In his introduction Ryan Reeves clearly sets out the aim of his book as to examine the English evangelical doctrine of obedience by tracing the development of these ideas in their English context and identifying the influence of Swiss Reformed concepts. He is also tackling an apparent paradox: ‘if the Lutheran gospel is a catalyst for political radicalism then why do so many Tudor evangelicals remain so zealously committed to submission and non-resistance?’ The author's methodology is explicitly inspired by Quentin Skinner's call to contextualise early modern writings (here, mainly devotional works, theological treatises and sermons) and to ‘focus on the matrix of texts within an entire generation in order to reconstruct their political vocabulary’(p. 20).

Two useful concepts are introduced in the opening pages of the book and serve the argument efficiently. Firstly, the notion of accountability helps to unpick early modern ideas about sovereignty. Almost all of the authors studied in this book believe that sovereigns are accountable to God alone even if evangelicals might and should try to warn ungodly monarchs (being the notable exceptions) but in no case could they ‘bridle’ their authority. Such warnings should not be taken as a token of a budding resistance theory. Secondly, a clear distinction is repeatedly drawn between ‘active resistance’ and ‘passive disobedience’. The latter concept encapsulates the position common to most early evangelicals (and sixteenth-century thinkers more generally) that an order contrary to Scripture or to natural law should be disobeyed, and that one should willingly suffer the consequences. The book's claims rest on the idea that evangelicals shared in a common high doctrine of obedience even if some of them warned authorities against ungodly policies, or argued that laws not contrary to Scripture or natural law should not be obeyed (‘limited obedience’).

According to Reeves, whenever an evangelical author voiced either of these ideas, historians have mistakenly read their work as comporting with resistance theory. The parameters of obedience theory should then be redefined: any writer who believes that magistrates are accountable to God alone and that it is a sin to rebel, throw off or assassinate a monarch holds a ‘strong doctrine of obedience’.

With the newly fleshed-out distinction between active resistance and passive disobedience in mind, Reeves sets out to correct two errors: the idea that the seeds of resistance theory were sown by English evangelicals in the 1530s and 1540s to become sources of inspiration for Puritans, and the belief that Calvin's ideas on resistance were instrumental in encouraging English Protestants rebellion and non-conformity.

Clearly, the author is keen to correct several misconceptions held by ‘scholars’ and ’historians’ which are not always clearly referenced, at least initially (pp. 2, 32, 95). He rejects, for instance, the belief that early English evangelicals were influenced by Luther's ideas on obedience and later turned to a Reformed doctrine of resistance. In fact, the influence of Reformed thought on English evangelicals is meticulously ascertained from the 1520s onwards. Tyndale's ideas on obedience originated in Zwingli's Zurich through his use of the political reading of Psalm lxxxii in the light of Exodus xxii.8 in which kings are termed ‘gods’ and due full obedience. This reading became an evangelical motif which Reeves painstakingly traces throughout his corpus. Amongst the Reformed, the political theology of Zwingli and Bullinger is granted particular attention as they are considered key to understanding the Anglo-Swiss connection.

Reeves also debunks the idea that resistance theory can be traced to the beginnings of the English Reformation. Tyndale is a strict defender of non-resistance and should not be seen as a proto-revolutionary (pp. 30–3). John Cheke's thought does not herald the mixed constitution of the Elizabethan monarchical republic (pp. 109–10). John Hooper's rejection of the oath of supremacy in the Edwardian ordinal does not foreshadow the Vestarian Controversy, nor does his theory of ‘limited obedience’ amount to an endorsement of resistance (pp. 119–27). In fact, resistance theory was only introduced in England when English evangelicals were confronted with the dilemma posed by the advent of Mary and the restoration of Catholicism: how to be obedient while refusing to participate in idolatry. What's more, ideas about legitimate resistance against tyrants were first formulated in a translation of Luther's A faithful admonition in 1554 (pp. 134–6) and then picked up in the anonymous tract Certayne questions demanded of 1555. Lutheran ideas were then further adapted to the English context by Peter Martyr. Knox's thoughts on resistance were not inspired by the Swiss Reformers either, Calvin siding against his line of argument in the 1550s, but rather shaped by the circumstances of his Frankfurt quarrel with Cox and Lever and their respective positions vis-à-vis the local authorities. John Ponet's radical teachings about the popular origins of royal power were inspired by Lutheran ideas but should be read as a reaction to decades of evangelical calls to endure patiently tyrannical and ungodly rulers. Similarly, John Goodman's 1558 How superior powers ought to be obeyed, in which he claimed that resistance was a Christian duty, is also a critique of earlier interpretations of Scripture by English evangelicals. And in turn, his readings of key passages of the Old Testament shaped the notes of the Geneva Bible. So, the controversies of the Elizabethan Church in fact influenced Reformed thinkers on the Continent as they responded to English nonconformists seeking advice.

In the process of making his case Reeves also seeks to redress a flurry of misreadings and miscategorisations: The complaint of Roderick Mors is not an attack against the Royal Supremacy (pp. 89–90); Edmund Sandys did not argue for active resistance to tyrants (pp. 175–6), to quote but a few.

This book has many qualities: the prose is clear and eminently readable, the arguments are precisely delineated and neatly rehearsed. However, the decision to use the umbrella term ‘evangelical’, though uncontroversial for the Henrician period, is perhaps more problematic for the later period covered by the book. Clearly, this decision is informed by the fact that all these writers share a common conception of obedience, but at times its all-encompassing breadth and vagueness is a hindrance as it lumps together very different people in very different contexts (from Tyndale to Matthew Parker). Perhaps a more detailed taxonomy could have helped to parse Tudor political thought, especially when attempting to redress earlier characterisations (see the case of Thomas Becon at p. 76). A similar lack of clarity applies to other concepts: the specificity of the Royal Supremacy is not clearly identified and is almost conflated with obedience doctrine (pp. 114–15). Finally, the notion that ‘historians’ have almost to a man failed to understand the different degrees of early modern obedience theory left this reviewer wondering whether the discussion had been slightly overwrought for the sake of making a compelling argument.