exhibited
between the just mentioned bull _apostolicum_ of Clement XIII and that of
Pius VII: it would thus have a pendant on each side, eliciting, by a double
contrast, all the effects of art. The bull apostolicum formed a principal
objection to the grand plan of destruction, not easy to be evaded. It was
so recent, so public, so solemn, so decisive. It was a distinct and
specific approbation and confirmation of the society of Jesus; it repeated
the sentiments of all popes from Paul III; it was solicited by hundreds of
bishops; it was formally communicated to the college of cardinals, and was
applauded by them all; it was accepted by every catholic bishop; it had
every character of a formal judgment of the whole catholic church. Clement
XIV and his advisers dared not to contradict it by another bull; it would
have been a great scandal. The cardinals could not have concurred in it.
The inferior, {104} and less authoritative, mode of _brief_, or private
letter, or rescript, in which it was not usual to consult the cardinals,
was adopted. In this, the difficulty presented by the apostolicum of
Clement XIII is overleaped in a short and peremptory way, by an absurd
declaration of its having been _extorted rather than granted_, without any
proof, and in defiance of the number of circumstances which demonstrate the
contrary. As sir John appears to be unacquainted with this famous
constitution of Clement XIII, published in the beginning of 1765, and as it
is perhaps the best written official document which Rome has, for many
years, sent forth, it shall be inserted in the Appendix in its original
language[44].

The more I consider Ganganelli's rescript, the more am I surprised at the
pitiful attempts made to lay down something like an apology for injustice,
and the more am I disgusted with its want of principle. It opens with a
long narration {105} of the suppression of various small religious
associations by ancient popes, but it leaves us quite in the dark as to the
justice or injustice of those several suppressions. It informs us, that
several complaints had been made, at several times, to several popes, of
the Jesuits; but it omits to tell us, that those complaints had always been
either rejected, or refuted, or disregarded, by those several popes, whose
public acts attest that they were, one and all, friends and supporters of
the society[45]. The brief then recites the _jus_, or leading maxim, on
which the whole procedure