tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11887927.post335616684463666776..comments2023-10-28T07:31:15.417-04:00Comments on New Virginia Church Man: Myths and realities in the history of the Episcopal ChurchJohn B. Chiltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18208312356775869565noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11887927.post-78581941251335044432007-05-09T13:49:00.000-04:002007-05-09T13:49:00.000-04:00This is indeed an interesting article. It does, h...This is indeed an interesting article. It does, however, miss one point. It argues that the separation of the American church differed from the Anglican Reformation in that the American church didn't require repudiation of foreign bishops. But in a very real sense it mirrored the Anglican Reformation: bishops in England had denied bishops for the Colonies and for the new United States of America. There <I>was</I> no American episcopate to separate from the Church of England. Thus, Scottish Nonjurors provided the first bishop. Did we seek orders first from English bishops? Certainly; but they could no more provide the episcopate now that they were "foreign prelates" than they had when they were not. Would that have changed had the Scottish bishops not acted? I don't know.<BR/><BR/>In any case, foreign prelacy was just as important an issue in the formation of the Episcopal Church as it was in the formation of the Church of England.Marshall Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807749717320495495noreply@blogger.com