beacon lights of history-iii-2- 第45部分

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