Selected Correspondence between the Nonjuring English Bishops and the Eastern Orthodox Church, ca. 1716-1725


Text from George Williams, The Orthodox Church of the East in the Eighteenth Century (London, 1868)


Prepared for HTML by Prof. Stephen J. Shoemaker, University of Oregon

[p. 4] I. Proposals of the Nonjurors.

    A Proposal for a Concordate betwixt the orthodox and catholick remnant of the British Churches, and the Catholick and Apostolical Oriental Church.
    I. That the Church of Jerusalem be acknowledg'd as the true mother Church and principle of ecclesiastical Unity, whence all the other Churches have been deriv'd and to which, therefore, they owe a peculiar regard. [5]

2. That a principality of Order be in consequence hereof allow'd to the Bishop of Jerusalem above all other Christian Bishops.

3. That the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, with the Bishops thereof, his Collegues, be recognized as to all their ancient canonical rights, privileges, and pre-eminences.

4. That to the Bishop and Patriarch of Constantinople in particular, an equality of honour with that of the Bishop of Rome be given; and that the very same powers and privileges be acknowledged to reside in them both alike.

5. That the Catholick remnant of the British Churches, acknowledging that they first receiv'd their Christianity from such as came forth from the Church of Jerusalem, before ever they were made subject to the Bishop of Rome and that Church; and professing the same holy Catholick Faith, deliver'd by the Apostles, and explain'd in the Councils of Nice, and Constantinople; be reciprocally acknowledg'd as a part of the Catholick Church in communion with the Apostles, with the holy Fathers of those Councils, and with their Successors.

6. That the said Catholick remnant shall thereupon oblige themselves to revive what they have long profess'd to wish for, the ancient godly discipline of the Church, and which they have already actually begun to restore.

7. That in order still to a nearer Union, there be as near a conformity in Worship establish'd, as is consistent with the different circumstances and customs of nations, and with the rights of particular Churches, in that case allow'd of.

8. That the most ancient English Liturgy, [6] as more near approaching the manner of the Oriental Church, be in the first place restored, with such proper additions and alterations, as may be agreed on, to render it still more conformable both to that and to the Primitive Standard.

9. That several of the Homilies of St Chrysostom, and other approved Fathers of the said Oriental Church, be forthwith translated into English and read in our holy assemblies.

10. That in the publick worship, when prayer is made for the Catholick Church, there be an express Commemoration made of the Bishop of Jerusalem; and that, especially in the Communion Service, Prayer be offer'd up for him and the other Patriarchs, with all the Bishops of the same Communion, and for the deliverance and restauration of the whole Oriental Church.

11. That the faithful and orthodox remnant of the Britannick Churches be also, by the said Oriental Church, on proper occasions, or on certain days, publickly commemorated and prayed for.

12. That there be Letters communicatory settled betwixt one and the other; and the acts and deeds on both sides be mutually confirmed.

Wherefore in order to establish such a Concordate, until that a full and perfect union can be fixed, the suffering Catholick Bishops of the old constitution in Great Britain have thought fit hereby to declare, wherein they agree, and wherein they cannot come up to a perfect agreement.

1. They agree in the twelve Articles of the Creed, as declared in the first and second General Councils which they take to be sufficient for faith; and thereupon cannot agree with the Latin Church, [7] which hath superadded thereto twelve other Articles of Faith.

2. They agree in believing the Holy Ghost to be consubstantial with the Father and the Son, according to the orthodox Confession of the Oriental Church: And moreover, that the Father is properly the fountain and original whence the Holy Ghost proceedeth; and that it is altogether sufficient for salvation to believe herein what Christ Himself hath taught.

3. They agree, that the Holy Ghost is sent forth by the Son from the Father: and when they say in any of their Confessions, that He is sent forth or proceedeth from the Son, they mean no more than what is, and always has been confessed by the Orthodox Oriental Church, that is from the Father by the Son.

4. They agree, that the Holy Ghost did truly speak by the Prophets and the Apostles, and is the genuine author of all Scripture.

5. They agree, that the Holy Ghost assisteth the Church in judging rightly concerning matters of Faith; and that both general and particular Orthodox Councils, convened after the example of the first Council of Jerusalem, may reasonably expect that assistance in their Resolutions.

6. They agree, in the number and nature of the Charismata of the Spirit.

7. They agree, that there is no other foundation of the Church but Christ alone; and that the Prophets and Apostles are no otherwise to be called so, but in a less proper and secondary sense, respectively only.

8. They agree, that Christ alone is the Head of the Church: which title ought not therefore to [8] be assumed by any one, much less by any secular person, how great soever: and that Bishops under Him have a vicarious headship, as His proper representatives and vicegerents, being thence subject in spirituals to no temporal power upon earth: and in consequence hereof they hope the Patriarchs of the Oriental Church will be pleased, by an express article, to signify, that they own the independency of the Church in spirituals upon all lay powers, and consequently declare against all lay deprivations.

9. They agree, that every Christian ought to be subject to the Church, and that the Church is by Christ sufficiently instructed and authorized to examine the writings and censure the persons of her subjects or ministers, tho' never so great.

10. They agree, that the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ ought to be administred to the faithful in both kinds; and that the Latin Church hath transgressed the Institution of Christ by restraining from the laity one kind.

11. They agree, that Baptism and this are of general necessity to salvation for all the faithful: and that the other holy mysteries instituted by Christ, or appointed by His Apostles, which are not so generally necessary unto all, ought nevertheless to be received and celebrated with due reverence, according to Catholick and immemorial practice.

12. They agree, that there is no proper Purgatorial Fire in the future state, for the purgation of souls, nor consequently any redemption of souls out of the fire of purgatory by the suffrages of the living: but that notwithstanding none do immediately ascend into the heaven of heavens, but do [9] remain until the resurrection in certain inferior mansions, appropriated to them, waiting in hope for the revelation of that day, and joining in the prayers and praises of the militant Church upon earth, offer'd up in faith.

As to the points wherein they cannot, at present, so perfectly agree, they declare.

1. Tho' they have a great reverence for the Canons of ancient general Councils, yet they allow them not the same authority as is due to the Sacred Text; and think, they may be dispens'd with by the governours of the Church, where charity or necessity require.

2. Tho' they call the Mother of our Lord blessed, and magnify the grace of God which so highly exalted her, yet are they afraid of giving the glory of God to a creature, or to run into any extreme by blessing and magnifying her: and do hence rather chuse to bless and magnify God, for the high grace and honour conferred upon her, and for the benefits which we receive by that means.

