I saw Brokeback Mountain tonight.

[Az]

Mmm.... all hot photos in army gear appreciated !!!

Seriously- best wishes, mazel tov, and so on.

Thanks. The whole "moving to another town" part is much more exciting ( and stressful ) to me than the little "soldier boy" office school adventure.

I'm all grown up, I guess. *tear*

Re: email - aimez-vous Bjork, tovarisch ?

Ambivalent, on a song to song basis. Some of it I like, some of it just feels like filler to me.


EDIT: filler, not feeler. wtf? !

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Have a happy

Erm, you're making an unnecessary and inaccurate distinction between 'Anglicans' and 'Puritans'.

'Puritans'- those who were seeking to purify (hence the name) the Established Church in England- were of course Anglicans.

I refer you to Chapter One, 'The Definition Of A Puritan', in 'Society And Puritanism In Pre-Revolutionary England' by Christopher Hill, publ. Panther 1969 and also

'Puritanism In Old & New England' by Alan Simpson, publ. University of Chicago Press, 1955.



Much happier now....

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Erm, you're making an unnecessary and inaccurate distinction between 'Anglicans' and 'Puritans'.

'Puritans'- those who were seeking to purify (hence the name) the Established Church in England- were of course Anglicans.

I refer you to Chapter One, 'The Definition Of A Puritan', in 'Society And Puritanism In Pre-Revolutionary England' by Christopher Hill, publ. Panther 1969 and also

'Puritanism In Old & New England' by Alan Simpson, publ. University of Chicago Press, 1955.


Much happier now....

The folks who settled Massachusetts did not call themselvs Anglicans when they lived in America, AFAIK. The churches they established IN Massachusetts and Connecticut were called "Congregationalist" and were never under the authority of the COE. Not even during the period when the Commonwealth ruled England, AFAIK. That this does not apply to the Puritans in England is irrelevant, as I made no reference to them.

And the folks who settled Virginia, were NOT interested in purifiying the COE.

In American history, the Puritans who settled Massachusetts are never referred to as Anglicans. The distinction I made is one that is taken for granted by our historians, and not without reason.

Good to see you accept my main point though.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Erm, you're making an unnecessary and inaccurate distinction between 'Anglicans' and 'Puritans'.

'Puritans'- those who were seeking to purify (hence the name) the Established Church in England- were of course Anglicans.

I refer you to Chapter One, 'The Definition Of A Puritan', in 'Society And Puritanism In Pre-Revolutionary England' by Christopher Hill, publ. Panther 1969 and also

'Puritanism In Old & New England' by Alan Simpson, publ. University of Chicago Press, 1955.



Much happier now....

It seems odd then, that the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, in the early 18th c, sent missionaries to New England to convert the locals to Anglicanism. Now one might say that they were trying to convert them to high church Anglicanism, but AFAIK no such missionaries were sent to Virginia, despite the low Church Anglicanism of most Virginians. And the new churches founded by the SPG were called "Anglican churches" and reported to a Bishop in England, while the churches which had been founded by Puritans were called Congregationalist and did not. And though I dont have a text handy, New Englanders at the time indicated concern with the missionizing by "Anglicans"


And its widely held that the principle loyalists in New England in the 1770s were "anglicans" while "congregationalists" were largely patriots. But if you persist in using Elizabethan terminology to refer to American churches, who am I to stop you.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The folks who settled Massachusetts did not call themselvs Anglicans when they lived in America, AFAIK. The churches they established IN Massachusetts and Connecticut were called "Congregationalist" and were never under the authority of the COE. Not even during the period when the Commonwealth ruled England, AFAIK.

All of which is irrelevant- they were of the Anglican confession, that is, of the Church of England.

You're confusing method of church/parish organisation and government with confession of faith.

I refer you to William Bartlet's 'A Model Of The Primitive Congregational Way' (publ. 1647)

"Whether the Church of England, as it is national, consisting of so many thousand parishes, that are as branches and members of the same, and have no power of government in themselves, but stand under an absolute authoritative ecclesiastical power without them to rule and govern them in the matters of God's worship, be a true church ?"

