Reading the Religious Diversity of the Later Seventeenth‐Century Ottoman World: An Anglican Traveller's Perspective

In his Account of the Present Greek Church of 1722, Dr John Covel (1638–1722), an Anglican cleric and master of Christ's College, Cambridge, reflected on how human beings, and Christians specifically, might best please God. In so doing, Covel argued that disputes over ‘meer outward forms of Godliness’, such as the acts of fasting or praying, were only important insofar as they helped worshippers to develop what he termed ‘inward affection’. For Covel, ‘inward affection’, though difficult to define, was easy to spot. It was evidenced by ‘the unfeigned Exercise of a holy Life’, which entailed the performance of good works, combined with the pursuit of more abstract virtues such as sincerity, solemnity, patience, moderation, faith and conviction. In this paper, I explore how Covel, between his education at Cambridge in the 1650s, and the publication of his Account in the 1720s, came to conceptualize the worship of God in this way, with a particular focus on the impact of his travels around the Mediterranean in the 1670s and his exposure to the religious diversity of the Ottoman world. As part of this discussion, I show how Covel's observations abroad led him to question the sharp distinctions which were presumed to exist not only among Christians but also between Christians and members of other religions, most notably Islam. Taken as a whole, this paper will make a novel contribution to our understanding of early modern ecclesiastical debates in England, by examining their frequently transcultural frames of reference.

In this article, I examine how Covel, between his education at Cambridge in the 1650s, and the publication of his Account in the 1720s, came to conceptualize the worship of God in this way.I focus in particular on the impact of his travels around the eastern Mediterranean during the 1670s, and of his exposure to the Islamic and Eastern Christian cultures of the Ottoman world.In so doing, I illustrate how seventeenth-century English travellers could draw on their first-hand experiences of religious diversity overseas, and of religious diversity within the Ottoman Empire specifically, to intervene in domestic discussions about the right and wrong ways of worshipping God.These were discussions that could have a very real impact on the nature of everyday Anglican worship, as they fed into debates surrounding the myriad theological, liturgical and devotional commitments of the established English Church.By examining how first-hand experiences of travel informed discussions of right religion, this article makes a case for the role of travel, and travel within the Islamic world in particular, in shaping and shifting English travellers' views of familiar issues at home.It also argues that experiences of travel prompted English travellers to reflect on these issues in ways that frequently distinguished them from their non-travelling contemporaries.

ENGLISH TRAVELLERS, THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE AND EVERYDAY ANGLICAN WORSHIP
In its focus on the impact of the Islamic world on internal Western debates, this article takes its cue from several studies of late medieval and early modern Western ideas about Islam, the Ottomans and the Ottoman world. 5All of these scholars have demonstrated that there was not only active but also creative Western engagement with the cultures and societies of Islamic states, and of the Ottoman Empire especially.Examples involving Islamic, Ottoman and more broadly 'Eastern' frames of reference became a common feature of internal Western debates over religion, politics, society, war and so on, and were used to develop novel ways of thinking about these topics.To borrow Noel Malcolm's phrase, 'Eastern material … was used to shake things up, to provoke, to shame, to galvanize'. 6In common with this article, then, these works maintain that studying Muslim states, not least the Ottoman Empire, was a way for early modern Europeans to reflect on their own cultures and societies, and to suggest means to facilitate both their defence and reform.
Yet whereas the scholars mentioned above have focused largely on broader 'Western' or 'European' patterns of thinking about Islam and Islamic states, this article is more concerned with the emergence and operation of more local, or distinctly English, patterns of thought vis-à-vis the Ottoman world.English travellers approached the religious diversity of the Ottoman Empire with very particular issues and questions in mind, many of which were informed by the domestic debates that pre-occupied them.Although the broader European or Western view is undoubtedly rich and fascinating, it has also inevitably flattened much of what makes individual travellers so interesting, that is to say, their local and personal contexts, including, perhaps most importantly, their immediate religious and political priorities.As a result, it is possible to speak of a distinctive English experience of travel within the Ottoman Empire during the seventeenth century, insofar as that experience was shaped by domestic frames of reference.It was, therefore, distinct (though never entirely detached) from broader European frameworks and tropes, or from the experiences of other European travellers to the region.