3. Tho' they believe that both Angels and Saints have joy in the conversion of a sinner, and in the progress of a Christian, and do unite with us in our prayers and thanksgivings, when rightly offered to God in the communion of the Church; yet are they jealous of detracting in the least from the Mediation of Jesus Christ; and therefore cannot use a direct Invocation to any of them, the ever blessed Virgin herself not excepted; while we desire
nevertheless to join with these in spirit, and to communicate with them in their perfect Charity.

4. Tho' they believe a divine mystery in the Holy Eucharist, through the Invocation of the Holy [10] Spirit upon the elements, whereby the faithful do verily and indeed receive the Body and Blood of Christ; they believe it yet to be after a manner which flesh and blood cannot conceive. And seeing no sufficient ground from Scripture or Tradition to determine the manner of it, are for leaving it indefinite and undetermined; so that every one may freely, according to Christ's own institution and meaning, receive the same in faith, and may also worship Christ in spirit, as verily and indeed present, without being obliged to worship the sacred Symbols of His presence.

5. Tho' they honour the memory of all the faithful Witnesses of Christ, and count it not in itself unlawful to assist the imagination by pictures and representations of them and their glorious acts and sufferings, they are yet afraid of giving thereby, on one hand, scandal to the Jews and Mahometans, or on the other, to many well meaning Christians. And they are moreover apprehensive that, tho' the wise may be safe from receiving any damage by a wrong application, yet many among the vulgar may come thereby to be ensnared, and be carried to symbolize too much with the custom of idolaters without designing it. To prevent which, they therefore propose, that the 9th Article of the second Council of Nice, concerning the Worship of Images, be so explained by the wisdom of the Bishops and Patriarchs of the Oriental Church, as to make it inoffensive,, and to remove the scandal which may be occasion'd by a direct application to them.

If a Concordate can be agreed on with some limitations and indulgence on both sides, then it is proposed that a Church, to be called the Concordia, be built in or about London, which may be [11] under the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria; and in which, at certain times to be agreed on, there shall be the English Service of the united British Catholicks perform'd according as the same shall be approved or licensed by that Patriarch, or by the representatives of the Oriental Church. And that on the other side, if it shall please God to restore the suffering Church of this island and her Bishops to her and their just rights, they promise to use their best endeavours, that leave be granted to the Greek Bishop here for the time residing, or to such as shall be deputed by him, to celebrate upon certain days divine Service in the Cathedral Church of S. Paul according to the Greek rites. But if one common Liturgy could be on both sides agreed on, which should be unexceptionable, being compiled out of the ancient Greek Liturgies, some passages and rites only omitted, which are not of the substance, and which may give offence to one side; it is thought that nothing can more conduce to the establishing an Union and Communion betwixt both parties on catholick terms, would but the Patriarchs of the Oriental Church graciously condescend, that the same common Liturgy should be both by the Greeks them.
used in Great Britain, selves here residing and by the united British Catholicks.

None to be excluded from entring into this Concordate, who are willing; and all endeavours to be used on both sides to heal the breaches of Christendom, and to promote and propagate Christian Unanimity and Peace.

August 18th, 1716.



[12] 2. The Nonjurors to the Emperour of Russia.


A. Letter to the Czar of Moscovy relating to the preceding Proposals.


Sir - The Archirnandrite, who attended the Archbishop of Thebais at London, acquaints us that your Majesty is pleased to encourage the proposal of Union between the Greek and Britannick Churches, and that your Majesty has graciously offered to send the Articles to the four Eastern Patriarchs. This welcome information has made it our duty, to return your Majesty our most humble thanks for the honour of your countenance. And since God hath put it into the heart of so great a Prince to assist in closing the breach of the Catholick Church, and restoring the harmony de signed by the Christian Institution, we hope the undertaking will prosper in your Majesty's hand.

Some late practices with regard to Church and State have reduced our Communion to a few; but your Majesty knows truth and right does not depend upon numbers. That God may reward your Majesty's pious endeavours, and long continue you glorious and happy to yourself and subjects, is the unfeigned prayer of us, who are, with the most, profound regard, Your Majesty's most Obedient Servants.


Oct. 8th 1717.
To his Majesty the Czar, &c.



[81] 5. Copy of a Reply to the Answers of the Orthodox of the East.


To the most Reverend Lords the Patriarchs of the Orthodox oriental Church, the Lord Jeremias of Constantinople, the Lord Samuel of Alexandria, the Lord Athanasius of Antioch, and the Lord Chrysanthus of Jerusalem: and to the Right Reverend the Metropolitans and Bishops, and to the whole Clergy and the rest of the Orthodox of the Greek Church.

The Reply of the Catholick Remnant in Britain, to the Answer sent them by the Orthodox Oriental Church, in order to their mutual Agreement. [84]

Before the Catholick Remainder of the British Church proceed to a Reply to the Answer of the four most reverend Patriarchs of the Catholick Oriental Church, they think themselves obliged to return their most hearty thanks to their Patriarchal Lordships, for the trouble they have given themselves, in drawing up an Answer to our Proposals, and transmitting it to so distant a country as Great Britain: Hoping that this charitable disposition and generous ardour which their Patriarchal Lordships express for procuring an Harmony between us, and enlarging the Union of Christendom, may be carried on to a happy conclusion. And, as the Catholick Remainder of Britain will omit nothing, in order to so desireable an issue, but willingly stretch to the utmost length within their power; so having the satisfaction to understand, that their Patriarchal Lordships refer the difference of sentiments between us to the decision of the Scriptures and primitive Church, they have no uncomfortable prospect of a coalition. For since the determining rule is equally received by the Oriental Churches and the Catholic Remainder in Britain; since the inspired Writings of the Old and New Testament, as interpreted by the primitive Fathers, are the common standard of Faith and Worship to both; we do not despair, but that by the blessing of God, when the case shall be farther examined by the Catholic Oriental Church, such allowances and concessions may be made, as may dispose both parties to unite in Communion with each other. And now, after this short mention of our wishes and regard, we shall proceed to speak to the Answer their Patriarchal Lordships have done us the honour to send us. [85]

"As to the Articles agreed on between us, they shall be passed over unmentioned, excepting as they stand in number.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5. To the Answer to the first five Propositions we have nothing to except; only we conceive, that the British Bishops may remain independent of all the Patriarchates.

6. Under this Article we never intended to prescribe to the Wisdom, or question the Learning of the Catholick Oriental Church: Our meaning by the word paideia relating only to points of Discipline.

