317 Iz virni znans tv eni članek/ Article (1.01) Bogoslovni vestnik/Theological Quarterly 84 (2024) 2, 317—335 Besedilo pr eje t o/R eceiv ed:01/2024; spr eje t o/ Accep t ed:09/2024 UDK/UDC: 274(091):930.85(498)"16" DOI: 10.34291/B V2024/02/Nagy © 2024 Nagy , CC B Y 4.0 Levente Nagy Reformation And/or Union: Notes on Early Seven- teenth Century Romanian Reformation in Transyl- vania in a European Context Reformacija in/ali Unija: zapiski o romunski reforma- ciji v Transilvaniji na začetku sedemnajstega stoletja v evropskem kontekstu Abstract : The s tudy pr e se n ts som e phe nom e na of the im pac t of the R e f or m a tion on E as t ern Orthodo xy . In the 17 th century, Eastern Orthodoxy was assailed with off er s of union fr om both Pr ot es t an ts and Ca tholics. The Gr eek -E as t ern Chur ch responded to these challenges with some reforms. So, like the Protestant Re- f orma tion and the Ca tholic r e viv al, w e c an speak of a R e f orma tion, and r e viv al in the Greek Orthodox Church as well. This Orthodox reform manifested itself primarily within the P a triar cha t e of Cons t an tinople, and within the R omanians of the Principality of T r ans ylv ania. In our s tudy , w e pr esen t the activity of some Gr eek Philo-Calvinis t in t ellectuals (Nik odemos Me t a x as, Zacharia Ger g anos, Me tr ophanes K rit opoulos). A t the cen tr e of this pr esen t a tion is the Calvinis t c a t echism of P a triar ch Cyril Luc aris. W e analy se the e xis ting link s be tw een Lu- caris and between the teachers and preachers of the Calvinist college in Alba Iulia (Johann Heinrich Als t ed, Johann Heinrich Bis t erf eld, G y ör gy Csulai, Is tv án K a t ona Geleji). W e pr o vide ne w da t a about the tr ansla t or s of the Ne w T es t a- men t o f Băl gr ad (1648), wh i ch i s th e fir s t c o mp l e t e ed i tio n o f th e Ne w T es t a- men t in R omanian. W e pr esen t the Calvinis t f ea tur es of this tr ansla tion, as w ell as the f act tha t in the pr e f ace of the Ne w T es t amen t of Bălgr ad, some ideas ar e t ak en fr om the writings of Fr ancis Bac on. Keywords : Pr ot es t an t R e f orma tion, Ca tholic R e viv al, Orthodo x R e viv al, Cyril Luc a- ris, Ne w T es t amen t of Bălgr ad (1648) Povzetek: Prispe v ek pr eds t a vlja nek a t er e vidik e vpliv a r e f ormacije na v zhodno pr a- v osla vje. V 17. s t ole tju je bilo v zhodno pr a v osla vje pr epla vljeno s pobudami z a unijo , ki so iz vir ale t ak o od pr ot es t an t o v k ot k a t olič ano v . V zhodna gr šk a Cerk e v se je na te izzive odzvala z nekaterimi reformami. Tako lahko – podobno kot pri protestantski reformaciji in katoliškem preporodu – o reformaciji in preporodu 318 Bogoslovni vestnik 84 (2024) • 2 govorimo tudi v Grški pravoslavni Cerkvi. Ta pravoslavna reforma je zajela pred- v sem k ons t an tinopelski pa triarha t in R omune v T r ansilv anski kne ž e vini. V naši š tudiji pr eds t a vljamo delo v anje nek a t erih gr ških filok alvinis tičnih in t elek tualce v (Nik odemos Me t ak sas, Z aharija Ger g anos, Me tr of anes K rit opoulos). V ospr edju pr eds t a vitv e je k alvinis tični k a t ekiz em pa triarha Kirila Luk arisa. Analizir amo ž e znane po v e z a v e med Luk arisom t er učit elji in pridig arji k alvinis tičneg a k olegija v Albi Iuliji (Johann Heinrich Als t ed, Johann Heinrich Bis t erf eld, G y ör gy Csulai, Is tv án K a t ona Geleji). Na v ajamo tudi no v e poda tk e o pr e v ajalcih No v e z a v e z e iz Bălgr ada (1648), ki je pr v a popolna iz daja No v e z a v e z e v r omunščini. Prik az ane so k alvinis tične značilnos ti t eg a pr e v oda – pa tudi dejs tv o , da so v pr edg o v oru No v e z a v e z e iz Bălgr ada nek a t er e ideje po v z e t e po spisih Fr ancisa Bac ona. Ključne besede : Kiril Luk aris, Nov a z a v e z a iz Bălgr ada (1648), k a t oliški pr epor od, pravoslavni preporod 1. Introduction In or der t o pr o vide a sufficien tly accur a t e descrip tion of the unique T r ans ylv anian R omanian R e f orma tion, which las t ed f or almos t tw o hundr ed y ear s (appr o x. 1540– 1740), one mus t s tudy this phenomenon in the c on t e x t of the early se v en t een th- -century European dialogue between Protestants and the Greek Orthodox. In the sec ond half of the sixt een th cen tury , fir s t Philipp Melanch thon, then the Ur ach-T ü- bing en cir cle (Primo ž T rubar , Hans Ungnad, St ephan Gerlach, Martin Crusius) made c on t act with the P a triar ch of Cons t an tinople t o w ork on a kind of union be tw een E as t ern Orthodo xy and Pr ot es t an tism. Despit e the f act tha t P a triar ch Jer emias II (1536 –1595) w as initially r eady t o eng ag e in dialogue, the initia tiv e f ailed (Beng a 2003). How e v er , the situa tion chang ed dr ama tic ally a t the beginning of the se v en- t een th cen tur y , when Gr eek Orthodo xy beg an t o open up t o Pr ot es t an tism. This w as primarily due t o the activity of Gr eek in t ellectuals who , support ed by Cons t an- tinople pa triar ch and Calvinis t s ympa thise r Cyril Luc aris (1572–1638), w e n t on a per egrina tion t o the Pr ot es t an t univ er sities of W es t ern Eur ope. Among them, f or e x ample, Nik odemos Me t a x as (†1646), who r esided in London be tw een 1622 and 1627 (P ekt aș 2015, 18). Aft er his r e turn t o Cons t an tinople, the Fr ench ambassador , Philippe de Harlay, count of Césy, reported that with the help of the English ambas- sador, Sir Thomas Roe, Lucaris and Metaxa wanted to set up a college in Alexandria, wher e Gr eek monk s r e turning fr om England and the German principalities w ould c on tinue their educ a tion (Olar 2019, 123). The Fr ench ambassador , and the Gr eek ar chbishop of P ar ona xia, Jer emia Barbarig o (V ar v arig os) spr ead the rumour tha t Me t a x as’ public a tions (Legr and 1894, 237–240) w er e Calvinis tic in na tur e. Ho w e- v er , Me t a x as cr ea t ed a c ompila tion fr om thirt een th-cen tury B y z an tine author s and fr om a w ork of the P a triar ch of Ale x andria, Mele tios P eg as (1541–1601). In this w ork, P eg as challeng ed the ideas of An t onio P osse vino (1533–1611) who w an t ed t o achie v e the union of the E as t ern (Gr eek Rit e) and the W es t ern Ca tholic Chur ch. Ther e f or e, Met a x as’ w ork w as only an ti-Ca tholic, but not Calvinis t (Olar 2019, 124– 319 Levente Nagy - Reformation And/or Union 127; P alab yk 2020). The r esult of his c ollabor a tion with Luc aris w as an an ti-Je wish tr ea tise published in 1627, the author of which w as Luc aris (Σύντομος πραγμαεία κατὰ Ἰουδαίων). Me t a x as also planned t o publish Luc aris’ Calvinis t c a t echism, but this plan ne v er ma t erialised, as the janissaries c on fisc a t ed Me t a x as’ prin ting house in Januar y 1628 (Auglier a 1996, 50–51; 70–72). Me tr ophanes K rit opoulos (1589–1639), who s tudied a t O xf or d Univ er sity be t- w een 1617 and 1624, w as another s tuden t of Luc aris. He w en t t o Helms t adt and published a Gr eek c a t echism ther e in 1625 with the in t en tion t o pr ovide Gr eek -spe- aking Western European humanists with a brief summary of the basic tenets of E as t ern Gr eek Orthodo xy (Ic ă 1973; Da v e y 1987). Ther e ar e no pur ely Calvinis tic f ea tur es in the c a t echism, but some t ene ts sho w the in fluence of Pr ot es t an tism. F or e x ample, the t e xt discusses the tw o kinds of divine r ev ela tion: the writt en w or d and the un writt en w or d. The writt en w or d is the Holy Scrip tur e inspir ed b y the Holy Spirit, which is true, perf ect, and unchang eable (Ic ă 1973, 317–345). The un writt en w or d is the tr adition of the Chur ch, f or the Holy Spirit, in a m y s tic al w a y , r e v eals itself t o the Chur ch, and does so c on tinuously . The Scrip tur es t each us t o live with the sacraments, but it does not advise on how to do it. This is revealed by the Holy Spirit exclusively through the Church. Similarly based on divine reve- la tions, the cer emon y and the rit e hold the same v alue as the Holy Scrip tur es. On the other hand, the cer emon y c an be learned fr om the tr adition. The Chur ch is the guar dian and o v er seer of the divine r e v ela tion (Scrip tur e), and a t the same time pr ot ects the T ruth (Scrip tur e) ag ains t those who w an t t o chang e it. In addition, it is the Church who conveys the Scriptures in the appropriate way to the faithful, who , bec ause the y ar e not sufficien tly pr epar ed, ma y f ail t o under s t and or misun- der s t and the de t ails of the Scrip tur es. A t the same time, acc or ding t o K rit opoulos’ c a t echism, the r ec ognition and pr actice of thr ee sacr amen ts (bap tism, eucharis t, penance) ar e enough f or salv a tion, while the other f our sacr amen ts (chrisma tion, marriag e, holy or der , anoin ting of the sick) ar e only m y s tic al cer emonies (Ic ă 1973, 234–256). K rit opoulos also r esort ed t o an in v en tiv e h ybrid solution in the ma tt er of salv a tion thr ough f aith and g ood w ork s. Acc or ding t o him, ther e ar e tw o types of jus tific a tion: fir s t, ther e is g ener al r edemption fr om the original sin, and sec ond, ther e is individualiz ed r edemption fr om our own per sonal sins. In the fir s t c ase, w e c an be ab solv ed fr om the cur se imposed on the en tir e human r ace due t o the di- sobedience of Adam and Eve only through the intercession of Jesus Christ, from the fr ee gr ace of God. In this domain w e c annot influence God with our good w ork s. Ho w e v er , g ood deeds c ome t o pla y a r ole in the per sonal jus tific a tion of each in- dividual. According to Kritopoulos, not everyone receives the same reward in the a ft erlif e. The be tt er deeds a per son has done, the be tt er place he will ha v e in he- a v en, since God will mak e a dis tinction among the chosen ones based on the amo- un t of g ood w ork s (Ic ă 1973, 441–442). K rit opoulos visit ed all German and S wiss Pr ot es t an t univ er sities of the time (Alt dorf , Witt enber g , Gene v a, Bern, T übing en), and then r e turned t o Ale x andria. Aft er the e x ecution of Luc aris, he f elt tha t his lif e w as n o l o n g er sa f e ei th er , so h e fl ed t o W al l ach i a i n 1639, wh er e h e d i ed u n d er unclear cir cums t ances (Da v e y 1987, 460–486). 