their functions at foreign
courts--and these were three only--were summoned to Rome; those who
could not attend there sent forward their votes. But in what manner are
we to deal with the account that is presented to us of that which took
place on this occasion? How is it to be made to consist either with the
straightforwardness and simplicity of intention that are the
characteristics of great and noble natures, or how with those maxims of
guilelessness which Christianity so much approves? The problem admits of
only a partial and unsatisfactory solution; nor can we advance even so
far as this unless we make a very large allowance in favor of Loyola
personally, on the ground of the ill influence of the system within
which he had received his moral and religious training. He conducted
himself after the fashion of his Church: this must be his apology.

It was he, unquestionably, who had conceived the primary idea of the
society. He was author of the book which constitutes its germ and law,
the _Spiritual Exercises_. He had been principal in digesting the
constitutions, or actual code, of the society. It was he, individually,
whom the others had always regarded as their leader and teacher. His
personal influence was the cement which held the parts in union. It was
Loyola who, while his colleagues dispersed themselves throughout Europe,
remained in Rome, there to manage the common interests of all, and to
carry forward those negotiations with the papal court which were of
vital importance and of the highest difficulty. In a word, it was he who
had convoked this meeting to elect a chief and who asked the proxies of
the absent. Are we then to believe that this bold spirit, this
far-seeing mind, this astute, inventive, and politic Ignatius, born to
rule other minds, and able always to subjugate his own will; that this
contriver of a despotism, after having carried the principle of
unconditional obedience, after having won the consent of his companions
to the proposal that their master should be their master _for life_--are
we to believe that he had never imagined it as probable (much less
wished) that the choice of his compeers should fall upon himself, or
that he had peremptorily resolved, in such a case, to reject the
proffered sovereignty? Surely those writers--the champions of the
society--use us cruelly who demand that we should believe so much as
this.

Le Jay, Brouet, Lainez, and Loyola were those who personally appeared