The same Jesuit Sirmond continues, by saying:  “that God does not command us to love Him with human affection, and does not promise us salvation but on condition of giving Him our hearts; it is enough to obey Him and to love Him, by fulfilling His commandments; that this is the only love which we owe Him, and He has not commanded so much to love Him as not to hate Him.” [See “Apology, Des Lettres Provinciales,” Tome II.] This doctrine appears heretical, ungodly, and abominable to the Jansenists, who, by the revolting severity which they attribute to their God, render Him still less lovable than their adversaries, the Jesuits.  The latter, in order to make converts, represent God in such a light as to give confidence to the most perverse mortals.  Thus, nothing is less established among the Christians than the important question, whether we can or should love or not love God.  Among their spiritual guides some pretend that we must love God with all the heart, notwithstanding all His severity; others, like the Father Daniel, think that an act of pure love of God is the most heroic act of Christian virtue, and that human weakness can scarcely reach so high.  The Jesuit Pintereau goes still further; he says:  “The deliverance from the grievous yoke of Divine love is a privilege of the new alliance.”

CLXXXV.—­THE VARIOUS AND CONTRADICTORY IDEAS WHICH EXIST EVERYWHERE UPON GOD AND RELIGION, PROVE THAT THEY ARE BUT IDLE FANCIES.

It is always the character of man which decides upon the character of his God; each one creates a God for himself, and in his own image.  The cheerful man who indulges in pleasures and dissipation, can not imagine God to be an austere and rebukeful being; he requires a facile God with whom he can make an agreement.  The severe, sour, bilious man wants a God like himself; one who inspires fear; and regards as perverse those that accept only a God who is yielding and easily won over.  Heresies, quarrels, and schisms are necessary.  Can men differently organized and modified by diverse circumstances, agree in regard to an imaginary being which exists but in their own brains?  The cruel and interminable disputes continually arising among the ministers of the Lord, have not a tendency to attract the confidence of those who take an impartial view of them.  How can we help our incredulity, when we see principles about which those who teach them to others, never agree?  How can we avoid doubting the existence of a God, the idea of whom varies in such a remarkable way in the mind of His ministers?  How can we avoid rejecting totally a God who is full of contradictions?  How can we rely upon priests whom we see continually contending, accusing each other of being infidels and heretics, rending and persecuting each other without mercy, about the way in which they understand the pretended truths which they reveal to the world?

CLXXXVI.—­THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, WHICH IS THE BASIS OF ALL RELIGION, HAS NOT YET BEEN DEMONSTRATED.