There is a great deal to admire about this book on James Ussher and the centrality of the covenant of works in Reformed theology in the seventeenth century. Over the past decades or so, it has become increasingly common to encounter studies of early modern English theology (often Puritan) that focus on specific doctrines in the work of individual figures, often treated in isolation. This way of proceeding, one suspects, has been overly determined by the availability of sources in English. In an exemplary manner, Harrison Perkins has demonstrated a superior and more rewarding approach to the study of seventeenth-century theology and religious history. His book on James Ussher and the covenant, drawn from a doctoral dissertation, is painstakingly researched, making extensive use of manuscript sources and of Latin and Greek. Perkins provides us with a flesh and bones Ussher, very much the churchman, politician, and theologian, placing him firmly in the torrid world of the early seventeenth century. All too frequently for historical theologians, the historical part is little more than set decoration, a little context for the main performance of theology. That is not the case here. Perkins treats Ussher in the round, asking questions of how he worked with sources, preached, influenced, was influenced, and engaged a complex and by no means consistent tradition of theological thought.

Perkins frames his treatment of Ussher around an interpretation of covenantal theology that does not simply run through the familiar figures but offers a more nuanced reading of how ideas are received and appropriated. He explicitly follows the lead of Richard Muller's arguments for diversity within the Reformed tradition with an underlying unity. Further, he acknowledges that one should not look to simple or singular lines of influence (i.e., Calvin) in determining the theological horizons of later generations. Many historians of early modern theology fall through the trapdoor of mistaking references to earlier authors as indicators of intellectual influence. Ussher, like his contemporaries, derived his thought through a deep personal engagement with a broad range of sources that shaped the evolution of the theological debates. Perkins works with a confident command of both Continental and British sources that enables him to demonstrate the importance of such figures as the severely understudied Franciscus Junius, whose Latinate writings are carefully employed.

The argument of the book builds from the central importance of covenantal thought throughout Ussher's career and, most importantly, demonstrates how the covenant of works formed the essential girder for this theology. It was no less than an organizing principle. Indeed, Perkins argues that Ussher was remarkably consistent throughout his career, so that he “sometimes expressed it [covenant theology] in identical phrasing even decades apart” (266). The covenant was not a divine afterthought but embedded in the created order, not at all arbitrary, as others held. The stability of nature, for Ussher, was the essential context for God's covenant. Nature provided humans with all that was needed to fulfill their relationship with the divine. Perkin's study of Ussher effectively demonstrates the interrelationships of theological arguments, none of which were singular or self-standing. Covenantal thought was carefully woven into every aspect of Ussher's theological world, a world which he, as theologian and churchman, was committed to communicating to clergy and laity alike.

Alongside the treatment of doctrine in itself, Perkins has much to offer on the complex and often confusing relationships between doctrine and historical nomenclature. Particularly helpful is his discussion of the boundaries between Puritanism and the established orders. Perkins takes up the longstanding debate over what makes a Puritan, with the significant contribution of showing how a figure such as Ussher, who upheld the hierarchical and royal orders, could hold a diversity of positions that defy easy categorization. For the earlier Reformation too, our willingness to separate theological opponents ignores the extent of their shared views and assumptions. Perkins's admonitions against essentializing differences are certainly constructive for historians of religion.

The sophistication of argumentation somewhat outstrips the writing. The book still has a heavy-handed dissertation feel. The long introduction and introductory chapter mean that we do not really get to the heart of the subject until almost page 50. The lengthy historiography is difficult to follow for those not directly in the field and makes for slow reading. Much of it could have been excised or more concisely summarized. Frequent references to what the chapter is going to say could be replaced by just moving forward with the discussion. The book at times has a defensive tone, as too much energy is expended on defining its argument against other scholars, who are repeatedly and all too often cited. Even the last paragraph ends with a refutation. Much greater fluidity would be achieved by staying with the positive interpretations and leaving the contras to the notes.

Harrison Perkins has written a significant book that not only presents a convincing account of Ussher's theology but also offers clear instruction in how to distill and analyze complex and multi-language theological and historical sources. As scholars of early modern British religious history think about how to research and write in a more interdisciplinary manner, this study of James Ussher points a way forward.