on such admittedly debatable and difficult matters as the number of preachers, pluralists, nonresidents, and impropriators? The contemporary figures besides their arithmetical faults are manifestly incomplete. A paper in Additional MSS. 14289, f. 115-123, for instance, which purports to give the number of benefices which the King controlled, sets the total number of cures in the diocese of Lincoln at 328, which we know to be only a portion of the whole, so that its figure of benefices under royal control must necessarily be wrong. Another paper allots the King 29 benefices for all England. While these are extreme illustrations, they by no means stand alone. Quite as troublesome and perplexing is the general lack of dates for all these papers of statistics. Nor can they be dated by the usual recourse to Le Neve, Henessey, or Foster. As Le Neve includes only the higher clergy, as Henessey and Newcourt are limited to the diocese of London, while Foster and Cooper have to do only with collegians, all are manifestly of small value for dating lists of purely parochial clergy, for lists in all dioceses except London, and for men of whom the great majority never saw either university. There are other more cogent objections to most of these lists, which, if prima facie accurate, would have still to be used with great care. Some lists cover the dioceses, others concern only counties, and, as is self evident, the two by no means coincide. What, too, was meant by a parish, any benefice with cure of souls; any to which a right of presentation existed and to which a stipend was attached; every one which was served by a separate clergyman, with the omission from the count of all cures held in plurality, of those legally united or merged, and of all vacant cures? In other words, are we counting men or positions, and in the former case do all situations in the Church count as benefices-curacies, lectureships, readerships, private chaplaincies, licensed preachers without fixed abode, and so on. Are the cathedral clergy and episcopal officers counted or not where the comparative statistics of learned and ignorant men are given? Are their incomes also reckoned in the general total of the diocese? Does a rector holding two benefices count as two men or as one? The Bishop of Llandaff and the Bishop of Rochester both held some eight or ten rectories in commendam: do their qualifications appear in the statistics or are those of their curates given? We read statements of ecclesiastical incomes, and are usually not sure whether the gross or net income is before us. Probably we may safely assume in most cases that, unless something is said to the contrary, it is the gross income, but we would rather know than be forced to guess. With some few exceptions, the whole of this material has been rejected as worthless and misleading. From its statements anything at all can be "proved" about the condition of the Church and of the clergy. It supports both sides of nearly every argument with nearly an equal amount of material. No doubt some of it was produced by controversialists on purpose to mislead the other party, but the efficient cause of most of these hideous blunders lay in ignorance of the simplest processes of arithmetic. Of the documents left after these sweeping conclusions, the statements of bishops and other clergy to the Privy Council or to the archbishop seem always more trustworthy in regard to the state of Church and clergy than the complaints of either Puritan or Catholic. The bishop was no doubt a prejudiced witness in favour of the Church, but é fortiori the Puritans and Catholics were prejudiced against it. If we never accept any testimony except that of a man unlikely to be prejudiced, we shall have very little indeed to work with, for every contemporary might have been and usually was prejudiced on one side or the other. bishop, however, was certainly in a position to know the facts, and, whatever the eagerness of Puritans and Catholics to tell all they knew, we have as yet to demonstrate that they knew anything to tell, or had even reasonably good opportunities for acquiring any information, supposing that they sought diligently for it. Moreover, the bishop's reports to the Privy Council or to the archbishop for transmission to the Privy Council were probably as accurate as he could make them; that body rewarded mendacity and concealment with severe and speedy punishment. The bishop's clergy lists and consignation books may be wrong, and they are certainly in many ways incomplete and fragmentary, but he was the person who should have known, and, whatever their shortcomings, his records are the best evidence we possess. From them, then, the figures and tables cited in the text have been for the most part compiled. Those who wish to verify the present writer's