In the study of the early modern Reformed tradition, certain theological figures loom large. Looking back with hindsight, certain figures like Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin tower over their contemporaries because of their influence on events such as the Synod of Dort or the Westminster Assembly. Scholars hopscotch from Calvin, to Westminster, and into the twenty-first century to establish historical norms for Reformed theology. Nestled in between the major events of the Reformation and the Westminster assembly lies the unplowed ground of 1600–1640, where Pollock draws the reader's attention. The vast majority of the anti-Papal works of this period are almost entirely neglected (12). Pollock aims to harvest this particular patch of history with his contribution on the work of Andrew Willet (1562–1621), an early modern Reformed theologian, polemicist, and exegete. Willet was a giant in his own day but has largely been ignored, until now. Pollock explores Willet's commentary on Romans in the effort to prove the thesis that Willet did not retreat from his earlier anti–Papal polemical work when he took up the task of writing his Romans commentary. Rather, he continued his polemical work through his commentary. His polemical intent did not negatively affect his exegesis but organized his work as the means by which to clarify traditional Reformed readings of scripture in contrast to Roman Catholic views (30). To demonstrate his thesis, Pollock divides his study into eight chapters that cover the state of the question, the historical context, textual criticism, grammar and rhetoric, causality, heresy, the use of church tradition, and closes with summary remarks.

There are a number of strengths to Pollock's work that commend it. First, Pollock does an excellent job of situating Willet in the early modern context. It is likely that few are aware of Willet's existence, let alone the details of his life (31–40). He expertly explains the exegetical and hermeneutical methods that Willet employs to paint a picture of common early modern exegesis. Pollock also establishes context for Willet's commentary by developing the polemical milieu in which the scholar labored (40–47). Pollock does not isolate his commentary or create an abstract talking head but persuasively situates Willet in his historical context. Second, Pollock immerses the reader in Willet's commentary and persuasively demonstrates the polemical features of his exegesis. Pollock explains, for example, how Willet employs church tradition in his exegesis. A far cry from the popular Reformation myth that theologians completely scuttled the Bible in favor of sola Scriptura, Pollock shows how Willet interacts with earlier exegetes such as Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274). Willet appealed to Aquinas, for example, in his polemical interaction with Roman Catholic theologian Benedict Pereria (1536–1610), who spoke of a first justification by faith and a second by works (281). Willet cited Aquinas to make the point that the great medieval theologian and exegete claimed justification was always by faith and never by works. Appealing to medieval authorities to refute Roman Catholic exegetes was an effective polemical weapon in Willet's arsenal. Pollock even points out how Willet had a more favorable opinion of Aquinas on justification than Calvin did (283). This is not to say that Willet completely agreed with Aquinas, but it shows that he was nuanced in his assessment of his theological position and was willing to appeal to the authority of church tradition, albeit in subordination to the authority of scripture. A third strength of Pollock's work is that he employs sound historiography and has an excellent command of primary and secondary sources. There is no lack of research, as Pollock has turned over most of the conceivable stones in his efforts to demonstrate his thesis. A fourth strength of his study is that Pollock does not allow the large historical shadow of Calvin to relegate Willet to a minor or secondary role. In the past, historians have denominated theologians like Willet as “successors” or “followers” of Calvin. Instead, Pollock rightly situates Willet as a legitimate contributor to the early modern Reformed tradition in his own right (38).

There are a few minor things with which one might take issue. In Pollock's thesis, he claims that Willet's polemical-hermeneutics present an “organizing principle” for his commentary (30). This is an infelicitous choice of words, as organizing principle brings to mind Wolffian philosophical notions that are anachronistic to Willet's early modern context. A better word choice might be theme or focus of his exegetical work. Another minor issue is that when Pollock engages Willet's interaction with other sources, he only cites Willet's commentary; he does not provide the reference to Willet's source. When reading Willet's citation of Aquinas or Bellarmine, for example, it would be helpful to provide the cited references to these sources (for example, 79 n. 111; 280 n. 116). But these things are minor quibbles and should not detract from the overall quality of Pollock's work.

The turn of the seventeenth century is an undiscovered country; there are scores of dissertation topics to be unearthed. Happily, Dr. Pollock has shone the light of solid research upon this otherwise little explored period of history. He has made a valuable contribution to the study of early modern Reformed theology through his careful and thorough examination of Willet's Hexapla commentary on Romans. This is an excellent work that deserves a wide reading.