now study
his intellectual character, as embodying the sceptical aspect which
belonged to nominalism.

Abelard's character is in many respects one of the most curious in
history.(264) The record of his trials, bodily and mental,(265) enlists
the romantic sympathy of the sentimentalist, and commands the serious
attention of the philosopher. His wonderful reputation at Paris as a
public lecturer connects him with the university life of the middle ages,
and presents him as the type of the class of great professors created by
the absence of books and consequent prevalence of oral instruction. It was
his vast influence which made his opinions of importance, and aroused the
opposition of St. Bernard. It seems to have been the application of the
nominalist philosophy to the doctrine of the Trinity, contained in
Abelard's works on dogmatic theology,(266) which excited alarm. The
council called at Sens(267) was a theological duel, wherein those two
distinguished characters were matched, the most eloquent theologian and
preacher against the most influential professor and philosopher; the saint
against the critic. Bernard was right in his Theology; Abelard perhaps
right in his philosophy.(268) This event however presents the effects of
scholasticism in producing heresy rather than scepticism.

The great work which has laid Abelard open to the latter charge merits a
brief notice. It was entitled the _Sic et Non_, and remained unpublished
in the public documents of France till recent years.(269) It is a
collection of alleged contradictions, which exist on a series of topics,
which range over the deepest problems of theology, and descend to the
confines of casuistry in ethics.(270) In the discussion of them Abelard
collects passages from the scriptures and from the fathers in favour of
two distinctly opposite solutions. He has however prefixed a prologue to
the work, which ought to be taken as the explanation of his object.(271)
He insists in it on the difficulty of rightly understanding the scriptures
or the fathers, and refers it to eight different causes;(272) advising
that when these considerations fail to explain the apparent contradictions
of scripture, we should abandon the manuscripts as inaccurate, rather than
believe in the existence of real discrepancies. He draws also a broad
distinction between canonical scripture and other literature, strongly
affirming the authority of the former.

Is this work sceptical? Is it desig