The effect of the ‘Provincial Letters’ was not only to alarm the Jesuits, but the Church. The scandal of their exposure was so deeply felt, that the _curés_ of Paris and Rouen appointed committees to investigate the accuracy of Pascal’s quotations, and the result of their investigation was entirely in Pascal’s favour. This led ultimately to the matter being carried before a General Assembly of the clergy of Paris, which, however, declined to give any formal decision. In the meantime, an ‘Apology for the Casuists’ was published by a Jesuit of the name of Pirot, of such a character as to increase rather than abate the scandal, and a new controversy gathered around this publication. The Sorbonne took up the question, and, after examination, condemned Pirot’s Apology (July 1658) as they had formerly done Arnauld’s propositions, and ultimately it was included by Rome in the ‘Index Expurgatorius,’ along with the ‘Provincial Letters,’ to which it was designed as a reply. While the question was before the Sorbonne, the _curés_ of Paris published various writings, under the name of ‘Facta,’ in support of the conclusions to which they had come. These writings were prepared in concert with Pascal and his friends, and the second and fifth are ascribed entirely to his pen. It is even said that he looked upon the latter, in which he drew a parallel betwixt the Jesuits and Calvinists (to the disadvantage of the Protestants), as the _best thing he ever did_. {153} Long after Pascal’s death (in 1694) an elaborate answer appeared, by Father Daniel, to the ‘Provincial Letters,’ under the title of ‘Entretiens de Cléandre et d’Eudoxe sur les Lettres au Provincial;’ but notwithstanding a certain amount of learning and apparent candour, the reply made no impression upon the public. Even the Jesuits themselves felt it to be a failure. “Father Daniel,” it was said, “professed to have reason and truth on his side; but his adversary had in his favour what goes much farther with men,—the arms of ridicule and pleasantry.” As late as 1851 an edition of the ‘Letters’ appeared by the Abbé Maynard, accompanied by a professed refutation of their misstatements. But the truth is, Pascal’s work is one of those which admit of no adequate refutation. Even if it be granted that he has occasionally made the most of a quotation, and brought points together which, taken separately in their connection, have not the offensive meaning attributed to them, this touches but little the reader who has enjoyed their exquisite raillery or has been moved by their indignant denunciation. The real force of the Letters lies in their wit and eloquence—their mingled comedy and invective. They may be parried or resented—they can never be refuted.