Que nous n'avons pas naturellement le pouvoir d'aymer Dieu sur toutes choses
The Weakness of Natural Love
The human mind possesses a natural inclination toward God, yet the will remains too weakened by sin to fully realize this love.
Eagles have great hearts and immense strength for flight; yet they have incomparably more sight than flying power, and they cast their gaze much more swiftly and much farther than their wings can carry them. In the same way, our minds—stirred by a holy natural inclination toward the Divinity—have far more clarity in understanding how lovable God is than strength in the will to love Him. Sin has weakened the human will much more than it has darkened the understanding. The rebellion of the sensual appetite, which we call concupiscence, does indeed trouble the understanding, but it stirs up sedition and revolt mainly against the will. So the poor will, already thoroughly weak and shaken by the continual assaults concupiscence launches against it, cannot make as much progress in divine love as reason and natural inclination tell it it should.1 Alas, Theotimus, what fine testimonies—not only of a great knowledge of God, but also of a strong inclination toward Him—have been left by those great philosophers, Socrates and Epictetus! Socrates, the most praised among them, clearly knew the unity of God, and had such an inclination to love him that, as Saint Augustine testifies, many have thought he never taught moral philosophy for any other purpose than to purify minds, so that they might better contemplate the sovereign Good, which is the one and only Divinity.2 As for Plato, he makes himself clear enough in his famous definition of philosophy and the philosopher, saying that to philosophize is nothing other than to love God, and that the philosopher is nothing other than a lover of God. What shall I say of the great Aristotle, who so forcefully proves the unity of God and has spoken of it so honorably in so many places?3
The Failure of the Philosophers
Great pagan philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Epictetus knew the truth of divine unity but lacked the strength to live consistently by it.
But, O eternal God! These great minds, who had so much knowledge of the Divinity and such a strong inclination to love it, all lacked the strength and courage to love it well. Through visible creatures, they came to know the invisible things of God—even his eternal power and Divinity, as the great Apostle says—so they are without excuse. Even though they knew God, they didn't glorify him as God, nor did they give him thanks. They did glorify him to some extent, giving him sovereign titles of honor, but they didn't glorify him as he ought to have been glorified—that is, they didn't glorify him above all things. Lacking the courage to tear down idolatry, and instead consorting with idolaters, they held the truth they knew captive in injustice within their hearts. By preferring the honor and empty ease of their own lives to the honor they owed God, they faded away into empty reasoning.4 Isn't it a great pity, Theotimus, to see Socrates, in Plato's account, speaking of the gods as he dies as if there were many of them—even though he knew so well that there is only one?5 Isn't it deplorable that Plato ordered sacrifices to many gods, even though he knew so well the truth of the divine unity? And isn't Mercury Trismegistus pitiable for so weakly lamenting and mourning the abolition of idolatry, even though he had spoken so worthily of the Divinity in so many places?6 But above all, I admire that poor, good man Epictetus, whose sayings and maxims are so sweet to read in our language thanks to the translation that the learned and fine pen of the Reverend Dom Jean de Saint-François, Provincial of the Congregation of the Feuillants in Gaul, has recently set before us. For what a pity it is, I ask you, to see this excellent philosopher speak of God at times with such relish, feeling, and zeal that you'd take him for a Christian emerging from some holy and deep meditation—and yet elsewhere, from time to time, mention the gods in the pagan fashion?7 Ah, that good man, who knew the divine unity so well and took such delight in its goodness—why didn't he have a holy jealousy for the divine honor, so as not to swerve or dissemble on a matter of such great importance?
The Necessity of Grace
Human nature is like a tree that produces only imperfect fruit; true love for God requires the life-giving power of heavenly grace.
