Hampton in this work aims to remedy a gap in scholarship. It grew out of his doctoral dissertation and filling a lacuna in the literature is a worthy doctoral goal. He argues that there was a conforming Reformed tradition within the later Stuart Church that scholarship on the period has neglected. He fills the gap over seven main chapters beginning with ‘The Anglican reformed tradition after the Restoration’ and ending with ‘The reformed defence of Thomist theism’ before he draws his overall conclusion in chapter eight. As the subtitle of the work suggests the accent falls on the Anglican story. For example, the magisterial John Owen is worth only a footnote (p. 240). The names he conjures within the main are Bishop Thomas Barlow (1608/9–1691), Bishop William Beveridge (1637–1708), John Edwards (1637–1716), Bishop John Pearson (1613–1686) and Dean Thomas Tully (1620–1676). Hampton challenges the historiography of the period in a number of ways. For a start, he argues—following Richard Muller—that the term ‘Calvinism’ is too narrow a descriptor and thus excludes a number of key churchmen of the period who were broadly speaking Reformed (e.g. Bishop William Nicholson). If one adopts the narrow idea then it is easy to miss how much conforming Reformed theology existed in the period on view. Bishop J. C. Ryle is an example of a later writer who fell into this trap (3). By way of contrast on Hampton’s reckoning there were twelve bishops and six deans who could be counted as Reformed together with some eminent scientists (e.g. Boyle, Ward and Wallis) and ecclesiastical courtiers (e.g. Morley and Compton). Moreover, several of the clergy held divinity chairs at either Oxford or Cambridge (p. 22). The tenacity of the conforming Reformed tradition during the period can be seen in the two great theological controversies of the time: the justification one occasioned by the publication of George Bull’s Harmonia Apostolica (1670) and the Trinity debate stimulated by William Sherlock’s A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity (1690). Thomas Barlow and Thomas Tully in particular entered the lists on the Reformed side with regard to the first; John Wallis and Robert South with regard to the second. The Reformed Anglicans resisted any slide towards tritheism on the one hand (pace Sherlock) or into subordinationism on the other (pace Samuel Clarke).

Hampton draws three important conclusions from his study. First, the Evangelical revival of the 18th century was not ‘the rediscovery of an abandoned theological tradition’ (p. 272). The conforming Reformed tradition was never without its representatives and advocates. It proved resilient, even if it became unfashionable by the end of the period under discussion. Second, ‘there was no harmonious Anglican theological tradition emerging after the Restoration’ (p. 273). Reformed Anglicans and Arminian Anglicans shared the post—Restoration Church—albeit with increasing dominance by the Arminians. Third, ‘the Reformed theological tradition is an essential ingredient in any conception of Anglicanism’ (p. 273). He also observes how Reformed Anglicans were increasingly sympathetic to High Church ecclesiology during the period. Hampton writes: ‘Theirs was, therefore, Reformed Divinity, but with Restoration curlicues [ornamental twists]’ (p. 23). William Beveridge and John Pearson illustrate this penchant, although others such as Barlow and Edwards much less so with regard to the episcopacy (pp. 25–27). Clearly Reformed Anglicanism itself was not monochrome in every aspect. However, Reformed Anglicans commonly remained staunchly ‘Anti-Arminian’ as Benjamin Jenks (bap. 1648–1724) illustrates (p. 274).

In this impressive work, Hampton makes his case. His handling of both the primary sources and the secondary literature is adroit. His conclusions, as adumbrated above, are convincing. I particularly enjoyed his treatment in chapter five of the rise of subordinationism within both 17th century continental (Episcopius and de Courcelles) and English (Cudworth, Bull, Sherlock and Tillotson) Arminianism. It has surprising relevance to the contemporary debates within evangelicalism on subordination within the Trinity. He rightly notes that Oxford, unlike Cambridge, was the bastion of the conforming Reformed tradition. In that regard, I would have liked to have read more of Cambridge and of any difficulties the Reformed tradition had there. After all, on the one hand and side, Bishop John Pearson had been both a Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity in Cambridge and Master of Trinity College. On the other, William Sherlock went to Peterhouse. I would have liked too to have read more on the question as to what extent the Great Ejection of 1662 weakened the Reformed Anglican tradition. Hampton’s style is clear and engaging. In the work there are a few typographical problems (‘historiorians’ provides a glaring example, p. 269) and occasional sloppiness. With regard to the latter, was George Bull’s Harmonia Apostolica published in 1670 as per p. 37 or in 1669 as per p. 39?

In sum, Hampton has written a very fine work and a worthy contribution to the Oxford Theological Monograph series.