This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
S. Pincus, 1688. The First Modern Revolution, New Haven and London, 2009, pp. 400–34. The best prosopographical analysis, which supersedes J. H. Overton, The Nonjurors. Their Lives, Principles, and Writings, London, 1902, is J. Findon, The Nonjurors and the Church of England, 1689–1716, DPhil diss., Keble College, Oxford, 1978, Appendix III, pp. 193–243. See also M. Goldie, ʽThe Nonjurors, Episcopacy, and the Origins of the Convocation Controversyʼ, in Ideology and Conspiracy: Aspects of Jacobitism, 1689–1759, ed. E. Cruickshanks, Edinburgh, 1982, pp. 15–35; R. D. Cornwall, Visible and Apostolic. The Constitution of the Church in High Church Anglicanism and Non-Juror Thought, Newark–London, 1993; R. D. Cornwall, ʽThe Search for the Primitive Church: The Use of Early Church Fathers in the High Church Anglican Tradition, 1680–1745ʼ, Anglican and Episcopal History, 59.3, 1990, pp. 303–29; J.-L. Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity. The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17thCentury, Oxford, 2009.
J.–L. Quantin, ʽAnglican Scholarship Gone Mad? Henry Dodwell (1641–1711) and Christian Antiquityʼ, in History of Scholarship, ed. J.–L. Quantin and C. R. Ligota, Oxford, 2006, pp. 305–56; K. A. Schmidt, Legitimacy and Orthodoxy: The English Nonjurors 1688–1750, PhD diss. McGill University, Montreal, 1983, pp. 39–84.
Charles Leslie, The Case of the Regale And of the Pontificat Stated. In Relation of a Conference concerning the Independency of the Church, as to Her Purely Spiritual Power and Authority, s.l., 1700. A very similar work is Thomas Brett, The Divine Right of Episcopacy, and the Necessity of an Episcopal Commission … Proved from the Holy Scriptures, and the Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Church …, London, 1718, pp. 27–56.
Leslie, The Case (n. 3 above), p. 151.
Ibid., p. 152.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. R. Tuck, Cambridge, 1996, p. 321: ʽAnd therefore a Church, such a one as is capable to Command, to Judge, Absolve, Condemn, or do any other act, is the same thing with a Civil Common-wealth … a Civill State.ʼ
Leslie, The Case (n. 3 above), pp. 219–20: ʽAnd thus the Communion of Saints (which is one of the Articles of our Creed) Extends not only to the Saints upon Earth, but to those in Heaven, who have Communion with Us, and We with them. … Hence the Church, even upon Earth, is Call’d the Kingdom of God.ʼ
For reconstructions of and the identification with the ʽCyprianick Ageʼ, see, e.g., John Sage, The Principles of the Cyprianick Age, London, 1695; Henry Dodwell, A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops, pp. 20–21 and passim; Nathaniel Bisbie/Bisby, Unity of Priesthood Necessary to the Unity of Communion in a Church, London, 1692, pp. 8–15; Thomas Brett, The Divine Right of Episcopacy, London, 1718, p. 43 and passim.
Thomas Brett, The Independency of the Church upon the State, As to its Pure Spiritual Powers, London, 1717, p. 70. Brett here relies on Cyprianʼs Epistulae 60 and 61; Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera, ed. G.F. Diercks, CCCSL III C, p. 377f. and p. 382.
Thomas Brett, An Account of Church-Government, and Governours, London, 1710; George Hickes, The Constitution of the Catholick Church, and the Nature and Consequences of Schism, s.l., 1716; N. Bisby, An Answer to a Treatise out of Ecclesiastical History, London, 1691; Bisbie/Bisby, Unity of Priesthood (n. 8 above).
Abednego Seller, A Continuation of the History of Passive Obedience Since the Reformation, Amsterdam, 1690, pp. 64–92 and 97–101; id., A Vindication of Passive Obedience – Further the Reflections of the Historian Unmasked of the Author of the New Separation & Other Pamphlets, MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson D 1254, fols 275r–406v (307r): ʽThe next is Cardinal Bellarmine the great Patron of all Deposeing Principles …ʼ; Nathaniel Bisbie/Bisby, Two Sermons, The First, Shewing the Mischiefs of Anarchy, London, 1684, pp. 64–5; Leslie, The Case (n. 3 above), pp. 154–63; C. Zwierlein, The Political Thought of the French League and Rome (1585–1589). De justa populi gallici ab Henrico tertio defectione and De justa Henrici tertii abdicatione (Jean Boucher, 1589), Geneva, 2016.
