Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. The Journal of Ecclesiastical History
  4. Content listing
Journal Home

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals: Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies: Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

15613 results in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History

Page 630 of 781

  • St. Anselm and St. Bruno of Segni: The Common Ground

  • Gillian R. Evans
  • Journal:
    The Journal of Ecclesiastical History / Volume 29 / Issue 2 / April 1978
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    25 March 2011, pp. 129-144
    Print publication:
    April 1978

  • Thirty years ago, J. de Ghellinck suggested that an examination of the thought of St. Bruno, bishop of Segni, might reveal some parallels with the thought of St. Anselm. More recently, R. Gregoire has explored the notion in his study of St. Bruno. He concedes that some similarities are noticeable, particularly in the conservative monastic attitude which both Bruno and Anselm display towards the theologian's task. But he questions the worthwhileness of any attempt to compare the two on two grounds. First, diere is some question as to the authenticity of one of the works attributed to Bruno, whose thought most closely resembles that of Anselm's treatises. And secondly, he finds insufficient grounds for believing that Bruno can have borrowed from Anselm in composing this piece—even if it is, indeed, his; there are demonstrably other possible sources of their common ideas. If de Ghellinck had in mind any such direct borrowing, the evidence is certainly most unsatisfactory. But die term he chooses is ‘rapports’. It may be that we are dealing here, even if not always wim works of Bruno himself, with writings which are the product of the contemporary community of thought upon which Anselm himself drew. The interest of the ‘rapports’ which are undoubtedly present would then lie in the evidence they provide as to the climate in which Anselm himself thought and wrote.

  • Repentance and Spiritual Power: Book vi of Richard Hooker's Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity

  • Arthur Stephen McGrade
  • Journal:
    The Journal of Ecclesiastical History / Volume 29 / Issue 2 / April 1978
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    25 March 2011, pp. 163-176
    Print publication:
    April 1978

  • No one doubts that the treatise on repentance published in 1648 as the sixth book of Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity is by Hooker, but there has been considerable doubt that 1648 (as I shall call it) belongs in the Laws. Keble pronounced it ‘an entire deviation from its subject’, which should have been the Disciplinarian proposal that the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction be exercised by congregational lay-elders, while W. Speed Hill concludes his recent detailed discussion of the problems surrounding the posthumous three last books of Hooker's great work by calling on those who would include 1648 in the Laws to argue their case for its inclusion ‘in the face of a substantial body of evidence, internal and external, to the contrary’. The present note is a response on the ‘internal’ side to Professor Hill's call for argument.

Page 630 of 781