ing, the importance of cultivating, on the one hand, a talent for ready and various illustration; and, on the other, a habit of reasoning by means of general terms. The former talent is necessary, not only for correcting and limiting our general conclusions, but for enabling us to apply our knowledge, when occasion requires, to its real practical use. The latter serves the double purpose, of preventing our attention from being distracted during the course of our reasonings, by ideas which are foreign to the point in question, and of diverting the attention from those conceptions of particular objects and particular events which might disturb the judgment, by -the ideas and feelings which are apt to be associated with them, in consequence of our own casual experience.

This last observation points out to us, also, one principal foundation of the art of the orator. As his object is not so much to inform and satisfy the understandings of his hearers, as to force their immediate assent; it is frequently of use to him to clothe his reasonings in that specific and figurative language, which may either awaken in their minds associations favorable to his purpose, or may divert their attention from a logical examination of his argument. A process of reasoning so expressed, affords at once an exercise to the judgment, to the imagination, and to the passions; and is apt, even when loose and inconsequential, to impose on the best understandings.

It appears farther, from the remarks which have been made, that the perfection of philosophical language, considered either as an instrument of thought, or as a medium of communication with others, consists in the use of expressions, which, from their generality, have no tendency to awaken the powers of conception and imagination; or, in other words, it consists in its approaching, as nearly as possible, in its nature, to the language of algebra. And hence the effects which long habits of philosophical speculation have in weakening, by disuse, those faculties of the mind, which are necessary for the exertions of the poet and the orator; and of gradually forming a style of composition, which they who read merely for amusement, are apt to censure for a want of vivacity and of ornament.*

"Language, like light, is a medium: and the true philosophical style, like light from a north-window, exhibits objects clearly and distinctly without soliciting attention to itself. In painting subjects of amusement indeed, language may gild somewhat more, and color with the dyes of fancy; but where information is of more importance than entertainment, though you cannot throw too strong a light, you should carefully avoid a colored one. The style of some writers resembles a bright light placed between the eye, and the thing to be looked at. The light shows itself, and hides the object."-Gilpin. This passage I have transcribed from one of the numerous publications of the ingenious author, but I have neglected to mark the Title of the Volume.

SECTION III.

Remarks on the Opinions of some modern Philosophers on the subject of the foregoing Section.

AFTER the death of Abelard, through whose abilities and eloquence the sect of Nominalists had enjoyed, for a few years, a very splendid triumph, the system of the Realists began to revive; and it was soon so completely re-established in the schools, as to prevail, with little or no opposition, till the fourteenth century. What the circumstances were, which led philosophers to abandon a doctrine, which seems so strongly to recommend itself by its simplicity, it is not very easy to conceive. Probably the heretical opinions, which had subjected both Abelard and Roscelinus to the censure of the church, might create a prejudice also against their philosophical principles; and probably too, the manner in which these principles were stated and defended, was not the clearest, nor the most satisfactory. The principal cause, however, I am disposed to think, of the decline of the sect of Nominalists, was their want of some palpable example, by means of which they might illustrate their doctrine. 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 instrument of thought: and, as in the twelfth century the algebraical art was entirely unknown, Roscelinus and Abelard must have been reduced to the necessity of conveying their leading idea by general circumlocutions; and must have found considerable difficulty in stating it in a manner satisfactory to themselves; a consideration, which, if it accounts for the slow progress which this doctrine made in the world, places in the more striking light the genius of those men whose sagacity led them, under so great disadvantages, to approach to a conclusion so just and philosophical in itself, and so opposite to the prevailing opinions of their age.

In the fourteenth century, this sect 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. These, although they dif fered in their manner of explaining the nature of universals, and opposed each other's opinions with much asperity, yet united in rejecting the doctrine of the Nominalists, not only as absurd, but as leading to the most dangerous consequences. At last, William Occam, a native of England, and a scholar of Duns Scotus, revived the ancient controversy, and, with equal ability and success, vindicated the long-abandoned philosophy of Roscelinus. From this time the dispute was carried on with great warmth in the univer

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

sities of France, of Germany, and of England, more particularly in the two former countries, where the sovereigns, were led, by some political views, to interest themselves deeply in the contest, and even to employ the civil power in supporting their favorite opinions. The Emperor Lewis of Bavaria, in return for the assistance which, in his disputes with the Pope,* Occam had given to him by his writings, sided with the Nominalists. Lewis the Eleventh of France, on the other hand, attached himself to the Realists, and made their antagonists the objects of a cruel persecution.-(Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History.)

