As in treating affective love, Book 7. completes Book 6., so in treating effective love Book 8., which treats of obedience to the already signified will of God, is completed by Book 9., which treats of indifference, or the state of perfect readiness to accept all that God's good-pleasure may choose to send us.
On the doctrine of indifference we venture again to refer the reader to our Essay just quoted. We add a few words to show how completely F�n�lon erred in appealing to this Treatise to support his extravagant and condemned propositions that indifference extends to eternal salvation as our salvation, and to virtuousness as such. The Saint expressly teaches that while God's glory must be our principal end, we may, indeed we must�our nature so requires�desire salvation and virtue as good also in themselves. Much less can we acquiesce in a supposed decree of damnation, with that species of absolute act which F�n�lon requires as the last test of the disinterestedness of love.9 With regard to eternal salvation, we have only to study the sentiments the Saint places in the hearts and mouths of those whose love is refined to its highest point at the moment of death (v. 10, vii. 11, 12). He has a chapter to prove that the preceding desire of heaven increases the enjoyment of it (iii. 10); and he teaches that not oly mercenary hope but also servile fear remain in the soul as part of its habit of charity so long as it is in this life (xi. 17). With regard to virtues he says (xi. 13): "Let us love the particular virtues, but principally because they are agreeable to God;" and: "We must make this heavenly good-pleasure the soul of our actions, loving the goodness and beauty of virtue principally because it is agreeable to God." Here the word "principally" is the key of the whole question.
Bossuet triumphantly vindicates the Saint's doctrine on indifference, but has a very ill-judged criticism on his use of the word. He is quite right in saying that indifference is only a degree of resignation, but he forgets how far ordinary resignation is below indifference. Bossuet gives a full explanation of all the passages alleged by F�n�lon from S. Francis, but he was hampered, as F�n�lon was totally misled, by Maupas's erroneous account of S. Francis's famous temptation to despair.
