The contemplative or mystical element of Hugo is carried much further by his pupil Kichard St. Victor (died 1173). According to Kichard there are six kinds of contemplation. "We know, 1, by the imagination (the sensible impressions made by creation) ; 2, by rea- son (perception of law and order in creation) ; 3, in rea- son according to imagination (symbolical knowledge of nature as a mirror of the spiritual) ; 4, in reason and ac- cording to reason (the internal referred to the internal without a sensible image) ; 5, ubnre and not afjainst rea- son (rational knowle<lge carried to a higher stage by revelation); 6, above and (apparently) ar/ainst reason (as, e. g., the mysterj' of the Trinity). In discussing the Trinity, Richard makes large use of the trias o^ power, wisdom, and love ; but he lays greatest stress upon the
latter, to which he ascribes the generation of the Son. There is nothing more perfect than love. But love (amor), in order to be charity (caritas), must have for its object not itself, but something else. Hence in or- der to charity there must be a plurality of persons. But love towards creatures is not sufhcient, for (iod can fully love only that which is worthy of the Irir/hest love. Hence the divine love must have a divine object (the Son). But even this is not the highest love, for love is essentially social. The two who love each other must desire that a third party be as fully loved by each as each loves the otlier; hence the Father and Son agree in loving a tliird (the Spirit). And since this love to the third party, in order to be perfect, must have a perfect object, hence this third party is equal to the other two. Each is equally divine, and there is no su- periority of the one to the other (see Hagenbach, /Jisf. of Doct. i, 420, 407). Kichard agreed with Hugo in regarding theology as the central science, and as the mother of all otlier sciences.
But the drift of the age was averse to the deep and rich speculations of the St. Victors: it tended rather to concentrate all intellectual acumen upon the logical de- fence of the formal orthodoxy of the official Church. Hence 'it led mainly to the production of collections of dogmatic authorities {summm sententiarum). The flrst real collector of such " sentences," sentenliarius, was Hugo St. Victor, though the germs and forerunners of them are foimd as far back as in Vincent of Lerinnm (died cir. 450), (iennadius of Marseilles (died cir. 493), and in Isidore of Seville; but it is only with Hugo that the process becomes of a really scientific character. The one motive of these real sententiarii is to bring dia- lectics into close service to orthodoxy. Thus they are not mere slavish compilers of the dicta of the fathers, on the one hand, nor rash speculators, on the other; but they hold the midway' between them.
Among the earliest successors of Hugo was Robert Pulleyn, in his Sententiarum Libri Odo. He was arch- deacon of Rochester, teacher in Paris and Oxford, and finally cardinal (died 1150). His chief polemical en- deavor was to counteract the too daring speculations of Abelard ; but Robert was far surpassed by the great magister sententiarum, Peter Lombard (died 1164). Of his Sententiarum Libri Quattuor, Hase says, " It was not so much on account of the ingenuity and depth dis- played in the work as because of the position of the au- thor in the Church, and his success in harmonizing an- tagonisms, as also because of the remarkable perspicuity of his work, that it became the manual of the 12th century and the model of the 13th." The chief themes of his work are the Trinity, creation, the incarnation, and the sacraments. As a whole, it is a synopsis of the whole movement of scholastic theology. " With it," says Baur, '• really commences the systematization of scholasticism, the endless commenting upon the sentences of the mas- ters." It initiated the movement of tiresome question- ing and answering; of laying down theses and antithe- ses, arguments and counter-arguments; of dividing and splitting up the matter of doctrines ad infinitum. Lom- bard was very successful in keeping the mean way be- tween the blind copyists of tradition (scrutatores) and the rash reasoners (//arruli ratiocinatores). He uses rea- son in the modest role of removing the seeming contra- dictions in Scripture and tradition. These differences he states very frankly, somewhat in the manner of Abelard's Sic et Non, but with a much more intent en- deavor to reconcile them. He purposely avoids all am- bitious philosophizing, as this seemed to him to jeopard- ize the dignity and independence of theology. On the whole, therefore, the tendency of Lombard was towards the enslaving of speculation in the ruts of formal tradi- tion. This influence was felt even by writers of mucli greater originality, and such as had entirely broken with the whole method of the sententiarii, as e. g. Thomas Aquinas.
Close upon the stops of Lombard followed the gifted
SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY 420 SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY
Peter of Poitiers; and from him on there follow a whole series of commentators upon Lombard, ]jrominent among wiiom are Alexander Hales, Uuns Scotus, anil Occam.
But the way opened b}' Lombard was not docilely followed in by all. Alanus of Kyssel (died 1202), in his A rs Caf/i. Fidei, presents the successive doctrines of the Church as a series of logical steps, endeavoring to de- velop the one directly from the other. "Heretics and sceptics," says he, ''cannot be won over by citations of authorities, therefore we must urge upon them rational arguments." But he wisely adds: "Hw vero rationes si homines ad credendum inducant, non tamen ad tidem cajiessendam plene sutBciunt." In this his position is related to that of Anselra. Lombard was also opposed for his use of Aristotelian logic. Walter St. Victor ac- cuses him of drawing his whole insjnration from this secular fountain (iino spiritu Aristvldico ojflutus). So also Joacliim of Floris. A still more prominent voice against the great current of scholastic theology was that of John of Salisbury. He accused it of fruitlessness, absurdity, and presutnption. It sacrificed the essence for the form, the truth for logic; but his critical ability was not supplemented by an adequate productive power. Hence he was unable materially to check the general drift towards scholastic subtleties.