The Protestant Reformation, at length, involved men of learning in discussions of a more interesting nature; but even the zeal of theological controversy could hardly exceed that with which the Nominalists and Realists had, for some time before maintained their respective doctrines. "Clamores primum ad ravim," says an author who had himself been an eye-witness of these literary disputes, "hinc improbitas, sannæ, minæ, convitia, dum luctantur, et uterque alterum tentat prosternere: consumtis verbis venitur ad pugnos, ad veram lectam ex ficta et simulata. Quin etiam, quæ contingunt in palæstra, illic non desunt, colaphi, alapæ, consputio, calces, morsus, etiam quæ jam supra leges palæstræ, fustes, ferrum, faucii multi, nonnunquam occisi."-(Ludovicus Vives.†) 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 usque ad pallorem, usque ad convitia, usque ad sputa, nonnunquam et usque ad pugnos invicem digladiari, alios ut Nominales, alios ut Reales, loqui."

The dispute to which the foregoing observations relate, although for some time after the Reformation interrupted by theological disquisitions, has been since occasionally revived by different writers, and, singular as it may appear, it has not yet been brought to a conclusion in which all parties are agreed. The names, indeed, of Nominalists and Realists exist no longer: but the point in dispute between these two celebrated sects, coincides precisely with a question which has been agitated in our own times, and which has led to one of the most beautiful speculations of modern philosophy.

Of the advocates who have appeared for the doctrine of the Nominalists, since the revival of letters, the most distinguished are Hobbes, Berkeley, and Hume. The first has, in various parts

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.

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 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.

of his works, reprobated the hypothesis of the Realists, and has stated the opinions of their antagonists with that acuteness, simplicity, and precision, which distinguish all his writings. The second, considering (and, in my opinion, justly) the doctrines of the ancients concerning universals, in support of which so much ingenuity had been employed by the Realists, as the great source of mystery and error in the abstract sciences, was at pains to overthrow it completely, by some very ingenious and original speculations of his own. Mr. Hume'st view on the subject, as he himself 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 as expositor and defender, and which, since the days of Roscelinus and Abelard, has been familiarly known in all the universities of Europe.‡

"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; deceiving themselves, by taking the universal or general appellation 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 choose, 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 we would have him to draw the picture of the king, or any particular person, he limiteth the painter to that one person he chooseth. It is plain, therefore, that there is nothing universal but names, which are therefore called indefinite, because we limit them not ourselves, but leave 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 proper name, or by some such other way."-Hobbes's Tripos, chap. v. sect. 6.

"A very material question has been started concerning abstract or general ideas, Whether they be general or particular in the mind's conception of them? A great philosopher has disputed 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 recall, 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 confirm it by some arguments, which I hope will put it beyond all doubt and controversy."Treatise of Human Nature, Book i. part i. sect. 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 opinion concerning universals. An edition of this work, with a Preface and Notes, was published by Leibnitz at Frankfort, in the year 1670. The Preface and Notes are to be found in the fourth volume of his works, by Dutens. (Geneva, 1798.) "Secta nominalium, omnium inter scholasticas profundissima, et hodiernæ reformatæ philosophandi rationi congruentissima; quæ quum olim maximè floreret -nunc apud scholasticos quidem, extincta est. Unde conjicias decrementa potiùs quàm augmenta acuminis. Quum autem ipse Nizolius noster se Nominalem exsertè profiteri non dubitet prope finem capitis sexti, libri primi; et verò in realitate formalitatum et universalium evertenda nervus disputationis ejus omnis potissimum contineatur, pauca quædam de Nominalibus subjicere operæ pretium duxi. Nominales sunt, qui omnia putant esse nuda nomina prætor substantias singulares, abstractorum igitur et universalium realitatem prorsus tollunt. Primum autem nominalium aiunt fuisse nescio quem Rucelinum Britonem, cujus occasione cruenta certamina in academia Parisiensi fuerunt excitata:

Notwithstanding, however, the great merit of these writers in defending and illustrating the system of the Nominalists, none of them seem to me to have been fully aware of the important consequences to which it leads. The Abbé de Condillac was, I believe, the first (if we except, perhaps, Leibnitz,) who perceived that, if this system be true, a talent for reasoning must consist, in a great measure, in a skillful use of language as an instrument of thought. The most valuable of his remarks on this subject are contained in a treatise, De l'Art de Penser, which forms the fourth volume of his "Cours d'Etude."