7. The answer of their Patriarchal Lordships is here agreed to.

8. It is likewise agreed, that the Liturgy by which we now officiate shall be translated into Greek and transmitted to their Patriarchal Lordships to be inspected by them.

9, 10, 11, 12. The Answer to the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth Proposals is agreed to.

Farther our Reply to their Answers to the Articles agreed on in our Proposals is as follows.

1, 2, 3. As to the first, second and third Answers, we make no Exceptions, provided all other Points shall be adjusted.

4, 5, 6, 7. The fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh Articles in their Answer shall be considered when we come to speak to the Answer of the Catholick Oriental Church to the first Proposition, in which there is still remaining some Diversity of Opinion between them and the Catholick British Church.

8. The Answer to this Proposal is agreed to.

9, 10, 11. As is also that to the ninth, tenth, and eleventh.

12. With respect to the twelfth, we believe [86] the prayers of the Living, together with the Eucharistick Sacrifice, are serviceable to the Dead, for the improvement of their happiness during the interval between Death and the Resurrection: but then we declare no further upon this Article.

As to the Answer to the last five Articles, in which there still continues some difference to be adjusted, we desire to observe in general, that what conjectures soever the Catholick Oriental Church might have to suspect us of Luthero- Calvinism, we openly declare, that none of the distinguishing principles of either of those Sects, can fairly be charged upon us; and we farther believe, that upon the perusal of our Reply they will readily acquit us of any such imputation.

To come now to particulars.

i. Our reply to the answer to the 1st Proposition, relating to the reception of the seven General Councils, as of equal authority with the Holy Scriptures, must be made with somewhat in abatement of regard. We willingly declare, we receive the Faith decreed in the first six General Councils, as being agreeable to the Holy Scriptures ; tho' our sentiments cannot advance so far as to believe the Fathers of those Councils assisted with an equal degree of Inspiration with the Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles; but here we desire not to lye under any restraint imposed by the disciplinary Canons of those Councils. To this we must subjoin, that as to the seventh General Council assembled at Nice, we think ourselves obliged to declare, that we cannot assent to the giving even the worship of Dulia to Angels or departed Saints. Some of our reasons are these.
First, there is no clear instance in the Old Testament [87] that the Jews worshipped Angels, but rather the contrary. Had that nation believed the worship of these superior Beings lawful, they had particular motives for such an application: for, Angels had appeared to the Patriarchs, delivered the Mosaic Laws, conducted them through the wilderness and Michael is said to be their Prince, and to have the Guardianship of their country. (Dan. x.) 'Tis true Abraham is said to bow down before the Angels; but then it is plain by his entertainment, he took them only for men. 'Tis granted Moses and Joshua were commanded to put off their shoes, and told that the place was holy by the Angel that appeared: But, the Fathers generally-believed it was our Saviour under this quality and denomination. Particularly St Justin Martyr, St Irenaeus, Tertullian, and St Athanasius declare for this opinion. (Justin Martyr, cum Tryph. Iren. lib. 4. cap. 2 2. Tertul. lib. adv. Judeos. Athanas. lib. 4. contra Arian.) Thus the Fathers observe, that when Angels appeared, they refused adoration, as the angel that appeared to Manoa, and St John. (Judges and Revelation.) Besides it is not the same thing to worship visible and invisible Angels. When they are visible, there is a regard due to the superiority of their Nature, to their Character and Message; which reasons for regard don't hold when they are unseen and possibly out of reach. Farther, Origen tells Celsus "he slandered the Jews" (Origen contra Cels. lib. i.) " in saying they worshiped angels. That, nothing is to be worshiped but God Almighty: neither are prayers to be addressed to any but the Sovereign Being: That the right way of worshiping God is by directing our devotions to Him by Jesus Christ, without Application [88] to Angels: That if we are so happy as to have God's favour, all the Angels and blessed Spirits will be our friends, and pray for us without application." (Ibid.) There are several texts in the Old and New Testament from whence we may conclude the worshiping Angels unlawful. (Deut. vi. 13, with reference to verse 4. 1 Sam. vii. 3, where the word in LXXII. is douleusate, which overthrows the distinction between Latria and Dulia. To these we may add Luke iv. 8, Coloss. ii..18y ig, with Theodoret's Comment.) To mention some more of the Fathers. Irenaeus (lib.ii.cap.57.) declares expressly, 11 The Church did not work any miracles by invocation of Angels, or by any unlawful curiosity." Theophilus Antiochenus gives the reason why the Christians could not adore the Emperor, "'Twas because his majesty was not God." (ad. Autolyc.) The Council of Laodicea, (Canon 35,) denounced an anathema against those that worshipped Angels. But here 'tis pretended, this Canon is only levelled against those hereticks who held the angels brought salvation by delivering the Law, and worshipped them exclusively of our Saviour. But that this is not the meaning of the Council may be made good, ist, Because the Council condemns Angel-worship in general and comprehensive terms, without any restraining clause or limitation: Whereas had they thought it lawful in any respect, such a prudent Assembly, as we may reasonably collect, would have distinguished the case, remarked the fault, and pointed their anathema only upon the irregularities and excesses of such a worship. 2ndly. Though those that are censured are said to forsake the Church, yet this implies no more than that they held private [89] conventicles, as the Canon intimates. For had they maintained the Angels brought salvation by publishing the Law, had they looked upon them as their proper and primary Mediators, had they neither prayed to our Saviour, nor worshipped Him, they had been -no Christians. And if so, they were out of the jurisdiction of the Council: For as St Paul says, What have we to do with them that are without? 'Tis not the custom of the Church to excommunicate Jews, Pagans, or Apostates; for that would be to exclude those from her society that had gone off already. And besides, her power does not extend beyond the Pale of Christendom. 'Tis plain therefore the anathema of the Council is levelled against those who had not wholly abandoned the worship of our Saviour; what therefore could they be condemned for but for worshipping the Angels together with Him, and making more Mediators in religious worship than one? St Athanasius in his discourse against the Arians (lib. iv.) having proved, that the Angels waited upon our Saviour and worshipped Him, adds, I I They adored Him not because He was of an higher Order than themselves, but because He was of a distinct, and uncreated Nature. For if dignity and height of station were a sufficient ground for adoration) all inferior Angels should worship their Superiours: But it is not so, for one creature is not to worship another." And after he has produced the instance of St Peter forbidding Cornelius to worship him, (Acts x.) and the angels forbidding St John, (Rev. xix.) he concludes "that God alone is to be worshipped." (Athan. cont. Arian, pp. 286, 394, edit. Par.) Epipbanius, reporting the Heresy of those who worshipped [90] the blessed Virgin, argues thus; "Neither Elias, who was carried in a fiery chariot to heaven, and is now living, nor St John, who was particularly favour'd by our Saviour, nor any of the Saints is worshiped. If God does not allow the Angels to be worshipped, much less the daughter of Anna and Joachim." (Epiphan. Heeres. 79.) And elsewhere be declares, that "no created Being ought to be worshipped." To these we shall only subjoin one testimony from St Austin, who tho' a Latin Father, was a person of great character for piety and learning, and wrote in some part of the fourth and fifth centuries. This Father remarks, that the Angel in the Revelations forbids the paying him any worship, that "he was the Apostle's fellow-servant, and that God was only to be worshipped." (Aug. de Doctrin. Christian. lib. i. cap. 33.) To draw towards a conclusion. As some of those testimonies expresly discountenance religious application to the Saints; so those other authorities, which point particularly upon the Angels, seem by more than parity of reason, to comprehend the Faithful departed under the same direction. For if the Angels, whom the Scriptures declare guardians and ministring spirits, to the heirs of salvation, (Ps. xxxiv, Heb. i.) are not to receive application and worship, the consequence of this Prohibition will come stronger upon the Saints deceased, because they have no such commission for protecting mankind, no such liberty for revisiting this world, (at least that we know of,) and therefore our reasons for address and acknowledgment must proportionably abate. As to the texts of Scripture produced for maintaining application to the Saints departed, we conceive the proof alledged falls short of conviction. For [91] instance, King Hezekiah's being delivered from Sennacherib's army by David then deceased, this passage seems plainly foreign to the argument. For the text only says that God promised to defend Jerusalem for his servant David's sake and for His own sake; but here is not the least mention that the Jews made any application to David for his intercession, without which their Lordships' arguments can't bear. Their next citation from Acts xii. 5, where it is said that Prayer was made without ceasing of the Church unto God for St Peter; this proves no farther, than that one part of the Church militant prayed for another: Neither does St Paul's desiring the Romans to join with him in prayers to God for his deliverance from the unbelieving, reach any farther; neither do we deny any such mediation. Farther, we are willing to grant that the Saints departed intercede for the Faithful upon earth: but this does by no means prove, that we are to address them for this purpose; both because we may reasonably conclude the benevolence of their nature will prompt them to assist us without religious submission: and besides, we are not assured they are within the reach of our petitions.

