David Jenkins's publication is more a pamphlet than a book. Not only does it run to just a few dozen pages, it is also transparently one-sided in its analysis of the thought of de la Place. Jenkins's stated intention is to rescue the theology of Saumur in general and de la Place in particular from what he argues are the misrepresentations of their theology made by doctrinal Calvinists both in their own day and subsequently. For Jenkins, de la Place represents a return to the authentic and biblical spirit of the sixteenth-century Reformation, and a reaction against the arid scholasticism of Reformed Orthodoxy, which replaced scriptural authority with Aristotelian method. The usefulness of this pamphlet lies in its presentation of the thought of de la Place, who is undoubtedly an important figure in the seventeenth-century development of Reformed theology. Jenkins follows de la Place's thinking closely and offers enough background for its significance and precision to be understood. He is also able to answer some of the accusations which have been thrown at de la Place's work by less sympathetic readers and, in particular, to show that his views about the imputation of Adam's sin were not without precedent within the Reformed tradition. However, this pamphlet is not a balanced work of seventeenth-century scholarship, nor does it seek to be. It reiterates many of the claims about Reformed scholasticism which have been discredited by the work of Richard Muller and others, work to which Jenkins does not refer. No real attempt is made to expound or explain the theology of de la Place's opponents, and that despite the fact that Salmurian theology was widely rejected by the Reformed. Jenkins also tells his reader that de la Place's work is more authentic to Scripture, but makes no effort to understand the rival exegesis of his Reformed Orthodox opponents. As an exposition of de la Place's thought on the imputation of Adam's sin, Jenkins's booklet is undoubtedly interesting, but it sheds little light on the development of seventeenth-century theology. That is a shame, because the thought of Saumur is undoubtedly worthy of further study.