# Southern (and Northern?) Presbyterianism



## cupotea (Oct 27, 2005)

Since I'm really just learning about the history of Presbyterianism, I'm curious about these terms. I occasionally run across someone with the designation "Southern Presbyterian" and have no idea what it means. 

I've asked other people online to provide me with - or point me to - a definition thta explicates the difference between southern and northern Presbyterianism, but so far no responses.

Can someone here help? You will have my deepest appreciation.


----------



## cupotea (Oct 27, 2005)

As of this moment about 15 or 16 people have viewed my question, but no responses. I wonder if I'm asking a "politically incorrect" question. Or is it something no one is prepared to respond to?

It's weird because this is the same response I've gotten (total silence) when I've asked the question elsewhere. It's almost as though I've committed some kind of a faux pas.

Very strange.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 27, 2005)

We're all waiting for Fred to answer.


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 27, 2005)

The Southern Presbyterians (starting with the PCUS) are usually identified with "Old School" Presbyterianism while the Northern Presbyterians (PCUSA) are identified with the "New School" movement. Since the merger of the PCUS and PCUSA in the early 1980's, the use of Southern vs Northern Presbyterians has lost its meaning, especially since the PCUS went liberal. For instance, the PCA came out of the PCUS and the OPC came out of the PCUSA. But many consider the OPC more "Old School" than the PCA (especially among many of the New School, New Side PCA'ers).


----------



## Plimoth Thom (Oct 27, 2005)

One minor bit of clarification. The PC (USA) did not exist until 1983 with the merger of the PCUS and UPCUSA. So the OPC didn't come out of the PC (USA), but the UPCUSA.


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Plimoth Thom_
> One minor bit of clarification. The PC (USA) did not exist until 1983 with the merger of the PCUS and UPCUSA. So the OPC didn't come out of the PC (USA), but the UPCUSA.



Touche!  I can't always get my acronyms straight.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 27, 2005)

*I would say...*
North and South refer first and foremost to the split precipitated by the War of 1861-65. Upon reincorporation of the southern states, the PCCSA (distinguished from the PCUSA) renamed itself to PCUS, colloquially known as the "Southern" Presbyterian Church. No reunion with the northern portion of the former body was effected until about 120 years later.

The southern rationale went back to the split of 1837. There, the Old School dominated the G.A. and cut off 4 entire presbyteries (mostly in the midwest) which were primarliy New School. This split was viewed by the Old School as a disciplinary measure to preserve Calvinist, WCF orthodoxy. So, two bodies existed, side by side in many places claiming the Presbyterian name. In a few years, many individual churches in different states had realigned with with either the Old School or New School.

The War split both branches of the church along political lines. In the course of the War (south) or immediately after (north) reunion between the Old/New Schools was brought about. In the case of the south, Dabney and others argued for absorption of the extremely-few New Side churches in the south, for the sake of unity and strength. Such a small integration could not have (it was thought) a deliterious effect on the orthodoxy of the whole. These churches were received upon acceptance of the PCCSA constitution and its Old School interpretation.

In the north, the Old School felt embarassment for not having officially opposed slavery while the "socially conscious" New School had become loudly abolitionist. The Old School approached the New School in an apologetic fashion asking them to heal the division of 1837, as it was a disunion to be repented of. This the (smaller) New School was happy to do, and were received without any insistence upon formal rejection of error or acceptance of Old School constitutional interpretations (1869).

For this reason, after this reunion when the now renamed PCUS was approached for reconciliation (in the midst of Reconstruction--which punative political measures created even more social tension with the culturally different north), they rejected the union as being a union of churches which now held substantially different doctrinal committments. This is how the Old School came to be more associated with the South, and the New School with the north.

The OPC was born out of confessional issues (again) in the northern church. Only now the confessionalists were the tiny minority. Split 1936. The PCA left as another confessional minorty, this time from the southern church (as a body 10X the size the OPC was when they left). Split 1973. They left with the handwriting on the wall, so to speak, for the looming merger between the liberal northern church and the liberalizing southern church. Merger 1983. The PCA considered itself, again informally, "the continuing Southern Presbyterian Church" when it formed. Its base is still centered in the southern states. 

Today, both confessional wings of Presbyterianism (OPC & PCA primarily) consider themselves mainly heirs to the Old School tradition, both north and south, but (thanks to Morton Smith, Banner of Truth publications, and others) the Old School southerners get perhaps disproportionally more press than, say, the Hodges these days. That is partly because there was more good theology more recently within the southern church than in the northern, which in the 60 years (1869-1929) went downhill fast. Only Princeton remained a bastion of Old School orthodoxy, and orthodoxy did not survive there after 1929.