320 Bogoslovni vestnik 84 (2024) • 2 Another s tuden t of Luc aris, Z acharias Ger g anos, s tudied in Witt enber g , wher e he published a Gr eek c a t echism in 1622 (Legr and 1894, 159–170). The c a t echism c on t a ine d t w o La tin pr e f a c e s: he de dic a t e d one t o J ohn, M ar g r a v e of Thur ing ia, and the other to the Tsar of Russia, the Voivodes of Moldova, Wallachia, and Kiev, as well as all the bishops and priests of the Greek rite. According to Gerganos, the Holy Scrip tur es c o v er all ques tions of Chris tian theology . No e x t ernal help is nee- ded t o in t erpr e t the Bible bec ause its t e x t in t erpr e ts itself . This is the r eason wh y the Bible c an be r ead not only b y the cler gy but also b y or dinar y belie v er s. Ger g a- nos tried to construct his argument by referring only to biblical passages, pushing even the church fathers into the background. Gerganos’ views reveal a clear Pro- t es t an t i n flu en ce. F u rth ermo r e, Ger g an os accep t ed th e r eal p r esen ce of Chri s t ’ s body and blood in the Eucharist, and he passionately defended the communion under both kinds, but a t the same time he also assigned an import an t r ole t o c on- f ession, e v en though he c ondemned the R oman Ca tholic pr actice tha t f a v our ed multiple c ommunions. Acc or ding t o him, r eceiving c ommunion thr ee times a y ear is enough f or believ er s. Ger g anos’ c a t echism w as also an an ti-Ca tholic polemic: the t e x t c on t ains fier ce a tt ack s ag ains t the primacy of the P ope, and its author did not accep t the v alidity of the sacr amen ts of the Ca tholic Chur ch either . Y e t, he ne v er spok e an ill w or d about the Pr ot es t an ts (Ar gyriou 1990, 183–192). 2. Confessio of Lucaris Compar ed t o the c autious and ambiguous positions of his disciples, Luc aris’ cr eed is en tir ely Calvinis t and en tir ely unambiguous. Luc aris handed ov er the manuscript of the Confessio Fidei t o the alr eady men tioned Me t a x as as early as 1627 t o see it publis hed in the Cons t an tino ple prin ting house f ounded b y Luc aris (which w as the fir s t prin ting house in the Ott oman Empir e). Ho w e v er , the Jesuits learned of the plan, and per suaded the Su lt an not only t o f orbid the pub lic a tion of the Con- fessio but also t o c on fisc a t e the en tir e pr ess. In the c a t echism, Luc aris published not his per sonal cr eed but the articles of the e n tir e E as t e r n Chur c h (de religione Ecclesiae Orientalis, id est Graecae ), and orthodo x f aith (quid credamus videlicet sentiamus de articulis orthodoxae fidei) w it h a g ood c onsc ie nc e a nd w it hout pr e t e nse (sine simulatione, sed bona consci- entia). And tha t is ho w it c ame t o be r eput ed among c on t empor aries as w ell. Phi- lipp de Harlay, Count of Césy, the well-informed French ambassador in Constan- tinople, in his r eport of Ma y 13, 1629 – a t a time when Luc aris’ c a t echism had not yet appeared, only the Dutch ambassador, Cornelius Haga, and the preacher who worked alongside him, Antoine Léger, circulated some manuscript copies in Mar ch-April 1629 – he wr ot e the f ollo wing: “I know from a good source that Cyrill sent a creed to England and the Ne- therlands, in which he not only declar es himself a her e tic, but also claims tha t the Gr eek Chur ch accep ts all the t ene ts included in the cr eed (il se 321 Levente Nagy - Reformation And/or Union déclare hérétique non seulement quand à sa personne, mais il dit que l’église grecque tient tous les articles contenus en ladite profession de foi), which the English and Dutch Calvinists are overjoyed with, and some copies of the cr eed w er e sen t t o Gene v a and Sedan [wher e the La tin v er sion appear ed in June 1629], and it w as sen t t o other places in S witz erland and German y . ” (P aris, Bibliothèque Na tionale de Fr ance, F onds fr anç ais nr . 16153, f ol. 162 rv ) Mos t of the ar ticle s e xplic a t e d in the c a t e chism did not c on tr adict the t e achin- gs of the Gr eek Orthodo x Chur ch. On the other hand, Luc aris did a tt ack the Ca tho- lics: he criticised the authority of the P ope, the doctrine of tr ansub s t an tia tion, and pur g a t or y . A t the same time, some of its s t a t emen ts w er e in s t ark c on tr as t w ith the t e ac hing s of the E as t e r n Chur c h. Suc h w as, f or e x am ple , the asse r tion of the principle of sola scriptura. Lucaris claimed that the authority of Scripture is gr ea t er than the authority of the Chur ch (ejus authoritatem esse superiorem Eccle- siae authoritate). It is true tha t the head of the Chur ch is Jesus Chris t himself , and the Chu r ch is indeed permea t ed b y the Holy Spirit, but the earthly , visible “parti- cul ar ” (particulares Ecclesiae visibiles sunt) chur ches ar e made up of peopl e, the- r e f or e the earthly Chur ch is lia ble t o err or s, and “ c an t ak e a lie as true” (Ecclesia in viam errare potest, falsum pro vero eligendo). The E as t ern Chur ch, on the other hand, taught that the Holy Scriptures and the Church are equal in importance, since both are equally imbued with the Holy Spirit, and the Church is the keeper of the c orr ect in t erpr e t a tion of the Holy Scrip tur es. I quot e the La tin t e x t of the Confessio fr om the f ollo wing edition (Als t ed 1630, 1661–1662). The doctrine of pr edes tina tion, which the E as t ern Chur ch firmly opposed, is discussed b y Lu c aris in plainly Calvinis t t erms: “ W e belie v e tha t the bes t and gr e- a t es t God ha th pr edes tined his Elect un t o glor y be f or e the beginning of the W or- ld, without any respect unto their works, and that there was no other impulsive c ause t o thi s election, but onl y the g ood wil l and mer cy of God. ” (Luc aris 1629, 2) He c onsis t en tly emphasised tha t ther e ar e only tw o sacr amen ts: the bap tism and the Eucharis t, which ag ain c on tr adict ed the t eachings of the E as t ern Chur ch: “ W e believe that there be Evangelical Sacraments in the Church, which the Lord hath ins titut ed in the Gospell, and the y bee tw o: w e ha v e no lar g e r number of Sacr a- men ts, bec ause the Or dainer ther eof deliv er ed no mor e. ” (5) In his f our additions t o the Gr eek edition of 1633, he pushed his a tt ack on the doctrines of the E as t ern Chur ch e v en fu rther: he adv oc a t ed the fr ee r eading and in t erpr e t a tion of the Bi- ble, claiming that the text of the Holy Scripture is pure and clear, and even simple belie v er s c an un der s t and it b y in v oking the Holy Spirit; ther e f or e, the media tion of the Chur ch in the in t erpr e t a tion of the Holy Scrip tur es is not necessar y . R eg ar- ding sacred images, which had a huge cult in the Eastern Church, he claimed that the y c an be r espect ed, but not w or shipped (A ymon 1708, 251–253). Luc aris used a me t aphor with de finit e Calvinis t c onnot a tions e v en when he disc usse d t ha t f a it h is a m e a ns t o g r a sp Chr is t : “ W e be lie v e t ha t a m a n is jus tifie d b y F aith, and not b y w ork e s; but whe n w e sa y , b y F aith, w e unde r s t and the c or- r ela tiv e or object of F aith, whic h is the righ t eousnes of Chris t, which F aith appr e- 322 Bogoslovni vestnik 84 (2024) • 2 hends [lik e a hand] and apply e th un t o us f or our Salv a tion. ” (Luc aris 1629, 4) (The expression “like a hand” is found only in the Greek version of the Loukaris Con- f ession. See: Con ț ac 2017a, 220) The irr ec oncilability of this me t aphor with E as t ern Orthodoxy is also indicated by the fact that Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem spe- ci fi c al