William Lloyd, A Discourse of God´s Ways of Disposing of Kingdoms, London, 1691, p. 19; B. Bourdin, The Theological-Political Origins of the Modern State. The Controversy between James I of England and Cardinal Bellarmine, Washington DC, 2011; S. Tutino, Law and Conscience. Catholicism in Early Modern England, 1570–1625, Aldershot, 2007, pp. 117–93.
Leslie, The Case (n. 3 above), pp. 156, 256-7; Nathaniel Bisbie/Bisby, Prosecution no Persecution, London, 1682, pp. 18–19.
The neologism ‘Erastianism(e)’ used, e.g., by Leslie, The Case (n. 3 above), pp. 142, 251; Brett, Independency (n. 9 above), p. 9. On the historical Erastus, see C. Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus and the Palatinate. A Renaissance Physician in the Second Reformation, Leiden, 2010.
Abednego Seller, The History of Passive Obedience Since the Reformation, Amsterdam, 1689; id., Continuation (n. 11 above); id., Vindication (n. 11 above), MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson D 1254, fols 275r–406v. Sellerʼs definition of that ambiguous term is helpful: ʽPassive Obedience … is nothing else but the Duty of sufferring patiently all injurys whatsoever, when we cannot obey our superiours in things unlawfull. The very notion of it herefore does necessarily imply That Princes are not to be obey´d in things unlawfull; and that their will is not the only measure of good and evill. Mr HObbs saw that the Doctrine of Passive Obedience was Contradictory to his Principles, and therefore he expressly writes against itʼ: id., Vindication (n. 11 above), MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson D 1254, fol. 332r–v. The direct refutation of Sellerʼs History was Thomas Long, The Historian Unmask´d: Or, Some Reflections on the Late History of Passive-Obedience, London, 1689.
On the emergence of the reified concept of κοινωνία, see C. Zwierlein, ʽReformierte Theorien der Vergesellschaftung: römisches Recht, föderaltheologische κοινωνία und die consociatio des Althusiusʼ, in Jurisprudenz, Politische Theorie und Politische Theologie, ed. F. S. Carney, H. Schilling and D. Wyduckel, Berlin, 2004, pp. 191–223. For a 17th-century historico-etymological investigation into ʽκοινωνίαʼ, see Henry Dodwell, A Discourse concerning the One Altar and the One Priesthood insisted on by the Ancients in their Disputes against Schism, London, 1683, pp. 211–20.
Thomas Long, Reflections upon a Late Book, entituled, The Case of Allegiance, London, 1689, p. 9; see also Long, Historian Unmaskʼd (n. 15 above), p. 63
While Anglicans like Long may perhaps have noticed this while not addressing it directly, it seems that the distinction of king de facto and de jure had Catholic (Thomist) roots in the teaching of the school of Salamanca: see for other contexts Domingo de Soto, De iustitia et iure, Lyon, 1583, V, qu. 3, art. 5, p. 153.
Seller, Vindication (n. 11 above), MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson D 1254, fol. 395v, referring to Augustine, Sancti Augustini Enarrationes in Psalmos 101–150, ed. F. Gori, Vienna, 2001, pp. 48–57, ʽMilites Christiani servierunt imperatori infideli … . Distinguebant dominum aeternum a domino temporali, et tamen subditi erant propter dominum aeternum etiam domino temporaliʼ, nearly the same with Long, Historian unmaskʼd (n. 15 above), p. 16, referring to Hugo Grotius, De iure belli ac pacis libri tres, ed. B. J. A. de Kanter et al., Aalen, 1993, p. 87. Grotius took this dictum of Ambrosius from II Decr. Grat., C. XI, qu. 3, c. 94.
Long, Historian Unmaskʼd (n. 15 above), pp. 17–20.
Seller, Vindication (n. 11 above), MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson D 1254, fol. 396r.
Leslie, The Case (n. 3 above), pp. 161–2.
Ibid., pp. 286–7.
Quantin, ʽAnglican Scholarshipʼ (n. 2 above), p. 322.
