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.[2] 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.[3] So strict was the rule of Loyola, that he kept Francis Borgia, Duke of Candia, three years out of the Society, because he refused to renounce all intercourse with his family.[4]

[Footnote 2:  Ranke.] [Footnote 3:  Steinmetz, i. p. 252.] [Footnote 4:  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