fifts in its approaching, as nearly as poffible, in its nature, to the language of algebra. And hence the effects which long habits of philofophical fpeculation have, in weakening, by difufe, thofe faculties of the mind, which are neceffary for the exertions of the poet and the orator; and of gradually forming a ftyle of compofition, which they who read merely for amusement, are apt to cenfure for a want of vivacity and of ornament.

SECTION III.

Remarks on the Opinions of fome modern Philofophers on the Subject of the foregoing Section.

A

FTER the death of Abelard, through whose abilities and eloquence the fect of Nominalists had enjoyed, for a few years, a very fplendid triumph, the system of the Realifts began to revive; and it was foon fo completely re-established in the schools, as to prevail, with little or no oppofition, till the fourteenth century. What the circumstances were, which led philofophers to abandon a doctrine, which seems fo ftrongly to recommend itself by its fimplicity, it is not very easy to conceive, Probably the heretical opinions, which had fubjected both Abelard and Rofcelinus to the censure of the church, might create a pre. judice also against their philofophical principles; and probably too, the manner in which these principles were ftated and defended, was not the cleareft, nor the

moft

moft fatisfactory*. The principal caufe, however, I am difpofed to think, of the decline of the fect of Nominalifts, was their want of fome palpable exam. ple, by means of which they might illustrate their doc. trine. It is by the use which algebraists make of the letters of the alphabet in carrying on their operations, that Leibnitz and Berkeley have been most successful in explaining the use of language as an inftrument of thought; and, as in the twelfth century, the algebraical art was entirely unknown, Rofcelinus and Abelard must have been reduced to the neceflity of conveying their leading idea by general circumlocutions; and must have found confiderable difficulty in ftating it in a manner fatisfactory to themselves: a confideration, by the way, which, if it accounts for the flow progress which this doctrine made in the world, places in the more ftriking light, the genius of thofe men whose fagacity led them, under so great disadvantages, to approach to a conclufion so just and philofophical in itself, and so oppofite to the prevailing opinions of their age.

In the fourteenth century, this fect feems to have been almost completely extinct; their doctrine being equally reprobated by the two great parties which then divided the fchools, the followers of Duns Scotus and of Thomas Aquinas. Thefe, although they dif fered in their manner of explaining the nature of univerfals, and oppofed each other's opinions with much afperity, yet united in rejecting the doctrine of the

* The great argument which the Nominalists employed against the Existence of univerfals was: "Entia non funt multiplicanda præter neceffitatem."

N 4

Nominalists,

Nominalifts, not only as abfurd, but as leading to the most dangerous confequences. At laft, William Occam, a native of England, and a scholar of Duns Scotus, revived the antient controverfy: and with equal ability and fuccefs vindicated the long-abandoned philofophy of Rofcelinus. From this time the difpute was carried on with great warmth, in the universities of France, of Germany, and of England; more particularly in the two former countries, where the fovereigns were led, by fome political views, to interest themselves deeply in the conteft; and even to employ the civil power in fupporting their favourite opinions. The emperor Lewis of Bavaria, in return for the af fiftance which, in his difputes with the Pope*, Occam had given to him by his writings, fided with the Nominalifts. Lewis the Eleventh of France, on the other hand, attached himself to the Realifts, and made their antagonists the objects of a cruel perfecution t.

The Proteftant Reformation, at length, involved men of learning in difcuffions of a more interesting nature; but even the zeal of theological controverfy could hardly exceed that with which the Nominalists and Realifts had for fome time before maintained their

respective doctrines. "Clamores primum ad ravim," (fays an author who had himself been an eye-witness of these literary difputes,) "hinc improbitas, fannæ, "minæ, convitia, dum luctantur, et uterque alterum

tentat profternere; confumtis verbis venitur ad

* Occam, we are told, was accustomed to fay to the Emperor: "Tu me defendas gladio, et ego te defendam calamo." BRUCKER, vol. iii. p. 848.

MOSHEIM's Ecclefiaftical Hiftory.

66

pugnos, ad veram luctam ex ficta et fimulata. Quin etiam, quæ contingunt in palæftra, illic non "defunt, colaphi, alapæ, confputio, calces, morfus, "etiam quæ jam fupra leges palæftræ, fuftes, ferrum, "faucii multi, nonnunquam occifi *." That this account is not exaggerated, we have the testimony of no less an author than Erasmus, who mentions it as a common occurrence: "Eos ufque ad pallorem, ufque "ad convitia, ufque ad fputa, nonnunquam et ufque ad pugnos invicem digladiari, alios ut Nominales, alios ut Reales, loqui t."

The difpute to which the foregoing obfervations relate, although for fome time after the Reformation, interrupted by theological difquifitions, has been fince occasionally revived by different writers; and, fingular as it may appear, it has not yet been brought to a conclufion in which all parties are agreed. The names, indeed, of Nominalifts and Realifts exift no longer; but the point in difpute between these two celebrated fects, coincides precifely with a queftion which has been agitated in our own times, and which has led to one of the most beautiful fpeculations of modern philofophy.

Of the advocates who have appeared for the doc

* LUDOVICUS VIVES.

The Nominalifts procured the death of John Hufs, who was a Realist; and in their letter to Lewis King of France, do not pretend to deny that he fell a victim to the refentment of their feet. The Realifts, on the other hand, obtained, in the year 1479, the condemnation of John de Wefalia, who was attached to the party of the Nominalifts. These contending fects carried their fury fo far as to charge each other with "the fin against the Holy Ghost." MOSHEIM's Ecclefiaftical Hiftory.

- trine

trine of the Nominalists, fince the revival of letters, the most distinguished are, Hobbes, Berkeley, and Hume. The firft has, in various parts of his works, reprobated the hypothefis of the Realifts; and has ftated the opinions of their antagonists with that acuteness, simplicity, and precision, which distinguish all his writings. The fecond, confidering (and, in my opinion, justly) the doctrines of the antients concerning univerfals, in support of which so much ingenuity had been employed by the Realifts, as the great fource of mystery and error in the abstract sciences, was at pains to overthrow it completely, by fome very ingenious and original fpeculations of his own.

*“The universality of one name to many things, hath been the "cause that men think the things themselves are universal ; and fo "feriously contend, that befides Peter and John, and all the reft "of the men that are, have been, or fhall be, in the world, there is "yet fomething elfe, that we call Man, viz. Man in general; de"ceiving themselves, by taking the univerfal, or general appella❝tion, for the thing it fignifieth: For if one fhould defire the "painter to make him the picture of a man, which is as much as "to fay, of a man in general; he meaneth no more, but that the "painter should chufe what man he pleaseth to draw, which must "needs be fome of them that are, or have been, or may be ; none "of which are univerfal. But when he would have him to draw "the picture of the king, or any particular perfon, he limiteth the

66

painter to that one perfon he chufeth. It is plain, therefore, "that there is nothing universal but names; which are therefore "called indefinite, becaufe we limit them not ourselves, but leave "them to be applied by the hearer: whereas a fingular name is ❝ limited and restrained to one of the many things it fignifieth; as "when we fay, this man, pointing to him, or giving him his proper name, or by fome fuch other way."

66

HOBBES's Tripos, chap. v. 6 6.
Mr.