Thomas Smith, ʽDe causis remediisque dissidiorum, quae orbem Christianum hodie affligunt, Exercitatio theologicaʼ, in id., Miscellanea, London, 1686, pp. 157–98 (166–7, 173–4) also stressed the importance of imitating the well-ordered system of episcopal inter-church correspondence of early Christianity.
Patrick Young to John Boys, London, 9 Cal. July [June 23] 1633, MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, Smith 73, fol. 15r: ‘Quod ex Aegypti tenebris, vir ornatissime, Clemens emerserit, et ex Graecia interjectas omnes regiones praetervectus, ad Britanniam nostram penetravit, tandemque ex insula in continentem rursus trajecerit, et caelo liberiore donatus, orbi Christiano innotescere jam incipiat, non sine divino numine tecum contigisse arbitror … . Non minus enim tuae industriae quam nostrae acceptum referre debet Ecclesia et literatorum Respublica: quod Clemens redivivus per hominum ora feratur, et eisdem nunc spatijs, quibus Graeca et Romana lingua, pervagetur … .’
H. de Quehen, ʽPolitics and Scholarship in the Ignatian Controversyʼ, The Seventeenth Century, 13, 1998, pp. 69–84.
MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, Smith 111, fol. 7r = ibid., MS Smith 43–4, fol. 2r: ʽIgnatius effuse laudat Ecclesias, ad quas scribit, et Episcopos extollit more Paulino, quia eorum laus est exhortatio [refers to John Chrysostomos: In epistulam ad Romanos homiliae, ad Rom. 15, 29 = Migne PG 60, col. 662] Τοῦτο δὲ εἶδος συμβουλῆς θαυμαστόν τὸ προκαταλαμβάνειν αὐτοὺς τοῖς ἐγκωμίοις. Ὅταν γὰρ παραιτῆται ἐν τάξει παραινέσεως <Smith omits: τοῦτον ποιεῖν>, ἐπὶ τοῦτον ἔρχεται τῆς διορθώσεως τὸν τρόπον. Ut enim mouendo, ut quae faciat quae faciat, laudamus, ita quem laudamus ob ea quae facit, eundem monemus, ut eadem faciat, et ad eadem hortamur.ʼ
ʽDe vero tempore Martyrij Ignatianiʼ – part of the letter exchange between William Wake and the non-juring bishop William Lloyd, London, British Library, MS Add. 21082, fol. 42r.
See Dodwell to Lloyd, Cockham, 10 January 1686/7, London, British Library, MS Add. 21082, fol. 61r, an investigation into the relevant imperial edict granted to Antioch, argued against the keeper of the Vatican Library, Enrico Noris.
S. Caecilii Cypriani Opera, ed. J. Fell, Oxford, 1700, p. 204 n. 1. The first edition appeared in 1682 with Dodwell’s dissertations as an appendix. In Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera, pars III, 3, Sancti Cypriani Episcopi epistularium – Prolegomena, ed. G. F. Diercks and G.W. Clarke, Turnhout, 1999, p. 855, the editors judge ʽL’édition dʼOxford nʼa presque rien contribué à lʼamélioration du texteʼ, but it was in those times in England as well as in France the edition of reference. On Caldonius, see E. Baukamp, Kommunikation in der Kirche des 3. Jahrhunderts, Tübingen, 2014, p. 174 n. 411.
See, e.g., Bauman, Kommunikation (n. 31 above), pp. 25–57, on communication by letters and pp. 205–327, on the role of communication and messengers during the Decian persecution until the banning of the bishops.
Henry Dodwell, Dissertationes Cyprianicae, Oxford, 1684, pp. 117–18.
