In opposition to this theory, others of the schoolmen revived Nominalism under the following form: 1. Only individual objects, inasmuch as they are directly perceived by the senses, have any real existence. Whatever is over and above these is simply a sort of mental mirage, which the imagination connects with realities. Hence, 2. Perception by the senses, being the only means of apprehending realities and becoming conscious of their presence, is the one true method of acquiring knowledge. The latter of these conclusions, however, was not fully set forth by the Nominalists until the fourteenth century.

The Nominalist theory was applied by Roscelin, Canon of Compiègne, to the dogma of the Trinity. Affirming the existence of individuals only, he held that universals were a mere sound of the voice-a flatus vocis as fleeting as the breath that called it forth. Neither had qualities, parts, or any existence outside of the objects to which they belonged. The color of a horse, for instance, has, he said, no ideal independent existence apart from the horse of which it is an accidental quality. His Nominalism led him straight into tritheism. He spoke of the Three Persons in the Trinity as tres res, understanding by the term res an entirety; the Aristotelian tí, or a substance complete in itself.1 Thus he denied the unity of the Godhead and affirmed the separate existence of three Gods.

66

This position brought him into a controversy with Anselm,2 who assailed his adversaries with the following arguments: How," said he, "can one distinguish God and His various relations (i. e., the Divinity, the Divine Essence, and the Three Divine Persons) who can not draw a distinction between a horse and its color? One who can not comprehend that there is a sense in which men may be said to be essentially one (which would not be the case if the generic idea were no more than an abstraction or an empty name) is but ill-qualified to recognize in the Divine nature Three Persons, each truly God, and yet all one and the same God. If, finally, human nature has a real existence only in this or

6

man'

1 See Blunt's Dictionary of Sects and Heresies, art. Schoolmen. (TR.)

2 Joh. Monach. ep. ad Anselm. (Baluz., Miscell., 1. IV., p. 478 sq.) Anselm., 1. II., ep. 35, 41; lib. de fide Trin. et de incarnat. Verbi cont. blasphemias Ruzelini., cf. Ivo Carnot. ep. VII. Abaelardi ep. 21; Theobald. Stamp. ep. ad Roscel (ɗ Achery, Spicil., T. III., p. 448.) Freiburg Eccl. Cyclopaed., Vol. IX., p. 388-397; Fr. tr., Vol. 20, p. 429-440.

that determinate and individual person, how is it possible. even to conceive of the Divine Word becoming man, since He did not assume a human personality, but took upon Him human nature?"

Anselm pronounced Nominalism a dialectical heresy, and Abelard, some time later, affected to be witty when he said that, according to Roscelin, our Lord (St. John xxi. 13) offered His disciples not a real fish, but only the word "fish." Anselm's realistic theory received the approbation of the council of Soissons (1092), while Roscelin was ordered to retract his as erroneous. Hildebert, Bishop of Mans,' who died about 1134, pursued the line of thought marked out by Anselm. Such was the mental process by which the schoolmen harmonized Realism and Nominalism, and established the theory of Conceptualism. The conceptualists drew a distinction between objective reality, intellectual conception, and the word expressing the idea formed by the mind. They said that as the intellect could not adequately comprehend all the notes of an object, so neither could language adequately express them, and that the intellectual comprehension held a place midway between an object and the word by which it was designated.

This much was indeed an approach toward the solution of the difficulty, but the fundamental question involved in the controversy between the Realists and Nominalists had not yet been cleared up.2

§ 254. Controversy concerning Scholasticism and MysticismAbelard, Gilbertus Porretanus, and St. Bernard.

Epp. Abaelardi et Heloisae, epecially ep. I. de historia calamitatum suarum; Introductio ad theol., libb. III. (Abaelardi et Heloisae Opp. ed. du Chesne, Paris, 1616, 4to; sometimes given as ed. Amboise, 1606 or 1626. Abridgment by Cramer, Vol. VI., p. 337 sq.) Theol. christ., Lib. V. (Martene, Thes. anecdot., T. V.) Ethica s. liber: scito te ipsum (Pezii, Anecdot., T. III., P. II.) Dialog. inter philosoph. Judaeum et Christian. (Abael.?) ed. Rheinwald, Berol. 1831. Sic. et non. Dialectica (Victor. Cousin, Ouvrages inédits d'Abaelard., Paris, 1836, 4tc). "Sic et non," primum integrum edd. Henke et Lindenkohl, Marb. 1851. Abaelardi Epitome Theol. chr. ed. Rheinwald, Berol. 1835. Migne, Ser. Lat.,

1(Tract. theologicus, probably due to Hugh of St. Victor); Moralis Philosophia (Opp. ed. Beaugendre, Paris, 1708 f.)

2 Stöckl, Vol. I., p. 143–151.

T. 178. The Hymns brought to light, published by Greith in the Spicileg. Vatican. and by Cousin; see Freiburg Gazette, Vol. XI., p. 141-158. Stöckl, Vol. I., p. 218-272. Concerning Abelard's life, see Hist. littéraire de la France, T. XII.; Schlosser, Abelard and Doicino, or the Life of a Fanatic and of a Philosopher, Gotha, 1807. Ueberweg, p. 132 sq.

The controversy commenced by Berengarius and Lanfranc, which was in fact a conflict between speculative and positive theology, involving an attack on faith as the source of intellectual enlightenment, was continued under a more scientific form by Abelard and St. Bernard, when it took the shape of a war between Mysticism and Scholasticism, and threatened to loosen the foundations of the whole range of theology.

