A Curious Correspondence.

proposition . Onl y a few years ago a premium of 1 , 000 thalers was offered in Germany to anyone who would prove that dangerous proposition to be contained not only in one of the six authors mentioned by " Nemesis , " but in any author of the Society of Jesus . Two Universities , not Catholic , were appointed as judges to decide whether the proof had been given . But in no author of the Society that dangerous proposition was to be found , ancl the 1 , 000 thalers remained with

the renowned Father Roll who had challenged all the learned men in Germany . Perhaps " Nemesis " has sharper eyes than the Germans , and would have easily gained that handsome premium . I herewith publicly promise to him or to anyone else the same premium if he proves what the Germans were unable to prove . But before this is clone , I shall say nothing about all the other imputations and calumnies , which to refute would require volumes . H . DALING , S . J .

III . Sir , —I have read "Nemesis ' s" tu cpuoque in reply to Bishop Meurin ' s Lenten Pastoral , but shall be much surprised if that prelate replies to it . In the first place , the history of the Society of Jesus , viewed , as it necessarily must be , as a whole , is too large a subject to be fairly discussed in a

newspaper controversy . Secondl y , the history of the Jesuits is not , in the language of Bishop Butler , " a question of facts to be proved by facts , " but a question involving a multitude of theological , ethical , political , and social considerations , which none but an expert in the history of philosophy and the philosophy of history can pretend to duly appreciate . In such a controversy not even " an enlightened public " can form a fair arbiterMoreoverthe

. , calumnies and misrepresentations which "Nemesis" reproduces in your columns have , to my certain knowledge , been refuted a thousand times over before "Nemesis" ever saw the li ght of day ; ancl his mythical character is no proof in itself that he has the courage of his opinions or the abilit y to substantiate them . Lastly , "Nemesis " quite misunderstands the scope ancl aim of the Bishop ' s Pastoral , ancl puts his own construction on the word

Freemasonry , as _ Catholics understand that term , althou gh an explanation of that term ( which is about as vague as the word Nature ) has appeared in three public papers in India . If I may add one word more , it is this , " Nemesis ' s " synopsis of the History of the Jesuits is , to my mind , but a one-sided garbled digest of all that les menteurs immortelles have said of the deeds and doctrines of that august institution

. As for the Bombay and Calcutta Jesuits , everybody is aware of the good work they have done in India . Dr . Dallas mi ght have been a weak man , but his feelings towards the Bombay Jesuits are worthy of attention . On the eve of his departure from Bombay , addressing a meeting of the Catholics here , he said , " I never met a Jesuit Father till I came out to India ; but I can safely say , after an intimate acquaintance with the Fathers that has extended

over the last twenty years , that not one of us in this hall is worthy to kissthe hem of a Jesuit ' s garment . " All ri ght-minded Catholics , I may add , think the same . JUSTTMA . ( To be continued . )