'Tis too well known indeed, that the ill nature of men is often such, that they will do nothing without courtship and servile application: they spoil the grace of an obligation by delays and distance, and morose behaviour ; and sometimes there is more trouble with 'em than the thing is worth. They believe their greatness consists in the littleness of others; and therefore they will not part with their favours without submissions; they think they are slighted when they are not flattered, and endeavour [92] to make up their defects in solid advantages, by haughtiness and pretending. But all this proceeds from scandalous principles, from ignorance, and weakness, and malice. The climate of this miserable world does not differ more from the regions of happiness, than such a temper from those who dwell there. The blessed Spirits understand their own heicrht too well to fancy our observance can make any addition, and are too good to have any thing of state or exceptiousness in 'em. There has been no pride in the mansions of bliss since Lucifer was thrown out; and therefore we need not fear that those who are there will be disobliged with the omission of a little ceremony especially when they know we do not forbear it out of disrespect, but for fear of offending God. Their goodness is too absolute to clog their assistance with any incumbrance; Their greatness is without vanity, their kindness without design: and therefore all their favours will come unbespoken of themselves. Their generous charity is sufficient to oblige them to do their utmost; so that it is needless for us to go about to waken their beneficence by importunity and homage. And whereas they assert that our Saviour's Mediation relates only to Original Sin, and that we are to address the Saints to intercede with the God of the Universe for the remission of post-baptismal sins; this assertion, with all due regard to their Patriarchal Lordships, we conceive repugnant to plain Scripture, and derogatory to the Mediatorial Office of our Saviour as God and Man. For our blessed Saviour plainly commands the Apostles, and by consequence all the faithful, to apply immediately to God. Whatsoever ye shall ask, says [93] He, in My name that will I do; and, in the next verse, If ye shall ask any thing in My name, I will do it, (John xiv. 13, 140 and in Chapter 16 our Saviour assures His disciples, that whatsoever they shall ask the Father in His name He will give it them. From whence our Lord continues, Hitherto ye have asked nothing in My Name; ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may befull (ibid.). Thus we see there is as express command for addressing God directly for all the blessings relating to this life and the other. And that the same rule holds for immediate application to God, for-the remission of post-baptismal sins, we may learn from the same Apostle's ist Epist. c. ii. v. 12, where we are told, _Tf any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and He is the propitiation for our sins. By the Apostle's declariDg, that if any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, it is evident actual sins are only meant; for original sin was contracted long before any persons were in being in St John's time. Besides, the Apostle's affirming our Saviour to be then an Advocate and Propitiation for our sins, manifestly implys His Intercession with God the Father for post-baptismal transgressions ever since His Ascension.
4. As to their Patriarchal Lordships' sentiment, maintaining the Bread and Wine in the Holy Eucharist being changed after Consecration into the -natural Body and Blood of our Saviour, nothing of the elements remaining excepting the bare accidents void of substance, we can by no means agree with their Lordships' doctrine : such a corporal Presence, which they call Transubstantiation, having no foundation in Scripture, and being [94] by implication, and sometimes plainly, denied by the most celebrated Fathers of the Primitive Church. As to the Scripture, 'tis true our blessed Saviour calls the Eucharistic bread and wine His Body and Blood: but that these words are Dot to be restrained to a literal sense we may collect from other places of Scripture, where our Saviour calls Himself a Door and a Vine; and in other places of Holy Writ He is called the Lamb of God, and the Lion of the tribe of Juda. All which texts we doubt not, but the Oriental Church will allow must be construed to a metaphorical sense: and if these places are to be figuratively interpreted, why not the other at the institution of the Holy Eucharist, which if restrained to the letter is no less shocking than the rest? Farther, St Paul calls the Eucharistic Element Bread, even after Consecration, when it was to be received, (I Cor. xi. 2 8.) And now to alledge some testimonies from the primitive Fathers. St Justin Martyr declares that "our bodies are nourished by the consecrated bread and wine." (Apol. 2.) From whence the inference is plain, this Father believed the substance of the Eucharistic Elements to remain after Consecration. For if the doctrine of Accidents had been established, which 'tis pretty plain the primitive Fathers knew nothing of, supposing this doctrine current, which way could St Justin Martyr conceive our bodies could be nourished with bare Accidents? For Accidents are thrown out of all Substance; and then which way can it be supposed a body can receive nourishment and addition of parts from that which is no body? St Irenaeus, who lived in some part of the same second century with St Justin, informs us the Holy Eucharist consists of two parts, an earthly [95] and an heavenly: the first is the Bread and Wine, the other consists in the mystick force and supernatural efficacy conveyed by the descent of the Holy Ghost. St Cyril of Jerusalem, 'tis granted, has a passage that sounds strongly towards Transubstantiation. (Catech. Mystic. 