Scholastic theology reached its highest development in the 13th century. Many circumstances contributed to this, especially the more fidl access to the writings of Aristotle, which was occasioned by the fall of Con- stantinople (r204). These writings, falling into the hands of a number of well-trained men, served to give theology a much wider and richer scope than it had as yet taken. Tlie whole series of fundamental questions was now elaborately examined afresh. Among the problems discussed were, the sources of our knowledge of theology ; the nature and necessity of revelation in con- trast with reason and philosophy; the relation of faith to knowledge; whether theology is a science proper; whether it is a theoretical or a practical science; what is its proper object {materia cle qua) in its contrast with philosophy; wherein Christianity per se differs from other religions, etc. The form which theology now as- sumed was partly that of commentaries upon the sen- tences of Lombard, and partly that of more original pro- duction. It is distinguished, on the one hand, for the immense increase of matter treated of (ethical and dog- matical, meta))hysical and physical), and, on the other, by the perfection of the scholastic method, according to which, on every successive point, the authorities and reasons are cited pro et contra and a resoliitio or conclu- sio duly drawn. The whole is followed by a refutation in detail of all contrary views. Yet upon the basis of this uniformity there is manifested a large range of individual peculiarity. This sprang in part from the individual genius of the theologians, but also largely from their personal rivalry; and particularly from the rivalry and hostility that existed between the great monastic orders of Dominicans and Franciscans, and be- tween the schools of the realists and the nominalists. Another characteristic of this climax period of scholasti- cism consists in the fact that it for the first time brought tiie whole body of specifically Catholic doctrine to its complete formal expression.
First in time, of the scholastic theologians of this pe- riod, is Alexander Hales (died 1'245). He won the title u^ Doctor Irrefraf/abilis. His Summa Unicerste Theo- loffich shows great breadth of thought; it makes large use of Aristf)tle, is very methodical in form, and treats of all the fundamental questions; but it introduces a vast amount of irrelevant matter, and, in its attempt to meet every possible point, raises many trivial and even foolish questions. As a whole it lacks real speculative power. It also favors some of the extreme inferences of Koman doctrine, such as the Ihesannis (/ratice and the immaculata conceptio passiva Virghiis Muria, and it betrays an occasional Pclagianizing tendency.
Hales is, in many respects, surjiassed by the noted
Dominican Albertus Magnus (died 1280). He made a much larger use of Aristotle. His commentaries on Aristotle and on Lombard and his Summa Theologice exliibit an astounding universality of knowledge. His familiarity witii mathematics and with the whole body of the natural science of the age won for him the repute of a magician. It is with injustice that some have styled him the Simia Aristoteiis. He does not simply ape Aristotle, he merely makes free use of his materials; but he also combines therewith not a few of the concep- tions of Plato and of the Neo-Plalonists. It is true, he does not control his physical facts by an adequate criti- cism, and he fails to give full development to his specu- lations. But speculative power he really has, and from the midst of the mass of his chaotic materials there fre- quently dart forth surprising anticipations of great laws which subsequent scientists have fully developed — a fact which Alexander Humboldt has cheerfully conceded. As to Albert's specifically theological standpoint, he holds that theologj- is a practical science (scientia de his qucB ad salutem pertinent), treating of God and of his works. It is a science, however, not in the interest of science, but in the interest of eternal bliss. It has for its subject-matter the objective ^V/es catkolica, which faith rests originally upon a supermundana illuminatio. This illuminatio he attributes not only to prophets and apostles, but also to the fathers. He recognises the two forms of faith — faith as the objective matter to be be- lieved, and faith as a subjective activity of the individ- ual; and upon this latter he bases the capability of at- taining to real Christian knowledge. He regards reve- lation and reason, theology and philosophy, as absolute- ly in harmony, notwithstanding any seeming conflicts, for they both rest upon experience — theology upon our experience of the supernatural, and philosophy upon our experience of the natural; and the supernatural and the natural, though essentially different, rest both upon the harmonious plan and will of the one God. The super- naturalism of Albertus Magnus stands in close connec- tion with his Platonizing derivation of all creatures, by a descending emanation, from the absolute God. Super- natural grace is needed b\' the creature per se, and irre- spective of sin. Without this grace man, even had he not sinned, could not have lifted himself up out of his finiteness into likeness to the infinite God.
But Albertus Magnus did not fully develop his super- naturalism in all its bearings; this was done by his dis- tinguished scholar, the greatest and most influential of all the scholastic theologians, Thomas Aquinas (died 1274). Thomas Aquinas was very successful in vindi- cating to theology the character of a true science. He set before man as his highest good, as the goal of his blessedness, the vision of God (risio Dei). But this su- permundane goal lies beyond the scope of creatural abil- ity, for the natural cannot reach up to the divine. The highest that reason can attain to is a mere mediate knowledge of God through and from his works; and this is tlie furthest limit to which any of the old philos- ophers reached. These general religious notions form a sort oVprceambula Jidei. They can be reached, thought Aipiinas, by way of logical demonstration; e. g. that there is a (iod, that God is one, etc. But to the super- natural end of man, as presented in Christianity, we can attain only through supernatural revelation. The seal, the witness, of this revelation are the miracles which at- tend it. Theology is the science whicii is based on rev- elation and guided by the light of faith; whereas the other sciences are based on nature and guided by the light of reason. The fact that theology has for its ob- ject a something that is to be accepted on authority — viz. faith — does not hinder it from being a science. All other sciences do the same thing; they accept their subject-matter as an objective reality without proof, and tiien develop themselves therefrom as from an ax- iom. The axioms of theology are the dogmas of the Church. From these it evolves and proves additional truths and consequences. This gives Aquiuas's view