Peter Abelard was born of noble parents, at Palais, near Nantes, in Brittany, in 1079. Inheriting from his father a thirst for knowledge, he applied himself to study with all the ardent enthusiasm of his nature, and was still further stimulated to renewed efforts by Roscelin, his first master. naturally acute and subtle mind, he early manifested a decided inclination for dialectics, and in consequence went to hear the praelections of William of Champeaux (Guil. a Campellis), who was then defending the claims of science against the Nominalists, as Anselm had already done those of theology against the same errorists. His progress was so rapid that he soon outstripped his master. Elated by his success, and thirsting for distinction and worldly applause, he withdrew from Paris and founded a school of his own at Melun, whither great troops of students flocked to hear him. Over-exertion impaired his health, and he retired to his home in Brittany to restore it. In the meantime William of Champeaux had taken up his residence at the abbey of St. Victor, near Paris, and commenced to teach rhetoric and dialectics. Here, Abelard came to put himself once more under his old master, but it was not long before he again quarreled with him. He has left the following account of the cause of this rupture:

"William of Champeaux maintained that 'universals' belong essentially to individuals in such sense, that individuals comprehended in the same class are not distinct from each other as to their essence, but only distinguished one from another by the number of their accidental notes. He subsequently modified this opinion. After a discussion with Abelard, he taught that 'universals'— i. e., genus and species-are not essentially inherent in individual objects, but

are the mental conception of a class, and are derived from a consideration of individual specimens. (Sic correxerit sententiam ut deinceps eamdem rem nor essentialiter sed individualiter diceret.)

"The question of 'universals' is one that has at all times been of the highest importance to dialecticians, and so difficult is it that even Porphyry, in his Isagoge, without attempting to solve it, simply puts it aside with the remark that 'it is a vexed question.'

"William having thus, rather from necessity than of his own motion, changed his opinion, found himself deserted by those who had formerly come to hear him, as if dialectics was wholly dependent on this or that theory of universals." 1

Abelard once more withdrew from Paris, and reopened his school at Melun, whence he transferred it to Mount St. Geneviève, near Paris, in 1115, and so great was the popularity of his teaching that the students deserted the auditory of William of Champeaux to listen to his more brilliant rival. He preserved, amid every change of fortune, a strong filial attachment for his mother, and when she had resolved upon becoming a religious, he dismissed his students temporarily to pay her a visit. During his absence, William had been appointed Bishop of Châlons, and on his return to Paris, believing that his talents had not a sufficiently large field for their display, he went to Laon to listen to the lectures of the celebrated

theologian, Anselm of Laon. After a short stay, fancying that he had got abreast of his master, and was, if anything, his superior, he boastfully proposed to give a course of lectures on Ezechiel, one of the most difficult of the prophets, if a day's time were given to him for preparation. Anselm's jealousy was aroused, as that of William of Champeaux had been for a similar cause on a former occasion, and Abelard, finding Laon disagreeable, returned to Paris, where he became one of the most celebrated teachers of dialectics and theology. At this time there lived in Paris, Heloise, the niece of Canon Fulbert, then only eighteen years of age, but already remarkable for beauty of person, mental endowments, and extensive knowledge. Abelard became her preceptor, and, while the two were in each other's company, he lost sight of the honor attaching to his office and abused the confidence reposed in him; and she, relaxing the dignified reserve which is the

1In Abelardi historia calamitatum, c. 2. Cf. Stöckl, Vol. I., p. 140–143.

safeguard of the sex, threw aside the observances of virginal modesty. Fulbert discovered his mistake when it was too late. The two fled together, and were secretly married, but so wild was Heloise's enthusiasm for her lover, that she denied the fact, lest it might be a bar to his advancement in the Church. Fulbert, enraged at this denial, and still further exasperated because he believed that Abelard, desiring now to be rid of Heloise, had her removed to the convent of Argenteuil, hired five venal men to emasculate the betrayer of his niece. The unfortunate man, to hide his shame and bring some alleviation to his sorrow, entered the monastery of St. Denys as a monk, and persuaded Heloise to take the veil at Argenteuil (1119). He was not long permitted to remain quiet in his monastery. Petitions from the university students came pouring in upon him, requesting him to resume his lectures, and to do now for love of God what he had formerly done for personal glory. He yielded, and opened his lectures in a priory belonging to the monastery of St. Denys, and situated on the border of the province of Count Theobald of Champagne. The numbers who flocked to hear him were so great that accommodations could not be had to lodge them nor food to sustain them. The advocates of Scholasticism, but notably Albert and Lothaire of Rheims, soon grew jealous of his splendid success, and even the Mystics commenced to complain that his treatment of the mysteries bordered on the irreverent. At the request of his disciples, he commenced to embody his theological teaching in a work entitled an "Introduction to Theology," treating specially of the Trinity, and from which several heretical propositions were extracted. The work was condemned by the council of Soissons, in 1121, and he himself confined in a monastery to do penance. His sufferings excited universal sympathy, and, after a few days, Conon, the papal legate, permitted him to return to St. Denys. He was no sooner back than he again evoked the anger of the monks by asserting that Denys, Bishop of Paris and founder of the monastery, was not identical with Denys the Areopagite, and was forced to consult for his safety in flight. Having been released from his connection with the monastery by the celebrated Abbot Suger,