Sunday, September 13, 2026

The Reformation's Continuity With Earlier History

We've written a lot over the years about the Reformation's deepest roots, such as the Biblical and patristic ones. I want to quote John Davis concerning some examples of roots in the late medieval era, including among some individuals and groups who survived until the time of the Reformation.

His comments are relevant to a couple of controversies that have been getting a lot of attention in conservative Protestant circles in recent weeks. One of Joe Schmid's videos discussing his conversion to Roman Catholicism refers to how Protestantism supposedly "comes out of nowhere". Some of the responses to Gavin Ortlund's recent video on prayer to saints have suggested that nobody opposed the practice early on or that only Gnostics or similar sources did so. I've given many examples of church fathers and other pre-Reformation sources who were much more credible than Gnostics and agreed with Protestants in opposing prayer to saints and angels. See here. Since this post is focused on late medieval sources, see my discussions of the Waldensians here, the Lollards here, and the Hussites here. I'll be saying more about issues like these later this year, but, for now, here are some of Davis' comments:

"As more evidence comes to light, it appears that English Protestantism first flowered in areas having heterodox traditions [Lollards, etc.]. In the eighteenth century the Revd. John Lewis collected material for his Brief History of the English Anabaptists which included evidence of the Kentish and Norfolk sects, finding 'the Religion of the Protestants no Novelty'. Dr. Collinson has noted the Lollard antecedents underlying centres of Elizabethan Puritanism; the textile villages of the Stour Valley that sustained the Dedham Conference, and Cranbrook, the home of William Carder the weaver who had been the most important heretic of Archbishop Warham's persecution in 1511. In addition the Puritan leaders in London held cures in the part of the metropolis where the old Lollard conventicles had flourished, in particular St. Giles Cripplegate and All Hallows Honey Lane. Similarly, Dr. Thomson has summed up the legacy of later Lollardy as anti-sacerdotalism, anticlericalism, anti-papalism and puritanism....The Bohemian knights who waited upon Luther at Worms had behind them the influence of Hus, and the English reformers similarly had the tradition of Wyclif." (Heresy And Reformation In The South East Of England, 1520-1559 [Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press Inc., 1983], 2-3, 27)

Those are just some examples among many more that could be cited. And the connections involve more than just groups like the Lollards and Hussites. There were significant sympathies with the Reformation even among some of the people who remained Roman Catholic after the Reformation began. On issues where an anti-Protestant consensus eventually formed in support of Roman Catholic belief prior to the Reformation, there were other people who disagreed with that consensus earlier, centuries before the Reformation (e.g., opposition to prayer to saints and angels and the veneration of images leading up to the Second Council of Nicaea and afterward).

1 comment:

  1. "On issues where an anti-Protestant consensus eventually formed in support of Roman Catholic belief prior to the Reformation, there were other people who disagreed with that consensus earlier, centuries before the Reformation (e.g., opposition to prayer to saints and angels and the veneration of images leading up to the Second Council of Nicaea and afterward)."

    I would actually say that the initial, indignant Western European reaction to the image-worshipping 2nd Nicene council was the first genuine, large-scale outburst of "proto-Protestant" feeling in the world history. For the Frankish secular leaders and churchmen alike felt perfectly competent and justified in rejecting, with loud disdain, the superstitious and un-Biblical opinions of this Eastern Roman "general council" that had been emphatically certified by Roman popes! No small thing, brazenly snubbing both RC and EO, or papal and Byzantine, opinions simultaneously!

    It was only because the Franks were still so relatively uneducated and simple people, with childlike faith in the Roman popes, that the papacy was able to cajole them away from this righteous position in the following medieval centuries:

    https://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/DOCTRINE/22002E_B.html

    "But the Emperor's and bishops' book goes farther. Pope Adrian had sent them the decisions of the Council of Nicaea (or Nice), to which they had never been called, and they say, "We receive the Six General Councils, but we reject with contempt novelties, as also the Council held in Bithynia (that is, the so-called Seventh General Council of Nice), to authorize the worship of images, the Acts of which, destitute of style and sense, have come to us"; and then they refute seriously all that the pope had said to the Eastern Emperor. They declare that the Council of Nice is not a general one, because it was not gathered from all parts of the church, and appeal to Gregory the Great's letter to Serenus. But this work of the bishops of France and Germany, then one empire, issued in Charlemagne's name, was not all. In 794 he had a council at Frankfort-on-the-Main, at which were the pope's legates and 300 prelates of Germany, France, and Spain. This council refers to the Council of Nice as the council of the Greeks, and rejects entirely, unanimously, and with contempt its doctrine and decision.
    ...

    So here we have an alleged general council received by the pope, disowned publicly by all the West, except Italy, and its doctrine condemned. All the assembled bishops of the West, with the pope's legates, declare that the Council of Nice is not a general council, and reject with contempt unanimously (these are their words) its doctrines and authority; and accordingly it was not for a great length of time received in the Western empire as a general council, and this the Council of Frankfort was."

    Edward Gibbon commented this affair in his usual sarcastic manner:

    https://ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap49.htm#Reluctance

    "An angry book of controversy was composed and published in the name of Charlemagne: (82) under his authority a synod of three hundred bishops was assembled at Frankfort: (83) they blamed the fury of the Iconoclasts, but they pronounced a more severe censure against the superstition of the Greeks, and the decrees of their pretended council, which was long despised by the Barbarians of the West. (84)

    84. Qui supra sanctissima patres nostri (episcopi et sacerdotes) omnimodis servitium et adorationem imaginum renuentes contempserunt, atque consentientes condemnaverunt (Concil. tom. ix. p. 101, Canon. ii. Franckfurd.).

    A polemic must be hard-hearted indeed, who does not pity the efforts of Baronius, Pagi, Alexander, Maimbourg, etc., to elude this unlucky sentence."

    ReplyDelete