The New School, considered anachronistically as a "broadly evangelical" movement, gets much in the way of analogous parallelism with the broadly evangelical wing of the PCA today, although actual historical connections would be tenuous, to say the least.

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Peter (Oct 27, 2005)

To mention a couple well known theological difference- in the old Southern Presbyterianism they rejected the validity of Roman Catholic Baptism, ministry, and status as a church whereas the North accepted them, they also held to the two office view of the Church as opposed to the three.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Plimoth Thom_
> One minor bit of clarification. The PC (USA) did not exist until 1983 with the merger of the PCUS and UPCUSA. So the OPC didn't come out of the PC (USA), but the UPCUSA.


Let me add a point of clarification to this post. The UPCUSA was the name of the church formed out of the merger of the original PCUSA and old UPCNA, United Presbyterians, in 1958. This church was the result of merging the majority of the Covenanters with segments of the ARP back in 1858 (both which, of course, have continuing remnants to this day).

So actually the OPC _did_ come out of the old PCUSA.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 27, 2005)

The distinctions come from around the Civil War period. Some of the conflict had to do with political support. Some of it had to do with doctrine. (i.e. Calvinism...Old School vs. Arminianism...New School. The Northern Presbyterian's became intrenched in the Republican party and pro federalism by default. There is a book that Banner of Truth published titled Southern Presbyterian Leaders 1683-1911 which would illumine you more about it. 

Here is a link to some info.Old School Presbyterianism

New School Presbyterianism.


----------



## DTK (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Globachio_
> As of this moment about 15 or 16 people have viewed my question, but no responses. I wonder if I'm asking a "politically incorrect" question. Or is it something no one is prepared to respond to?
> 
> It's weird because this is the same response I've gotten (total silence) when I've asked the question elsewhere. It's almost as though I've committed some kind of a faux pas.
> ...


No, not politically or religiously incorrect. I haven't answered because I am Southern Presbyterian and rather biased. I wanted someone to answer your question more objectively.

Cheers,
DTK


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 27, 2005)

Sorry that I did not post this earlier, but I had internet connection problems:



> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> We're all waiting for Fred to answer.



Ok, okay. 

The Northern and Southern designation has two different types of meaning.

The first (and simplest) is due to geography (  real brilliant Fred!). The Presbyterian Church (like almost everything in America) broke down along geographical lines, especially before the War Between the States/Civil War. Culturally, the North and South were VERY different, much more so than now (it is hard to even call Atlanta a "Southern" city). This was made official by the separation of the Presbyterian Church into the Presbyterian Church of the USA (North) and Presbyterian Church of the Confederate States (South) as a result of the Gardiner Spring Resolution in 1860 (?) that required support of the Union. After the war, the Church stayed separate, with the PCCS (Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States) becoming the PCUS.

The second, and more significant and to the point, is that the theology of the Northern and Southern Presbyterians is different. The Southern tended to adhere more to the doctrine of the "Spirituality of the Church." They tended to be more anti-Rome, and rejected Roman baptism. They tended to be more Old School. They tended to be less revivalistic (in both its positive and negative connotations). The South tended to be more 2 office (equivalence of ruling and teaching elders), the North more 3 office (distinction of ruling and teaching elders).

The South was marked by Union seminary and a series of great theologians: Samuel Davies, John Girardeau, James Thornwell, Robert Dabney. The North was marked by Princeton and her great theologians: Archibald Alexander, the Hodges, and Warfield.

If you really wnat to know more, two of the best books to get are Morton Smith's Studies in Southern Presbyterianism and Calhoun's history of Princeton Seminary.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 27, 2005)

Good question and lots of good responses, particularly by Bruce and Fred.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Good question and lots of good responses, particularly by Bruce and Fred.



Andrew,

Are you aware of any particular emphases of the Huguenots that could account for some of the North/South tendencies? I ask because I think that the North wound up having more Scot-Irish Presbyterian immigration, and the South more French Huguenots.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



That's an interesting question, Fred. I really don't know of anything peculiar to Huguenot theology or their cultural experience that would have contributed to or account for those particular distinctions. 

Huguenots actually settled up and down the East Coast. There were (relatively) large Huguenot colonial colonies in Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and some in Maryland, as well as Viriginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. However, in virtually every case they were assimiliated into the prevailing culture within a generation or two (in the case of the Dutch New York colony it was even faster since many of the Dutch who settled New York including the man who famously bought Manhattan Island from the Indians were Huguenots who fled France and resettled in Holland before coming to America so they were already "Dutch" before they arrived). In Virginia and the Carolinas (and the French Huguenot church in New York City which exists to this day), they were almost always assimiliated into the Anglican church. That being the case, their impact on more cohesive cultural and theological groups was minimal, although their legacy to America in general is an important one. 

