But the despotism of the general? The obedience, which the Jesuits owe their general, is the same as that which they pay to their ordinary superiors. It flows from the same source, and tends to the same end. Having demonstrated the slavery of it to be a chimera, the despotism of the general naturally vanishes with {217} it. The nature of the society required, that it should be under a single chief: to have given to separate houses independent chiefs would have destroyed the great objects depending upon a union of councils. It was no cenobitical order devoted chiefly to working out their own salvation; but one, whose members were to be spread over the whole world, to promote the glory of God and the good of man. The institute, however, takes great care, that the chief should not be a despot: it gives him no slaves, nor even subjects, but friends, children, and counsellors[80]; mildness is the sceptre it bestows upon him, and charity the throne[81]; it {218} equally prohibits the superior to govern by violence and the inferior to obey through fear[82]. The general is elected by the whole society, who first swear to choose only him, whom they believe to be the most worthy of the office[83]. There is nothing arbitrary or changeable in the {219} authority of the general: it is subjected by the institute to stable and invariable laws, and his duties are minutely prescribed. If he deviates from them, it provides for his removal[84]. Far from being a despot, he is not even exempted from the superintendance of a monitor chosen by the society, who observes his conduct, tells him of his faults, points out his duties, and is consequently compelled not to excuse him in any point[85]. In spiritual affairs, the general is subject to the pope; in temporal matters, to the government under which he lives; and, in what {220} concerns himself personally, or the society solely, to a general meeting of the order[86]. Though elected for life, he may be deposed for several reasons stated in the institute; and the same hands that clothed him with power may strip him of it[87]. It has been said, that the motive for appointing a single chief was the facility it offers for promoting more certainly the ends of ambition. The institute strongly condemns ambition in individuals, and still more strongly in the general[88]. One great {221} charge against the power of the general is, that his authority may injure that of sovereigns, by withdrawing their subjects from their obedience: on the contrary, he is expressly forbidden, by the institute, to take from a state any Jesuit whatever, without the knowledge of the sovereign[89]. The annulling of contracts is another source of abuse, founded on a mistaken passage in the institute, where it is said; "Although the general, by his open letters to particular superiors, confers on them an ample power in that respect, yet that power may be restricted and limited by private