REPORT OF THE Special Committee to Visit -Pminceton Theological Seminary as _ TO THE ee General Assembly — OF THE ‘PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH ; SO INJTHE Uh S.A. a SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA ’ MAY, 1927 one) ~ J/ ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 514 WITHERSPOON BUILDING : :; PHILADELPHIA CONTENTS Page Report of the Goniuiites SEER WEE AER CE OES ANN hin Sars IGE ae 1-50 J. Alumni of the Seminary... 5 ccccccepcinapeseetititers ere 2 IT Faculty of the Seminary ici)... irae liaceceeetesaieseenrenen 7 AGHANISUPATION 3385 y ee eee a Se De daa cee 9 Administration Of Funds 2 ico lechcsundkiteaeena 11 Whe. Boards and: Agencies. sic. sot iain enlaces 11 PEE EE DOA OF LIIVECLOTS,. gael an 16 f V5 The-Boartt ci Prupteesss Ans. ee ha hs oe Lage 17 Veo Phe: Student Cabinet..co 22. ooh heres Scene 17 VI. — Efforts of Farlier Assembliese....cccc ccc cccccccctessssssseseseeees 18 Concluding Summary of Findings... cece 47 Riesommendationse oo ae eee 49 Appendix to the Report of the Committee... 51-187 Written Statement of President Stevenson... OL Written Statement of the Majority of the Faculty? Biot 60 Extract from the Minutes of the Faculty... 82 Written Statement by Dr. John McDowell...0ouuuc....... 85 Verbal Statement of Dr. John Dixon. §=—88 Verbal Statement of Mr. W. P. Stevenson... 92 Written Statement of the Majority of the Board of Directors: Se ee ee a Gin epee ree ee 93 Verbal Statement of Dr. John M. T. Finney....000000000...... 97 Verbal Statement of Dr. George Alexander...coccc. 98 Verbal Statement of Dr. Wallace Radcliffe. «99 Létterot: Rev::-PaulVilartim: 32" ses eh 102 Written Statement of Dr. Gresham Machen... oc... 106 Written Statement of Dr. Oswald T. Allis. ce 119. Written Statement of Dr. William P. Armstrong........... 121 Extracts from Interlocutory Discussion of Committee with: Pacul ty so es ea a ne ee 134 Verbal Statement of Dr. J. Ritchie Smith 150 Verbal Statement of Dr. Frederick W. Loetscherv.............. 153 Verbal Statement of President Stevenson... ccc. 158 Further Extracts from Interlocutory Discussion of , Committee with, Faculte serine ga eer: 168 Standing Rule 29 OF THE General Assembly 29. All reports of Special and other Committees. shall be delivered to the Stated Clerk on or before April 1, in each year, shall be printed by him, and copies shall be sent, in bound form, to Commis- sioners, so far as practicable, immediately upon notification of their election; and copies shall also be delivered to the Assembly on the second day of the ses- sions. All reports included in the above bound form are thereby released for public comment or quotation, but such release does not preclude subsequent changes in any report before its presentation to the _ General Assembly. | Bees oS PRA Sarees Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. General Assembly. Report of the special committee to visit Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2021 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library httos://archive.org/details/reportofspecialcOOpres REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO VISIT PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY The Committee appointed by the last General Assembly in Baltimore, May, 1926, begs to submit the following report: On June 2, 1926, the General Assembly, pursuant to report from the Standing Committee on Theological Seminaries, adopted the following resolution: “That the Assembly appoint a Committee of three ministers and two elders to make a sympathetic study of conditions affecting the welfare of Princeton Seminary and to co-operate responsively with Seminary leaders in striving to adjust and harmonize differ- ences and to report to the next Assembly.’’ (Mins., 1926, Part:1, pe 174:) The Assembly voted that the Moderator, Rev. William O. Thompson, D.D., LL.D., should be the Chairman of the Committee on Princeton Theological Seminary and should appoint the other four additional members of the Committee authorized by the Assembly. (Mins., 1926, Part I, p. 257.) Pursuant to the action above cited, the Moderator ap- pointed as additional members of the Committee, Rev. George N. Luccock, D.D., Wooster, Ohio; Rev. Walter L. Whallon, D.D., Newark, N. J.; Hon. Thomas E. D. Bradley, Chicago, Ill., and Hon. Richard P. Ernst, Covington, Ky. The Committee recognizes with profoundest gratitude, as no doubt this Assembly does, the distinguished service ren- dered to the church by Princeton Theological Seminary in the preparation of men for the ministry. Since 1812, this Seminary has been the source of a gratifying satisfaction and has enjoyed the confidence of the entire Church; the honored names appearing in the Faculty during the past century sup- ported by a long list of the most devoted men of the Church, both in management and in providing endowments, might well challenge the admiration of all interested in the prepara- tion of men for the sacred office of the ministry. Princeton has always been a center of sound, conservative and evangelical theology. The present Faculty is a body of men affirming their loyalty to the Standards of the Church. The Committee has no reason to doubt these affirmations. The Committee entered upon its task with the full recognition of the high character of the men now in the Faculty. It has no desire to leave any other impression on the mind of the Assembly or of the Church-at-large. The Committee ex- presses the hope that the Assembly will consider this report as an effort to reconcile existing differences and to provide a 3 t method of administration consistent with the best interests of the Seminary. The Committee invites the attention of the Assembly to the documents, letters and other statements printed in the appendix. These constitute, in some measure, the basis from which the recommendations of the report have been drawn. It should be added that the Committee has a complete tran- script in typewritten form of all the hearings, amounting to some 800 pages, not including documentary exhibits. These hearings were so extended and the interviews so intimate and personal that it seemed both impossible and undesirable to submit all of them in printed form as an appendix. If neces- sity arises, however, reference can be made to this transcript for the purpose of interpretation or of showing the existing differences, or to confirm the opinions of the Committee ex- pressed in this report. ‘The Committee sought in these in- timate hearings to discover the state of mind and the attitude of mind of Faculty, Directors and ‘Trustees as accounting for, or affecting, the divergence of views as set out in the docu- mentary statements presented in the appendix. The Committee held its first meeting in Princeton, N. J., November 22, 23 and 24, 1926. All members were present. After an informal conference as to the method of procedure, it was decided to meet representatives of the Alumni of the Seminary on the evening of the 22nd, the Faculty on the morning of the 23rd, the Directors and Trustees on the after- noon of the 28rd, leaving opportunity for conferences with the representatives of the Student Cabinet and further sessions with any of the above, subject to the convenience of the program. ‘Two sessions with the Faculty were held during this meeting of the Committee. A statement by the Chairman of the Committee was read to all these several sessions in order that certain questions might be eliminated, and that the issues could be made entirely clear. I. The Alumni of the Seminary The first meeting of the Assembly’s Committee with the different groups of Princeton Seminary was with the Alumni, who accepted the Committee’s invitation to be present at a hearing in Stuart Hall, Monday evening, November 22, 1926, at 8 o'clock. Approximately 125 were present. In view of the fact that there are some 3,000 alumni, this may not seem to have been a very representative group. However, one had journeyed from Boston, and two from California were present, which indicates that the Alumni had been given due notice of the hearing, and many more could have been 5 present if sufficiently concerned. Representatives from the Alumni Associations of New York, Baltimore and Phila- delphia, with their large membership, were present, and in- dividuals prompted by personal interest. It was unques- tionably a group fairly representative of the Alumni Asso- ciation. Letters also were received from Alumni groups of Chicago and Detroit, and communications from individuals were read or filed with the Committee. A statement was read to the Alumni by the Chairman, who reviewed the action of the Assembly in authorizing the appointment of the Committee to visit Princeton Seminary, and to confer with Seminary leaders in an endeavor to adjust and harmonize existing differences. Those who desired to be heard were requested to speak to two definite issues: (1) What are the difficulties existing in the Princeton Theological Seminary? (2) What remedy have you to propose for these difficulties? The meeting disclosed, as the records will show, a deep cleavage among the Alumni, regarding first, the function of the Seminary—that is to say, whether it was to be a repre- sentative of the entire Church or whether it should “become the creature of a part of the Church.” (T., pp. 6-8.)! Others of the Alumni felt the difficulty had arisen through a division in the Faculty. Of this, the division in the student body was just an outgrowth—a detail. This division in the Faculty was due, some felt, to the failure of the President to exert an acceptable leadership which would co-ordinate and unify the various groups in the Faculty and secure harmony and co-operation. Still others asserted with a great deal of earnestness that the source of the trouble could be traced to other members of the Faculty, some naming Dr. Machen and others Dr. Erdman. Some were in sympathy with the majority of the Faculty and placed the burden on Dr. Steven- son and Dr. Erdman. Others, on the contrary, severely criticized the attitude and actions of Dr. Machen, attributing to him the responsibility for much of the contention on the campus. It seemed to be the consensus of opinion that much of the difficulty in Princeton could be found in the Faculty; that the situation which had developed was greatly to be deplored, because of the effect upon the students, and the unfavorable impression made upon prospective students, who, finding the spirit of contention prevailing, preferred to attend some 1“T” is complete typewritten transcript of the hearings at Princeton. 6 other seminary. One pastor spoke of three young men of his church, at different times in his ministry, whom he had turned toward Princeton, but who went elsewhere, because of the situation which they found. There was unanimity of feeling that the contention in the Faculty must be ended. If an operation were necessary, let it be performed after proper diagnosis and by skilful hands, but let it be performed. The student body is under the control of the Faculty. Let the Faculty function. The Faculty is under the Board of Directors. Let the Board exercise its control. The Board of Directors is responsible to the General Assembly. Let the Board direct the affairs of the Seminary to merit the approval of the General Assembly. Petty per- sonalities should cease. There must be a defining of rights and responsibilities, and then adhering to prerogatives. The Alumni present felt this all was essential. They in- dicated their belief that the difficulties within Princeton Seminary not only should be, but also could be overcome. The exercise of Christian courtesy and consideration was necessary and to be expected in such an institution. A second element of cleavage centered in the withdrawal of the Princeton students from the Theological Seminary Conference of the Middle Atlantic Union held at Drew Theological Seminary, Madison, N. J., October 17-19, 1924, and the organization of a new association of theological student bodies with common theological views. A committee had been appointed by Mr. W. O. Johnson, president of the Students’ Association of Princeton Seminary, on October 21, 1924, “‘to discuss ways and means of fostering an organization of conservative seminaries for the purpose of guarding the faith and of interesting students in the gospel ministry.”’ The Faculty approved the withdrawal of the students from the conference at Drew Theological Seminary. The proposal to organize a new league was not formally approved, but was permitted without objection from the Faculty. The new proposal received 140 affirmative votes and 70 negative votes among the students. This two-thirds vote constituted Prince- ton Seminary a chapter member of the League. This League proposed as a condition of membership the assent of the students to certain doctrines considered essential to the system of theology taught in the Westminster standards. The League assumed that these doctrines constituted the evangelical basis for membership and also represented to a degree the teachings of the Seminary. The students appeared to have been impressed with the importance of erecting within their own number certain standards, and of bearing 7 testimony or witness to the Church of Christ at large. (T., p: 12.) The Committee did not regard the organization of this League as objectionable so long as membership in it was voluntary. Some evidence was discovered to the effect that pressure had been brought to bear upon individual members to join the League, and in a few instances advice from individuals in the Faculty had been rather definite. It was out of a situation of this sort probably that most of the discussions and disagreements arose. A clear definition of the rights of students to organize on a voluntary basis would have relieved the common source of dissension. ‘The eager enthusiasm, not to say partisanship, of young men ordinarily needs the counsel of moderation rather than of agitation. The function of the student as a student is to be a student under the direction and guidance of the Faculty. Whether any doctrinal basis for membership within a volun- tary league is wise or unwise, may well be a matter for dis- cussion as to its policy. Obviously in this case, the League has been a source of debate and dissension among the students and of misunderstandings in the Faculty. The controversy among the students spread quite freely among the Alumni also and furnished the occasion of agitation and discussion which bore no good fruit, but diverted the time and energy of ministers from more worthy subjects of consideration. Summary: 1. The Committee does not feel that the League of Evangelical Students at Princeton Seminary is an issue to be dealt with by this Committee. 2. The Committee is convinced, however, that the students should not be unduly subjected to any partisan pressure. The activities of the League in this respect should be carefully supervised, and no pressure be brought on any student to become a member. 3. The Committee strongly recommends that all mem- bers of the Faculty withdraw from membership in the League. The Faculty adviser gives sufficient contact with the Faculty. The students should have this resultant freedom. There is danger of too much Faculty advice upon the details of student life. This leads to the feeling, as in these recent years in Princeton, that there is a tendency toward too much individual Faculty influence and interference. II. The Faculty of the Seminary On Tuesday, November 23, 1926, the Committee spent the forenoon with the Faculty. The Faculty presented indi- 8 vidual statements and reduced to writing certain formal statements concerning the position of the Seminary, and the duty of the Faculty as interpreted from the Plan of the Seminary. The Chairman of the Assembly’s Committee submitted a statement, outlining the issues before the Com- mittee. It became evident at once that the Faculty was divided on matters of administration, and also that there was a marked cleavage in matters of Church polity. An attitude of opposition to the President of the Seminary was disclosed, based upon an action of the Seminary Faculty taken October 2, 1926, wherein a complaint was lodged with the Board of Directors against the President because of his statement at the General Assembly in Baltimore. The particular ob- jection was that President Stevenson had exceeded the pro- prieties of faculty etiquette in certain statements made before the General Assembly respecting conditions in the Seminary. Another source of division was the action taken concerning the appointment of the late Dr. John D. Davis as temporary instructor in Systematic Theology during the illness of Dr. C. W. Hodge. Statements and records submitted by President Stevenson tend to show that Dr. Machen endeavored to secure the cancellation of this appointment. He declined to join in a request that Dr. Davis should accept the appoint- ment. As a result there was agitation on the campus which brought Dr. Davis under suspicion. The current rumor went so far as to intimate that Dr. Machen had warned the students against accepting the teachings of Dr. Davis. (Appendix, eh aye dl qopey MestaneRLap A further source of division was found in the opposition to the candidacy of Dr. Charles R. Erdman for the office of Moderator of General Assembly. The activities in this matter may have been clearly within the rights of individual members of the Faculty, but Faculty courtesy or etiquette would seem to be quite as important in this case as in the case where the Assembly, by vote, requested the President to appear and make certain statements concerning his adminis- tration. All these matters, however, are matters of history and should not now disturb either the Church or the Faculty. It is to be regretted that matters of this sort continue in the minds of men dealing with much larger issues. Another source of contention was found in the elimination of Dr. Charles R. Erdman as student adviser. The fact that this action was taken on a motion proposed and advocated by Dr. Machen, seemed to add fuel to the flame. (T., pp. 49, 65.) 0 The action of the Faculty on the nomination of special preachers was also a subject of discussion. It is well known that the recommendation of the committee was not adopted by the Faculty. It is argued, of course, that such action in no way reflects upon the character of the men whose names were listed but should be interpreted as expressing a prefer- ence on the part of the Faculty for other men. Unfortunately, ‘in this connection it was said that Dr. Machen in a sub- sequent declaration, stated that his ground for opposition to two eminent Presbyterian pastors, and the General Secre- tary of one of our Boards, whom the Faculty committee had recommended as Seminary preachers, was, that these men “are not Christians.’”? (Appendix, pp. 52, 185, 186.) Administration The Committee was impressed with the anomalous situa- tion occupied by the President of the Seminary. His duties are so inadequately defined as to give rise to difficulties that ought never to exist. This is probably due to the fact that the theological seminary administration, in the earlier days a very simple matter, has grown into the modern conception without any careful study of the administrative problems liable to exist in a theological seminary. These may not differ in principle from administrative problems elsewhere. They are subject, however, to the atmosphere of tradition and precedent more pronounced in theological schools than in other places. It is obvious to the Committee that the President of Princeton Theological Seminary occupies an im- possible position. Whether the Seminary should go back to the former custom of having a Chairman of the Faculty and abolish the office of President, or whether the office of Presi- dent should be surrounded with better definition of rights, duties and prerogatives, is necessarily involved in any solu- tion of the issues at the Seminary. As illustrating this situation, it will be noted that one of the assigned duties of the President is to represent the Sem- inary before the Church, and to present the cause of the Seminary to prospective students of theology at college or university centers. It is noticeable that at Princeton the majority of the Faculty are not in accord with the President. The formal paper submitted to this Committee is a protest against the action and position of the President who, obvi- ously, was acting under the authority of this Assembly, and under the rules of the Theological Seminary. Among the reasons for the existence of a majority party in the Seminary, as presented in the documentary evidence from the Faculty, is 10 in the fact that the majority represent a more restrictive judg- ment as to the functions of the President, while at the same time there are divergences of opinion concerning his doctrinal position, as intimated by the charge of doctrinal indiffer- entism, which he stoutly denies. The organization of the committees of the Faculty by the Faculty has been a source of controversy and disagreement. This Faculty procedure is a departure from the courtesy commonly accorded to the Presidents of larger institutions, where the interests are much more complex, and where the appointment of committees is quite generally referred to the President. There is a doubt in the minds of students of administrative authority throughout the country, whether the President of any institution should be a member of its governing board. In the majority of cases now, he is not a member of the govern- ing board. In a number of instances, however, chiefly among those of earlier origin, the President of the college is ex- officio a member of the board. This frequently subjects him to the suspicion of being committed in advance to the position of the governing board which elects him, and, therefore, becomes a source of dissatisfaction, if not of opposition. The true position of an executive and administrative officer is to represent the faculty and student body on the one side, and on the other side, to be the official means of communication from the governing body. Furthermore, it is worth while to direct the attention of this Assembly to the fact that a President or a Professor in Princeton Theological Seminary cannot be removed from office without the consent of the General Assembly. In cases of controversy or of uncertainty or of division, as at present, in the Faculty, the reference of such a question to the General Assembly would arouse debate. with no assur- ance that the decision of the governing body or bodies would be sustained by the Assembly. In other words, the office of President or Professor becomes at once a matter of con- troversy in the Assembly. Immediately the question emerges as to the grounds on which the Assembly would assent or de- cline to assent to the removal of a President or Professor by the governing Boards. These facts support the conclusion of the Committee that the position of the President of the Seminary needs a new statement. El Adminstration of Funds Attention was drawn to the fact that during last year Princeton Theological Seminary expended $138,500 in the aid of students of other denominations and only $10,000 in the aid of students of our own Church. It appears further that there is a difference of opinion concerning the right or justice of the distribution of funds donated for student aid. There appears to be disagreement between the Faculty and the Committee on Scholarship Aid of the Directors on this issue, the majority of the Faculty contending for the continuance of this large aid for students of other denominations, if needed by them. An examination of the conditions attached to the gifts to the Seminary will disclose the fact that some of them are specifically restricted for the use of Presbyterian students, but other gifts have been made without any such condition. It is fair to assume that persons giving money to a Presby- terian theological seminary expected that the money so given would be used for the education of students in the Presby- terian ministry. The Committee is clearly of the opinion that whatever the claims as to the legality of such action, good faith would seem to require the use of these funds for Presbyte- rian students, unless the donors have expressly provided other- wise. ‘The Seminary should not be in a position where, on purely technical grounds, the reasonable expectations of donors may be defeated. ‘The situation is further com- plicated by the fact that Presbyterian students, under present conditions, receive aid at the same time from the Board of Christian Education, and from the Seminary. It is obvious that non-Presbyterian students have a distinct advantage in respect to aid from Seminary funds. The statistics for last year show that the average aid given to Presbyterian students from Seminary funds was $78, whereas the average given to non-Presbyterian students from Seminary funds was $130. This discrepancy raises in the minds of the Com- mittee some serious questions, in view of the fact that the Board of Christian Education and the Seminaries are con- tinually appealing to the Church for increased financial support, and in view of the further fact that the Board of Christian Education is straitened in its ability to give aid to Presbyterian students. This situation is so disturbing that the Committee feels compelled to direct the attention of the Assembly, and of the Church to it. Faculty Statement Concerning Divisions In the formal statement from the majority of the Faculty, the following items briefly stated as a source of division in the Faculty may be mentioned: (See Appendix, pp. 60-82.) 12 1. The disapproval of the position taken by the President of the Seminary and Dr. Charles R. Erdman on the Plan of Organic Union of Evangelical Churches, in 1920. 2. The Philadelphia overture to the 135th General Assembly at Indianapolis, in 1923. 3. Certain statements by Dr. Erdman published in the “Presbyterian Advance”’ of January 22, 1925, and reprinted in ‘The Presbyterian” of February 5, 1925. To this might be added certain statements in the ‘“‘Princetonian’’ of Feb- ruary 22, 1925, and of the “Trenton Evening Times’ of April 4, 1925, and the statements of President Stevenson before the Assembly as reported in the ‘‘New York Times” of June 3, 1926. 4. Exception is taken to the attitude of Dr. Charles R. Erdman and to certain statements made at the last General Assembly in Baltimore, concerning the qualifications of Dr. Machen for the chair to which he had been elected. In dis- cussing these issues the majority of the Faculty state that, “the President of the Seminary had formulated a policy which would make it representative of ‘the whole Presby- terian Church’ ”’ and thus inclusive of the different doctrinal points of view which now exist in the Church. The majority of the Faculty maintained that the institution has been his- ~ torically affiliated with the doctrinal points of view in the Church known as the “Old School.’’ They state: ‘‘They are not aware that the reunion of the Old and New Schools re- quired the surrender by the institution at that time of its doc- trinal position, and they are unwilling that this position be surrendered now, when the differences in the Church are con- cerned, not with two forms of the Reformed faith, but with the very nature of evangelical Christianity itself.’’ (T., p. 13.) A further difference pertaining to doctrine and the re- lation of Princeton Seminary to the whole church is taken from statements from the Faculty as follows: (See Appendix, pp. 73-75.) ‘“(1.) ‘The difference of opinion in the Faculty is absolutely fundamental. It concerns not the belief of any member of the Faculty, but the fundamental importance of the witness of this Seminary and of the Presbyterian Church to the Reformed faith, to which the Seminary and the Church are absolutely committed.” | ““(3.) The difference between the President, the minority of the Faculty on the one hand, and the majority of the Faculty on the other hand, is a difference of attitude toward theological controversy. The minority believe in peace and work, the majority believe in controversy in 13 defense of the truth, and work.” (See Statement by Faculty, Appendix, pp. 73-75.) In further discussion of this attitude, Dr. Hodge affirms that in his judgment Drs. Stevenson and Erdman represent a doctrinal indifferentism which is opposed by the majority of this Faculty who regard it as unfortunate that Princeton Seminary should be thus publicly identified with move- ments supported by all liberals. He further states (See Appendix) ‘“‘We do not believe that Princeton Seminary can be made a Seminary of the whole church, 7.e., repre- senting the whole Church doctrinally, even under the Con- stitution of the Church, without departing from its historical position, because of the prevailing latitude in the interpre- tation of our doctrinal standards.’’ (Appendix, p. 75.) Further, he remarks, ‘‘It is quite clear, therefore, that such differences of view as to what is essential to Christianity do exist in the Church today. As long as such divergences do exist, Princeton Seminary cannot represent the whole Pres- byterian church doctrinally without departing from its adherence to the faith of Christendom, not to speak of the Reformed faith, to which Princeton Seminary is committed.” _ Under such statements, it is obvious that the point of divergence is a charge against Dr. Stevenson and Dr. Erdman of doctrinal indifferentism, from which both of these gentle- men dissent with definite statements to the contrary. 5. Another source of division was found in the fact of the personal relationship between Dr. Charles R. Erdman and Dr. J. Gresham Machen, arising out of the publication of the letter of January 22, 1925, in “The Presbyterian Advance’’ by Dr. Erdman. It is contended earnestly on the part of Dr. Machen that the publication of this letter resulted in irreparable damage to his standing in the Church and to his reputation. The Committee sought to resolve the differences here, and to heal this breach by frank and cordial statements of both men concerning the circumstances which led to the publication of the objectionable letter. On the other hand it was plainly stated by Dr. Erdman that in his opinion the activities of Dr. Machen had been a source of grievous offense and had resulted in a cleavage between former friends and him- self, thus doing him an irreparable injury. After long and searching inquiry and with much directness of question, the Committee expressed to the Faculty the opinion that these differences should be healed on the Christian basis as re- vealed in the Gospel of Matthew, XVIII: 15-17. Dr. Erdman had expressed once and again his willingness to let the past be buried and expressed regret for any unfair or unwarranted 14 inferences to be drawn from his published statements, and for any injury that came to Dr. Machen. He was willing to forgive and to forget, and also to proceed for the future upon the basis of Christian brotherhood. In a later session, Dr. Machen presented the following statement: “In my two formal statements to the Committee, I have maintained that Dr. Erdman did me a great injury by his letter in “The Presbyterian Advance” of January 22, 1925, and I am convinced that nothing that has been said since that date has served to right this wrong. I have also maintained in my statements that my answer to Dr. Erdman’s letter in “The Presbyterian Advance” was free from unworthy person- alities and entirely in accordance with the facts. My con- viction on both these points remains unchanged. ‘“‘At the same time it has become evident that I cannot con- vince Dr. Erdman of the justice of my position with regard to either point. It has also become evident that the complete investigation and adjudication of this matter by the Assem- bly’s Committee or by any other agency would be a long and difficult process which would divert to personal questions the attention of the Seminary and the Church. I do not believe that any desire on my part. for personal vindication should be allowed to jeopardize thé high interests with which this institution is entrusted. “T do not, of course, mean that I shall necessarily agree with Dr. Erdman’s ecclesiastical policies, with regard to which I must, of course, follow the dictates of my conscience. But I am ready and willing, with appreciation of the good offices of the Committee; to resume full personal friendly relations with Dr. Erdman.” (T., p. 244.) When this statement was made, Faculty and Committee were greatly encouraged, seeing in the statement a break in the unyielding attitude hitherto maintained, and hoping it might be followed by complete re-establishing of brotherly relations in the Faculty. But the ensuing discussion left with the Committee the impression that the statement had been academic and defensive, rather than an overture toward reconciliation. Dr. Machen confesses no fault. He accepts no forgiveness and offers none. ‘The net effect of these personal conferences with the Faculty upon the minds of the Committee was an impression that no essential change had taken place in the mind of Dr. Machen. He still believes that there are serious differences in the doctrinal attitudes of the Faculty, and he is unwilling to trust the doctrinal loyalties of his colleagues. (T., p. 258d.) This obviously leaves much to be desired as a basis of brotherly relations. | 15 The Boards and Agencies At the Faculty hearings the attention of Professor Machen was drawn to certain published statements he had made con- cerning the membership and management of the Assembly’s Boards and Agencies. (It is well known that Dr. Erdman is President and that Dr. Stevenson is a member of the Board of Foreign Missions.) In his book, “Christianity and Liber- alism,’’ Professor Machen, on page 171, stated that “Of every dollar contributed to them, perhaps half goes to the support of true missionaries of the Cross, while the other half goes to the support of those who are persuading men that the message of the Cross is unnecessary or wrong.’ This statement seemed an indictment of the General Assembly electing the members of all our Boards. It is not meant that Professor Machen intended it to be so but the statement was so dis- turbing that he was asked for some support. His reply was that “my books are matters of my opinion.’’ However, upon request he added that his view was that the Church was facing very grave issues and that the Boards and Agencies were not representative of the Church as a whole today. In his book, ‘‘What is Faith,’’ he makes the statement ‘“‘that at board meetings or in the councils of the Church, it was considered bad form even to mention, at least in any definite and intelligible way, the Cross of Christ.’ (p. 41.) The Committee recognizes fully the right of all members of the Church to discuss the methods and policies of the Boards and Agencies. Such discussion is, at times, essential to the welfare and progress of these Boards and Agencies. The defense is inadequate when it is stated that these state- ments are matters of opinion. They have had all the effect of being statements of fact. Attention was drawn to the gravity of making such statements in published books without supporting evidence. The proper procedure which the Assem- bly would no doubt welcome would be a complaint through proper channels as to the qualifications of members elected by the Assembly to membership on the Boards. This incident serves to illustrate the lack of confidence current in some minds concerning the Church. It is not different in quality from the lack of confidence as existing today among the members of the Faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary. It is easy to understand why Alumni express their sorrow and regret over the situation in our oldest and most honored Theological Seminary. Alumni affirm their love for the Seminary and in the same breath 16 declare that they can not recommend young men to their alma mater until present conditions have been corrected. III. The Board of Directors On the morning of Wednesday, November 24, 1926, the Committee met with the Board of Directors. A large ma- jority were present. In the main there was disclosed a difference of opinion among members of the Board of Di- rectors, so that there was practically an alignment of a portion of the Board with the majority of the Faculty, and a portion with the minority. It should be stated, however, that certain members of the Board of Directors decline to be classified as belonging to either of these two divisions. (T., pp. 107, 108, for statement of the Chairman as to differences.) At this meeting a statement prepared by the Chairman of the Board of Directors, and adopted by the Board, was submitted to the Committee. This was done by vote of 17 to 5. This report presented the viewpoint of the Board of Directors defending the election of Dr. Machen, and ex- pressed the hope that Dr. Stevenson would voluntarily resign. Reference here was also made to a Committee of Seven appointed by the Board of Directors at the suggestion of President Stevenson, in May, 1925, to adjust the problems within the Faculty. This report seems not to have been as fruitful of good as was desired, as its contents would suggest. The Board of Directors also in the paper adopted, expressed the opinion that the Seminary in its teachings, witness and defense of the Reformed theology embodied in the Confession of Faith and the Assembly’s interpretation thereof, is repre- senting the views of a large part of the Presbyterian Church. That other seminaries with more liberal theological views are in the Church, makes it all the more necessary that Princeton should stand according to its Plan as representing the con- servative wing of the Church. In the interlocutory session, it was developed that the office of President of the Seminary had been a matter of some discussion and that his duty and prerogatives were not clearly defined. The origin of this was discussed but no adequate explanation of the status of the President was dis- closed. It was obvious from statements of such men as Dr. George Alexander, Dr. Wallace Radelifie, and Dr. John M. ° I’. Finney, that there were differences among the Directors which prevented harmonious action even when the men agreed upon doctrinal or theological issues. A further evidence of disagreement among the Directors was found in the differences of opinion expressed concerning 17 the methods of election of members of the Faculty. A com- plaint was made, and denied, that important elections were determined upon in advance of the meetings by the majority of the Board without consultation with other members. It was obvious to the Committee that unfortunate disagree- ments had arisen which prevented entire confidence and co-operation among the Directors. IV. The Board of Trustees On the afternoon of Tuesday, November 23, 1926, the Committee met with the Board of Trustees (see statement by the Chairman, T., p. 82), where a paper was presented by Dr. John McDowell, Secretary of the Board, in which a brief historical review was made by citing certain reports of the Assembly and actions at joint meetings of the Board of Trustees and the Board of Directors, and certain actions of the Board of Trustees in connection with certain legacies. The report also brought out clearly that there was a difference of opinion of long standing between the Board of Trustees and the Board of Directors upon the question of final authority and the relation of each Board to the other. That question is dealt with adequately later in this report. It is necessary, therefore, only to note here the fact that certain fundamental differences have been developed in the Board of Trustees. In other words, the spirit of division seems to have developed in practically every organization associated with the Sem- inary and this spirit of division has not always been tempered with the spirit of brotherly kindness and a charitable spirit toward colleagues in the service of the Seminary. V. The Student Cabinet In the late afternoon of November 23, 1926, the Committee met with the Student Cabinet of Princeton Theological Seminary in order to secure from them a statement of the situation as viewed by students. This interview resulted in a discussion of the Middle Atlantic Union of Theological Seminaries at the Drew Conference, and of the subsequent issues concerning the League of Evangelical Students formed after the withdrawal from the Drew Conference. This interview was frank and cordial and from the theo- retical point of view as presented, there would seem to be no legitimate objection to the principles involved in this League. The only objections that could be sustained would arise from the practical working of such a League, due to the eager desire of student organizations to extend their membership. It was disclosed that in a certain percentage of the student body 18 there were those who were not sufficiently advanced in their thinking and convictions to adopt the principles of the League, and there were others who were described as con- scientious objectors because they had doubt as to the wisdom of the League’s policy. There were students who lacked enthusiasm about the value of the League in its service to the students. VI. Efforts of Earlier Assemblies Questions respecting the relation of the theological sem- inaries to the Church are not new. They have been the subject of earnest investigation and discussion by General Assemblies for more than a generation. But some of the important recommendations of the Assembly have not been carried into effect and one committee after another has traversed much the same ground. In order that the Assembly may have the benefit of the efforts of earlier Assemblies in dealing with theological sem- inaries, including Princeton, a detailed statement is herewith submitted. While the recent differences in the Faculty have affected the attitude of the Board of Directors and the Board of Trustees, there have been differences at times between the two Boards running back over a long period of time and the Committee believes that, as indicated by reports of special committees and resolutions adopted by former assemblies, the dual form of government which exists at the Theological Seminary at Princeton, as well as at some of the other sem- inaries, is unwise and always likely to be a source of friction. The differences between the two Boards which have occurred at different times, while not very serious perhaps, are suffi- ciently serious to demonstrate, from the standpoint of practical administration, the folly of two Boards. The situation at Princeton from a legal standpoint is worse than at some of the other seminaries which have two Boards. In some of the seminaries the articles of incorporation provide for adminis- tration by two boards. The charter of Princeton Seminary provides for a single board, namely the Board of Trustees, and neither in the act of incorporation nor in the by-laws of the corporation or otherwise is there any legal recognition of a second Board. The plan for a theological seminary at Princeton was reported to the General Assembly of 1811 and adopted. At this time and for several years thereafter there was no incorporation. The plan adopted for the operation and control of the Seminary provides: 19 “See. le As this institution derives its origin from the General Assembly, that body is to be considered its patron and the fountain of its power. “Sec. 2. The Board of Directors appointed by the Assem- bly shall have the immediate control of the seminary. “See. 8. The General Assembly shall at all times have the power of adding to the constitutional articles of the seminary, and of abrogating, altering or amending them, but in the exercise of this power the contemplated additions, abroga-- tions, alterations or amendments shall in every case be pro- posed at one assembly and not adopted until the assembly of the subsequent year except by a unanimous vote.”’ Later agreements between the General Assembly and the Trustees of the College of New Jersey when the seminary was founded and other provisions of the original plan of Princeton Theological Seminary insured to the General Assembly the power to appoint the directors, choose the professors, carry on the instruction, govern the students and manage the funds as to the Assembly might seem best. Also the Assembly in the original plan reserved the power ultimately to sanction all the laws of the Seminary, direct its instruction and appoint its principal officers. (Moore’s Digest, pp. 373, 375.) The Seminary at Princeton was established and operated on the plan adopted in 1811 until the year 1822, when a civil corporation known as “The Trustees of the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church’”’ was created by the legislature of New Jersey, and this corporation took title to the property which had before that time been conveyed to the General Assembly for the use of the Theological Seminary, and one of its expressed purposes was to take and acquire property thereafter for the Seminary. ‘The charter sets forth that this corporation should consist of not more than 21 persons, whereof the General Assembly might at any annual meeting change one-third in such manner as to the Assembly should seem proper, and the corporation in the manage- ment and disposition of the property committed to rts care and trust by the General Assembly was delegated to carry out the instructions for the management and disposition thereof, given by the General Assembly in writing under the hand of its clerk. It is clear that when this first theological seminary was formed by the Presbyterian Church, it was the purpose to maintain direct and complete control by the General Assembly of all the teaching and property of the theological seminaries belonging to the Church. The formation of the civil corporation in 1822 to take and hold the title to and own the property of Princeton Seminary 20 seems to be a departure from the original purpose and the original plan by which the Church created and undertook the operation of the theological seminaries. The civil corporation became and is the owner in trust of the property which has been given to it since its organization and all of the property given to the Seminary before that time and the income of all such property as may be held by the trustees of the General Assembly for the Seminary. The relation between the General Assembly and the theological seminaries has been the subject of consideration by a number of special committees appointed by the General Assembly, and on several occasions the Assembly has taken action with reference to the reports made by such committees. During the years 1892, 1893, 1894 and 1895 an exhaustive study was made by an able committee appointed by the General Assembly, and a very exhaustive and scholarly report was rendered to the Assembly by that committee. A reference to the voluminous report of this committee in the minutes of the General Assembly of 1892, pages 21 to 39, is valuable in this connection. It was pointed out there that where the Assembly has the legal right by the terms of a charter, to elect and remove the trustees and direct the management and disposition of all funds, it is able to enforce its mandates, and that the Assembly possessed this power over the property given for Princeton Seminary until 1822, when the independent civil corporation was created, to which the property was given, with the limitations already referred to. There are other seminaries of the Church having both a Board of Trustees and a Board of Directors. In the articles of incorporation of some of them, like those of McCormick Seminary for illustration, a Board of Directors is provided for by the articles of incorporation. In the charter of Princeton Seminary no provision whatever is made for a Board of Directors. It would seem that the Board of Directors has been continued since its original appointment by the General Assembly as the agent of the Assembly to exercise such authority as the Assembly itself might delegate. It is clear, of course, that the Board of Directors cannot exercise any power or authority except such power and authority as may be delegated by the Assembly. The only authority re- served by the General Assembly when it organized the civil corporation was the right to change one-third of the trustees at any annual meeting in such manner as to the Assembly should seem proper, and in writing under the hands of its clerk, to give special instructions for the management and disposal of the property committed to the care and trust of 21 the corporation by the General Assembly. As to all other property, the title to which has been vested in the trustees, the corporation has by its charter full power to manage, control, dispose of and reinvest such property as in the judg- ment of a majority of its Board of Trustees will be for the best interests of the corporation. Section 9 of the Act in- corporating the Trustees provides that the corporation shall annually exhibit to the General Assembly the exact state of its funds and accounts. It was pointed out by the special committee in its report to the Assembly in 1893 with respect to the independent civil corporations holding property in trust for the various theological seminaries that such cor- porations owned the property and had its control and man- agement free from any direct interference by the General Assembly, save as to the property given to them by the Assembly as to which the Assembly may direct the manage- ment, and the committee in its report expresses in italics this significant pronouncement: The greater portion of the property held by these corporations, and which amounts to between eight and nine millions of dollars, 1s not held in trust for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, nor is it given the direct control, management or disposition of the same by the terms of their charters.’’ (Mins. G. A., 1893, p. 24.) With respect to Princeton Seminary, it is said in that report: ‘‘Save as hereinbefore stated in Sections 6 and 9 of the Act of incorporation—which are that the General Assembly may, at its annual meetings, change one-third of the Board of Trustees, issue special instructions for the management of such property as may have been committed to the care and trust of the Board by the General Assembly, and the obliga- tion to make an exact statement of the accounts and funds of the corporation annually to the General Assembly—there are no provisions in the Act of incorporation by which the Pres- byterian Church, through its General Assembly or any other agency, may interfere with the management and control of the Board of Trustees of Princeton Theological Seminary, which holds title to, and controls and manages the entire property held in trust by it for the purposes of the Seminary. The property is owned, controlled and managed by this civil corporation, which perpetuates itself by the election of its own Board of Trustees. The property belongs to that cor- poration and is held by it in trust upon such terms as the donors may have affixed to their gifts. “The charter, or Act of incorporation, of this Board is silent as to the appointment of the professors and the control of 22 the instruction and details of the Seminary itself. Its Act of incorporation nowhere refers to what is known as the Plan or Constitution of the Theological Seminary. It does refer to the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, located at Princeton, in the State of New Jersey. But by the terms of the charter, or Act of incorporation, the Board of Trustees of the Seminary is given entire control over the funds held in trust for the Seminary, according to the terms of the gifts, and the Pres- byterian Church cannot by any of its agencies, so far as the charter is concerned, interfere with the control and manage- ment of the property thus held by this independent corpora- tion save as we have stated. “The existing control and management of the Seminary itself, so far as the appointment of professors and teachers, the course of instruction and other details are concerned, is as follows: “A Board of Directors is provided for in the Plan of the Seminary adopted by the General Assembly of 1811 and as amended by subsequent Assemblies. Under this Plan, which by Section 1, Article 1, declares the institution derives its origin from the General Assembly, and that that body is to be considered its patron and the fountain of its power, the Board of Directors appointed by the Assembly has the im- mediate control of the Seminary. The Assembly, by Section 3, Article 1, reserves to itself the power of adding to the Constitutional Articles of the Seminary and of abrogating, altering, or amending them. * * *k * “The Board of Directors, as provided by Article 2, Section 1, consists of twenty-one ministers and nine ruling elders, of whom one-third, or seven ministers, and three elders, shall be chosen by the Board annually, to continue in office three years, the Board having power to fill all vacancies. All elec- tions, however, are subject in the original plan, to the veto of the General Assembly, to which they shall be reported at its next meeting thereafter. “Section 2 of the same article gives the Board of Directors power to elect professors, and remove them from office, such election and removal to be subject to the veto of the General Assembly. By Section 11, each Director, previously to taking his seat as a member of the Board, shall subscribe the following formula: “Approving the Plan of the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, I solemnly declare and promise, in the presence of God and this Board, that I will faithfully endeavor to carry into effect 23 all the articles and provisions of said Plan, and to promote the great design of the Seminary.” “The Board of Directors, by Section 12, is empowered to examine into the whole course of instruction and study in the Seminary, and in general to superintend, and endeavor to promote, its interests; and by Section 138, it is required to make, in writing, a detailed and faithful report of the state of the Seminary to every General Assembly. “By Section 1, of Article 8, the Board of Directors is author- ized to exercise all control of the funds belonging to the in- stitution, hitherto exercised by the General Assembly, as far as can be done consistently with the will of the testators and donors, fixing the salaries of the professors and regulating the amount required for the endowment of scholarships or pro- fessorships. By Section 2, all matters relating to finance, fixing salaries of professors, and the extent of endowment to aid students, shall be submitted by the Board of Directors to the Board of Trustees for their approval. “The Committee is advised that a large portion of the funds held for the use of Princeton Seminary is subject to the following condition imposed by the donors in making their gifts: “That the Seminary shall continue under the supervision and control of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, known as the Old School General Assembly, and its successors, and that the leading doctrines declared in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Presbyterian Church, as these doctrines were understood and explained by the Old School General Assembly, shall continue to be taught in the Seminary.” ‘‘How far the General Assembly may interfere in the event of the failure of the Board of Trustees to conform to the conditions upon which these gifts were made, we do not deem it necessary to express any opinion. “The legal title to these gifts, whatever may be the con- ditions upon which they are held, is in the civil corporation created by the laws of the State of New Jersey, and the man- agement, control and disbursement of the funds, subject to the conditions aforesaid, are also possessed by that civil corporation. ‘The donors and their legal representatives un- doubtedly have the right to invoke the aid of a civil court to compel compliance with the conditions of their gifts. As the gifts were not made to the General Assembly, and are not held in trust for the General Assembly, but for the Seminary, it is plain that there is a clear distinction between the legal rights of the donors and their representatives, and the legal rights of the General Assembly and the Church. 24 “The plan of control and management of the Board of Directors of Princeton Seminary, so far as its relation to the General Assembly is concerned, it is claimed, was modified by the compact of 1870, by which the General Assembly, it 1s claimed, surrendered to Princeton and the other existing Seminaries its right of control under their plan of govern- ment, and retained simply the right to veto the appointment of professors, and in some seminaries to veto the election of directors. This was done, it is claimed, in order to place all the seminaries reporting to the General Assembly on an equal footing; so that the control of the General Assembly, under present relations, is confined to a veto of the appointment of professors and in certain cases of directors. ‘As we have seen the power or right of veto either of the election of directors or professors, without adequate provision for its enforcement in cases of disobedience to its mandates, is, so far as effective control is concerned, practically value- less. “The Board whose acts are vetoed, having the power either to continue the person vetoed in office, or nominate his successor, is in command of the situation. “As illustrating the extent of the control of the civil cor- poration holding title to and the management of the property of Princeton Seminary, attention may be called to what might happen in the event of a difference occurring between the Board of Directors, on whom devolves the appointment of the professors and the general management of the Seminary, and the Board of Trustees of the civil corporation, which pays the salaries and controls the finances. In the event of such difference, the Board of ‘Trustees might refuse to provide for or pay any salary of a professor appointed by the Board of Directors. Should the Board of Trustees refuse to pay the salary of a professor whose appointment they did not approve, and with whom they had no contract relation, it is difficult to see how they could be compelled to do so. Having the power to refuse to pay salaries, it might be able to destroy the usefulness of the Seminary, or compel the Board of Directors to appoint only such men as professors and teachers as the 'l'rustees might dictate or approve. “Without assuming that such differences and their results are at all probable, the Committee deems it its duty to call the attention of the General Assembly to what is possible under existing legal relations.”’ (Minutes G. A., 1893, pp. 29 to 32.) Without dissenting in any respect from the conclusions reached by the committee of 1893, or minimizing in the 25 slightest the plain dangers it pointed out, it is fair to state in this connection that there is now no disposition on the part of the Trustees of the Seminary to do otherwise than carry out in good faith the purpose of the Church in estab- lishing the Seminary. (See ordinance of Board of Trustees passed December 7, 1924, respecting execution of instructions of General Assembly regarding management and disposal of trust property held by corporation. Charter and Plan, p. 48.) At a conference held by the Committee with the Board of Trustees at Princeton, on November 23, 1926, the Board authorized the Committee to obtain the opinion of counsel learned in the law, particularly the law in New Jersey, upon the validity and advisability of having one Board, eliminating the dual government which now prevails and creating one Board of Control. The Committee has obtained such opinion from New Jersey counsel, and such opinion coincides with the report of the Committee made to the Assembly of 1893, from which we have just quoted. ‘The Special Committee in 1893 reported that it had not yet reached any conclusion as to what method should be adopted by the Church, either of securing a more effective control over the property and teaching of existing seminaries, or of securing control of the teaching and the property of future seminaries, believing that the Church should first be informed as to the legal status of the seminaries and the control to be exercised by the Church over their teaching and property, in order that free discussion might be had on the part of those interested in this important subject, to the end that whatever decision was finally made might be the result of careful deliberation and reached with the free and intelligent consent of all parties to be affected by the action of the General Assembly. The Committee was enlarged and continued, and in 1894 pre- sented another exhaustive report evidencing careful study and consideration, in which it repeated its conclusion, that the property held by the civil corporation owning the property of the theological seminaries was not expressly held in trust for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church or subject to its control, management or disposition by the terms of their charters and added: “By the terms of the compact of 1870 and the plan of re- union the supervision and control exercised by the General Assembly over the various theological seminaries, it is claimed, is limited to the exercise of the right of approval or veto of the appointment of professors. In addition to this, each seminary reports annually to the General Assembly its receipts, disbursements, the number of students and the 26 number of graduates, with such special information as the various Boards in charge of these institutions may see fit to communicate. “The foregoing, however, is not all of the control possessed by the General Assembly over the teaching of the theological ’ seminaries. It has greater power which it may exercise, if occasion arises, unless by the terms of reunion and the com- pact of 1870 it has surrendered the same. According to the plan of government of Princeton, Western, McCormick, Danville, and Omaha, the General Assembly has the right to control the election of the Boards of Directors, to whom are entrusted the appointment of professors and the manage- ment of the seminary generally, save and except the holding of the title to property, its management, sale, disposition, and investment. “Under the original plan of the seminaries, known as the Old School seminaries, the General Assembly had the power to remove the professors, as well as to approve or veto their appointment. In order to secure uniformity of teaching, in so far as it is practicable, the General Assembly could, under the power thus possessed over the seminaries named, unless the power has been surrendered by the compact of 1870, issue such instructions as might secure such uniformity of teaching. But the General Assembly has, by the terms of the | charters of the civil corporations, no direct control over the property of the seminaries, except over such property as it has given them. ‘The power vested in the General Assembly by the Consti- tution of the Presbyterian Church, to try by judicial process those who occupy a ministerial relation to the Church, and are acting as teachers, and the power of discipline, cannot be sald to be control over the seminaries, affecting their teaching and property. While it is true, that under these powers the General Assembly may reach individuals, and thus directly affect the teaching in the seminaries, we do not regard the exercise of these powers as within the term ‘control.’ ‘How far the compact of 1870 and the terms of reunion affected the powers of the General Assembly, which up to that time it possessed and exercised, we do not deem it necessary to discuss or to express any opinion. It is sufficient for the purpose of this Report to say that since the compact of 1870 the General Assembly has substantially exercised no other control over the seminaries than that provided for by that compact, and whatever dormant and unexercised powers it possesses are limited as herein stated, and have not affected either the teaching or the property of the seminaries.” (Min., G. A., 1894, pp. 10, 11.) 