LAUSR

that Melanchthon countered Catholics who accused the Lutherans of political rebellion by justifying resistance on philosophical rather than religious or biblical grounds. His position presented an alternative to the more apocalyptic justifications for resistance developed by the Gnesio-Lutherans, and Jensen suggests that it was ultimately more influential than the better-known Magdeburg Confession (1550). The book’s conclusion concisely summarizes the argument developed in these four chapters. A book on the history of political theory could easily become bogged down in abstruse details, but Jensen has avoided such pitfalls. He begins each chapter by summarizing both Germanand English-language research and then highlights his own contribution to the debate. To setMelanchthon’s ideas in their broader context, he gives a short synopsis of political developments and discusses other writers who served as a foil to the Wittenberger’s thought. Although he recognizes that Melanchthon developed his political philosophy in the course of his university lectures, Jensen says very little about Melanchthon’s own teaching. More explicit discussion of these lectures would have been welcome, because the daily experience of teaching was surely as much an influence on the development of Melanchthon’s thought as the larger political and religious conflicts. This book does not fundamentally change our understanding of Melanchthon’s political thought, but it does extend and deepen it by considering its philosophical rather than its theological expression. Melanchthon’s particular combination of humanist practices and Lutheran ideas distinguished him from both groups. His fundamental separation of civic and divine righteousness also allowed for the development of political theory independent from the discipline of theology. A Humanist in Reformation Politics is well worth reading for anyone interested in the history of early modern political thought.