Ministries
Resources
Before the Orthodox Presbyterian Church came into existence there was organized the Presbyterian Constitutional Covenant Union. Its members signed a declaration of purpose saying that they were prepared "to perpetuate the true Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., regardless of cost."
What did the authors of that declaration mean by the "true Presbyterian Church in the US.A."? The question is interesting because the Orthodox Presbyterian Church grew out of the same principles that had brought the Covenant Union into existence. It is a child of the Covenant Union. With the formation of the Church in 1936 the Union was dissolved.
The members of the Union were people of intense conviction. Some of them who were ministers realized that they might have to leave their pastorates if they carried out their pledge. To nearly every member there was thre at the threat of loss of friends, of esteem, perhaps of money or material property. All of this was true because it was becoming increasingly difficult to preach the truths of the Scripture in the congregations of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. It was clear from abundant evidence that opponents of the gospel were determined to stop the publishing of the truth about the disloyalty to their ordination pledge on the part of many ministers and missionaries of that Church.
In spite of these dangers there were men and women who loved the gospel enough to stand up for its proclamation even at the cost of emotional and material loss to themselves The day came when they put that pledge into action by constituting the Presbyterian Church of America (now called the Orthodox Presbyterian Church). It was June 11, 1936 when they signed an "Act of Association"; in it they said that their purpose was to "continue what we believe to be the true spiritual succession of the Presbyterian Church in the US.A." That phrase, "true spiritual succession," is worth consideration. What does it mean?
The word "spiritual" is in contrast to "organizational" or "corporate" or "legal." Obviously the Presbyterian Church of America was not continuing a legal or technical succession. It was a succession that had to do with the mind, the heart, the spirit. It had to do with belief, with teaching, with doctrine, with commitment. The adjective "true" indicated a contrast with something that would be "false."
The standard by which the truth or falsehood of something would be judged was first and foremost the Bible taken as the Word of God. The Act of Association solemnly declared "that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice." The Act also said that the "system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures" is contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms.
The spiritual succession then had to do with loyalty to the content of the Bible and of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. The ordination vows of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. at that time still contained a commitment to that content. They no longer have the same commitment, but a much weaker one. Spiritual succession involved the commitment to the content of the Bible and its reflection in the Westminster Standards. The pledge of adherence to the Confession was to it "as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures." This form of subscription is to be distinguished from a subscription to every jot and tittle of a given document.
As Charles Hodge puts it, "It is one thing to adopt the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession, and quite another thing to adopt every proposition contained in that Confession" (Discussions in Church Polity, p. 326). Hodge outlined what he considered to be the "system of doctrine" (ibid., pp. 338ff.), and strongly defended the form of subscription to the system of doctrine as over against a subscription to every statement of the Confession.
This form of subscribing the Confession is a vital element in the spiritual succession. Hodge points out that the distinction between these two different forms of subscription was what led Alexander Creaghead to leave the ministry of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (in the eighteenth century) and join the newly organized Reformed Presbyterians who had a stricter subscription. It is, then, a meaningful and important distinction.
Another important element in the succession was the conviction that life flows from, grows out of, doctrine. At the time when the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was founded there was, of course, a great gulf between the teaching of liberal theologians and that of Bible-believing scholars. This had been sharply defined by J. Gresham Machen in his Christianity and Liberalism (1923). The liberals had insisted that their theology, or lack of it, was just as sound a foundation for Christian living as was the biblical variety.
Time has proved the liberals wrong. Belief in the authority of the Bible has faded catastrophically in the last generation in America. It is obvious that one of the results has been ethical decline. Doctrine is a necessary and inevitable foundation for life.
Every person has a system of belief, even if it is only the belief that there is no authority whatsoever of any sort. That belief, whatever it is, affects the way people live. Doctrine is the foundation for life, not the reverse. Tragic examples of this truth are to be seen all about us. Not the least important is the widespread custom of making false statements under oath. Related to day-by-day living is also the principle that the moral system set forth in the Bible is complete. We need not, and can not, add to it. Moral rules invented or formulated by men may be illuminating; they may have illustrative force; they may explain more fully God's law, But they may not add to it or detract from it. The moral law of God as given in the Bible is complete.
There may, of course, be modern applications of it which follow by "good and necessary consequence." As life takes on new forms, as new physical entities enter into it, necessary consequences appear and the law of God is applied in the new circumstances. But it is the old law of God of the Scriptures, not a new law but a necessary consequence of the old one, that is applied. Additions to the moral law are impossible. New explanations or applications of it may, on the other hand, be very helpful.
