This book comprises eleven papers presented to James E. Bradley on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday. Six contributions fall under the heading, ‘Accommodating religious heterodoxy’, while the remaining five concern ‘Religion, politics and society’. Bradley's work is rightly celebrated, and it is a further tribute to him that he has passed the torch to others, three of whom are among the authors here gathered. A running theme, which contributes to the coherence of the volume, is the nature of the stimulus to political radicalism in the long eighteenth century. Was it Dissenting heterodoxy, as Jonathan Clark has argued? Or was it the quest for social and economic justice, motivated by the egalitarian church polities of Dissent, as Bradley himself has proposed? G. M. Ditchfield (p. 112) correctly observes that ‘heterodoxy in the theological sense needs analysis in its own right, not merely as the harbinger of something else’, and that ‘Theological heterodoxy … was far from being a single, coherent intellectual entity.’ The same may be said of orthodoxy. It might, for example, be suggested that the egalitarian polity to which Bradley refers (well, it was egalitarian on paper, but some London ministers, for example, were not above assuming the role of ecclesiastical ‘fixers’ in their coffee house meetings of the day, church meeting notwithstanding) was regarded by some who espoused it as being much more than a matter of church organisation. They derived it from a Christological claim concerning the sole Lordship of Christ in the Church and the experienced facts of gracious regeneration, election and adoption. Believers of this persuasion would not necessarily have been inclined to endorse what the editors call Dissent's ‘distinct republican history’ (p. 4; cf. Ditchfield, p. 125). On the contrary, in the wake of regicide many sought to distance themselves from the more excitable republican sectaries of Commonwealth times, and expressions of theologically qualified loyalty to the monarchy were common. In part i the heterodox are given a good innings, as when T. F. Pfizenmaier brands William Whiston ‘Arian’, whilst absolving Samuel Clarke and Isaac Newton from the taint. With reference to William Bowman, Stephen Taylor discusses Latitudinarian theology vis à vis anti-clericalism and orthodoxy; Robert G. Ingram pursues Conyers Middleton on miracles, and Ditchfield focuses on Edward Evanson. R. Denton does well to remind us that some, like James Murray, drew their enlightened approach to liberty directly from the Bible. The paper most concerned in this section with orthodoxy – or perhaps one should say, with enlightened orthodoxy – is R. Muller's on Philip Doddridge, who trod a sometimes slippery path between scholastic confessionalism and more rationalistic ‘liberalism’. It is an informative paper, though to speak of ‘denominational disintegration’ in the period may mislead some into thinking in terms of thus named ecclesiastical inventions of the nineteenth century. I cheerfully forgive Muller for reversing my middle initials, but the repeated addition of an ‘e’ to the Dissenting Samuel Clark's name yields, in the index, an unfortunate conflation with the Anglican Samuel Clarke. In part ii William Gibson adduces evidence to show that in the period following the Toleration Act (1689–1910) the assumption that Anglicans necessarily supported the Tories, and Dissenters the Whigs, is facile. Robert D. Cornwall reveals how a local event, namely, an instance of lay baptism, had ecclesiological (the threat to episcopacy) and international (relations with non-episcopal continental Protestants) implications. D. L. Wykes demonstrates the way in which the repeal of the Occasional Conformity and Schism Acts brought diverse attitudes towards Dissent, toleration and heterodoxy to the fore: indeed, ‘there was a genuine horror of blasphemy, infidelity and the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity’ (p. 168). N. Aston provides an illuminating account of the events surrounding, and the aftermath of, Archbishop William Markham's sermon of 1777 in support of the American War of Independence. Finally, Peter Nockles judiciously assesses the diverse ways in which John Foxe's Acts and monuments was responded to by Anglicans, Protestants and Catholics. This important study shows, among other things, that with changing times and circumstances Foxe was pressed into service by some whose ‘party’ forebears would have shunned him. In passing Nockles reminds us that the burning rubber of ‘popery’ was smelled within the Church of England by Protestants. We might also recall that strongly confessional orthodox Dissenters were likewise accused by some of their heterodox opponents. In the long eighteenth century ‘popery’ was in the eye of the beholder; and it was usually not beautiful.