l y ad d r ess ed i t i n h i s r e f u t a tio n o f L u c ari s’ c a t ech i sm i n 1672: “ W e b el i e v e tha t man is jus tified not only b y f aith, but b y the f aith w orking in lo v e, tha t is, b y f aith and w ork s. And the notio n tha t f aith is lik e the hand tha t gr asp s the righ t e- ousness of Chris t is de v oid of all pie ty . ” (Con ț ac 2017a, 222) 3. Lucaris and Dissimulation Ther e w as no ques tion tha t the public a tion of such a c a t echism under the name of the P a triar ch of Cons t an tino ple w ould c ause a hug e sc andal in c on t empor ar y Eur ope. But does it r eally mean tha t Luc aris bec ame a Calvini s t? Ther e is no eas y ans w er t o this ques tion, as na vig a ting the w orld of ecclesias tic al and politic al in- trigues in Cons t an tinople a t the beginning of the se v en t een th cen tur y is a chal- le ng e in itse lf . The s t a tus of the pa tr iar c hs w as par tic ular ly uns t able be c ause no one c ould be a pa triar ch without the sult an’ s authoriz a tion (berât). Initially , when issuing the berât, the pa triar chs g a v e a particul ar gift t o the sult an and the main officials of the ser aglio. La t er , this habit gr e w in t o a thriving business. “In Con- s t an tinople, the ins t alla tion of a pa triar ch w as c onsider ed only a ma tt er of mone y . Dignity w as simply a w ar ded t o the one who pr omised mor e, ” as Lás zló Hadr o- vics claimed (1947, 599). This is pr ecisely the r eason wh y the pa triar chs alw a y s suff er ed fr om a lack of mone y . Ther e f or e, the y tried t o build g ood r ela tions with the mos t in fluen tial f or eign diploma ts in or der t o g e t mone y and support fr om them. Both Pr ot es t an t and Ca tholic pr opag anda quickly r ec ogniz ed the vulner able p o si tio n o f th e p a tri ar ch s an d tri ed t o u se i t t o th ei r ad v an t ag e. In e x ch an g e f o r mone y and support, the ambassador s of Ca tholic (V a tic an, Fr ance, and t o a lesser e x t en t, the Hab sbur g Monar ch y) or Pr ot es t an t c oun tries (mainly the Ne therlands and England, S w eden less so) ask ed tha t their pr ot ég é be s ympa the tic t o w ar ds Ca tholics or Calvinis ts (Har ai 2011). No wonder that under such circumstances, Lucaris became a master of dissi- mula tion. F or man y y ear s he manag ed t o mak e Canachio R ossi, the papal en v o y who arriv ed in Cons t an tinople in 1625 (who w as of Gr eek origin, but s tudied a t the Gr eek c olleg e in R ome, and bec ame a Ca tholic), belie v e tha t he w as r eady t o accep t the unio n with R ome. In the f all of 1627, when it w as disc o v er ed tha t the pa triar ch had misled R ossi, the Congr eg a tion f or the Pr opag a tion of the F aith la- unched a t ot al w ar ag ains t Luc aris. E v en the Fr ench ambassador in Cons t an tinople, the a f or emen tioned Coun t de Cés y , w as mobiliz ed, whose t ask w ould ha v e been to discredit Lucaris in the seraglio and persuade the Sultan to shut down Lucaris’ prin ting house. (As men tioned abov e, this c ampaign w as quit e success ful.) A t their mee ting on No v ember 3, 1627, P ope Urban VIII’ s mos t in fluen tial c ar dinals (Ban- dini, Barberini, Millini, Ludo visi, Mag alotti) decided t o publish a Ca tholic c a t echi- 323 Levente Nagy - Reformation And/or Union sm in Mode r n Gr e e k , in which the y w ould r e fut e the alr e ady me n tione d Calv inis t catechism of Zacharios Gerganos, and they would widely propagate the view that Luc aris w as a her e tic al Calvinis t (Olar 2013). Aft er Luc aris published his Calvinis t c on f ession in both La tin and Gr eek, the Ruthenians of Lemberg contacted him, and asked him to clarify whether he had truly bec ome a Calvinis t. Her e ar e some e x cerp ts fr om Luc aris’ ans w er (December 4, 1634): “w e ha v e alw a y s s t eadf as tly main t ained the orthodo x f aith of the E as t ern Chur ch /…/ our enemies accuse us of bec oming Calvinis ts and her e tics, but the y only w an t t o c o v er up their o wn deceit and ill-will [bec ause with this s t a t emen t] the y speak ag ains t God and the truth /…/ w e r esis t ed all her esies [including Cal- vinism]. ” (P apadopoulos 1906, 329) This w as the pa triar ch’ s r eply t o the Rutheni- ans of Lember g , while a f e w mon ths earlier (Mar ch 15, 1634 ) fr om the island of T enedos (wher e he w as in e xile), he wr ot e t o An t oine Lèg er: “Se io moro, come moro Catholico Ortodoxo nella fede del Nostro Signore Je su Cr is t o ne lla dottr ina e v ang e lic a, c on f or me la Confessione Belgica, la c on f essione mia, e le altr e delle Chiese E v ang eliche, che sono tutt e c on- f ormi , abhori sc o l i err ori del l i P api s ti, e l e super s titioni del l i Gr eci pr o v o e t abbr accio la dottrina del Dott or meritissimo Gioanni Calvino , e di tutti quelli che sen t ono c on lui. ” (Olar 2019, 237) 1 Luc aris c ould be c onsider ed a Pr ot eus, a Nic odemus, a Balk an f anariot without principles, as his Western European contemporaries, from Daniel Tilenus to Hugo Gr otius, ha v e done (Olar 2019, 213–217), ho w e v er , a tt en tion mus t be dr a wn t o the tr ag edy inher en t in Luc aris’ f a t e, who los t his pa triar chal sea t fiv e times, and r eg ained it the same number of times. Ho w e v er , he c ould no t sur viv e his las t r e- placemen t: on June 29, 1638, the Sult an’ s men s tr angled him on the ship tha t would have taken him to the place of his exile. 4. Lucaris’ Catechism and the Transylvanian Romanians It is scarcely imaginable that the waves of scandal caused by Lucaris’ catechism would not have reached the Principality of Transylvania. All this naturally leads t o the ques tion whe ther it c an be sho wn tha t Luc aris’ per son , and especially the views expressed in his catechism, were used by Transylvanian Hungarian Calvi- nis t leader s t o spr ead the ideas of the R e f orma tion among the R omanians? Much has been writt en about the r ela tionship be tw een the Prince of T r ans ylv ania, Gá- bor Be thlen (1580–1629), and Luc aris (Mur dock 2000, 243–249; Dumitr an 2004, 1 32 –1 7 8; F onk ič-K alug in 2 01 5 , 6 7–95 ; K ár m án 2 01 3 , 8 06 –8 0 8; P op 2 00 0 , 3 2–39 ; Ciur e 2015, 109–115; Olar 2019, 207–213), so thi s i ssue i s not discussed her e. In- 1 “If I die, as an orthodox Catholic, in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Lutheran doctrine, which faith is the same as the Confessio Belgica, m y cr eed, and tha t of the other Luther an chur ches; I abhor the err or s of the P apis ts and the super s titions of the Gr eek s, I shar e and I support the t eachings of the most outstanding divine, John Calvin, and those who follow him.” 324 Bogoslovni vestnik 84 (2024) • 2 s t ead, I f ocus her e on the ques tion of who w er e f amiliar with Luc aris’ doctrines in Transylvania, and whether they appeared in the Romanian-language Calvinist w ork s published a t the time. Johann Heinrich Als t ed le ft his univ er sity in Herborn f or the c olleg e in G yulaf ehér- v ár in the summer/ autumn of 1629, a t the in vit a tion of Prince Gábor Be thlen. It is pr obably no c oincidence tha t Als t ed pr omptly r epublished the La tin v er sion of Lu- caris’ confession in his Encyclopaedia published in Herborn in 1630. The ency clopaedia’ s section on r eligious deba t es (Peroratio Theologiae Polemicae ) in- cludes Luc aris’ writing with the r ec ommenda tion tha t Calvinis t pr eacher s in v olv ed in debates with Catholics can draw good arguments from the patriarch’s creed. Al- sted even dedicated his Trifolium Propheticum (writt en thr ee y ear s la t er but not published un til 1640) t o Luc aris. The w ork off er ed an in t erpr e t a tion of the Song of Songs, the book of the pr ophe t Daniel, and the Book of R e v ela tion fr om the poin t of view of the appr oaching univ er sal r e f orma tion. In the Trifolium, Alsted used com- ple x logic al and c ombina t orial oper a tions t o pr ov e tha t the sec ond c oming of Chris t is imminen t. Of c our se, be f or e tha t, e v ery one w ould c on v ert t o the Calvinis t f aith: fir s t the Gr eek s, then the T urk s, and finally the Jew s. The unit ed r e f ormed hos ts will also o v erthr ow the pow er of the An tichris t (the P ope). W e know tha t ar ound this time Als t ed w as in vit ed not only t o T r ans ylv ania, but also t o the Ne therlands (Hot- son 2000, 65; 75). Could the pr esence of R omanians f ollowing the Gr eek r eligion in T r ans ylv ania ha v e in fluenced his decision t o choose T r ans ylv ania ins t ead of the Ne- therlands (especially c onsidering tha t in Als t ed’ s vie w , the Gr eek rit es w er e the fir s t t o c on v ert t o Calvinism)? How ar d Hotson though t so , although he suspect ed tha t ins t ead of Luc aris the s tr ang ely named and s till uniden tified St ephanus P annonius Belogr adensis migh t ha v e giv en the main impe tus f or Als t ed’ s decision. Stephanus Pannonius published his brief