The Philosophical Assessment of Theology: Essays in Honour of Frederick C. Copleston ed. by Gerald J. Hughes, S.J. (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 889 on God. Rather, leads towards tracing the authentically metaphysical development of Aquinas' thinking are more readily found in those earlier works. Yet no matter what disagreement there may be with the procedure of Elders' book and its conception of Thomistic metaphysics, the value of his indefatigable labor in deftly locating the philosophical problems about God in the contemporary situation is beyond doubt. The book in its detailed coverage will be a welcome help for anyone approaching these problems in their present-day context. For course work it will provide an excellent introduction to the " First Part " of the Summa theologiae. It is equipped with indexes of names (pp. 319-326) and of subjects (pp. 327-331), for convenience in consultation. But even with these indexes the book would have been enhanced by addition of a general bibliography providing the reader with a bird's-eye view of the copious literature hovering in the background, though the task of preparing it would have been Gargantuan. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies Toronto, Canada JOSEPll OWENS, C.Ss.R. The Philosophical Assessment of Theology: Essays in Honour of Frederick C. Copleston. Edited by GERALD J. HUGHES, S.J. Washington , DC, and Turnbridge Wells: Search Press, Ltd. in association with Georgetown University Press, 1987. Pp. xii +215, including index and bibliography of Copleston's principal writings. It has been a genuine pleasure to read and to review this elegant collection of essays dedicated to Father Frederick Copleston, S.J., on his eightieth birthday. Each of the ten essays submitted merits warm recommendation on some point and several on many. They are technical enough to interest the student of philosophical theology hut lucid enough for beginners. Naturally I cannot claim to agree with every thesis defended or advanced , hut neither can I fault any contributor on scholarship, clarity, or style. For example, Professor Swinburne, in his essay, "Analogy and Metaphor ", revives the view of Scotus that terms like ' wise ' or ' powerful ' admit of univocal predication to both God and man. I am unhappy with accounts of univocity of this sort in general; I think they breed their own antitheses and land ultimately in a position of radical equivocity on the very ground they aim to cover so carefully. Still the theory proposed is clearly an able one and Swinburne haiil 340 BOOK REVIEWS stated his version of it with about as much economy and precision as his format allows. Occasionally a contribution offers nothing really new-as in A.H.T. Levi's "The Breakdown of Scholasticism and the Significance of Evangelical Humanism". But the piece is well written, concise and synoptic in form-easily a competent introduction to its topic-and memorable on these grounds apart from any others. Sometimes the tone grows a little arch and patronizing, as in the essay on Transubstantiation by D. J. Fitzpatrick; but here, too, the author's skillful assembly and use of texts and opinions offsets the irritation of his manner. There is one essay, however, which might well bear the book's title as its own subtitle: "Philosophy and Theology", by Basil Mitchell. This essay raises the fundamental question: of what relevance is philosophy to theology, apart from the various historical connections and disconnections the two have suffered? Mitchell proposes the following as positive theses: that the Christian tradition, epsecially as regards its doctrines, has a supra-historical identity and validity-even if problems of doctrinal identity and doctrinal development are very close to Hume's problem of personal identity and, hence, personal develop· ment; that philosophy, in relation to doctrine, can exercise a salutary influence for clarity and for plurality among legitimate interpretations of the central Christian Mysteries; that the message of the New Testa· ment is inexhaustible, so that we should expect to see differences in the conversation between philosophy and theology corresponding to differences in times, cultures, and needs, none wholly fixed and inalterable , all valuable in proportion to their service to the greater Christian tradition. I have no quarrel with these views. Even the notions of ecclesial infallibility and doctrinal irreformability can meet this thesis about the relation between philosophy and theology with equanimity. The larger issue, it seems...