[GOPcapitalist]

"). You think the unitarians are "the direct theological heir" of the Puritans. I can't add to that.

Of course you cannot, as you are either ignorant of that fact or unwilling to admit it for other reasons, among them possibly embarassment of association. The succession to unitarianism is a simple one to follow though:

Puritan (early 17th century) --> Nonconformist (post 1662 Act of Uniformity) --> 19th Century Unitarian--> 20th Century Unitarian Universalist

[foreverfree]

bump

[A.J.Armitage]

Your "succession to unitarianism", is wrong, stupid, and off topic. Wrong: if you were right, John Gill's church would have been pastored by a unitarian in the 19th century. Instead, it was pastored by Charles Spurgeon. Now, there were unitarians who, as ZC rightly said, deliberately rebelled against their Puritan heritage, but this is the oppose of your claim they follow by legitimate succession. Stupid: even if the only denomination that "derived" from the Puritans were the Unitarians, they would not be *theological* heirs of the Puritans. Off topic, because you made a claim about New England Puritans, and "Nonconformists" is what we call the English (as in, the original England) successors to the Puritans.