Despite significant advances in both the study of the theology of Jonathan Edwards and post-Reformation Reformed scholasticism in the last three decades, there has been relatively little attention given to Edwards's place within the intellectual history of Reformed orthodoxy. The absence, on the one hand, reflects older historiographical trends and misunderstandings with regard to Reformed scholasticism; on the other hand, it reflects the relative unfamiliarity with Reformed scholastic primary source material (often tucked away in Latin) among Edwards scholars. Nevertheless, there is a growing trend within the literature to re-examine Edwards's theology (and theological legacy) in light of his Reformed forebears, as well as to locate New England theology within the larger contours of Reformed orthodoxy. In keeping with this scholarly movement, Adriaan Neele's monograph places Jonathan Edwards within the broader intellectual context of high and late Reformed orthodoxy in order to highlight the discontinuities and continuities existing between them. In so doing, Neele also gestures toward the implications this has for assessing the stream of New England theology filtered through Edwards's pupils, such as Samuel Hopkins and Joseph Bellamy.

The bulk of Neele's argument attempts to identify the varietal of Edwards's Reformed scholasticism. In order to accomplish this classification, Neele first compares Edwards to the Protestant scholastic Petrus van Mastricht (ch. i), then proceeds to compare Edwards's views on homiletics (ch. 2), exegesis (ch. iii) and theology (chs iv–v) to those in the post-Reformation Reformed periods of high and late orthodoxy. The comparison of Edwards to Mastricht reveals, according to Neele, that Edwards's ‘stature as a theologian, philosopher, and Hebraist should not be confused with representatives of the post-Reformation era, such as Mastricht, Turretin, and others’ (p. 66). That is, Edwards was neither a systematician nor dogmatician, even though he studied and recommended them. Formally speaking, Edwards did not carry out his work in an academic context. Nevertheless, Edwards's writings do resonate with post-Reformation Reformed pastors and private scholars like his contemporary Johann Friedrich Stapfer. Such resonance pushes back against scholarly portraits of Edwards as a uniquely modern (Perry Miller) and metaphysical (Leon Morris) thinker.

As already mentioned, Neele fills out his preliminary sketch of Edwards by attending to specifics of Edwards's sermons, exegesis and theology. Homiletically, a comparison of Edwards to William Perkins and Petrus van Mastricht reveals a greater overlap with Mastricht's ‘method than with Perkins's art of preaching’ (p. 104), even though the movement from explicatio to applicatio in Edwards and many New England contemporaries bears resemblance to the canons of classical rhetoric as found in both Perkins and Mastricht. When analysing Edwards's exegesis, Neele concludes that Edwards – like many other ministers in New England – should be characterised more as a recipient of the genre of biblical commentary in the early modern era (i.e., Matthew Poole's Synopsis criticorum aliorumque Sacrae Scipturae interpretum) than as a creator of it. This is especially true in terms of Edwards's philological reliance upon Poole, which is strongly implied, for example, in Edwards's Blank Bible and ‘Notes on Scripture’.

After looking at Edwards the pastor and exegete, Neele turns to examine Edwards's understanding of the nature (ch. iv) and method (ch. v) of theology. To be sure, it is in this area where Edwards was ostensibly preparing to be the most novel. As he wrote in 1757 to the trustees of the Board of the College of New Jersey, ‘I have had on my mind and heart … a great work … a body of divinity in an entire new method, being thrown into the form of a history’ (WJE xvi.727). But how discontinuous was Edwards with his Reformed forebears here? On the nature of theology, Neele concludes that Edwards's understanding of the character of theology, as well as his use of scholastic definitions and distinctions, ‘is deeply rooted in post-Reformation Reformed orthodoxy, and in particular the era of high orthodoxy, but not late orthodoxy’ (p. 177). For Edwards, like Mastricht before him, theological knowledge is both theoretical and practical, and well expressed in the following maxim: ‘Theologia est doctrina vivendi Dei, per Christum.’ But what of method? Once again, Mastricht looms large. Unlike other Reformed thinkers, Mastricht's system of divinity ‘contained a fairly strong and rather unique notion of the covenant of grace throughout history’ (p. 192). Such uniqueness, Neele indicates, bears a strong resemblance to Edwards's entirely ‘new method’, which might mean Edwards's claims are bit inflated. According to Neele, the primary discontinuity existing between Edwards's body of divinity as history and Mastricht's De dispsensationis foederis gratiae (within his larger Theoretica-practica theologia) is context. Mastricht wrote within the academy, Edwards within the pastorate. As such, the uniqueness of Edwards's project, Neele suggests, ‘may be found as a “stand alone publication” of theology’, as opposed to a piece within a larger systematic project – ‘no more and no less’ (p. 205). Overall, Neele finds a large continuity between Edwards and Reformed theologians such as Mastricht, even if Edwards was a transitional figure given the burgeoning context of New England and the context in which he carried out his work (i.e., private scholar, pastor and missionary).

In assessing Neele's work as a whole, three features stand out. First, the conclusion is well balanced. Edwards was not a lone-ranger theologian, a mad theological scientist toiling away in isolation in Northampton and Stockbridge. As Neele meticulously demonstrates through attention to primary source material, Edwards stands in continuity with high Orthodox divines, while departing from them at times to suit his contextual (polemical?) needs. Second, Before Jonathan Edwards fills a large lacuna in the secondary literature. In terms of Edwards's relation to Reformed scholastic tradition, this work was sorely needed and should be welcomed wholeheartedly by scholars thinking afresh about the link between Reformed theology on the European continent and in New England. Finally, Neele demonstrates the need to foreground Edwards as an exegete and pastor. On this point, scholars should heed Neele's suggestion: ‘the sermons of Edwards should be first and foremost being considered, and should be seen as foundational to appraise his theological reflections’ (p. 208).