Smith, ʽDe causisʼ (n. 25 above), pp. 171–2, alludes to that as a later tradition in the Orthodox church: ʽuti postea apud orthodoxos formatarum Epistolarum commercio communionem Ecclesiasticam mutuo colendi & fovendi pia & laudabilis invaluit consuetudo.ʼ This ceremonial character is still highlighted as a distinctive feature of Byzantine letters, in contrast to the Western art of letter writing. See R. J. H. Jenkins, ʽThe Hellenistic Origins of Byzantine Literatureʼ, Dumberton Oaks Papers, 17, 1963, pp. 37–52 (45); M. Mullett, ʽWriting in Early Mediaeval Byzantiumʼ, in The Uses of Literacy in Early Mediaeval Europe, ed. R. McKitterick, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 156–85 (172–84); G. Karlsson, Idéologie et cérémonial dans lʼépistolographie byzantine, Uppsala, 1962. Dodwell and Smith apply both the Latin term of litera formata for that, and seem already to identify on historiographical and codicological grounds the links between early Christian and Byzantine letter writing that Mullett, p. 174, called the ‘revival of the great days of patristic letter-writing’ in 10th century Byzantine epistolography. Dodwell was well acquainted with medieval Byzantine letters, e.g., two letters of Michael I Keroularis, patriarch of Constantinople to the Patriarch of Antioch, Peter Butrus III (AD 1054, London, British Library, MS Add. 21079, old pag. 281–298, new fols 132r–135v, copied by his non-juror friends St George Ash and Abednego Seller); and he was working hard to establish medieval Byzantine church chronology in synchrony with the Western: see C. Zwierlein, Imperial Unknowns. The French and the British in the Mediterranean, Cambridge, 2016, pp. 131–4.
Dodwell, Dissertationes (n. 33 above), p. 119.
Ibid., pp. 120–22.
Ibid., p. 121: Dodwell refers to Saumaise, who would affirm that περίοδος is just the name for the bishop’s travels. For current research on early Christian episcopal status and functions, see A. Faivre, Naissance dʼune hiérarchie: les premières étapes du cursus clérical, Paris, 1977; J. Ysebaert, Die Amtsterminologie im Neuen Testament und in der Alten Kirche: Eine lexikographische Untersuchung, Breda, 1994.
Dodwell, Dissertationes (n. 33 above), p. 123.
While II Cor 8:24 means first of all that the apostles should lay testimony of Christʼs message ʽin front of / in the faceʼ of the churches, Dodwell insists that the term πρόσωπον had to be understood as pointing to the representative function: ʽQuid quod durior illa omnis videatur interpretatio qua ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν dicendi erant qui ad Ecclesias plantandas missi essent quam illi qui ab ipsis missi fuissent Ecclesiis. … Ac hac potius mittentis personae repraesentatione primariorum quoque videtur Apostolorum origo deducenda.’ One may note that the term ‘πρόσωπον’ used for expressing the representational act (II Cor 8:24 and Gal 1:22) was rarely applied in the sense that the ambassador would be himself the prosopon. On patristic concepts of representation relevant in this context, see C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity. The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition, Berkeley, 2005, p. 27; H. Hoffmann, Repräsentation. Studien zur Wort- und Begriffsgeschichte von der Antike bis ins 19. Jahrhundert, Berlin, 1974, p. 40 n. 14, pp. 47–64.
Dodwell, Dissertationes (n. 33 above), p. 123: ʽAb hac potius mittentis personae repraesentatione primariorum quoque videtur Apostolorum origo deducenda. Principum satellites dicuntur quorum id officium est ut principibus coram adsint, semperque in eorum conspectu obversentur. Inde vultus principum intueri, atque ab eorum vultibus procedere dicuntur. … Pro eo principum more Dei quoque praesentia majestatica vultus facieique metaphoris in Scriptura obumbratur.ʼ
Ibid., pp. 124–5.
Ibid., p. 125, referring to Iustinus Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone, ed. M. Marcovich, Berlin, 1997, p. 98: ʽἄνδρες ἐκλεκτοίʼ.
Ibid., pp. 125–8.
K. Braun, De legationibus libri III, Mainz, 1548, sigs Dijv–Diijr, Fijr–v. But Braun does not yet treat in any precise form the representation between churches. With Gentili, the theory was already strongly secularized, using foremost the Roman law and secular historians as sources. D. Ménager, Diplomatie et théologie à la Renaissance, Paris, 2001, has recalled the sacral tradition of thinking about diplomacy (reception of Dionysius of Halicarnassusʼs Hierarchia). In Hermann Kirchner, Legatus, Marburg, 1610, p. 79 Cyprian is mentioned once, but the scope is just in line with the previously mentioned secularization of that discourse. See H. Kugeler, ʽLe parfait Ambassadeur. Zur Theorie der Diplomatie im Jahrhundert nach dem Westfälischen Friedenʼ, in Internationale Beziehungen in der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. H. Kugeler, C. Sepp and G. Wolf, Hamburg, 2006, pp. 180–211, and, in general, G. Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, London, 1955; Politics and Diplomacy in Early Modern Italy. The Structure of Diplomatic Practice, 1450–1800, ed. D. Frigo, Cambridge, 2000.
