This article affirms the importance of ecclesiastical polity as a theological–juridical discipline and explores its connection to ecclesiology and church law. It argues that the Anglican Communion, though not itself a church, nevertheless has a lightly structured ecclesiastical polity of its own, mainly embodied in the Instruments of Communion. It warns against short-term, pragmatic tinkering with Church structures, while recognising the need for structural reform from time to time to bring the outward shape of the Church into closer conformity to the nature and mission of the Church of Christ. In discussing Richard Hooker's contention that the Church is a political society, as well as a mystical body, it distinguishes the societal character of Anglican churches from the traditional Roman Catholic conception of the Church as a societas perfecta. In the tradition of Hooker, the role of political philosophy in the articulation of ecclesiology and polity is affirmed as a particular outworking of the theological relationship between nature and grace. The resulting method points to an interdisciplinary project in which ecclesiology, polity and church law, informed by the insights of political philosophy, serve the graced life of the Church in its worship, service and mission.

The freedom of the individual can easily come into conflict with his or her obligation to integrate in society. The case of Belcacemi and Oussar v Belgium provides a good example. It is evident that some restrictions of citizens’ freedoms must be accepted for a state to function and, more basically, persist; as a consequence, it is acceptable that certain demands, incorporated in criminal law, are made of citizens. The issue of the extent to which such restrictions are justified has increasingly become a topic of discussion. The present case raises a number of important questions with respect to the right to wear a full-face veil in public if the societal norm is that the face should be visible, the most salient of which are whether women should be ‘protected’ from unequal treatment against their will and to what extent society may impose values on the individual. I will argue that Belgian law places unwarranted restrictions on citizens and that the values behind it testify to an outlook that is difficult to reconcile with the freedom of conscience and religion.

In the light of the abuse crisis in the Roman Catholic Church, several inquiries have given recommendations on what should be done in the future, to ensure that such crimes are dealt with both civilly and canonically. In 2017, the Royal Commission of Australia produced a number of specific points to be addressed. Two years later, Pope Francis introduced guidelines to be observed universally whenever cases are reported, and these addressed many of the commission's recommendations. A question remains as to whether these have gone too far or far enough.

The Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 lays down the procedures for bringing complaints against the clergy. These procedures can only be commenced in relation to specified acts or omissions and the article explores the difficulties that arise in relation thereto. It not only considers the case when a complaint is one involving doctrine, ritual or ceremonial, but also the overlap between the laws ecclesiastical; neglect or inefficiency in the performance of the duties of a cleric's office; and conduct unbecoming to the office and work of a clerk in holy orders.

Bishop Eric Kemp was a canonist when such practice had yet to become fashionable once more. He was instrumental in the formation of the Ecclesiastical Law Society and served as its President from the creation of the Society until his death on the eve of Advent Sunday in 2009. He was a member of this Journal's Editorial Advisory Board from 1987 until 2002. The first issue of this Journal ran to 34 pages. The only substantive article, taking up more than half of its content, was by Eric Kemp. In celebration of the Silver Jubilee of the Journal and in recognition of its first President's contribution to its establishment and subsequent flourishing, this article is reproduced, lightly updated and annotated by the current Editor, who was pleased and proud to serve as Bishop Kemp's last chancellor in the Diocese of Chichester.1

This article considers some of the controversies that have troubled the Anglican Communion during the past 25 years, and some of the approaches that the Churches and central Instruments of the Communion have used to maintain communion in the face of threatened division. In particular, it looks in detail at the terms of the proposed Anglican Covenant, its provenance and its legal significance. It points out the usefulness of the Covenant as a mechanism for resolving disputes between the Churches of the Communion, but questions the assumption that its adoption as, in effect, a contract between the Churches would of itself turn the Communion into a ‘two-tier’ body, or change in a fundamental way the nature of the relationships between the Churches. Finally, it notes that communion between the Churches of the Anglican Communion, with or without the Covenant, consists (as it always has done) in a wide range of relationships at very many different levels, far beyond the central structures of the Communion as they have developed during the last 150 years.

This paper questions accounts of the English Reformation which, in line with sometimes unacknowledged Anglo-Catholic assumptions, present it as a mere clean-up operation, the creation of a reformed Catholicism which removed medieval excesses but left an essentially Catholic Church of England intact. It argues instead that the Elizabethan reformers intended to establish a Reformed Church which would be part of a Protestant international Church, emphatic in disowning its medieval inheritance and rejecting the religion of Catholic Europe, with formularies, preaching and styles of worship designed to signal and embody that rejection. But Anglican self-identity was never simply or unequivocally Protestant. Lay and clerical conservatives resisted the removal of the remains of the old religion, and vestiges of the Catholic past were embedded like flies in amber in the Prayer Book liturgy, in church buildings, and in the attitudes and memories of many of its Elizabethan personnel. By the early seventeenth century influential figures in the Church of England were seeking to distance themselves from European Protestantism, and instead to portray the Church of England as a conscious via media between Rome and Geneva. In the hands of the Laudians and their followers, this newer interpretation of the Reformation was to prove potent in reshaping the Church of England's self-understanding.

