The title is somewhat anachronistic, as the author acknowledges. The ‘philosophy of religion’ is an eighteenth-century construct. Paul Blum knowingly takes liberties, using the phrase as an umbrella for various different ways in which a variety of Renaissance figures sought accommodations between philosophy, religion and theology (or in some cases, theologies). The Renaissance figures treated, each with a chapter to himself, are Raymond Lull, Nicholas of Cusa, Giordano Bruno, Coluccio Salutati, Lorenzo Valla, Georgios Gemistos Plethon, Marsilio Ficio, Giovanni Pico, Tommaso Campanella and Francisco Suarez. (The inclusion of the last is something of a surprise. If inclusion of the Counter-Reformation theologian Suarez is warranted, then why not include Jean Cauvin?) One is impressed by the width of views, as well as by the ingenuity and obscurity of their ideas. In most cases they fall between long-established and well-worn traditions, those of the conceptualities and argumentative strategies of classical philosophy, and of Christian theology. Neither fish nor fowl, the overall impression is of speculative thinkers observing no clear rules except those set up or favoured by the person in question. Blum sees each of these Renaissance figures in an ecumenical light, for each, he claims, aims to further discussion between philosophy, theology and religion by ‘extending the area of competence of any of these’. He does not favour the idea of the Renaissance as foreshadowing secular humanism, but as considering religions and faiths in their own terms. What in the eighteenth century came to be called ‘philosophy of religion’ had at first little to do with natural theology, though current philosophy of religion courses, and books bearing that phrase as a title, may now have much to do with natural theology. Rather it was concerned with the character and powers of constructivist and responsive religious states. However, what these Renaissance figures most certainly have in common with the later philosophy of religion, and may justify the use of this phrase in their cases, is an almost uniformly anthropocentric approach to religion. This book will be appreciated by Renaissance specialists who have an interest in the religious side of that diverse movement. But they should be warned that Blum's style is somewhat opaque, and his meaning sometimes elusive, and that the level of discussion assumes a familiarity with the material that matches his own.