Dabney and Girardeau were descended from French Huguenots, but in reading their bios I have not seen that the Huguenot connection per se played an important role in the development of their views or other Southern Presbyterians. 

I could be overlooking something, but since Huguenots were in both the North and the South, I don't see anything about them as a group that would account for the North/South Presbyterian divide particularly. Good question though.

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 27, 2005)

Ok. Thanks. I figured you'd have some information. 

Better for me to ask a question then to assert something that has no basis.


----------



## cupotea (Oct 27, 2005)

Much thanks to Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan for explaining the difference. I kind of figured it had something to do with the OPC & PCA, but wasn't sure. Now I've got a much better grasp on it.

However, as it often happens, the exciting thing about the learning adventure is that one question leads to the opening of more doors. 



> _Originally posted by Peter_
> ... in the old Southern ... they also held to the two office view of the Church as opposed to the three.



What then is the difference between the two office view as opposed to the three?

Again, thanks for all your (pl) help!


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Globachio_
> Much thanks to Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan for explaining the difference. I kind of figured it had something to do with the OPC & PCA, but wasn't sure. Now I've got a much better grasp on it.
> 
> However, as it often happens, the exciting thing about the learning adventure is that one question leads to the opening of more doors.
> ...



In the caricatured it means (2 office) no difference between ruling elder and teaching elder and (3 office) a huge difference.

In reality it is much more nuanced than that.

There is an excellent article on the subject as to what Thornwell _actually _said here:

Thornwell on Ruling Elders


----------



## Archlute (Oct 27, 2005)

Lee Irons gives a helpful overview of the various views at this site:

http://www.upper-register.com/other_studies/eldership.html

All four books listed in his introduction are worth owning, but I found the two collections of essays edited by Mark Brown and the Halls, respectively, to be especially helpful. The first of them, _Order in the Offices_, put out by Westminster OPC in PA, is a series of essays defending the three office view. 

[Edited on 10-27-2005 by Archlute]


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 27, 2005)

One should also note that there are variations in the 3 office view as well as the 2 office view. Both the PCA and "consistent 2 office view" would be two office. Hodge was of the opinion that ruling elders were unnecessary for the existence of a Presbytery, thus taking him out of the Westminster FOG. In that sense, Thornwell's view (in this particular point) is actually Westminster's.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 27, 2005)

Fred, is conviction one way or the other on the 3 or 2 office view important for licensure/ordination?


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Fred, is conviction one way or the other on the 3 or 2 office view important for licensure/ordination?



No, I don't think so, as much as simply knowing the issues and being able to articulate the advantages/disadvantages.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 27, 2005)

Here is a bit on Hugenots that I picked up from my Ch. Hist. prof. in seminary. When the Hugenots began arriving in force (post evocation of Nantes) in the Carolinas in the south, they were of course attracted to the Presbyterian church in the more settled lowcountry near Charleston, etc. Theologically they were the closest, being solid Reformed stock.

But... Presbyterians were so "low-church" that the Hugenots, whose church experience was more formal, found themselves more at home in the Episcopal church, which they strengthened considerably with their numbers, in that part of the country anyway.

As I recall the matter came up in connection with discussions on the interconnection between doctrine and practice. Ultimately, doctrine creates practice. Reformation doctrine creates a certain kind of worship. Charismatic doctrine produces a characteristic worship. Romanism produces sacerdotal/sacramental worship.

So, what happens when a church adopts a trendy "worship style" to bring people in the door (!), saying "we'll given them good Reformed doctrine _on the sly,_ they'll become Reformed without even knowing it!" What come of this hybrid? What usually happens is that these folks move away, or their kids head off to college, or marry and move off, and they look for a church that has "worship" that "feels right" to them. They end up in a "broadly evangelical church" instead of a solid Reformed church because the worship in the Reformed church is "strange" to them.

The street isn't all one way. Worship impacts doctrine too. If one is committed enough to some "style" eventually one will break out of one's doctrinal mold. It's like gravity--doctrine is like that weak/strong force, but still a rocket can escape the pull with enough momentum/incentive.

So, we need to know what we believe, and why we worship the way we do. Worship has to be a self-conscious behavior, and never "because we'e always done it that way." That attitude will give way before pragmatic insistence, because it has nothing to push back with. Inertia is not a living impulse. The Hugenots could have vitalized the Presbyterians even more. But they went to the Anglicans, who had nearly the same doctrine, but a worship (in colonial America) which was closer to their own roots in the French Reformation.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 27, 2005)

The Scots-Irish migration started later that the French, and coming from more north than France anyway, they headed mostly toward the Middle Colonies. Recall also that they were British-Isles stock, and not foreign immigrants of the same stripe as the persecuted French. Pennsylania was especially welcoming because of Penn's tolerant Quakerism, and the absence of a State establishment. New Jersey saw a great many come also, no doubt because the port of Philadelphia was the major entry. New York and Virginia saw probably a balanced influx, Philadelphia being central. It was Francis Makemie who did much in the way of establishing settled Presbyterian churches in Virginia around 1700.