4.) He observes, "that as our Saviour turned the water into wine at Cana in Galilee, so we have no reason to question but that He gave His Body and Blood at the holy Institution. Therefore, we may be certainly assured, that we receive His Body under the species of bread, and His Blood under the species of wine." But that these expressions, how strong soever, are not to be mounted to Transubstantiation, seems pretty plain from his discourse upon the Holy Chrism. (Cat. MySt. 2.) The words are these. As the Eucharistick bread after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, is no longer meer or common bread, but the Body of Christ; so this holy Ointment remains no longer meer or common ointment, after the invocation, but becomes the charisma or grace of Christ, and the very presence and divinity of the Holy Spirit. From this reasoning we may conclude, that as the Holy Chrism cannot be supposed to be raised to the essence and sublimity of the Deity ; so neither by the force of the comparison, can we infer that this Father meant any more than that the Eucharistick Elements had a supernatural force and beneficial energy transfused by Consecration upon them. The next testimony shall be the famous S. Chrysostom in his Epistle to Caesarius. Here, this Father disputing against the Heresy of Apollinaris, brings an instance by way of illustration from the Holy Eucharist. The bread, says he, before consecration, is called bread; [96] but after it has passed thro' the force of the solemnity, and been consecrated by the Priest, it is then discharged from the name of bread, and dignified with the name of our Lord's Body, tho' the nature of bread still remains in it. And thus by the form of the expression, and the application of the instance, he shews clearly that he believed the nature or substance of bread remained unchanged after Consecration. Theodoret, who is the last Greek Father we shall mention, has a passage full to the same purpose. It is in his second dialogue between Orthodoxus and Eranistes; The latter of these two persons represents an Eutychian. Now, by the Doctrine of the Eutychian Heresy, our Saviour's human nature was absorbed by the divine. To make good this point, Eranistes argues from the change of the Elements in the Holy Eucharist. As the Symbols of our Saviour's body and blood, says be, are one thing before the Invocation of the, Priest, but after the prayer of Consecration has passed upon them, they are changed and become another; so our Lord's body after His ascension, is transform'd into the Divine substance. You are catch'd in your own net, replies Orthodoxus (who stands forTheodoret) that is, the mysterious symbols don't lose their NATURE upon consecration, but continue in their former SUBSTANCE. And to apply this matter farther. It is well known S. Chrysostom. and Theodoret were never charged with any unorthodoxy or singularity of Opinion with regard to the Holy Eucharist; we may therefore safely conclude that their opinion in this matter, was no other than the Catholick [97] Doctrine of the Primitive Church. These Authorities of the Eastern Fathers shall be fortified by three of the Western Church of famous memory: the first is Tertullian, who wrote in the beginning of the third, the other are S. Austin Bishop of Hippo, and Gelasius the first who lived in the fourth and fifth Centuries. Tertullian reports, (contra Marcion.) that our Saviour, by what He calls His Body in the Holy Eucharist, meant the Symbol and Representation of His body: Corpus meum, hoe est, figura corporis mei. S. Austin lays down the following rule as a Maxim for interpreting Scripture. If the text, says he, forbids something wicked and flagitious, and commands what is serviceable and beneficial, then the precept is to be literally understood; but if it seems to command a wicked action and forbid a good one, then it is a figurative expression : and to apply and illustrate this Maxim, he instances in the text of S. John's Gospel (chap. vi.) urged sometimes in proof of the Corporal presence: Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Here something very ill and inhuman seems commanded, therefore the place has a figurative meaning: the sense is, that we ought gratefully to recollect our Saviour's Passion, and entertain our memory with the contemplation, that His flesh has been crucified and wounded for us: His words are, " Figura est ergo praecipiens passioni ejus esse communicandum, et suaviter et utiliter in memoria recolendum, quod pro nobis Caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit." (AUGUSTIN. de doetr. christiain. Lib. III. cap. 15). And in the same book he expressly pronounces, that 'tis not really and strictly speaking our [98] Saviour's body, which will not continue with Him to all eternity. " Non revera Domini corpus est, quod cum illo non erit in eternum." (lbid, cap. xxxiii.) From hence nothing can be more evident, than that this celebrated Father did not believe the Eucharistick Elements were transubstantiated into our Saviour's natural Body. For, 'tis granted on all bands that the Eucharistick Sacrifice will for ever cease at the Judgement day: For, when the final decision is past, and every one's fate is fixt; when there will be no more remission of sin, or need of grace against temptation, the reason for sacrificing must drop of course: and when the Eucharistick Elements are no longer consecrated, the natural Body of our Saviour, supposed to emerge from thence, can no longer be produced, and by consequence cannot continue with him to all eternity.