millenarian work De Circulo Operum et Judiciorum Dei in 1609. In P annonius’ view , be f or e the end of the w orld, a univ er sal r e f orma tion will t ak e place on earth. Only those who belie v e in the Holy T rinity will be en titled t o belong t o the r e f ormed w orld empir e. The ruler of the empir e, who is also the conqueror of the Turks, can only be someone who respects religious fre- edom: “Neminem v er e Augus tum Imper a t or em Chris tianum fieri posse, nec T ur c as g en t es debellar e posse, siv e is fit P on tific ae, siv e E v ang elic ae R eligionis, nisi c onces- sa Chris tianis, qui nomen S. S. T rinit a ttis v eris illius Dei in v oc an t, r eligionis libert a t e. ” (P annonius 1609, 11) The da y of Chris t ’ s jus tice (Cursus Soli Justitiae Christi), i.e. the univ er sal r e f orma tion, mov es fr om eas t t o w es t. In other w or ds, the his t ory of hu- manity begins with the Je w s who crucified Chris t, and the c our se of those who will then accept Chris t (i.e. the R e f orma tion), will r e turn ther e. Hung ary will pla y a spe- cial r ole in the spr ead of the e v ang elic al r eligion in the E as t, which will fir s t r e f orm the Gr eek s and then the Je w s: “Z elum r eligionis e v ang elic ae in Hung aria esse pr o- dr omus z eli orien tis e t meridiei, e t apud ipsos e tiam V ene t os in cineribus igniculos z eli Dei non e tinct os, sed ad t empus la tit an t es. ” (3) P annonius’ pamphle t had a s tr ong in fluence on Als t ed’ s millenarian ideas. P an- nonius’ circulus, which shows the course of the day of Christ’s righteousness, was republished by Alsted in two of his fundamental works on chiliasm, even before his 325 Levente Nagy - Reformation And/or Union arriv al in T r ans ylv ania: Praecognita Theologica (1614) and Diatribe de Mille Annis Apocalypticis (1627). Based on these r ec or ds, How ar d Hotson belie v ed tha t it w as under the in fluence of P annonius’ s w ork tha t Als t ed decided t o g o t o the c olleg e in G yulaf ehér v ár ins t ead of Holland, since P annonius c as t Hung ary a dis tinguished r ole in the univ er sal r e f orma tion (Hotson 2000, 65; 75). Ho w e v er , P ál Ács and Mihály Baláz s used c on vincing ar gumen ts t o sug g es t tha t Hos t on’ s h ypothesis w as w eak. Fir s t, P annonius only t alk s about Hung ary , and he ne v er men tions tha t the T r ans yl- v anian Principality w ould pla y an y r ole in the univ er sal r e f orma tion – how e v er , the Romanians following the Greek rite lived there. On the other hand, Pannonius’ comments about the future tolerant reforming ruler clearly referred to Archduke Ma tthias, who ascended the thr one in 1608 a ft er Rudolf II’ s dea th. In short, P anno- nius’ pamphle t w as s tr ongly pr o-Hab sbur g , while Als t ed’ s f er v en tly an ti-Hab sbur g position is widely known (Baláz s 2011, 542–550; Ács 2014, 287–299). In m y opinion, this lends additional pr obability t o the idea tha t Als t ed migh t ha v e been in fluenced to some extent by Lucaris’ Philo-Calvinism, and especially by his catechism, which w as writt en in a Calvinis t spirit thr ough and thr ough. F or it w as eas y t o in t erpr e t Luc aris’ r elev an t discussions as the beginning of the r e f orma tion of the Gr eek Rit es. Another t eacher fr om Herborn, Johann Heinrich Bis t erf eld, who also happened t o be the husband of Als t ed’ s daugh t er , arriv ed with Als t ed in T r ans ylv ania in 1629 (Menk 1979, 29–63; Visk olcz 2009, 201–214). It is kno wn tha t Bis t erf eld c orr e- sponded with Luc aris, despit e the f act tha t these le tt er s ha v e not y e t been f ound (Legr and 1896, 464). Bis t erf eld e v en had a R omanian s tuden t a t the c olleg e in Gyulafehérvár, a certain Petrus S. Karansebesi Walachus, who completed his dis- put a tion with him in Augus t -No v ember 1651 (Bis t erf eld 1651). The vie w s of Als t ed and Bis t erf eld on the union be tw een the Gr eek and Calvi- nist churches were formulated during the synod held in Gyulafehérvár in 1634. A t the beginning of 1634, John Dur y (Dur aeus) wr ot e a le tt er fr om the mee ting of the German Estates’ Assembly in Frankfurt, and asked the Calvinist bishop of Tran- s ylv ania, Is tv án Geleji K a t ona (1589–1649) t o e xplain his position r eg ar ding the union of the Calvinists and the Lutherans. In response to this, Geleji convened a s ynod in G yula f ehér v ár on F ebruar y 7, 1634, which discussed Dur y ’ s ques tions and outlined an ans w er . The ans w er w as also prin t ed in La tin with the f ollo wing title: Concordiae inter Evangelicos Querendae Consilia. The professors from Her- born (in addition t o Ales t ed and Bis t erf eld, Johann Ludwig Pisc a t or) also partici- pa t ed in the c ouncil, and signed the r esolution. Acc or ding t o this, the only diff e- rences between Calvinists and those of the Greek Rite are found in the area of adiaphora, i.e. something neither forbidden nor commanded by scripture, that is, those elemen ts of f aith, which ar e not ab solut ely necessar y f or salv a tion (funda- mentum salutis directe non concernentibus). Within the adiaphor as belong , f or e x amp l e, th e ch u r ch cer emo n i es, su p er s titio n s an d th e cu l t o f h o l y i mag es. T h e s ynod c ommen t ed on the cer emonies in the f ollo wing manner: “Or dinances ar e indiff er ent things [in r eg ar d to salv ation], not f ounded on the command or or dinance of Chris t; within the chur ch these ar e human pr ovisi- 326 Bogoslovni vestnik 84 (2024) • 2 ons. Those in which papist idolatry can be detected or which do not serve the edification or embellishment of the chur ch can be delet ed or changed. Those which seem to serve this purpose, may be established or preserved, according t o the div er sity of chur ches, na tions, places, adv er saries, and other cir cum- stances. It is not mandatory that these be the same in all churches or at all times, but they mus t be adapt ed t o the pr actice and er a of the chur ch. /…/ And if ther e is a [cer emon y] that is useful and seems to serv e the edification of the chur ch, it should be observed. /…/ The bottom line is this: it is not right to act violently on indiff er ent things. F or we see that even the apostles in their own churches could not achieve what they wanted all at once and forever. Love must ther ef or e be k ept in mind, and we should never attempt to change the cer emonies, only aft er we ha v e under s tood the r eason f or the change. ” 2 R eg ar ding the s ynod’ s decision on super s tition, it is import an t t o poin t out tha t in their in t erpr e t a tion, the w or d supersitiones did not refer to folk customs and belie f s e xis ting in popular r eligiosity outside the official chur ch, but t o cert ain ele- men ts of chur ch lif e and cer emonies (holy w a t er , f as ting , e t c.). Ob viously , these w er e essen tial c omponen ts of E as t ern chur ch ritual and cus t oms. Acc or ding t o the synod decision, only those who are weak in their faith keep them, because the y belie v e tha t the y ar e ab solut ely necessar y f or salv a tion. “ Those said t o be s tr ong and fir m in f aith ar e suffi c ie n tly pr e par e d both in t eaching and in Chris tian fr eedom. Ther e f or e, those who ha v e not y e t su- fficien tly mas t er ed the t eaching and under s t ood the na tur e of Chris tian fr eedom ar e c onsider ed w eak. /…/ The y ar e said t o be s tr ong who belie v e tha t the y ar e fr ee t o liv e with indiff er en t things, and tha t the y c an either keep them or discard them with a clear conscience and without injury to conscience. The weak or the feeble believe that they cannot live freely with them, but must either keep them, because they are obligatory, or turn a w a y fr om them, bec ause the y ar e f orbidden (R omans 14:2 and 23). Such people can very easily stumble or fail, unless the strong - in posses- si o n o f kn o wl ed g e, l o v e an d wi sd o m - t ak e e x cep tio n t o th em, s tr en g th en and guide them. Love is needed in both cases, so that neither the strong giv e an y occ asion t o off end the w eak, nor look down on them bec ause they do not yet understand these things, nor that they be judged by those who ha v e r eceiv ed mor e Chris tian s tr eng th [f aith], and g ained mor e kno- wledg e f or themselv es. The apos tle speak s of both in R omans 14:13. ” 3 2 “Cer em on iae adiaphor ae sun t, quae no n nitun tur pr aecep t o , aut ins titution e Ch ris ti, sed sun t or dina- tiones humanae in ecclesia. E t in his t olli e t mut ar e oport e t, quae idolola triam papis tic am sapiun t, aut aedific a tioni eccleasiae, illius v e dec or o non ser viun t. /…/ Si quid aut em utile e t c ommodum vide tur aedific a tioni id r e tineri pot es t. /…/ Summa: in adiaphoris non sun t pr obanda f ortia c onsilia. Videmus enim apos t olos, non semel, neque subit o , in suis ecclesiis ob tiner e, quae v oluerun t. Dilectio it aque ob oculos es t habenda, e t mut a tio cer emoniarum, sine in t ellectis c ausis mut a tionum, nunquam es t t en t an- da. ” (Buz og án y e t al. 2016, 86) 3 “R obus ti e t fir m i in fide dic un t ur , qui v e l doc tr inam , v e l libe r t a t e m c hr is tianam pr obe sun t doc ti. It aque in firmi censen tur , qu i v el doctrinam, v el libert a t em chris tianam, ejusque na tur am, nondum pr obe per- 327 Levente Nagy - Reformation And/or Union It is not difficult f or us t o guess tha t, based on the quot ed crit eria se t b y the synod, the Transylvanian Romanians belonged to the category of those with weak f aith (infirmi seu deboles). W eakness and f e ebleness in f aith actually mean t igno- r ance, i.e. the lack of kno wledg e of basic Chris tian t eachings, which dir ectly led t o the lack of ability t o c ompr ehend the na tur e of Chris tian fr eedom. It is not b y chance tha t the s ynodal t e x t r e f er s t o the parts of the apos tle P aul’ s le tt er t o the R omans tha t w er e almos t oblig a t orily men tioned in the deba t es about f as ting in the ag e: “Him tha t is w eak in the f aith r eceiv e y e, but not t o doubtful disput a tions. F or one belie v e th tha t he ma y ea t all things: another , who is w eak, ea t e th herb s. Le t not him tha t ea t e th despise him tha t ea t e th not; and le t not him which ea t e- th not judg e him tha t ea t e th: f or God ha th r eceiv ed him. ” (R om 14:1-3 [KJV]) In a par aphr ase of P aul’ s t e x t, the s ynod s t a t ed tha t f as ting belongs t o adiaphoric thin- gs, i.e. it is neutr al fr om the po in t of vie w of salv a tion: it is c omple t ely indiff er en t whether someone lives with it or not. Those who are strong in faith know this and are therefore free to decide whether to fast or not. Those who are weak in faith, on the othe r hand, be lie v e tha t f as ting is oblig a t or y (i.e . e sse n tial f or salv a tion), so the y c annot fr eely choose be tw een k eeping it or ignoring it. Chris tian fr eedom is, therefore, nothing more than the knowledge that only the universal branches of f aith (articuli catholici ) mus t be kno wn and k ep t (which ar e the f aith in Jesus Christ, the Ten Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the tw o sac r am e n ts: bap tism and the Lor d’ s Suppe r ), and a pe r son s tr ong in f aith c an freely decide whether to keep or discard adiaphoric things. 5. The New Testament of Bălgrad (Alba Iulia, 1648) and the Reformation The s ynod’ s ans w er s t o Dur y ’ s ques tion r e v eal tha t in t erms of the fundamenta- lia ther e ar e no diff er ences wha tsoe v er be tw een the Pr ot es t an t and the E as t ern Gr eek chur ches. The diff er ences (the cer emon y , the v ener a tion of sacr ed imag es, the doctrine of the origin of the Holy Spirit) do not belong t o the fundamen t al branches of faith, therefore a union with the Eastern Church is not impossible, because they also belong to the Church of Christ, in contrast to the Catholics who ar e member s of the Chur ch of the An tichris t. Acc or ding t o the idea of the Tran- s ylv anian Calvinis t in t ellectuals (Als t ed, Bis t erf eld, Geleji), the Pr ot es t an t union should be r ealiz ed not only f or the sak e of the figh t ag ains t R ome, but also be- cause if the Greeks of the East see that there is agreement between the Prote- stants, then they too will be encouraged to unite with the Protestants. Violence ceperun t. /…/ R obus ti dicun tur , qui r erum adiaphor arum usum liberum esse cr edun t, et illas salv a tr anquilliaque c onscien tia v el ob ser v an t, v el omittun t. In firmi seu deboles, qui usum illarum liberum non credunt, sed eas observant tanquam necessaris, vel reformidant tanquam illicitas, Rom, 14 v. 2, 23. Hi t ales f acile off endi e t labi possun t, nisi firmiorum scinen tia, charit a t e e t pruden tia e x cipian tur , fulc- ian tur , dirig an tur . Magna utr obique charit as r equiritur , ut nimirum nec firmior es in firmioribus c ausam scandali praebeant, aut rerum illarum, quas necdum intelligunt, causa eos despiciant, nec contra hi illos damnen t, qui plus chris tianarum virium, plus v e scien tiae acquisiv erun t. /…/ R om 14, 1, 2, 3. ” (Bu- z og án y e t al. 2016, 88–89.) 328 Bogoslovni vestnik 84 (2024) • 2 is neither necessary nor useful, because if the Greeks also have the opportunity t o le ar n the w or d of God (the Bible ) and the basic t e achings of the Chr is tian r e- ligion (the c a t echism), then the Holy Spirit will begin t o w ork in them, and thus the faithful will recognize the truth on their own. That is why Geleji considered it a particularly import an t t ask t o put the Bible in the hands of the R omanians. Thank s t o his e ff or ts, t w o r e pr e se n t a tiv e R om a nia n public a tions of t he se v e n t e- en th cen tur y w er e published in the Prince’ s prin ting house in Alba Iulia (Bălgr ad, G yula f ehér v ár): the Ne w T es t amen t in 1648 and the Book of P salms in 1651. In w ha t f ollo w s, I pr o v ide m or e de t ails about the Calv inis t char ac t e r is tics of the t e x t of the R omanian Ne w T es t amen t of Bălgr ad. Initially , G e le ji c om m issione d the tr ansla tion t o m onk Silv e s tr u fr om the G o v o- r a monas t er y in W allachia. Silv es tru died in 1646, so he c ould not finish the tr an- sla tion. Besides, Geleji f ound multiple err or s in the tr ansla tion, so he char g ed G y ör gy Csulai with the completion of the tr ansla tion and the amendment of Silv es tru’ s t e x t. Coming fr om a R omanian f amily near Há ts z eg (Ha ț eg) in Southern Transylvania, Csulai enrolled in the theological faculty of the University of Heidel- berg on August 12, 1618, and then on February 24, 1621, in Altdorf. He returned t o T r ans ylv ania in July 1621, wher e he t augh t a t the c olleg e in G yula f ehér v ár (Hel- t ai 2006). Aft er the dea th of Is tv án Geleji (December 12, 1649), he bec ame the bishop of T r ans ylv ania. He t alk s about the tr ansla tion of the R omanian Ne w T e- s t amen t in a le tt er sen t fr om G yula f ehér v ár t o János K emén y , Chie f Capt ain of F og ar as, on December 24, 1646: “ The pries t János Illy ei [his official R omanian name t oda y is Ilia], who is also a deac on /…/ as he is an in t ellig en t y oung man /…/ he writ es eleg an t Hungarian and understands all Hungarian books, he is my penman and coadjutor in the translation of the New Testament, I showed him the con- troversial loci during the translation, and no w he has a gr ea t er f ounda tion in r eligio [tha t is, he is mor e and mor e erudit e in ma tt er s of r eligion]. ” (Na- tional Ar chiv es of R omania, Cluj-Napoc a, c ol. Jó z se f K emén y , nr . 528) 4 This le tt er pr o v es tha t in 1646 it w as Csulai who r e vie w ed and amended the R omani an tr ansl a tion of the Ne w T es t amen t pr epar ed b y S i l v es tru . Al l w e kn o w about Csulai’s penman, dean János, is that in August 1643, in accordance with Geleji’s decree, he accompanied the newly appointed Romanian bishop of Tran- s ylv ania, Simion Șt e f an (d. 1656) t o visit the T r ans ylv anian R omanian deans in or der t o ask them f or the t a x of one f orin t tha t Geleji spen t on prin ting the R oma- nian Ne w T es t amen t (K oncz 1887, 329). In the Ne w T es t amen t of Bălgr ad, each book of the Ne w T es t amen t is pr eceded b y leng th y pr e f aces which c on t ain the mos t import an t in f orma tion about the gi- v en New T es t amen t book: its author , the da t e of its c omposition, its c on t en t (Con ț ac 2012, 178). The t e x tual e xplor a tions pr esen t ed in the pr e f aces t es tif y tha t their author w as a particularly skilled theologian who w as also able t o clearly and 4 (My em ph asis – NL). 329 Levente Nagy - Reformation And/or Union comprehensibly summarize the most important points about each book of the Ne w T es t amen t. T h ese e x t en si v e p r e f aces (th e y mak e u p 55 p ag es o u t o f th e 330 pag es of t e x t in the book) r e v eal the mos t po w erful Pr ot es t an t f ea tur es (Con ț ac 2017b). Of these, her e I only men tion the one which w as also pr esen t in the al- ready analysed Confessio of Lucaris. This is the “Faith is the hand of the soul with which we grasp Christ” metaphor, which the author brings up twice in the New T es t amen t of Bălgr ad (in the pr e f aces t o the le tt er s of James and P aul). “James speaks of dead faith, the fruits of which are not good works, and he sa y s tha t with tha t [dead f aith] w e will not be jus tified be f or e God, be- cause it is without good works, therefore it is not true, but a dead faith. He speak s a sec ond time about jus tific a tion [which arises fr om this dead f aith], but it is not be f or e God, but only [jus tific a tion] be f or e men, and sho w s tha t Abr aham w as indeed jus tified b y g ood w ork s, but only be f or e men and not before God. The Apostle Paul speaks of true faith, which con- tinually r esults in g ood w ork s and b y which w e ar e jus tified be f or e God. This f aith is the hand of the Chris tian man’ s soul, which he r e aches out t o gr asp Chris t, with all his g oods, and mak es Him his o wn /…/ Tha t is wh y [P aul] sa y s tha t man is jus tified only b y f aith, f or true f aith is the hand of the Chris tian man, by which he r eaches out t o gr asp Chris t. And g ood w ork s ar e the fruit of f aith, which w e giv e t o our neighbor s. ” (NTB , 365, 409; Con ț ac 2017a, 229) The me t aphor c an be tr aced back t o Calvin, due t o whose in fluence it spr ead r a- pidly in Calvinist theological literature as early as the end of the sixteenth century. “ The pow er of jus tif ying which belongs t o f aith c onsis ts not in its w orth as a w ork. Ou r j u s tifi c a ti o n d ep en d s en tir el y o n th e mer cy o f Go d an d th e meri ts o f C h ri s t: when f aith appr ehends these, it is said t o jus tify ” – as Calvin said in Institutio, III. 18. 