аЯрЁБс>ўџ 46ўџџџ3џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС @ №П‡bjbj‘F‘F .$ѓ,ѓ,‡џџџџџџˆ6666666JЎЎЎЎЪ JЄђтттттттт#%%%%%%$–Rш цI6ттI66тт^гггR6т6т#г#гг66гтж РМЌf8–ЧЎmг#t0ЄгЮ ƒFЮ гJJ6666Ю 6гPт> ,гL$pЋтттIIJJdЎЩ JJЎ‘The porous parish, the Church of England and nonconformity: leakage and seepage in late seventeenth and eighteenth century England and New England’ Jeremy Gregory Abstract The starting point for my paper will be late eighteenth-century images of the parish as a fixed and firmly defined building block for an orderly nation. In what follows, I examine the ‘challenges’ to this parish ideal posed by the existence of nonconformity in the century and a half after 1660, and use this to reflect more broadly on what the parish meant, and how it might have operated in religious terms. I will introduce the concept of the ‘porous parish’ to explore the ways in which parish boundaries were extremely permeable and very fluid in this period. I will contend that the parish was porous in two ways. First it was porous vis р vis other parishes, where parish boundaries were in practice much more blurred that ecclesiastical terminology suggested. Second, within parishes, divisions between religious groupings were frequently fuzzy (my leakage and seepage), so that fit is often very difficult to speak with confidence about demarcations between religious groups. At one level, the breakdown of parish boundaries was a strategy from within the Church itself, with a permeable parish structure being encouraged (e.g. amalgamation of parishes; parishioners attending neighbouring parish churches which might be nearer than their own parish church; localised rota systems so that parishioners attend one parish in the morning and the neighbouring one in the afternoon; and pluralism as a solvent of fixed boundaries). But the challenge posed by nonconformity was a more obvious threat to the parish, and much writing on the relationship between the Church and nonconformist groups has taken the 1689 Toleration act to be the time when fixed positions and identities took root, and the analysis has been directed at the relationship between well-defined groupings, and to chart with almost taxonomic precision the numerical strength of rival denominations. I will examine the concept of the ‘Church / chapel divide’ which I argue obscures rather than helps our understanding of the relationship between the Church and nonconformity in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and I contend that at the parish level, the divisions between religious groups were much more porous that any hard and fast Church/ chapel model can contain. I then move on to discuss some of the definitional issues associated with ‘nonconformity’. Who did clergy mean by the term parishioner? Were nonconformists included or not? Even in the period 1662-1689 when there were bouts of official persecution of nonconformists, parish clergy seem to have found it harder to put parishioners into neat boundaries than either the terms of the legislation or the Church authorise might have supposed. I discuss the issue of double and even triple allegiance with parishioners attending both Church and nonconformist meetings. I use the case of Methodism – often regarded as the principal religious threat to the Church to emerge in the period – to expand and illustrate these points. Was Methodism nonconformity at all, or are Methodists better seen as ‘the hotter sort of Anglicans’? As a coda, I highlight the case