.

The tide turned, contrary to every expectation. The great Gallic
tempest of 1682, which, for nearly ten years, interrupted the
connection between France and the Holy See, and showed how easily one
may dispense with Rome, obliged the pope to raise the moral dignity of
the pontificate, by acts of severity. The lash fell especially upon
the Jesuits and their friends. Innocent XI. pronounced a solemn
condemnation upon the casuists, though rather too late, as these people
had been crushed twenty years before by Pascal. But Quietism still
flourished: the Franciscans and Jesuits had taken it into favour; the
Dominicans were therefore averse to it. Molinos, in his _Manuel_, had
considerably reduced the merits of St. Dominic, and pretended that _St.
Thomas, when dying, confessed that he had not, up to that time, written
anything good_. Accordingly, of all the great Religious Orders, that
of the Dominicans was the only one which refused its approbation to
Molinos' _Guide_.

The book and its author, examined under this new influence, appeared
horribly guilty. The Inquisition of Rome, without taking any notice of
the approbations granted twelve years before by their examiners,
condemned the _Guide_, together with some propositions not contained in
it, but which they extracted from the examination of Molinos, or from
his teaching. This one is not the least curious: "God, to humble us,
permits, in certain perfect souls (well enlightened and in their lucid
state), that the devil should make them commit certain carnal acts. In
this case, and in others, which, without the permission of God, would
be guilty, there is no sin, because there is no consent. It may
happen, that those violent movements, which excite to carnal acts, may
take place in two persons, a man and a woman, at the same moment."[3]

This case happened to Molinos himself, and much too often. He
underwent a public penance, humbled himself for his morals, and did not
defend his doctrine: this saved him. The inquisitors, who had formerly
approved of him, must have been themselves much embarrassed about this
trial. He was treated with leniency, and only imprisoned, whilst two
of his disciples, who had only faithfully applied his doctrine, were
burned alive without pity. One was a curate of Dijon, the other a
priest of Tudela in Navarre.

How can we be surprised that such a theory should have had such results
in morals? It would be much more astonishing i