppressed indeed and the abyss of sin remains.

“Next to the Bible and St. Augustine, no other book has come to my attention from which I have learned -and desired to learn- more concerning God, Christ, man and what all things are” (Luther).

Anonymous (around 1.350). Theologia Germanica, followed by my comments.

Saint Paul says that, when that which is perfect comes, then that which is imperfect and partial is done away with. Note how the perfect and the partial are. The perfect is a Being who has comprised and embraced in Himself and in His Being all that is. Without this Being and outside of it there is no true being and in it all things have their being since it is the core of all things.

[In the Bible we can also read: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness". Therefore, by the act of Creation God reproduced Himself, and so His nature is somehow multiplied to a lesser degree in every soul].

This ultimate Being is in Himself unchangeable and immovable, yet changes and moves everything else.

[Anyway, from this point it doesn't follow that everything that changes and moves is totally changeable and totally movable. For if something changes completely, it doesn't exist anymore and it is immediately replaced by some other being, no matter how similar. Moreover, if we deny the individual substance of everything by identifying it with God, we will have to admit that God doesn't only tolerate evil in His plan, but also that He is an evildoer Himself].

But the incomplete and partial originates from or emerges out total perfection -just as the sun or a light emits radiance and beams- and becomes manifest in one form or another.

[The sun -or, at least, its light- is nothing but the addition of every one of its beams. However, God is infinitely more than the addition of every soul created by Him. When God created us, He separated us from His Being in order that we could become living substances and not mere accidents of His actions].

None of these parts is perfect. Thus the Perfect is not identifiable with any of its parts.

[Perfection can be understood here in two senses: perfection in degree and perfection in nature. Only God is perfect in degree. Nevertheless, every substance is perfect in itself, as far as it doesn't need anything else to be completed as a substance. God might keep it, but it is already done by Him, once and for ever.

By stating that creatures have different substances and -unless a miracle occurs- cannot be subdued to Creator's one, I am debunking Averroist claims on the agent intellect being one in all, which is also Spinoza's opinion. Thus, if we are true individuals, we won't be identified with God (Averroism), the universe (Pantheism) or any other individual in it (Metempsychosis), and yet these entities won't be deprived of anything naturally belonging to them].

Creatures that are partial and imperfect can be comprehended, known, and described in words. But the Creator, the Perfect, cannot be comprehended, known, and described in the same manner by creatures, on account of their creatureliness.

[I concur].

The Perfect must consequently be nameless because it is not any created thing.

The creature as created is incapable of discerning, comprehending, naming, or formulating in thought that which is perfect.

[Again, it is a matter of degree. From a certain point of view, our eye cannot grasp the ocean in its entirety, and yet we know what the ocean is. We cannot even watch tridimensional objects as a whole unless we complete them with our imagination. The limits of our senses are helped here by reason, that previously informs us about what does being an "ocean" and a "tridimensional object" mean. That information is not given by senses, but can be confirmed through them. Following the argument shown in these examples, we can state that God -though uninferable and mostly unknown- can be imperfectly completed by our reason from the very moment that He reveals Himself to us].

Now, when that which is perfect comes, the imperfect will be rejected.

[The expression "the imperfect will be rejected" can be taken here as "it will be destroyed" or as "it will be transformed, reshaped, etc.". I accept the last sense only].

When does it come, then? I say, when it is known and felt and tasted in the soul to the extent possible.

[A few lines above we could read that the creature "is incapable of discerning, comprehending, naming, or formulating in thought that which is perfect". The autor is self-contradicting here].

Now one might ask: Since no creatures can know or apprehend the Perfect and since the soul is creaturely, how then can the Perfect be known in the soul?

Answer: That is why we speak of the soul as a creature.; that is to say, it is impossible for the creature to know on the basis of its creatureliness, createdness, and I-relatedness. For in whichever creature this perfect life is to be known, creatureliness, createdness, selfishness, must be abandoned and destroyed.

[If I cannot know as a creature, then I know as a Creator. So, according to this author, when I know God, I'm God. Knowing God, thus, equals being God, or God knowing Himself].

This is what Saint Paul’s words mean when he writes that when the Perfect comes -that is when it is known in the heart- then that which only exists in part -creatureliness, createdness, selfishness, impulse-ridden desire- will be spurned and considered nought.

[It will be diminished for the sake of a new transformation, not destroyed].

As long as one holds to these things and is cemented to them, the Perfect remains unknown.

[So, this so-called perfect knowledge depends on the creature's will too, though negatively, that is to say, avoiding attention to worldly objects. By these means we are free to try to know God, and there is no blind predestination or fatal fate in it].

(…)

The Scriptures, the Truth, and the Faith proclaim that sin is nothing but a turning away on the part of the creature from the unchangeable Good toward the changeable.