In its focus on this English experience, this article intersects with a wellestablished historiography covering early modern England's engagement with Islam and the Ottoman world.7This includes several relatively recent studies exploring this engagement using the experiences of English clerics within the Ottoman Empire. 8This article situates itself within this historiography, but takes a slightly different tack.When historians have examined the relationship between English travellers' experiences of the Ottoman Empire, on the one hand, and their views of religion and the English Church, on the other, they have tended to focus on the impact of eastern travel on more scholarly areas of enquiry.These areas span from late Renaissance humanism and oriental studies, to protracted debates over Scripture, history and doctrine.By contrast, this article, using Covel as a microhistorical case study, marks a modest attempt to explore the impact of Islam and the Ottoman Empire on English travellers' views of more everyday religious issues.This includes questions of individual moral conduct and the value of specific Anglican rites and ceremonies.In this way, it shows how the intellectual impact of the Ottoman Empire in England extended beyond university libraries and offices, and into debates touching everyday Anglican worship.Covel's voluminous diaries, which he maintained throughout his travels in the 1670s, and annotated following his return to England, cover a remarkably diverse range of topics, including topography, botany, zoology, ethnography, medicine, politics, diplomacy, commerce, religion, architecture, archaeology, and epigraphy.Their 704 folios contain not only text but also multiple sketches, maps and copies of Greek and Latin inscriptions that Covel recorded on his travels around the Mediterranean. 11Much of Covel's correspondence has also survived, covering the period between approximately 1655 and 1715. 12We also have two of Covel's commonplace books, though sadly, he failed to properly date them.Covel maintained the first between 1660 at the earliest and 1713 at the latest, judging by its varied contents. 13Most of this commonplace book is taken up with pen and ink drawings of plants, animals, coins and medals, with accompanying descriptive text.Covel's second commonplace book, meanwhile, is dated 1689 by his own hand, but Covel clearly maintained it between that date and the early eighteenth century, given the references therein. 14Covel's writings therefore span a reasonable period between his travels and the early eighteenth century, giving us a good sense of how his thoughts on religion developed, and of the ongoing role of his travels in this process.Covel's second commonplace book will be particularly important for our purposes, as it contains many of his musings on religious theory, ceremony and practice, which he related to his direct experiences of the religious diversity of the Ottoman world.
Writing to George Davies, the English consul in Naples, in July 1678, during his return voyage from Istanbul, Covel recalled the many religious traditions that he had encountered, experienced and examined on his travels over the past eight years: I have been in the Turkes Mosche's at Constantple, many and many times at their houses of prayer; I have seen their devotions and manner of worship; and I have all their prayers and functions in Arabick and Vulgar Greek.Next I have been often and often in the Synagogues of ye Jewes and converst wth them and their bookes as well wth those who are cal'd ye Rabinaïms [of Rabbinic Judaism], as the Karaïms [of Karaite Judaism], which are counted schismaticks by the others, … Thirdly I have been to see ye Greeks say their Liturgy or Masse a hundred times, and have conversed wth all patriarchs and m[et]ropolites which were in my time.I have done the like wth ye Armenians and as many of ye Georgians and Russians as I could meet at Constantple, and truely of all these I think I am able to give a tolerable account especially as to their Religion and devotion. 15 this passage, Covel places an interesting emphasis on the expertise that he had gained from witnessing not only diversity of religion but also actual moments of devotion within different systems of belief.Covel's manuscripts are certainly filled with vivid recollections of everyday worship, which he used to think more deeply about the relationship between 'inward affection', on the one hand, and outward form, on the other, and about what this all meant for religious theory, ceremony and practice within the Church of England.