In short, Theotimus, our wretched nature, wounded by sin, behaves like the palm trees we have in these parts: they do put out certain imperfect growths, like trials of their fruit, but to bear whole dates, ripe and fully seasoned—that is reserved for warmer lands. For in the same way our human heart does naturally produce certain beginnings of love toward God; but to go so far as to love him above all things—which is the true maturity of the love due to this supreme Goodness—that belongs only to hearts animated and assisted by heavenly grace and that are in the state of holy charity. And this little imperfect love, of which nature itself feels the stirrings, is only a kind of willing without willing: a will that would will but does not will; a sterile will that produces no real effects; a paralytic will that sees the healing pool of holy love but does not have the strength to throw itself in. And finally, this will is a stillborn offspring of the good will, without the life of the generous vigor required actually to prefer God above all things—of which the Apostle, speaking in the person of the sinner, cries out: The will is indeed in me, but I do not find the means to carry it out.89
Read the original Latin
Les aigles ont un grand coeur et beaucoup de force a voler; elles ont neanmoins incomparablement plus de veüe que de vol, et estendent beaucoup plus viste et plus loin leur regard que leurs aysles. Ainsi nos espritz,animés d'une sainte inclination naturelle envers la Divinité,ont bien plus de clarté en l'entendement pour voir combien elle est aymable, que de force en la volonté pour l'aymer; car le peché a beaucoup plus debilité la volonté humaine qu'il n'a offusqué l'entendement, et la rebellion de l'appetit sensuel, que nous appellons concupiscence, trouble voirement l'entendement,mais c'est pourtant contre la volonté qu'il excite principalement la sedition et la revolte;si que la pauvre volonté, des-ja toute infirme, estant agitée des continuelz assautz que la concupiscence luy livre, ne peut faire un si grand progres en l'amour divin, comme la rayson et inclination naturelle luy suggerent qu'elle devroit faire. Helas, Theotime, quelz beaux tesmoignages, non seulement d'une grande connoissance de Dieu, mays aussi d'une forte inclination envers luy, ont esté laissés par ces grans philosophes,Socrate, Epictete! Socrate, le plus loüé d'entr'eux, connoissait clairement l'unité de Dieu, et avoit tant d'inclination a l'aymer que, comme saint Augustin tesmoigne, plusieurs ont estimé qu'il n'enseigna jamais la philosophie morale pour autre occasion que pour espurer les espritz, affin qu'ilz peussent mieux contempler le souverain bien qui est la tres unique Divinité. Et quant a Platon, il se declare asses en la celebre definition de la philosophie et du philosophe, disant que philosopher n'est autre chose qu'aymer Dieu, et que le philosophe n'estoit autre que l'amateur de Dieu. Que diray-je du grand Aristote, qui avec tant d'efficace appreuve l'unité de Dieu et en a parlé si honnorablement en tant d'endroitz?
Mais, o Dieu eternel! ces grans espritz qui avoyent tant de connoissance de la Divinité et tant de propension a l'aymer, ont tous manqué de force et de courage a la bien aymer. Par les creatures visibles ilz ont conneu les choses invisibles de Dieu, voire mesme son eternelle vertu et Divinité, dit le grand Apostre; de sorte qu'ilz sont inexcusables, d'autant qu'ayant conneu Dieu, ilz ne l'ont pas glorifié comme Dieu, ni ne luy ont pas fait action de graces. Ilz l'ont certes aucunement glorifié, luy donnant des souverains tiltres d'honneur, mays ilz ne l'ont pas glorifié comme il le falloit glorifier, c'est à dire ilz ne l'ont pas glorifié sur toutes choses; n'ayant pas eu le courage de ruiner l'idolatrie, ains communiquans avec les idolatres,retenans la verité qu'ilz connoissoient, en injustice, prisonniere dedans leurs coeurs, et preferans l'honneur et le vain repos de leurs vies a l'honneur qu'ilz devoient a Dieu, ilz se sont esvanouis en leurs discours. N'est-ce pas grande pitié, Theotime, de voir Socrate, au recit de Platon, parler en mourant des dieux comme s'il y en avoit plusieurs, luy qui sçavoit si bien qu'il n'y en avoir qu'un seul? N'est ce pas chose deplorable que Platon ayt ordonné que l'on sacrifie a plusieurs dieux, luy qui sçavoit si bien la verité de l'unité divine? Et Mercure Trismegiste n'est il pas lamentable, de lamenter et plaindre si laschement l'abolissement de l'idolatrie, luy qui en tant d'entroitz avoit parle si dignement de la Divinité?
