Some ten years on from its first appearance, Colin Buchanan has produced a second edition of his Historical Dictionary of Anglicanism. It is a pretty hefty tome which, including the historical introduction and bibliography, stretches over more than 700 pages. Bishop Buchanan (no harmless drudge he) is well placed to be the author of this compendious work, having served not only as a suffragan bishop in the Church of England and as an elected member of the House of Bishops of the General Synod, but also as a member of various Anglican and ecumenical bodies. In this second edition he has updated the work so that it covers events up to 2014 (and in a few cases into 2015).

In his preface to the first edition (reprinted here), Buchanan confesses to having an angle. This he defends on the basis that ‘In this discipline – as in all other historical disciplines – there is in fact no possibility of a wholly dispassionate history’ (p xiii). That is no doubt true; but it has resulted in some marked eccentricities. The pre-Reformation Western Church is frequently (though not always consistently) referred to as ‘Roman Catholic’. The ‘customary vestments’ allowed by Canon B 8 are referred to as ‘Roman Catholic vestments’. The entry for the ‘Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary’ is almost wholly concerned with disputing Pius IX's definition of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. While Buchanan acknowledges that ‘the nativity of Mary has traditionally been observed on 8 September, so it is not surprising that her conception has been dated to 8 December’ (p 169), he fails to mention that the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary is included, on that date, in the Calendar in the Book of Common Prayer.

The entry for ‘Glorious Revolution’ begins with a statement that would raise an eyebrow with many a historian of the seventeenth century: ‘When King James II inherited the thrones of England and Scotland in 1685 as a Roman Catholic, it was clear that his reign would encounter difficulties’ (p 280). James in fact began his reign with the Crown in a healthy financial position, with a supportive Parliament and with the agitation that had led to the Exclusion Crisis five years earlier having blown itself out. It was James's own ineptitude which resulted in his throwing away those clear advantages.

Buchanan's ‘angle’ becomes crystal-ball gazing (or is it wishful thinking?) in the conclusion to the entry for ‘Provincial episcopal visitor (PEV)’: ‘When the Church of England accepted the ordination of women as bishops, the provisions for meeting the conscience of those who believed women should not be ordained had to be changed, and the PEVs became slowly redundant’ (p 490). The Bishops of Beverley, Ebbsfleet and Richborough might be surprised to learn of this.

Where the author is not grinding his axe there is good material to be found. For anyone who wants a succinct and insightful summary of the history of the Church of South India – and its at times difficult relations with the rest of the Anglican Communion (which are not without contemporary resonance) – Buchanan's entry provides an excellent starting point. There are good entries on suicide, the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church, networks and other Anglican Communion bodies, marriage, and the Crown Nominations Commission. There is now an entry for ‘Ordinariate’ which is not only good and informative but also contains the wry comment in relation to ‘Anglican patrimony’ (which those joining the ordinariates were to bring with them) that it ‘raised much interest, not least because some of those seeking to join an ordinariate had in any case shown little previous affection for Anglican culture or ways of living and ministering’ (p 453).

Turning to the subject with which readers of this Journal will be principally concerned, the Dictionary is regrettably shaky when it comes to matters of ecclesiastical law. The entry for ‘Canon law’ alleges – on grounds which the author keeps to himself – that the case law which acknowledges the continuing effect of parts of the pre-Reformation canon law as part of the ecclesiastical law of the Church of England is ‘drawn upon a disputable hypothesis’ (p 124). According to Buchanan, that hypothesis is ‘that medieval canon law still governs the life of the Church of England except at the points where the statute law (which is sovereign) or the actual canons of 1604 have overridden that code’ (ibid). Quite where Buchanan has found such a hypothesis expounded in the case law is a mystery. Practitioners of ecclesiastical law rely on no such hypothesis but apply what the Court of Arches has recently described as ‘the practical solution which was used by the House of Lords in Bishop of Exeter v Marshall (1868) LR 3 HL 17 when faced with the well known uncertainty of what ecclesiastical law remained in force after the Reformation’, namely whether the relevant pre-Reformation canon law has been ‘recognised, continued and acted upon in England since the Reformation’. If it has, it is ‘received and adopted as part of the law ecclesiastical recognised by the common law’.Footnote ⁷

Other errors include the statement in the entry on ‘Establishment’ that ‘Canon law can only be changed by General Synod under the provisions of a measure’ (p 242). A Measure is needed only if it is proposed to change the Canons in a way which would conflict with statute or common law or the Royal Prerogative; in the absence of such conflict, an amending Canon alone suffices. In the entry on ‘Full communion’ it is stated that ‘Until 1874 … no one ordained outside of England and Ireland could minister within the Church of England itself’ (p 268). Even if England is taken to include Wales, the statement still fails to take account of the fact that those ordained in the Scottish Episcopal Church could minister, and receive preferment, in the Church of England ten years earlier than that. The article on ‘Sanctuary’ does not mention that the common law right of sanctuary has been abolished by statute. ‘Ornaments’ are incorrectly defined in the entry on the ‘Ornaments rubric’.

For the general reader seeking information about the history and continuing life of the Anglican Communion this second edition may be a useful resource. The serious historian or ecclesiastical lawyer is more likely to find aspects of it frustrating (as this reviewer did).