confifts in its approaching, as nearly as poffible, in its nature, to the language of algebra. And hence the effects which long habits of philofophical speculation have, in weakening, by disuse, those 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 amufement, 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.

AFTER the death of Abelard, through whofe abilities and eloquence the fect of Nominalifts had enjoyed, for a few years, a very fplendid triumph, the fyftem of the Realifts began to revive; and it was foon fo completely re-established in the schools, as to prevail, with little or no opposition, till the fourteenth century. What the circumftances were, which led philofophers to abandon a doctrine, which feems fo ftrongly to recommend itself by its fimplicity, it is not very eafy to conceive. Probably the heretical opinions, which had fubjected both Abelard and Rofcelinus to the cenfure of the church, might create a prejudice alfo against their philosophical principles; and probably too, the manner in which these principles were stated and defended, was not the cleareft, nor the moft fatisfactory. The principal cause, however, I am difpofed to think, of the decline of the fect of Nominalists, was their want

*

*The great argument which the Nominalists employed against the existence of universals was "Entia non sunt multiplicanda 166 præter necessitatem.”

of fome palpable example, by means of which they might illuftrate their doctrine. It is by the use which algebraifts make of the letters of the alphabet in carrying on their operations, that Leibnitz and Berkeley have been moft fuccessful in explaining the ufe of language as an inftrument of thought; and,as in the XIIth century, the algebraical art was entirely unknown, Rofcelinus and Abelard must have been reduced to the neceffity of conveying their leading idea by general circumlocutions; and must have found confiderable difficulty in ftating it in a manner satisfactory to themselves: a confideration, by the way, which, if it accounts for the flow progrefs which this doctrine made in the world, places in the more ftriking light, the genius of those men whose sagacity led them, under fo great difadvantages, to approach to a conclufion fo just and philosophical in itself, and fo oppofite to the prevailing opinions of their age.

In the fourteenth century, this fect seems to have been almost completely extinct; their doctrine being equally reprobated by the two great parties which then divided the schools, the followers of Duns Scotus and of Thomas Aquinas. Thefe, although they differed 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 Nominalifts, not only as abfurd, but as leading to the moft dangerous confequences, At laft, William Occam, a native of England, and a scholar of Duns Scotus, revived the ancient controversy : 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 intereft themfelves deeply in the conteft; and even to employ the civil power

in fupporting their favorite opinions. The emperor Lewis of Bavaria, in return for the affistance which, in his difputes with the Pope, Occam had given to him by his writings, fided with the Nominalists. Lewis the Eleventh of France, on the other hand, attached himself to the Realifts, and made their antagonists the objects of a cruel perfecution.†

66

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 Nominalifts and Realifts had for fometime before maintained their respective doctrines. "Clamores primum "ad ravim," fays an author who had himself been an eye-witness of these literary difputes) " hinc im"probitas, fannæ, minæ, con vitia, dum luctantur, et "uterque alterum tentat profternere: confumtis "verbis venitur ad pugnos, ad veram luctam ex ficta "et fimulata. Quin etiam, quæ contingunt in palæ"ftra, illic non defunt, colaphi, alapæ, confputio, cal66 ces, morfus, etiam quæ jam fupra leges palæstræ, "fuftes, ferrum, faucii multi, nonnunquam occifi." That this account is not exaggerated, we have the teftimony of no lefs an author than Erafmus, who mentions it as a common occurrence : "Eos ufque "ad pallorem, ufque ad convitia, ufque ad fputa, "nonnunquam et ufque ad pugnos invicem digladi"ari, alios ut Nominales, alios ut Reales, loqui."S

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

+ MOSHEIM's Ecclesiastical History.

LUDOVICUS VIVES.

The Nominalists procured the death of John Huss, 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 resentment of their sect. The Realists, on the other hand, obtained, in the year 1479. the condemnation of John de Wesalia, who was attached to the party

The difpute to which the foregoing obfervations relate, although for fome time after the Reformation, interrupted by theological difquifitions, has been fince occafionally 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 exist 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 speculations of modern philofophy.

Of the advocates who have appeared for the doctrine of the Nominalifts, fince the revival of letters, the most distinguished are, Hobbes, Berkeley, and Hume. The first has, in various parts of his works, reprobated the hypothefis of the Realifts; and has ftated the opinions of their antagonists with that acutenefs, fimplicity, and precifion, which diftinguish all his writings.* The fecond, confidering (and in

of the Nominalists. These contending sects carried their fury so far as to charge each other with "the sin against the Holy Ghost."

MOSHEIM'S Ecclesiastical History.

"The universality of one name to many things, hath been the "cause that men think the things themselves are universal; and ❝ so seriously contend, that besides Peter and John, and all the rest "of the men that are, have been, or shall be, in the world, there is "yet something else, that we call Man, viz. Man in general; de"ceiving themselves, by taking the universal, or general appella❝tion, for the thing it signifieth: For if one should desire the "painter to make him the picture of a man, which is as much as "to say, of a man in general; he meaneth no more, but that the "painter should chuse what man he pleaseth to draw, which must "needs be some of them that are, or have been, or may be; none "of which are universal. But when he would have him to draw "the picture of the king, or any particular person, he limiteth the "painter to that one person he chuseth. It is plain, therefore, "that there is nothing universal but names; which are therefore "called indefinite, because we limit them not ourselves, but leave

my opinion, juftly) the doctrines of the antients concerning univerfals, in fupport of which fo much ingenuity had been employed by the Realifts, as the great fource of myftery and error in the abstract fciences, was at pains to overthrow it completely, by fome very ingenious and original fpeculations of his own. Mr. Hume's view of the subject, as he him felf acknowledges, does not differ materially from that of Berkeley; whom, by the way, he seems to have regarded as the author of an opinion, of which he was only an expofitor and defender; and which, fince the days of Rofcelinus and Abelard, has been familiarly known in all the universities of Europe.t

"them to be applied by the hearer: whereas a singular name is "limited and restrained to one of the many things it signifieth; as "when we say, this man, pointing to him, or giving him his pro per name, or by some such other way."

HOBBES'S Tripos, chap. v. § 6.

"A very material question has been started concerning ab"stract or general ideas: Whether they be general or particular "in the mind's conception of them? A great philosopher has dis"puted the received opinion in this particular; and has asserted, "that all general ideas are nothing but particular ones annexed to " a certain term, which gives them a more extensive signification, "and makes them recal, upon occasion, other individuals, which "are similar to them. As I look upon this to be one of the "greatest and most valuable discoveries that have been made of "late years in the republic of letters, I shall here endeavor to con"firm it by some arguments, which, I hope, will put it beyond all “doubt and controversy."

Treatise of Human Nature, book i. part i. § 7.

+ Leibnitz, too, has declared himself a partisan of this sect, in a dissertation "De Stilo Philosophico Marii Nizolii." This Nizolius published a book at Parma, in the year 1553, entitled, “De "Veris principiis et vera Ratione Philosophandi ;" in which he opposed several of the doctrines of Aristotle, particularly his opin ion concerning universals. An edition of this work, with a Preface and Notes, was published by Leibnitz at Franckfort, in the year 1070. The Preface and Notes are to be found in the fourth volume of his works, by Dutens. (Geneva, 1768.) I have inserted a short extract from the former, in Note (1) at the end of the volume.