Abstract

This is a well written, clear, instructive, erudite book. The author begins with what he calls Ancient Catholicism, which reaches until the Alliance of Church and State under Constantine. Careful attention is given to Patristics, including of course the tremendous achievement of Augustine, the emergence of monasticism, the conflict of the Papacy with the Holy Empire and the East-West Schism. A special section is devoted to what Professor Burkill calls Medieval Developments in which he includes ecclesiastical structures and their political involvements as well as the academic achievements of Scholasticism in its different forms. The analysis of the complexity of the Renaissance, from a humanistic, religious and political point of view, is in the opinion of this reviewer, impressively presented. Indeed these pages, with their factual and ideological content, are among the best. From this heap of facts and ideas arise certain common features which we would do well to remember, as for example, the frequency with which men have been willing to die for their convictions, whatever these happen to be. Every belief has its martyrs, and to hold this as a criterion of truth would be presumptuous. What strikes the reader furthermore in Burkill’s unbiased analysis is the tendency for the persecuted, once triumphant, to become in turn the persecutors. Persecution, religious no less than political, has unfortunately appeared to most if not to all, to be a means of survival. In the last section of his book, where Burkill deals with the last three hundred years, religious pluralism has become overwhelming. Burkill strives to do justice to all and yet to keep some form of unity. The book reaches unto modern times and the last name mentioned is that of Teilhard de Chardin. I should add one more remark. This book is not an apologetics. The author, partial to no one particular brand of Christianity, treats all with respect and objectivity. It is the work of an observer. If he does not reveal the beauty of religion "from within," neither does he deny it. This is not his purpose. Furthermore, although his historical approach is laced with philosophical observations, the book is not what might be called a philosophy of religion either, at least not explicitly. It is a survey written by a man who is both a philosopher and a theologican [[sic]], and in my opinion a very good one.—W. D.