See Seller, History (n. 15 above), pp. 85–7; id., Vindication (n. 11 above), MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson D 1254, fols 279r, 284v–285r and passim (Gentili, Grotius, Pufendorf), answering Long, Historian Unmask´d (n. 15 above), p. 52.
Following the perspective of the non-jurors, I do not distinguish among the different branches and forms of Eastern Christianity and of Greek churches, though their plurality usually would not allow to speak simply of ʽtheʼ Greek (orthodox) church.
For further details, see Zwierlein, Imperial Unknowns (n. 34 above), pp. 117–84.
J. B. Pearson, A Biographical Sketch of the Chaplains to the Levant Company, Maintained at Constantinople, Aleppo and Smyrna, 1611–1706, Cambridge, 1883; The Republic of Letters and the Levant, ed. A. Hamilton et al., Leiden, 2005; S. Mills, ʽThe Chaplains to the English Levant Company. Exploration and Biblical Scholarship in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth Century Englandʼ, Die Begegnung mit Fremden und das Geschichtsbewusstsein, ed. J. Becker and B. Braun, Mainz, 2012, pp. 243–66; Zwierlein, Imperial Unknowns (n. 34 above), pp. 163–73.
C. Zwierlein, ʽCoexistence and Ignorance: What Europeans in the Levant did not read (ca. 1620–1750)ʼ, in The Dark Side of Knowledge. Histories of Ignorance, 1400 to 1800, ed. C. Zwierlein, Leiden, 2016, pp. 225–65 (235–50).
See T. Harmsen, ʽLetters of Learning: A Selection from the Correspondence of Thomas Hearne and Thomas Smith, 1703–1710ʼ, Lias 24,1997, pp. 37–66; Quantin, ʽAnglican Scholarshipʼ (n. 2 above).
A. M. Pippidi, Knowledge of the Ottoman Empire in Late Seventeenth-Century England: Thomas Smith and Some of His Friends, DPhil diss., Wolfson College, Oxford, 1983, pp. 210–334.
See further the letter exchange with the representatives of the Eastern church, copies of confessions, correspondence with the English in London, British Library, MS Add. 22910, 22911, 22911A, and his manuscript accounts of the travels in the Aegean (see further L. Pollard, The Quest for Classical Greece: Early Modern Travel to the Greek World, London, 2015); finally, John Covel, Some Account of the Present Greek Church, Cambridge, 1722.
A. Seller, The Antiquities of Palmyra, London, 1696; a copy with Thomas Smithʼs bitty handwritten comments (ʽStuffeʼ) in MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, Smith 134; Sellerʼs interleaved copy of In Sacra Biblia Graeca ex versione LXX. interpretum Scholia, ed. J. Biddle, London, 1653, heavily annotated, betrays his philological interest in Arabic, Chaldaic, Samaritan and Syriac, using, e.g., the Bible commentaries and translations of Sebastian Castellio, Vossius, Grotius and Brian Walton’s Polyglotta, and also the respective Hebraico-Arabic commentaries by Edward Pococke (Moshe Bab Porta Mosis sive, Dissertationes aliquot a R. Mose Maimonide, suis in varias Mishnaioth, sive textus Talmudici partes, Commentariis praemissae, Oxford, 1655), integrating also quite uncommon sources in the field of biblical studies like Leo Africanus as a source for understanding the text. He is sensitive to the possible specific Hellenist dialect of the LXX, showing a highly historical approach to the biblical text (London, British Library, MS Harley 3329). Seller does not figure in G. A. Russell, The ʽArabickʼ Interest of the Natural Philosophers in Seventeenth-Century England, Leiden, 1994, nor in G. J. Toomer, Eastern Wisedome and Learning. The Study of Arabic in Seventeenth-Century England, Oxford, 1996.
Brett was central for the writing of the non-juror Holy Communion Office (1718), of which a Greek translation was communicated to the Greek correspondents in the non-juror/Orthodox negotiations. Thomas Brett, A Collection of the Principal Liturgies, Used by the Christian Church in the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist, London, 1720, pp. 29 and 71, used Eusèbe Renaudot’s 1716 edition of the St Mark and St Basil liturgy and discussed Eusèbe Renaudot’s Dissertatio de liturgiarum Orientalium origine & autoritate. H. R. Sefton, ʽThe Scottish Bishops and Archbishop Arseniusʼ, in The Orthodox Churches and the West, ed. D. Baker, Oxford, 1976, pp. 239–46 (245), points to Thomas Rattray, The Ancient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem, being the Liturgy of St James, London, 1744, which was the culmination of the merging of non-juror with Eastern liturgy.
