of　this　moral　mechanism。　　Lainez　had　even　a　more　comprehensive　mind
  than　Loyola。　　It　was　he　who　matured　the　Jesuit　Constitution；　and
  afterwards　controlled　the　Council　of　Trent；a　convocation　which
  settled　the　creed　of　the　Catholic　Church；　especially　in　regard　to
  justification；　and　which　extolled　the　merits　of　Christ；　but
  attributed　justification　to　good　works　in　a　different　sense　from
  that　understood　and　taught　by　Luther。
  Aside　from　the　personal　gifts　and　qualities　of　the　early　Jesuits；
  they　would　not　have　so　marvellously　succeeded　had　it　not　been　for
  their　remarkable　constitution；that　which　bound　the　members　of　the
  Society　together；　and　gave　to　it　a　peculiar　unity　and　force。　　The
  most　marked　thing　about　it　was　the　unbounded　and　unhesitating
  obedience　required　of　every　member　to　superiors；　and　of　these
  superiors　to　the　General　of　the　Order；so　that　there　was　but　one
  will。　　This　law　of　obedience　is；　as　every　one　knows；　one　of　the
  fundamental　principles　of　all　the　monastic　orders　from　the　earliest
  times；　enforced　by　Benedict　as　well　as　Basil。　　Still　there　was　a
  difference　in　the　vow　of　obedience。　　The　head　of　a　monastery　in　the
  Middle　Ages　was　almost　supreme。　　The　Lord　Abbot　was　obedient　only
  to　the　Pope；　and　he　sought　the　interests　of　his　monastery　rather
  than　those　of　the　Pope。　　But　Loyola　exacted　obedience　to　the
  General　of　the　Order　so　absolutely　that　a　Jesuit　became　a　slave。
  This　may　seem　a　harsh　epithet；　there　is　nothing　gained　by　using
  offensive　words；　but　Protestant　writers　have　almost　universally
  made　these　charges。　　From　their　interpretation　of　the　constitutions
  of　Loyola　and　Lainez　and　Aquaviva；　a　member　of　the　Society　had　no
  will　of　his　own；　he　did　not　belong　to　himself；　he　belonged　to　his
  General；as　in　the　time　of　Abraham　a　child　belonged　to　his　father
  and　a　wife　to　her　husband；　nay；　even　still　more　completely。　　He
  could　not　write　or　receive　a　letter　that　was　not　read　by　his
  Superior。　　When　he　entered　the　order；　he　was　obliged　to　give　away
  his　property；　but　could　not　give　it　to　his　relatives。*　　When　he
  made　confession；　he　was　obliged　to　tell　his　most　intimate　and
  sacred　secrets。　　He　could　not　aspire　to　any　higher　rank　than　that
  he　held；　he　had　no　right　to　be　ambitious；　or　seek　his　own
  individual　interests；　he　was　merged　body　and　soul　into　the　Society；
  he　was　only　a　pin　in　the　machinery；　he　was　bound　to　obey　even　his
  own　servant；　if　required　by　his　Superior；　he　was　less　than　a
  private　soldier　in　an　army；　he　was　a　piece　of　wax　to　be　moulded　as
  the　Superior　directed；and　the　Superior；　in　his　turn；　was　a　piece
  of　wax　in　the　hands　of　the　Provincial；　and　he　again　in　the　hands　of
  the　General。　　〃There　were　many　gradations　in　rank；　but　every　rank
  was　a　gradation　in　slavery。〃　　The　Jesuit　is　accused　of　having　no
  individual　conscience。　　He　was　bound　to　do　what　he　was　told；　right
  or　wrong；　nothing　was　right　and　nothing　was　wrong　except　as　the
  Society　pronounced。　　The　General　stood　in　the　place　of　God。　　That
  man　was　the　happiest　who　was　most　mechanical。　　Every　novice　had　a
  monitor；　and　every　monitor　was　a　spy。**　　So　strict　was　the　rule　of
  Loyola；　that　he　kept　Francis　Borgia；　Duke　of　Gandia；　three　years
  out　of　the　Society；　because　he　refused　to　renounce　all　intercourse
  with　his　family。***
  *　Ranke。
  **　Steinmetz；　i。　p。　252。
  ***　Nicolini；　p。　35。
  The　Jesuit　was　obliged　to　make　all　natural　ties　subordinate　to　the
  will　of　the　General。　　And　this　General　was　a　king　more　absolute
  than　any　worldly　monarch；　because　he　reigned　over　the　minds　of　his
  subjects。　　His　kingdom　was　an　imperium　in　imperio；　he　was　chosen
  for　life　and　was　responsible　to　no　one；　although　he　ruled　for　the
  benefit　of　the　Catholic　Church。　　In　one　sense　a　General　of　the
  Jesuits　resembled　the　prime　minister　of　an　absolute　monarch；say
  such　a　man　as　Richelieu；　with　unfettered　power　in　the　cause　of
  absolutism；　and　he　ruled　like　Richelieu；　through　his　spies；　making
  his　subordinates　tools　and　instruments。　　The　General　appointed　the
  presidents　of　colleges　and　of　the　religious　houses；　he　admitted　or
  dismissed；　dispensed　or　punished；　at　his　pleasure。　　There　was　no
  complaint；　all　obeyed　his　orders；　and　saw　in　him　the　representative
  of　Divine　Providence。　　Complaint　was　sin；　resistance　was　ruin。　　It
  is　hard　for　us　to　understand　how　any　man　could　be　brought
  voluntarily　to　submit　to　such　a　despotism。　　But　the　novice　entering
  the　order　had　to　go　through　terrible　discipline；to　be　a　servant；
