The Christian Doctors have made their God so little worthy of love, that
several among them have thought it their duty not to love Him; this is a
blasphemy which makes less sincere doctors tremble. Saint Thomas, having
asserted that we are under obligation to love God as soon as we can use
our reason, the Jesuit Sirmond replied to him that that was very soon;
the Jesuit Vasquez claims that it is sufficient to love God in the hour
of death; Hurtado says that we should love God at all times; Henriquez
is content with loving Him every five years; Sotus, every Sunday. "Upon
what shall we rely?" asks Father Sirmond, who adds: "that Suarez desires
that we should love God sometimes. But at what time? He allows you to
judge of it; he knows nothing about it himself; for he adds: 'What a
learned doctor does not know, who can know?'" 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.
However, so far, this important truth has not yet been demonstrated, not
only to the incredulous, but in a satisfactory way to theologians
themselves. In all times, we have seen profound thinkers who thought
they had new proofs of the truth most important to men. What have been
the fruits of their meditations and of their arguments? They left the
thing at the same point; they have demonstrated nothing; nearly always
they have excited the clamors of their colleagues, who accuse them of
having badly defended the best of causes.