of the Church of England in New England where Congregationalism was the establishment and Anglicanism a small nonconformist group. Here I argue the Church operated in much the same way as Nonconformists had done in England, which raises questions about ‘Anglican’ and ‘nonconformist’ differences. I conclude by asking was the ‘porous’ parish a sign of strength or weakness? I suggest that the fluidity, permeability, and porosity which I’ve highlighted might also have allowed the Church to have more of an osmotic pull than it might otherwise have done, enabling those who might have formed alternative religious affiliations within the parish to retain an affection for the parish church, while also attending nonconformist meetings. This raises the broader conclusion that, despite the seeming rigidities of the parish, its porosity, both externally and internally, may account for its longevity as a unit of religious affiliation. •Цц  H Y Д г р с ш щ ѓ  ) * , / 3 4 8 > ? C E M N b o y ” Г Д Е З ьлЪлЪлМлЋлšлЪлЪлЪлЪл†r†лЪлЪлЪМлЪлЪлЪл&h(Дh(Д6CJOJQJ]^JaJ&h(ДhД/y6CJOJQJ]^JaJ hИ}}h[qCJOJQJ^JaJ hИ}}hš™CJOJQJ^JaJh(ДCJOJQJ^JaJ hИ}}hEЅCJOJQJ^JaJ hИ}}hД/yCJOJQJ^JaJ&hИ}}hД/y5CJOJQJ\^JaJ%•Є­ЎH I ‰ Š MNƒ„ЗИНО‡їїїђђђэшшшууойййойзgdчHegd(Дgdš™gdEЅgdhПgdД/y$a$gdД/y‡ўЗ О ў   ' с ч ш щ  "  |}-.Ннпст7CЖьлЭлПлПЭПлПлЎлЎлЎ Ў ЎПЎП~П~Пm\ hИ}}h™cзCJOJQJ^JaJ hИ}}hчHeCJOJQJ^JaJ hИ}}h(ДCJOJQJ^JaJ hИ}}h яCJOJQJ^JaJhH3CJOJQJ^JaJ hИ}}hš™CJOJQJ^JaJh(ДCJOJQJ^JaJhhПCJOJQJ^JaJ hИ}}hEЅCJOJQJ^JaJ&hИ}}hД/y6CJOJQJ]^JaJ /WXcd’ЇЈАБВМјљ,-SU_h Ѓ"#BC„†‡яояояояаяояоаТаяБяаяЃяЃа•„•„а„а„€o hИ}}hД/yCJOJQJ^JaJhрY hрYhрYCJOJQJ^JaJhрYCJOJQJ^JaJhИ}}CJOJQJ^JaJ hИ}}hhПCJOJQJ^JaJhhПCJOJQJ^JaJh(ДCJOJQJ^JaJ hИ}}hчHeCJOJQJ^JaJ hИ}}hИ}}CJOJQJ^JaJ",1hА‚. АЦA!А"А# $ %ААФАФ ФœD@ёџD Д/yNormalCJ_HaJmH nHsH tHDAђџЁD Default Paragraph FontRiѓџГR  Table Normalі4ж l4жaі (kєџС(No List‡$џџџџ•Є­ЎHI‰ŠMNƒ „ З И Н О ‰˜0€€0˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€ €˜0€€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€З ‡ ‡‡џџЖt TЪ Зt T,#Иt l ЦЙt Мяг||ˆњ ‰ƒƒ“ ‰B*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€country-region€9*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€place€ /23458-.††‰/2‰3•Ў-.п ††‰‰х ,:"H3рYчHe[qД/yИ}}š™EЅ(ДhП™cзжjц яџ@€††T*ŸŸ††‡`@џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџG‡z €џTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡z €џArial;†SimSun‹[SO"1ˆ№аhњsЕ&њsЕ&ww!№ ДД243ƒQ№ H)№џ?фџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџД/yџџBThe Warwick Symposium on Parish Research: Challenges to the ParishCLIP35 development teamhyscdўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0Д˜ф№(8 HT p | ˆ”œЄЌфDThe ЬЧаФTV Symposium on Parish Research: Challenges to the ParishCLIP35 development teamNormalhyscd2Microsoft Word 10.0@вIk@LœC8–Ч@LœC8–ЧwўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎDеЭеœ.“—+,љЎˆD hp”œЄЌ ДМФЬ д #фUniversity of ManchesterЉ CThe ЬЧаФTV Symposium on Parish Research: Challenges to the Parish Title@@Ьдмє4_AdHocReviewCycleID_EmailSubject _AuthorEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayName_ReviewingToolsShownOnceфЭŽa,Parish Workshop jeremy.gregory@manchester.ac.ukJeremy Gregory ўџџџўџџџ !"ўџџџ$%&'()*ўџџџ,-./012ўџџџ§џџџ5ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РFЯПf8–Ч7€Data џџџџџџџџџџџџ1TableџџџџWordDocumentџџџџ.$SummaryInformation(џџџџџџџџџџџџ#DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџ+CompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџjџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq