The Eirenicon and the ‘Primitive Episcopacy’ of James Ussher: An Irish Panacea For Britannia's Ailment
Abstract James Ussher, Primate of the Church of Ireland (as Archbishop of Armagh), arrived in England in the early 1640s, a time when the country was in political turmoil. Scots and significant sections of English society were campaigning for the abolition of the episcopacy. During this turmoil Ussher proposed a scheme of limited episcopacy that came to be known by the keyword: the Eirenicon. This scheme offered to keep the bishops but in a form that made them answerable to a team of Presbyters. The Eirenicon failed and Ussher embarked on a literary campaign that defended the divine institution of episcopacy. This move has long been regarded as a U-turn. This paper will argue that rather than there being a change of mind, the Eirenicon and the pro-episcopal writings of Ussher should be seen as a whole, offering a compromise form of ‘primitive episcopacy’.
James Ussher and “Ussherian” Episcopacy, 1640–1656: The Primate and His Reduction Manuscript
The most important contribution made by Archbishop James Ussher to the ecclesiastical developments of the Interregnum and Restoration periods was his short tract The Reduction of Episcopacy Unto the Form of Synodical Government. Printed only after his death in 1656, its combination of ministerial synods with episcopal rule was seen as a basis for presbyterian-episcopal reconciliation over the next three decades. The tract was printed in five editions during the later 1650s, and came out in two more editions in 1679, when the Popish Plot and the calling of a new Parliament revived hopes that dissenters could be comprehended within the Church of England. It was printed once more in 1689, in Edinburgh, when "comprehension" was again being hotly debated in both England and Scotland.' By that time Ussher's name had come to symbolize such "limited" or "primitive" episcopacy, and indeed it has continued to do so 2 among twentieth-century historians. The fame of the Reduction rests upon its content and authorship. Although the tract was only one of many such compromises offered during the Interregnum, it was the most radical to come from the royalist and Anglican side during that period. Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland, Ussher was admired and respected by radical puritans and major Laudian spokesmen such as Henry Hammond and Bishop John Bramhall. The power of Ussher's name in this context was shown in 1685, when the nonconformist divine and politician Richard Baxter was on trial for allegedly making a printed attack against the king and the bishops. When Baxter's attorney, Sir Henry Pollexfen, sought to introduce as evidence one of Baxter's own printed compromises between episcopal and presbyterian government, Lord Chief Justice George Jeffreys replied, "I will see none of his books; it is for primitive Episcopacy, I will warrant you a bishop in every parish." In replying "Nay, my lord, it is the same with Archbishop Usher's," Pollexfen indicated both the radical nature of the Reduc-
Urban Identities and Catastrophe: Izmir and Salonica at the End of the Ottoman Empire*
Two huge fires dramatically influenced the urban development of Salonica and Izmir, in 1917 and in 1922, respectively. These catastrophes occurred after the Ottoman Empire fell, and Salonica and Izmir had shifted into new national contexts. The fires mainly destroyed the districts that were transformed during the late‐Ottoman period. These districts became the cosmopolitan façades of modern Izmir and Salonica. The post‐fires' tabula rasa provided an opportunity for Greek and Turkish politicians and European planners to change the urban identity of both cities. Moreover, the Lausanne Treaty of 1923 transformed their multicultural societies also. Reconstruction plans had been thought to de‐Ottomanize and remove the previous idea of the towns and their multiplicity, interpreting new cultural and nationalist feeling. Here, I emphasize how modernity was interpreted before and after the fires, and point out contradictions between ideological aspects of planning and how the first urban districts were built during the 1920s.