Evolution and the Doctrine of Original Sin by Stephanus Trooster, S. J., and: The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin by. F. R. Tennant (review)

368 BOOK REVIEWS dimension of the eternal by uniting us to the First Truth; a refreshing and original balancing of the cognitive and affective elements of faith; and a precising of the relation of charity to faith. The final chapter provides a brief summary. Much of the work amounts to a re-organized and interwoven translation of the Summa and the De Veritate, with the addition of a fair sprinkling of the Commentary on the Sentences. On the whole, the book is not remarkable for its originality. It is basically a paraphrase of St. Thomas (and, on occasion, an overly literal one). It is valuable for making accessible in a usable English form the teaching of Aquinas, and for providing the original version of the texts cited. Users of the book are presumed to have some background for handling the baldly presented scholasticism. Terms such as agent intellect, possible intellect, end in common, and formal reason of the object (a distressingly inadequate translation of ratio formalis object·i) are used, for the most part, without a word of explanation. A notable contribution of the work, however, is the thorough documentation and the Latin texts (especially for the early scholastics) in the fortyseven pages of footnotes, plus a good bibliography. This work would be a valuable source for a course on faith. Students could cover much of the basic course information by reading, and lectures could then focus on interpretation. All in all, a useful product. Dominican House of Studies Washington, D. C. JoHN A. FARREN, O.P. Evolution and the Doctrine of Original Sin. By STEPHANUs TROOSTER, S. J. Glen Rock, N.J.: Newman Press/Paulist Press, 1968. Pp. 138. $4.95. The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin. By. F. R. TENNANT. New York, N. Y.: Shocken Books, Inc., 1968. Pp. 390. $7.50 cloth, $~.45 paper. These two books may sell because they cover the lively and currently controversial subject of original sin. But there are several far better books treating the same matter already on the market. Trooster's book is almost completely derivative, according to himself. This fact will discourage the teacher of theology who only has time to read the best of modern theology and prefers to read the primary sources. The author also remarks: "It is certainly not difficult to analyse and write critical commentaries on the attempts of others to arrive at new solutions, especially if such attempts have not as yet completely matured." (p. 41) BOOK REVIEWS 369 This is not true of his work. It is extremely difficult to make an assessment of it, favorable or unfavorable. It is a torturous work, with an abundance of qualifications at all the crucial points in his arguments. Like his acknowledged theological mentor and compatriot, Peter Schoonenberg S. J., he lacks the charisms of simplicity and clarity. In fairness, however, his labyrinthine thought and ponderous expression stem to a great extent from the very nature of the difficult task he has set himself. Trooster tries to reformulate the dogma of original sin in terms of the modern and scientific evaluation of man and the cosmos. In practice he tries to square evolution and closely related disciplines or theses with divine revelation concerning original sin. He writes: " To place an extremely gifted and highly privileged spiritual man at the beginning of human life on earth appears in complete contradiction to modern scientific thought on this matter." (p. 18) Nevertheless, the author does make a brave effort to salvage something of the teaching of the Church on original justice after it has been torpedoed by the dogmatic assertions of modern science. The spirit of the book is captured in another similar passage. " Acceptance of the modern viewpoint, however, eliminates the possibility of accounting for the genesis of evil in the world on the basis of sin committed by the first man. After all, how could so primitive a human being have been in a position to refuse God's offer of salvation; how could such a primitive being have been capable of a breach of covenant with God? " (p. 18) These are, of course, legitimate questions. But it seems to me that...