Pope Gelasius is no less strongly determining against Transubstantiation. This Pope, who wrote in the latter end of the fifth Century, plainly declares, the substance and nature of the Bread and Wine remains after consecration. (Tis in Tract. contra Nestorium et Eutychem.) 'Tis true, he then tells us, the elements are changed into a Divine thing, i.e. raised to a divine efficacy by the operation of the Holy Spirit. Which change we most willingly confess, viz. that there is a mystick virtue and supernatural force transfused upon the Eucharistick Elements by the Priest's pronouncing the words of Institution and his prayer for the descent of the Holy Ghost.

As to what has been urged from these Latin Fathers, their testimony can't justly be excepted to: for, since they are early in time, and considerable [99] in character, their being members of the Western Church, can be no disadvantage to their authority: For, they lived several Centuries before a rupture between the Greek and Latin Churches. And as for their not writing in Greek, we conceive, their Patriarchal Lordships will not consider them with any abatement upon that score.

Our Reply to the answer of the fifth article is; that since we can't be convinced of any liberty for invocating the Saints and paying religious worship to them; we conceive, the argument lies rather stronger against giving relative worship or religious respect to their Images. For, since the Prototype cannot be thus addressed or regarded, 'tis still more difficult to imagine, the bare representation of such a Being can claim any such honour. To proceed. That neither the worship, nor so much as the use of them was very early in the Christian Church, is pretty plain from S. Epiphanius Bishop Of Constantia in Cyprus, in his letter to John of Jerusalem,, where he declares strongly against this practice. "When I came into a Country Church of Palestine called Anablatha, I found a curtain hanging over the door, upon which there -was a picture painted like that of our Saviour or some Saint; (for, I can't certainly remember whose picture it was:) However, seeing the figure of a Man in the Church of Christ, contrary to the Authority of Holy Scripture, I tore it, and gave order to the Churchwardens to wrap it about some corps and bury it, &c." And tho' this Father went too far, in asserting the unlawfulness of having Images in Churches: yet we [100] may fairly infer, that this practice was not customary in Cyprus or Palestine in Epiphanius's time.

To this we may observe, that the Council of Constantinople held under Constantine Copronymus against Images asserts, that there was no Prayer in the Church-service for consecrating Images; which suggestion the second Council of Nice does not deny. (Baron. A.D. 754. Concil. Labbe. Tom. vii.) And S. Austin mentioning some superstitious Christians, (for so he calls them.,) says, he knew a great many who worship'd pictures. (Augustin. de moribus Ecel. Catb. Cap. 34.)

And for a farther Declaration of our Sentiment upon this Article, we willingly acknowledge, that the use of Images in Churches is not only lawful, but may be serviceable for representing the History of the Saints, for refreshing the memory, and warming the Devotion of the People. And thus, our reason for alledging the foregoing Testimonies, is not against the use, but only against the worship of Images. For, if the bare usage was sometimes condemned, and no where generally practiced in the Primitive Church, it follows a fortiori, that the worship of them in those early ages cannot be supposed.

And thus having represented the Differences between us, we are now to suggest a Temper, and offer a Compromise. If therefore, our Liberty is left us in the instances above-mentioned; If the Oriental Patriarchs, Bishops &c. will authentically declare us not obliged to the Invocation of Saints and Angels, the worship of Images, nor the Adoration of the Host; If they please publickly and authoritatively by an Instrument signed by them, [101] to pronounce us perfectly disengaged in these particulars; disengaged, we say, at home and abroad, in their Churches and in our own: These relaxing concessions allow'd, we hope may answer the Overtures on both sides, and conciliate an Union.

And we farther desire their Patriarchal Lordships, &c. would please to remember, that Christianity is no gradual Religion, but was entire and perfect when the Evangelists and Apostles were deceased. And therefore the earliest Traditions are undoubtedly preferable, and the first Guides the best. For, the stream runs clearest towards the fountain's head. Thus, whatever variations there are from the original state, whatever crosses in belief or practice upon the earliest ages, ought to come under suspicion. Therefore, as they charitably put us in mind, to shake off all prejudices, so we entreat them not to take it amiss, if we humbly suggest the same advice. We hope therefore, their Lordships' impartial Consideration will not determine by prepossession or the precedents of later times; but rather be govern'd by the general usages and doctrine of the first four Centuries, not excluding the fifth; than think themselves unalterably bound by any solemn decisions of the East in the eighth Century, which was even then opposed by an equal Authority in the West.

And thus, presuming both parties will hold the balance even, and not wish for Truth, but prove it; we are not without expectation of advancing so far towards an Uniformity, as may make up the unhappy breach, and close the distance between us.

And to release their Patriarchal Lordships, and take leave with our most earliest Prayers, [102] that the allwise and merciful God, who makes men to be of one mind in an house', who is the Author of Peace and the lover of Concord, may graciously please to continue their benevolent wishes, animate their zeal, and direct their measures for the finishing so glorious a work: That the Orthodox Oriental Church, and the Catholick Remainder in Britain, may at last join in the Holy Solemnities of Religion, and be made more intimately one Fold under one Shepher& ' Jesus Christ our blessed Lord and Saviour; To whom with the Father, and the Holy Spirit be all Honour and Glory, world without end. Amen.

This Reply was concluded and delivered to some Greeks in London, to be by them transmitted to the four Eastern Patriarchs, May 29, 1722.



[114] 15. The Holy Governing Synod of Russia to the Nonjurors.

The Sacred Governing Council of the Russian Church,, to the very Reverend the Bishops of the Catholick Church in Great Britain our dearest Brethren in the Lord, wisheth Health.


Your Letters written to us the thirtieth of May in the former Year, worthy Gentlemen and dearest Brothers, we have received, from which more than from any Thing before, being assured that you have chiefly at Heart and seek and desire Peace and Concord with the Oriental Church, we have conceived great Joy in the Spirit, and also given Glory to Christ our Saviour, who is our Peace: For as much as by moving you to these Endeavours He has confirmed our Faith in His Promises. For bow continually He is graciously present with His Church according to His Promise your Desire of Concord is a Testimony. We also give you great Thanks that you have not thought it unworthy of you to express your Good Will to our Synod in Terms of the greatest Veneration, and have esteemed it worth your while to write to us of these Matters. Your Answers which you have returned to the Writing of the most Holy Patriarchs, penned in the Greek Tongue, we have sent to those Prelates. The other which are in Latin we have and consider. And making no Doubt that these Desires of yours spring not from any Earthly Root, but spring from a heavenly seed, we faithfully promise our best Assistance to further this your, nay our also, so Holy a Negotiation. And now, which is of greatest Moment in this [115] Case, we have acquainted his Imperial Majesty, our most gracious Lord, with your Proceedings, which both you desired and we also thought ourselves oblidged to. The most potent Prince receive them with a very sincere Countenance, and, as we believe, esteemed this as one of his just Consolations after an happy but laborious Expedition. What his Opinion is concerning this Affair we will ingenuously tell you. He thinks it proper that you send two of yours to have a friendly Conference in the Name and Spirit of Christ with two that are to be chosen out of our Brethren; hereby the Opinions, Arguments, and Persuasions of each Party may be more sincerely produced, more clearly understood; and it may be more easily known what may be yielded and given up by one to the other, what on the other side may and ought for Conscience Sake to be absolutely denied. In the mean time no Prejudice would befall either your Communion or ours from such a private Conference, nor the Hopes of Union be altogether lost thereby.

This is the Opinion of our Monarch concerning this most Holy Negotiation, which seems indeed to us the best. We desire that, as soon as may be, you will let us know bow it appears to you. In the mean time, God is seriously to be entreated by each of us to be merciful to us and you. Farewell, our dear Brothers.


Your Brothers most bounden to your Charity in Christ,

Theodosius Archbishop of Novogord, and the Archimandrite [of] Alexander Nevesis.

