tward show of weak indecision.

Nevertheless, with all his skill, cunning, and prevarication, if he
differs from the absolute Quietists whom he affects to condemn, it is
less in any fundamental part of doctrine, than the degree in which he
admits that doctrine. He thinks he goes far enough in saying, that the
state of quiet in which the soul loses its activity is not a
_perpetually_, but an _habitually_ passive state. But in acknowledging
inaction to be both superior to action and a state of perfection, does
he not make us wish that the inaction might be perpetual?

The soul _habitually_ passive, according to him, is concentrated above,
leaving beneath her the inferior part, whose acts are those of an
entirely _blind_ and involuntary commotion. _These acts being always
supposed to be voluntary_, he avows that the superior part still
remains responsible for them. Will they then be governed by it? By no
means; it is absorbed in its sublime quietude. What, then, is to
interfere in its place? What is to keep order in this lower sphere,
where the soul no longer descends? He tells us plainly--_it is the
director_.

His modification of Molinos in theory is less important than it seems
to be. The speculative part, with which Bossuet is so much occupied,
is not the most essential in a point where practice is so directly
interested. What is really serious is, that Fenelon, as well as
Molinos, after having traced out a great plan of regulations, has not
enough of these rules; he has to call in, at every moment, the
assistance of the director. He establishes a system; but this system
cannot work alone; it wants the hand of man. This inert theory
continually requires the supplement of an especial consultation, and an
empirical expedient. The director is a sort of supplementary soul for
the soul, who, whilst this last is sleeping in its sublime sphere, is
leading and regulating every thing for it in this miserable world
below, which is, after all, that of reality.

Man, eternally man! this is what you find at the bottom of their
doctrines in sifting and compressing them. This is the _ultima ratio_
of their systems. Such is their theory, and such their life also.

I leave these two illustrious adversaries, Fenelon and Bossuet, to
dispute about ideas. I prefer to observe their practice. There, I see
that the doctrine has but a little, and man a very great part. Whether
Quietists or Anti-quietists, they do not dif