The Provinciale (1430) is among the most significant and long-lived works of English ecclesiastical law. It edited and commented upon the legislation of the Province of Canterbury. This article explores the work's initial dissemination and early readership. It is based on an examination of the surviving manuscripts. The first owners of these manuscripts were almost all secular and religious clergy. Differences in content between the copies show how Lyndwood's work was modified. In particular, his edition became detached from his commentary. The manuscripts also reveal readers’ responses to the work. Marginal annotations indicate the individual, collective and academic ways in which early users engaged. Manuscripts were kept up to date through the addition of new laws, but not consistently or for very long. They continued to be consulted alongside the first printed editions of the work. Study of these manuscripts establishes the wide reception and influence of the Provinciale in pre-Reformation England.

All Christians are called to pray. The daily offering of Morning and Evening Prayer is a particular obligation of the clergy of the Church of England, as part of the ‘manner of life of clerks’ laid down in Canon C 26. However, despite the significant time devoted to these prayers by the clergy on a daily basis, there has been little detailed examination of this canonical obligation. This article explores the historical background to the obligation and its effect today.

This article examines the legal treatment of religious dissent from a comparative perspective, by focusing on the legal evolution from intolerance to toleration, and from toleration to emancipation in France, Italy, Norway and the United Kingdom. Historically, in Europe, only people professing the official religion were regarded as full members of the political community. Those who professed another religion were expelled, persecuted, discriminated or – in the best cases – merely tolerated. Over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, in different degrees and forms according to the country concerned, European states started separating citizenship from religious belonging – a fundamental step in the process of secularisation of law in Europe. This development led to the emancipation of religious dissenters through the recognition of both the principle of equality of all citizens before the law, regardless of one's religion or belief, and the individual right to freedom of religion and belief.

The issue of intra-church property disputes is one that is simultaneously quite old in American history and perhaps of greater relevance now than ever before. Given ever-increasing dissension within Christian church bodies over issues including homosexuality, women's ordination and racial justice, there are currently numerous church property disputes outstanding in the courts, and there are likely to be many more in the near future. From 1871 until 1979, the Supreme Court of the United States consistently took a deferential approach in property cases that involved church bodies with their own authorities and tribunals. When a dispute arose over church doctrine, polity or discipline and a hierarchical church reached its own decisions regarding proper ownership of the church's property, the Supreme Court determined that civil courts should defer to that church's internal decision-making process. The court first created this doctrine as a matter of ‘federal common law’ but in 1952 anchored it in the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment clauses, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. During the mid-twentieth century, the Supreme Court consistently extended the deference standard against any state-level attempts to restrict or circumvent it. However, in the 1979 case of Jones v Wolf the court changed its standard significantly and adopted a ‘neutral principles’ approach, which weighs a church's internal documents and deliberations against property deeds, state property and trust statutes, and other sources, in an attempt to allow secular courts to rule on such cases while avoiding potential First Amendment concerns.

When asked by an expert in the law, ‘And who is my neighbour?’, Jesus answered with the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). This was a radically inclusive answer: your neighbour could be anyone. By contrast, a priest who asks an ecclesiastical lawyer ‘and who is my parishioner?’ may be given a far less clear or satisfying answer.

Over the course of the reigns of the last two Tudors and first three Stuarts – just in excess of a century – the national established Church of England was disestablished twice and re-established twice. Following the return to Rome under Mary, Elizabeth's settlement re-established the English Church under the royal supremacy, set down church doctrine and liturgy, embarked on a reform of canon law and so consolidated an ecclesial polity which many today see as an Anglican via media between papal Rome and Calvinist Geneva. However, as a compromise, the settlement contained in itself seeds of discord: it outlawed Roman reconciliation and recusancy; it extended lay and clerical discipline by the use of ecclesiastical commissioners; and it drove Puritans to agitate for reform on Presbyterian lines. While James I continued Elizabeth's policy, disappointing both Puritans and Papists, Charles I married a Roman Catholic, sought to impose a prayer book on Calvinist Scotland, asserted divine-right monarchy, engaged in an 11-year personal rule without Parliament and favoured Arminian clergy. With these and other disputes between Crown and Parliament, civil war ensued, a directory of worship replaced the prayer book, episcopacy and monarchy were abolished and a Puritan-style republic was instituted. The republic failed, and in 1660 monarchy was restored, the Church of England was re-established and a limited form of religious toleration was introduced under the Clarendon Code. In all these upheavals, understandings of the nature, source and authority of human law, civil and ecclesiastical, were the subject of claim and counter-claim. Enter Robert Sanderson: a life begun under Elizabeth and ended under Charles II, a protagonist who felt the burdens and benefits of the age, Professor of Divinity at Oxford and later Bishop of Lincoln, and a clerical-jurist who thought deeply on the nature of human law and its place in a cosmic legal order – so much so, he may be compared with three of his great contemporaries: the lawyer Matthew Hale (1609–1676), the cleric Jeremy Taylor (1613–1667) and the philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1678).

This report covers the groups of sessions held in April and July 2021. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, General Synod did not meet formally in February.

The General Assembly of the Church met in a ‘blended’ form, based at the Assembly Hall, from 22 May to 27 May. The Moderator on this occasion was an elder, rather than a minister, but with the distinction of being Lord Wallace of Tankerness PC QC FRSE, a Liberal Democrat life peer since 2007, who served as the Deputy First Minister of Scotland from 1999 to 2005. He was formerly Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats from 1992 to 2005 and of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords from 2013 to 2016. He also served as a Member of Parliament for Orkney and Shetland from 1983 to 2001 and a Member of the Scottish Parliament for Orkney from 1999 to 2007. He was Advocate General for Scotland in the Westminster Government from 2010 to 2015.

The General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church (SEC) met in virtual form on 10 and 11 June 2021. In his charge to Synod, the Most Rev'd Dr Mark Strange, Primus, encouraged Synod members not to place their light under a bushel. The COVID-19 pandemic had denied people opportunities normally available to them to make their light shine and, at times, the bushel had felt very close. He reminded Synod members that in the valley of the shadow of death one need fear no evil. The evils of child poverty, the plight of refugees and unwarranted attacks on individuals in the public eye were all current evils to be confronted. Despite everything, the place of quiet waters and the comfort of the Shepherd's rod and staff still brought hope and joy, even in a pandemic.

Though public policy continued to be dominated by the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions began to ease as the vaccine rollout progressed. The volume of secondary legislation barely slackened, however, and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny was a cause of concern both to academic commentators and to parliamentarians. On 10 June, the House of Lords Constitution Committee published its third and final report on the constitutional implications of coronavirus and was clearly very unhappy with the course of events: ‘The Government has introduced a large volume of new legislation, much of it transforming everyday life and introducing unprecedented restrictions on ordinary activities. Yet parliamentary oversight of these significant policy decisions has been extremely limited.’