The Sun.
London, England, 1867-12-11 00:00:00

ONTOLOGY.

The Ontological system of Philosophy (as it is
called) seems to have attracted notice in France
in the first decades of this century, and has not
been without its earnest supporters amongst our-
selves. Founded, as is alleged, in the teachings of
the greatest intellects of the Church, imbedded in
St. Augustine, shining steadily in St. Anselm, and
animated by the rhetoric of a Bossuet, a Fenelon,
and a Gerdil, it took possession of the mind of a
Aloigno and a Fabre, and with patient elaboration
it has been reduced to system—so as to be taught
from text-books in seminaries and colleges—by
a Brancherau, au Übaghs, and a Hugonin.
The advocates of this system have agreed, it ap-
pears, in maintaining that God is always present
to the mind through a direct and immediate intui-
tion ; that all truths which are eternal, being
somehow identical with Him, are seen directly in
Him ; and that, inasmuch as in Him are contained
these everlasting truths, He is the lumen inlellectus,
without which nothing whatever can even be con-
ceived by the intelligence.

The works of Professor Übaghs received the at-
tention of the Sacred Congregation of the Index
as early as the year 1843. In his " Theodicea," he
taught, amongst other things, that no external
metaphysical truth could be known without ex-
ternal assistance, and in its ultimate analysis with-
out Divine revelation ; that it is impossible to
prove the existence of God ; and that the proof of
external metaphysical truth is reduced to the
argument of " senses communis." These proposi-
tions met with the displeasure of the Sacred Con-
gregation, and Professor Übaghs was instructed to
correct his errors in the next edition of his works,
and meantime to refrain from teaching them in the
schools. Upon this the Professor addressed, on
the 9th December, 1843, a memorial to the Sacred
Congregation. With this memorial the Sacred
Congregation was by no means satisfied. On
August Bth, 1844, it issued another declaration,
pointingout errors in it identical with those already
spoken of, and declaring the teaching of them to
be unsafe. Meantime, a new edition of the " Theo-
dicea" was brought out by Professor Übaghs. He
seems to have been little moved by the -authority
of the Sacred Congregation, for in this new edition
the very same principles were to be found which
had twice been visited with the displeasure of the
authorities at Rome. Naturally, such a proceeding
as this was not likely to act as a sedative in the
minds of professors, or philosophers, or scholars.
Louvain became a scene of great excitement and
contention. The Archbishop of Mechlin as-
sembled his suffragans in solemn council to devise
a method to put a stop to the irritating scandal.
They determined to petition the Holy See to settle
the question definitively, once for all. Meanwhile
they addressed a joint letter to the Rector Mag-
nificus of the university, calculated to calm the ex-
citement which was at its height. But four of the
Louvain professors hall already presented them-
selves to Cardinal Andrea, who, in 1860, presided
over the deliberations of the Sacred Congregation,
and had expounded to his Eminence the principles
of their school. In March of the same year the
Cardinal issued a declaration that the doctrines
of the professors could rightly be numbered
amongst those which are freely debatable amongst
Cuillulic philosophers. Naturally enough, this
declaration was received as issuing with all the
plenary authority of the Sacred Congregation.
But nothing of the sort. It was the spontaneous
and unauthorized act of Cardinal Andrea, and the
Sacred Congregation had nothing to do with it.
This element of confusion added fuel to the fire.
The kindly and paternal letter of the bishops
was entirely thrown away upon the noisy jangling
of the disputants. Their lordships once more
turned to the Holy See for a decision. A letter
to the Cardinal Archbishop and his suffragans
from the Holy Father, dated December 19,