8 (Calvin 1845, 691–692). This met aphor is particularly abundant in William P erkins’ s work A Reformed Catholike, published in 1598. Some r ele v an t quot es: “So likewise in the soule there is a faith, which is both hand, mouth, and stomacke to apprehend, receiue, and apply Christ and all his merits for the nourishmen t of the soule. /… / Now e as the pr opertie of appr ehending and applying of Christ belongeth to faith, so it agreeth not to hope, loue, c on fidence, of an y other gift or gr ace of God. But fir s t b y f aith w e mus t apprehend Christ, and apply him to our selues, before we can haue any hope or c on fidence in him. /… / F aith mus t be c onsider ed tw o w aies: fir s t, as a w ork e, quality , or v ertue: sec ondly as an Ins trumen t, or an hand r ea- ching out it self e t o r eceiue Chris ts merit. And w e ar e ius tified b y f aith, not as it is a worke, vertue, or quali ∣ tie; but as it is an ins trumen t t o r eceiue and apply tha t thing w he r e b y w e ar e ius tifie d. A nd the r e f or e it is a fig ur a- tiue speach t o sa y . ” (P erkins 1598, 48; 108) The works of Calvin and Perkins were already well known in Hungary and the Principality of T r ans ylv ania in the se v en t een th cen tur y (Ős z 2023, 32–36). Calvin’ s 330 Bogoslovni vestnik 84 (2024) • 2 Institution w as tr ansla t ed in t o Hung arian b y Albert Sz enci Molnár (1574–1634) and published in Fr ankfurt am Main in 1624 in the prin ting house of Aubrius Da- niel and Da vid, under the title Az keresztyéni religióra és igaz hitre való tanítás, melyet deákul írt Calvinus János. Perkins’s work was translated to Hungarian by János C. K ecsk emé ti (d. ar ound 1627) as Catholicus református. Szenci and Ke- csk emé ti s tudied a t the mos t pr ominen t Pr ot es t an t univ er sities of the time: Wit- t enber g , Heidelber g , Dr esden and Str assbur g. Be tw een 1590 and 1624 Sz enci liv ed in Amberg, Frankfurt am Main, Altdorf, Marburg, Oppenheim, Heidelberg and Hanau. It is completely reasonable that in such a context György Csulai added the metaphor “faith is the hand of the soul with which we grasp Christ” to the text of th e Ne w T es t amen t o f Băl gr ad . F o r L u c ari s’ Co n f essi o n c o u l d l egi timi se th i s Cal vi- nist metaphor even for Romanians. T h e p r e f ace t o th e r ead er o f th e Ne w T es t amen t o f Băl gr ad c o n t ai n s an o th er fr equen tly quot ed passag e about the languag e ques tion: “We also ask you to remember that Romanians do not speak the same w a y in diff er en t c oun tries, the y speak not e v en the same w a y within one c oun tr y . Ther e f or e, it is difficul t f or someone t o writ e in a w a y tha t e v er y- one can understand, some people say the same thing in one way, others in another way, either the jar, or the robe, or many other things are not named in the same way. We very well know that words must be like coins, for only those coins are good which are current in all countries, and so are words which are good when everybody understands them. For this very reason, we strove to translate as much as we could in such a way that eve- ryone could understand, and if not everyone understands, it is not our f ault, but the f ault of the one who sc a tt er ed the R omanians t o diff er en t countries, so that their words were mixed with other languages, so they don’t speak the same w a y . ” (NTB , 116) The ques tion r aised by the author of the pr e f ace had a gr ea t c ar eer la t er in R omanian critic al lit er a tur e, as it w as g ener ally in t erpr e t ed as the author discus- sing the need t o cr ea t e a unified R omanian lit er ar y languag e (Dimitr escu 1988, 79; Nic olae 2010, 72). Ambrus Misk olcz y e v en wr ot e tha t “th e his t oric al r ele v an- ce of the quoted passage lies in the fact that the demand for a philological revo- lution turned in t o some kind of c osmic r ebellion” (1994, 82). Undoub t edly , this passage can be interpreted as including the issue of responsibility. Who is to bla- me for the fact that the Romanians do not speak the same language, i.e. there is no unified lit er ar y languag e? P erhaps the prince? The pow er s tha t be? Who is r esponsible f or this? The ans w er is: those who sc a tt er ed the R omanians t o diff e- rent countries. However, these were not named by the author of the preface. It is ques tionable whe ther he in t ended t o name a specific per son a t all. Of c our se, it is also ques tionable t o wha t e x t en t w e c an t alk about a c osmic r ebellion in the c ase of the Ne w T es t amen t of Bălgr ad. Did Ambrus Misk olcz y r eally think tha t the author w ould not blame the injus tice of f a t e, but dir ectly God, f or the lack of a unifie d R omanian languag e ? I do not think so. All the mor e so bec ause the pas- 331 Levente Nagy - Reformation And/or Union sag e quot ed abo v e is an in v en tiv e r e writing of an ancien t topos. In my opinion the author of the pr e f ace used the sa ying a ttribut ed t o Aris t otle, Verba valent sicut pecunia, or Verba valent in usu sicut pecunia (w or ds ar e lik e mone y , or the use v alue of w or ds is lik e mone y) t o char act eriz e his tr ansla tion me thod. His pr oce- dur e i s particul arly i mport an t bec ause a t the beginning of the se v en t een th cen- tur y , thi s me t aphoric al sa ying also appear ed in Fr ancis Bac on ’ s theor e tic al e xpo- sitions of langu ag e. Acc or ding t o Bac on, one of the imperf ections of na tur al lan- guag es is tha t the r ela tionship betw een w or ds and things is arbitr ary (ad placitum). That is, a word can denote several things, just as one thing can be expressed with se v er al w o r d s, si n ce wh en cr ea tin g th e mean i n g o f w o r d s, i t i s n o t “ r easo n th a t c ommands the w or ds” , but r a ther “the cr ea tion of w or ds is mos tly adap t ed t o the in t ellectual c apacity of the majority (ex captu vulgi induntur) and it t ouches r ea- lity alon g the lines mos t c onsp icuous t o the c ommon sense” (Bac on 1778, 241). In short, the meaning of words is based on general agreement. Like the meaning of w or ds, the v alue of mone y (c oins) is also arbitr ar y and based only on public agreement. “ W or ds ar e l i k e mon e y , ” Bac on wr ot e, “ the y r e flect the pr e v ai l i n g pub l i c opi ni- on.” Words put together and take apart meanings about things according to po- pular opinion, which is usually wrong and vague. Unfortunately, children are also forced to learn these meanings full of mistakes, as if unconsciously, when they learn t o speak. Scien tis ts tr y t o fr ee themselv es fr om this ser vitude and in v en t ne w w or ds and de finitions (meanings), but the y s till find it difficult t o shak e off this yoke. “Verba enim certe tanquam numismata esse, quae vulgi imaginem et prin- cipa tum r epr esen t en t. Illa siqu idem secundum popular es no tiones e t r e- rum acceptiones (quae ma xima e x part e err onae sun t c on fusissima) omnia c omponer e e t divider e; ut e tiam in f an t es cum loqui disc an t, in f elicem er- r orum c abalam haurir e e t imbiberr e c ogna tur . Ac lice t sapien tior es e t doc- tior e s se v ar iis ar tibus ab hac se r v itut e v indic ar e c one n tur ; no v a v oc abula fing endo , quod durum, e t de finitiones in t erponendo , quod moles tum es t; nullis t amen viribus jugum e x cut er e posse. ” (Bac on 1879, 112–113) In another place, wher e Bac on discusses the division of ic onic (ex conguro) and arbitr ar y (ad placitum ) signs (w or ds), he ag ain uses the w or ds-mone y me t aphor . In the c ase of ic onic signs (e. g. hier oglyphs, g es tur es, sign languag e) ther e is al- w a y s some kind of similarity , emblema tic r ela tionship be tw een the signifier and the signified (hieroglyphica et gestus semper cum re significata similitudinis ha- bere; et emblemata quaedam esse ). Ho w e v er , r eal (linguis tic) signs do not ha v e an y pr operties based on the similarity of the signified and the