Theophilus Archbishop of Plescow.


Gabriel Archimandrite of the Holy Trinity of the Monastery of Sergius.

Theophilact Archimandrite of Czudow.

Ierotheus Archimandrite of Noevospashi.

Peter Archimandrite of Simonove.

Athanasius Precident of Tolski.

Anastasius Nausis.
Mosco; in the Year 1723. in the Month of February.

We acquaint you, dearest Brothers, that the Precident of our Synod, Stephen Metropolitan of Razan, died before your Letter came to us.


To the very Reverend the Bishops of the Catholick Church in Great Britain, our dearest Brethern.


16. The Holy Governing Synod to the Non-jurors.

The Holy directing Council of the Church throughout the Russias to the most Reverend the Bishops of the Catholick Church in Great Britain our most beloved Brothers in the Lord wisheth Health.


A year is now past since we delivered Letters to the Reverend Father the Protosyncellus to be carried to you, but some Impediments have retarded his Journey to England till this Time.

We acquainted you by them how well pleased the most potent Emperor of the Russias our gracious Prince was to be further assured of your pious Desire for the Peace of the Churches, and what Advice he gave of the best Method to bring this holy Endeavour to Effect. And because he still continues constant in the same Opinion, we [117] send the very same Letters together with these. And we desire you will pardon this Delay, rather for the Sake of your own Goodness than any other Excuse that might be made. We also send you the Writing of the Greek Prelates which we received from Constantinople during the Time that the Father Protosyncellus was preparing for his Journey, being desired by a Letter from them to transmitt it to you. In the mean Time we desire your Charity to know, that if, according to the Advice of our Prince, you will send two of your Brethren to a Conference, which we again intreat you to do, we may hope to bring our Wishes to a more easy Conclusion. Which that at Length He, the Lawgiver of Love, the God of Peace, the Father of Mercies may prosper, is our hearty Desire and Prayer. Farewell, our Dearest Brothers. The most fervent Brothers in Christ of your Charity,

Theophanes Archbishop of Plescow.

Theophilact Bishop of Tevers.

Gabriel Archimandrite of the Holy Trinity.

Theophilus Archimandrite of Czudow.

Ierotheus Archimandrite of St. Savior's.

Peter Protopresbyter of the Church of St. Peter.


St Petersburgh, 2. Feb. 1724.


To the most Reverend the Bishops of the Catholick Church in Great Britain our Dearest Brothers.

17. The Eastern Patriarchs to the Nonjurors.)

The Orthodox Confession of the Apostolical, Catholick, and Oriental Church of Christ.


+ The most holy and oecumenical Patriarch, the Patriarch of Constantinople the New Rome, Jeremias.

+ The most blessed Patriarch of Antioch the City of God, Athanasius.

+ The most blessed Patriarch of the most holy City Jerusalem, Chrysanthus.
And as many as could be got together of the most Reverend Archbishops, Metropolitans and Bishops; and the Assembly of the Christian, Eastern and Orthodox Clergy, to the most Reverend and Catholick Archbishops and Bishops of Great Britain, and their Reverend Clergy, our beloved in Christ, Brotherly Love in the Holy Ghost, and every good thing from God, and health.

We received your Reply to our Answers, drawn up in form of a Book, by which being acquainted with the good state of your health, and that zeal and piety which you bear to the Eastern and Holy Church of Christ among us, we were not a little rejoiced; embracing in the manner which became us, your religious Benevolence, your Diligence, and readiness of Disposition to a Union of the Churches: which Unity is the support of the Faithful; in which our Lord Jesus Christ and our God is well pleased; who has also given His holy Disciples and Apostles, for a distinguishing mark of their relation to Him, a mutual Affection, agreement and unanimity. To answer therefore briefly to what you have written to us: we say that, having carefully perused your second Letters, we apprehend the sense and intention of the particulars, concerning which we have nothing [119] more to observe, nor any other reply to make to all the propositions you have now sent us, than what we formerly laid before you in the exposition of the Doctrines and sentiments of our Eastern Church, viz. that those Doctrines have been long since examined, and rightly and religiously defined and settled by the holy and Oecumenical Synods, and that it is neither lawful to add any thing to them or take any thing from them: and that those who are disposed to agree with us in the Divine Doctrines of the Orthodox Faith, must necessarily follow and submit to what has been defined and determined by the Decision of the Ancients and Fathers of the Holy and Oecumenical Synods from the time of the Apostles and their Holy Successors the Fathers of our Church to this time: We say, they must submit to them with sincerity and obedience, and without any scruple or dispute. And this is a sufficient Answer to what you have written. But for a fuller and unanswerable testimony, we here send you in a more ample form, an exposition of the Orthodox faith of our Eastern Church, as it is contain'd in the Synod call'd the Synod of Jerusalem held long since with the greatest deliberation, Anno Salutis 116 7 2,which was printed afterwards in Greek and Latin at Paris in the year 1675, and being carried over into those parts, may possibly be to be found also among you. Now, from thence you may know and understand the certain holy and orthodox sentiments of the Eastern Church among us: to which if you will be content to agree, you shall be altogether one with us, and there shall be no difference between us. And as for matters of Custom and Ecclesiastical order, and for the form and discipline of administring [120] the Sacraments ; they will be easily settled when once a Union is effected. For, it is evident from Ecclesiastical history, that there both have been and now are different customs and regulations in different places and Churches; and yet the Unity of Faith and Doctrine is preserved the same. May God, who sees and knows the events of all things, and would that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, grant that these things may be judged and determined according to his Divine Will, to the benefit and salvation of Souls.

At Constantinople Anno Salutis 1723. in the month of September.


+ I Jeremias, by the mercy of God Archbishop of Constantinople the new Rome and (Ecumenical Patriarch, have subscribed with my own hand; and do testify and declare, that this is the orthodox faith of our Apostolical, Catholick and Oriental Church of Christ.

+ I Athanasius, by the mercy of God Patriarch of the Great City of God Antioch, have subscribed with my own band; and do testify confirm and declare, that this is the Orthodox faith of our Apostolical. Catholick and Oriental Church of Christ.

+ I Chrysanthus, by the mercy of God Patriarch of the holy City Jerusalem, have subscribed with my own hand; and do testify and declare, that this is the orthodox faith of our Apostolical Catholick and Oriental Church of Christ.

+ I Callinicus of Heraclea, have subscribed with my own hand, confessing the same things as the Holy Patriarchs above, both with heart and mouth : which also I will declare unto my last breath.

+ I Auxentius of Cyzicum, confess that this is the Doctrine of the Catholick Oriental Church.

