But in this instance we have to make a further distinction--viz. between the objective drift of at least part of his _Explication des Maximes des Saints sur la Vie Interieure_, published in 1697, and especially the twenty-three propositions extracted from it which were condemned by Pope Innocent XII in 1699; and the teaching which he increasingly clarified and improved in his numerous apologetic writings against Bossuet and other opponents in this memorable controversy--especially in his Latin writings, intended for transmission to the Pope, and written as late as 1710 and 1712.[159] It is certain that Bishops and theologians who opposed his _Maximes_ were found warmly endorsing such pieces as his wonderfully clear and sober _Première Réponse aux Difficultés de M. l’Evêque de Chartres_. It is these pieces, comprising also his remarkably rich _Instruction Pastorale_, his admirably penetrating _Lettre sur l’Oraison Passive_ and _Lettre sur la Charité_, and his extraordinarily compact and balanced Second Epistle to Pope Clement XI, 1712 (where all the censured ambiguities and expressions are carefully avoided), and which alone among Fénelon’s writings shall be accepted in what follows.[160] Indeed even the earlier of these writings fail in but one thing--in justifying the actual text of the condemned book, as distinguished from the intentions of its writer. Bishop Hedley sums up the real position with the treble authority of a spiritually trained Monk, of a practised theological writer, and of a Catholic Bishop of long experience: “The doctrine intended by Fénelon, in his _Maximes des Saints_, and as explained by him during his controversy with Bossuet, has never been censured, although the opposite party laboured hard for its condemnation. Fifteen years after the condemnation of his book, we find him re-stating to Pope Clement XI (who, as Cardinal, had drawn up the Brief of his condemnations), in careful scholastic language the doctrine intended by himself, but which he himself had misstated in his popular treatise. As there were errors, the other side, whatever the crudity or novelty of some of its contentions, whatever its motives or methods--and some of them were far from creditable--was sure in the end to succeed. And it is well that it should have succeeded as far as it did succeed.”[161]