This is a splendidly produced volume that lives up to the high standards scholars have come to expect from Oxford University Press, and is comprised of forty-two essays by a panel of judiciously chosen scholars, internationally recognised for their respective expertise. The reader who works through the entire volume will gain access to a vast amount of insight and perspective on the evolution of Methodism; however, one will also come away with quite a mixed perspective – reflective of the nature of such a volume, written by forty-two different scholars who span three generations of scholarly influence. While none of the essays are hagiographic, some speak in more appreciative tones with regard to the historical and theological issues. Some essays give insight into the doctrinal distinctives, others skate along methodological lines without engaging in a sustained way the doctrine under investigation.

The opening essay, ‘The Eighteenth-Century Context’ stands out as a combination of fine historical research mixed with diminutive theological opinion that seem to be irrelevant to the essay's essential lines of thought, as well as contrary to a portion of literature that the author recommends and cites. Clark is certainly correct that ‘since 1965, our understanding of eighteenth-century Britain has greatly developed . . . [because] Anglicanism itself has been reassessed in its pastoral and intellectual effectiveness’ (p. 4). This means that seeing Methodism as the spiritual saviour of England or the rescuer from revolution will simply no longer do. Right on; however, what is one to make of a pronouncement like, ‘Wesley, indeed, had no real doctrine of the church’ (p. 17)? Wesley was an Anglican overseeing a renewal movement. His ecclesiology was Anglican. Also, it is curious that Clark chastises John Wesley for accepting the enthusiastic preacher, Thomas Maxfield, conveniently ignoring, or perhaps not knowing, the context of Wesley's acceptance of him (admonition from his mother!), and then fails to note that Wesley did expel Maxfield in the 1760s (a fact noted by Abraham, p. 591). Or what is one to make of Clark's pronouncement about Methodism's growth (following John Kent's minatory opinions, Wesley and the Wesleyans, 2002): ‘These were not impressive numbers’? Referencing a start date of 1738, Wesley's ‘heart-warming experience’ date, a date six years prior to the first Annual Conference of Methodist preachers, and ending his calculations at 1767, he concludes that 45,995 is not impressive; whereas Heitzenrater (p. 43) notes that by 1791, ‘The British Methodist movement had 72,476 members, an average annual increase of about 2,000 members during the previous twenty years (more rapid growth than during the first thirty years)’. Heitzenrater also notes that during the decade in which Wesley died (1791), British Methodism alone ‘passed 100,000 well before the turn of the century’ (pp. 48–9). Is it necessary for a historian to pronounce judgement on whether numbers are impressive or unimpressive? The historian might be better served to ask: what are we to make of a religious movement that grew from less than a dozen laymen and preachers in Annual Conference in 1744 to over 100,000 in the span of fifty years?; Was there another religious movement in Britain that grew 10,000-fold in the span of a half century? The great strengths of Clark's historical essay would stand on firmer ground without minatory opinion.

In many ways the rest of the historical essays are methodologically rigorous without engaging in negative judgement beyond their pale, appreciative without being hagiographic. The same is true for the essays which engage doctrinal issues. Methodism has some doctrinal distinctives which require nuanced perspective and the editors have wisely chosen scholars who are thoroughly familiar with the issues. This wisdom makes the essay by William Abraham on ‘Christian Perfection’ all the more curious. Early on he makes an aside, ‘The breakaway groups that came into existence . . . to preserve it [Christian perfection], most notably the Church of the Nazarene, are now in the process of abandoning it’ (p. 587). His single source for this opinion notwithstanding, the preponderance of scholarly opinion on this is more likely to be that the Nazarenes are moving away from a truncated version of Phoebe Palmer's ‘altar psychology’ by which entire sanctification was reified into an experience to be grasped (cf. pp. 398–412, ‘The Quest for Holiness’). Abraham's essay is a methodological tour de force with regard to the problematic of defining Christian perfection. It is clear that Abraham is appreciative of the biblical and theological warrants for Godliness – ‘The doctrine of Christian perfection is central to the faith of the church in the first millennium . . .’ (pp. 597–8) – but if the reader is looking to find what Wesley believed and taught with any degree of specificity about ‘going on to perfection’, one is likely to be disappointed. Abraham is most certainly correct when he asserts ‘The shift from a theocentric to an anthropocentric vision can happen in the twinkling of an eye’ (pp. 593–4). The quick result is the rise of legalism. But what does Abraham mean when, without a scholarly reference to cite or a single explanatory comment, he asserts: ‘And it happened in Wesley's own canonical sermons . . .’ (p. 594)?

In a tome of this size it is easy for the specialist to find nits to pick; however, it does not take away from the fact that this is a monumental work which deserves broad distribution and a wide readership. Kirby and Abraham deserve praise for this comprehensive collection of essays.