I was wondering if someone can provide a historical work on something that I heard recently from a Church History professor.
Before I note this, I want to make sure I acknowledge that there are exceptions to every rule. That said, what he noted was that the Puritan "side" of Presbyterianism in early American history tended toward the New Light side of Presbyterianism while the Scots-Irish tended toward the Old Light side of Presbyterianism.
The Scots-Irish were, generally speaking, more doctrinaire while the Puritan side tended to be more experimental and "evangelistic".
It got me thinking that the Scots-Irish were more established as a Church (since about 1560) while the Puritans in England had to fight more in a competitive environment for the CofE. It also seems that Puritanism in the main was more of an English phenomenon than Scots-Irish. Did the "prophesying conferences" and the fact that Puritans were known for preaching in a somewhat itinerant fashion make them more accepting in the Americas for open-air preaching and preaching that might have occurred outside of established Churches?
On a related note, I sort of wondered why King George thought of the U.S. "rebellion" as a rebellion by "...those Presbyterians..." when Presbyterianism was a minority of the Church population. It seems that the Congregationalists in New England had mostly become Unitarian by the time of the Revolution and many Anglicans were loyalists. The Presbyterians (who represented about 1/3 of the parties for rebellion) appear to have been the most religiously zealous for the Revolution due, in large measure, to the Scots-Irish who still had no love-loss for the Crown who had betrayed the Solemn League and Covenant. Consequently, though a minority of the population during the American Revolution it appears that the Presbyterians had an outsized influence in terms of giving shape to the religious language surrounding the Revolution.
Before I note this, I want to make sure I acknowledge that there are exceptions to every rule. That said, what he noted was that the Puritan "side" of Presbyterianism in early American history tended toward the New Light side of Presbyterianism while the Scots-Irish tended toward the Old Light side of Presbyterianism.
The Scots-Irish were, generally speaking, more doctrinaire while the Puritan side tended to be more experimental and "evangelistic".
It got me thinking that the Scots-Irish were more established as a Church (since about 1560) while the Puritans in England had to fight more in a competitive environment for the CofE. It also seems that Puritanism in the main was more of an English phenomenon than Scots-Irish. Did the "prophesying conferences" and the fact that Puritans were known for preaching in a somewhat itinerant fashion make them more accepting in the Americas for open-air preaching and preaching that might have occurred outside of established Churches?
On a related note, I sort of wondered why King George thought of the U.S. "rebellion" as a rebellion by "...those Presbyterians..." when Presbyterianism was a minority of the Church population. It seems that the Congregationalists in New England had mostly become Unitarian by the time of the Revolution and many Anglicans were loyalists. The Presbyterians (who represented about 1/3 of the parties for rebellion) appear to have been the most religiously zealous for the Revolution due, in large measure, to the Scots-Irish who still had no love-loss for the Crown who had betrayed the Solemn League and Covenant. Consequently, though a minority of the population during the American Revolution it appears that the Presbyterians had an outsized influence in terms of giving shape to the religious language surrounding the Revolution.