signifier (at charac- teres reales nihil habent ex emblemate) (Bac on 1778, 145). In addition, w or ds do not dir ectly denot e things, but c oncepts (meanings) about things (hence the err or s men tioned in the quot e abo v e). W or ds ar e ther e f or e not signs of things, but of c oncep ts: verba notionum tesserae sunt (128). (In ancien t times, the tessera was a squar e-shaped s t one or piece of w ood tha t ser v ed as an admission tick e t f or 332 Bogoslovni vestnik 84 (2024) • 2 thea tr e and cir cus perf ormances.) “W or ds ar e lik e c oins with a mark et able v alue. The things of the mind (c oncepts) c an be e xpr essed not only in w or ds and le tt er s, jus t as c oins ar e not c as t only in g old and silv er . /…/ The r eal, i. e. non-nominal signs [such as w or ds] do not r e f er t o le tt er s and w or ds, but t o the thing or c oncep t tha t is mean t. ” 5 Just as the value of a coin is not determined by the gold or silver in it, so the value of words is not determined by the thing it represents. A given coin is only w orth as much as people agr e e; ther e f or e, the cir cula tion v alue of mone y is jus t as arbitr ary and c onsensus-based as the meaning of w or ds. The purpose of Bac on’ s linguis tic in v es tig a tions w as t o elimina t e the fr audulen t and decep tiv e na tur e of language. He did not want to reinforce analogical thinking by making words recall the image of things or reveal their nature. He primarily wanted to stabilize the mark e t v alue of w or ds, i.e. the c oncep ts denot ed b y w or ds (notiones), ultima t ely the meaning. He w ould ha v e le ft the w or ds as c on v en tional and arbitr ar y signs, but in such a way that they preferably refer to a concept, i.e. have a meaning that everyone understands. The author of the preface to the Romanian New Testament ar gued in a similar spirit when he ing eniously tr ans f ormed Bac on’ s linguis tic the- or e tic al ques tions in t o a t echnic al me thod of tr ansla tion. Tha t is wh y , in m y opi- nion, the writ er of the f or e w or d w as not t alking about the lack of a unified R oma- nian na tional languag e in the passag e in ques tion. The need t o cr ea t e a R omanian lit er ar y languag e does not fit in t o the linguis tic c on t e x t of the mid-se v en t een th cen tur y a t all. The tr ansla t or si mply s t ood on the fundamen ts of Bac onian lingu- is tic theor y: lik e Bac on, he also w an t ed each w or d t o ha v e, if possible, only one meaning that everyone understood, i.e. use only one word to denote a concept. T h er e f o r e, d u ri n g th e tr an sl a tio n , j u s t as th e tr a v el l er se ts o u t wi th mo n e y wi th which he can pay in many places, so the translator preferred those good and va- luable words that many people understand, i.e. which, like good money, are accep- ted by many. In mid-se v en t een th cen tur y T r ans ylv ania, Fr ancis Bac on w as not among the most widely read authors. So, who could the Romanian-speaking author be, who w as a w ar e of Bac on’ s linguis tic e xplana tions, and ho w did he acquir e this in f or- ma tion? The mos t ob vious c andida t e is Bis t erf eld. W e kno w f or sur e tha t he w as a c onnoisseur and en thusias tic pr omot er of Bac on’ s w ork s. “ V erulamius is the s t an d ar d o f e v er y th i n g f o r me, I h a v e n e v er seen an y th i n g l i k e h i m” (“ V eru l ami u s mihi es t ins t ar omnium: hact enus neminem vidi e t par em” , quot ed in Visk olcz 2003, 84), as Bis t erf eld wr ot e t o Samuel Hartlib in the f all of 1638. In 1649, he r ec ommended Zsigmond Rák óczi, the son of II. T r ans ylv anian prince G y ör gy Rák óc- zi II. to read De augmentis scientiarium , in which, as w e sa w abo v e, Bac on r epe- a t e dly r e c alle d the m e t aphor “w or ds ar e lik e c oins”: “Siquid otii suppe t a t Ex c e l- l en tiae V es tr ae, p er cu rr a t V eru l ami u m d e Au gmen tis [s i c!] S ci en tiaru m: p l u ri ma 5 “ T r ac t am us e nim hic , v e luti num ism a t a r e r um in t e lle c t ualium : ne c ab s r e fue r it nosse , quod sic ut num- mi possin t c on fici e x alia ma t eria, pr ae t er aurum e t ar g en tum, it a e t not ae r erum aliae possin t cudi, pr ae t er v erba e t lit er as. /…/ Char act er es quidam r eales, non nominales; qui scilice t nec lit er as, nec v erba, sed r es e t notiones e xprimun t. ” (Bac on 1778, 145) 333 Levente Nagy - Reformation And/or Union habe t e ximia. ” (Bis t erf eld’ s le tt er t o Zsigmond Rák óczi, December 19, 1649: Szilágyi 1888, 108–109). Based on the abo v e, I belie v e tha t the passag es r e f erring t o Bac on’ s c oncep t of language were included in the unsigned preface of the Romanian New Testament f or r eader s thr ough the media tion of Bis t erf eld, Csulai, or the men tioned Bis t er- feld student Simon Péter from Karánsebes. 6. Conclusions Based on the abo v e, it is fruitful t o c ompar e the situa tion of the E as t ern and W e- s t e r n chur che s in the e r a of the f orma tion of de nomina tions. While in the W e s t the “univ er sal” and one e xis ting chur ch split in t o se v er al denomina tions, in the East the Orthodox Church based around the concept of autocephaly remained unit ed. The Principality of T r ans ylv ania, which r ela tiv e t o R ome, Witt enber g , and Cons t an tinople is equally peripher al, w as a particularly in t er es ting ar ea bec ause their E as t ern Orthodo xy c ould ha v e split in t o se v er al denomina tions, ho w e v er , R e f orma tion w as not able t o fu lly r ealiz e this. Only the Ca tho lic union in the 18 th century would bring about a true sectarian split in the lives of Transylvanian Roma- nians. A t the same time, it is w orth noting tha t in E as t ern Orthodo xy , the dynamics of ins titutionaliz a tion and the c ompulsion t o moderniz e occur pr ecisely when the in fluence of W es t ern c on f essionaliz a tion r eached not only G yula f ehér v ár , but Con- s t an tinople as w ell. The f a t e of Cyrill Luc aris clearly pr o v es tha t E as t ern Orthodo xy had t o r espond in some f orm t o the Ca tholic and Pr ot es t an t union off er s, and this response really started a kind of Orthodox renewal. Abbreviation NTB – Emilian bishop of Alba-Iulia 1988 [Noul Testament de la Bălgrad (1648) ]. References Archive Source National Archives of Romania, Cluj-Napoca, col. J óz s e f Ke m é ny . Primary Sources Alsted, Johann Heinrich. 1630. Encyclopaedia. He rb orn : [ s. n . ] . Aymon, Jean. 1 70 8 . Monuments authentiques de la religion des Grecs. La Haye, Charles Delo. Bacon, Francis. 1 7 7 8 . D e a u g m e n ti s s c i e n ti a r i u m [ 1 62 3 ]. I n : The Works of Francis Bacon. L ondon : J. Rivington and Sons. Bacon, Francis. 1 87 9 . C o g i t a t a e t v i s a d e i n t e r p r e- t a ti o n e n a t u r a s i v e d e s c i e n ti a o p e r a ti v e [1 6 0 7 ] . I n: The Works of Francis Bacon. Vol. VII. B o s t o n : H o u g h t o n , M i ffl i n a n d C o m p a ny . Bisterfeld, Johann Heinrich . 1 6 5 1 . Beata Beatae Virginis. A l b a J u l i a e : [ s . n . ]. Buzogány Dezső, Dáné Veronka, Kolumbán Vilmos József, Ősz Sándor Előd, Sipos Gábor, eds. 2016. Erdélyi református zsinatok iratai [The documents of the Calvinist synods from Transylvania]. Vol. 1. Koloz s v ár: Erdél yi Református E g yházker ület. Calvin, John. 1 8 45. Institutes of the Christian Religion . T r a n s l a t e d b y H e n r y B e v e r i d ge. Ed i n- b u r g h : T h e C a l v i n T r a n s l a ti o n S o c i e t y . 334 Bogoslovni vestnik 84 (2024) • 2 Emilian bishop of Alba-Iulia . 1 9 8 8 . Noul Testa- ment de la Bălgrad (1648) [The New Testament of Bălgrad]. A l b a I u l i a : Ed i t u r a Ep i s c o p i e i O r t o- doxe Române a Alba Iuliei. Ică, Ioana I. 1 97 3 . M ă r t u r i s i r ea d e c r e d i n ț ă a l u i M i t r o f a n K r i t o p u l o s [ T h e C o n f e s s i o n o f M e- t r o p h a n e s K r i t o p o u l o s ]. Mitropolia Ardealului 1 8 n o. 3 – 4 :20 8 – 4 7 3 . Koncz József . 1 8 87 . G e l ej i K a t o n a I s t v á n l e v e l e i a T e l e k i - l e v é l t á r b a n [L e tt e r s o f K a t o n a I s t v á n G e l ej i i n t h e T e l e k i a r c h i v e ]. Erdélyi Protestáns Közlöny 9 n o. 1 4 :32 7 – 3 3 1 . Legrand, Émile. 1 8 9 6 . Bibliographie hellénique. V o l . 4 . P a r i s: A l p h o n s e Pi c a r d e t F i l s . Lucaris, Cyril. 1 62 9 . The confession of faith, of the most reverend father in God Cyrill, Patriarch of Constantinople . L o n d o n : N i c o l a s B o u r n e. Perkins, William. 1 5 9 8 . A reformed Catholike: or, a declaration shewing how neere we may come to the present Church of Rome in sundrie points of religion: and uvherein we must for ever depart from them with an advertisment to all favourers of the Romane religion, shewing that the said religion is against the Catholike princi- ples and grounds of the catechisme . [ C a m b r i d- ge ] : Pr i n t e d b y J o h n L e g a t . Stepahuns Pannonius. 