A Curious Correspondence.

order . The arbitrators were the judicial faculties of Bonn and Heidelberg , and " Nemesis " will be surprised to hear that the prize has never been gained , although a Protestant gentleman of Lubeck did his best to get it . 6 . It is untrue that Bellarmin and Laynez were supporters of the modern theory of popailar sovereigntyif " Nemesis " means that they teach the socialist

, doctrine of the populace being the best source of authority . 7 . I challenge "Nemesis" to name the eleven crimes which she says have been justified or palliated by more than three hundred Jesuits . 8 . It is untrue that the massacre of St . Bartholomew was prompted and approved by the Jesuits , or that they have ever been morally responsible for any regicide . Again I ask for proofs .

Among the conclusions with which " Nemesis " sums up her compilation is one that is simply amusing to those who by the time they have' reached her stately peroration have not forgotten what goes before . I mean the discovery that the Society of Jesus is essentially a secret society . Now , if it were so , how could " Nemesis " so cleverly explain to the unsophisticated public the constitutions of the society and all her Mephistophelian wiles ? Is not the very essence of a secret societyfor example of Freemasonry , that all the

, springs and factors of its policy and action shun the light and the control of public authority ? The constitution and rules and history of the Society of Jesus have been printed and published over and over again , and are always available to every student of religious and social history . How then can " Nemesis " with the same breath argue that all the plans and means of the Jesuits are known and

yet veiled in secrecy ? CATHOLICUS . Bombay , August 7 th .

V . Sir , —I was received into the Roman Catholic Church by Dr . Grant , the late Bishop of Southwark . In the earlier days of my conversion I became subject to the jurisdiction of the Jesuits , and especially one Father Eccles , of the Priory , Exeter . I used to confess to himand as I have since returned to

, the Church of England I do not hesitate to inform your numerous readers , in connection with the correspondence about the Jesuits in yonr local columns , that I was repeatedly taught the doctrine ( at any rate it was implied in the direction I received ) that the end justified the means . When my mother was dying , Father Eccles , a Jesuit priest , advised me to call myself a Protestant , in order that I might not be thrown out of her will . He expected a share to

build a church . I could quote other instances , but this , I think , will siiffi . ee . Yours , & o ., Mazagon , August 9 . AMELIA KIHSAIED .

VI . Sir , —Father Daling , S . J ., has publicly promised me in your columns a premium of 1000 thalers if I succeed in proving that any Jesuit author has ever taught the proposition expressed by the formula : "the end justifies the means . " I hereby accept his challenge , and shall proceed to show that

Busembaum , Layman , Escobar , Illsung , Voit , and Gury have , as I asserted in my former letter , laid down that doctrine in the clearest terms . Busembaum ( " Medulla Theologias Moralis , " Frankfort-on-the-Main , 1653 , p . 320 ) says-. "Cum finis est licitns , etiam media sunt licita ; " and , again , at p . 504 : " Cni lieitus est finis , etiam licent media . " Layman ( " Theologia Moralis , " Munich , 1625 . Pt . ii ., s . 4 . n . 12 , p . 20 ) says : " Cui concessns est finis , concessa etiam sunt media ad finem ordinata . " Escobar ( " Univ .