27 “The charters of existing seminaries cannot be changed, and no new or additional power over the management of these seminaries can be exercised by the General Assembly, without their consent. If the Assembly’s powers are to be enlarged, and if the veto power conferred by the compact of 1870 is to be made effective, changes must be made in the charters of the respective seminaries, and these changes cannot be made unless the seminaries consent thereto. “The General Assembly of 1892, that created this Com- mittee, by its resolutions declared that the Church should have direct connection with and control of its theological seminaries, and that it desired this Committee to report to the General Assembly such action as in its judgment would result in a still closer relation between the Assembly and its seminaries than at present exists. “Two things are clear from these directions or resolutions: “First, that the connection with or control over the the- ological seminaries desired by the Church is a direct one. Second, that such connection or control is one that is not now exercised, and should be in fact, as well as in name, direct control over teaching and property. A closer relation than now exists is a relation that will enable the General Assembly to exercise a control over the teaching and property of the seminaries either not now possessed or exercised by it, and to enforce this control when it so desires. “The Committee, in its former Report, called attention to the fact that the power or right of veto, without adequate provision for its enforcement in cases of disobedience, is valueless, and that the veto of the election of professors, without legal power to enforce the same, is to place the body possessing the right to veto absolutely in the power of the body whose acts are thus vetoed. “It is possible, under the existing methods of control, for corporations or Boards in which is vested the power of appoint- ment of professors and control of property, to divert the funds committed to their keeping to other uses than that of theo- logical education in the Standards of the Presbyterian Church, and to elect and retain professors whose teaching is destructive of the faith of the Church, and all this may be done against the protest and veto of the General Assembly, without legal _ power on the part of the Assembly to prevent it. “Tt seems clear to the Committee, therefore, in the light of the resolutions under which it was appointed, and in view of the experience of the Church, that whatever plan is recom- mended by the Committee should contain a provision for the enforcement of the rights and powers possessed by the General Assembly. 28 “The Committee recognizes that whatever change is recommended in existing methods ought to meet the hearty approval and command the hearty co-operation of the seminaries affected by it; and that whatever obligations exist with regard to the seminaries in being at the time of reunion, and that whatever difficulties, legal or otherwise, may be found in making the suggested changes In the govern- ment of such seminaries, the General Assembly should not be absolutely controlled in its action on this all-important matter by reason thereof. The General Assembly should recognize the natural division of the subject into (1) the care and control of existing seminaries, and (2) provision for the control of seminaries to be hereafter organized. “The Committee is of the opinion that whatever plans may be adopted by the General Assembly with reference to the seminaries existing at the time of reunion should be adopted without impairment of any of the rights of the General Assembly or of said seminaries which may have accrued by reason of the compact of 1870, but the Committee expresses the earnest hope that all of said seminaries will, as soon as possible, see their way clear to conform thereto, in order to a uniform plan with the minimum of effective control and the maximum of liberty to the various seminaries in the manage- ment of their affairs, and that all seminaries hereafter or- ganized shall be organized on the plan, and their charters shall contain the provisions recommended in this Report to be adopted by existing seminaries. “After a full consideration of the subject assigned the Committee, and after a very extended investigation of the management by other denominations of their theological seminaries, and in the light of the experience of our own Church, your Committee unanimously agrees on the following fundamental principles as controlling the future management of the theological education of the ministry of our Church, and embodies the same in two resolutions, as follows: “Resolved, That it is the judgment of this Committee that the instruction given in the theological seminaries of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America should be under the control and direction of that Church. ‘Resolved, That all funds and property held for the purpose of theological instruction shall be used only for theological education in the doctrines set forth in the Standards of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. “The highest of all offices upon this earth is that of the true minister of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. A most umportant and vital function of the Church is to direct, 29 supervise and control the education of its own ministry. Loyalty to its divine head, fidelity to truth, preservation of its own life demand that it shall keep essentially in its own hands the discharge of this function through whatever agency it may be exercised. “Your Committee is of the opinion that in some form the theological education of the ministry of our Church and the property and funds held for the purpose of giving that educa- tion should be under the control of the Church, as represented by the General Assembly. The extent, character and mode of that control, they recognize, afford a basis for a wide difference of opinion, but they believe that there ought to be no substantial difference of opinion in the Church that such control is absolutely necessary to the maintenance of the faith of the Church, and that to secure a ministry educated in the faith and according to the policy of the Church; not only the education of the ministry, but the funds and property held in trust for that purpose, should be under the direct and efficient control of the Church through its General Assembly. The Committee further recognizes that the existing method does not secure to the Church that direct control of property and teaching to which the Church is entitled. This control should be secured to the Church in such a way that it will be effective in the only cases in which it is really needed, viz., when the Boards charged with the immediate supervision and management of the property and teaching disobey the mandates of the Church, as expressed by the General Assem- bly. “Tt is clear to the Committee that no member of the Pres- byterian Church should be requested to give property for the purpose of theological education, according to the Standards of the Church, unless the Church shall secure to the donor the permanent application of the property to that purpose. The burden of preserving the property thus given should not be cast upon the donor or his legal representatives, but upon the Church, which should so protect the gift that it will be applied solely to the purposes which the donor had in view at the time of the gift. “Such donations or bequests become sacred trusts, which should be carefully guarded, both out of regard for the wishes of the living and of reverence for the memory of the dead. No alienation of funds or perversion from the original intention to have them used in connection with the Presbyterian Church should ever be possible. “The Committee recognizes that the fullest confidence in the honesty and integrity of those charged with the adminis- 30 tration of the trusts should exist on the part of the Church, and that the administrations of the trusts should have the fullest confidence in the Church, as represented by the General Assembly, in order to that co-operation which is essential to the best results, under the ministry of the Holy Spirit, in securing to our beloved Church an adequate supply of competent, consecrated ministers. “The solution of the difficult question presented to your Committee, and which your Committee now desires to transfer to the General Assembly, can only be attained under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and by the exercise of the largest forbearance, but with faithful adherence to funda- mental principles, and the largest freedom in matters of detail consistent with loyalty to the faith and the best in- terests of the Church as a whole, and to the trusts created by the donors of property now possessed by the various theo- logical seminaries. “Your Committee recognizes that a very wide field is afforded for reform and change in existing methods of man- aging seminaries. It feels that no beneficial change can be accomplished without the hearty co-operation of those affected thereby, and that the plans recommended by it must commend themselves to the Church at large, and to those immediately and directly connected with their ex- ecution, in order that the plans may have a fair test. “Your Committee recommends that the following changes be made in the management of the existing theological seminaries of the Church: “(a) ‘That the seminaries should so amend their charters that all of their funds and property, subject to the terms and conditions of existing or specific trusts, shall be declared to be held by them in trust for the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, for the purpose of theological education according to the Standards of said Church, and that no part of the funds and property so held in trust shall be used for any other purpose than for theological education in the doctrines set forth in the Standards of the Presby- terian Church in the United States of America. ‘(b) ‘That the seminaries should so amend their charters that the election of the Trustees, Directors, or Commissioners, or whatever the bodies governing either the teaching or property, or both, shall be named, shall be subject to the approval of the next succeeding General Assembly, and that no election shall take effect until approved by the General Assembly; failure of the General Assembly to which said elections are reported for approval to act thereon, shall be regarded as approval of said elections. 31 ‘“(c) That the seminaries should so amend their charters that the election, appointment, or transfer of all professors and teachers in said seminaries shall be submitted to the next succeeding General Assembly for its approval, and that no such election, appointment, or transfer shall take effect, nor shall any professor or teacher be inducted into office until his election, appointment, or transfer shall have been approved by said General Assembly; failure of the General Assembly to which the said election, appointments, or trans- fers are reported for approval to act thereon, shall be re- garded as approval thereof; and that all of said professors or teachers shall be either ministers or members in good standing of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. ‘“(d) That the several seminaries, in amending their charters as heretofore requested, shall provide in the charters that in the event of the violation of any of the terms of said amendments, or the misuse or diversion of the funds or property held by them, then the General Assembly shall be empowered to provide against such violation of the provisions of said charters, and for the enforcement of the same, and for the protection of the trusts on which said property and funds are held, in such manner, and in the name of such person or corporation as it may direct by resolution certified by its Clerk, in any civil court having jurisdiction over the corporations whose charters are so amended. “The changes thus proposed in the charters of existing Seminaries, and: the features to be embodied in the charters of seminaries hereafter organized, are substantially these: “The charter will declare the trust on which the property is held, as provided in (a), so that the gifts made to the cor- poration need not be accompanied by the declaration of the donor that the property is held in trust for the purposes for which it is donated. As the case now stands, where a gift is made to one of the existing seminaries without any express condition. being attached by the donor, the corporation holds it free from any condition or trust other than that provided by the general purpose for which the corporation was incorporated. The donors or their legal representatives in such cases are powerless to enforce the application of the property to the uses which they had in mind, but which they did not make express conditions when the gifts were made. Every donor hereafter will feel that, in making gifts of property to the theological seminaries of our Church with their charters so amended, the trust will attach to the do- nation upon its receipt by the corporation, and the pro- visions of the charter will inhere in the gift, and become a 32 part of it, for all time to come. It seems to the Committee that no objection whatever can be made to this proposed change in the charters of the various seminaries, and to the embodiment of this provision in the charters of seminaries hereafter to be organized. “In the matter of the election of the bodies governing teaching and property, it is proposed to place in the charters a provision that the election of members of the governing bodies will be subject to the approval of the General Assem- bly, and that no election shall take effect until thus approved. Under the existing charters, in some cases, it has been con- tended that any such right of approval of the election of the members of the governing bodies on the part of the General Assembly would be ultra vires, and in derogation of the charter powers conferred on the Directors, or whatever the governing body may be called. It must be conceded that no such objection would lie if the powers were conferred on the General Assembly by the charter. This provision does not give the General Assembly power to elect the Directors, Trustees or Commissioners. That power will remain in the Boards themselves, including the power to fill vacancies. It simply gives the General Assembly power to approve of the elections thus made, without which approval no election shall take effect. It seems to the Committee that this secures the minimum of effective control, with the maximum of liberty to the various Boards charged with the administration of the details of each seminary. — “In the matter of the control of the teaching the same general plan should be adopted. The respective Boards will have the power of selection and election of professors and teachers, subject to the approval of the General Assembly, without which approval no election shall take effect, and no eacher or professor shall be inducted into office until that approval is given. The full power, therefore, of selection and election is left with the various Boards as it now is, but the power of approval by the General Assembly being made a charter provision, no objection could then be made that the Directors or governing body were conferring powers which they could not delegate. It seems to the Committee that if the approval of professors and teachers is to exist at all in the General Assembly, it should exist in the form which will enable the General Assembly to enforce its rights. The pro- vision to be embodied in each charter, that the General Assembly shall have power to enforce, by process in the civil courts if necessary, the rights conferred upon it, is simply providing a method for the protection of the property 3d and teaching, to the extent that it is granted to the General Assembly by the other provisions of the charters. “The existing situation leaves it open to grave doubt whether the General Assembly, if it should become necessary, has the power to enforce the rights possessed by it under the constitution or by compact. This amendment to the various charters is inserted for the purpose of making effective the rights granted to the General Assembly and possessed by it under the charters. Whatever powers are possessed by the General Assembly, and whatever rights are conferred upon it, there should exist every necessary provision for the en- forcement and protection of these rights and powers. ‘The Committee, in declaring that all funds and property held for the purpose of theological education shall be used only for theological education in the doctrines set forth in the Standards of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, regard this as essential for the maintenance of our system of faith. Such a resolution does not bind the Church for all time to come to her Standards as they now exist. It does not deprive the Church of the power to revise her Confession of Faith, or to adopt such interpretation of her Standards through her authorized channels and con- stitutional courts as she may find necessary. “It simply says that whatever is the faith of the Church, as recognized in its accepted and authorized Standards, shall be the system of truth to be taught in her theological sem- inaries. ‘lo teach in accordance with this shall be the pledge and promise of each professor, and to guide the instruction in harmony with this shall be the duty of each Director, ‘Trustee or Commissioner. “Some question may be raised as to the power of the various legislatures under which the respective corporations of existing seminaries have been incorporated to make the changes recommended in this Report. Without entering into a discussion of the objections that may be made on this ground, it is sufficient to say that the Committee, as advised, can see no legal difficulty in the way of making those changes, should any or all of the various corporations desire to have them made. “Tt is to be borne in mind that the contemplated amenc- ments to the charters cannot in any way affect specific trusts attached to specific gifts inconsistent with the amendments. If any such exist they would remain in full force. Should the Church adopt the recommendations made by the Committee and the Boards of the various seminaries agree to carry out the will of the Church, the Committee feels confident that no o4 legal difficulty exists to prevent this being done. If the will exists to do the thing recommended the way will be found in which to do it. “The first and main question is, Are the changes recom- mended by the Committee wise, and should they be adopted as the policy of the Church in dealing with the matter of theological education, and with the property held in trust for that purpose? Will the Church settle on what it deems the best plan to secure to itself effective control of the most important part of its work—the education of its ministry? Having settled the plan, and it not being illegal or against public policy, as it cannot be, and all parties being actuated by the common purpose to secure its adoption and proper execution, no legal difficulty, in the judgment of the Com- mittee, will be found to exist to prevent its being done. “Resolution No. 3, recommended by the Committee for adoption, provides for the appointment of a Committee to confer with the various seminaries with a view to securing the necessary changes in the charters provided by the amend- ments recommended in this Report. Each seminary has matters of detail concerning gifts, provisions of charters and mode of operation, different from the others. But the Committee deems it wholly unnecessary, in view of its former Report, to enter on a discussion of these details, the adjust- ment and harmonizing of which with the suggested amend- ments would better be left to the Committee whose appoint- ment is recommended in connection with the various Boards in control of the seminaries. “The Committee has given a great deal of time and thought to the subjects embraced in the Report and to the various changes recommended by it to be made in the charters of the seminaries and has stated its conclusions in the matter with- out entering into needless detail, which might make the Report of unnecessary length. “The Committee recommends the adoption of the follow- ing resolutions: “First. That each and all of the seminaries of the Church be requested to secure, at the earliest moment practicable, such changes in their charters, or amendments thereto, as will provide: ‘“(a) That all of their funds and property, subject to the terms and conditions of existing or specific trusts, shall be declared to be held by them in trust for the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, for the purposes of theological education according to the Standards of said Church, and that no part of the funds and property so held 35 in trust shall be used for any other purpose than for theo- logical education in the doctrines set forth in the Standards of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. ‘“(b) That the election of the Trustees, Directors or Com- missioners, or whatever the bodies governing the teaching or property shall be named, shall be subject to the approval of the next succeeding General Assembly, and that no election shall take effect until approved by the General Assembly; failure of the General Assembly to which said elections are reported for approval to act thereon shall be regarded as approval of said elections. “(c) That the election, appointment or transfer of all professors and teachers in all seminaries shall be submitted to the next succeeding General Assembly for its approval, and that no such election, appointment or transfer shall take effect, nor shall any professor or teacher be inducted into office until his election, appointment or transfer shall have been approved by the said General Assembly; failure of the General Assembly to which the said elections, appointments or transfers are reported for approval to act thereon shall be regarded as approval thereof, and that all of said professors and teachers shall be either ministers or members in good standing of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. “(d) That in the event of the violation of any of the terms of said amendments, or the misuse or the diversion of the funds or property held by them, then the General Assembly shall be empowered to provide against such violation of the provisions of said charters, and for the enforcement of the same, and for the protection of the trusts on which said property and funds are held, in such manner, and in the name of such person or corporation, as it may direct by resolution certified by its Clerk, in any civil court having jurisdiction over the corporations whose charters are so amended. “Second. That all seminaries hereafter established or organized shall contain in their charters the foregoing pro- visions as an essential part thereof, before they shall be recog- nized as in connection with the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. “Third. That the General Assembly, having adopted the foregoing resolutions, shall appoint a Committee of fifteen persons to confer with the various seminaries, with a view to securing their approval of said resolutions, and their consent to said changes in their charters, and for the purpose of aiding them by counsel and otherwise in securing the necessary 36 changes and amendments to the respective charters herein | recommended; it being understood that the adoption of said resolutions is without impairment of any of the rights of the General Assembly, or of said seminaries that may have accrued by the compact of 1870; and said Committee to make report to the next General Assembly for final action on this whole subject by the Assembly.” (Min. G. A., 1894, pp. 08 to 67.) There was long and earnest debate upon the report of the Committee in 1894, and a minority report was submitted, but the report of the Committee upon a yea and nay vote was 445 in the affirmative and 117 in the negative. (Min. G. A., 1894, p. 48.) The minority report presented, while it differed from the conclusions of the majority report, particularly in respect to the question of control over instruction in the seminaries, concluded with the recommendation ‘‘that if anything be lacking in the charter of any seminary, by which lack its property might be alienated from its use in supporting Pres- byterian theological instruction, such seminary be advised to strengthen its charter at that point so that such alienation shall be an impossibility.’’ (Min. G. A., 1894.) At the Assembly of 1895 the Committee on conference with the Theological Assemblies, appointed by the Assembly of 1894, reported that it had held conferences with certain seminaries and that later it had addressed a letter to each of the members of the seminaries and had received answers which are appended to the report. In this report the Com- mittee said: ‘At the said conferences, the Committee, in expressing the meaning and effect of the recommendations, said that ‘‘A’’, which is as follows: “ “That all of their funds and property, subject to the terms and conditions of existing or specified trusts, shall be declared to be held by them in trust for the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, for the purposes of theological education according to the Standards of said Church, and that no part of the funds and property so held shall be used for any other purpose than for theological education in the doctrines set forth in the Standards of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America,’ involved no change of title, trust, ownership, management or disposition of the property held by the various seminaries; conferred no trust, title, ownership or power on the General Assembly directly or indirectly, or to any of its agencies; and conferred no right of control, management or interference in 3” any way, directly or indirectly, with any of the said sem- inaries. It was simply a declaration of the use and purpose for which the funds and property were held by the respective civil corporations holding the same; and its adoption was to make plain that the funds and property of the respective civil corporations were held by them, and them alone and exclusively, for no other purpose than for theological educa- tion according to the Standards of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. As to ‘‘B,”’ which is as follows: “That the election of the trustees, directors or commis- sioners, or whatever the bodies governing the teaching or property shall be named, shall be subject to the approval of the next succeeding General Assembly, and that no election shall take effect until approved by the General Assembly; failure of the General Assembly, to which said elections are reported for approval, to act thereon, shall be regarded as approval of said elections.” ‘The Committee stated that substantially the powers here sought to be conferred on the General Assembly are now possessed by it over a majority of the seminaries; and that the adoption of ‘‘B”’ simply made plain by charter provision, and effective by charter power, the right of the General Assembly to protect what it thus possesses. “Tt also stated that “B”’ did not confer on the General Assembly the right to elect any member of the various Boards, or the right to elect others in the place of those who might be disapproved by the General Assembly, or the right to fill any vacancy in any of the Boards; and that the entire power of election and selection of the various members of these Boards was left, by ‘‘B’’, in the Boards themselves, subject only to approval by the next succeeding General Assembly. As to “C,”’ which is as follows: “That the election, appointment or transfer of all pro- fessors and teachers in all seminaries shall be submitted to the succeeding General Assembly for its approval, and that no such election, appointment or transfer shall take effect, nor shall any professor or teacher be inducted into office until his election, appointment or transfer shall have been ap- proved by the said General Assembly; failure of the General Assembly, to which the said elections, appointments or transfers are reported for approval, to act thereon, shall be regarded as approval thereof, and that all of said professors and teachers shall be either ministers or members in good standing of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.” 38 “The Committee stated that this was, in substance and in effect, what is known as the agreement of 1870. It was in- formed that two questions as to the legality of the agreement of 1870 had been raised—one as to the power of certain of the seminaries to make the agreement, and the other as to the power of the General Assembly, which is not a legal entity, to make any such agreement. ‘The Committee stated that there could be no doubt but that the Boards of the respective seminaries in 1870, in making that agreement giving to the General Assembly the right of approval or veto of the election of professors in the various seminaries, acted in good faith; and that it was be- lieved at the time when the agreement was entered into by the respective Boards that they had the power to do what they did. It also stated that the adoption of “C,” by making it a charter provision, would obviate these objections and make the agreement of 1870 valid and effective. ‘The Committee thinks that if seminary charters make the adoption of ‘“C,”’ which is in substance the agreement of 1870, of doubtful legal validity, it can only be because the charters, as viewed by the Boards holding this opinion, make the institutions undenominational and that they cannot legally be made Presbyterian, as it is eminently desirable and necessary that all the seminaries shall be. As to “D,” which is as follows: “That in the event of the violation of any of the terms of said amendments, or the misuse or diversion of the funds or property held by them, then the General Assembly shall be empowered to provide against such violation of the pro- visions of said charters and for the enforcement of the same, and for the protection of the trusts on which said property and funds are held, in such manner, and in the name of such person or corporation, as it may direct by resolution certified by its clerk, in any civil court having jurisdiction over the corporations whose charters are so amended.” “Your Committee stated that this conveys no title in the property, and vests no trust in the General Assembly; that it does not empower the Assembly directly or indirectly to interfere with the title to, or management, use and dispo- sition of the funds and property of the respective seminaries. In the case of heretical teaching on the part of any professor, no valid action could be taken by the General Assembly, until that teaching had been adjudged heretical according to the Constitution of our Church. And in ease of the violation of a charter, no sufficient remedy exists in the independent action of the civil authority, which has the right to interfere, but which cannot be compelled to do so. 39 “In view of the answers of the seminaries, as Aublened | in the Appendix, the Committee reports that Gighe and Dubuque have adopted all of the recommendations of the General Assembly.” (Min. G. A., 1895, pp. 29 to 31.) With respect to the theological seminary at Princeton the Committee’s report in 1895 stated: “The Directors and Trustees of Princeton declare that they do not antagonize, but, on the contrary, cordially acquiesce in and are in the fullest sympathy with the senti- ment of the resolutions contained in the Report of the General Assembly’s Committee of Conference with the Theological Seminaries, made to the General Assembly at its session in 1894, namely, ‘That the Church should control the in- struction given in its theological seminaries, and that the funds held for the purposes of theological instruction should be used only for such education in the doctrines set forth in the Standards of the Church.’ ”’ “The Directors and Trustees further say that they are advised by counsel learned in the law, and believe, that the charter of the seminary now embodies substantially all that the Assembly seeks to accomplish by its recommendations, and therefore deem the amendment of the charter by the insertion of the same unwise and unnecessary. “But they further say, ‘if the Assembly should still be of the opinion that such an amendment should be obtained, the Boards will endeavor to secure such action as will insure to the General Assembly the right to be represented in the courts and to enforce its proper control over the seminary and its property.” “The Committee recommends the Assembly to reply to Princeton’s offer, that while respecting the judgment of the Boards, and not prepared to say that it is incorrect, the Assembly is of the opinion that in order to put the matter beyond all possible question, it would be well for the Boards to do what they express their willingness to do, viz., to endeavor to secure such action as will insure to the General Assembly the right to be represented in the courts, and to enforce its proper control over the seminary and its property.” No action has ever been taken to amend the charter of Princeton Seminary to conform with the request of the Assembly as expressed in the preceding paragraph. An act of the legislature of New Jersey in 1898 would seem to give the General Assembly a standing in court to enforce what- ever rights it may have. But this is not enough. The Charter and By-Laws of the corporation should be revised so that litigation to establish the rights of the Assembly may never 40 be necessary. Any application to amend the Charter must necessarily be made by the Board of Trustees, and the Board of Trustees is willing to make such amendment as will insure to the Church all the rights which it seems to have been the purpose to give the General Assembly. (See ordinance of Board of Trustees of December 7, 1924.) In 1921 a special committee was appointed to visit the theological seminaries and report to the next Assembly. Upon the adoption of its report it was continued and en- larged and reported again to the Assembly of 1923. Among the recommendations in its report which were adopted by the Assembly, Recommendation No. 4 is as follows: “4. The Assembly presents with approval to the man- agement of the theological seminaries the proposal to re- organize by a combination of the functions of trustees and directors in one body elected for a definite term of years.” So far as Princeton Seminary is concerned, it has been reported to us by the Board of Trustees that at its meeting on November 12, 1923, the attention of the Board was called to the action taken by the Assembly, and it was voted to refer this matter to the Conference Committee of the Board of ‘Trustees to consider and confer with the Conference Com- mittee of the Board of Directors. A year later at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on November 10, 1924, the following action was had, as shown by the minutes: “Whereas, the General Assembly has recommended that seminaries related to the General Assembly operating under dual boards should unite those Boards; “Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the President of this Board appoint a committee of three, of which he shall be one, to meet a similar committee from the Board of Directors to consider the question of the union of the two Boards of this seminary. We recommend, subject to the approval of the Board of Directors, that the President of the Seminary be the chairman of such joint committee. “The President appointed the following: Judge Rellstab and Mr. Holden as the other members of the committee.’ It is stated by the Trustees that the Board of Directors never responded to the request for a conference upon this subject. As already stated, any change in the charter of the in- stitution must necessarily be applied for by the Board of ‘Trustees. And it has undoubted power to make such change as it desires without consultation with others. The manner of doing this is pointed out by the counsel retained by the Comuittee at the request of the Board of Trustees, and there seems to be no legal obstacle in the way of making such 41 changes as the General Assembly has indicated a desire to have and the Trustees are willing to make. The Committee cap discover no reason why the will of the Assembly should not now be given effect. At the conference between this Committee and the Board of Directors it was reported that some counsel had advised against a union of the two Boards. The independent counsel retained by the Committee at the request of the Board of Trustees calls attention to the laws of New Jersey enacted in 1918, and amended in 1920, which provides explicitly for the amendment of the charter or act or certificate of incorporation of any charitable or educational corporation of the State of New Jersey, however incorporated or created, which shall desire to change its corporate name or the number of its officers, managers or trustees; or their or any of their qualifica- tions or terms of office or the manner or scope of its work within the same general lines as is expressed in its charter or act or certificate of incorporation. The provisions for effecting such changes are quite simple. Princeton University has since taken advantage of the power conferred by the act. It would seem that since the Board of Trustees of the Theological Seminary at Princeton are willing to apply for a change of the charter of the institution there might be adopted, after confer- ence with a committee of the General Assembly and a Com- mittee of the present Board of Directors, such provisions as would guarantee to the Seminary and to the Church all the benefits which have heretofore resulted from having a Board of Directors appointed by the Assembly and eliminate all the inconvenience and difference of opinion that have occurred by reason of having two separate Boards, each claiming in some instances to have the right of exercising or at least participating in the exercise of the same authority and power. As illustrating the need of such action the Board of ‘Trustees has suggested to this Committee certain facts and incidents to which we now make a brief reference. Up to 1870, the date of the reunion of the Old and New Schools, the General Assembly had exercised the power of electing professors, deciding upon their salaries, and making appropriations for the current expenses of the seminary. As there was no pro- vision in the charter of the Seminary giving to the Assembly or to any one else any control over the funds in the hands of the Board, the Board of Trustees, we are advised, adopted an ordinance or by-law, authorizing the General Assembly to make appropriations which would be paid upon the certificate of the Stated Clerk of the Assembly. At the time of the re- union in 1870 one of the difficulties in the way of reunion was 42 the theological seminary. All of the seminaries were not willing to accept the Princeton plan, and allow the Assembly to elect professors. Acting upon a Memorial presented by Union Seminary to the Assembly of 1870, in which the im- portance of some uniform system of ecclesiastical supervision over the theological seminaries was pointed out, it was pro- posed by the directors of Union Seminary that the General Assembly adopt it as a rule and plan in the exercise of pro- prietorship and control over the theological seminaries, that insofar as the election of professors was concerned the Assem- bly would commit the same to their respective boards of directors, authorizing the directors of each theological sem- inary to appoint its professors and report the same to the General Assembly, and that no such appointment of pro- fessor should be considered as a complete election if disap- proved by a majority of the Assembly. This Memorial, having been referred to the Committee on Theological Sem- inaries, a lengthy report was submitted by that committee to the Assembly. It was pointed out that the various seminaries in the church were founded at different times and in different ways; that their administration was different in method, and that in some respects uniformity was impracticable and un- desirable, but that it considered the proposal in the Memorial of Union Seminary as the ‘‘only mode of unifying all the seminaries of the Presbyterian church as to ecclesiastical supervision so far as unification is in any way desirable.”’ The Committee reported its “‘plan and resolution” to the Assembly. Paragraph One accepted the offer of Union Seminary to invest the General Assembly with the right of veto in that institution and invited all seminaries not then under the control of the General Assembly to adopt a similar rule. Paragraph Two provided that the boards of directors in seminaries under the control of the Assembly should be authorized to elect professors subject to the veto of the General Assembly. Paragraph Three was a resolution pro- viding for the appointment of a committee “to propose such alterations in the ‘plan’ for seminaries now under the control of the Assembly as shall be deemed necessary to carry into effect the principle above stated.’’ Paragraph Four provided that in case any seminary already under the control of the Assembly should so prefer, its plan should remain unaltered. This action of the Assembly on the Memorial from Union Seminary is usually referred to as ‘“‘the compact of 1870.” It dealt with three different classes of seminaries. With each class it dealt differently. In the first class was Union Sem- inary alone, the seminary which presented the memorial. As to this class the “compact” was an acceptance of Union 43 Seminary’s offer to give the Assembly the veto power. The second elass consisted of all the seminaries already under the control of the Assembly. As to them, the “compact” was an expression of willingness on the part of the Assembly to permit those seminaries, if they so desired, to elect their own professors, subject to veto by the Assembly, and of a willing- ness to amend the “plan” of such seminaries accordingly. We are advised that the “compact”’ was not, as is sometimes supposed, a complete agreement between the General Assem- bly and all of the seminaries. It was in fact a complete agree- ment with only one seminary, that is, Union Seminary. As to all the others it was only a starting point for further negotiations. It seems plain that so far as this action of the Assembly is concerned, the seminaries occupy entirely differ- ent positions. As to Union Seminary, for instance, the “compact” was an agreement which, by means of the veto power, established a connection, and the only connection between the Assembly and Union Seminary. The extent of the Assembly’s power as to veto was to be measured wholly by the ‘‘compact.” As to Princeton, the situation was different. The “compact” without more meant nothing. The veto power in the case of Princeton resulted not from the “compact,” but from amendments to the “plan.” Con- sequently as to Princeton, the extent of the Assembly’s power as to veto is measured solely by the “plan.” It seems some- times to have been supposed by some that by the ‘“‘compact of 1870” the General Assembly relinquished control over the instruction at Princeton seminary, the election and removal of professors and over other matters which it had theretofore exercised, and conferred such power upon the Board of Directors; but the “compact,” as we are advised, was not a compact with Princeton or any other seminary then under the control of the Assembly. Pursuant to the proposal of the “eompact of 1870” the Princeton “‘plan’? was amended so as to vest in the Directors the power to elect Directors and professors, increase or diminish the number of professors and fix professors’ salaries, the election and removal of professors to be subject to the veto of the General Assembly. (Min. G. A., 1870, p. 65. Charter and Plan, Art. III, Sees. 1 and 2.) This provision is the source of the authority of the Board of Directors and does not change the relationship which had always existed between the Assembly and the Board of Directors, the relationship, as we understand it, of principal and agent. Other provisions of the ‘“‘plan”’ make it clear that the Board of Directors remains as it always has been, fully subject to the orders of the General Assembly. For the sake of clearness, it may be repeated that the Board of Directors 44 is not a legal entity. It has no legal existence as a part of the corporation. It is merely an agency of the General Assembly and we are advised that it can assert no rights adverse to the Assembly. Keeping in mind these observations, it will be seen how differences of opiriion have arisen between the Board of Trustees and the Board of Directors. The Board of ‘Trustees considered itself the only body constituted by law for the operation of the Seminary. The Board of Directors con- sidered that it had received certain authority from the General Assembly, and that even if certain actions of the Directors must receive the approval of the Board of ‘Trustees, the latter board had no power to disapprove; for example, in the fixing of the salaries of professors it was claimed that the Board of Directors had that right, and that if funds were in hand the Board of Trustees was required to appropriate for the sums fixed by the directors. At a joint meeting of the Board of Trustees and the Board of Directors on December 22, 1870, the following resolution was adopted: “Resolved, that we understand it to be the meaning of the resolution of the last Assembly relative to this subject (vide Min., 1870, Sec. 2, p. 66), of matters relating to the finances, fixing the salaries of the professors, the extent of endowment and the aid of students, shall be by the Board of Directors submitted to the Trustees for their approval; that the acts of the Board of Directors of the Princeton Theological Seminary affecting the finances of the institution must receive the approval of the Board of Trustees as a condition of their validity and binding force, and that the two bodies adopt such measures to secure conference and co-operation in such matters as they may deem expedient.”’ For a time, with this understanding, there appears to have been no friction. But about 1905, when a legacy of approxi- mately one and a half million dollars was bequeathed to the Seminary it is stated by the Trustees that the Directors, the Faculty joing with them, undertook at that time to assume the distribution of this large sum without any refer- ence to the Board of Trustees. The Trustees deemed it necessary at their meeting December 5, 1905, to take the following action: “Whereas, in considering and acting upon the report of the Committee on Conference on the use and employment of the Gelston-Winthrop Memorial Fund, the Boards of Di- rectors and ‘Trustees at their meetings of October 10th and November 14th respectively, have arrived at conclusions differing in some respects; 45 And Whereas, it has been the wish of all the members of this Board that in the use of this great benefaction a method and result should be reached which would be both wise and satisfactory, and any difference between the Directors and Trustees is a thing greatly to be deprecated; Therefore, Resolved, that the Board of Directors and faculty be invited to a conference upon the subject matters of differ- ence, in the hope that a better understanding and a har- monious determination may be attained; Resolved, that such conference be held in the old seminary library, Princeton, on Tuesday, December 19th next at two o’clock in the afternoon; Resolved, that the secretary do forthwith send to the secretary of the Board of Directors and to the clerk of the faculty a notification, making known the time, place and purpose of the conference, and to each member of this Board a notice of like scope, and further, to send to each. member of the Board of Directors a brief note of the points of differ- ence between the Boards as revealed by their official action.” Conferences between the two Boards were held later, with the result that the bequest of a million and a half dollars was so distributed as to meet with the assent, if not the approval, of the Trustees, the Directors and the faculty; but the in- cident demonstrated, in the belief of those members of the Board of Trustees who have been longest in service, that agree- ments may be forgotten, and as a result of such forgetfulness difference, if not discord, may be produced. After this incident the Board of Trustecs adopted an ordinance (p. 54, Charter and Plan), providing for the ap- pointment of a Standing Committee on Conference of three members of the Board of Trustees, three members of the Board of Directors and three members of the Faculty. It is evident that this method of securing co-operation and harmony has not been a success. We are advised that the Conference Committee is seldom called together, and that in the matter of differences arising during the past two or three years it was not called together at all. Another plan which was followed by the Trustees for a while was to fill vacancies as they occurred to a limited extent by electing members of the Board of Directors as Trustees. It was thought that by this interlocking of the two bodies each would be promptly and fully informed of the other’s actions and working at cross purposes would thus be avoided. We are advised that this plan also proved unsuccessful and that it has been abandoned to the extent that only one Director now remains as a ‘Trustee, and there seems to be no purpose on the part of the Trustees to continue this plan. 46 If these differences between the two Boards have been ina measure harmonized, it is certain that’ in the matter of recent elections, carrying with them the appropriation of money, there has been a complete failure to obtain co- operation between the two boards. Attention has already been called to the action of the Board of Trustees on No- vember 12, 1923, calling attention to the recommendation of the Assembly of 1923 proposing a reorganization of the theological seminaries by a combination of the functions of trustees and directors in one body, and the further action of the Board of Trustees on November 10, 1924, requesting the Board of Directors to appoint a committee of three to meet a similar committee of the Trustees to consider the question of the union of the two Boards, and failure on the part of the Board of Directors, as claimed by the Trustees, to appoint such a committee. Subsequent to that time and during the course of the proceedings which resulted in the appointment of this committee by the Assembly of 1926 the controversies in the Faculty and in the Board of Directors seems to have been a matter of concern with the Board of Trustees, which seem to have a feeling of responsibility in the matter, for we find that at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on November 9, 1925, the Board adopted the following resolution: “Inasmuch as any action of the Board of Directors in the matter of the retirement of professors and the election of new professors involves the finances of the seminary, which finances are the trust of this Board, the Board of Trustees respectfully requests the Board of Directors to take no action until a conference of the two Boards shall have been had.” “And that this action be communicated to the Board of Directors at its meeting tomorrow.” It appears that the only member of the Board of Directors now remaining on the Board of Trustees requested that his vote against the adoption of the resolution be entered upon the record, and we are advised that no conference upon the subject has been had between the two Boards. These recitals will be sufficient to show not only how differences may arise out of having two Boards, but how differences have already arisen which should be avoided. The Committee believes that aside from differences which have existed or may exist between the two Boards, it is highly important that the charter of the Seminary should at least be amended in accordance with the recommendations of the Assembly of 1894, which the Trustees and Directors of Princeton Seminary agreed to do in 1895, assuring to the Assembly the unquestioned rights suggested in the negotia- 47 tions between the special committee and the seminaries. But we further believe that a reorganization providing for one Board of administration at the Seminary is no less im- portant, and that it will avoid differences and promote harmony and result in a defining of the duties of the faculty and the officers which has never yet been done, and which we believe has very largely contributed to, if it has not been responsible for the differences in the faculty which have had so much humiliating publicity. Concluding Summary of Findings The Committee, in view of the facts recited in this report and appendix, and also in view of persistent impressions forced upon it in the many personal contacts through numer- ous and prolonged and patient hearings, would summarize its convictions as follows: 1. The root and source of the serious difficulties at Princeton, and the greatest obstacle to the removal of these difficulties, seem to be in the plan of government by two Boards. One illustration suffices to show how differences have arisen and yet more serious differences may arise between the two Boards. Section 2 of Article VIII of the “Plan” provides that “all matters relating to finance, fixing the salaries of Professors, the extent of endowment and aid of students, shall be, by the Board of Directors, submitted to the Trustees of the Seminary for approval.” The ‘Trustees construe this section as requiring their approval of the amount of salaries paid the Professors, their approval of the distribution of funds in aid of students receiving help from the Seminary and the extent of endowments. ‘he Directors contend that the Trustees have no participating voice in fixing such amounts or making such distribution, their only function being to make appropriation of the amounts fixed by the Directors, provided only that the Trustees have funds in hand out of which to make such appropriations. And the Directors have assumed to control and apply funds given for endowment without first consulting the Trustees. It is obvious that such a divergence of opinion in construing what seems to be language which is unambiguous has led to an undue contention for technical rights. (See resolution of Board of Trustees, December 5, 1905, p. 85; also statement of Dr. John Dixon, p. 88 in the Appendix.) In addition to the above statement see the illuminating letter by Dr. Paul Martin to the Chairman of the Assembly’s Committee, in the Appendix (p. 102), 48 2. The reports of divisions and hostilities in Princeton circles have not been exaggerated. These divisions and hostilities are not confined to the Seminary campus, but are found in the Boards, and, through the Alumni, the report of them has gone all over the world. And because of these things the good name of Princeton is being injured, and the effect of the historic testimony of the Seminary to the Re- formed Faith in its purity and integrity is being jeopardized. 3. Under present conditions the drift of Seminary control seems to be away from the proper service of the Church and toward an aggressive defense of the policy of a group. The citations in the report and appendix show: a. The representatives of this group in the Princeton Faculty declare there are opposite attitudes so serious ‘that no peace between them is either possible or desirable.” (Appendix, p. 75.) b. Furthermore, this group feels that of right it must rule, that it “must by every means in its power seek to secure its rightful control of the life of the institution.” (Appendix, p. 70. Also paragraph 3 on T., p. 210.) 4. ‘The Committee reports with deep regret its feeling of failure to effect reconciliation between estranged brethren in the Faculty. The very latest conference with the: Faculty left upon the minds of the Committee the unavoidable con- viction that certain Professors were determined not to say that they could trust the doctrinal loyalty of some of their colleagues, no matter how definitely or how earnestly those colleagues affirmed their doctrinal loyalty. A most dis- couraging aspect of the whole situation is that this trans- parent violation of the Master’s command that His followers should love and be kindly affectioned one toward another, so far as the Committee was permitted to see, was not having a controlling influence in the fellowship of the Faculty. (Appen- dix, p. 75.) 5. Finally, the Assembly’s Committee is fully convinced: a. ‘That there is nothing in the sore situation at Princeton that should not yield and yield readily to the grace of Jesus Christ. 5, That the President and all the Professors are loyal to the Standards of the Church, and to the task of teaching and defending the conservative interpretation of the Reformed Faith in its purity and integrity. c. That no one in the Seminary Faculty or in either governing Boards advocates or shows desire for such in- 49 clusive policy as would harbor or encourage either in the Seminary or in the Church-at-large any influences even tending toward departure from the historic position of Princeton Seminary. d. ‘That what is needed is whole hearted, brotherly co- operation in reorganizing the plan of governing Princeton Seminary. We therefore unanimously submit the following recom- mendations. Recommendations The Committee, after due consideration, unanimously offers the following recommendations as its best judgment for a procedure on the part of the Assembly, having in mind the welfare of the Seminary and the preservation of all the precious history, traditions, sentiments, and loyalties of a century of service to the Church and the Kingdom of God. 1. That the Assembly appoint a committee of nine mem- bers of whom at least three shall be ruling elders of the Pres- byterian Church in the United States of America who are learned in the law, said committee to be constituted by the continuance of the present Committee and the appointment by the Moderator of four additional members, two of whom shall be members of the Board of Trustees of Princeton Seminary, and two of whom shall be members of the Board of Directors of Princeton Seminary, with the further provision that two of the four new members of the Com- mittee shall be ministers and two of them ruling elders; that said Committee proceed to confer with the Board of Trustees of the Theological Seminary at Princeton and co-operate with said Board in obtaining such amendments to the Charter of the Seminary and preparing such ordinances or by-laws and taking such other action as they may be advised by counsel is necessary or proper to establish a single Board of Control for said Seminary, define the relationship and recog- nize the right of control of the General Assembly under the existing trusts, so as to assure the rights of the Presbyterian Church in the trust property and the instruction of the Seminary; and to co-operate in preparing a complete plan for the educational work of the Seminary under the adminis- tration of the new Board and under the direction and contro! of the Assembly; that in a]] such conferences between said Committee and said Trustees the present Board of Directors be requested to participate in an advisory capacity by the election by them for that purpose of a committee of five of their members. The enlarged Committee herein authorized is hereby directed by the General Assembly to complete the reorganization above directed and report to the next Assembly. 50 ; 2. That pending this reorganization, the appointment of Professor J. Gresham Machen to the chair of Apologetics be not confirmed and that the further consideration of this appointment be deferred until after the reorganization pro- posed in this report shall have been effected. 3. That pending the reorganization proposed all other nominations or elections to the Faculty be not approved, and the further consideration of such appointments be deferred until the reorganization proposed shall have been effected. Respectfully submitted, William O. Thompson, Chairman. George N. Luccock Walter L. Whallon Thomas E. D. Bradley Richard P. Ernst APPENDIX TO THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO VISIT PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY This Appendix contains certain written papers, which are presented in full to the General Assembly. To the above statement, one exception must be made, concerning which exception a notation is made in the proper place in the body of the Appendix. In the Appendix will also be found certain verbal state- ments, stenographically reported. While these statements have not been revised by those making them, copies have been filed with the makers of the statements, and the Com- mittee has received no criticisms thereof. * * * * * Written Statement of President Stevenson, Presented at the First of the Faculty Hearings The action of the faculty at its meeting on October 2nd, which is as unique as the supposed breach of faculty etiquette deplored, censures the President of the Seminary because of his address before the last Assembly. Matters bearing upon the life and work of the Seminary came before that body as a final court of appeal, and the President sitting as a com- missioner was summoned by vote of the Assembly to give testimony. His statement was not challenged at the time by any member of that ecclesiastical court. It should be noted that the Assembly itself has been condemned by a leading Director of the Seminary, characterizing its action as due to a “coalition of Modernists, Indifferentists and Pacifists.’” Members of this faculty would be in entire accord with that statement. The Committee will naturally wish to have the facts regarding matters which have been agitating the Seminary for the past few years. You probably will not have time to investigate all of them. The following items, however, will prove conclusively, as I see it, that there has been in the faculty suspicion, distrust, dissension and division, and as I stated before the Assembly, in this Dr. Machen is involved. . Three years ago this spirit manifested itself in connection with the appointment by the Curriculum Committee of the Board of Directors, duly authorized to make the appoint- ment, of the late Dr. John D. Davis to give instruction in Systematic Theology during the illness of the head of the ol 52 department, Dr. Hodge. At that time a member of the faculty, Dr. Machen, endeavored to secure the cancellation of this appointment, was the one member of the faculty, who, after full discussion at a meeting of the faculty, declined to join in a request that Dr. Davis should accept the appoint- ment of the Curriculum Committee, and in consequence of this there was an agitation here on the campus which brought Dr. Davis under suspicion, so much so that he labored under the disadvantage, which he felt keenly, of having students attend his classes who had been warned not to accept his conclusions. Two years ago it manifested itself in opposition to the candidacy of Dr. Erdman for Moderator, calling forth the activities of a Press Bureau of which Dr. Machen was a member; the issue of a circular by the minority of New Brunswick Presbytery intended to show that in a time of crisis Dr. Erdman was not fitted for the Moderatorship, and signed by members of this faculty. It manifested itself also in the appointment by the faculty of Dr. Wilson in place of Dr. Erdman as Student Adviser on a motion proposed and advocated by Dr. Machen. It manifested itself a year ago in the refusal of the faculty to accept the report of a committee, consisting of Drs. Smith, Loetscher and the President, and which nominated as special preachers, Drs. Covert, Watson and Vance, which report the faculty declined to accept, and in a subsequent declaration Dr. Machen stated that the ground for his opposition was, “they are not Christians.”’ It has manifested itself in the re-organization of important faculty committees, as is done in politics when a particular party has won the election, all appointing power by the President being withdrawn and being placed in the hands of the faculty itself, coupled with an encroachment upon the administrative functions of the President. These are matters of common knowledge within the faculty, and display a temper which in the language of the report of the Assembly’s Committee on ‘Theological Seminaries is subversive of Christian fellowship and jeopardizes the usefulness of the Seminary. . Most of this may be explained by a difference of attitude within the faculty towards the Presbyterian Church of today, towards General Assemblies and their leadership, the Assem- bly of 1924 excepted, and towards the boards, agencies and enterprises of the Presbyterian Church. This institution was founded an hundred and fifteen years ago to raise up “‘a succession of men at once qualified for and 53 thoroughly devoted to the work of the gospel ministry, who with various endowments suiting them to different stations in the Church of Christ, may all possess a portion of thespirit of the primitive propagators of the gospel: prepared to make every sacrifice, to endure every hardship and to render every service which the promotion of pure and undefiled religion may require.” Having this end in view, the Seminary was to be a nursery of sound learning and of vital piety, and the responsibility for the care and usefulness of such an im- portant and forward looking agency was placed in the hands of a faculty. When one reads the Plan of the Seminary and notes what is included under the captions of learning and of piety, he must tremble to think of the large, essential and serious business with which the faculty is charged. When the establishment of one large, central, influential Seminary, the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church, was being considered, fears were expressed lest it might become an ecclesiastical power seeking to supersede or dominate the courts of the church, and assurances had to be given that the Seminary would mind its own business, in the realization that it is an agency of the Church, subject to the explicit pro- visions of a constitution and the direct orders of the Assembly. To be sure, every professor as an ordained minister, is expected to be a faithfulkmember of his own Presbytery, and to respond to any call of duty which the Church may issue to him, and in line with this, faculty members in years gone by have rendered a worthy and memorable service. But should the faculty on this or any other account take itself seriously, and assume the functions of a board of censors, or a board of strategy for the whole Church in general and the Presbyterian Church in particular? This is just what has taken place in Princeton Seminary within the past three years under the active leadership of Dr. Machen. He has made his diagnosis of conditions in the Presbyterian Church and has given it wide publicity, and he has also prescribed a drastic method of treatment as being the Church’s only hope. Some of us have sympathized with the diagnosis in part, but we have not been able to consent to the proposed treatment, which as suggested by the Philadelphia Overture in 1924, was declared uncon- stitutional by the General Assembly. A member of our faculty, Dr. Hodge, is reported to have objected to plans for aggressive evangelism and missionary effort because of the incapacity of the Church, due to erroneous doctrines, to promote such enterprises. “If a man,” said he, “has a serious disease, you don’t send him out into the field to gather a harvest; you send him to a hospital to undergo an operation. Precisely o4: so, but you assure yourself that the one who makes the diagnosis is not an amateur and that the one who performs the opera- tion is a skilled surgeon, who will not sever the wrong organ and will follow antiseptic measures to prevent a malignant outbreak.” The majority of the faculty have accepted Dr. Machen’s diagnosis as to health conditions in the Presbyterian Church, and have pinned their hopes in the heroic measures which Dr. Macartney proposed. No minority member has taken issue with them for doing this, but they, on the other hand, have passed judgment upon their non-concurring brethren in the faculty and have adopted a policy of suspicion, distrust and discrimination against them. Dr. Allis, in an article pub- lished in the Philadelphia Presbyterian of April 23, 1925, gave two reasons why the faculty decided to appoint Dr. Wilson to the position of Student Adviser in place of Dr. Erdman. This is one of his reasons: ‘‘The majority of the faculty believed that under the conditions with which the Church is confronted, the important post of faculty adviser should be held by one of the number who fully and clearly represented the majority opinion in the faculty.” This can only mean that the ma- jority of the faculty hold an opinion regarding conditions in the Church and their remedy which it differentiates from the opinion of other members of the faculty, and that it feels justified in making this differentiation the basis of dis- crimination against minority members as to their trust- worthiness. This raises the constitutional question as to the right of any group in the faculty, or member of the faculty, to judge colleagues in the matter of ecclesiastical beliefs and attitudes. The Board of Directors is the only body which has the right to judge in such matters. In the report of the Committee of Seven, appointed May 11, 1925, to make a thorough in- vestigation of the internal dissension in the faculty, occasioned by distrust and a divisive partisan spirit, it is specifically stated that all the members of the faculty are true to the standards of the Church and their inauguration pledge, and that there is no room for doubt or criticism as to their doc- trinal beliefs or attitudes towards conditions in the Church, and the report closes with an exhortation to every member of the seminary to promote the work of the Seminary by such restraints as will illustrate to the world the ties of fellowship and affection which unite every member of this institution in the common service of our Lord. The partisan attitude of the faculty majority disregards this timely exhortation and is a violation of the proprieties aye) which should be observed between members of the faculty who alike have approved standing according to the expressed opinion of the Directors and in the eyes of the Presbyterian Church. The attitude of the faculty. majority towards the Assembly and the Church, as one of suspicion, distrust and hostility, has also resulted in a divisive spirit among the students and in a departure from the historic position of the institution. This may be illustrated by the League of Evangelical Students which Dr. Allis, in the article already noted, connects with the selection of Dr. Wilson as student adviser. He represents the majority of the faculty in sym- pathizing with and approving the plans of this new organiza- tion. I cannot take time at this point to explain this League but I wish to place in the hands of the Assembly Committee a copy of the Constitution and two important papers repre- senting the views of opposing groups in the Seminary, such as have characterized the divisive measures of this League since its inception. (This Constitution and these two documents are reproduced on pages 37 to 42 of the Transcript, having been furnished to the Committee at the meeting with the Alumni.) Regarding it I wish to make a few observations. It es- tablishes a doctrinal test as the basis of good standing in the Seminary, administered by students, which is at variance with the terms of admission to the Seminary laid down in the Plan and stated in the catalogue, and is a departure from the historic position of the Seminary. In 1835 Dr. George Junkin, then President of Lafayette College, endeavored to secure from the General Assembly a doctrinal test to exclude from the Seminary, students whose views might be regarded as being unsound. The Assembly decided that no additional regulations were needed besides those already vested in the Plan of the Seminary. Following this action the Biblical Repertory for July, 1885, made the following comment which embodies the broad-minded view of Princeton theo- logical education—in vogue since that day—but which is now being challenged. “Has it never happened that young men, who entered a theological seminary with all their prepossessions hostile to the peculiar doctrine of its teachers, have been completely reconciled and convinced of their truth? Or if this complete conversion does not take place, is it not better (assuming the orthodoxy of the teachers) that these young men, if they are to enter the church, should have an opportunity of learning what orthodoxy is from its advocates, rather than from the misrepresentations of its opposers? Is error so much more 56 powerful than truth, that we should dread their collision as fatal to the latter? For our part we heartily wish that all the young men, provided they be sincerely pious, whose pre- possessions are unfavorable to orthodoxy, might pass through an orthodox seminary. If they do not prove better ministers and more correct theologians than if driven to institutions of an opposite character, we think something must be sadly amiss with orthodoxy or its teachers. It is not seemly for the advocates of truth to be too timid. If it cannot defend itself, we shall have to give it up.” This League disassociates this Seminary from Seminaries of our own Church under Assembly control. There are now according to the published report of the League, fifteen Seminaries in the organization and the one other Seminary in it belonging to our denomination, a colored institution, is the Lincoln University School of Theology. This institution is manifesting a broad catholicity as it continues its relation to the body from which the League has seceded, the Middle Atlantic Division of Theological Seminaries, and thus belongs to both. It may be claimed that since other Seminaries, Western, McCormick, Louisville, Lane, San Francisco, will not accept the doctrinal basis and the fundamentalist aims of the League, they condemn themselves as being liberal. But apart from the consideration as to whether one Presbyterian Seminary has a right to erect a doctrinal barrier for students between herself and institutions of our own Church, thus promoting a divisive spirit between the future ministers of the Church, they are all the daughters of this Seminary who have a right to look to this institution for a conserving, steadying influence, such as we cannot exert by withdrawing our students from their fellowship and by segregating them with the students of the small institutions of small com- munions. According to the list of Seminaries printed in the League’s report, apart from our own, they are in the main the institutions of secession bodies. ‘They represent the spirit of division, and Princeton Seminary’s alignment with them is a declaration to the effect that this institution repudiates the long established policy of the Presbyterian Church as re- gards co-operation and union, and identifies herself with the small institutions and sects which are committed to separa- tion and secession. More extraordinary still is the fact that in the membership of this League there are fifteen Bible Schools or Institutes. These are the exponents of permillen- nialism and of short-cuts into the ministry, against which Princeton Seminary has been opposed unflinchingly through- out all her history until now. 57 No institution has taken such a firm stand as Princeton has for sound learning, based upon a knowledge not merely of the English Bible, but of the original languages of the Scriptures, and here we are stepping down from our exalted position of scholarship, that we may join hands with Bible School students, practically all of whom have had no college education such as our Church requires for her ministers, and all of whom are receiving superficial training, thus nurturing “that religion without sound learning’ which the founders of this Seminary declared “must ultimately prove injurious to the Church.”’ A generation ago Union Seminary, fretting under eccle- siastical domination, rebelling against the supposed ultra conservatism of the General Assembly and the Presbyterian Church, broke the compact of 1870, swung off to the extreme left wing in order to become an inter-denominational, strictly speaking an undenominational, Seminary for destructive liberalism. Shall Princeton Seminary now, fretted by the interference of the General Assembly, in rebellion against the Presbyterian Church as at present organized and controlled, because of the assumption that a radical anti-Christian liberalism is dominating the courts, agencies and enterprises of said Church at home and abroad, shall this institution now be permitted to swing off to the extreme right wing so as to become an interdenominational Seminary for Bible School- premillenial-secession fundamentalism? This, Mr. Moderator, as I see it, is the big question which your Committee ought to consider. The situation is made all the more difficult by the con- viction on the part of the majority of the faculty that this revolt against influences and policies supposed to be con- trolling factors in the Seminary and in the Church for several years past is in answer to prayer, and marked by the presence | and power of the Holy Spirit. I quote from Dr. Machen’s book, ‘‘What is Faith?’ Page 42. He declares: “It (a spiritual advance) has been signally manifested at the in- stitution which I have the honor to serve. The morale of our theological student body has been becoming rather low: there was marked indifference to the central things of the faith: and religious experience was of the most superficial kind. But during the academic year, 1924-25, there has been something like an awakening. Youth has begun to think for itself ; the evil of compromising associations has been dis- covered: Christian heroism in the face of opposition has come again to its rights; a new interest has been aroused in the historical and philosophical questions that underlie the 58 Christian religion; true and independent convictions have been formed. Controversy, in other words, has resulted in a striking intellectual and spiritual advance. Some of us discern in all this the work of the Spirit of God. And God grant that his fire be not quenched.”’ In answer to this I present to the Committee a statement prepared at the close of the Seminary year, 1924-25, and signed by nineteen members of the Senior Class, all of them occupying some official position in the Students’ Association, or in Class or Club organizations. This statement deploring the dissensions that have been aroused by the agitation carried on in the interests of the League of Evangelical students closes with these words: “It is inimical to the best interests and welfare of the Seminary not only in its in- tellectual and spiritual life, but in its influence upon prospec- tive Seminary students.”’ Last year, 1925-26, the men who were interested in the League and had seen the results of bitter dissensions, refrained from a repetition of the agitation that marked the preceding year. This autumn, however, encouraged by the fact that every member of the Cabinet of the Students’ Association, which embraces the entire student and faculty membership of the Seminary, is a member of the League, an attempt was made to commit the entire student body to membership in this League, and a drive was started to secure the three-fourths vote necessary to do this. The movement did not sueceed. Let me call your attention to the document prepared by the leaders of the opposition, stating why they could not join in what they regarded as a divisive and demoralizing movement. This agitation in the Seminary is a repercussion of what has been going on in the Presbyterian Church. In the issue of the Presbyterian, May 14, 1925, Dr. Machen discussing the Present Situation in the Presbyterian Church, made this declaration: ‘During the year prior to 1923 it might have seemed to a casual observer as though the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America were to relinquish the Christian faith without even a struggle. The old forms indeed were preserved, but the reality was apparently gone. It was considered bad taste to defend the basic facts of Chris- tianity in the Boards and Agencies of the Church, and in countless pulpits the gospel was never heard.’’ Then follows his interpretation of subsequent events, closing with the claim: “A great evangelical movement is in progress in our church and we hope and pray that it may be continued until the full unity of the church’s witness-bearing is restored.” The answer to this is found in the appointment by the Assembly o9 of 1925, following the suggestions of Dr. Mark A. Matthews, of a Commission of Fifteen members “‘to study the present spiritual condition of our church and the causes making for unrest, and to report to the next General Assembly, to the end that the purity, peace, unity and progress of the Church may be assured.” Upon the report of this Commission as presented to and adopted almost unanimously by the Assembly of 1926, it is not necessary for me to make any comments, except to say that the chief opposition, the only serious opposition to this report, was voiced by two officials of Princeton Seminary, Dr. Macartney, a Director, and Dr. Allis, a Professor. This brings us face to face with the real seriousness of the present situation. The Presbyterian Church with surprising and gratifying unanimity has accepted the report of the Special Commission of 1925 as furnishing a common ground upon which all members of the Church may stand, and from which by the blessing of God and the leading of His Spirit, all may move forward to more complete harmony of opinion and to full brotherly accord in spirit. However, at the close of the Assembly, Dr. Macartney, regarded by the majority of the faculty and by the majority of the Board of Directors as the outstanding exponent of Princeton Seminary’s historic atti- tude towards the Presbyterian Church, her courts and her agencies, issued a statement in which he characterized the events of the last Assembly as a victory won by “‘a coalition of modernists, indifferentists and pacifists, which will open the eyes of Presbyterians all over the world to the fact that our church is rapidly drifting from its historic and fearless witness to the great truths of the Reformed Faith, and will unite in solid ranks all those who are determined to stand for our previous and blood-bought inheritance.” Is this institution of which the General Assembly is the patron and the fountain of its power to be administered as a sacred trust under such a representation? Can it train Presbyterian ministers as loyal supporters of the Boards and Agencies of our Church if it be true as Dr. Machen has declared, that prior to the awakening which he and Dr. Macartney brought about, there was a ‘‘period of the dead- liest peril, when loyalty to church organization was being substituted for loyalty to Christ, and at Board meetings it was considered bad form even to mention, at least in any definite and intelligible way, the cross of Christ.’’ Is it any wonder that the Board of Foreign Missions and the Board of National Missions, incensed by these and similar sweeping assertions, have requested Dr. Machen to furnish facts and 60 proofs, and although an extended correspondence has been carried on, no facts or proofs thus far have been produced? Is this Seminary to be what its charter prescribes, “The Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S, A.” or to be the institution of a turbulent section in our own and other churches? Herein lie the differences which we sincerely hope and pray you may adjust and harmonize. * * * ok * Memorandum Concerning Some of the Issues Upon Which There Has Been Difference of Opinion in the Faculty. Submitted on Behalf of the Majority of the Faculty, by William P. Armstrong, to the Committee Appointed by the 138th General Assem- bly to Visit Princeton Theological Seminary. Meet- ing at Princeton, on November 23, 1926. With a Paper on the Historical Position of the Seminary, by Caspar Wistar Hodge. I. The Address Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: In response to the invitation communicated to the Faculty, in a letter of October 9th from your Chairman to President Stevenson, asking the members of the Faculty to meet with your Committee and to present such statements as they might be willing to make, the Faculty advised your Chairman through its Secretary of their readiness to co-operate with your Committee and asked that opportunity be given them to appear before your Committee as a Faculty. They are not advised concerning the legal issues which may be in- volved in the present meeting but, without prejudice to these, they understand that they have appeared at your request to aid you, in so far as they can, in the discharge of the function assigned to you by the General Assembly. The other members of the Faculty who with myself con- stitute the majority of the Faculty, composed of seven of its eleven voting members—namely, Dr. William Brenton Greene, Jr., Dr. Geerhardus Vos, Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, Dr. Caspar Wistar Hodge, Dr. J. Gresham Machen, and Dr. Oswald 'T. Allis—have asked me to present to you a state- ment on our behalf, to be supplemented by such statements as we may wish to make, each on his own behalf. We recog- nize that responsibility rests on us for certain decisions of the Faculty, to which some publicity has been given. We are not unaware of the misunderstanding, and the consequent ‘Minutes of the General Assembly, 1926, p. 174. 61 misinterpretation of our motives and of the significance of these decisions, which has developed not only in the com- munity here but among the Alumni of the Seminary and in the Church. We have thought it wise heretofore to offer no explanation and to make no statement in common’. But while we are now willing to present to you the facts which conditioned and the reasons which determined our judgment in these matters, we desire, in view of this widespread mis- understanding, to reserve the right to make such further use of our statements to your Committee as to us may seem proper. In behalf, therefore, of the above named members of the Faculty, I desire to submit the following statement, in which they severally concur for substance, concerning some of the issues upon which there has been difference of opinion in the Faculty. | II. The Public Policy of the Church In 1920 a Plan of Organic Union of Evangelical Churches was introduced in the 132d General Assembly at Philadelphia by the President of the Seminary, acting as Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Church Co-operation and Union.? Professor Erdman was a member of the Committee which prepared the Plan and favored its adoption.* The Plan was adopted by the General Assembly and was sent down to the Presbyteries.°® The Plan, and in particular its unevangelical Preamble,°® was opposed in public print by Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield in an article entitled ‘In Behalf of Evangelical Religion,’’’ by Dr. William Brenton Greene, Jr.,’ by Dr. Caspar Wistar Hodge,*® by Dr. J. Gresham Machen,!® and by Dr. Oswald T. *Individuals have made statements on one or another aspect of the situation, such as Dr. Machen’s reply to Professor Erdman in The Presbyterian of February 5, 1925, and Dr. Allis’ article on ‘Princeton Seminary and its Student Adviser” in The Presbyterian of April 23, 1925. Minutes of the General Assembly, 1920, p. 98. ‘Minutes of the General Assembly, 1920, p. 423. *Minutes of the General Assembly, 1920, p. 121. 6’This was argued by Dr. Warfield and others. Moreover, the Committee itself, after the Plan had been rejected by the Presbyteries, seems to have conceded that the evangelical basis of the Plan was at least not unmistakably clear when it sought authorization to continue negotiations “looking to actual Organic Union of Evangelical Churches on a clear and unmistakable evan- gelical basis.””?’ (Minutes of the General Assembly, 1921, p. 84.) *The Presbyterian of September 23, 1920, p. 20. s“Further Inconsistencies and Dangers of the Plan of Union for Evangelical Churches,”’ The Presbyterian of January 6, 1921, p. 8. *The Plan of Union as Explained by Dr. Richards,’ The Presbyterian of October 21, 1920, p. 8; “The New Testament Conception of the Unity of the Christian Church,’ The Presbyterian of November 4, 1920, p. 9. 10Hor Christ or Against Him,” The Presbyterian of January 20, 1921, p. 8; “The Second Declaration of the Council on Organic Union,’ The Presby- terian of March 17, 1921, p. 8. 62 Allis.!!. When the Plan came before the Presbytery of New Brunswick it was opposed by Dr. Hodge, by Dr. Machen, and by Dr. Davis; it was supported by Dr. John Dixon (among others) who adduced as evidence of its soundness the fact that it had been adopted by the General Assembly and was advocated by President Stevenson and Professor Erdman. The Plan was defeated in the Presbytery of New Brunswick and was rejected by the Church.’” It appeared thus early that different views were held by members of the Faculty concerning the public policy of the Church and while the Plan of Union was the occasion, the real issue concerned the purity and integrity of the Church’s witness to the Reformed Faith. This issue emerged again in connection with the Philadel- phia Overture to the 135th General Assembly at Indianapolis, in 1923, in the matter of Dr. Fosdick’s preaching in the First Presbyterian Church of New York. In this issue the majority of the members of the Faculty supported the policy advocated by Dr. Macartney and this policy met the approval of the General Assembly at Indianapolis, as was evidenced by the adoption of the Minority Report of the Committee on Bills and Overtures.'? It further met the approval of the 136th General Assembly at Grand Rapids in 1924, as was evidenced both by the election of Dr. Macartney as Moderator and by the report of the Judicial Commission,!* as a result of which Dr. Fosdick withdrew from the First Presbyterian Church of New York. At that Assembly Professor Erdman, with pre-Assembly support from President Stevenson, ran against Dr. Macartney. When the Assembly met again at Columbus, in 1925, Professor Erdman was elected Moderator. III. Professor Erdman and the Faculty In the meantime much publicity had been given to Pro- fessor Erdman’s relations with the Faculty. It was alleged that Dr. Machen had made personal attack on Professor Erdman,'? and that the Faculty had removed Professor Erdman from the position of Student Adviser, which position he had held for eighteen years.1® “The Fundamental Objection to the Overture on Organic Union,” The Pres- byterian of February 10, 1921, p. 10. Minutes of the General Assembly, 1921, p. 41f. Minutes of the General Assembly, 1923, p. 252f. ‘Minutes of the General Assembly, 1924, p. 194f. The following statement appeared in The Princetonian of February 2, 1925: “Since taking up his present position last fall, Dr. Erdman has been subjected to bitter attack from his 'undamentalist colleagues and The Presbyterian, a Philadelphia weekly.” The Trenton Evening Times of April 4, 1925, and recently in President Stev- enson’s speech before the General Assembly at Baltimore, as reported in The New York Times of June 3, 1926. See Document 2, 16 63 In regard to the former, the reverse is true. Professor Erdman made a bitter and public personal attack on Dr. Machen;'’ and while not specifically charging Dr. Machen with responsibility for an editorial statement to which he took exception,!® he yet declared that this statement reflected their moral temper and their modes of thought’’—that is, the moral temper and modes of thought ‘‘of those members of the Faculty who are also editors of The Presbyterian’’—and definitely accused them of ‘‘unkindness, suspicion, bitter- ness and intolerance.’ When it was publicly pointed out by Dr. Machen that he was the only member of the Faculty who was also an editor of The Presbyterian, but that he was not responsible for the statement alluded to and that evidence justifying the terms in which he had been characterized had not been brought to his attention, Professor Erdman made no response. In regard to the letter, there is no record in the Minutes of the Faculty that Professor Erdman was ever appointed Faculty Adviser of the Students’ Association. In 1907 Pro- fessor Erdman was appointed a Committee of Conference with Students on Speakers at Missionary and other Re- ligious Meetings.’ After the election of President Stevenson, the Faculty by formal action placed the re-appointment of all committees in the hands of the President;?? and there is no record thereafter in the Minutes of the Faculty that Pro- fessor Erdman was appointed Faculty Adviser of the Students’ 17Professor Erdman’s letter to The Presbyterian, which appeared in The Pres- byterian Advance of January 22, 1925, and was reprinted in The Presby- terian of February 5, 1925, contained the following statement: ‘You in- timate that a division exists in the Seminary Faculty. No such division exists on points of doctrine. Every member of the Faculty is absolutely loyal to the Standards of our Church. The only division I have observed is as to spirit, methods or policies. This division would be of no consequence were it not for the unkindness, suspicion, bitterness and intolerance of those members of the Faculty who are also editors of The Presbyterian. “The serious aspect of your article is, that it reflects their moral temper and their modes of thought, and embodies the spirit by which The Presby- terian at present is controlled. Your spirit is that of unfairness, of fanaticism, of suspicion and faction. Your evident purpose is to disrupt the Presby- terian Church. You are succeeding only in dividing its evangelical forces. The great majority of Presbyterians are sane and sound and conservative. They are certain to repudiate your statements, disavow your aims and deplore your spirit.” 18See The Presbyterian of January 15, 1925, p. 12. 19Minutes of the Faculty of April 6, 1907, p. 92. 20Minutes of the Faculty of May 7, 1915, p. 309. 64 Association.2!. Before the issue was raised concerning the source of Professor Erdman’s appointment as Faculty Ad- viser, it was the opinion of several members of the Faculty, and apparently of Professor Erdman himself,”? that he sat with the Cabinet of the Association as Faculty Adviser by invitation of the Cabinet. Certainly the Cabinet believed that the choice of a Faculty Adviser was their function, a difference of opinion having arisen only as to whether this function was the prerogative of the President of the Associ- ation or of the Cabinet. The President of the Association, acting upon the former assumption, actually did invite Professor Erdman to become the Faculty Adviser for the ensuing year and Professor Erdman, after deliberation, accepted the invitation.2? Thereupon, at a specially called meeting of the Cabinet, the invitation of the President of the Association was revoked.24 When it then appeared that the Cabinet could not reach an agreement about the choice of an Adviser, the Cabinet through its Secretary addressed a formal request to the Faculty that it appoint one of its members to sit in an advisory capacity to the Students’ Association.° 21The Secretary of the Faculty reported on March 28, 1925, after an examination of the Minutes: ‘‘The only record in the Minutes in the matter of the Asso- ciation and its Adviser is in the Minutes of April 6, 1907.’’. He also made the following statement concerning the Minutes of the Students’ Association: “The Minutes of the Students’ Association begin with 1905-06. There is no indication in it of the adoption of the present constitution of the Association. The constitution is printed in one of the Students’ Handbooks, 1915-16.... There is nothing in the Minutes in regard to the appointment of a Faculty Adviser.” The present constitution provides in Article 5, on Committees: “The Chairman shall be appointed by the President and each committee shall consist of five student members, not more than two from any one class, appointed by the President in conjunction with the Chairman, and one of the Professors shall act as an advisory member to each committee.” 228ee Document 1. 23See Document 1. *4Minutes of the Students’ Association of March 21, 1925, p. 215. *>*Minutes of the Students’ Association, p. 216; Minutes of the Faculty of March 21, 1925, p. 538. The letter from the Cabinet, as recorded in the Minutes of the Students’ Association, is as follows: Stuart Hall, Princeton, New Jersey, March 21, 1925. The Faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey. We, the Cabinet, of the Student Association of Princeton Theological Seminary, request the Faculty to appoint a member of their honorable body this 21st day of March, 1925, to sit in an advisory capacity to the Student Association. Signed August H. Wessels, Secretary of the Students’ Association. When this request came before the Faculty, Professor Erdman was absent. It was then agreed that action on the request be deferred one week and the Secretary of the Faculty was requested to bring to the Faculty at its next meeting 65 such information from the Minutes as bore upon the matter. When the Faculty met again, Professor Erdman was present. It was moved. that reply be made to the Students that Pro- fessor Erdman had served as Adviser for many years, faithfully and well, and that the Faculty saw no reason to change the appointment.”® kK *k * 85 Memorandum Regarding the Status of the Board of Trustees and Their Relation to the Board of Directors You recognize it is much easier to be “hysterical” than his- torical. We have made our plans to bring a statement of the record from 1870, and with your permission I will read a memorandum regarding the status of the Seminary Trustees and their relation to the Board of Directors. 1. Extract from report of the Committee on Theological Seminaries presented to and adopted by the General Assembly in 1870. “Princeton Seminary is administered by two Boards, known as the Board of Directors and the Board of Trustees. The former are elected by the General Assembly in annual classes. The latter, having control of the property, is a close corporation, filling its own vacancies. ‘In like manner, the seminaries at Allegheny, Danville and Chicago have each two administrative Boards—a Board of Directors and a Board of Trustees. Lane and Union Seminaries have each but one Board—a Board of Trustees at Lane, a Board of Directors at Union by which the property is held and the general control of the Seminary is administered, certainly a simpler method, by which all differences of opinion are avoided, such as have arisen and are likely to arise in other seminaries between two separate Boards, one of trust and the other of direction.” 2. Resolution adopted at a joint meeting of the Board of Trustees and the Board of Directors held on December 22, 1870: “Resolved, That we understand it to be the meaning of the resolution of the last Assembly relative to this subject (vide Minutes, 1870, sec. 2, p. 66), all matters relating to the finances, fixing the salaries of the professors, the extent of endowment and the aid of students, shall be by the Board of Directors submitted to the Trustees for their approval, that the acts of the Board of Directors of the Princeton Theo- logical Seminary affecting the finances of the institution must receive the approval of the Board of Trustees as a condition of their validity and binding force, and that the two bodies adopt such measures to secure conference and co-operation in such matters as they may deem expedient.”’ 3. Action of the Board of Trustees in connection with the disposition of the Gelston-Winthrop Legacy, December 5, 1905: ) “Whereas in considering and acting upon the report of the Committee on Conference on the use and employment of 86 the Gelston-Winthrop Memorial Fund, the Boards of Di- rectors and Trustees at their meetings of October 10 and November 14, respectively, have arrived at conclusions differing in some respects, And Whereas it has been the wish of all the members of this Board that in the use of this great benefaction a method and result should be reached which would be both wise and satisfactory, and any difference between the Directors and Trustees as a thing greatly to be deprecated: Therefore, Resolved, that the Board of Directors and the Faculty be invited to a conference upon the subject matters of difference, in the hope that a better understanding and a harmonious determination may be attained. Resolved, That such conference be held in the Old Sem- inary Library, Princeton, on Tuesday, December 19th inst., at two o’clock in the afternoon. Resolved, That the Secretary do forthwith send to the Secretary of the Board of Directors and to the Clerk of the Faculty an invitation making known the time, place and purpose of the conference, and to each member of this Board a notice of like scope; and further to send to each member of the Board of Directors a brief note of the points of difference between the Boards as revealed by their official action.” 4. An ordinance respecting a Committee on Conference, adopted by the Trustees, June 5, 1906. (See page 54 of the Charter and Plan.) 5. At a meeting of the Board of Trustees on May 12, 1925, on account of the agitation going on in the Seminary, and the humiliating publicity being given to it, the Chairman of the Finance Committee inquired of the President of the Seminary as to what it was all about. The President of the Seminary referred to Dr. Laird, the Acting President of the Board of Directors. It was stated that a committee has been appointed by the Board of Directors and would report its finding in due season. No information regarding the nature of this committee’s report had been given to the Board of Trustees. 6. At a meeting of the Board of Trustees, November 9, 1925, the following resolution was adopted: ‘“Tnasmuch as any action of the Board of Directors in the matter of the retirement of professors and the election of new professors involves the finances of the Seminary, which finances are the trust of this Board, the Board of Trustees respectfully requests the Board of Directors to take no action until conference of the two Boards shall have been had. And that this action be communicated to the Board of Directors at its meeting tomorrow. 87 Dr. Laird desired to go on record as voting against the adoption of the resolution.”’ 7. The special committee appointed by the General Assembly in 1922 to visit theological seminaries, in its report at the meeting of the Assembly of 1923 presented the following recommendation which was adopted by the Assembly: “The Assembly presented with approval to the manage- ment of the Theological Seminaries the proposal to reorganize by a combination of the functions of Trustees and Directors in one body elected for a definite term of years.”’ At the meeting of the Board of Trustees held November 12, 1923, Dr. McDowell called the attention of the Board to the action taken by the Assembly and it was voted to refer this matter to the Conference Committee of the Board of Trustees, to consider and confer with the Conference Com- mittee of the Board of Directors, report to be made later to the Board. At the meeting of the Board of Trustees on November 10, 1924, Mr. Holden presented the following resolution: “Whereas the General Assembly has recommended that Seminaries related to the Assembly operating under dual Boards should unite those Boards, therefore, be it Resolved, That the President of this Board appoint a Committee of three, of which he shall be one, to meet a similar committee from the Board of Directors to consider the question of the union of the two Boards of this Seminary. We recommend, subject to the. approval of the Board of Directors, that the President of the Seminary be the Chair- man of such a joint Committee. The President appointed the following: Judge Hellstab and Mr. Holden as the other members of the Committee.” 8. When the election of the Rev. John Gresham Machen, D.D., by the Directors, as Stuart Professor in Apologetics and Christian Ethics, was reported to the Trustees at their meeting on May 11, 1926, the following action was taken: “The Rev. John Gresham Machen, D.D., was elected Stuart Professor in Apologetics and Christian Ethics; the salary was fixed at $5,400, plus the equivalent of a residence. After much discussion, this recommendation was carried by a vote of eight to five, the President of the Board requesting that his vote be against the recommendation, making the final vote eight to six. It was voted that in communicating this action to the Board of Directors, the number of votes in the affirmative and the number in the negative be included in the report.” 88 Dr. McDowell: These are taken from, the Minutes of the Board of Trustees. This is simply a record of items in the Minutes, having direct bearing on the relation of these two Boards. It is quite evident from the beginning that there was the possibility of misunderstanding. That possibility from time to time was met by the appointment of committees in conference. They seemed to be able to find their way through the difficulties. It was quite apparent that by 1906, something more definite and more effective should be pro- vided. * * * * ok Verbal Statement by the Rev. John Dixon, D.D., a Member of the Board of Trustees Might I preface what I may say by assuring your Com- mittee, if you need any assurance, that while there are differences of opinion as to rights and responsibilities and duties and methods, and the discharge of our duties as Trustees, we are all of one mind that we desire harmony, co-operation, and our fervent hope and prayer are that your Committee, when you have heard all the parties concerned, will be guided in the finding of a way out, which will be satisfactory to all the interests involved. Now, Mr. Moderator, the difficulties of the Board of Trustees may be expressed as both chronic and acute, and these are closely related to each other. A brief .review, if you will permit me, may illuminate the situation. Up to 1870, the time of the reunion of the Old and New Schools, the General Assembly exercised the power of electing pro- fessors, deciding upon their salaries, and making all appro- priations for the current expenses of the seminary. As there was no provision in the charter of the Board of ‘Trustees giving to the Assembly, or to anyone else, authority to dis- pose of the money committed to the Board, the Board of Trustees framed an ordinance or a by-law, in which they ex- pressed themselves as willing and ready to make such ap- propriations as should be certified to them by the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, as having been voted by the General Assembly. All went along very well until the time of the reunion, when, Mr. Moderator, you will recall, that one of the most serious difficulties in the way of reunion, was the theological seminary. Not all the seminaries were willing to accept of the Princeton plan to allow the Assembly to elect professors. Finally the famous veto power was devised and the problem was solved. That made it necessary for the Assembly to divest itself of the power or duty which it had 89 hitherto exercised in the election of professors, and imposed that upon the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors took it up, and they went further’ than the Assembly intended, further than the Assembly had the power to do, and the Board of Directors practically con- stituted themselves as the one power to vote appropriations, as well as to elect professors. The Board of Trustees were unable to submit to such a constriction of duties as being in direct conflict with the charter of the Board of Trustees. A conference was held, and has been referred to by the Sec- retary of this Board. The Board of Directors and the Board of ‘Trustees agreed upon two things. First, that every act of the Board of Directors involving the expenditure of money, should be referred to the Trustees for their approval, and of course for their disapproval, if they found they had to, other- wise the action of the Directors was not valid or binding. The second thing was, that in all financial questions, that there should be a conference between the two Boards before final action was taken in order that there should be harmony Very well. Things went along more or less smoothly until the death of Mrs. Winthrop made the seminary the heir, the residuary legatee of her estate, bringing a million and a half of money. ‘Thirty-five years is time enough for a generation to grow up that does not know Joseph. ‘lhe Directors were either ignorant of the 1870 agreement or they ignored it. I am not careful to affirm which. The result was that the Directors, the faculty joining with them, undertook to assume the distribution of this million and a half without any reference to the Board of Trustees. They were not in it. It was amusing, but it was serious, and the Trustees said to the Directors, “No, gentlemen. You cannot do that.” Conferences were held, with the result that the Winthrop money was so divided as to meet with the assent, if not the approval of Directors, Faculty, and ‘Trustees. But the Trustees realized that the agreement entered into between the Directors and the Trustees was not sufficient to procure harmony. Something more must be done. Therefore, the Board of Trustees devised two things to make harmony and co-operation secure. One was the ap- pointing of a standing committee on conference, of three members of the Board of Trustees, three members of the Board of Directors, and three members of the faculty. That has proved a practical failure. That committee is called together so very seldom, and not at all in the recent emergen- cies, that it has been a disappointment. ‘The other plan devised by the Trustees was to fill vacancies as they might 90 occur, to a limited extent, by electing Directors as Trustees. That was done with the hope that the two bodies, interlocking, being in a position to be immediately and fully informed of each others doings, would so work together as Christian gentlemen, that only good would result. I am sorry to say that that also has proved a failure. The last of the director- trustees is Dr. Laird. You never would have heard of these chronic difficulties, if it had not been for an acute situation. The Trustees would have borne them and said nothing about them, but an acute situation arose three years ago. It was becoming manifest that there was a division in the faculty. One of the professors had been demoted from being student adviser. There were serious administration difficul- ties. The whole town of Princeton, and the constituency far out into the Church, were being scandalized by the things said and done here. The professors, the majority of them, entered into a compact, more or less formally, to defeat one of their number when he was a candidate for the moderatorship of the General Assembly. JI will not enter into the details of that. It hurt to find that brethren who ought to be the most conspicuous examples of Christian fellowship, thus divided. Now after that, at a meeting of the Trustees Just a year ago, it became known that the Board of Directors was to meet the following day for the purpose of electing a professor, and it was understood that they would elect Dr. Macartney. The trustees realized, or thought they realized, that the election of Dr. Macartney would intensify and perpetuate the division in the faculty. What ought the Trustees to do? A resolution was adopted asking the Directors, first to confer before they completed the election. Did the Directors do it? There was a courteous request from another Board of the Seminary. Did the Directors recall the standing committee on conference? Did the Directors remember the compact of 1870 between the Directors and the Trustees? No. Dr. Macartney was elected, and from that hour to this the Trustees have not heard from the Directors as to that reso- lution asking for a conference. Now at the May meeting of the Board of Trustees, it was learned that upon the evening of the May meeting of the Directors, that Dr. Macartney had declined the professorship, and that Dr. Machen had been elected. Worse and more of it, in the judgment of the Trustees. What were we to do? Not in the history of the Board of Trustees had there been a dissenting vote on the election of any man in the seminary. The Trustees were confronted with a responsibility which seemed to them to be very serious. Are we mere clerks of 91 the Board of Directors, paying tellers, to honor the check or draft made upon us? Or did those who have entrusted the Trustees with money for the seminary believe that the Trustees will not only handle the funds wisely, but that they will have due regard to the very best use of that money? You may be aware that money has come to the seminary from different persons. There are different trusts from the years that are gone, expressing that the money must be used for the teaching of certain doctrines as described and held. The trustees are the legal responsible parties for the handling of that money. There is no probability that there will arise a situation in the seminary where the Trustees will have to step in and say to the Directors, ‘‘Not a dollar can we pay you, because the teaching is not in harmony with the con- ditions laid down in the trusts reposed in us.’”’ We do not forget that such a thing has occurred in the history, not of our church, but of the congregational body in New England. Andover is an example, where after the Unitarian division, the strong orthodox congregationalists founded Andover, and bound it, as they thought for all time to the teaching and propagation of the truth of the Gospel. It has all gone. And the Trustees are confronted always with the possibility that circumstances may so change that they will be called upon to take the most serious acts of their trusteeship. Now Mr. Moderator, when Dr. Machen’s election was certified to the Board of Trustees by the Secretary of the Board of Directors, there was a difference of opinion as to our duty, the majority being in favor of approving of the election of Dr. Machen. These are the difficulties that have confronted us. No plan hitherto has prevented their arising, or having arisen, to prevent their recurrence. We look to you for the devising of an effective plan, or scheme, by which the interests of this seminary can be conserved; that if possible the propaganda of division in the church which is being headed and carried on by the faculty, or members of it, shall cease; that the attacks upon the missionary boards of the Church shall stop; that the discrimination against these Boards shall no longer be in effect, and that there shall be such fellowship, such co-operation, such walking together in the spirit of love, in all of the governing bodies of this sem- inary, as shall best promote its interests. Oh that you might be able to bring back this seminary to the happy days of Charles Hodge, whose teaching and spirit made the seminary honored and famous in all lands! * * ** * * 92 Verbal Statement by Mr. W. P. Stevenson, Treasurer of the Board of Trustees The Board of Trustees, almost to a man stands behind the President. The Board of Directors do not stand be- hind him, and they are jealous of anybody having any- thing to say with regard to the management of this institution except themselves, and just a few of themselves. One of the Directors told me when I was in Baltimore at the meet- ing of the General Assembly, that he was ashamed to be a member of the Board of Directors, that if it wasn’t for his feeling that he could probably do something to help the institution, he would resign in a minute. That is the way several of them feel. Dr. Duffield resigned the other day. He says he doesn’t want to belong to a Board like that or live in an atmosphere of strife such as they were always having. All these things put together will show you that there is trouble here. At the meeting of the Committee of the General Assembly, of which Dr. Luccock was chairman, Dr. Luccock asked the President of the Board of Directors directly: ‘Dr. Alexander, is there anything wrong at Prince- ton?”’ And Maitland Alexander stood up and said, “No, sir.” They don’t want anybody to know there is anything wrong, so long as things fall into their hands. I suppose that the reason that I was elected was that the gentlemen on the Board thought that I had sense enough to show that I was of some use to Princeton. I am deeply interested in Princeton Seminary, and if we overstepped the mark on some occasions by having a hand in the election of a professor, or something of that kind, it is not because we are going beyond our rights as members of the Board of Trustees, but it is because we can see that what we were opposed to having done on these special occasions, is not for the best interests of Princeton. When this matter of Dr. Macartney being elected came up, we wanted to have a conference with regard to the matter, in order that we might understand the thing fully about as to where the money should come from. I was anxious to make sure that nothing would be done until we should have this conference, provided for in our by-laws. I know Dr. Crane very well, and I wanted to see him with regard to the matter. He was chairman of the committee that happened to be in charge, and I told him that I or he should go to see Dr. Macartney and ask him if he would defer the acceptance of that office until after we would have conference of the two Boards, or that we would know exactly what we were doing. It was not more than fair to Dr. Macartney. The Board of ‘Trustees were not in a humor to pay more salaries unless 93. they have reason from the Board of Directors. He demurred, said he didn’t want to go to Philadelphia and say this to Dr. Macartney. I argued with him for a long time, and said, If you don’t go and see Dr. Macartney, I will go and tell him from my standpoint just how things stand. And after he found that I was determined not to place Dr. Macartney in an equivocal position, he agreed to go there and see Dr. Macartney, that he did not put in any answer at that time. What is very funny to me, and others, is that he didn’t put in any answer for a long time. +5 * *k *k *k Dr. Maitland Alexander: What I read now, has nothing of a personal character against Dr. Stevenson. My relations to him have been too long and too close to have any such idea as that in my mind. I think I had a great deal to do with his election as Moderator of the General Assembly, and with his being made President of this institution. As I read this, I would like to have that understood. Statement Representing the Entire Board of Directors “To the General Assembly’s Special Committee on Prince- ton Theological Seminary: The Board of Directors in response to the request of your Committee presents itself to you and holds itself at your disposal to give you such information as you may desire to assist you in your study of the conditions at Princeton Seminary. They present themselves as individuals to answer such questions as your Committee desire to put to them. Should there be any questions which the committee desire to ask of them as a Board, they will answer them to the best of their ability after conference, as no one man is able to represent the entire Board. The Board of Directors also reserves all its rights under the Charter and Plan of the Seminary and under the Company of 1870 and the decisions of the General Assembly as to the Assembly’s powers over the Seminary, should the questions involved ever come to an issue in the ecclesiastical civil courts. They nevertheless put themselves in the spirit of hearty co-operation with the effort which the committee are making to fulfil their commission. Statements Representing the Majority of the Board of Directors 1. In the Matter of Dr. Machen. ‘The majority of the Board of Directors are‘of the same mind as when Dr. Machen 94 was transferred to the Chair of Apologetics. They feel that his scholarship, his reputation here and in other countries, his ability as a teacher, his inspiring work in his classes, make the words of Dr. Hutton true, “That any seminary might be proud to number him among its faculty.” We feel sure that no one questions Dr. Machen’s scholastic fitness for this Chair. The criticism of Dr. Machen by those who oppose him is based on his relations with those with whom he dis- agrees on matters of the seminary’s policies and doctrinal positions. The Board contends that any disputes which have arisen in connection with the policy and position of the seminary in which he has expressed himself that he is in agreement with the policy and position of the Directors. We believe that Dr. Machen has been sorely tried by charges that are false or misleading and we call attention to the fact that those with whom he differs in the church at large, especially in the scholarly world, emphasize his ex- cellent spirit in controversy, and as testimony to this we offer the following quotations from reviews of his books: “Dr. Machen is full of a sweet reasonableness which is his book’s greatest recommendation.” Dundee Advertiser, April 7, 1926. “Though Princeton is known for its hide-bound orthodoxy, Dr. Machen can not be charged with obscurantism or re- actionary sympathies, for he writes with a truly fine and catholic spirit.””, Western Mail, Cardiff, April 15, 1926. “Dr. Machen of the Princeton Theological Seminary, who is the real intellectual head of the persecutors, is far from ignorant and writes with an urbanity of manner far superior to that of the polemical controversialists opposed to him.” Hartford (Conn.) Times, December 26, 1925. ‘Throughout its pages, the book would feign be persuasive rather than militant, and convincing rather than conflicting.” Living Age (Episcopal), March 20, 1926. “Under this title, the esteemed theologian, who is well- known in Germany as well as in his own country, has pub- lished a book, . . . distinguished by its thoroughness and a dignified freedom from personalities in the treatment of his opponents.” A. Julicher in Die Christliche Welt, August 17, 1922. ‘As a polemic writer, Professor Machen displays the self- control and good spirit of the scholar. One is conscious all the time of a devoted Christian character back of his words.” Record of Christian Work. ‘His whole attitude in discussing the situation . . . carries ve it no vituperation.’”’ The Christian Herald, March 19, 95 “This able work is written in a rather irenic temper and wide purview of matters discussed at length.’ Homiletic Review, 1924. “He (the liberal) will not hear himself called vituperative names, he will not be offended by the gross superstition of the critic.”’ Prof. Henry J. Cadbury (Harvard), in the Congre- gationalist, September 138, 1924. The Board feel that his stimulating and helpful relations to the students of the Seminary are of tremendous value to them, as may be ascertained by your committee by impartial inquiry. They feel that. for the seminary not to avail itself of Dr. Machen’s scholarship in the Chair of Apologetics, instead of keeping him as the Assistant Professor of New Testament, which chair he now occupies, would be foolish in the extreme, hold the Seminary up to the ridicule of the scholarly world, and be a distinct loss in the tremendous battle now being waged against the Reformed Faith for which this Seminary stands. 2. Inthe Matter of the President. The Board of Directors feel that many of the troubles of the Seminary are due to the administration of the President. Whatever anyone may say the fact remains that he does not receive the support of the majority in the faculty or the Board of Directors. As early as the first year of his administration, Dr. B. B. Warfield after the first few months declined to attend the faculty meetings and did not do so as long as he lived. Since then the breach between the President of the Seminary and the faculty and the Board of Directors has been growing wider and we believe the situation has reached an impasse which renders it difficult if not impossible to proceed. No civil corporation could continue to exist with such an attitude between its chief executive and its board of control. In an institution such as this leadership is very important, but when an executive is unable to gain the support of a large majority of its governing board, it is manifest that his usefulness is at an end. That the Board of Directors has tried to solve this problem is evidenced by the appointment of the Committee of Seven at the request of the President of the Seminary which spent months trying to adjust the matters in question but without avail. That the Board have not acted in this matter is due to their regard for Dr. Stevenson as a minister of the Gospel of Christ and because they hoped that he himself might come to see that his administration could have no hope of success with such a relationship as now exists between him and the majority of the faculty and the majority of the Board of Directors and that he would voluntarily resign. 96 All this is said with many regrets and the kindest feelings toward the President of the Seminary. » 3. The Board of Directors feel that the Seminary in its teaching, witness and defense of the Reformed theology em- bodied in the Confession of Faith and the Assembly’s in- tepretation thereof is representing the views of a large part of the Presbyterian Church. That other seminaries with more liberal theological views are in the Church, makes it all the more necessary that Princeton should stand according to its plan as representing the conservative wing of the Church. And they believe that according to that plan under which they operate and according to the binding contract which they have with the Assembly, they cannot do otherwise. 