Ann-Stephane Schäfer's study joins a growing number of scholars drawing attention to the use of patristic literature amongst early modern Protestants. Led by Irena Backus, the image of a biblicist Protestantism has been qualified to reveal indebtedness to patristic thought. Schäfer's book covers roughly the same chronological ground as Jean-Louis Quantin's The Church of England and Christian Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), but, whereas Quantin focuses upon Anglicans, Schäfer begins with William Perkins and ends with the ecclesiastical debates of the early eighteenth century in New England. Schäfer correctly observes that Puritan use of the church fathers has “received surprisingly little attention compared to the Puritans’ strict adherence to sola scriptura” (20). Her study is poised to make a major contribution to our understanding of Puritanism.

Schäfer clearly states her theses. First, “Puritan exegesis is far from taking a one-dimensional Biblicist perspective but that it is in fact to a large extent informed by the interpretations of the church fathers” (22). Second, “the traditional typological interpretation of (New England) Puritanism as the embodiment of Old and New Testament types can be extended to apply to the early church as well” (23). Drawing upon Theodore Dwight Bozeman, she defines “Puritans” as dissenters from the Church of England who were distinguished by “three interlinked agendas”—“moralism,” “pietism,” and “biblical primitivism” (24). This definition is problematic for a few reasons, largely because it is too broad and inconsistently applied. For instance, Schäfer utilizes Perkins extensively as a kind of archetypal Puritan, but he can hardly be characterized as dissenting. This is not merely a trifling over a definition, but speaks directly to the theme of Schäfer's work.

Chapter 2 is a close reading of the prolegomenon of Perkins's Probleme of Forged Catholicisme. She outlines Perkins's strategy for purging patristic literature of spurious works and correctly reading the remaining corpus in context to arrive at an orthodox reading that counteracts Roman Catholic claims. His advice is unoriginal and more could have been done to either show his dependence on earlier sources or underscore distinctive elements. Schäfer nicely points out that Perkins's strategy equates Roman Catholicism with early church heresy and the principle of sola scriptura is bolstered ironically by patristic testimony.

Chapter 3 surveys the context for patristic reception amongst the Puritans. This includes a lengthy excursus on the genesis of the concept of auctoritas patrum, usage of patristic sources by earlier Protestants, and a consideration of the place of the church fathers in the training of Puritan ministers. The last two sections are the most potentially interesting, but the results are uneven. Schäfer shows that although patristic literature was not part of the official curriculum, students had ample access to the fathers’ writings in libraries. She surveys six commonplace books of colonial Congregationalist ministers, but only one “contains a great deal of patristic material” (129). Cotton Mather receives a separate section. Schäfer finds that twenty-two percent of Mathers's entries in his Quotidiana are from the fathers. This may sound impressive, but she admits “that the majority of references to the church fathers in the ‘Quotidiana’ comes to its author via secondary literature” (135).

The section on Mather segues to the most substantial chapters of the work—one on scriptural exegesis and a final chapter concerning ecclesiology. The former consists of a section on Mather's Biblia Americana, another on Puritan preaching theory, and a final portion analyzing various homiletic genres. Schäfer struggles to describe the Puritan literal reading of scripture, partly because she uses a dated Antiochene vs. Alexandrian paradigm to make a comparison. Frances Young's research would have been instructive here. The result is that Puritans like Perkins appear incoherent—he “advises both against a rigorous, oversimplified literal reading on the one hand and excessive imaginative approaches on the other” and he ultimately advocates for a kind of “middle way” (152). The other sections are more successful, particularly her work with Mather. She demonstrates that Mather's study of Genesis was distinguished amongst contemporaries by the attention paid to patristic sources. One of the most fascinating sections of the study is Schäfer's treatment of the appropriation of the pastoral writings of John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory the Great. She argues that this troika shaped Puritan views on the ideal preacher. This could have been expanded beyond its focus on Perkins's homiletical manual. Her study of sermons shows that each successive generation of New Englanders became more comfortable in referring to patristic sources in sermons, although they never felt restrained from doing so in election sermons.

The concluding chapter focuses upon debates about church membership and polity in New England, particularly regarding infant baptism, ordination, and discipline. The discourse between Anglicans and Congregationalists was framed by patristic themes and Congregationalists naturally claimed continuity with the church fathers. The commonality of patristic ideas creates space for use and abuse of patristic sources. For instance, Increase Mather draws upon the ordination of Origen from the Magdeburg Centuries—which acknowledged that Origen's ordination was atypical—to support his Congregationalist belief about ordination (373–375). In doing so, Mather grossly misrepresents Origen's experience as presented in the Centuries. One cannot help but wonder if the secondary sources are cited widely, whether we are really talking about patristic influence simply? In limiting reception to citation, Schäfer does not address this question and she shies away from evaluating Puritan interpretation of the fathers.

In the end, Schäfer's study is a fine early word on a topic that desperately needs more coverage, but it cannot be the final word. As she notes in her conclusion, she has successfully opened new fields of research that will corroborate, modify, or negate her theses. Her book is welcome reading for this reason, even if for no other.