Bill Jacob, a professor of pastoral theology at Lampeter who has previously given us a fine study of the laity in eighteenth-century England, now turns his attention to the clergy. He is himself responsible, as archdeacon of Charing Cross, for the welfare of a body of Anglican clergy, and so it is perhaps appropriate that his study treats their predecessors in the eighteenth century generously. By contrast with Peter Virgin's The Church in an Age of Negligence (Cambridge, 1989), Jacob's book concentrates not on clerical failings but on the virtues of the profession. He considers his subject as an occupational group, suggesting that the clergy constituted the only profession under regular supervision and discipline (although officers in the army probably would have disagreed). The reforms of the nineteenth century, he contends, had been anticipated in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, occasionally by such parliamentary measures as the requirement in 1714 of minimum stipends for curates, although usually without the interposition of parliament. Methods of mission claimed as innovations in the nineteenth century such as the provision of schools and the involvement of the laity had been widely implemented beforehand. Following Jeremy Gregory, Jacob argues that there were no sharply defined ecclesiastical parties. Even those who can legitimately be labeled “latitudinarians” were in general resolutely opposed to heterodoxy. The Church of England was not fractured but a well-ordered unity.

The overall case is supported by an analysis that helpfully takes topics in turn, one per chapter. Beginning with the recruitment and training of his subjects, Jacob shows that there was no shortage of candidates for the ministry. There may have been an increase in the proportion of recruits from the gentry, although the author also hints that this apparent development may have been a consequence of changing nomenclature. Oxford and Cambridge were still the nurseries of the profession, over three-quarters of their graduates in the early eighteenth century being ordained and as many as a half the Cambridge graduates still taking that route in 1830. There was, Jacob concedes, some negligence at the universities, but the education was often good. When the newly ordained became curates, they did not form a despised underclass, as Norman Sykes alleged, but were reasonably paid for their services, which in small parishes were often light. Patronage, the avenue to preferment, operated efficiently because its dispensers behaved responsibly—and, in any case, patronage was universal in eighteenth-century society. Pluralism, the holding of more than one clerical appointment simultaneously, was essential for the alleviation of potential poverty, and nonresidence, the related phenomenon considered scandalous in a later age, was much less common than the figures suggest because any incumbent not occupying the parsonage was considered nonresident even if he lived within or close to the parish. Incomes were normally sufficient and dependence on tithe, a proportion of the agricultural produce of the parish, had the salutary effect of bringing the interests of ministry and laity into harmony. As a result of the improved markets and methods for agriculture, clerical incomes commonly increased by something like 200 percent over the period. Hence, the clergy fitted naturally into the society of the urban elites and the lesser county gentry.

There were few complaints about the conduct of worship, and low attendances at communion may reflect congregations in awe of the sacrament rather than indifference to religious practice. Although bishops might call for more services to be held, they were not always needed: the incumbent of Heythrop, Oxfordshire, was able to report in 1738 that since nearly all the village was owned by Catholics and Baptists, the normal attendance at the single service he provided was two. Parishes were often small, and so apparent idleness by the clergy was a consequence of not having much professional duty to perform. Pastoral visiting was usually carried out conscientiously, and when clergy became justices of the peace, the additional responsibility did not normally compromise their religious role, because both offices were concerned with achieving community reconciliation and combating vice. Parish clergy promoted Christian knowledge by catechizing the young and preaching to their congregations. Sermons were rarely extemporary and could be repeated—in one case, as often as 205 times. Bishops were diligent in watching over their dioceses, being able to supervise affairs at home by letter while attending the House of Lords. Anticlericalism was weak and declining as the century wore on. The clergy were not so much secularized during the period as thoroughly integrated in the socioeconomic life of their communities.

It will be apparent that wherever there is a choice, the evidence is interpreted in a favorable light. While this approach is a welcome redress of earlier treatments such as Virgin’s, it may have gone rather too far. The manuscript sources are largely limited to the diocese of Norwich, and although published works have been carefully trawled to give an overall view, there is much scope for further detailed study in particular localities at specific times. It may well be that the eventual verdict, while less pessimistic than Virgin’s, will be less optimistic than Jacob’s. Meanwhile, however, this book is the best introduction to the Church of England as it functioned during the long eighteenth century that we have.