If a person has been duly sworn as a witness in a judicial proceeding, he must answer any relevant question put to him. If he does not do so, he risks being held by the judge to be in contempt of court and punished by being imprisoned or fined. The fact that the witness finds it repugnant to his sense of honour to give an answer which will break a confidence reposed in him by someone else does not excuse him from his duty. The public interest in the disclosure of all matters relevant to a judicial proceeding is regarded as so important that it prevails over any considerations of private honour between individuals. It is simply no answer for a witness to say ‘I was told this in confidence by a person who trusted me to keep his confidence’. This general attitude of English law has obvious and unwelcome implications for clergymen. A priest or clergyman will in the course of his ministry often receive private information from members of his flock, which his priestly duty requires him to keep secret. He might well be obliged to choose between disregarding his priestly duty or suffering legal penalties, which may be severe. Moreover, the prospect of having to submit him to this invidious choice will be repugnant to the judge; and the fact of such a choice being put, and of the clergyman being sent to gaol for doing his duty, is bound to cause dismay in large sections of the public. The possibility of this conflict of church and state actually happening is extremely small, but the fact that it exists at all is dismaying to many persons.

The past year or so has seen a number of incidents where a public service has been disrupted by a group of people seeking to make a point through the attendant publicity. An example occurred in February 1995 when the gay rights group ‘Outrage’ disrupted the enthronement of the Bishop of Guildford. Such an incident inevitably gives rise to questions of law, and this article intends to survey very briefly the law which is particularly applicable in cases where there are disturbances in places of worship. Of course, both the general law concerning public order and the common law relating to breach of the peace also apply as much within churches as without. However, much is written about them elsewhere.

John Witte Jr is a law and religion scholar of the first order. For decades, as the director of the Emory Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Atlanta, he has played a leading part in the development of the field of law and religion globally. He has written prolifically across a wide range of law and religion subjects. He has nurtured and guided a generation of vibrant scholars who will shape the field for decades to come. He has brought important new insights to law and religion that have animated critical and original law and religion thinking. This article introduces aspects of his work. It examines the personal interest of Witte in law and religion, and the influences on his approach to the field, particularly his Christian upbringing and convictions. It explores his rich and robust understanding of law and religion, around notions of the dialectical interaction between the two, the religiosity of secular law, and the juridical character of religion. It also studies Witte as a historian of law and religion – his quest to retrieve, reconstruct and re-engage historical aspects of law and religion so as to address challenges of today, interdisciplinary, international and inter-religious. In all this, Witte provides a work ethic for Christian scholars in this field in terms of stewardship, accessibility and engagement.

Mr Chairman, Vicar General, Worshipful Chancellors, ladies and gentlemen. This is the second time that I have been privileged to address this Society. Three years ago I spoke after a good dinner at Corpus Christi, Cambridge, when members' critical faculties had undoubtedly been dimmed by the College claret! It is quite a different thing to speak to you today on a dull Saturday in the solemn environs of Westminster Cathedral, especially as in 1987 I spoke as a diocesan bishop and today I speak as one of those living in what is euphemistically called “retirement”. It is a demanding way of life in which one lacks the resources and the defences long taken for granted, and of course, it is subject to the changes and chances of British Rail for which I profoundly apologise. I had an unscheduled bus journey of an hour and three quarters round the villages of my former diocese this morning.

Society has historically viewed suicide with hostility and fear. For centuries this hostility was reflected in the English civil law, which condemned suicide as homicide, and in the Church's position towards suicide victims, which historically considered suicide to be a mortal sin. Under the current canon law, set out in Canon B 38, it is the duty of the minister to bury all parishioners, those who die in the parish, or those entered on the electoral roll of the parish according to the rites of the Church of England, except for (among others) those who ‘being of sound mind have laid violent hands upon themselves’. This canon has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years as society's attitudes towards suicide have become more tolerant. As a result, General Synod recently voted that this canon should be amended. This article explores the development of the law relating to suicide victims in order to understand the Church's current position. It then considers the shortcomings of the current canon law and reviews the position adopted by the Roman Catholic and Methodist churches. Finally, it examines the proposals for changing Canon B 38.

‘In Scotland the Church is fortunately in a position of practical independence of the State. Whatever difficulties and hindrances affect the Church in Scotland, and they are many, are more than balanced by the non-interference of the temporal power.’ So wrote Canon Lempriére in 1903, and so it remains. As a result it has adapted to changing circumstances more easily than a body established by law.