# Irony



## bookslover (Feb 13, 2007)

Although approximately 90% of the membership of the Westminster Assembly was Anglican (according to J. I. Packer in his book on prayer, published last year), Anglicanism has, historically, pretty much ignored the three documents which make up the Westminster Standards, while Presbyterianism, which was one of the represented minority positions at Westminster, has heartily embraced the Standards since they were written.

One of those interesting ironic anomalies of history.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 13, 2007)

This comment doesn't make sense to me. By Anglican does he mean, view of worship, view of church government, or that the majority were simply English as opposed to Scottish? There were disagreements over what form of church government was biblical, of which Erastianism and Indepedency were the minority and Presbyterianism was actually the majority. The Anglican church had been disestablished, and the prelates invited to attend did not do so when the King forbad them. ???


----------



## bookslover (Feb 13, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> This comment doesn't make sense to me. By Anglican does he mean, view of worship, view of church government, or that the majority were simply English as opposed to Scottish? There were disagreements over what form of church government was biblical, of which Erastianism and Indepedency were the minority and Presbyterianism was actually the majority. The Anglican church had been disestablished, and the prelates invited to attend did not do so when the King forbad them. ???



I've read Packer say this before, but I'm not sure how he means it. Apparently, he means that they were Anglican divines which, without his qualifying the remark, would be the most obvious way to take it. Another writer (I forget who) has said that Packer likes to good-naturedly tweak Presbyterians with the statement that most of the Westminster Divines were Anglicans. Unless he's qualified his statement somewhere, that's the best I can do.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 14, 2007)

bookslover said:


> I've read Packer say this before, but I'm not sure how he means it. Apparently, he means that they were Anglican divines which, without his qualifying the remark, would be the most obvious way to take it. Another writer (I forget who) has said that Packer likes to good-naturedly tweak Presbyterians with the statement that most of the Westminster Divines were Anglicans. Unless he's qualified his statement somewhere, that's the best I can do.


I've heard that too; oh well, not the only thing Packer is confused on.


----------

