Brian Kay's work is a significant reading of John Owen's approach to the doctrine of the Trinity as well as a useful contribution to contemporary discussion of Trinitarian spirituality. What Kay demonstrates quite clearly and fully is that one of the unfortunately standard modern critiques of western Trinitarianism – namely the claim that the thirteenth-century decision to place essence and attributes prior to Trinity in theological systems had a deadening effect on Trinitarian spirituality – has no application to the theology of the eminent seventeenth-century divine, John Owen. Kay introduces the issue of Trinitarian spirituality with a statement of the modern critique, referring in particular to Karl Barth's approach to placement and use of the doctrine and Karl Rahner's critique of the tradition. He next poses the issue of assessing Trinitarian spirituality in a chapter that takes up both the issue of definition and some of the historical backgrounds and contexts of Owen's work. Kay then passes on to two major chapters presenting Owen's approach, largely in terms of Owen's massive Trinitarian work, Of communion with God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There is good interaction with recent scholarship on Owen and on Puritan theology. Kay's analysis of Owen notes also some of the Trinitarian accents of various Reformed orthodox theologians, particularly those of the federal school, and thereby alerts the reader to the fact that although Owen produced perhaps the most exhaustive work of Trinitarian spirituality among the seventeenth-century Reformed, his theology was part of a larger development. Owen (and his contemporaries), Kay shows, not only offered a full dogmatic presentation of the doctrine but also related their Trinitarianism both to the history of salvation and to the personal piety or spirituality of the individual reception of God's saving work. Kay concludes with a discussion of directions for Trinitarian spirituality. The only point of criticism that needs be noted is that while he offers abundant evidence that seventeenth-century Reformed spirituality and various of its antecedents, including some strands of late medieval spirituality, do not fall under the modern critique, Kay does not press the methodological issue further and point to the high probability that claims against western spirituality were made on the basis of a few observations about the structure of the older dogmatics. What Kay's analysis of the problem may actually indicate is that many modern theologians, notably Rahner and Moltmann, have misread a tradition in the interest of their own, often anti-traditional, formulations.