The Ecclesiastical Law Society is rightly promoting afresh the study of ecclesiastical law. In the case of the Church of England, the sources of ecclesiastical law are three-fold: case-law, statutes (and Measures made thereunder) and the Canons of the Church of England. These are the formal sources for identifying and expounding (Anglican) ecclesiastical law. The sources qua sources may not be the subject of debate; the debate may only be as to the interpretation of the contents of the sources and whether the sources should be amended. This approach to determining the substantive content of ecclesiastical law reflects the positivist approach to law, such as Bentham, Austin and Hart have set out.

Although much of the business of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland relates to legislation and debates of reports from committees, unlike the synods of episcopal churches the General Assembly is also a court, with exclusive jurisdiction in ‘matters spiritual’. However, under the terms of Act III 2001, as amended, disciplinary matters are investigated by a Presbyterial Commission and, in disputed cases, ultimately come before the Assembly's Judicial Commission. Cases before the General Assembly were once quite common; but for the 2009 Assembly to find themselves hearing a judicial dispute was very unusual indeed.

I was asked by the Society to provide an introduction to current historical thinking about the English Reformation in the first talk to the 1995 Conference. The ensuing lecture was deliberately intended to provide guidance through the minefield of controversy about the success of Reformation for those with only limited knowledge of sixteenth-century history. Debates about the Reformation have always been of obvious importance to both theologians and historians: they have usually in the past been profoundly influenced by confessional ideologies. In the last thirty years the nature of the questions asked about Reformation has undergone marked change: specifically the issue of popular religious belief and practice has assumed a centrality it never before possessed. But new questions have not brought closer agreement on the nature of religious change, and in recent years fierce debate has continued to rage on such issues as the vitality of late medieval Catholicism, the popularity of the early reformers and the motives of Henry VIII and his successors. Some, at least, of these controversies are still bound up with Protestant, Catholic and Anglican identities in the late twentieth century. Since the continuities between past and present were the theme of last year's Conference, I have touched on these identities, but have left it to others, especially Dr Rowell and Dr Rex to make these connections more explicit.

The European Consortium for Church and State Research was established in 1989 and has its headquarters at the Istitutio di Diritto Internazionale of the University of Milan. Professor David McClean. who since its inception has occupied the place reserved for the United Kingdom, set out the background to the formation of the Consortium in his paper, European perspectives on Ecclesiastical Law and Religious Education (1990) 2 Ecc LJ 23–27. Since then the Consortium has met annually and considered a broad range of subjects concerning relations between states and relirious denominations in Europe from a historical, political and, particularly, juridical point of view. Its web page may be viewed at www.uni-trier.de/eurocon/. Professor Norman Doe was elected to the Consortium two years ago. having been involved in its affairs for some years. I was invited to attend the sessions in Reggio Calabria (1998), in Strasbourg (1999) and. most recently, in Vienna last November.

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) returned to the test of individual sincerity for determining whether there has been an infringement of freedom of religion pursuant to section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) in SL c Commission scolaire des Chênes. Sincerity of belief or in practice as necessary for religious expression on the part of a complainant has been accepted from some of the earliest Charter cases as the triggering requirement for a section 2(a) claim, and, in itself, sufficient to establish a claim which a court must then balance against conflicting claims pursuant to section 1 (‘reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society’) or section 15 (equality rights). In SL, the court confirmed that mere sincerity is no longer sufficient and that an objective burden of proof now rests on a claimant to show how a state-sanctioned requirement infringes the fundamental right to freedom of religion before competing claims will be assessed. In SL, the court found that the complainants had failed to show how a religious education course mandated for all students without exception by the Government of Quebec interfered with what they argued was their religious freedom as Roman Catholic parents to pass on their faith to their children. This result has also been interpreted to mean that the state has a right prior to parental rights in the religious formation of their own children, and, on this reading, has been highly controversial. The court's new formulation of a sincerity test may be of interest elsewhere. The earlier formulation in Syndicat Northcrest v Anselem was adopted by the House of Lords in R (Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and the subsequent spread of its use has since been subject to consideration in England.

In October 2015 the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that the Government would bring forward an amendment to the Scotland Bill at consideration stage in the Commons to devolve responsibility for abortion law to the Scottish Parliament. It duly did so: see clause 50 of the Lords Bill as brought from the Commons. At the time of writing the Bill was being considered in the Lords.

The European Court of Human Rights has adopted a narrow and restrictive approach to the protection of religious freedoms which is inconsistent with some of its own judgments about the importance of religious freedoms. This narrow and restrictive approach has necessarily influenced the approach of the Courts in England and Wales, and the approach is not supportable on any principled grounds. This article examines what has gone wrong, and makes some suggestions for the future.

It is by no means uncommon in the present day for proposals to be put forward for the re-ordering of a church in order to enable part of the building to be used for what might be described as secular purposes. In some instances this might mean the nave having all fixed furniture removed so that it could be used as a hall, or as part of the church when required. Sometimes rooms are created in part of the building, perhaps in the tower or close to the entrance. Sometimes a great deal of space can be found in a crypt.

Same-sex marriage is legal or likely to be legalised in many Western nations. One important safeguard invariably incorporated in the legislation providing for same-sex marriage has been an exemption for religious ministers who object to solemnising such marriages. Another category of potential objectors consists of marriage registrars, commissioners or celebrants employed or appointed by the state. By contrast, an accommodation grounded in the right of religious freedom and conscience for these governmental celebrants has not been granted. This article examines the introduction of same-sex marriage in three jurisdictions – England and Wales, New Zealand and Canada. It analyses the precise ambit of the exemption for religious celebrants, considers the vulnerability of such exemptions to future legal challenge and questions the validity of denying free exercise accommodation to state-appointed celebrants.

Bob Morris' comment on the Succession to the Crown Bill invites the Church of England to ‘fresh, bound-breaking’ thinking about Church of England establishment in light of the role of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and the statutory obligation for the Sovereign to maintain communion with the Church of England. Along with other writers he argues that, in effect, this leaves us with religious freedom in the UK but not religious equality. I hope that Morris' challenge will stimulate such fresh thought – my response is not yet this but concerns another matter that he raises in relation to Roman Catholic marriages. He repeats concern in both Houses of Parliament that children of ‘mixed marriages’ are obliged to be brought up as Roman Catholics, and he correctly questions the extent of such an absolute obligation contra an article in the Catholic Herald.

The 2018 G20 Interfaith Forum took place 26–28 September 2018 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. This was the fifth annual event in a series of G20 interfaith fora held to coincide with the meetings of the international Group of Twenty Economic Summit. This year's G20 Summit will take place in Buenos Aires, from 30 November to 1 December. Previous interfaith fora have been held in Gold Coast, Australia (2014), Istanbul, Turkey (2015), Beijing, China (2016) and Potsdam, Germany (2017).