I am obliged to sir John for drawing my attention to Ganganelli's brief, which I might otherwise have passed over without much {103} scrutiny. He is of opinion, that it should accompany the bull of the reigning pontiff; but some connoisseurs may think, that it will show to more advantage 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].