To use the discordant statements of the Fathers to sharpen the wits of the young! Was not that to uncover their shame? And the character of the work did not salve the Prologue’s sting. Abaelard selected and arranged his extracts from pagan as well as Christian writers, and prepared sardonic titles for the questions under which he ordered his material. Time and again these titles flaunt an opposition which the citations scarcely bear out. For example, title iv.: “Quod sit credendum in Deum solum, et contra”--certainly a flaming point; yet the excerpts display merely the verb _credere_, used in the palpably different senses borne by the word “believe.” There is no real repugnancy among the citations. And again, in title lviii.: “Quod Adam salvatus sit, et contra”--there is no citation _contra_. And the longest chapter in the book (cxvii.) has this bristling title: “De sacramento altaris, quod sit essentialiter ipsa veritas carnis Christi et sanguinis, et contra.” Because of such prickly traits the _Sic et non_ did not itself come into common use. But the suggestions of its method once made, were of too obvious utility to be abandoned. First, among Abaelard’s own pupils the result appears in _Books of Sentences_, which, in the arrangement of their matter, followed the topical division not of the _Sic et non_, but of Abaelard’s _Theologia_, with its threefold division of Theology into _Fides_, _Caritas_, and _Sacramentum_.[429] But the arrangement of the _Theologia_ was not made use of in the best and most famous of these compositions, Peter Lombard’s _Sententiarum libri quatuor_. This work employed the method (not the arrangement) of the _Sic et non_, and expounded the contents of Faith methodically, “Distinctio” after “Distinctio,” stating the proposition, citing the authorities bearing upon it, and ending with some conciliating or distinguishing statement of the true result. In canon law the same method was applied in Gratian’s _Decretum_, of which the proper name was _Concordia discordantium canonum_.