Mais sur tout j'admire le pauvre bon homme Epictete, duquel les propos et sentences sont si douces a lire en nostre langue, par la traduction que la docte et belle plume du Reverend Dom Jean de Saint François, Provincial de la Congregation des Feuillans es Gaules, a depuis peu exposée a nos yeux. Car quelle compassion, je vous prie,de voir cet excellent philosophe parler parfois de Dieu avec tant de goust, de sentiment et de zele, qu'on le prendroit pour un Chretien sortant de quelque sainte et profonde meditation, et neanmoins ailleurs,d'occasion en occasion, mentionner les dieux la payenne? Hé, ce bon homme, qui connoissoit si bien l'unité divine et avoit tant de goust de la bonté d'icelle, pourquoy n'a-il pas eu la sainte jalousie de l'honneur divin, affin de ne point gauchir ni dissimuler en un sujet de si grande importance?
En somme, Theotime, nostre chetive nature, navree par le péché, fait comme les palmiers que nous avons de deça, qui font voirement certaines productions imparfaittes et comme des essais de leurs fruits, mais de porter des dattes entieres, meures et assaisonnees, cela est reservé pour des contrees plus chaudes. Car ainsy notre coeur humain produit bien naturellement certains commencemens d'amour envers Dieu, mais d'en venir jusques a l'aymer sur toutes choses, qui est la vraye maturité de l'amour deu a cette supreme Bonté, cela n'appartient qu'aux coeurs animés et assistés de la grace celeste et qui sont en l'estat de la sainte charité; et ce petit amour imparfait, duquel la nature en elle mesme sent les eslans, ce n'est qu'un certain vouloir sans vouloir,un vouloir qui voudroit mais qui ne veut pas, un vouloir sterile qui ne produit point de vrays effectz,un vouloir paralytique qui void la piscine salutaire du saint amour mais qui n'a pas la force de s'y jetter; et en fin, ce vouloir est un avorton de la bonne volonté, qui n'a pas la vie de la genereuse vigueur equise pour en effect preferer Dieu a toutes choses: dont l'Apostre, parlant en la personne du pecheur, s'escrie: le vouloir est bien en moy, mais je ne treuve pas le moyen de l'accomplir.
Notes
- 1 ↩concupiscence retained as the technical term for rebellious sensual appetite; 'appetit sensuel' is rendered 'sensual appetite' to keep Salesian anthropology clear.
- 2 ↩'tres unique Divinité' rendered 'the one and only Divinity' to keep the force of unique divine unity without archaic 'most unique'.
- 3 ↩'appreuve' taken as 'proves/establishes' (prouve); 'avec tant d'efficace' as 'so forcefully'.
- 4 ↩"retenans la verité... en injustice, prisonniere dedans leurs coeurs" echoes Romans 1:18 (truth held in unrighteousness); "esvanouis en leurs discours" echoes Romans 1:21 (became vain in their reasonings).
- 5 ↩Normalized reading takes "n'y en avoir" as intended "n'y en avoit" (imperfect), matching the parallel tense in the same clause.
- 6 ↩"entroitz" read as "endroits" (places); sense is clear from context.
- 7 ↩Source reads "les dieux la payenne"; rendered as "the gods in the pagan fashion" (likely "à la payenne").
- 8 ↩Source 'equise' read as 'requise' (required); modern rendering follows that sense.
- 9 ↩'sainte charité' rendered as 'holy charity' for the theological-virtue state; 'amour' as 'love' elsewhere.
Treatise on the Love of God companion
A daily portion of stillness
Chosen Portion delivers one short contemplative reading and a guided moment of silence each day — the ascent, one step at a time.
Chosen Portion is the paced doorway into this collection: it portions the dense mystical treatises into one daily reading plus guided silence, exactly as the 14-day plan teaches.
- Daily bite-sized excerpts from the contemplative classics, never a wall of text
- A built-in timed stillness practice that grows from 2 minutes to 10
- Gentle progression through the tradition — the app remembers where you are on the ascent