But many Scots headed far for the frontier as well. They went west, hit the Allegheny range and began to deflect south. They settled the true backcountry of Pennsylvania, Virginia (and what became known as WV), North & South Carolina. This had implications years later when the War of Independence initially divided the Carolina and Virginia frontiersmen from the lowcountry dwellers, in terms of loyalties. But that is another story.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 27, 2005)

Good thoughts, Bruce. I might also add that the South Carolina Church Act of 1706 established the Anglican Church which put Huguenots in the position of being forced to subsidize the state Anglican church in addition to supporting their own ministers. There was one attempt by South Carolina Huguenots to petition the French king for permission to immigrate to Louisiana, but permission was denied leaving them with the prospect of continued poverty such that they could not afford to pay ministers or surrendering their convictions on polity and worship. The benefits of joining the established fold outweighed the deprivations experienced by poor rural Huguenots in the Santee and elsewhere. 

To give an example:



> Conditions within the South Carolina Huguenot congregations in the countryside further encourage Anglican conformity and weakened the Huguenot commitment to independent French churches. The Santee settlement probably contained some forty families by 1705 but reputedly found it difficult to support its minister. Whether the problem was purely financial or stemmed from a disagreement with Pierre Robert remains unknown. The Orange Quarter settlement was larger but never had a minister of its own. Instead, its settlers shared the services of Paul L'Escot, Laurent Trouillart, or Pierre Robert. In quite different ways, Anglican conformity solved the problems of both parishes. In exchange for recognizing Anglican ecclesiastical authority and for using the Anglican liturgy, the Orange Quarter settlement finally received its own minister, and the salaries of the ministers of both settlements were paid by the South Carolina government. -- Jon Butler, _The Huguenots in America: A Refugee People in New World Society_, p. 113



In other words, pragmatics over principle. Although there was in France a definite commitment to Presbyterian polity, in the New World colonies French refugees rejected both their own culture (many SC Huguenot parents forbad their children from speaking French) and their adherence to Presbyterian principles of church government. Having burned their bridges to a country that forced them out, they were willing to forgo the deprivations of being dissenters (this was the era in England when Defoe was satirzing persecution of dissenters) in exchange for the privileges which accrued to those who joined the established church. 

In the case of my French Huguenot ancestors who settled in Virginia, they were only allowed to immigrate as pastors on the condition of Anglican ordination. The King William parish (Richmond, VA) was set up under the auspices of the Anglican Church for Huguenots. Manakin Episcopal Church is the legacy today of that community. The benefit Huguenot settlers received in exchange for conformity was legal and financial benefits denied to dissenters. 

The French Huguenot church of Charleston, SC remains independent, but it is a rarity. The only other surviving French Huguenot church still in existence is the French Church de Saint-Esprit in New York City, which became Anglican in 1802. 

It is right to point out the weaknesses of French Huguenot convictions which lead to quick Anglican conformity. It is also worth noting that they suffered persecution like few Christian groups in the world have suffered. Yet, Presbyterians in Scotland also suffered...and thrived, maintaining a distinct identity. 

In Dabney and Girardeau we see at least in terms of bloodlines a contribution by Huguenots to the Southern Presbyterian church (see _The French Blood in America_ by Lucian J. Fosdick for more on the geneological contributions of French Huguenots to our nation's history). The Anglicans benefited more than the Presbyterians though from Huguenot assimilation. Thus the Huguenots disappeared from the scene but they are not forgotten.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 15, 2006)

Horton Davies and his wife offer this perspective on Huguenots-turned-Anglicans in _French Huguenots in English-Speaking Lands_, p. 78:



> Some distinguished divines, such as Jean Claude, the famous minister of the leading Protestant Church at Charenton outside Paris, were greatly displeased by the popularity of turning Anglican on the part of French parsons. They regarded it as a betrayal of the Reformed tradition, but a considerable number of ministers accepted the Anglican blandishments. John Dryden ridiculed the conformists in his poem, "The Hind and the Panther," published in 1687.
> 
> Think you your new French proselytes are come
> To starve abroad, because they starv'd at home?
> ...


----------



## wfl3 (Nov 16, 2006)

Would another issue with the Huguenots and moving to the Anglican church be the fact that in many cases the British were one of there chief supporters?

Incidently, I too am descended from the Huguenots of Manakintown.


----------