The point being, that the episcopal apparatus was felt by many Puritans to be part of the suspect Romish practices that needed 'purifying' out of the Anglican Church.

Even though the Church of England continued to be the official church in Massachusetts Bay Colony, there were no bishops or other hierarchy present to sustain its bureaucracy. The act of moving from old to New England had brought about a kind of de facto separatism, and in time the Congregational form of church polity became the accepted way throughout the colony.

http://www.pilgrimhall.org/PSNoteNewPilgrimPuritan.htm

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


All of which is irrelevant- they were of the Anglican confession, that is, of the Church of England.

You're confusing method of church/parish organisation and government with confession of faith.

I refer you to William Bartlet's 'A Model Of The Primitive Congregational Way' (publ. 1647)



The point being, that the episcopal apparatus was felt by many Puritans to be part of the suspect Romish practices that needed 'purifying' out of the Anglican Church.



http://www.pilgrimhall.org/PSNoteNewPilgrimPuritan.htm

Your source makes no mention of the Cambridge Platform of 1648, by which, IIUC, the New England churches formally broke with the COE.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


All of which is irrelevant- they were of the Anglican confession, that is, of the Church of England.

You're confusing method of church/parish organisation and government with confession of faith.

Im using the word the way it is used in the United States. Go into the history section of any of the best libraries of the United States, (I would suggest Lib of Congress, New York Public Library, Harvard Library, Yale Library) and ask for works on Anglicanism in colonial New England. Id bet dollars to doughnuts theyll give you works on the SPG and the churches it founded after 1700. If you ask for works on the Congregational churches that dominated in the 17th century, they will politely explain to you those churches were not Anglican churches. If you quibble, I suspect they will do this but, being polite American librarians, will still get you the books you want.

Id be surprised if you got a different reaction at a library in Britain, BTW.

[Last Conformist]

Now, how could a cowboy movie not be gay?

[lord of the mark]

Connecticut Gateway:

"The Anglican Church
Of all the dissenting sects in Connecticut, the most studied is the English Establishment, the Anglicans or, after 1784, the Episcopalians. The literature here is huge, and was listed in Nelson Burr’s “Inventory of the Church Archives of Connecticut, Protestant Episcopal” (New Haven: Connecticut Records Survey of the W.P.A., 1940), which includes capsule histories of all Anglican or Episcopal parishes. This mimeographed work was sponsored by the State Library and is catalogued under Connecticut Records Survey. One reason the literature about Anglicans is so great is the efforts of Kenneth Walter Cameron, who has edited and published some fifteen volumes of materials relating to Connecticut Anglicanism and Episcopalianism under the imprint of Transcendental Books, in Hartford. Many of these volumes are church history and documentary collections, which are not included in this bibliography. Cameron also published under the Transcendental Books imprint Anglicanism in Early Connecticut and New England: A Selective Bibliography (1977).

Beardsley, E. Edwards, The History of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut From the Settlement of the Colony to the Death of Bishop Seabury. New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1865.

Beardsley, William Agur. The Life of Eben Edwards Beardsley, Connecticut Churchman and Ecclesiastical Historian (1808-1891). Edited by Kenneth Walter Cameron. Hartford: Transcendental Books, 1976; originally published in 1883.

Burr, Nelson R. The Story of the Diocese of Connecticut: A New Branch of the Vine. Hartford: Church Missions Pub. Co., 1962.

Cameron, Kenneth Walter. The Anglican Episcopate in Connecticut (1784-1899): A Sheaf of Biographical and Institutional Studies of Churchmen and Historians with Early Ecclesiastical Documents. Hartford: Transcendental Books, 1976.

Connecticut Diocese of the Episcopal Church. The Jarvis Centenary. New Haven: the Diocese, 1897. A life of Bishop Jarvis and a history of the Church in Connecticut.

Hart, Samuel. Old Connecticut: Historical Papers on ... Anglicanism. Reprinted by Transcendental Books, 1976.

Hawks, Francis L., and Perry, William Stevens, eds. Documentary History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Connecticut, 1704-1789. 1863; reedited by Kenneth Walter Cameron and reprinted by Transcendental Books, 1976.