CHRIST'S COLLEGE, CUDWORTH AND MORE
Born in Horringer in Suffolk in 1638, Covel was educated at a grammar school in nearby Bury St Edmunds, followed by Christ's College, Cambridge, from 1654.He graduated BA in 1658 and MA in 1661, and was also elected a fellow of the college in 1659. 16Although we have no evidence of the exact or even approximate date of Covel's ordination, he was said to be 'a Batchilour of Divinity and in full orders' in a letter from October 1669, from Thomas Leader to Dr Samuel Parker. 17Following the award of his BA, Covel continued to live and work at Christ's until September 1670, when he departed for Istanbul.He retained his fellowship during his absence, however, revealing the extent to which he was considered part of the fabric of the college.Indeed, on his return to Christ's in 1679, Covel was swiftly appointed Lady Margaret Preacher and awarded a Doctor of Divinity by royal mandate. 18hroughout this entire period, between the 1650s and the 1680s, Christ's was the college of two highly influential English thinkers, whose work helped to transform Anglican understandings of the relationship between religion and everyday morality.The first was Ralph Cudworth (1617-88), who served as master of the college from 1654 until his death in 1688, when he was succeeded by Covel, who served until his own death in 1722.The second was Henry More (1614-87), a fellow of Christ's from 1641.Although the views of Cudworth and More were rarely in complete alignment, there was a significant degree of convergence in their general conception of what was most important to religion.They shared this conception with a wider circle of late seventeenth-century Anglican divines, particularly at Cambridge, including Benjamin Whichcote (1609-83), John Worthington (c.1618-71) and John Wilkins (1614-72).Specifically, both Cudworth and More emphasized the moral content of religion, which they regarded as more important than strict adherence to specific ceremonies and institutional forms, or debates over complex doctrinal matters.Within this context, they favoured the establishment of a broad-based Anglican Church, with a significant degree of latitude in questions of doctrine, ritual and church organization and leadership.They encouraged Christians to focus instead on the importance of right moral conduct, or the pursuit of a holy and virtuous life. 19Preaching before the House of Commons in 1647, Cudworth had condemned 'the superstitious reverence of outward ceremonies', leading to the neglect of that 'inward Soul and Principle of Divine Life, that spiriteth all these; that enliveneth and quickeneth, the dead carkasse, of all our outward Performances whatsoever'. 20ovel was certainly part of the intellectual and friendship networks maintained by Cudworth and More, both of whom were his colleagues at Christ's. 21 In the process, he began to draw some remarkable conclusions regarding the 'outward practice and profession' of religion, which tended to minimize its importance: In generall … I have found all religions as to ye outward practice and profession the same; They have saints, and Fathers or Doctors whome ye body follow alike.They all have strange fancyes and conceits of ye stations in eternity; they all have factions and curiously persecute, censure, damne one ye other (as ye Turk, ye Persian &c); they all stricktly persist in their own way. 26 other words, Covel believed that most religions, including Christianity, were fundamentally the same, at least in terms of 'outward' or more visible signs of religiosity such as clerics, saints, rituals, rivalries and belief in the afterlife.Within this context, disputes over minor points of ceremony, doctrine or 22 Covel, Istanbul, to Henry More, 11 March 1677, Christ's College, Cambridge, MS 21, fols.28r-29v. 23Ralph Cudworth, Cambridge, to Thomas Covel, Horringer, 27 July 1677, Add.MS 22910, fol.147. 24Add.MS 22911, fol.228v. 25Lewis, "Christ's College and the Latitude-Men' Revisited', 47-8. 26Add.MS 22912, fol.237v.form were essentially irrelevant, for the substance of religion, or that which was most pleasing to God, clearly lay elsewhere.
Against this backdrop, Covel reflected, in the same section of his diaries, on the importance of what he called 'ye inner practice of religion', or the pursuit of holiness and virtue.Indeed, after noting that he had 'found all religions as to ye outward practice and profession the same', Covel focused briefly on the teachings of Christ, which he felt served to distinguish Christianity from other religions: I am so fully perswaded of ye excellency of my saviour Jesus Christ; his doctrine above whatever was yet in ye world, as I am ready to seal to it in this very place w th my dearest blood, and will undertake to demonstrate what is of good doctrine throughout ye world, came from him.
Thus Covel emphasized Christ's role as not only a redeemer but also a moral teacher and example of virtue, among other things.In the same section of text, Covel also implied that a similar moral imperative was at work within Islam, though without reference to Christ's doctrine, of course.'As to ye inner practice of religion', he wrote, 'I verily must say it, take ye generality and they [Muslims] certainely will rise up in judgement against us', adding that 'The Turkes call us [Christians] … coverers of ye truth, … and certainely for ye greater part of those that call themselves Xtians are really soe'. 27ovel was flirting here with a stance adopted by several major Anglican thinkers of the later seventeenth century, including Cudworth and More.This stance held that there were universal moral principles discernible via not only revelation but also reason, as evidenced by the exemplary moral conduct of non-Christians, who lacked access to Scripture.It was thought that obedience to these universal moral laws, which entailed the pursuit of a holy and virtuous life, was the supreme good in religion, and one by which Christians ought to distinguish themselves. 28It appears that Covel was moving towards this view in the mid-1670s, for in his diary in 1675, he was clearly lamenting the fact that his fellow Christians were distinguishing themselves more by their immorality than anything else.'It is we', he concluded in this same section, concerning 'ye inner practice of religion' among Christians and Muslims, 'that have so changed, and corrupted and abused his [Christ's] divine precepts … when ye Son of man cometh shall he find Faith on ye earth?[Luke 18:8]'. 29n the years following his return to Cambridge in 1679, Covel continued to elevate 'ye inner practice of religion' above outward form, while drawing on his experiences of religious diversity overseas.Writing in his commonplace 27 Ibid.Italics in quotes from Covel's manuscripts indicate that the text is underscored. 28See n19. 29Add.MS 22912, fol.237v.book in around 1689, Covel referred to 'Greeks, papists, Armenians', noting that 'If all differ'd onely in outward formes of worship, w ch I count onely fashions, I could communicate w th all'.Thus, Covel implied that most religions were outwardly similar, in terms of the customs and ceremonies that they prescribed, and that the real differences between them lay not in these 'outward formes of worship', or 'onely fashions', but rather were internal.Such a conclusion tended to downplay the intrinsic value of ceremony, and indeed, following these remarks, Covel cited John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. 30In the section that Covel cited, Calvin warned readers not to 'thinke the worshipping of God to be the better for the multitude of Ceremonies', adding 'that one Church should not despise an other for the diuersitie of discipline'. 31erhaps the clearest sign of Covel's tendency to promote 'inner practice' over outward form was his engagement with the idea that non-Christians might also be saved because of their virtuous conduct.In Covel's view, God's grant of salvation, or 'saving Grace', was conditional on obedience to His law, which entailed the performance of good works, combined with the cultivation of virtue.'I cannot imagine', he wrote in an undated section of the same commonplace book, 'what is meant by Grace (in ye strictest sense of the Church) more than ye concurse, or assistance of a Divine spirit; if that be followed, … to abstein from evil, it is w t I suppose they call saving Grace'.On this point, Covel reflected broad swathes of Anglican opinion.Where he departed from the mainstream of the Church, however, was in his flirtation with the idea that 'heathens' might also have access to this 'saving Grace'.Such a view contravened Article XVIII of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, which had been appended to the most recent Book of Common Prayer (1662).Article XVIII clearly stated that 'They also are to be accursed, that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth', adding that 'Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved'. 32y 'heathens', Covel meant not only the pagans of the classical world but also other non-Christians such as contemporary 'Turks and Infidels'.This can be seen in the following passage, which highlights how Covel's travels within Ottoman territories forced him to engage with theological questions that were not necessarily so pressing for his more sedentary colleagues: Now can we imagine that none of the Heathens had this [saving grace]?Was it never anywhere but first amongst ye Jewes (in lesser measure) and then w th ye Xtians in full power?We find as noble instances of virtue, courage and constancy under the barbarous usage of Tyrants, and other temptatious Heathens … as 30 Osborn b140, fol.30. 31John Calvin, The Institution of Christian Religion, trans.Thomas Norton (London, 1582), fol.404v.
Although dated by the late seventeenth century, this edition of Calvin's Institutes was the one that Covel owned, according to a catalogue of his library compiled in 1716.See 'Catalogue of the Library of John Covel, of Cambridge, in the handwriting of H. Wanley, 5 March 1715/6', BL, Add.MS 70485, fol.34r. 32John Baskerville, ed., The Book of Common Prayer (Cambridge, 1762).
ever we can shew in our greatest martyres.We find on the other [Christian] side as villanous practices since the Ghospel, as ever before; and if we compare now Turks and Infidels' practices in generall (for great men everywhere … are alike) w th ye generality of Xtians, they far exceed us.