"Diu autem jacuit in tenebris secta nominalium, donec maximi vir ingenii, et eruditionis pro illo ævo summæ Wilhelmus Occam Anglus, Scoti discipulus, sed mox oppugnator maximus, de improviso eam resuscitavit; consensere Gregorius Ariminensis, Gabr. Biel, et plerique ordinis Augustinianorum, unde et in Martini Lutheri scriptis prioribus amor nominalium satis elucet, donec procedente tempore erga omnes monachos æqualiter affectus esse cœpit. Generalis autem regula est, qua nominales passim utuntur, entia non esse multiplicanda præter necessitatem. Hæc regula ab aliis passim oppugnatur, quasi injuria in divinam ubertatem liberalem potius quam parcam, et varietate ac copia rerum gaudentem. Sed, qui sic objiciunt, non satis mihi nominalium mentem cepisse videntur, quæ, etsi obscurius proposita, huc redit; hypothesin eo esse meliorem, quo simpliciorem, et in causis eorum quæ apparent reddendis eum optime se gerere, qui quam paucissima gratis supponat. Nam qui aliter egit, eo ipso naturam, aut potius autorem ejus Deum ineptæ superfluitatis accusat. Si quis astronomus rationem phenomenorum cœlestium reddere potest paucis suppositis, meris nimirum motibus simplicibus circularibus, ejus certe hypothesis ejus hypothesi præferenda erit, qui multis orbibus varie implexis ad explicanda cœlestia indiget. Ex hac jam regula nominales deduxerunt, omnia in rerum natura explicari posse, etsi universalibus et formalitatibus realibus prorsus careatur; qua sententia nihil verius, nihil nostri temporis philosopho dignius, usque adeo, ut credam ipsum Occamum non fuisse nominaliorem, quam nunc est Thomas Hobbes, qui, ut verum fatear, mihi, plusquam nominalis videtur. Non contentus enim cum nominalibus universalia ad nomina reducere, ipsam rerum veritatem ait in nominibus consistere, ac, quod majus est, pendere ab arbitrio humano, quia veritas pendeat a definitionibus terminorum, definitiones autem terminorum ab arbitrio humano. Hæc est sententia viri inter profundissimos seculi censendi, qua, ut dixi, nihil potest esse nominalius."

This passage from Leibnitz has given rise to a criticism of Morhoff, which appears to me to be extremely ill-founded: "Accenset nominalibus," says he, "Leibnitzius Thomam Hobbensium, quem ille ipso Occamo nominaliorem, et plusquam nominalem vocat, qui non contentus cum nominalibus universalia ad nomina reducere, ipsam rerum veritatem ait in nominibus consistere, ac, quod majus est, pendere ab arbitrio humano. Quæ bella ejus sententia, quamquam laudat eam Leibnitzius, monstri aliquid alit, ac plane nequam est. Immania enim ex uno summo paradoxo fluunt absurda."-Morhoff, Polyhistor, vol. ii. p. 81.

I shall not at present enter into a particular examination of the doctrine here ascribed to Hobbes, which I shall have occasion to consider afterwards under the article of Reasoning. I cannot, however, help remarking, that nothing but ex, treme inattention to the writings of Leibnitz could have led Morhoff to suppose that he had given his sanction to such an opinion. In the very passage which has now been quoted, the expression "Qui ut verum fatear, mihi plus quam nominalis videtur," plainly implies a censure of Hobbes's philosophy; and in another dis sertation, entitled, " Meditationes de Cognitione, Veritate, et Ideis," he is at pains directly to refute this part of his system:-" Atque ita habemus quoque discrimen inter definitiones nominales, quæ notas tantum rei ab aliis discernendæ continent, et reales, ex quibus constat rem esse possibilem, et hac ratione satisfit Hobbio qui veritates volebat esse arbitrarias, quia ex definitionibus nominalibus penderent, non considerans realitatem definitionis in arbitrio non esse, necquaslibet notiones inter se posse conjungi. Nec definitiones nominales sufficiunt ad perfectam scientiam, nisi quando aliunde constat rem definitam esse possibilem," &c.-Leibnitzii Opera, edit. Dutens, tom. ii. pp. 16, 17.