Doctrines are not simply inert, impotent ideas that are either accepted as truth or not. They can also function as identity markers for both an individual and a group and allow boundaries between groups to be established and recognized. In this book Joel Houston, who is Assistant Professor of Theology at Briercrest College and Seminary in Saskatchewan, Canada, and an Associate Fellow of the Manchester Wesley Research Centre, takes this crucial insight and uses it to analyse a key issue in the history of early Methodism and in the relationship between John (and Charles) Wesley and George Whitefield. This means that he analyses not only the different ways in which both men proclaimed ‘Free Grace’, but also how their own histories influenced their theology and the effect this difference of understanding had during the years when John Wesley increasingly stamped his authority on the early Methodist societies and movement, often to the detriment of both Whitefield and the relationship between the two.The book straddles the boundary between history and theology and one of its strengths is that it takes both equally seriously. The reader is led with a sure hand through the earlier history of both the doctrine of predestination and the Arminian challenge to the doctrine. Some of the language is therefore unavoidably highly technical, but the difference between, for example, supralapsarianism, infralapsarianism, and sublapsarianism is carefully explained, as is, to give another example, the role of foreknowledge in the theology of Arminius. Some readers may find such discussions abstract, but they are vital background for one of Houston's arguments—that both Wesley and Whitefield failed to understand the nuances of each other's positions and therefore talked past each other and made assumptions about the logical outcomes of the other's theology, which did not hold true.From this foundation, Houston is able to cast new light on Wesley's actions in 1739–40, when he rose to a position of leadership in the circles of Methodism with surprising rapidity. Ignoring Whitefield's plea to avoid public disputing over the issue, Wesley argued that he was being divinely led to do the exact opposite; he preached and he published (particularly the sermon ‘Free Grace’) and he even expelled those who held the doctrine of predestination from some societies (on the charge of causing dissension). The result was that when Whitefield returned to England in 1741, he found Wesley firmly established as a if not the leader of English Methodism. Houston goes on to argue that when the controversy appeared to subside, the cause, once again, was not simply theological or even personal but was also rooted in issues of organization and influence.It is a pleasure to recommend this book to all who work, or have an interest, in the field of early Methodism. It is well argued throughout and throws new light upon a well-known issue. There is an excellent analysis of Wesley's sermon on ‘Free Grace’ and Whitefield's response and it is scrupulously even-handed in the way that both men and their theological perspectives are presented. The central argument is persuasive and illuminating and potentially of interest to any historian concerned with the issue of how doctrines operate and shape both individuals and communities.