By denying 'the Heathens this Grace', Covel argued, 'we seem to praise them more then ourselves; since they do as much or more, by Nature and the inbred force of Virtue and Goodnesse … then we doe w th our pretended Supernatural help and hopes of Eternity'.As a result, Covel concluded that 'Such a Divine help w th out doubt there is for every one that calls for it and use[s] it, but if we ingrosse [engross] it onely to the Church, as we call it, we are as streight faced as Rome'. 33n the very next entry in his commonplace book (again, undated), Covel continued to reflect on the scope of 'saving Grace'.It was certainly possible to argue, he acknowledged, that even 'Good works … have the nature of sin … if not springing from faith in Jesus X t '.In this scenario, he added, there would be 'no difference between any of the Heathen or Turks, all must perish'.These 'Heathen' included the writers of the ancient Greek and Roman worlds, whose work Covel so admired.Paraphrasing Cicero's De Finibus, Covel wrote in his commonplace book: '…it follows that Plato, not having yet attained to the vision of (the light of the Gospel), was just as blind mentally as Phalaris'. 34The phrase 'the light of the Gospel' replaces the original 'sapientiam', or 'wisdom'. 35ovel evidently struggled with this view, however, asking (in his next undated entry): 'Can I believe that those Moralists go all to the Devil, who have taken such paines to destroy his kingdom, i.e., Vice?' 36 Although Covel's question was ostensibly concerned with the 'Moralists' of the ancient world, it might equally have been asked of other non-Christians such as present-day Muslims, particularly within the context of Covel's reasoning to that point.Indeed, in yet another (undated) section of his commonplace book, Covel went so far as to argue that 'throughout ye whole world', there was 'no quarrel about … ye moral part' of religion, and that ultimately all major systems of worship, including Islam, promoted 'syncerity, faithfulnesse, integrity', just as Christ did in Matthew 23:23.'Whether free will or not', Covel concluded, 'all professe the same persuit of holinesse.Whether by grace or Pelagianism, … Few articles of necessary beleif, and plain syncerity and holinesse of life certainely the true way'.37 Here, Covel returned to the concept of universal moral laws, deducible via reason as well as revelation, which Cudworth, More and others had identified as the crux of religion.33

COVEL, GREEK CHRISTIANS AND THE SIGN OF THE CROSS
Although Covel attached little value to religious ceremonies in and of themselves, and preferred to think of the worship of God in terms of inner conviction, as opposed to outward action, he was by no means wholly indifferent to ceremony.In Covel's view, religious ceremonies were highly important or valuable to the extent that they enabled worshippers to enhance their inner practice of religion.For although ceremonies had little to no intrinsic value, and were best described as 'onely Fashions', some of their emotional and practical consequences, including love for God and one's religion, or the creation of collective ties, the incitement to good works, and so on, were highly beneficial for what they contributed to one's 'inward affection'.It was on this basis that Covel argued that certain ceremonies be retained and encouraged.We have a clear example of this logic in Covel's treatment of the sign of the cross in baptism, which he defended with reference not to the early Church, like most Anglican thinkers of the period, but to the present state of Christianity, and of the Greek Church specifically, within the Ottoman Empire. 38ovel's defence of the sign of the cross spoke to a very specific religious and political context within later seventeenth-century England.From 1662, Church of England ministers were required to swear 'unfeigned assent and consent' to the contents of the new Book of Common Prayer.Many of its rubrics were deeply offensive to even moderate puritans, however, including Presbyterians associated with Richard Baxter (1615-91), who were otherwise generally supportive of the national church structure, and willing to join themselves.These Presbyterians were opposed to rubrics requiring, among other things, the wearing of the surplice, the sign of the cross in baptism and kneeling to receive the sacrament.Consequently, thousands of talented Presbyterian ministers were effectively excluded from the established Church, not because of any substantial difference in theology, but simply because they opposed a series of relatively minor ceremonial requirements. 39Against this backdrop, a growing body of more 'latitudinarian' or liberal Anglican thinkers suggested that rubrics such as the sign of the cross 'be left indifferent', in order to convince more moderate non-conformists (such as Baxter) to join (or re-join) the state Church. 40uring the 1670s, then, while Covel was travelling, the requirement within the Anglican Church to make the sign of the cross in baptism remained a 38 For the Anglican use of the Church Fathers to defend the sign of the cross in baptism, see Jean major point of contention for more puritanical Christians, including Baxter.For although Baxter was just about willing to accept the surplice and kneeling to receive, he drew the line at the sign of the cross in baptism: '… that Man may adjoyn such a Human Sacrament as the Cross in Baptism, to God's Sacrament, I am not satisfied in: And cannot Assent or Consent to it'.For Baxter, the sign of the cross was 'a (transient) Image, used as a means of Worship', and 'Therefore unlawful by the Second Commandment'. 