[121] St. Augustine, ed. Ben., Vol. X, 590b, 613a, 1973c, etc. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., suppl., qu. 62, art. 2.
[122] My chief authorities throughout this section have been Bossuet’s Instruction sur les Etats d’Oraison of 1687, with the important documents prefixed and appended to it (Œuvres de Bossuet, ed. Versailles, 1817, Vol. XXVII); Fénelon’s chief apologetic works, especially his Instruction Pastorale, his Letteres en Réponse à Divers Ecrits ou Mémoires, his Lettre sur l’Etat Passif, and his two Latin Letters to Pope Clement XI (Œuvres de Fénelon, ed. Versailles, 1820, Vols. IV, VI, VIII, and IX); and Abbé Gosselin’s admirably clear, impartial, cautious, and authoritative Analyse de la Controverse du Quiétisme. I have studied these works, and the condemned propositions of the Beguards, of Molinos, and of Fénelon, very carefully, and believe myself to have, in my text, taken up a position identical with M. Gosselin’s.
[123] F. C. S. Schiller, Essay “Activity and Substance,” pp. 204-227,—an admirably thorough piece of work, in Humanism, 1903. See his p. 208.
[124] See Heinrich Heppe, Geschichte der Quietistischen Mystik, Berlin, 1875, p. 521. The obviously strong partisan bias of the author against Rome,—of which more lower down,—does not destroy the great value of the large collection of now, in many cases, most rare and inaccessible documents given, often in extenso, in this interesting book.
[125] Heppe, op. cit. pp. 130-133.
[126] There is a good article on Petrucci in the Catholic Freiburg Kirchenlexikon, 2nd ed., 1895; and Heppe, in his Geschichte, pp. 135-144, gives extracts from his chief book. Bossuet’s attack, Œuvres, ed. 1817, Vol. XXIX.
[127] Reusch, Der Index der verbotenen Bücher, 1885, Vol. II, pp. 611; 622, 623; 625.
[128] Gosselin’s Analyse, Œuvres de Fénelon, ed. cit. Vol. IV, pp. xci-xcv.
[129] Fénelon, Explication … des Propositions de Molinos (Œuvres, Vol. IV, pp. 25-86). Gosselin, Analyse (ibid. pp. ccxvi-ccxxiii).
[130] Œuvres de Fénelon, Vol. VIII, pp. 6, 7.