Sermons preached by clerics have been largely neglected by scholars as a resource for the study of the history of English ecclesiastical law since the Reformation. Needless to say, scholarship has focused on the substantive and procedural ecclesiastical law found in the ecclesiastical legislation of Parliament, the canons passed by the convocations, the case law of the spiritual and temporal courts and the treatises of the civilian commentators. However, some historians of early modern England have studied the sermons delivered at the Inns of Court; but these studies have little to say about their preachers’ portrayal of the ecclesiastical law and its jurisprudence.1 Nevertheless, as we shall demonstrate, in each century since the Reformation, clergy in their preaching commonly treated legal matters or else used legal materials, including ecclesiastical law. The eighteenth century is no exception – and Thomas Sherlock (1678–1761) is an excellent example, whose function included as Master of the Temple (1704–1753) preaching to the common lawyers of Inner and Middle Temple. What follows deals with his life and career, law in his sermons (including jurisprudential concepts common to both the temporal and the spiritual law), and his legal thought in wider context – all at a time when the law was an inescapable part of the religious landscape, the limits on toleration, the constraints on Roman Catholics, and the provision for occasional conformity.2

Nicaea and the local church culture from which it emerged are examined to reveal that the lower clergy and laity had a distinct role in acclamation. They voted in episcopal elections and enjoyed a more intimate relation with their bishop. These elements of a dispersed authority are then used to critique contemporary governance in the Church of England as under- and over-centralised and to call for a renewal of a Dionysian understanding of hierarchy as enabling a more spiritual understanding both of episcopacy and of the participation of the whole people of God.

This article compares the 20 canons promulgated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 with the canons of the Church of England today. The author identifies a degree of consistency between the two sets of canons, especially when it comes to their treatment of diocesan episcopacy, synodality, metropolitical authority, primatial honour, and supra-metropolitical authority.

This article examines the way in which the canons of Nicaea continue to form part of the living canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church. It addresses how these ancient canons should be interpreted to ensure their relevance, and application, in the contemporary Church. The article concludes by emphasising that the canonical tradition is, in fact, part of the theological reflection of the Orthodox Church.

Juridical ecumenism is a branch of ecclesionomology: the study of church law as a form of applied ecclesiology. It involves the comparative study of the laws and other regulatory entities of different ecclesial traditions and their institutional churches, as well as the practice of church law and ecumenism. It does not seek to replace the historic focus on theology and doctrine in ecumenical dialogue, but rather to remedy the missing legal link in the ecumenical enterprise to date, by using church laws as a rich unifying instrument for greater visible communion between separated institutional churches. One fruit of juridical ecumenism is the issue of the Statement of Principles of Christian Law by an Ecumenical Panel in 2016 and its launch at the 11th Assembly of the World Council of Churches in 2022. Marking the 1700th anniversary of the great Council of Nicaea and its Canons gives us the opportunity to think critically, as an exercise in juridical ecumenism, about continuity and change over the centuries in the nature of church law. We can achieve this by comparing the Statement of Principles of Chistian Law (2016) issued by the Ecumenical Christian Law Panel with the Nicene Canons (325) issued by the first Ecumenical Council. This article explores the similarities and differences between these two juridical entities – in terms of their (1) nature, authority, and reception; (2) subject matter; (3) sources; (4) purposes; and (5) internal structure – and what the Nicene Canons and the Christian Law Principles tell us about these five aspects of church law itself. I conclude with reflections on the value of comparison for the future of juridical ecumenism.

This article examines (1) the contribution of Roman Emperors to the unity and peace of the Church; (2) the contribution of the Church to the constitution of good, even godly, society; and (3) compares the manner in which the patristic Church learnt to navigate these complex relationships with the close association between Monarch, Church and State throughout British history and in the 21st century.

This article explores how some scholars have defined Anglicanism, before examining the institutions that have unified Anglicanism internationally throughout its history. It explores a number of classical statements of authority in Anglicanism, and explores how rapid cultural, liturgical, and demographic change from the 1950s challenged the unspoken assumptions on which these statements rested. These left Anglicanism facing less coherence, just as Global North Anglicanism was losing confidence due to the religious crisis of the 1960s. The article then explores the factors that led to the crisis of 1998 which weakened those institutions, a situation that continues to the present day. Finally, the article offers some thoughts on the future and the enduring, if unfashionable, importance of patriarchs as leaders in churches today.

This article analyses the ongoing relevance of the Canons of Nicaea to our approach to clergy discipline today. The article undertakes a comparative analysis, examining the application of the Nicene canons to church discipline from the perspective of both Eastern and Western traditions. The articles concludes with an overview of the new Clergy Conduct Measure 2025 and identifies areas that warrant further ecumenical study and partnership.

This article examines the origin of and controversies surrounding the Nicene Creed and discusses its limitations as a statement of faith. It points out, for example, that the Creed fails to affirm either the unity of the three persons in one God or even the divinity or personhood of the Spirit. It neither affirms the creation of the world from nothing nor denies that the Son is a creature. The article then seeks to answer the following three questions: (1) why is the Creed so indecisive even on points that were under debate at the Council of Nicaea?; (2) if there was so little that could be defined, what did those who promulgated the Creed hope to accomplish?; and finally (3) where should we look for a trustworthy statement of the ecumenical teaching of the Church on creation, the Trinity and the mission of the Son?