Kinloch, Hector G. L. M. “Anglican Clergy in Connecticut, 1701-1785.” Doctoral dissertation, Yale, 1960. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel was established in 1701, and from that date to 1785, when the Episcopal church was founded, forty-five missionary-clergy of the church of England served in Connecticut. This-study also attends to forty-seven other Anglican leaders. Kinloch’s study reveals the creation and molding of an essentially American religious denomination within a framework of disintegrating New England Calvinism.

Jarvis, Lucy Cushing, ed. Sketches of Church Life in Colonial Connecticut: Being the Story of the Transplanting of the Church of England into Forty-Two Parishes of Connecticut. New Haven: Tuttle, Morehouse and Taylor, 1902; repr. in Cameron, Anglicanism, listed above.

O’Neil, Maud. “A Struggle-for Religious Liberty: An Analysis of the Work of the S.P.G. in Connecticut [1706-1818].” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 20(June, 1951): 17 3-89. O’Neil wrote a doctoral dissertation on Samuel Peters. This piece is descriptive.

Ricketts, Rowland, Jr. “John Bliss: Congregational Anglican.” CHS Bulletin 42(July, 1977)3:65-72. Bliss (1690-1737, Yale 1710), was the Congregational minister in Hebron who converted himself and a small portion of his congregation to Anglicanism.

Seymour, Origen Storrs. The Beginnings of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut. Tercentenary pamphlet XXX (1934). Seymour, a lawyer, was Chancellor of the Church in Connecticut.

Steiner, Bruce E. “Anglican Officeholding in Pre-Revolutionary Connecticut:

Parameters of New England Community.” William and Mary Quarterly. 3rd series 31(July, 1974)3:369-406. Anglicans held political and civil office, especially on the local level, much more frequently than has been believed. Steiner counted the offices and got his wife to draw a marvelous map showing where they were in 1774.

Connecticut Anglicans in the Revolutionary Era: A Study in Community Tensions. Bicentennial pamphlet XXVIII (1978). Steiner shows that Anglican laymen— there were thousands of them—were well integrated into Connecticut society, not much persecuted during the War, and quickly re-integrated in the 1780s. See his excellent “Guide to Additional Reading” in the back.

—”New England Anglicanism: A Genteel Faith?” William and Mary Quarterly. 3rd series 27(January, 1970)1:122-35. Steiner demonstrates that, contrary to previously prevailing wisdom, Anglicans constituted a cross section of Connecticut society, not a collection of the wealthy.

Tucker, Louis Leonard. “The Church of England and Religious Liberty at Pre-Revolutionary Yale.” William and Mary Quarterly 3rd series 17(July, 1960)3:314-28. Deals with President Clap’s efforts in 1765 to make Anglican students conform to Yale Congregational polity or get out. The students wrote to the SPG in London, and shortly Clap’s efforts ceased. Tucker is the author of a biography of Clap.

Villers, David H. "Connecticut Anglicanism and Society to 1783: A Review of the Historians," Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 53 (March, 1984) 1: 45-59. A survey from Peters through Bancroft and up to Steiner and Kinloch. Villers traces treatment of Anglicans from the monolithic consensus of Bancroft who ignored them, to the work of Kinloch and Steiner who integrate them into Connecticut society, only excepting 1774-1784. The Progressive interregnum, Villers says, was built on reading back into the Colonial period the isolation of Anglicans during the Revolution. Thus Progressive historians portrayed them as an isolated subculture from the beginnings of the S.P.G. in 1701 to the Constitution of 1818.

Weaver, Glenn. “Anglican-Congregational Tensions in Pre-Revolutionary Connecticut.” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 26(1957)269-85. Weaver, a pioneer among modern historians in the field, perceived the tensions that Steiner believes were not so great"

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


But if you persist in using Elizabethan terminology to refer to American churches, who am I to stop you.

Well if you persist in conflating and confusing the 16th and 17th Centuries with the 18th Century, then I cannot stop you.

It was of course current terminology at the time of the settlement of Plimouth Plantation and the Massachusetts Bay Colony- not Elizabethan terminology, by the way, but Marian. It first came to be used during Queen Mary I Tudor's reign....

