Social network analysis has been established as a method of historical research for a considerable number of years. The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods enables social structures to be visualised and the activities of individual actors to be better understood. This study explores the extent to which social network analysis can be applied to a specific field of Reformation history, namely the opponents of Martin Luther and the Reformation. Examining the case of Johannes Cochlaeus, it is demonstrated that the availability of sources has a pivotal role in determining the informative value of network analyses. Furthermore, it is revealed that actors who have seldom been given due consideration find their place within the social network of Luther's opponents.
This paper examines the theology of John Boys, clergyman and Jacobean English postiller, concerning Christ's descent into hell. The Reformation debate on the descensus partially coincided with the development of the doctrine of the two states, and it is often assumed that Lutheran theologians nearly unanimously assigned a victorious descent into hell to the period of Christ's exaltation against the Reformed, who followed Calvin in allocating the descensus to his humiliation. However, examining John Boys's theology on the descent within the context of the wider development of the doctrine of Christ's descent into hell, I show that Boys provides an example of a Reformed theologian who places Christ's descent into hell within the state of exaltation. This bolsters the view of some historians who have argued that there were surprising intra-confessional differences in positions on the descensus.
Where and when did Reformed theologians first debate the imputed active obedience of Christ (IAOC)? Through previously overlooked correspondence, this article establishes that Reformed discourse on IAOC originated in spring 1565 when Heidelberg theologians Zacharias Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus favourably received Georg Karg's propositions, prompting concern from Heinrich Bullinger and Theodore Beza about potential division. The study documents how Reformed authorities resolved this controversy by 1570, designating the IAOC as adiaphora - permitting both pro - and contra-IAOC positions among the Reformed. This resolution, advocated particularly by Ursinus and Bullinger, prioritised ecclesial unity over doctrinal precision. The findings upend narratives of an early Reformed consensus on the IAOC, revealing instead theological diversity from the doctrine's inception. The article provides a chronological anchor for understanding early Reformed orthodox development and demonstrates the conscious coexistence of divergent views on the IAOC.