We know that the law given in the Bible is complete, for the Scriptures are all that are necessary to learn the way of salvation by grace alone, and they contain the only binding moral law. The period of revelation ended with the last book of the New Testament to be written. No one but God has the authority to make laws for man of a binding, permanent character. Temporary rules may be useful in particular situations, but they are not the moral law of God. That was complete when the Bible became complete. For the Bible is sufficient for all the spiritual needs of men.
Another basic principle that was being violated in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., and one that needed to be restored, was the conception of the freedom of the individual from hierarchical control. Ministers were associated in presbyteries. They were subject to the discipline of the presbytery but not to that of superior ecclesiastical officers. Church members were under the discipline of the session. But there were no superior, directive bishops in presbyterianism.
This fundamental principle of presbyterianism began to break down with the long tenure in office of William Henry Roberts as Stated Clerk of the General Assembly. He served in this office for thirty-six years, from 1884 to 1920. It is perhaps not surprising that his successor, Lewis S. Mudge, described himself on one occasion in a court trial as the "chief executive officer" of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. This statement reflected the fact that policy for the whole church was made at that time by the General Council, and carried out by the Stated Clerk, rather than being made in a genuine presbyterian fashion by the General Assembly. To maintain the spiritual succession of true presbyterianism included the maintenance of the rights and freedom of the individual minister and member, rather than sacrificing him to a control of Roman or Methodist type.
Charles Hodge once said that the expression, "Princeton theology," was without meaning since Princeton Seminary had not originated any theology but had simply presented the teaching of the Scriptures. It did the presenting so clearly and effectively, however, that the terminology was deserved. It was that theology that had permeated the ministry of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. Most of the opposition to it had been removed by the exscinding of what was called the "New School" in 1837.
In 1869, however, the reunion of the New and Old Schools was voted. With the return of the New School came elements of danger to the Princeton theology. Many of these were incorporated in the theology of the brilliant Charles A. Briggs of Union Theological Seminary in New York. In dealing with Professor Briggs, the General Assembly took the occasion in 1892 of reaffirming the inerrancy of Scripture. The doctrine was set forth very effectively by A. A. Hodge (son of Charles) and B. B. Warfield in an article for the Presbyterian Review in 1881. Briggs, on the other hand, opposed inerrancy and verbal inspiration.
The inerrancy of Scripture and the doctrines that flow from this principle because they are taught in the Scriptures, set forth with clarity and vigor, constitute the Princeton theology. The spiritual succession, through its loyalty to the Bible, embraces this system.
This means that an intelligent and scholarly system of doctrine is the foundation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Where is that system learned? Warfield used to insist that this was a question that the student for the ministry must decide for himself. The Princeton theology, since it was simply a systematic presentation of the biblical teaching, could be learned by a diligent student at any place and at any place and at any time. It was not necessary to study at Princeton itself, though that certainly was, in most cases, the best way to learn the system.
Preservation of the principle of freedom to study anywhere was another element in the spiritual succession because it safeguarded the responsibility of the individual before God. Although when Warfield defended it, it was primarily applicable to study at Union Seminary in New York, it came to be rejected by its opponents in order to deny to candidates the privilege of study at Westminster Seminary.
In discussing the system of doctrine, Charles Hodge did not include any distinctive view of the order and character of the events connected with the return of Christ and the final judgment. There were ministers in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. who held a premillenarian view, those who held a postmillenarian view, and those who held an amillenarian view. All were acceptable. The system was broad enough to shelter all.
This, also, was part of the spiritual succession, preserving the individual's responsibility to leave no part of the Bible neglected, but to continue its study while, at the same time, not including in the system of doctrine elements about which Bible-believing students of the Scriptures were not clear as to their teaching.
--------
Under the sovereignty of God and by the power of his grace, there was raised up in America nearly three centuries ago the beginnings of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. We have been looking at some of its distinctive principles.
From the beginning of the twentieth century these principles have received less and less respect. This undermining of biblical authority resulted in the formation in 1936 of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church for the purpose of preserving them. As it advances in that purpose it is good to review some of the past in order to build upon a firm foundation for the future.
The late Dr. Paul Woolley was emeritus professor of church history at Westminster Seminary. He wrote this article at editor John Mitchell's urging, and for the sake of those who must now continue the "spiritual succession" of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
Reprinted from the Presbyterian Guardian, Volume 44, No 2, February 1975. The OPC Committee for the Historian has made the archives of the Presbyterian Guardian available online!
© 2025 The Orthodox Presbyterian Church
