tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post4419132897180395702..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: American Rebelled Against High Church AnglicanismBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20464849525135111492019-07-21T06:46:44.874-06:002019-07-21T06:46:44.874-06:00Well-written article, Jon, though I’m in the camp ...Well-written article, Jon, though I’m in the camp that accepts Washington’s profession of faith at face value. For all his faults (and he didn’t have that many), GW was a man of more or less unimpeachable integrity. He said what he meant and he meant what he said. Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10261446378997179452019-06-30T00:07:35.293-06:002019-06-30T00:07:35.293-06:00Here's that quote;
"It is questionable a...Here's that quote;<br /><br />"It is questionable also whether the sectarian Seminaries would not take side with William & Mary in combating the right of the Public to interfere in any manner with the property it holds. The perpetual inviolability of Charters, and of donations both Public & private, for pious & charitable uses, [214] seems to have been too deeply imprinted on the Public mind to be readily given up. But the time surely cannot be distant when it must be seen by all that what is granted by the Public Authority for the Public good, not for that of individuals, may be withdrawn and otherwise applied, when the Public good so requires; with an equitable saving or indemnity only in behalf of the individuals actually enjoying vested emoluments. Nor can it long be believed that Altho’ the owner of property cannot secure its descent but for a short period even to those who inherit his blood, he may entail it irrevocably and forever on those succeeding to his creed however absurd or contrary to that of a more enlightened Age. According to such doctrines, the Great Reformation of Ecclesiastical abuses in the 16thCentury was itself the greatest of abuses;"<br /><br />Hutson says another letter refers to Presbyterian seminaries. Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31702566599987605432019-06-30T00:00:09.077-06:002019-06-30T00:00:09.077-06:00Wow. This was on that site. This proves he wasn...Wow. This was on that site. This proves he wasn't a calvinist.<br /><br /><br />"It is questionable also whether the sectarian Seminaries [Presbyterian]...his creed [articles of faith] however absurd or contrary to that of a more enlightened Age. According to such doctrines [Calvinism], the Great Reformation of Ecclesiastical abuses in <br />the 16th Century was itself the greatest of abuses."<br />JM to THOMAS JEFFERSON<br />Decr 31, 1824<br /><br />That guy who said his face was grave was right. He was a bitter man.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1296387189858112332019-06-29T18:34:21.324-06:002019-06-29T18:34:21.324-06:00Jonathan Rowe said...
No Rev. Abercrombie and Bis...Jonathan Rowe said...<br /><br />No Rev. Abercrombie and Bishop White gave an honest eyewitness account of GW's systematic behavior in church."""<br /><br /><br />It was only an honest assessment at "their" church and Abercrombie lied. Even JM said GW was orthodox. His 1st inaugural draft proves it.<br /><br />Did deists go to anglican churches here?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-75044468920659221112019-06-29T17:26:37.327-06:002019-06-29T17:26:37.327-06:00No Rev. Abercrombie and Bishop White gave an hones...No Rev. Abercrombie and Bishop White gave an honest eyewitness account of GW's systematic behavior in church.<br /><br />As for Bishop White's leadership.<br /><br /><i>... What liturgical tradition would the new church use? How could the church use a prayer book that contained prayers for the King?<br /><br />These questions were on the minds of soon-to-be-Episcopalians in the colonies.<br /><br />A Pennsylvania rector, the Rev. William White, of Christ and St. Peter’s Churches in Philadelphia, stepped up and proposed several solutions including some thoughts on bishops, tradition, and how this new church should be governed. During that time a name for the new church was proposed as well.<br /><br />The Rev. White was born in Pennsylvania in 1742 and ordained in London in 1770. He returned to Philadelphia in 1772 and served as the assistant at Christ Church and later became rector of both Christ Church and its sister church, St. Peter’s. While was sympathetic to the Revolution and served as chaplain to the Continental Congress (he would eventually become the United States Senate Chaplain).<br /><br />In 1782 White wrote The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United States Considered (available from here) where he addressed a number of issues. He began by acknowledging the spiritual connection with the COE but noted that the Revolutionary War dissolved any allegiance to it. White’s masterful argument for the development of an American church modeled on some features of the COE was based on very Anglican principles.</i><br /><br />https://www.anglicanhistory.net/?p=153Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57799648760730766002019-06-29T16:00:48.535-06:002019-06-29T16:00:48.535-06:00LOL. You turn not only Abercrombie but Bishop Whit...LOL. You turn not only Abercrombie but Bishop White who practically created (or at least he led the project) American Episcopalianism into a fraud? Who is not a fraud? Bishop James Madison? That guy was so heterodox that Thomas Jefferson felt comfortable talking theology with him, talking up Priestley, Price and Freemasonry""""<br /><br />Where is the evidence that Bishop White led the formation of the Episcopalian church? GW and Jay were low church and allies of bishop Provost. I bet the evidence shows the high federalists knew the duplicity of bishop white.<br /><br />We aren't talking about bishop Madison, even though you're probably right about him. <br /><br />Abercrombie's label of GW is false.