Hence, even in the thickest of the quietist controversy, when that mystical element must have seemed, to many, to be discredited once for all, those best acquainted with the rich history of the Church, and with the manifold requirements of the abiding religious consciousness, could not and did not doubt that all that was good, deep, and true in that element would continue to be upheld by, and represented in, the Church.--And it is not difficult to point to the more or less Mystical souls furnished by the Monks, the Friars; the Clerks-Regular, specially the Jesuits; the Secular Clergy; and the Laity, down to the present day. Such writers and Saints as Père de Caussade (_d._ about 1770) on the one hand, and Père Jean N. Grou (_d._ 1803) and the Curé d’Ars (_d._ 1859) on the other hand, carry on the two streams of the predominantly mystical and of the mixed type,--streams so clearly observable before 1687 and 1699. Quietism, the doctrine of the One Act; Passivity in a literal sense, as the absence or imperfection of the power and use of initiative on the soul’s part in any and every state: these doctrines were finally condemned, and most rightly and necessarily condemned; the Prayer of Quiet, and various states and degrees of an ever-increasing predominance of Action over Activity,--an Action which is all the more the soul’s very own, because the more occasioned, directed, and informed by God’s action and stimulation,--these, and the other chief lines of the ancient experience and practice, remain as true, correct, and necessary as ever. 5. _Rome’s alleged change of front._ And yet it is undeniable that the Roman events between 1675 and 1688 do seem, at first sight, to justify the strongly Protestant Dr. Heppe’s contention that those twelve years,--not to speak of the later troubles of Madame Guyon and of Fénelon--witnessed a complete _volte face_, a formal self-stultification, of the Roman teaching and authority, on these difficult but immediately important matters. (1) Let us put aside the many passages in Molinos’s _Guida_ which were but (more or less) literal reproductions of the teachings of such solemnly approved authorities as Saints Teresa, Peter of Alcantara, John of the Cross, Francis de Sales and Jane Frances de Chantal,--passages which, of course, remained uncondemned even in Molinos’s pages, but which it would often be difficult to distinguish from the parts of his book that were censured. Yet there still remain such facts as the following.