+ I PaSsius of Nicomedia, have subscribed with my own hand; and do testify and declare, that this is the Doctrine of the Catholick and Oriental Church.

+ I Gerasimus of Nice, have subscribed with my own hand; and do testify, that this is the Doctrine of the Catholick and Oriental Church.

+ I Parthenius of Chalcedon, have subscribed with my own band; and do testify and declare, that this is the opinion of the Catholick and Oriental Church.

+ I Ignatius of Thessalonica, have subscribed with my own hand: and do testify and declare, that this is the doctrine of the Catholick and Oriental Church.

+ I Arsenius of Prysa, have subscribed with my own band, testifying and declaring, that this is the Doctrine of the Catholick and Oriental Church.

+ I Theoctistus of Philipopolis, have subscribed with my own hand, testifying and declaring, that this is the Doctrine of the Oriental and Catholick Church.

+ I Callinicus of Varna, have subscribed with my own hand; and do testify and declare, that this is the Doctrine of the Catholick and Oriental Church.



[125] 21. The Nonjurors to the Holy Governing Synod of Russia.

To the most Holy Synod presiding over the Church of Russia the Catholick Bishops of
the British Churches send Greeting.


My Lords,


'Twas with no small Satisfaction we received your Letters. The Honor of your Correspondence and the Indication of your Zeal for a Coalition are strong Motives for acknowledgment, and make the Prospect look not unpromising. And since an Union is thus earnestly desired on both Sides, we hope the Means of effecting it may not prove impracticable. To close the Breaches made in the Catholick Church is a glorious Undertaking, and which nothing but the parting with Essential Truths ought to prevent. And though there may be a Distance remaining in some few Branches of Belief, a charitable Latitude may be left open for the Repose of Conscience, and reviving an Harmony in Worship. And thus we may join in all the Offices of Communion, and walk in the House of God as Friends.

As to his Imperial Majesty none can be more sensible of his condescending Goodness and princely Generosity than ourselves, and for which we entreat our most humble Thanks may be returned.

'Tis not without Regret that we cannot send two of our Clergy to wait on your Lordships this Summer, pursuant to what we promised the Reverend Archimandrite and Protosyncellus; but accidents unforeseen will sometimes happen, and which we hope you will please to excuse. The [126] Case is this: One of the Gentlemen came but lately to Town, and could not possibly put his private Concerns in any tolerable Order, till the Season for his Voyage would be past. But as soon as the next Spring presents fair, they will certainly, God willing, attend your Lordships with our worthy Friend, Mr Cassano. We own ourselves much oblidged to the Protosyncellus for the great Fatigue and Hazard he has undergone in this Affair, and are sorry our Circumstances would not give us leave to shew the Marks of our Regard with better Significancy. And the same we likewise add with Reference to the Archimandrite and his Nephew. This latter at his coming, and the Protosyncellus now, will more particularly acquaint you with some Disadvantages we ly under, and give farther Assurance how much we are,

My Lords,

Your Lordships' most humble and obedient Servants,

Archibaldus Scoto-Britanniae Episcopus.

Jeremias primus Anglo-Britannix Episcopus. THOMAs Anglo-Britannim Episcopus.

Johannes Anglo-Britannive Episcopus.


July 13, 1724,


22. The Nonjurors to the High Chancellor of Russia.




The Lustre and Interest of your Station in the Emperor of Great Russia's Court makes us repeat our Address, and humbly solicit your [127] Lordship's Recommendation of the Endeavour for a Coalition between the Greek, Muscovitick and Britannick Churches. To this we are the more encouraged by your Lordship's noble Disposition to promote that Christian Design. We are likewise deeply sensible of his Imperial Majesty's Condecension and Bounty, and for the Liberty his Majesty is pleased to give us for debating Matters with some of the Russian Clergy, and concerting Measures for settling the Union. This indulging a personal Conference is a fresh Instance of his Imperial Majesty's Goodness, and will prevent the Delays of corresponding by Letters, and for which we return our most humble Thanks. My Lord, we ully intended, as we promised the Archimandrite and Protosyncellus, to send two of our Clergy with the worthy Mr Cassano; but one of the two Gentlemen being just now come from a remote Distance, and embarassed in his private Affairs, which it is not possible for him to disentangle till the Season for sailing will be over, we must therefore of Necessity deferr sending till next Spring when, God willing, they will certainly wait on your Lordship. And tho at present we want Opportunity, yet none can have warmer Inclinations to expedite this important Business than,

My Lord,

Your Lordship's most humble and obedient Servants,


Archibaldus Scoto-Britannive Episcopus.

Jeremias primus Anglo-Britanniae Episcopus.

Thomas Anglo-Britanniae Episcopus.

Johannes Anglo-Britannioe Episcopus.


July 13, 1724.



25. The Nonjurors to the Holy Governing Synod.

To the most Holy Synod presiding over the Church of Russia, the Catholick Bishops of the British Churches send Greeting.

My Lords,

We are sensibly affected with the melancholy Account of the Great Emperor of Russia's Death, and heartily condole with your Lordships upon this unhappy Occasion, tho' we hope the Loss, may be made up by the Accession of her Imperial Majesty to his Throne. This Misfortune has put a stop to the Affair between us till we receive fresh Directions, and know your Lordships' pleasure. For which Purpose we have desired our worthy Friend Mr Cassano to wait upon your Lordships, upon whose fidelity and care we entirely rely. We commend your Lordships to the Divine Protection, and remain,


My Lords,

Your Lordships' most humble and obedient Servants,


Archibaldus Scoto-Britannive Episcopus.

Jeremias primus Anglo-Britanniae Episcopus.

Johannes Anglo-Britannioe Episcopus.


April 11th, 1725.



26. The Nonjurors to the High Chancellor of Russia.



The Affair of the Union between the two Churches having been carried on hitherto under your Lordship's Countenance and Protection, and lying now in Suspence upon the much lamented Death of the Great Emperor of Russia, we take the Liberty of applying ourselves to your Lordship, both to condole so great a Misfortune, and also congratulate her present Majesty's Accession, upon whose pleasure the further progress of this Matter depends. We beg leave to recommend to your Lordship's Favor Mr Cassano, the Bearer, of whose fidelity and diligence we have had long Experience, and are with great Respect,


My Lord,

Your Lordship's most humble and obedient Servants,


Archibaldus Scoto-Britannive Episcopus.

Jeremias primus Anglo-Britanniae Episcopus.

Johannes Anglo-Britannioe Episcopus.


April 11th, 1725.