The Pseudo-Clementines contain a lengthy debate about astrology that stands in some literary relationship to Bardaisan's writings. Connections with earlier works are important, but the Recognitions' fourth-century Syrian context – much neglected by earlier scholarship – reveals why it devotes such a large amount of narrative space to a dialogue about astrology, fate and free will. This article argues that such material is more than just a remnant of the past carelessly appropriated by the Pseudo-Clementines. Astrology plays a crucial role in the Recognitions' polemical agenda, which reflects a complex rivalry between several groups in fourth-century Syria.

In the thirteenth century Dominican theologians studying and teaching at the University of Paris began to debate how Christ experienced physical pain during his crucifixion. Drawing upon patristic arguments these considerations culminated in the conclusions of Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas that Christ's physical pain was the most severe that had ever been experienced in the history of humanity. The reasons for Dominican concern to emphasise the unique severity of Christ's pain are complex and not always complimentary. The debate can be understood as part of the high medieval revival of interest in humanity and human achievement, but it can also be read as a challenge to Cathar beliefs and as a form of resistance to increasingly popular modes of affective piety.

The statutes of the Gilbertine order, established by Gilbert of Sempringham in the second half of the twelfth century, underwent modification during the following century as a consequence of two legatine visitations, in 1238 and 1267. This paper examines these new regulations in the context of growing episcopal concern for the internal discipline of nunneries and considers the possible inter-relationships between the ‘self-regulating’ and internally-disciplined Gilbertine order and the synodal legislation of reforming bishops and their episcopal visitation of non-Gilbertine nunneries, particularly in Yorkshire. It suggests that the visitation by Ottobuono Fieschi of the Gilbertines in 1267 and his legatine council of London in 1268 informed the outcomes of both, leading to a convergence of Gilbertine legislation with the wider legislation that applied to all nunneries.

The events of 1688–9 forced English clergy to re-examine their understanding of the Divine Right of Kings. One solution was to distinguish between de facto and de iure kingship and maintain dual loyalty to James and William. Another involved shifting from ‘legitimist’ arguments towards a more immediate view of Providence. William Sherlock expounded both positions between 1689 and 1690. This article uses under-utilised manuscripts to show how, why and when his thought moved away from de iure and towards de facto expressions of Divine Right and hence became a cause célèbre for the Orange regime and a nightmare for the non-jurors.

The question in 1898 of the recognition by Cambridge University of St Edmund's House, a Roman Catholic foundation, might initially seem to involve questions irrelevant in the modern university. It can, however, be seen to raise issues concerning modernity, the place of religion in the university and the role of the university itself. This article therefore sets this incident in university history in wider terms and examines the ways in which the recognition of St Edmund's House was a chapter in the history of liberalism, in the history of Roman Catholicism, in the history of education and in the history of secularism.