That Martin Bucer was one of the leading irenic theologians of the era of the Reformation is a commonplace, but the manner in which he conducted his ecumenical efforts and the shape of the theological formulations he sought to implement to secure the reconciliation of a divided Church are all too often characterized as opportunistic, if not sometimes as unprincipled (or confused). It is the aim of Brian Lugioyo to offer a corrective to the misrepresentations, and to set our understanding of Bucer's ecumenism on a sounder footing. What emerges from this book is a very useful exposition of the Alsatian's distinctive doctrine of justification, developed in the context of endeavors in the 1530s and early 1540s to bring peace to a Church still in the process of fracturing into hostile communions.

As the title of his monograph indicates, Lugioyo takes as the central subject of his examination Bucer's doctrine of justification which, from Luther's emergence as a Reformer, was at the core of the German Reformation, and which became one of the central points of dispute between Catholic and Protestant. Lugioyo argues that Bucer believed justification held the key to healing the divisions in the Church; once agreement could be reached on an understanding of it (which Bucer felt was possible through dialogue), then the remaining points of disagreement would also give way to unity. These beliefs formed the core of his approach to reform in the empire, as Lugioyo argues in Chapter 2. While he ultimately comes to the colloquies at Worms and Regensburg, where for a brief moment it appeared that agreement was indeed attained on justification, Lugioyo first seeks to demonstrate the distinctiveness of Bucer's own understanding of the doctrine, which he states has been improperly characterized as double justification. He also argues that Bucer's theology was not simply the product of a naive or opportunistic ecumenism that sought to strike a balance between two poles of opposition for the sake of peace alone (a form of Vermittlungstheologie), as some of his contemporaries (and modern scholars) have charged.

In order to make his case, Lugioyo provides a careful examination in chapter 3 of Bucer's 1536 commentary on Romans, which he maintains is the most comprehensive and mature of the Strasbourg Reformer's theological works. On the basis of his examination of this massive work, Lugioyo argues that while Bucer did not abandon the core Protestant doctrine of sola fide, his doctrine of justification did combine faith and works (that is, works of love), imputation and impartation. This opened the possibility of agreement with moderate Catholics such as Johannes Gropper, whose doctrine is the subject of chapter 4, which offers an examination of Gropper's Enchiridion of 1538. Lugioyo notes the resonances between the teaching of each theologian on the matter of justification, and characterizes the differences in terms of differing priorities. For Gropper, ecclesiology precedes soteriology, whereas for Bucer the reverse was true.

Bucer's involvement in the various colloquies between 1539 and 1541 forms the subject of the last major chapter (chapter 5). Gropper is especially important as he was the collocutor with whom Bucer dealt at the colloquies of Worms and Regensburg, the latter meeting being the occasion when an agreement on justification was actually attained (albeit fleetingly), and thus constituting the principal focus of the chapter. Lugioyo argues that what Bucer contributed to Article 5 of the Worms/Regensburg Book was not a piece of Vermittlungstheologie, a compromise that betrayed the core Protestant doctrine of sola fide, but rather was a genuinely evangelical achievement consistent with Bucer's teaching throughout his career.

Lugioyo's monograph is an important contribution to the study of Bucer, and to the efforts at achieving a reconciliation of Protestant and Catholic in the German Empire before the split became an enduring one. Among the notable contributions is a careful examination of Bucer's Romans commentary. It should be noted that given the massive size of this commentary, and Bucer's notorious prolixity and convoluted style, Lugioyo is to be commended for his bravery in tackling this task, and he has provided students of Bucer greater access to a work that has not received the attention it deserves. In light of contemporary discussions of the doctrine of justification, including continuing ecumenical dialogue of Catholic and Protestant, Lugioyo's book will be of interest to a wider audience than specialists in the Reformation, but it is the latter who will benefit the most from it.