The word Canon means a rule or norm and it was used at quite an early stage of the Church's history to denote both general principles governing the life of the Christian society and particular enactments of Christian assemblies. The subject matter of the canons is as wide as the life of the Church itself and consequently very varied in its nature. At one end of its range it is concerned with matters fundamental to the Church's existence such as the creeds and sacraments. At the other it deals with practical arrangements such as the ownership and use of buildings. At a recent conference with German Lutherans I was asked whether the canon law was jus divinum or jus humanum, and I felt bound to reply. ‘Both’, because of this wide range which stretches from revelation to convenience.

Given the prominence accorded to doctrinal authority in the earlier canon law, it is natural that most famous canonists achieved their fame through their writings. Although the leading writers were often also judges and men of affairs, it was possible to lead an active life in the practice of the canon law without leaving any identifiable mark on history. To this general principle Bishop Bateman constitutes a remarkable exception: distinguished judge, leading figure in the Curia at Avignon, and patron of legal studies in Cambridge, he left several marks on history which entitle him, though not known as a writer, to be classed with the greatest English canon lawyers.

The faculty jurisdiction of the Church of England is the core of what remains as a distinctive system of Church Law in England. It serves inter alia to safeguard the national heritage of parish churches and it is the reason why ecclesiastical buildings in use generally are immune from listed building control under secular planning law. The faculty jurisdiction still provides a model for regulating the conservation of buildings of historic and aesthetic interest and their contents which can be compared favourably with listed building control.

The subject of our second essay provides an interesting contrast with Bishop Bateman: equally learned in the law, he chose the humble life of a parish priest rather than the authority of judicial or episcopal office or the bustle of Avignon. Despite the distinction of his writing, none of his larger works have ever been printed in full, and he was widely forgotten in the age of the printing press. His position as a major canonist is largely the consequence of a modern rediscovery by Fr Boyle, O.P., on whose work this essay is based.