I wonder if the review by Keiser isn't a bit uncharitable. First of all, I should say that I have not yet read this book by Herbert McCabe. However I am familiar with Aquinas, I am a (lay) Dominican and perhaps most important of all I knew Herbert reasonably well. One should remember that most of the published books by Herbert (with the exception, mainly of 'God Matters') were not written by him. They were put together after his death from his unpublished papers. Herbert was a perfectionist who was extremely wary of publishing his lectures, talks, sermons and of course his working notes. We often write in our notes things that we would not be prepared to put into our final published and public works. That said, while one might sometimes dislike Herbert's politics, his views on the institution of the Church, and perhaps too his views on some moral issues Herbert knew only too well that there are many different ways of reading Aquinas (see Fergus Kerr's 'After Aquinas'), and his contemporary way of using Aquinas in the context of analytic philosophy was only one approach to the Angelic Doctor. Herbert was not really a historian, and knotty historical issues of the exact intepretation of Aquinas in his historical context - areas in which e.g. Torrell is the master - were not his primary interest. For Herbert, the issue was interpreting Aquinas for analytic philosophy and for the modern (mainly philosophical) world. And in that he was superbly successful. Perhaps more importantly, he has been enormously influential. That is why any book by Herbert McCabe, even a book put together from his notes, is significant and worth reading even if we disagree with him. To that extent I think Keiser's review does Herbert an injustice, and even though - as I say - I have not yet read the book I think the injustice should be corrected by giving the book the five stars that it will certainly deserve.