This is to say that the creature turns from the Perfect to the imperfect, to separateness, to the partial, and preeminently to itself.

Note that when the creature assumes for itself some good thing, like being, life, knowledge, power -briefly, everything one might term good- as though the creature were indeed one of these goods, or as though the Good belongs to the creature- in such situations the creature is turning away from God.

[How is it possible if, as it has been said, we are in a relationship of total dependence with God?].

Was that not what the devil did? What else did his apostasy and fall consist of but that he assumed for himself that he, too, was something, and that something was his and that something was his own property.

This assumption and his “I” and his “Me” and his “Mine” -that was his apostasy and his fall. And this is still the case.

[The devil wanted to surpass God in power, not just "to own something"].

What else did Adam do but precisely this thing?

We are used to saying that Adam was lost and fell because the ate that apple.

I say it was because of his presumption and because of his I and his Mine, his Me and the like.

He could have eaten seven apples, yet had this not been connected with his presumption, he would not have fallen.

[Adam fell because he failed to honor God's name. God offered him to own everything but the fruit of that tree, which symbolized His wisdom. This wisdom cannot be usurped, since it must be given by Him -the fountainhead- through revelation].

But listen -I have fallen a hundred times deeper that Adam and strayed a hundred times further. No humans in the world could make amends for or undo Adam’s fall and apostasy.

How, then, shall the fall be redeemed? It must be amended like Adam’s fall and by the same one who amended Adam’s fall, and in the same manner.

By whom or in what manner did this healing take place?

Man could not do it without God and God has not designed to do it without man. Hence God assumed human nature or humanity. He became humanized and man became divinized. That is the way amends were made.

[God incarnate can only redeem the ones that follow Him. If He wanted to redeem us without our consent, why should He have chosen this way of persuading and moving us?].

Even if God would take to himself all humans in the world and become humanized in them and they would become divinized in Him and this did not happen in me, my fall and my apostasy would never be amended. No, it must also occur in me.

In this return and healing I can, may, or shall do nothing from myself but simply let it happen. This means that God alone works and I suffer His work and His will to take place.

When I do not suffer this to occur but let my I and my Me rule, I hinder God from working alone without obstruction.

Hence my fall and my apostasy remain unredeemed. Lo, my presumption brings all this about.

[We have stated already that this revelation depends on the absence of resistance to God's action. But we need something else. God cannot work through a blank slate, and we are not blank slates indeed. That's why some objective knowledge of God, provided by the tradition held by the Church, is previously needed].

* * *

Being discussed here.

Erasmus. The complaint of Peace.

Now if in courts of judicature, the judge will not admit of suits which are frivolous and vexatious; if he will not admit of all sorts of evidence, especially that which arises from a personal pique and resentment, how happens it, that in a business of far more consequence to human nature even than courts of judicature, in an affair the most odious and abominable, such as the promoting discord among human creatures and whole neighbouring nations, causes the most frivolous and vexatious are freely admitted as competent and valid. Let the lovers of discord, and the promoters of bloodshed between nations, divided only by a name and a channel, rather reflect that this world, the whole of the planet called earth, is the common country of all who live and breath upon it, if the title of one’s country is allowed to be a sufficient reason for unity among fellow-countrymen; and let them also remember, that all men, however distinguished by political or accidental causes, are sprung from the same parents, if consanguinity and affinity are allowed to be available to concord and peace. If the Church also is a subdivision of this one great universal family, a family of itself consisting of all who belong to that Church, and if the being of the same family necessarily connects all the members in a common interest and a common regard for each other, then the opposers must be ingenious in their malice, if they can deny, that all who are of the same Church, the grand catholic Church of all christendom, must also have a common interest, a common regard for each other, and, therefore, be united in love.

In private life you bear with some things in a brother in law, which you bear with only because he is a brother in law; and will you bear with nothing in him who by the tie of the same religion is also a brother? You pardon many little offences on account of nearness of kindred, and will you pardon nothing on account of affinity founded in religion? Yet there is, no doubt, but the closest possible tie among all the christian brotherhood, is confraternity in Christ.

Why are you always fixing your attention upon the sore place, where the insult or injury received from a fellow-creature festers and rankles? If you seek peace and ensue it, as you ought to do, you will rather say to yourself: “He hurt me in this instance, this is true; but in other instaces he has often served and gratified me, and in this one, he was, perhaps, incited to momentary wrong by passion, mistake, or by another impulse”. As in the poet Homer, the persons who seek to effect a reconciliation between Agamemnon nd Achilles, throw all the blame of their quarrel to goddess Ate; so in real life, offences that cannot be excused consistently with strict veracity, should good-naturedly be imputed to ill-fortune, or, if you please, to a man’s evil genius; that the resentment may be transferred from men to those imaginary beings, who can bear the load, however great, without the slightest inconvenience.