We are afraid that the reader must be tired of following us in this enumeration of philosophical, theological, and historical mistakes, and we ourselves are tired of our irksome task. Indeed, the psychology and the ethics of our author are open to as much criticism as the rest of the work; but what we have said abundantly suffices to justify our opinion that F. Louage’s text‐book has no claim to adoption in Catholic schools. Accordingly, we shall omit the detailed examination of the last 86 pages of his work. But we cannot conceal the fact that we have been much surprised and pained at the open profession of ontologism made by the author in his article “On the Nature and Origin of our Ideas.” That Dr. Brownson, in his _Review_, should try to show that _his own_ ontologism can be philosophically defended and does not fall under ecclesiastical condemnation, we do not wonder. He is not a priest; he does not write for school‐boys, but addresses himself to educated men, who can sift his arguments, and dismiss with a benign smile what they think to be unsound; and, after all, he takes great care to screen himself behind a newly invented distinction between ideal intuition, and perception or cognition, based on the assumption, honestly maintained by him, that “intuition is the act of the object, not of the subject.” But with our “text‐book” the case is very different. F. Louage makes no distinctions, and takes no precautions. He declares unconditionally that “God is present to our intellect, and seen by it,” and that “all rational ideas come into the mind _by the intuitive perception_ of the simple being, or of God,” and that, “in a word, all rational ideas, after all, are _nothing else_ than the idea of the simple being (_God_) considered in itself” (p. 156). Can the author be ignorant that this doctrine coincides with the doctrine which, on the 18th of September, 1861, the Roman Congregation of the Holy Inquisition has declared to be untenable (_tuto tradi non posse_)? The reverend author believes that “this doctrine has been held by S. Augustine, S. Anselm, S. Bonaventure, Bossuet, and many others”; but we doubt whether this fact, even if it were well established, would afford him sufficient protection against the Roman declaration. We presume, in fact, that S. Augustine, S. Anselm, etc., are better known and understood in Rome than in America. But, waiving all discussion on the subject, we cannot but repeat that a text‐book for Catholic schools must not teach as “_the_ true doctrine,” and not even as a probable doctrine, what the Catholic Church shuns as unsound, unsafe, and untenable. This “true doctrine,” nevertheless, he says, is “a mere hypothesis”!