Letters of Galland to Smith, regarding the Eucharist, referring to the treatises of Mornay, Grotius, the controversy about Cyril, Arnauldʼs Perpétuité de la foy de lʼéglise, and at the same time exchanging knowledge about patristic studies, the history of the Byzantine church and Orientalist publications from the major Paris experts (de la Croix I or II and Eusèbe Renaudot) can be found in MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, Smith 46, pp. 209–11; Paris, 21 January 1677, ibid., pp. 213–15; Paris, 18 May 1677, ibid., pp. 221–2; ibid., 23 June 1677, pp. 223–5.
M. Constantinides, The Greek Orthodox Church in London, Oxford, 1933, summarizes the broadsheet Joseph of Samos, An Account of His Building the Grecian Church in Sohoe Fields, s.l. [London], 1682; Joseph also published A Description of the Present State of Samos, Nicaria, Patmos, and Mount Athos, s.l., 1677.The best historical topography of the Greek settlement in London is Survey of London, XXXIII: The Parish of St. Anne Soho, ed. F. H. W. Sheppard, London, 1966, pp. 170–91, 278–87.
E. D. Tappe, ʽThe Greek College at Oxford, 1699–175ʼ, in Anglicanism and Orthodoxy. 300 Years after the ʽGreek Collegeʼ in Oxford, ed. P. Doll, Oxford, 2006, pp. 153–74. The foundation of this college in Oxford was a response to the many national colleges founded in Rome since the pontificate of Gregory XIII; the closest is the Greek college founded in 1576. See A. Fyrigos, Il Collegio Greco di Roma. Ricerche sugli alunni, la direzione, l´attività, Rome, 1983, and College Communities Abroad: Education, Migration and Catholicism in Early Modern Europe, ed. L. Chambers and T. O´Connor, Manchester, 2018.
Istanbul et les langues orientales, ed. F. Hitzel, Paris, 1997.
The same Georgios Aptal(l) who figured as a defendant of a theological dissertation in 1704, was a captain of a merchant ship under British protection involved in an affair of the murder of six Turks on his ship at Candia, causing a major diplomatic incident in 1714. See C. H. Matterson, English Trade in the Levant, 1693–1753, PhD diss., Harvard University, 1936, pp. 156–60, using London/Kew, The National Archives, Public Record Office, State Papers 97/22, 97/24, and 105/116. There is more unstudied material on the Aptal case in Vatican City, Archivio Storico de Propaganda fide, Scritture riferite [SCOG] Romania 6).
One case is Giorgios Homeros, see London, British Library, MS Harley 3779, fol. 286r–287v; see also G. Arabadzoglu, ʽΣχέσεις Ὀρθοδόξων καὶ Ἀγγλικανῶν κατὰ τὰς ἀρχάς τοῦ ιη αἰωνός (Συμπληρώσις τής μίκρας Ἁγγλογραικίας)ʼ, Orthodoxia 27, 1952, 123–6 (124).
See G. Aptal and G. Maroules, Ἡ τῶν ἁγιῶν γραφῶν ἀυτάρκεια ἐν δυσί διαλέξεσιν ἀποδειχθεῖσα, Diss. pres. B. Woodroffe, The Sufficiency of the Holy Scripture Demonstrated in Two Lectures, Oxford, 1704, transl. C. Davey, in Anglicanism and Orthodoxy. 300 Years after the ʽGreek Collegeʼ in Oxford, ed. P. Doll, Oxford, 2006, pp. 440–92.
William Cave to Thomas Smith, Islington, 13 Cal. July [June 19] 1675, MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, Smith 46, fol. 191r–v; Caveʼs antiquarian interests brought him into very close contact and collaboration with non-juror scholars like Abednego Sellar, Thomas Smith, Robert Nelson, Dodwell (‘communis noster amicus’). See J. Spurr, The Restoration Church of England, 1646–1689, New Haven and London, 1991, pp. 249–50, 317; Overton, The Nonjurors (n. 1 above), pp. 219, 382, 401; Harmsen, ʽLetters of Learningʼ (n. 50 above), p. 59. On Cyril Loukaris, see Sundar Henny’s article in this special issue.