41Covel was of a completely different mind, however, owing to his encounter with Greek Christians, once 'so famous for their learning and zeal', but now reduced by the Ottomans to 'meer beasts and the worst of slaves'. 42Among Covel's correspondence from the later seventeenth century, there exists an undated draft of a letter from Covel to the Anglican cleric Laurence Womock (d.1686).In this letter, Covel recounted the story of 'a poor Greek' in the Ottoman Empire, whom he claimed to have watched sentenced to death and swiftly executed by the Ottoman authorities. 43In his Account of the Present Greek Church of 1722, Covel outlined the events leading up to this execution.According to Covel, the unnamed Greek had been tricked by local Muslims into reciting the shahada, or Islamic declaration of faith.He was then forcibly circumcised by them, but refused to convert to Islam, and was therefore 'at last beheaded before his own door'. 44In his draft letter to Womock, Covel explained how this unnamed Greek, over the course of his trial and before his execution: … when either he could not speak, through weaknesse of body or anguish of mind or else could not be heard amongst the thronging multitude, he in a manner continually made the sign of the crosse upon his breast, to signify to the world by this dumb Rhetorick his undaunted resolution of being and dying a true Christian.I confesse it made me w th great pleasure reflect upon that antient Rite used by our church in Baptisme, I mean ye sign of the Crosse. 45iting to Womock, Covel conceded that the sign of the cross 'may seem a very uselesse and empty ceremony', whether in baptism or among adult Christians, 'to men that never lived abroad amongst unbelievers, nor considered the state of the primitive Church by which this practice prevayled'.Yet of course Covel, unlike most of his compatriots and colleagues, had 'lived abroad amongst unbelievers', where he had witnessed the 41  persecution of Christians at the hands of the non-Christian Ottomans, which provided him with a different perspective on the sign of the cross. 46or under these circumstances, Covel had found the practice very useful, for it signified 'throughout the whole world, where no other language is understood, that the person so signed is own'd, or owns himself to be a member of Christ's body'.By way of illustration, Covel informed Womock that in Ottoman territories, the sign was commonly used by local Christians to 'begge your charity, when all language is insignificant'.Covel also recalled using the sign himself, when he had travelled 'in Turkish habit [or dress]', in order to reassure frightened local Christians that he was of their faith, and thereby ensure that he was 'immediately admitted and kindly treated' by them.'I have found this outward token alone in these countreys', he explained, 'to be a sufficient shibboleth to distinguish a Christian from an Infidel'. 47ovel had therefore witnessed what it must have been like for those early generations of so-called 'primitive' Christians, surrounded by 'unbelievers' and subjected to frequent bouts of violent persecution at the hands of non-Christian state authorities. 48Covel's characterization of Greek Christians as 'slaves', which he repeated in his draft letter to Womock, referring to 'Christian slaves and other miserable and indigent beleivers', served to underline this general point, making it clear that Covel was discussing a situation where Christians had been subjugated by non-Christians, and that within this context, the sign of the cross took on added significance.In this way, Covel employed an observational or ethnographic approach to determining the value of a specific form of Christian worship.Covel was assessing the value of the sign of the cross using events and peoples that he had experienced and encountered himself during his travels overseas, as opposed to a historical framework adapted from the writings of the Church Fathers.
Although Anglicans could not be said to face such persecution, and could hardly be described as 'slaves', Covel was of the view that the sign of the cross, even if used only in baptism, remained a powerful symbol or 'token', in light of its demonstrably long history and emotive connotations, of several highly important inner religious qualities or affections.These affections, which Covel had witnessed in action during his time abroad, included conviction, solidarity and a commitment to resist sin and temptation.The unfortunate Greek whom Covel encountered overseas was certainly a good example of 46 Ibid.For the status of the Greek Church within the early modern Ottoman Empire, see Molly Greene, such qualities in action, given that he clung resolutely to his Christian principles and faith, and refused to convert to Islam, even when faced with the prospect of certain death.In his draft letter to Womock, Covel therefore defended the sign of the cross along these lines: Now though perhaps in your parts of Christendome[,] a man of riper years may never have a reall occasion of making profession of his faith by this outward Character, yet I think our church doth extreamely well in retaining soe much as she doth of this antient custome, I mean in crossing the persons that are newly baptized, since the words which she useth in that office sufficiently expound the meaning of the first instituters of this ceremony, … that as they should manfully maintein the inward and spirituall fight against sin and the Devil … under the inward banner of a stedfast and lively faith in Christ, so they should not be ashamed publickly [,] even by this outward sign, to confesse to ye world and all the powers thereof the same faith, when and wheresoever they should have occasion for it.