results should bear in mind that few people who are re quired to fit into a few fixed categories a very large number of individual cases, will spontaneously adopt precisely the same classification, and that therefore a slight variation in the count must be expected. In going through page after page of musty paper books closely covered with semi-illegible writing, it is easy to skip an entry, and the writer fears, that despite his care, certain minor inaccuracies have crept in. The general result, however, he ventures to believe will stand. After all, in so difficult a question as the condition of any institution in the sixteenth century, it may well be doubted whether the past has left us any records that will yield after any amount of work and study, more than comparatively general and confessedly incomplete approximations of the truth. SPARROW, ANTHONY. b. Printed Books A COLLECTION OF ARTICLES, INJUNCTIONS, CAN ONS. WITH OTHER PUBLICK RECORDS OF THE CHURCH OF . London, 1661, 4°; 1671, 4°; 1675, 4°; 1684, 4°. A remarkable work at the time it was made, it has been largely superceded by Wilkins and Cardwell. WILKINS, DAVID. CONCILIA MAGNAE BRITANNIAE ET HIBERNIAE A KINS, S. T. P., Archidiacono Suffolciensi, et Canonico Londoni, 1738. folio. This remarkable work is composed wholly of documents, most of which have been taken from the Archiepiscopal Registers at Lambeth. He also used Spelman's and Sparrow's collections, and Strype's Works which had just appeared. He had some manuscript material, chiefly from Sancroft's MSS. in the Bodleian, and also manuscript notes of Milo Smith on the sessions of Convocation which are invaluable since the loss of the Register of debates in that body. The work has been very carefully done, and although the spelling has been often modernised, the documents have been very accurately printed. A comparison with the Registers of Whitgift and Bancroft shows that nothing material has been omitted. In fact, the book is as nearly trustworthy as any book of that stamp can ever be. It does not contain, however, by any means a complete set of documents for any period of any sort, least of all for the period 1583-1610. CARDWELL, EDWARD. DOCUMENTARY ANNALS OF THE REFORMED CHURCH OF ENGLAND BEING A COLLECTION OF INJUNCTIONS, DECLARATIONS, ORDERS, ARTICLES OF INQUIRY, ETC. FROM THE YEAR 1546 TO THE YEAR 1716. WITH NOTES HISTORICAL AND EXPLANATORY. Two volumes, Oxford, 1839, 8°. SYNODALIA. A COLLECTION OF ARTICLES OF RELIGION, CAN- OF CANTERBURY FROM THE YEAR 1547 TO THE YEAR 1717, WITH NOTES. 2 volumes. Oxford, 1842. 8°. A HISTORY OF CONFERENCES AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS CON- Oxford, 1840. 8°. The size and expense of Wilkins's book militated against its usefulness. Cardwell reprinted much the same material, with some additions, in smaller volumes. He reprinted some further material from Strype and Fuller, and added still more from manuscript. On the whole his books are all well done and are extremely useful. DAVEY, W. H. ARTICULI ECCLESIAE ANGLICANAE, OR THE SEVERAL EDITIONS OF THE ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AS AGREED UPON IN CONVOCATION AND SET FORTH BY ROYAL AUTHORITY DURING THE REIGNS OF KING EDWARD VI AND QUEEN ELIZABETH, ARRANGED IN ONE COMPARATIVE VIEW. London, 1861. COLLINS, W. C. CANONS OF 1571 IN ENGLISH AND LATIN, WITH NOTES. Publications of the Church Historical Society, no. 40. London, 1889. The notes are meagre and not very valuable. THE ORDERS OF 1586. A bibliography of these Orders is in Gorham, Reformation THE CANONS OF 1604. EDITIONS: 1604, in English and in Latin; 1612; 1616; 1628; 1633; 1662; 1665; 1673; 1676; 1678; 1683. 1869. With historical introduction and notes critical and explanatory, by Rev. C. H. Davis. The notes relate rather to the later history of the Canons than to their origin; lack comprehensiveness, and are not really explanatory of either legal or constitutional difficulties. 1874. The Constitutions of the Church of England referred to their original sources and illustrated with explanatory notes, by E. C. W. Mackenzie. He has not been careful to draw the line between what is really precedent and what is merely an example of a similar sort of regulation. Some of his comparisons are over ingenious and unconvincing. Like that of Mr. Davis, his work is rather superficial. JOYCE, J. W. ACTS OF THE CHURCH, 1531-1885. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND HER OWN REFORMER, AS TESTIFIED BY THE RECORDS OF HER CONVOCATIONS. WITH APPENDIX CONTAINING LEGAL INSTRUMENTS ANCIENT AND MODERN. London, 1886. ENGLAND'S SACRED SYNODS. A CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE CONVOCATIONS OF THE CLERGY. London, 1855. LATHBURY, THOMAS. HISTORY OF CONVOCATION TO 1742. First edition, London, 1842. Second edition, London, 1853. |