Joseph Priestley's contributions to the religious, scientific, political, and intellectual communities were so vast, contend the editors of this volume, that no one author can do them justice. Thus the editors, the co-directors of the Dr. Williams's Centre for Dissenting Studies in London, offer the latest group of essays that purports to collectively provide insight on the breadth of his ideas and contributions that other notable works, which only focus on a single dimension, are unable to provide. There have been three previous similar edited volumes that originated from the same principal, including A. Truman Schwartz and John G. McEvoy's Motion Toward Perfection: The Achievement of Joseph Priestley (Boston: Skinner House, 1990), R. G. W. Anderson and Christopher Lawrence's Science, Medicine and Dissent: Joseph Priestley (1733–1804) (London: Wellcome Trust/Science Museum, 1987), and the much briefer and first entry in the category, Joseph Priestley: Scientist, Theologian, and Metaphysician (Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell University Press, 1980), edited by Lester Kieft and Bennett R. Willeford, Jr. In many ways this latest volume transcends the previous efforts, yet there are still some significant weaknesses that remain, as this volume leaves several important facets of Priestley's life and ideas unexamined, its premise is not fully proven, and the full-scope of the man and his contributions un-illuminated.

The strength of this collection is the degree to which several of the authors apply the principle that Priestley's contributions in the various disciplines were all linked by his prevailing religious views. Alison Kennedy's chapter on the historical perspectives of Priestley examines the educational, religious, and moral dimensions of his contributions through the lens of his historical methodology and insight. Arguing that Priestley as a historical thinker has been either overlooked or misinterpreted, Kennedy ably presents a picture of an ever-changing yet effective model of analysis that is central to a full understanding of the mind and writings of Priestley. Likewise, James Dybikowski's essay on Priestley as a metaphysician is one of the freshest analyses of the inner-workings of Priestley's comingled interests and their application to his religious beliefs. These two essays, coupled with those by Martin Fitzpatrick and G. M. Ditchfield on the political and social elements all create a compelling case for rethinking the importance and legacy of Priestley all while retaining a focus on the central importance given by Priestley himself to his religious beliefs and career as a minister.

The weakest contributions come from Wykes and Jenny Graham. Graham's entry is the most disappointing of the collection. It is heavily redacted from her earlier writings, based almost entirely on the Rutt collection of Priestley's writings which has repeatedly been proven to be seriously flawed and does not examine many of the more recent developments and works on Priestley in America. It also is contrary to the stated purpose of the volume by focusing purely on the political facets of Priestley's years in America, neglecting the religious and social facets. Sadly, it contains several assertions that are demonstrably inaccurate on Priestley's ministerial and educational pursuits in America. For its part, Wykes's essay completely excludes any consideration of Priestley's years in the United States, claiming that he was neither a minister nor teacher during his ten years of “exile” and calling those years, paraphrasing the writings of Robert Scofield, anti-climatic (20, 47–48). As has been shown in more recent writings, both of Wykes's statements are incorrect; Priestley was able to preach in the United States, did work to build two congregations and was the mentor to those who founded several others.

There are several essays in this collection, heretofore mentioned, that make this volume worth reading. It should help shed some new light on Priestley. But the premise of the collection remains flawed. No one scholar has been able to give complete and definitive coverage to Priestley, but the artificial dissection of his life does not fill the void. Only after reading numerous writings can one come to a full understanding of Priestley, and those who are looking to understand him would still be well-served by also reading the broader collection of Schwartz and McEvoy as well as numerous other works. Perhaps it is time scholars admit that Priestley's importance and legacy will remain unwieldy despite our best efforts.