Hence Covel believed that the sign of the cross remained a fundamental part of the 'universal Character of a Christian, which was wisely introduced by our forefathers and ought still to be used', not least in baptism. 49n summary, Covel regarded the sign of the cross as a valuable ceremony because it was as much about inner conviction and solidarity as it was outward form, in the sense that it communicated an affirming faith.As we have seen, this was particularly true under the circumstances that Covel had encountered within the Ottoman Empire, where Christians were ruled and persecuted by non-Christians, and where they lacked the security of an established church.Within this context, the sign of the cross also appeared to Covel to serve a moral or practical purpose, insofar as it could be employed, for instance, to recognize fellow Christians, or 'to begge for charity, when all language is insignificant'.In this respect, Covel communicated a distinctive, travel-informed perspective on what was otherwise a fairly ordinary characteristic of later seventeenth-and early eighteenth-century Anglican thought.This style of thought was best represented by figures such as John Wilkins (1614-72), who emphasized the importance of what he termed 'practical Godliness', insisting that religion had significant temporal as well as spiritual value (that is, for salvation). 50he idea that the sign of the cross 'was wisely introduced by our forefathers', as Covel put it, and that it communicated an affirming faith, particularly for those living among non-Christians, echoed the reasoning of the Elizabethan theologian Richard Hooker (1554-1600), who had defended the baptismal use of the sign of the cross in his landmark Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie.whereas Hooker had fleshed out his argument with references to the early Church, Covel drew on the present state of the Greek Church.There was certainly an interest among later seventeenth-century English readers in the contemporary alongside the historical, which was reflected in two highly successful and influential works by the English diplomat Sir Paul Rycaut (1629-1700): The Present State of the Ottoman Empire (1668) and The Present State of the Greek and Armenian Churches (1679), both of which were widely translated. 52Within this increasingly popular literary framework, Covel believed that his direct experience of a Church persecuted by non-Christians gave him unique insight, noting, as we have seen, that the sign of the cross only appeared useless to those 'that never lived abroad amongst unbelievers'.
In using the Greek Church to defend the sign of the cross, Covel distinguished himself from not only Hooker but also several of his Anglican contemporaries, including Nathaniel Resbury (c.1643-1711), who championed the sign of the cross against non-conformist objections using the writings of Church Fathers such as Tertullian (c.155-240) and St Cyprian (c.200-58). 53n so doing, Covel suggested that travel overseas, and exposure to religious diversity specifically, equipped one with a deeper, richer sense of right belief and devotion, particularly when it came to contested issues such as the sign of the cross.For in this case, Covel had used his experiences of religious diversity abroad, and of the persecution of the Greek Church specifically, to make an observational or ethnographic argument for the sign of the cross, which added an extra dimension to the more scholarly arguments that Covel's colleagues drew from the writings of the Church Fathers.

CONCLUSION
Covel's travels overseas, which took him through large parts of the western Ottoman world, brought him into close contact with worshippers from several different religions and creeds, most notably Eastern Christianity and Islam.During his time within the Ottoman Empire, Covel visited places of worship, attended rites and ceremonies, interrogated worshippers and generally immersed himself in various religious cultures.He commonly approached these cultures comparatively, in a manner that frequently undermined the notion that sharp distinctions existed between Christians and non-Christians, and between Christians and Muslims especially, not least when it came to what he 52  called 'ye inner practice of religion'.Indeed, Covel used his experiences of religion within Ottoman territories to articulate and evolve a view of the worship of God, and of the practice of the Church of England specifically, which centred on the 'inward affection' of worshippers, or 'the unfeigned Exercise of a holy Life', involving the performance of good works, combined with the pursuit of more abstract virtues such as sincerity, solemnity, patience, moderation, faith, honesty and conviction.Within this framework, Covel drew on his experiences of travel to reflect on the relationship between 'ye inner practice of religion', or the pursuit of holiness and virtue, on the one hand, and religious ceremony and custom, on the other.In his writings about Anglican theory, ceremony and practice, Covel marked himself out from his colleagues and co-religionists in his use of a distinctive, less familiar form of religious authority: his direct experience of the religious diversity of the Ottoman world.