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33583721546345049732019-06-29T13:21:12.793-06:002019-06-29T13:21:12.793-06:00LOL. You turn not only Abercrombie but Bishop Whit...LOL. You turn not only Abercrombie but Bishop White who practically created (or at least he led the project) American Episcopalianism into a fraud? Who is not a fraud? Bishop James Madison? That guy was so heterodox that Thomas Jefferson felt comfortable talking theology with him, talking up Priestley, Price and Freemasonry.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-44733115200481547792019-06-29T13:07:37.591-06:002019-06-29T13:07:37.591-06:00Can you quote Abercrombie's "admission.&q...Can you quote Abercrombie's "admission." Abercrombie may have have had an "axe to grind," but so what? That doesn't necessarily poison his well.""""<br /><br />It's on p. 456 in sacred fire, where Lillback quotes Boller. Abercrombie was a fraud because he retracted his attack on GW being a deist. He felt guilty, probably couldn't sleep at night. <br /><br />Abercrombie lied and his "well" is poisoned because after GW passed him over, he entered a new field of work. He changed his career path because of it.<br /><br />He definitely had an axeto grind. Bishop white was a fraud too. Acting "low church" and supporting seabury at the same time, who wanted to enforce apostolic succession.<br /><br />Lillback destroys your sides entire narrative.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63820624077711256492019-06-28T15:40:48.150-06:002019-06-28T15:40:48.150-06:00One of the reasons why I'm posting here on Ang...One of the reasons why I'm posting here on Anglicanism and its defenestration. If Washington and company lost the war, they would have been arrested, charged, tried and hung as committing treason.<br /><br />But they won and the Tories/Church of England lost tremendous ground.<br /><br /><i>Picture yourself an American member of the colonial Church of England (COE) during or after the Revolutionary War. Your church was part of the royal government, the same government that people were fighting against. Perhaps you felt more allegiance to the Crown than your fellow colonists. After all, the Church of England in the United States (remember “Anglican” wasn’t a term in common use until the 19th century) attracted members of the merchant class, civil servants, royal governors, and others with strong ties to England.<br /><br />If you left during the Revolution to go to Canada or return to England you weren’t alone. About 40% of Anglicans did. For those who stayed on after the war, their church was a shadow of its former self. Where the COE was the established (government-subsidized) church, such as the southern colonies and parts of New York, the church was quickly dis-established and lands sold off. Clergy, who took an oath of loyalty to the King, were caught in a dilemma: do you remain faithful to your ordination vows and support the King or side with the colonists who were part of the Revolution?</i><br /><br />https://www.anglicanhistory.net/?p=153<br /><br />The loyalists like Abercrombie obviously aren't going to be in leadership positions after the war. Bishop White, who supported the rebels, practically created American Episcopalianism. But yet, this is what he said of GW and communion:<br /><br />"In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that General Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant ... I have been written to by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you."<br /><br /> Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38765871902355110702019-06-28T15:16:31.671-06:002019-06-28T15:16:31.671-06:00"abercrombies later admission that GW was a C..."abercrombies later admission that GW was a Christian and he had an ax to grind because GW passed him over for a government position ."<br /><br />Can you quote Abercrombie's "admission." Abercrombie may have have had an "axe to grind," but so what? That doesn't necessarily poison his well. Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-286938487628777342019-06-28T15:12:10.422-06:002019-06-28T15:12:10.422-06:00When trying to explain why Washington systematical...When trying to explain why Washington systematically avoided communion in the church, Lillback stressed Dr. Abercrombie -- the minister who called Washington out as either a "deist" or not a "real Christian" for avoiding communion -- was a Tory loyalist. In other words, GW didn't want to be in communion with this guy. But, any Anglican who supported the rebellion technically had a problem with official Anglican doctrine."""<br /><br />I think u should read sacred fire and get the context of "church." The above statement misleads, not the least of which includes, abercrombies later admission that GW was a Christian and he had an ax to grind because GW passed him over for a government position . <br />Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36648053135440053452019-06-27T12:31:56.270-06:002019-06-27T12:31:56.270-06:00Indeed, one mild criticism of Gregg Frazer's n...<i>Indeed, one mild criticism of Gregg Frazer's new book which lays out the case for the American loyalists is that it's almost entirely (but not entirely, there was at least one Presbyterian loyalist minister) drawn from Anglican sermons preaching high church Anglican Tory doctrine of submission to the monarchy and parliament in the face of Romans 13.</i><br /><br /><br />Yes, it's painfully dull. Page after page of the same small handful of Tory preachers making the same small handful of arguments.<br /><br />It's a shame Gregg didn't cover both sides of the controversy. For one, the revolutionary arguments are far more varied and interesting and are drawn from a far wider swath of Christian thought and theology [including Catholics and Calvinists].Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com