ready to yield when in the wrong, her gentle disposition and amicable temper won friends for her even among her enemies. Her unfortunate marriage, by withdrawing her to a certain extent from the world, served to strengthen the religious feeling which her early education, acting on a sensitive nature, had excited. Several years were spent in religious meditations and charitable works in the South of France and on the shore of the Lake of Geneva, -on the spot now immortalized by the memories of Gibbon and Voltaire, of Rousseau and Byron. About the year 1688 she returned to Paris, where she soon gathered round her a circle of devoted friends, among whom may be noticed as most prominent the Dukes of Chevreuse and Beauvilliers, and after a time Madame de Maintenon herself. It was at this period that she first met Fénelon, on whom afterwards she exercised so important an influence, an influence which may be traced in the truth, the purity, and the love which pervade all the writings of that distinguished divine. Before proceeding further it would seem to be proper to give some account of the nature of the doctrines which caused such excitement among the French theologians at this period.

Quietism has been called the doctrine of pure or unselfish love. It declares first of all, that we should be guided in all our thoughts and actions by a love of God; that we should not think of the happiness nor of the advantages which result from obeying God, but that we should so love him for himself as to make it positively disagreeable for us even to think of disobeying him; that in obeying him we should at least not be sensible of any selfish or interested motives, or of a desire to obtain any personal advantage. Moreover, we should resign ourselves entirely to his direction, and, not anxious about the future, should receive as coming from him whatever happens to us. And yet we are not to lose our moral agency or accountability; for although, when in the state of perfect love, we have, strictly speaking, no will of our own, yet some exercise of the will is necessary in order to remain in that state; so that we are at liberty to

choose whether or no we will continue to co-operate with God.

These principal and fundamental doctrines of the Quietists, thus briefly stated, were by no means new. Michel de Molinos, a Spanish priest, had some years before advanced similar opinions, which had been declared heretical by the Pope. Fénelon in his Maxims of the Saints showed that many of the Fathers had held the same doctrines. St. Paul himself seems to have embraced a similar faith. It was from his writings chiefly that the Quietists adduced evidence in support of their theories. Their explanations of the obscure passages of Paul's Epistles, although they give to many of them a meaning different from that commonly ascribed to them, cannot fail to commend themselves to every one by their complete and satisfactory character. And what is quite a curious coincidence, Madame Guyon, making proper allowance of course for the difference of sex, seems more closely to resemble St. Paul than any person of whom mention is made in sacred or profane history. Born of good family, brought up near the court, and fitted by her education to take a brilliant rank in society, she was led by a series of remarkable occurrences to embrace religion with all the ardor of her generous nature. Conscious of her own powers, she was not ashamed to receive advice from others; but when once she had firmly made up her opinions, nothing could induce her to swerve from them. Remarkable for her talent in suiting her conversation to the exigencies of her situation, she never advanced her peculiar opinions where she saw they could have no good effect. Yet when the occasion called for it, (and none knew better than she when the proper time did come,) she was ready to undergo any suffering, or any trial, in behalf of her faith. Losing sight of everything else, her only ambition was to be faithful to the duty which she felt called upon to perform. And while, in her discussions with the ablest theologians of her time, she displayed a power of intellect which astonished her opponents, she never lost her excessive sensibility and

her kindness for those with whom she came in contact, or who were united with her by the ties of friendship and af fection.

It must have been a startling novelty to the court of Louis the Great, in spite of the religious turn which Madame de Maintenon had given to it, to hear that all the forms of religion so much in vogue were entirely worthless. Naturally the new doctrine was received with some alarm, and there were not wanting those who would represent to the king its possible pernicious effects. Louis was ready to receive any such suggestions. He had been for many years endeavoring to establish a religious unity in the kingdom. He had but a few years before revoked the Edict of Nantes, and the memory of the troubles occasioned by the Huguenots was still fresh in his mind. And he knew that all his attempts to stifle new heresies would be regarded with favor by the public. The Protestants, by their industrious and frugal habits, had, before their expulsion from France, taken possession of all the more valuable fields of labor. Though they were held inferior in the eye of the law, their superior wealth and knowledge were envied by the Catholics. These latter, rejoiced at being freed from a class whom they had always regarded with hatred and fear, would be ready to nip in the bud any new heresy which might revive their former troubles. It was with a full knowledge of Louis's opinions on this subject that Bossuet undertook to crush the rising doctrine.

The influence which Bossuet could bring to bear would have been sufficient to overwhelm any doctrine which had not truth at its foundation. He was the first orator in France; perhaps the first in the world at that time. Whatever he wrote, he wrote as a master. And writing as a master of his art, he wrote also as a leader of the public mind. His opinions, when deliberately uttered, carried with them all the weight and authority of a council. If he met with opposition, he expected to overcome it; but he had long since ceased even to expect it. "What you write," said to

him one of his friends, "is decisive." And this was the feeling throughout France. He was looked upon as the Great Defender of Catholicism, as the Great Expounder of its dogmas. After nearly a year of careful study, Bossuet produced his famous work, perhaps the ablest he ever wrote, entitled Instruction on the States of Prayer. He intended that this should at once put a stop to the controversy, and with this end in view determined to submit it for examination to the best theologians of the time. After it had been seen and approved by the Archbishop of Paris and the Director of the Seminary of St. Sulpice, it was sent to Fénelon. He read the manuscript, and expressed his admiration at the ability and care which it displayed. Yet, while he agreed with all the fundamental doctrines there expressed, he could not approve of the attacks made on the character of Madame Guyon, and the misrepresentations of her doctrines which it contained. He therefore felt obliged to refuse his approval, and in reply to it he published his famous Maxims of the Saints, in which he supported the doctrine of Quietism by showing that all its truths were to be found in full in the writings of the most approved Catholic Fathers.

The importance of its subject, the men engaged, and the ability displayed in it, render this controversy one of the most important on record. The age and repeated victories of one of the combatants might well have excused him from further service; but his mind, vigorous in spite of the weight of years, still retained the fire of his youth. The other, as yet comparatively unknown by his writings, but distinguished for his eloquence and for his genius, had long been familiar with the subject: it offered nothing too deep for his searching investigation, nor too obscure for his logical explanations. Bossuet had the experience of age, Fénelon the fire of manhood. One had his great renown to support, the other his reputation to gain. The one spoke with the authority of a teacher, the other persuaded with the eloquence of a friend. The one had the support of

the king and court, the other that of a circle of devoted friends.

Bossuet, astonished at the effect of Fénelon's book, determined to put forth one more effort, which he meant should be his last. With this view he published his History of Quietism, in which he made use of letters and papers intrusted to him by Fénelon and Madame Guyon, on the express condition that he should keep them strictly private. This book, the last which was published during the controversy, was followed by a host of memoirs and letters. In all these we can readily discern the different lines of argument adopted by the two opponents. Bossuet, aware that he could not find any direct evidence of heresy in any of the work on Quietism, contented himself for the most part with insinuations of the basest kind against the character of Madame Guyon; Fénelon, on the other hand, replied to these by the testimonials of well-known religious persons, and by evidence drawn from the very acts of Bossuet himself.

At length, tired of a dispute in which he saw that he could gain but little credit, Bossuet determined to settle the controversy by referring the question to the supreme authority at Rome, well knowing that the Pope would not dare to pronounce a decision contrary to the expressed wishes of the king of France. The Holy Father was in a trying situation. He could not refuse to turn his attention to the subject, and he was puzzled how to decide. He feared to offend Louis. He hesitated to condemn a book of such an excellent religious character. In his dilemma, he referred it to the College of Consultores. After twelve sittings, they were unable to come to any decision. The Cardinals, to whom the book was next sent, were equally unable to agree in their opinions. Finally, after the repeated solicitations and almost the threats of Louis, Innocent issued a bull which declared that the book as explained by Fénelon was in the highest degree praiseworthy, but that it might give rise to heretical opinions, and therefore was condemned. Fénelon, on receiving this news, although he did not alter his own opinions, neverthe