University of Oxford
1098); Gerald MacLean, The Rise of Oriental Travel: English Visitors to the Ottoman Empire, 1580-1720 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004); Gerald MacLean and Nabil Matar, Britain and the Islamic World, 1558-1713 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); Jerry Brotton, This Orient Isle: Elizabethan England and the Islamic World (London: Allen Lane, 2016)., DIARIES AND COMMONPLACE BOOKSTowards the end of September 1670, John Covel, then a fellow at Christ's College, Cambridge, sailed from southern England to Istanbul.Covel had been selected to replace Thomas Smith as resident chaplain for the English embassy to the Ottoman Porte, and for the ambassador, Sir Daniel Harvey.9Covel travelled to the Ottoman capital via Tunis and Izmir, from where he visited the ancient ruins of Carthage and Ephesus, respectively, permitting him to indulge his passion for classical antiquity.Covel arrived in Istanbul in late December 1670, where he remained as embassy chaplain until April 1677.During his chaplaincy, Covel ventured out of Istanbul on several occasions, visiting large parts of Thrace and Asia Minor, including Edirne, Bursa and, for the second time, Izmir.On his return voyage to England, Covel travelled throughout much of Greece, including Mount Athos, a major centre of Greek Orthodox monasticism, as well as around Italy and France.Covel recorded his arrival back in England on 20 January 1679.10 8 See, for example, Alison Games, The Web of Empire: English Cosmopolitans in an Age of Expansion, 1560-1660 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 219-53; William Bulman, Anglican Enlightenment: Orientalism, Religion and Politics in England and Its Empire, 1648-1715 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015); Haig Z. Smith, 'Risky Business: The Seventeenth-Century English Company Chaplain, and Policing Interaction and Knowledge Exchange', Journal of Church and State 60, 2 (2018), 226-47; Simon Mills, A Commerce of Knowledge: Trade, Religion, and Scholarship between England and the Ottoman Empire, 1600-1760 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020).CORRESPONDENCE A letter from Covel to More, dated 11 March 1677, suggests a18Leedham-Green, 'Covel'.19See,forexample,JohnSpurr,"Latitudinarianism'and the Restoration Church', The Historical Journal 31, no. 1 (1988): esp.75-76;IsabelRivers,Reason,Grace, and Sentiment: A Study of the Language of Religion and Ethics in England, 1660-1780.Volume I: Whichcote to Wesley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 25-88; Sarah Hutton, British Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 136-59.scholarlyinterest in the Karaite Jews, whom Covel had visited outside Istanbul.Indeed, Covel sent More, accompanying this letter, 'what bookes they [the Karaites] had amongst them of any antiquity or Curiosity'.22In1677,CudworthsupportedCovel'scandidacy for proctor of Christ's College, despite the latter's absence of nearly seven years, and the fact that he was still then overseas.23Covel'sconnectiontoCudworth appears to have been as much personal as professional.Shortly before his departure for Istanbul, Covel was personally invited to the master's lodge, where he watched 'a Pastoral [performed] by D r Cudworth's Children & some others, contriv'd by M r John Andrews [Cudworth's stepson], afterwards Fellow'.24Between the 1650s and the 1680s, then, Covel was undoubtedly part of what Marilyn Lewis has called 'the More/Cudworth friendship network', or 'the More/Cudworth interest at Christ's'.
20Ralph Cudworth, A Sermon Preached before the Honourable House of Commons at Westminster, March 31.1647 (Cambridge, 1647), 17, 73. 21For an account of the intellectual and friendship networks maintained by Cudworth and More at Christ's, which are said to include Covel, see Marilyn A. Lewis, "Christ's College and the Latitude-Men' Revisited: A Seminary of Heretics?', in History of Universities, ed.Mordechai Feingold, vol.33/1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 17-68.shared 25 'PLAIN SYNCERITY AND HOLINESSE OF LIFE': COVEL AND 'YE INNER PRACTICE OF RELIGION' Appreciating Covel's involvement with Cudworth and More is crucial.Their influence helps to explain a tendency in Covel's work, which became increasingly apparent as time went on, to elevate inner religious qualities such as conviction, faith and sincerity above what he would later term 'meer outward forms of Godliness', including ceremony.This was a position that Covel worked through, and arrived at, with recourse to his experiences of travel.During the summer of 1675, when Covel was in Edirne, he reflected in his diary on what his travels around the eastern Mediterranean had taught him about religious worship.
53Nathaniel Resbury, The Case of the Cross in Baptism Considered.Wherein Is Shewed, That There Is Nothing in It, as It Is Used in the Church of England, That Can Be Any Just Reason of Separation from It (London, 1684).