Aptal and Maroules, Ἡ τῶν ἁγιῶν γραφῶν ἀυτάρκεια (n. 61 above), quoted Athanasius, Chrysostom, Basil, Cyril, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Theodoret, Clement of Alexandria, Ephraim patriarch of Antioch, Makarios of Egypt, Ignatius and Eusebius.
T. Lathbury, History of the Non-Jurors, London, 1845, pp. 309–61; G. Williams, The Orthodox Church of the East in the XVIIIth Century, London, 1868; J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, XXXVII (1720–1735), ed. J. B. Martin and R. P. Louis Petit [hereafter cited as Mansi XXXVII], col. 369–624; P. Chrysostomos, ʽAn Unpublished Correspondence: Letters of Arsenius of Thebais Concerning the Attempted Reunion of the English Nonjurors with the Orthodox Church (1716–1725)ʼ, Church Quarterly Review, 225, 1931, pp. 1–11; Sefton, ʽThe Scottish Bishopsʼ (n. 54 above); S. Runciman, ʽThe British Non-Jurors and the Russian Churchʼ, in The Ecumenical World of Orthodox Civilization. Russia and Orthodoxy, III, ed. A. Blane and T. E. Bird, The Hague and Paris, 1974, pp. 155–61; H. Broxap, The Later Non-Jurors, Cambridge, 1924, pp. 30–4.
Προθέσεις / Propositiones, 18 August 1716, Mansi XXXVII, cols 383–94.
Ibid., col. 392.
H. İnalcık, ʽThe Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomansʼ, Turcica, 23, 1991, pp. 407–36; M. H. van den Boogert, The Capitulations and the Ottoman Legal System. Qadis, Consuls and Beraths in the 18thCentury, Leiden, 2005, pp. 52–8.
Wake to Chrysanthos, London, Lambeth Palace, 6 September 1725, Mansi XXXVII, col. 593: ‘Quis sit horum hominum status, quae schismatis causa, a fideli illo presbytero meo, domino Thoma Payne, plenius cognosce. Ille paternitati tuae referet quam inique a nobis secesserint; et quomodo eodem tempore et a regia maiestate debitam fidelitatem, et ab episcopis enim obedientiam suam, subduxerint: ecclesiaeque unitatem eo solo nomine violaverint, quod legibus regni parendum esse censuimus; quod illum pro rege colendum existimavimus quem proceres ac populus, quem totius Europae principes atque respublicae, regem esse agnoverint: cuique Imperium Britannicum iura regni, omniumque inter nos ordinum consensus (ad quos de his rebus statuendi potestas unice spectat) detulissent.’ The Latin is the original; Chrysanthos translated it into Greek.
Hobbes, Leviathan (above, n. 6), chap. 38, p. 311; chap. 39, p. 321 (against a ‘universall church’: ‘a Church … is the same thing with a Civil Common-wealth’). Even Hobbes’s critical reader Clarendon, often cited in the allegiance controversy of 1689, does not contradict him on those points: ‘there is neither Bishop nor Priest who pretends to any Power or Jurisdiction, inconsistent with the Kings Supremacy, in Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal matters. … the Sovereign [is] … the true Representative of the Church as well as of the State’. Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, A Brief View and Survey of the Dangerous and pernicious Errors to Church and State. In Mr. Hobbes´s Book, Entitled Leviathan, Oxford, 1676, pp. 249, 271.
Mansi XXXVII, cols 387–8.
Ignatius Eph. 4.1; see J.-P. Lotz, Ignatius and Concord. The Background and Use of the Language of Concord in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, New York, 2007, esp. pp. 159, 171–2.
One might think of the tables in D. Paraeus, Irenicum sive de unione et Synodo Evangelicorum concilianda liber, Frankfurt/M and Heidelberg, 1614, which summarize the essential points of consent and conflict between confessions to supply material for possible church unions.
Mansi XXXVII, cols 387–8.
Ibid., col. 386.
Ibid., cols 387–8.
See n. 39 above.
Mansi XXXVII (n. 64 above), col. 386: ‘Mutuae quaedam encyclicae et communes epistolae utrimque mittantur, et quae ab alterutra parte decernuntur ac promulgantur, haec alteri pro legibus habeantur.’
Ibid., col. 384.