  anything；　to　live　according　to　rigid　rules；　so　that　his　spirit　was
  broken　by　mechanical　duties。　　He　had　to　learn　the　virtues　of
  obedience　before　he　could　be　fully　enrolled　in　the　Society。　　He　was
  drilled　for　years　by　spiritual　sergeants　more　rigorously　than　a
  soldier　in　Napoleon's　army：　hence　the　efficiency　of　the　body；　it
  was　a　spiritual　army　of　the　highest　disciplined　troops。　　Loyola　had
  been　a　soldier；　he　knew　what　military　discipline　could　do；how
  impotent　an　army　is　without　it；　what　an　awful　power　it　is　with
  discipline；　and　the　severer　the　better。　　The　best　soldier　of　a
  modern　army　is　he　who　has　become　an　unconscious　piece　of　machinery；
  and　it　was　this　unreflecting；　unconditional　obedience　which　made
  the　Society　so　efficient；　and　the　General　himself；　who　controlled
  it；　such　an　awful　power　for　good　or　for　evil。　　I　am　only　speaking
  of　the　organization；　the　machinery；　the　regime；　of　the　Jesuits；　not
  of　their　character；　not　of　their　virtues　or　vices。　　This
  organization　is　to　be　spoken　of　as　we　speak　of　the　discipline　of　an
  army；wise　or　unwise；　as　it　reached　its　end。　　The　original　aim　of
  the　Jesuits　was　the　restoration　of　the　Papal　Church　to　its　ancient
  power；　and　for　one　hundred　years；　as　I　think；　the　restoration　of
  morals；　higher　education；　greater　zeal　in　preaching：　in　short；　a
  reformation　within　the　Church。　　Jesuitism　was；　of　course；　opposed
  to　Protestantism；　it　hated　the　Protestants；　it　hated　their
  religions　creed　and　their　emancipating　and　progressive　spirit；　it
  hated　religious　liberty。
  I　need　not　dwell　on　other　things　which　made　this　religious　order　so
  successful；not　merely　their　virtues　and　their　mechanism；　but
  their　adaptation　to　the　changing　spirit　of　the　times。　　They　threw
  away　the　old　dresses　of　monastic　life；　they　quitted　the　cloister
  and　places　of　meditation；　they　were　preachers　as　well　as　scholars；
  they　accommodated　themselves　to　the　circumstances　of　the　times；
  they　wore　the　ordinary　dress　of　gentlemen；　they　remained　men　of　the
  world；　of　fine　manners　and　cultivated　speech；　there　was　nothing
  ascetic　or　repulsive　about　them；　out　in　the　world；　they　were　all
  things　to　all　men；　like　politicians；　in　order　to　accomplish　their
  ends；　they　never　were　lazy；　or　profligate　or　luxurious。　　If　their
  Order　became　enriched；　they　as　individuals　remained　poor。　　The
  inferior　members　were　not　even　ambitious；　like　good　soldiers；　they
  thought　of　nothing　but　the　work　assigned　to　them。　　Their　pride　and
  glory　were　the　prosperity　of　their　Order；an　intense　esprit　de
  corps；　never　equalled　by　any　body　of　men。　　This；　of　course；　while
  it　gave　them　efficiency；　made　them　narrow。　　They　could　see　the
  needle　on　the　barn…door；they　could　not　see　the　door　itself。
  Hence　there　could　be　no　agreement　with　them；　no　argument　with　them；
  except　on　ordinary　matters；　they　were　as　zealous　as　Saul；　seeking
  to　make　proselytes。　　They　yielded　nothing　except　in　order　to　win；
  they　never　compromised　their　Order　in　their　cause。　　Their　fidelity
  to　their　head　was　marvellous；　and　so　long　as　they　confined
  themselves　to　the　work　of　making　people　better；　I　think　they
  deserved　praise。　　I　do　not　like　their　military　organization；　but　I
  should　have　no　more　right　to　abuse　it　than　the　organization　of　some
  Protestant　sects。　　That　is　a　matter　of　government；　all　sects　and
  all　parties；　Catholic　and　Protestant；　have　a　right　to　choose　their
  own　government　to　carry　out　their　ends；　even　as　military　generals
  have　a　right　to　organize　their　forces　in　their　own　way。　　The
  history　of　the　Jesuits　shows　this；that　an　organization　of　forces；
  or　what　we　call　discipline　or　government；　is　a　great　thing。　　A
  church　without　a　government　is　a　poor　affair；　so　far　as　efficiency
  is　concerned。　　All　churches　have　something　to　learn　from　the
  Jesuits　in　the　way　of　discipline。　　John　Wesley　learned　something；
  the　Independents　learned　very　little。
  But　there　is　another　side　to　the　Jesuits。　　We　have　seen　why　they
  succeeded；　we　have　to　inquire　how　they　failed。　　If　history　speaks
  of　the　virtues　of　the　early　members；　and　the　wonderful　mechanism　of
  their　Order；　and　their　great　success　in　consequence；　it　also　speaks
  of　the　errors　they　committed；　by　which　they　lost　the　confidence
  they　had　gained。　　From　being　the　most　popular　of　all　the　adherents
  of　the　papal　power；　and　of　the　ideas　of　the　Dark　Ages；　they　became
  the　most　unpopular；　they　became　so　odious　that　the　Pope　was
  obliged；　by　the　pressure　of　public　opinion　and　of　the　Bourbon
  courts　of　Europe；　to　suppress　the