The churches were of course also 'English' churches, not 'American'. Even the colonists themselves recognised this, the Separatists included:

In the name of God, Amen:
We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

That's from the Mayflower Compact.

The Massachusetts Bay Colony also received a royal charter (and a new one under William III & Mary II)- in other words, they were subjects of the English Crown, simply abroad:

Wee doe by these presents for Vs Our Heires and Successors Will and Ordeyne Chat the Territories and Collnyes camonly called or known by the Names of the Collony of the Massachusetts Bay and Collony of New Plymouth the Province of Main the Territorie called Accadia or Nova Scotia and all that Tract of Land lying betweene the said Territoritories of Nova Scotia and the said Province of Main be Erected ignited and Incorporated And Wee doe by these presents Vnite Erect and Incorporate the same into one reall Province by the Name of Our Province of the Massachusetts Bay in New England.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/mass07.htm

[lord of the mark]

"When I use a word...it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." Lewis Carroll


Some of us of course dont agree with Humpty Dumpty, but look to actual usage.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Well if you persist in conflating and confusing the 16th and 17th Centuries with the 18th Century, then I cannot stop you.

The Cambridge platform was adopted in 1648.

Again, no one refers to 17th century Puritans as Anglicans when discussing the settlement of the colonies. Which is what I was discussing. You may consider that anachronistic, but thats the usage. I did not make it up.

And of course the 16th century is not relevant as there were no English settlers in New England at the time.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Id bet dollars to doughnuts theyll give you works on the SPG and the churches it founded after 1700.

Irrelevant as to whether or not the Puritans who settled in the 17th Century were Anglicans or not.

If they weren't Anglicans, what were they purifying ?

Most Massachusetts colonists were nonseparating Puritans who wished to reform the established church, largely Congregationalists who believed in forming churches through voluntary compacts. The idea of compacts or covenants was central to the Puritans' conception of social, political, and religious organizations.

http://www.wsu.edu/~~campbelld/amlit/purdef.htm

I don't bet- I find accurate research and attention to iriginal texts so much more rewarding than gambling.

The most obvious difference between the Pilgrims and the Puritans is that the Puritans had no intention of breaking with the Anglican church.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~~CAP/puritan/purhist.html

and:

When Charles I attempted to rule England without Parliament and its many Puritan members, and when he tried systematically to root Puritans out of the English church, a larger, less separatistic body emigrated to Massachusetts Bay (1630), where for the first time Puritans had the opportunity to construct churches and a society reflecting their grasp of the word of God.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/puritani.htm

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Well if you persist in conflating and confusing the 16th and 17th Centuries with the 18th Century, then I cannot stop you.

It was of course current terminology at the time of the settlement of Plimouth Plantation and the Massachusetts Bay Colony- not Elizabethan terminology, by the way, but Marian. It first came to be used during Queen Mary I Tudor's reign....

The churches were of course also 'English' churches, not 'American'. Even the colonists themselves recognised this, the Separatists included:



That's from the Mayflower Compact.

The Massachusetts Bay Colony also received a royal charter (and a new one under William III & Mary II)- in other words, they were subjects of the English Crown, simply abroad:



http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/mass07.htm

How does it follow that because they were subjects of the English crown, none of their institutions were American?

I suppose there are no Virginian institutions, or Californian institutions.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Irrelevant as to whether or not the Puritans who settled in the 17th Century were Anglicans or not.

It speaks to usage, good sir. Thats what determines what a word "means"

Im using the word the way it used in the 21st century, in order to be understood. If you make the following statement

"both Massachusetts and Virginia were originally settled by Anglicans" you will succeed only in confusing and misleading your audience, who, even if they are a generally educated audience, will assume that you are saying that Massachusetts was settled by folks who shared the Virginians approach to religion, which is not in fact the case. If you say "Massachusetts was settled by Puritan Anglicans, while Virginia was settled by non-Puritan Anglicans" you will not mislead as much, but you will confuse.

Now if you are more concerned to display your own cleverness and erudition then to communicate, I suppose your approach to the usage of language is appropriate.

I would recommend S I Hayakawas "Language in Thought and Action"