John Pearson, Opera posthuma chronologica, &c. viz. de serie et successione primorum Romae episcoporum dissertationes duae, ed. H. Dodwell, London, 1688, pp. 36–7: ʽCum liquido constet, Ecclesiam Hierosolymitanam non tantum Romana, sed & Antiochena reliquisque omnibus antiquiorem esse, & a S. Petro primo fundatam, imo ab omnibus Apostolis simul. Recte S. Cyrillus Ep. Hierosolymitanus, Catech. 16 Πάντων παρʼ ἡμῖν ἐστι τὰ ἀξιώματα. … Sed & in Hierusalem primum fundata Ecclesia totius orbis Ecclesias seminavit … . Hanc igitur matrem Christiani nominis vocavit Justinus Imperator, Epistola ad Hormisdam … . Quicquid igitur aliae Ecclesiae pro Primatu obtendant, prima & mater omnium Ecclesiarum Hierosolymitana fuit.ʼ
Mansi XXXVII, col. 410: ‘Sin aliter cogitant, videlicet quoniam semetipsos beatissimo Hierosolymae patriarchae committunt et hunc sibi pastorem et patriarcham praeficiunt, illum unum eligentes et non alium, et volunt eius dioecesi et provinciae se aggregare’.
Ibid., cols 410–11.
Ibid., cols 426–8.
Ibid., cols 453–64, 444 (references to the anti-Cyril writings of Dositheos, Meletius Syrigos; a copy attached of the anti-Cyrillian decree of the Jerusalem synod of 1672). See now Vassa Kontouma, ‘La Confession de foi de Dosithée de Jérusalem: les versions de 1672 et de 1690’, in LʼUnion à l´épreuve du formulaire. Professions de foi entre églises d´Orient et d´Occident (XIIIe–XVIIIe siècle), ed. M.-H. Blanchet and F. Gabriel, Leuven, 2016, pp. 341–72.
Mansi XXXVII, cols 418, 422, 424, 428, 438, 450.
Ibid., col. 486: ʽQuod ad Latinos patres in medium productos, hi testes quidem sunt irreprehensi: nam aetate veteres, optime audiunt, nec minus fide digni habendi, quod ex ecclesia sunt occidentali, ut pote qui multis quidem temporibus ecclesiarum, Graecae nimirum et Latinae, dissidio antiquiores sint. Ducimus autem, a patriarchicis dignationibus eos non minoris aestimatum iri, quod graece non scripserint.ʼ
Ibid., cols 433–4. The reference is to Nov. 131 and to V Basilik. tit. II, constit. XII, while the modern edition would number here V, 3, 2, Basilicorum libri LX, ed. H. Scheltema and N. van der Wal, Groningen and The Hague, 1953–1988, Series A, vol. I (Textus librorum I-VIII), p. 141. This is evidently because the Greek orthodox used the Nomokanon of Photius, as they cite ʽὅτι τοῖς κανόσιν οἱ νόμοι ἐναντιούμενοι πραγματικοὶ τύποι ἄκυροί εἰσινʼ as to be found in Photius, Nomocanon, with the scholia of Theodore Balsamon, ed. C. Justel, Paris, 1615, tit. I, keph. 2, p. 3). This makes a difference as Justinian and the Basilikai only stated that the emperor would ‘protect’ (φυλάττω) the canons of the synods, which one could still interpret as the acknowledgement of a separation between the political and ecclesiastical spheres, while the Photian doctrine cited by the eighteenth-century Greek orthodox translated this into a complete merging, even the identity of secular and ecclesiastical law.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
*I would like to thank the participants of the conference on the ʽReception of the Church Fathersʼ at Trinity College, Cambridge, as well as John Robertson and especially Sam Kennerley and Andreas Ammann, and finally the anonymous reviewers for their thorough reading and helpful remarks, Stephen Walsh (†) and Sam Kennerley for editing my English text, Daniel Smail and Ann Blair, of the Harvard History Department, for access to the library facilities as an associate of the department (summers of 2016 and 2018), and the Max-Weber-Kolleg Erfurt and the DFG Heisenberg-Grant (GZ Zw 164–6/1) for supporting the final writing process.
About this article
Cite this article
Zwierlein, C. Non-Juror Patristic Studies and International Diplomacy: Cyprianic Exchange with the Greek Orthodox Church*. Int class trad 27, 473–492 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12138-019-00553-z