This monograph, based on the author's PhD dissertation, presents itself as an investigation into the German Reformer Philip Melanchthon's use of writings by the Greek Church Fathers Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Thaumaturgus and Gregory of Nyssa. However, ultimately the volume offers an assessment that focuses more on Melanchthon's intellectual and theological outlook, career and interaction with opponents in his own lifetime. Indeed, this work primarily comes across as a defence of Melanchthon's theology and scholarly approach over against his contemporary detractors and the views of later historians. As Hall notes in his introduction (p. 15), ‘Melanchthon was far more consistent, careful, and tenacious than he is given credit for.’ Chapter i, on Melanchthon's view of patristic authority in relation to the authority of Scripture, offers some helpful insights on the Reformer's appreciation of the writings of various Church Fathers, including the Cappadocians and Augustine. The second chapter analyses more closely Melanchthon's use of the writings of the Cappadocians, highlighting the Reformer's careful distinctions between Basil's theology of justification, for instance, which Melanchthon shared, and Basil's praise for the monastic life, which Melanchthon criticised. The next three chapters focus on Melanchthon's conflicts with Radical Reformers, Roman Catholics, the Reformed and fellow Lutherans and, at times, the connections between these themes and the writings of the Cappadocians seem tenuous at best, a point which the author does occasionally acknowledge. Part of the problem is that, in many instances, Melanchthon simply quoted a short phrase from one of the Greek Fathers in his debates with opponents, and it is hard to draw many inferences from such a minimal amount of source material. The book ends with an appendix listing which texts by the Cappadocian Fathers might have been available to Melanchthon. There are a few odd features that detract from the impact of this work, the most notable being the total absence of any general conclusion. The reader is left puzzled by this omission. There are a number of typos that really should have been caught in the production process: ‘steams’ for ‘streams’ (p. 14), ‘discrete’ for ‘discreet’ (p. 165), ‘complimentary’ for ‘complementary’ (p. 196), ‘faired’ for ‘fared’ (p. 236) etc. Overall, the work's biggest challenge seems to be that the stated aim of analysing Melanchthon's use of Greek patristic sources to display his intellectual approach and theological insights founders on the relative paucity of significant primary source material.