1 6 0 9 . De circulo operum et iudiciorum Dei . [ S . l ] : [ s . n . ]. Szilágyi Sándor . 18 8 8 . H er c e g R ákó c zi Z si gm o n d l evel ezés e [ C o r r esp o n d en c e of Pr in c e Z si gm o n d R ákó c zi]. Történelmi Tár 3, n o. 11: 10 4 – 1 21. Secondary Sources Ács Pál. 2014. Átszitált idő: Tinóditól Tandoriig [Sifted Time: From Tinódi to Tandori] . Poz s o ny: Kalligram. Argyriou, Asterios. 19 9 0. Z a c har ie Ger gan os et J.– M. C ar yo p hy ll os: un c as t y pi qu e d ’ aliénati o n de la pensée orthodoxe grecque dans la p remière moi ti é du X V II e siè c l e. In: Communica- tions grecques présentées au VI e Congrès interna- tional des études du Sud–Est européen, Sofia, 3 mai – 5 septembre 1989 , 18 3 – 192. Ath ens: C o mi- té Nati o nal Gre c d es Étu d es du Su d - E s t Euro- p é en C entre d ’Étu d es du Su d - E s t Euro p é en. Auglieara, Letterio . 1 9 9 6 . Libri, politica, religione nel Levante del Seicento: La tipografia di Nico- demo Metaxas: Primo editore di testi greci nell’oriente ortodosso . V e n i c e : I s ti t u t o V e n e t o d i S c i e nze L e tt e r e e d A r ti. Balázs Mihály. 2011. Alsted és az erdélyi unitáriu- s o k [ A l s te d a n d t h e T r a n s y l v a n i a n Un i t a r i a n s ]. I n : I m r e M i há l y , O l á h S z a b o l c s , Faze k a s G e r ge l y Tamás, Száraz Orsolya eds. Eruditio, virtus et constantia: Tanulmányok a 70 éves Bitskey István tiszteletére [To honor Bitskey István: studies on the occasion of his 70. birthday] , 5 4 2 – 5 5 0 . D e br e ce n : D e br e ce n i E g y et e m i Ki a dó . Benga, Daniel. 2003. Marii reformatori luterani și Biserica Ortodoxă: Contribuții la tipologia relațiilor luterano-ortodoxe din secolul al XVI-lea [The great Lutheran reformers and the Orthodox Church: Contributions to typology Lutheran-Orthodox relations in the 16th centu- ry]. B u c u r e ș ti : Ed i t u r a S o p h i a . Ciure, Florina. 201 5. C i r i l l o L o u k a r i s e l a T r a n s i l v a- n i a . I n : N o s i l i a a n d Pr a n d o n i 201 5, 10 9 – 11 5. Conțac, Emanuel. 2012. Sursele predosloviilor la cele patru evanghelii din Noul Testament de la B ă l gr a d ( 16 4 8 ) [ T h e s o ur c es of th e fo r ewo r d s at th e fo ur go sp el s of th e N ew T es t am ent of B ă l- gr a d ( 16 4 8 ) ]. Limba Română 6 1 n o. 2: 1 75 – 192. Conțac, Emanuel. 201 7 a . Re f o r m e d F ea t u r e s o f t h e F i r s t R o m a n i a n T r a n s l a ti o n o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t ( 1 6 4 8 ). I n : W i m Fr a n ç o i s , Au g u s t den Hollander, Els Agten eds. Vernacular Bible and Religious Reform in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Era , 2 21 – 2 4 6 . L e u v e n : Pe e t e r s . Conțac, Emanuel. 201 7b. Noul Testament de la Bălgrad (1648) și Reforma: Studiu istorico-filo- logic [The New Testament of Bălgrad (1648) and the Reformation: Historical-philological study]. I a ș i : Ed i t u r a U n i v e r s i t ă ț i i A l e x a n d r u Ioan Cuza. Davey, Colin. 1 9 87 . Pioneer for Unity: Metropha- nes Kritopoulos (1589–1639) and Relations between the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Reformed Churches . L o n d o n : C a m b r i d ge U n i- versity Press. Dimitrescu, Florica. 1 9 8 8 . I m p o r t a n ț a l i n g v i s ti c ă a N o u l u i T e s t a m e n t d e l a B ă l g r a d [ T h e L i n g u i s ti c S i g n i fi c a n c e o f t h e B ă l g r a d N e w T e s t a m e n t ]. I n : N T B , 75 – 9 6 . Dumitran, Ana. 2004. Religie ortodoxă – religie reformată: Ipostaze ale identității confesionale a românilor din Transilvania în secolele XVI-XVII [Orthodox religion - reformed religion: Hypotheses of the confessional identity of Romanians from Transylvania in the XVI-XVII centuries] . C l u j : N e r æ m i a N a p o c æ. Fonkič, Boris L., Vasilij V. and Kalugin. 20 15. Cirillo L ouk ar is e la Rus sia: sull ’ o r i gine d el tes to gre c o d ei d o cumenti di Gáb o r B ethl en inv iati a C os t an- tin o p o li. In: Nosilia an d Pr an d o ni 201 5, 67 – 95. Hadrovics, Ladislas. 1 9 4 7 . Le peuple serbe et son église sous la domination turque . P a r i s: L e s Presses Universitaires de France. Harai Dénes. 2011 . U n e c h a i r e a u x e n c h è r e s . A m b a s s a d e u r s c a t h o l i q u e s e t p r o t e s t a n t s à l a c o n q u ê t e d u p a t r i a r c a t g r e c d e C o n s t a n ti n o p l e ( 16 2 0 – 16 3 8). Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine 5 8 , n o. 2 :49 – 7 1 . h tt p s: / / d o i . o r g / 1 0. 3 9 1 7 / r h m c . 5 82 . 0 0 4 9 Heltai, János. 20 0 6 . D i e H e i d e l b e r ge r Pe r e g r i n a ti- o n c a l v i n i s ti s c h e r St u d e n t e n a u s U n g a r n u n d 335 Levente Nagy - Reformation And/or Union S i e b e n b ü r ge n , 1 5 97 – 1 621 . I n : M á r t a F a t a , Gyula Kurucz, and Anton Schindling, eds. Peregrinatio Hungarica: Studenten aus Ungarn an deutschen und österreichischen Hochschu- len vom 16. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert , 6 5 – 8 0 . St u tt g a r t: Fr a nz St e i n e r V e r l a g . Hotson, Howard. 2000. Paradise Postponed: Johann Heinrich Alsted and the Birth of Calvi- nist Millenarianism . D ord r ec h t - B o s t on - L on- don : S pri ng e r - S c ie nce + Bus i ne s s Med i a . Kármán Gábor . 201 3 . G á b o r B e t h l e n ’ s D i p l o m a t s at the Protestant Courts of Europe. Hungarian Historical Review 2 n o. 2 : 7 9 0 – 8 2 3 . Menk, Gerhard. 1 97 9 . D a s Re s ti t u ti o n s e d i k t u n d d i e K a l v i n i s ti s c h e W i s s e n s c h a ft: D i e B e r u f u n g Johann Heinrich Alsteds, Philipp Ludwig Pisca- t o r s u n d J o h a n n H e i n r i c h B i s t e r f e l d s n a c h Siebenbürgen. Jahrbuch der Hessischen Kir- chengeschichtlichen Vereinigung 31: 2 9 – 6 3 . Miskolczy, Ambrus. 1 9 9 4 . Eszmék és téveszmék: Kritikai esszék a román múlt és jelen vitás kérdéseit tárgyaló könyvekről [Ideas and Delu- sions: Critical Essays on Books Discussing Con- troversial Issues in Romania’s Past and Pre- sent] . B u d a p e s t: B e r e m é ny i K i a d ó. Murdock, Graeme. 2000. Calvinism on the Fronti- er 1600–1660: International Calvinism and the Reformed Church in Hungary and Transylvania. O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Pr e s s . Nicolae, Jan. 2010 . T e o l o g i e ș i l i m b ă î n v e r s i u n ea N o ului T e s t am e n t p at r o n at ă d e m i t r o p o li tul c ă r t u r a r S i m i o n Șt e f a n ( B ă l g r a d , 1 6 4 8 ). I n : J a n Nicolae, ed. Simion Ștefan, teolog, cărturar și patriot [Simion Ștefan, theologian, scholar and patriot] , 7 1 – 107 . A l b a I u l i a : Reâ n t r e g i r ea . Nosilia, Viviana, and Marco Prandoni, eds. 201 5. Trame controluce: Il patriarca ’protestante’ Cirilo Loukaris [Backlighting Plots: The ’Proe- stant’ Patriarch Cyril Loukaris] . F l o r e n c e : F i r e n- ze University Press. Olar, Ovidiu Victor. 2013. Héresie, schisme, ortho- d o x i e : K y r i l l o s L o u k a r i s e t l a t y p o g r a p h i e g r e- cque de Nikodimos Metaxas. Archævs. Studies in the History of Religions 1 7 : 111 – 1 24 . Olar, Ovidiu-Victor . 201 9 . La boutique de Théophi- le. Les relations du patriarche de Constanitno- ple Kyrillos Loukaris (1570-1638) avec la Réfor- me . P a r i s: C e n t r e d ’É t u d e B y z a n ti n e s N e o - H e l- léniques et Sud-Est Européennes . Ősz, Sándor Előd. 2023. Works of Protestant Re f o r m e r s i n t h e c o l l e c ti o n s o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y Library of Cluj-Napoca. Philobiblon 28, no. 1 : 2 3 – 4 0. h tt p s : / / d o i. o r g / 1 0. 2 6 4 2 4 / p hi l o- bib.2023.28.1.02 Palabıyık, Nil. 2020. A Public Debate on Cyril of Alexandria’s Views on the Procession of the H o l y S p i r i t i n S e v e n t e e n t h - C e n t u r y C o n s t a n ti- n o p l e : t h e J e s u i t Rea c ti o n t o N i c o d e m o s M e t a x a s ’ s G r e e k Ed i ti o n s . International Journal of the Classical Tradition 2 7 , n o. 3 :4 2 7 – 4 4 8 . Papadopoulos, Chrysostome A . 1 9 0 6 . U n e A p o l o- gie de Cyrille Lucar. Revue International de Théologie 14: 327– 3 3 0 . Pektaș, Nil. 201 5. T h e B e g i n n i n g s o f Pr i n ti n g i n t h e O tt o m a n C a p i t a l : B o o k Pr o d u c ti o n a n d C i r c u l a- ti o n i n ea r l y m o d e r n I s t a n b u l . Osmanlı Bilimi Araştırmaları 1 6 n o. 2 :4 – 32. Pop, Ioan-Aurel. 2000. A Documentary Source on t h e Re l i g i o u s S i t u a ti o n o f t h e T r a n s y l v a n i a n R o m a n i a n s i n 1 62 9 . Transylvanian Review 9, n o. 4 :32– 39 . Viskolcz, Noémi. 20 0 9 . J o h a n n H e i n r i c h B i s t e r f e l d – e i n Pr o f e s s o r a l s V e r m i tt l e r z w i s c h e n W e s t und Ost an der siebenbürgischen Akademie in W e i ß e n b u r g 1 6 3 0 – 1 6 55. I n : M á r t a F a t a a n d Anton Schindling, eds. Calvin und Reformier- tentum in Ungarn und Siebenbürgen, 201–214. Müns t e r: A s c h e n d o r f V e r l a g .