4. ‘The majority of the Board of Directors feel the humil- iation of such an investigation as this of a successful seminary whose work has been so blessed by God through all these years; whose teaching has been of the highest and most scholarly type; whose graduates on the- mission fields, at home and abroad, in professorships and charges, vindicate its work. Its Directorate has been chosen with great care and the men who serve it are men who have attained a measure of success in their fields. All the clerical members of the Board, with the exception of the president and Dr. War- field, are graduates of the Seminary. We have as the com- ponent parts of our Board: 2 Secretaries of the Church boards; 1 Editor; 1 Stated Clerk of General Assembly; 11 pastors; 3 retired pastors; 2 presidents; 2 bankers; 2 surgeons; I business man; 3 lawyers. The Board has never been a unanimous Board, but it has been a thinking, planning and working Board. Its minority have a right to their own opinion just as one who is a member of the minority in another seminary board has a right to his. But unless we are to overthrow the genius of our Presbyterian form of government, the majority must control its policies. It has been said that the Board of Directors in electing its new members, packs it with men who are in the interests of the majority opinion of the Board. Since President Stevenson has held office, there have been eleven new directors elected, of this number seven have been suggested to the committee by the President. Correspondence indicating that is in the hands of the chairman of the Nominating Committee. _ Lhe Curriculum Committee, our most important committee, is made up of three members of the majority of the Board, and three, including the president, from the minority. ‘Twelve memberships in the Standing and Special Committees are held by members of the minority. oF All we ask in the investigation before you is impartiality, justice and a sympathetic treatment, free from extraneous in- fluences and apart from the clamor of those who can not possibly have the knowledge of the situation which the Board of Directors have and which we trust you will come to have. ; Submitted on behalf of a majority of seventeen of the Board of Directors to be presented to the Assembly’s Com- mittee on Princeton Theological Seminary. Maitland Alexander, President. * kK * * * Verbal Statement of Dr. John M. T. Finney, a Member of the Board of Directors I am one of the minority. I should have to dissent from a large part of the statement which you have heard read by the President of the Board. With the first page of that, it was stated quite correctly, was passed unanimously. I should like to submit as clarifying the situation, a copy of the minutes of the last meeting of the Board, Page 16, on which I should like to direct special attention of this Committee to what is stated as the official position of this Board with regard to the authority of the Assembly over this seminary, and with regard to their opinion as to this committee and its rights. With regard to Dr. Machen, the first section of this report, I can only say I have not the slightest word of dissent from anything that has been said in regard to his scholarship, and I am not in a position to judge, but I am perfectly willing to accept the opinions of those that have been read in your hearing. I simply want to say that that is one side of this controversy. His scholarship is not in question, but as a teacher, he is compelled to live in this seminary, and to work with other professors in this seminary. I want to call attention to the fact that Paul and Barnabas could not work and live together, and that so far as I know, there has never been a charge against the orthodoxy of either. With regard to the treatment of the minority in this Board by the majority. With all due respect to the good intentions of my friend, the president, I wish to register an emphatic protest and dissent from the statement that the minority have received due consideration, either on the matter of the appointment of committees, or in the matter of the considera- tion of various actions in discussion as they have come up. I refer to the discourtesy—and I cannot use any other term —which has been shown by the presiding officer to the presi- 98 dent of the institution, over the protest of the minority in not allowing him on a technicality to rise and speak on a matter of personal privilege. Take the matter of representa- tion on committees. Take the nominating committee. There isn’t a single appointive representative of the minority on that committee. I called the attention of the president of the Board to that by letter, that it must have been an omission. I received a reply saying that he declined to recognize any division in the Board. That was a surprise to him. That is sufficient, I think. The minority feel that they have not really received due consideration. And I would like the Committee to ask this question: Has Dr. Stevenson been allowed the freedom in the exercise of his prescribed functions by the faculty? It might be a question as to why complaint has not been made to the majority before. I wrote this letter to Dr. Alexander. It is the only time in my recollection where the question has ever been raised, and I refer to this now for fear. I was accused on one occasion by a member of the majority of being a poor loser—I trust that that charge will not be brought against me again. The only reason I am speaking of this question now, is in order simply to supply information as far as possible to the Committee. Dr. Thompson: Who are the minority? A. Dr. Stevenson, Dr. George Alexander, Dr. Mudge, Dr. Radcliffe, Dr. Finney. | K ok > * + Verbal Statement of Dr. George Alexander, a Member of the Board of Directors | I have been 42 years a member of the Board. In recent years I have been a very quite and inconsequential member, because I recognized the right of the majority to control, and I was not in the majority. I think, however, if your committee is looking for the origin of the trouble, it will not find it in this Board. You have probably already sensed the fact that there is a sense of kindliness here in spite of di- vergence of view. ‘The origin of the trouble is outside of this Board, and has been imported into it. I think you will find that the trouble originated in the faculty, and that the cleavage in the faculty was in general terms along this line: on one side, the men of the cloister, and on the other side the men of the open road; on the one side, the men who are chiefly concerned about facts and deductions and conclusions, and on the other, men who are in touch with human needs and deeply impressed with the importance of Oo carrying to them a gospel of reconciliation, and helping men into the right life. But these divergences arise in other faculties. I think both types of men are desirable in the faculty of the theological seminary, that they ought to supplement one another. I think the trouble has been ex- aggerated by the atmosphere of unrest in the Church, but the atmosphere of suspicion and distrust abroad, and then possibly ecclesiastical politics has had some place; and then the personal equation has seemed to me to be a pretty large one. It is because of this difficulty in the faculty that this Board has been so seriously divided. They endeavored to compose the difficulties in the faculty through this com- mittee, but the result was to bring disorder into the Board. As to Dr. Stevenson, I am not at all in accord. I think that with the handicaps he has had, his adminis- tration has been successful. It is a marvel that the insti- tution has kept advancing in spite of these disturbances and handicaps. I am not in accord with the view that he ought to be called upon to resign. If he should be called upon to resign, I think that there will be no other course for those of us who are in the minority to take, but to quietly give our places to others. That is my view. I ought to be discharged after 42 years anyway. I have never been shown any dis- courtesy because I was a member of the minority. It has not marred my friendship with the majority. I have grieved over the humiliating position in which the president has been placed more than once, but the situation is as it is, and if the president goes, I think the rest of us ought to go, and that the majority opinion ought to be expressed by a united board. k * *f 5 k Verbal Statement of Dr. Wallace Radcliffe, a Member of the Board of Directors I am very positively with the minority on the questions that are raised at this time. I sympathize in the first place with the line that has been presented by Dr. Finney. It is undoubtedly true that there are coteries within the Board, and that one is compelled to feel his place, so much so, that I have on two or three occasions written my resignation as a member of this Board. I am also living with one who had a good deal of advice to give me, and on her advice I threw it into the waste basket. At the same time I have been a member of this Board for twenty-five years, and in recent years I have felt increasingly just that discomfort we are now faced with. I don’t like to say the word, but 100 I have recognized what I interpret as a method of political working, with which I do not sympathize. I have heard a good deal, one way or another, that personally I do not represent what is commonly spoken of as the Princeton spirit, and that I resent, because if there is any place on this earth that I love, it is Princeton. I owe more to Princeton and Princeton men, to dear Dr. Casper Hodge, than any other one man. I came to Princeton and for the first time from him, I learned to study my Bible, and if there has come to me vigor and spiritual enthusiasm, and a measure of success, I owe it very largely to him, in his quiet, modest, but such efficient teachings in the class rooms. I haven’t the Princeton spirit if it means kow-towing at the name of Alexander, and vote as people tell me to. But if the Princeton spirit is an efficient and earnest devotion to the teachings which are taught at Princeton, and have always been taught at Princeton; if the Princeton spirit is enthusiasm for the system of theology as given in the Confession of Faith, and agreeable to the Word of God, I have lived my life in the power and comfort of the Princeton spirit. I want to endorse everything said about Dr. Machen. [I have a great admiration for his work, and I am proud of him, and I would like to see him kept in his chair in Princeton Seminary. He is a superb teacher, as well as a splendid scholar. But we have here been presented with other ele- ments, that so far as I am concerned, have directed my activity and my vote. What I resent is just that, because of what we may call coteries arising from the conditions that are in the Church and the seminary, and has made activity and even fraternity uncomfortable and even embarrassing. We were confronted in the Board of Directors with a vacant chair of Apologetics. I came to the meeting of the Board, and I thought, well now, something will be said. It had been presented to one member of the Board, and there was a report that he would not accept, but I heard nothing of it in a distinct way. I wondered what would come up. We met at length. What about the chair of Apologetics. Nothing to say. Nothing doing in one direction or another. Well, I could get no information. We came into the Board, and in the course of order, the question was called for, and to my great surprise, Dr. Machen was elected. I hadn’t heard a word about it. That isn’t the way of doing things, brethren. We are brethren. We are supposed to have confidence in each other. Why should it be hidden from me when I should come to one and another and ask about it? I purposely appealed to three or four, but nothing was said. Certainly 101 the thing was cooked up, was arranged suddenly and thrown on the Board. Let me take that back. There was the im- pression made upon me that there was a quiet arrangement on the part of a few to put that name through. I don’t like that I should be compelled suddenly to decide, and especially because of Dr. Machen’s position before the Church in many other ways, and because I thought ‘it an unwise and im- politic thing to act concerning him. I give that as a sug- gestion of my own feelings and my own experience. I don’t think I have been on any important committee, and have had nothing to do but vote. I want to say a word or two about the recommendation concerning Dr. Stevenson. I have no doubt Dr. Stevenson is not above criticism. But the history of the seminary under his administration has been a great history. One of increase of students, and of large influence for the seminary, and on his part evidently, a profound ambition to do a sacred and blessed work for the Church. I think he made some mis- takes that I would be free to talk about. Anybody would make mistakes. In the whole trend of the work, I confess that there has been some success, and more success than I anticipated when I voted for him for president. In one great respect his administration is in great contrast with that which preceded him, and has been a very great benediction to the seminary. I think it is fair to say that the best thing - the seminary has had has been a pastoral oversight that it never had before. The president’s house has been a fountain of blessing to those boys. I love Mrs. Stevenson for the beautiful, gracious and Christian work she has done. One of the needed things here is to have the social relation, and to come in contact personally with the president and the professors. ‘There are too many bachellors among our pro- fessors. That is a different thing that President Stevenson’s administration has brought to Princeton Theological Seminary. It would be a distinct loss. It would be a disaster if those boys do not have what they have been having in love and gracious service and prayerful sympathy in the house of the president of the seminary. We do need a clear, a distinct and detailed account of the functions of the president, and that is a classification of a great deal of the trouble. We need one governing Board. I think if we are going to ask for the resignation of President Stevenson, the very necessary part of that action would be the resignation also of Dr. Machen. If one goes, both ought to go, or peace wil] not remain. oe | *K * * * 102 Letter of Rev. Paul Martin, Secretary of the Faculty Princeton, N. J., December 28, 1926. Pres. W. O. Thompson, D.D., LL.D., Columbus, O. Dear Dr. ‘Thompson: Bier. The Seminary’s troubles seem to have their origin in (1) infelicities in its organization; (2) historical development arising out of these infelicities; (3) the historical development of these infelicities has reached a crisis in the conflict of personalities embodying and emphasizing the historic di- vergencies. I. Infelicities of Organization First, conflict or conflicting views of the relation of Trustees and Directors. These are two governing bodies with con- flicting or insufficiently defined powers relative to one another and the General Assembly. According to the New Jersey Charter of the Board of Trustees, this Board is the corpora- tion, appearing to be the governing body of the property held by it for the General Assembly. Charter and Plan, page 5, see. 5: “It is authorized to do everything needful for the support and due government of said corporation”; and again, page 37, sec. 2, ‘‘All matters relating to finance, fixing the salaries of Professors, the extent of endowment and aid of students, shall be, by the Board of Directors, submitted to the Trustees of the Seminary for their approval.’’ Under the Plan, p. 44, this is a self-electing body with no provision of veto by the General Assembly, with a proviso that the General Assembly may, at their annual meetings, change one-third of the Board of Trustees in such a manner as to the said General Assembly shall seem proper. Page 5, sec. 6. On the other hand, the Board of Directors are by the Plan given power to elect and remove Professors (subject to the veto of the General Assembly), fix salaries, determine courses, watch over the conduct of students, redress grievances, have charge of examinations of students, exercise control of all funds. ‘The Board elects its own members, subject to the veto of the General Assembly. The conflicting views may be described as between two theories of control of educational institutions. The Trustees of the Seminary by the Charter have the power of the purse, and like the Trustees of American educational institutions generally, they are the final responsible head of the institu- tion. According to the Plan, the plan of government seems to be analogous to that of a Presbyterian church, subject to the General Assembly as the individual church is to the 103 Presbytery; the Directors corresponding to the Session, the Faculty to the pastor, the Seminary Trustees to the church trustees. ‘That is, trustees in each case are a holding cor- poration, to provide and administer property and funds for the purposes of the dominant session or Board of Directors. Historically, the Trustees themselves have inclined to the first conception, and the Directors to the latter. That such conflict has and does exist is evidenced by the following illustrations: (1) The Trustees administer all property, independent of the Directors, spend what seems to them good on main- tenance and improvement of property and on salaries of Treasurer and Superintendent of Grounds and Buildings and his staff. The library and books being things, the Trustees control them, choose and determine the pay of the Librarian and assistants and through him select the books. ‘To be sure the Trustees invite certain members of the Faculty to serve as a Committee to act with the Librarian in the selection of books, but they have no authority. The result is that at present no one can teach or make addresses to students who does not agree theologically with the “majority” of the Faculty, but they have provided for them in the library books of every possible school of theological and philosoph- ical belief. (And curiously enough no one objects.) (2) About 1900 an effort was made to bridge the gulf between the Directors and Trustees by appointing the same men to the Boards. This has not worked out and the effort has been abandoned. (3) In 1910 the Trustees, without consultation with the. Directors and Faculty (and apparently without it occurring to them that they should) spent ten thousand dollars on remaking the unused refectory building into a gymnasium and employed for it a student instructor in physical training. This incident aroused the Hon. Wiliam M. Lanning, an eminent lawyer, who was both a ‘Trustee and a Director, to make a careful study of the powers of the two Boards, and write a legal opinion on the subject. His death occurred shortly after; the Boards could not agree on the subject of the paper and it still remains unacted upon. (4) Some ten years ago the two Boards and Faculty each appointed three members to form a Conference Committee (without powers). It has seldom met and has accomplished little. (5) Dr. Machen’s election to the Chair of Apologetics raised debate in the Board of Trustees on their right of disapproval. 104 II. Conflict or Conflicting Views as to the Relations of the Directors and the General Assembly The relative powers of these two bodies seem to be care- fully defined in the Charter and Plan. Nevertheless there is divergence. Does Article 1, Section 1, “As this institution derives its origin from the General Assembly, that body to be considered its patron and the fountain of its power”’ still hold; or, is the relation determined by the Compact of 1870, and did the Assembly by that Compact lessen its control as the ‘“ma- jority,’ I understand, are intending to claim? IV. Conflicting Views as to the Emphasis to be Given to Several Elements in the Curriculum The Charter and Plan, pp. 15-18, makes it clear that the Seminary is a training school for the ministry. No other conception of its purpose seems to have appeared until in the late nineties, when the more scholastic Faculty, of which mention has been made, came into existence; nor was there acknowledged departure from this definition then. See printed report of the Faculty to the Board of Directors on the Curriculum, dated April 29, 1903, ‘“‘The Faculty bearing in mind that the fundamental function of the Seminary is to serve as an efficient training school for the ministry of the Presbyterian Church,” ete. There grew up, as a matter of fact, an exaltation of the scholastic as over against the practical. The report above mentioned calls attention to there being in the Plan originally five disciplines: ‘‘Apolo- getics, Exegetics, Historics, Systematics and Practics,”’ “‘to which equal time and attention must be devoted,” has been expanded to eight ‘“‘to which about equal time and attention must be devoted.” These are Hebrew Philology, Apolo- getics, Old Testament Literature and Exegesis, New Testa- ment Literature and Exegesis, Biblical Theology, Ecclesi- astical History, Systematic Theology and Practical The- ology.” Thus, Practical Theology had fallen from being one among five equal to one among eight. At this time also a graduate year had been developed, looking to graduate courses in various departments of theology. About 1903 the realization of the increasing ignorance of the Bible on the part of candidates for the ministry caused the General Assembly to advise the teaching of the English Bible in the Seminaries, and the Directors of the Seminary divided the Chair of Ecclesiastical, Homiletical and Practical Theology into two, namely of Homiletics and of Practical Theology which was to include English Bible, and Dr. Kirdman was urged to accept the latter chair. 105 The existing faculty was opposed to the introduction of English Bible into the curriculum (report of the Faculty on Curriculum, April 29, 1903, p. 4), and when Dr. Erdman asked for the curriculum hours in which to teach English Bible there came a clash. Later, Dr. Warfield undertook to put through a resolution that elective studies based on the English Bible should not be allowed as minors in the courses for the post-graduate B.D. degree. This resolution did not pass, perhaps because it was not possible to formulate the resolution so as to exclude only Dr. Erdman’s courses. How- ever, Dr. Warfield served notice upon the Registrar that Dr. Erdman’s elective courses would not receive his necessary approval as minors in the registration by candidates of B.D. courses in the Department of Systematic Theology, and maintained this ruling through the succeeding years. It can be said without fear of contradiction that disparagement of Dr. Erdman’s courses has been a state of mind of the “majority” of the Faculty through his whole ‘term as a Professor. This attitude has not been concealed from Dr. Erdman nor the student body. (Nevertheless Dr. Erdman’s elective classes have been the largest of any elective classes.) If this attitude to Dr. Erdman is borne in mind, the wider divergence between Dr. Erdman and the “majority” since 1920 will be more comprehensible. V. Conflicting Views as to the Doctrinal Requirements of a Professorship in the Institution The professorial subscription at inauguration, Charter and Plan, page 25, would seem to make the requirements clear. The guarding against deviation from the terms of the ‘‘sub- scription” seems to be left to the conscience of the professor, or, that failing, to the investigation and action of the Board of Directors. Yet another standard of doctrinal qualifica- tions seem to exist. Dr. Davis was in 1920 (?) invited by the Philadelphian Society of the University to speak in Alexander Hall on the creation of man as related in Genesis. Mr. F. D. Jenkins, then in his first year of his instructorship in System- atic Theology, was studying in preparation for an elective course on the Doctrine of Man. I called his attention to the opportunity which Dr. Davis’ lecture afforded of hearing him on this theme. The next day I learned to my surprise that Mr. Jenkins had not attended, and pressing him for the reason why, he replied that Dr. Hodge had advised him not to go, because Dr. Davis was likely to say that which he did not agree with and it might prove more convenient for Mr. Jenkins to be able to say to the students who asked questions 106 on the subject that he had not heard Dr. Davis’ address. The address proved to be a very notably illuminating one to his University audience. I suggested to Dr. Allis, Editor for the Faculty of the Princeton Theological Review, that its publication in the Review be requested of Dr. Davis. He declined the suggestion because Dr. Davis’ views were not satisfactory to him. The junior Assistant Professor thus prevented the publication in the Seminary’s theological organ of an article of its Senior Professor. I know it to be true that Dr. Davis was troubled in his last years by the conviction that the students in the Seminary were being cautioned against his teaching. Very sincerely yours, (Signed) Paul Martin. P.S.—I am writing this personally, without collaboration, and it has not been read by anyone. Note.—Certain portions of this paper.have been omitted as not being pertinent to the matters in the report. Kk *K Fg oe sk Written Statement of Professor J. Gresham Machen at the Second Faculty Hearing January 5, 1926. Gentlemen: My hearing before the Committee on No- vember 24, 1926, was interrupted first by my yielding to Dr. Erdman and then by adjournment. I shall now, with your permission, endeavor to begin at the point where I left off. What I shall say, however, must be regarded as supplementary to the three documents which I have already placed in the hands both of the members of the committee and of the members of the Faculty. ‘These three documents are (1) the pamphlet entitled “Statement,” dated November 23, 1926, and presented on that day, or possibly on the following day, to all the members of the Committee, to President Stevenson, Dr. Erdman and to the other members of the Faculty; (2) the pamphlet entitled ‘Documents,’ dated with the same date and sent to the same persons; and (3) the pamphlet entitled ‘Additional Statement,’ dated De- cember 18, 1926, and sent immediately by first class mail from New York to all the members of the Committee, to President Stevenson, Dr. Erdman and to all the other members of the Faculty. On December 26, 1926, I sent to the Chairman of the Com- mittee a letter recording a correction in the Record. I am assuming that that letter has been received and filed. 107 With regard to my own defense, I am still somewhat hampered by not having seen any precise formulation of the charges against me. Dr. Stevenson and Dr. Erdman did, however, make certain allegations against me in the course of their remarks before the Committee at the two hearings on November 23d and November 24th; and with regard to these allegations or charges, as they appear in the Record, I desire to say a few words. [ shall follow for the most part the order of the charges as they appear in the Record, except that I think it will be convenient to leave to the end two matters which seem to me to involve the most far-reaching questions of principle. I. Answer to Detailed Charges Made by Dr. Stevenson 1. The first specific charge appears in the Record, p. 49, par. 5, where Dr. Stevenson asserts (1) that I endeavored to secure a cancellation of the appointment of Dr. Davis to give temporary instruction in Systematic Theology, and (2) that I was “the one member of the Faculty, who, after full discussion at a meeting of the Faculty, declined to join in a request that Dr. Davis should accept the appointment of the Curriculum Committee, and in consequence of this there was an agitation here on the campus which brought Dr. Davis under suspicion, so much so that he labored under the dis- advantage, which he felt keenly, of having students attend his classes who had been warned not to accept his con- clusions.”’ With regard to this matter, I desire to say that although I did not regard Dr. Davis as well qualified to teach Systematic Theology, great as was my admiration for his scholarship in his own field, I deny having given expression to this opinion in any improper or unseemly manner. I can find no record - in the minutes of the Faculty of the request to Dr. Davis to which Dr. Stevenson alludes, and consequently I can find no record of any failure on my part to join in such a request. If, however, such a request had been made—the request, namely, to Dr. Davis that he accept the appointment—I doubt whether I could conscientiously have voted for it, because I thought, on the contrary, that he would have been wise to decline; but I do not see how my action in the Faculty could have been the ground for agitation on the campus, unless some officer or member of the Faculty violated the confidence of our body by divulging matters which should certainly be regarded as confidential. Dr. Stevenson has cited no proof of the allegations contained in this paragraph of the Record, and If should like, if the Committee permits 108 me to do so, to ask him to present such proof—proof, namely, in support of the allegations (1) that I endeavored to secure the cancellation of the appointment, (2) that there was agitation on the campus which brought Dr. Davis under suspicion, and (3) that students in Dr. Davis’ classes had been warned not to accept his teachings. 2. The second group of charges appeared in the next para- eraph, on p. 49 of the Record—opposition to Dr. Erdman’s candidacy for the Moderatorship, the activities of a press bureau, and the issue of a circular by the minority in New Brunswick Presbytery. All of these have been dealt with in my “Statement” and the relevant documents have been re- printed in my pamphlet entitled ‘‘Documents.”’ 3. The third charge concerns the appointment of Dr. Wilson as Student Adviser. This charge also has been dealt with in my “Statement” and “Additional Statement’’, and will be dealt with, if the Committee permits, in a Statement which Dr. Armstrong has prepared. The relevant documents are cited by Dr. Armstrong and in part reprinted in my pamphlet entitled ‘‘Documents.”’ 4. The fourth charge (on pp. 49 and 50 of the Record) concerns my vote against a report of the Faculty’s Committee on visiting preachers and a remark that I am alleged to have made ‘‘in a subsequent declaration.” With regard to my vote, I desire to say that in my Judg- ment the Faculty has a full right to choose whom it most desires to invite to the pulpit of the Chapel (only six visiting preachers from outside Princeton being possible every year) and that no Committee which is appointed (not with power but to report to the Faculty) has a right to insist that its recommendations shall be adopted without amendment. It was no doubt unfortunate that the Faculty’s Committee did not at that time include even a single representative of the majority group in the Faculty—the majority group in the division which, as I explained in my first Statement, has been caused by the policy of the President—and the awkward- ness of this situation has now been removed by a new method of appointing committees. With regard to my alleged remark—namely the remark in which I am alleged to have said, with respect to Drs. Covert, Watson and Vance, that “‘they are not Christians’ — I desire to say three things. In the first place, I am not clear when and where this dec- laration (of which I have no memory) was alleged to have been made. Is it alleged to have been made before the Faculty or in some other place? 109 In the second place, if it was alleged to have been made in the Faculty, I must respectfully contend that if oral remarks in the Faculty were to be made the basis of charges against a member of the body, then either a stenographic record should have been made of everything said in the meeting or else steps should have been taken immediately after the meeting that the wording of what was said should be estab- ‘lished when the memory of it was fresh. It is not right, I think, to make my remarks in a debate lying some years back the basis of charges against me unless opportunity was given me at the time to establish the exact wording of what I did say. In the third place, I have no memory whatever of having said, with respect to the three gentlemen mentioned: ‘‘They are not Christians.” It would have been very strange for me to have done so, since certainly such a remark is quite out of accord with my attitude toward them. Even with respect to those persons in the Church who have made utterances that seem to me most hostile to the Christian religion—for ex- ample, the nearly thirteen hundred signers of the Auburn Affirmation—I have tried to distinguish the question of the personal standing of the men before God from the character of their utterances. About the former question I cannot presume to speak. The Affirmation is certainly not Christian ; but whether the signers of 1t are Christians or not—that I cannot presume to say. Still less am I disposed to affirm that other persons in the Church, like the gentlemen whom Dr. Stevenson mentioned, are not Christians. 5. Next (p. 50), Dr. Stevenson objects to the reorganiza- tion of Faculty Committees, and the withdrawal of the ap- pointing power of the President, for which I voted. With regard to this matter I am prepared to defend my vote as altogether wise and proper. It is always, no doubt, a difficult situation when the president of an institution opposes the majority both of the Faculty and of the Board of Directors— and that not merely on isolated or incidental questions, but repeatedly and with regard to matters of the greatest possible moment. But this situation is rendered not more unsatis- factory but less unsatisfactory by our change in the method of appointing committees. That change has resulted in the securing of really representative committees—committees where the majority and the minority of the Faculty are fairly represented. It should be observed that for many years the Faculty authorized the President to appoint committees; it therefore reposed in the President just that kind of confidence which the President: is now disposed to demand. Seldom, I 110° think, was the President of an institution given a freer hand or more thoroughgoing co-operation than President Steven- son was given over a long period of years after his assumption of office. It was only after a very long continued and fair trial of the other method that the method to which Dr. Stevenson objects was finally adopted. I deny, moreover, that in adopting this method or in any other of its actions the Faculty has transcended the sphere committed to it by: the Constitution of the Seminary or encroached upon the sphere committed to the President. 6. In the sixth place, Dr. Stevenson (pp. 50, 51) says: “But should the Faculty take itself seriously, and assume the functions of a board of censors, or a board of strategy for the whole Church in general and the Presbyterian Church in particular? This is just what has taken place in Princeton Seminary within the last three years under the active leader- ship of Dr. Machen.”’ With regard to these allegations, I desire to say, in the first place, that it seems to me quite absurd to say that the Faculty has stood in any sense under my leadership. Five members of the majority group in the Faculty were my teachers when I was a student at the Seminary; and the relationship of pupil to master, into which I then entered with them, has never been broken but has only been deepened with the passing years. Whatever I may be, I am certainly not a leader of the Faculty of Princeton Seminary, but a follower. Both my theological convictions and my attitude toward ecclesiastical questions have been derived from the great tradition of this institution, which was represented by Dr. B. B. Warfield and is now represented by my revered col- leagues, for whom my respect and admiration are now even greater than they ever have been before. With regard to the substance of Dr. Stevenson’s charge— that the Faculty of the Seminary has constituted itself a board of strategy for the Church in general or for the Presby- terian Church—I desire to record an emphatic denial. In- dividually the members of the majority group in the Faculty have taken their stand on ecclesiastical questions in accord- ance with the dictates of their conscience; and if they have ever influenced the Church it has been due to the respect to which their individual judgment has been thought to be entitled; but they have not acted in these matters in any collective way. It is, I submit, a very unfortunate thing that the President of this institution should bring, without even attempting to adduce proof, so baseless a charge against his colleagues. 411 I have already pointed out, in my initial “Statement,” p. 14, the error involved in representing me (as Dr. Stevenson does on p. 51) as an advocate of the so-called Philadelphia Overture of 1924, requiring creed subscription on the part of the members of the Boards. 7. On p. 55 of the Record, Dr. Stevenson asserts that the Board of Foreign Missions and the Board of National Missions “have requested Dr. Machen to furnish facts and proofs (that is, of my assertions with regard to the Boards), and although an extended correspondence has been carried on, no facts or proofs have thus far been produced.’ This assertion is highly misleading: the request for proof came not at the beginning but at the end of the ‘‘extended correspondence”’ to which Dr. Stevenson alludes. I should be glad, if you desire, and if you think it proper for me to do so, to submit to you a copy of the entire correspondence. II. Supplementary Correction of Assertions by Dr. Erdman I come now to the charges of Dr. Erdman against me, as they appear in the Record. What I shall say is, of course, only supplementary to what I have already said in my two printed statements. At the hearing on November 24, 1926, Mr. Bradley, as a member of the Committde, suggested that as in a case in court it is customary for each side to place a copy of its brief in the hands of the other side, so here any statements which might be made should be sent to all the interested parties. I had already followed this course in connection with my two previous Statements; and I was scrupulous about following it in connection with my Statement of December 18th, which on that same day I sent by first class mail from New York to Dr. Erdman, as well as to every other member of the Faculty and to every member of the Committee. Later I heard from the Chairman of the Committee, to my very great regret, that the copy which I had sent to him was not in hand. I then, on December 31st, sent additional copies by registered mail, special delivery, to every member of the Committee and to Dr. Erdman. I had refrained from regis- tering the copies which I had sent previously, in order to avoid the delay to which registered mail is subject. It seemed desirable that the Statement should be in the hands of the members of the Committee in plenty of time prior to the meeting on December 27th. Here I am dealing only with what already appears in the Record. : 112 1. At the hearings on November 28rd and 24th, Dr. Erdman objected to my attitude toward the Plan of Union which was sent down to the Presbyteries in 1920. I have alluded to that matter in both my printed statements. Here I desire merely to deal briefly with three assertions of Dr. Erdman (see Record, pp. 62, 63.) , (1) Dr. Erdman stated that Dr. Machen ‘‘believes that union is anti-scriptural, atheistic, and other adjectives.”’ If the Committee permits, I desire now to ask Dr. Erdman to cite the place where I used the adjective “atheistic”? with regard to the Plan of Union. I am quite sure that I did not use it. (2) Dr. Erdman stated that the Preamble to the Plan of Organic Union said: ‘Inasmuch as we all believe in the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed, etc.” As a matter of fact, that was just what the Preamble carefully avoided saying. Far from saying that we all believed in the Nicene Creed, etc., it said: ‘‘Whereas we desire to share, as a com- mon. heritage, the faith of the Christian Church which has from time to time found expression in great historic state- ments” and thus gave adherence to the well known theory of modern agnosticism, that all that is constant in the Church is the Christian consciousness, which Christian conscious- ness finds a necessarily changing expression in every age in the Creeds. : (3) Dr. Erdman stated that we should come into the Union (if we adopted the Plan) on the basis of our own Con- fession of Faith. That statement is certainly not correct. We were to retain our Confession of Faith among certain purely denominational matters, but certainly it was relegated to the realm of the non-essential. The basis of union—con- taining the things thought essential to Christian fellowship— was found in a Preamble couched in the vague language dear to modern naturalism and not containing even a mention of the resurrection of our Lord. 2. On pp. 63-65 of the Record, there are found various assertions about the Committees of the Faculty and about the League of Evangelical Students which have been corrected or will, if you permit, be corrected today by other members of the Faculty. 3. In the third paragraph on p. 64, Dr. Erdman says: “It had been stated by Dr. Machen that the Seminary had had no real Adviser for some years.” With the permission of the Committee, I should like to ask Dr. Erdman either (1) to cite evidence or adduce witnesses in support of this asser- tion regarding what I said, or else (2) to state to the Committee whether he means to offer at this point his own personal testimony. | 113 III. Charges of Dr. Stevenson with Regard to Judging Colleagues in the Matter of Ecclesiastical Beliefs and with Regard to the League of Evangelical Students 1. Onp. 51 of the Reeord, Dr. Stevenson asserts that the members of the majority group in the Faculty have been guilty of judging colleagues in the matter of ecclesiastical beliefs and attitudes. The majority of the Faculty, he in- timates, have made the ecclesiastical opinions of certain colleagues of theirs the basis of discrimination against them. This charge Dr. Stevenson has altogether failed to sub- stantiate. But in his own statement he has made himself guilty again and again of the very fault which, quite errone- ously, he charges against his colleagues. In his statement the following elements in my stand on ecclesiastical questions have been made the basis of attack upon me as a professor in Princeton Seminary: (1) I opposed the candidacy of Dr. Erdman for Moderator (Record p. 49, sixth paragraph), (2) I allowed my name to be used in the ecclesiastical campaign in connection with a certain press bureau (p.-49), (3) I joined in signing a circular issued by the minority of New Brunswick Presbytery, (4) I have made a diagnosis of conditions in the Presbyterian Church and have given it publicity (pp. 50, 51), (5) I maintain an attitude of opposition to General Assem- blies, the Assembly of 1924 excepted, and toward the Boards, agencies and enterprises of the Presbyterian Church (p. 50), (6) I hold that the condition of the Church prior to 1923 was deplorable, and that the change that came at that time was an answer to prayer and was marked by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit (pp. 52-55). I admit fully, and I insist upon, the substantial truth of these allegations. With the exception of the assertion under 5, regarding my attitude toward the Boards and agencies and toward the General Assembly, which assertion requires qualification, Dr. Stevenson has, on the points which I have enumerated, correctly stated my attitude toward ecclesiastical questions. I confess it freely, gentlemen. I am. opposed to the obscuration of the great issue in the Church; I am op- posed to several actions of the General Assembly during the last few years; I am opposed to the report of the Commission of Fifteen. I cannot relinquish these opinions in order to obtain a professorship or for any other purpose. They are eonvictions which I hold according to the dictates of my conscience and in the presence of Almighty God. But that simply raises the large question at issue in connection with the confirmation of my election as professor in this Seminary. 114 Are the ecclesiastical opinions of professors to be made to conform to those of whatever party happens to be in power in the General Assembly in any given year? Such will be the case if Dr. Stevenson’s attack upon me because of my ecclesiastical opinions is successful and becomes a precedent. Or is liberty of conscience, within the limits of the Confession of Faith, still to be respected in the Presbyterian Church? 2. On pp. 51-53, Dr. Stevenson criticises the League of Evangelical Students, of which I, with the majority of the members of the Faculty, am a member. The best refutation of this criticism will be found in an examination of the Con- stitution of the League and of the other documents that have been. cited or will be cited by Dr. Armstrong and have been partly reprinted in my pamphlet entitled “Documents.” Here I desire to comment barely upon one allegation of Dr. Stevenson—his assertion, namely, that it (the League) “‘es- tablishes a doctrinal test as the basis of good standing in the Seminary.” (Record, p. 52). I am really amazed that the President of this Institution should make so erroneous an assertion. ; The Constitution of the League recognizes two types of member organizations or chapters: (1) the entire student association of an institution, (2) a chapter within the student body of an institution, where the student body as a whole does not enter the League. The chapter of the League at Princeton Seminary is at present of the second type. Membership in the League is purely a matter of individual choice, and absolutely no undue pressure is exerted upon those who are not members to become members—no kind of persuasion, that is, which is not permissible in the case of any volunteer organization for Christian service. ‘Those who are not members are in just as ‘‘good standing in the Seminary” as those who are. On two occasions—in the spring of 1924 and in the autumn of 1926—a vote was taken to see whether the chapter of the League at Princeton should be of the other one of the two types—that is whether the Student Association as a whole would enter the League. On both oceasions there was a large majority in favor of entering the League; but entrance was not thereby effected, because the Constitution of the League requires a three-fourths vote and not merely a two- thirds vote or a majority. But suppose the three-fourths vote had been secured— suppose, therefore, that the Student Assoe@iation as such had entered the League—what would have been the result? Would any doctrinal test have been established for good 115 standing in the Seminary? Most emphatically such would not have been the case. No subscription whatever to the principles of the League on the part of all the individual members of the Student Association would have been re- quired; so far as the League is concerned, any number up to one-fourth of the membership of the Student Association might have been even thoroughgoing unbelievers or atheists; and their membership in the Student Association, and the membership of the Student Association as such in the League, would not at all have involved any requirement for them to subscribe to Christian beliefs. A more complete absence of any doctrinal test, so far as the League is concerned, could scarcely be imagined. Of course it is quite a different ques- tion whether our matriculation pledge is so broad as that; but that pledge is imposed by the Plan of the Seminary, and has nothing whatever to do with the League. But what is this doctrinal test which Dr. Stevenson seems to think so oppressive? It is found in Article III, Sections 1 and 2, of the Constitution, which read as follows: “Section 1. Qualifications for membership in the League shall be faith in the Bible as the infallible Word of God, and acceptance of the fundamental truths of the Christian Re- ligion, such as: the Trinity, the Virgin Birth of Christ, His Divine and Human Natures, His Substitutionary Atone- ment, His Resurrection from the Dead and His Coming again. Section 2. The above summary is not intended to be re- garded as a complete statement, nor as an authoritative definition of the limits of Christian fellowship, but simply as an indication of the class of persons whom the League welcomes as members.”’ Which one of these supposedly burdensome requirements, gentlemen, may be omitted as a basis not merely for the ministry but for any kind of evangelical Christian work? Do they not simply constitute the only really firm basis of all Christian life and Christian fellowship and Christian prayer? I have great sympathy, indeed, for students who enter Princeton Seminary with doubts and difficulties concerning the truth of the Christian religion. My sympathy with them is the greater—if you will pardon a personal testimony— because I was one of their number when I entered the in- stitution in 1902. I, too, was troubled with many doubts, and only the broadminded patience of the Faculty, especially of Dr. Patton and Dr. Armstrong, brought me through. But one thing at least never occurred to me in those difficult days 116 —it never occurred to me to try to impose my doubts upon my fellow-students, or to hinder the corporate witness of the Student Association or Princeton Seminary to the full truth- fulness of the Scriptures and to the Lord Jesus Christ as He is offered to us in the gospel. I was grateful for the broad- mindedness with which Princeton Seminary received me; but it never occurred to me to use that broadmindedness that I might oppose the thing for which the institution stands. I do not mean for one moment to say that all those who oppose the League of Evangelical Students do so for reasons such as those to which I have just alluded. And I am as far as possible from desiring to exert any pressure upon men who do not wish to enter into the League. But I do insist, also, upon the liberty of the men who have become members of this organization. Souls are perishing in the colleges of our country today—perishing for the Jack of Christian fellowship such as this League affords. God bless these students, I say, who are holding out a helping hand to their brethren who are in need! And I am bound to say that when it comes to saving souls and engaging in Christian fellowship I am not inclined to insist upon academic degrees. No one values more than I the scholarly standards of this institution—the maintenance of them is one of the two great principles for which we need in this day and generation constantly to contend. But when it comes to a united witness to the Lord Jesus Christ, I am bound to say that my sympathies are very broad. I am not, moreover, a premillennialist, and neither is any member of the majority group in this Faculty; but despite the strictures of Dr. Stevenson I am not ashamed to hold fellowship with men who hold the premillennia] view. We are living in a time of conflict; deadly forces are attacking the very roots of Christian faith within and without the Church. At such a time I can well understand the desire, on the part of the students who have formed the League, for fellowship with men who hold a common faith. At any rate, it would be a sad day for the Presbyterian Chureh when ecclesiastical obstacles should be placed in the way of such a voluntary organization for Christian service. The Roman Catholic Church does not engage in any such tyranny as that; but, as Macaulay pointed out, it knows how to use enthusiasm for its own purposes, instead of making enthusiasm an enemy. Still more, I think, should the mem- bers of the Presbyterian Church be free. Dr. Stevenson objects to the League because it brings our students into connection with ‘‘secession bodies,’’ with “small institutions and sects which are committed to separa- LIE tion and secession.’’ (p. 53.) I confess, gentlemen, that at no point is my disagreement with Dr. Stevenson more pro- found than here. His attitude at this point seems to me to be hostile to the very foundations of Christian liberty; and Christian liberty seems to me to be based upon the emanci- patory words of our Saviour Himself. ‘‘Forbid him not’ said our Lord, with regard to a secessionist of the early days, who was objected to because he did not follow with the com- pany of the other disciples; and so from that day to this He has had in His care those who follow the dictates of their conscience in the worship and service of Him. We Protestants are all secessionists; and if, in the interests of organizational conformity, we fail to honor liberty of conscience, our high heritage has been lost. When I think of the noble Christian people who are included in the “‘secession bodies’? to which Dr. Stevenson alludes, I feel grieved to the heart that such a word has been uttered by the President of Princeton Sem- inary. IV. The Real Issue at Princeton Seminary At the hearing on November 23, 1926, the Chairman laid before the members of the Faculty the questions: (1) what the real trouble at Princeton Seminary is, and (2) what remedy is to be proposed. Other members of the Faculty have dealt with these questions in one way or another. If the Committee does not think me presumptuous, I should like to say a word with regard to them. My answer can be put very briefly. The essence of it is that the real question at Princeton is doctrinal. It concerns the maintenance of the historic position of Princeton Sem- inary in the defense of the faith. The majority of the Board of Directors and the majority of the Faculty are in favor of a policy which I think will maintain that position; the Presi- dent is in favor of a policy which I think will break it down. ‘That does not mean that I am passing any judgment upon President Stevenson’s own religious views. It is quite possible for a man who is himself in agreement with the historic Christian faith to be—if he is permitted to carry out an in- cautious policy unchecked—the instrument in breaking down the witness of an institution to that faith. He will be such an instrument if he assumes an uncritical, optimistic attitude with regard to the forces at work in the Church. So, in point of fact, the transformation in formerly evangelical institutions has usually come. It has seldom come through the sudden introduction of definite modernism. More often it has come, I think it will be found, with many protestations of conservatism and loyalty, and even with a sincere effort to 118 maintain conservatism and loyalty, through just such an inclusive policy as that which Dr. Stevenson enunciated at the last General Assembly and which has been his policy for a number of years. I am very far indeed from asserting that Dr. Stevenson is a Modernist; but I am convinced that if his policy prevails, Princeton Seminary will be in a very few years a Modernist institution. It is quite possible that you may think such fears ground- less. But even if you do so, you may still decide, with perfect consistency, to bring in no recommendation adverse to the Board of Directors. The question is not whether the policy of the Board of Directors is good or bad, but whether the Board has a right to maintain that policy. Must the in- stitution be made to conform to the changing temper of the General Assembly, or should its individuality be respected? I think that the latter answer is correct. An historical review, which has been presented by Dr. Hodge, shows that Princeton Seminary is clearly a seminary of the Old School. When the Old School and the New School were united in 1870, the theological distinctiveness of the institutions that thus came together within the larger unity of the Church was clearly guaranteed. Thus even if the theological differ- ences now prevailing in the Church were merely differences within Calvinism, like those that separated the New and Old Schools, we should still have a full right to be distinctly an Old School seminary. But as a matter of fact—and it is a fact that deserves emphasis more than anything else—the theological differences that now prevail in the Church are of a vastly more serious nature; they involve, we think, not two varieties of Calvinism and not merely even the truth of evangelical Christianity, but the truth of the Christian religion as it is held in common by the Church of Rome, by the Greek Church and by all the branches of historic Protest- antism. At such a time of wide theological difference—wide even in the opinion of our opponents in the Church as well as in our own—have we not aright to our theological distinetive- ness? Call our position what you will; call it ultra-conserva- tism, Fundamentalist, reactionary, or use any other term; disagree with it as strongly as you please. But have we not a right to maintain it within the Presbyterian Church? That is the real question. . To answer that question in a way hostile to the individuality of the Seminary would certainly be a very serious step. Our Board of Directors is no unworthy or contemptible body of men, but has within its membership many of the most honored and successful ministers and elders in our Church. HED To advocate changes that would forcibly break down the authority of that Board—changes like a forced merger with the Board of Trustees or a rotary system of elections for membership in the Board—would be to say that all the fair words which have recently been uttered about liberty under the constitution of the Presbyterian Church are vain, that liberty in our Church is only for Modernists and not for Conservatives, and that an institution which maintains the Reformed Faith in its full historic sense is to be suppressed. I cannot think that you will take so radical a step. Whatever be your own attitude toward our theological and ecclesiastical views, I cannot help hoping that you will hold that our dis- tinctiveness is to be respected even when it is not shared, and that the internal affairs of Princeton Seminary are to be left, of course with retention of the Assembly’s veta power, to the orderly working in the Board of Directors and in the Faculty, of the principle of majority rule. Lh) tae ee Written Statement of Dr. Oswald T. Allis Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, Professor Armstrong stated to you at the first hearing of the Faculty by your Committee that the ‘“Memorandum” which he presented to you was concurred in for substance by the majority of his colleagues in the Faculty. Since I belong to his majority I shall not rehearse, nor do I deem it necessary to supplement, to any considerable extent the substance of that paper. I simply wish to state it as my personal conviction that the cause of the present “crisis” in Princeton Seminary is the fact that there is serious difference of opinion between mem- bers of the Faculty as to the attitude which loyalty to the Charter and Plan of the Seminary and fidelity to its historic position demand, that this Institution and members of its Faculty should take toward the great questions which are now agitating the Presbyterian Church. In a body such as the Faculty of Princeton Seminary, differences of opinion as to important issues are serious and must always be regarded as deplorable. But the majority of the Faculty feel that they are not responsible for the issue which has divided that body, but hold that they have been endeavoring to stand true to the solemn obligations which they assumed when they were entrusted by the Directors of the Seminary with the responsibility of teaching in this In- stitution. Consequently a serious situation arises when a professor of this Institution, Dr. Erdman, in speaking before the highest court of our Church, the General Assembly, undertakes to oppose the confirmation of one of his col- leagues in a Chair to which after twenty years of faithful and 120 distinguished service he has been regularly elected by the Board of Directors. But this action ts especially reprehensible for two reasons. The first is that Dr. Erdman represented the debate over Dr. Machen’s confirmation as having to do with “a little question” (so the N. Y. Herald Tribune reported it; I think the word actually used was ‘‘trifle’’), despite the fact that the action which he advocated has no parallel since the — days of the Briggs case and no strict parallel even in it. Yet Dr. Erdman had used or allowed to be used, as the chief basis for the widely circulated charge that he had been “per- secuted,’’ his so-called ‘‘deposition’”’ from the position of “Student Adviser.” If a change in a Faculty appointment was such a big thing when he was the one concerned, Dr. Erdman should have been the first man in the Baltimore Assembly to recognize the seriousness of the matter at issue and he should have been the last man in that Assembly to represent it as “‘a little question”? whether his colleague, Dr. Machen, should be confirmed as a full professor in the In- stitution or said confirmation be delayed pending an in- vestigation. The second reason is that I am convinced that the principal objection to Dr. Machen is simply that he has been con- spicuously active and outspoken in his defense of that position, to which as I believe Princeton Seminary stands committed both by her constitution and by her historic interpretation of that constitution in more than a hundred years of service in the Presbyterian Church. Therefore, I hold that I should be untrue to myself and disloyal to a man whom I regard as one of the ablest advocates of that system of doctrine, to the exposition and defense of which Princeton Seminary is committed were I not to express to you my admiration for my colleague, Dr. Machen, as a man, as a Christian gentle- man, and as a theologian of rare ability, and my deep regret that what should have been a worthy reward of faithful and devoted service, has been made in his case the occasion for attack, not merely from without the circle of Princeton men, which in the present crisis would have been natural, but from within the circle of the Faculty itself. But serious as it undoubtedly is when members of a Faculty are not agreed as to matters of vital concern to the policy of the Institution which they serve, the seriousness of the situation is very greatly increased when the President of the Institution holds and uses the office which he occupies to maintain and advance, a policy which is seriously out of harmony with that conception of the policy of the Institution to which in the opinion of the majority of his faculty, the a ee 121 Institution is unalterably pledged. The President of the Institution is primarily only a member of the Faculty: primus inter pares. But he is the representative and ad- ministrative head of the institution. He alone of the Faculty is ex-officio a member of the Boards of Directors and Trustees; he is “the administrative agent of the Seminary in matters of order and discipline’; and he is “‘the representative of the Seminary before the Church.” ‘President of Princeton Seminary” is not an empty title. With hosts of Presbyterians and non-Presbyterians in this country and abroad, it desig- nates the official representative and spokesman of Princeton Seminary as an Institution which is a widely known and highly esteemed exponent and defender of historic Presby- terianism in the world today. The President of this Sem- inary should therefore be the ardent and enthusiastic ad- vocate of the things for which Princeton Seminary stands and to which it stands committed. But unfortunately the Presi- dent has made it increasingly clear that he does not share that conception of the ‘Princeton position’? to which the majority of his Faculty feel that they are solemnly obligated. I need not enlarge upon this point. In the paper presented by Dr. Armstrong, to which I have already referred, the President’s speech at Baltimore has been already mentioned and its implications pointed out. It is now, I believe, in- escapably plain that the President is determined to carry out his policies in the face of the open opposition of the majority of his Faculty, and furthermore and most important of all, that he is prepared to use every means in his power, especially those means which his position of leadership as the President of the Seminary has placed at his disposal, to undermine their influence and to change this Seminary from its position of strict adherence to the traditions of historic Presbyterianism to one in which all the shades of beliefs which are now tolerated within the Church, even though they be clearly out of harmony with its Standards, will be more or less tolerated even if not approved. This policy the majority of the Faculty fee] it their duty to resist and oppose. * * +f ok 6 Written Statement of Professor William P. Armstrong at the Second Faculty Hearing I. Introduction In response to the Statement which was read by the President of the Seminary to the Committee at their meeting with the Faculty of November 23rd, I beg to submit for your consideration the following comments. 122 With the point of view of the President’s Statement I am unable to agree as I cannot approve the terms in which he has characterized the motives of myself and others in his references to the majority of the Faculty. I cannot admit that my actions, either in the Faculty or in the Presbytery, to which he alludes, justify the charge of “suspicion, distrust and dissension.’”’ These actions of course give evidence of a division in the Faculty, in which I acted with the majority, and of a division in the Presbytery, in which I acted with the minority; but for the charge of ‘“‘suspicion”*they give no adequate ground. II. The Presbytery of New Brunswick The reasons for the Statement which I signed, together with the other minority members of the Presbytery of New Brunswick (alluded to in T., p. 49)', are set forth in that document.? I did not favor the ecclesiastical policy of Pro- fessor Erdman. Therefore I could not support a resolution commending him for the Moderatorship. On the roll call I voted in the negative. The Presbytery itself showed re- spect for the rights of the minority by ordering that the record of the vote (48 to 89) should accompany the resolution when it was given publicity. When the resolution was circulated without this record, the rights of the minority were infringed. As this seemed to me unjust, I signed the Statement with the other members of the minority. Ill. The Reorganization of Faculty Committees The matter of the Faculty Adviser of the Students’ Asso- ciation and the matter of the Report of the Committee on Preachers were discussed in my Memorandum (T., pp. 49-50; M., pp. 7-9 and 10-11). In speaking of the reor- ganization of Faculty Committees, the President states that the Faculty withdrew from him “all appointing power” and that this was ‘coupled with an encroachment upon the ad- ministrative functions of the President’? (T., p. 50). The first statement is true, the action being taken upon the unanimous recommendation of a Committee consisting of Dr. Greene, Professor Erdman and myself (M., p. 10). The President did not dissent from this action. If he felt that it was an encroachment upon his administrative functions, some statement to that effect should have been made at the ‘References are either to the Transcript (T) of the Faculty Hearing ot November 23 and 24, 1926, or to the Memorandum (M) which I submitted at that time on behalt of the Majority of the Faculty. *Reprinted in the Pamphlet, entitled “Documents,” which was submitted to the Committee by Dr. Machen, pp. 68-71. 123 time, and then the matter at issue might have been taken in due course to the Board of Directors. But if the encroach- ment alluded to was something other than this action— which seems to be implied by the expression, “‘coupled with,” —the President has failed to indicate just wherein the en- croachment consisted. But in any event it does not seem to me that the action of the Faculty displayed ‘a temper which ... issubversive of Christian fellowship and jeopardizes the usefulness of the Seminary.” It was simply the expression of the judgment of the Faculty that the business of the Faculty would be facilitated by a Committee organization which would give proper recognition to the majority and the minority of the Faculty. The right of making Committee appointments is not vested in the office of the President as defined in the Plan of the Seminary, Article II, but is a function of the Faculty which it may exercise either indirectly through its presiding officer or directly whether by nomination from the floor or by nomination through a committee.® IV. The Attitude of the Faculty to the Church After speaking of the importance of the function assigned to the Faculty in the Plan of the Seminary and of the duties of the members of the Faculty as Presbyters—a duty so worthily discharged in the past, the President formulates a question in regard to the present situation and gives an answer to it. He says (T., p. 50). “But should the Faculty on this or any other account take itself seriously, and assume the functionsgof a Board of censors, or a board of strategy for the whole Church in general and the Presbyterian Church in particular? This is just what has taken place in Princeton Seminary within the past three years under the active leadership of Dr. Machen.” I was not aware that the majority of the Faculty had taken themselves seriously; and I think the President has perhaps not understood that it is their convictions, and not them- selves, which the members of the Faculty take* seriously. Equally erroneous is the assertion that the Faculty has assumed ‘‘the functions of a board of. censors, or a board of strategy for the whole Church in general and the Presbyterian Church in particular.” I know of no action of the Faculty which gives ground for either supposition, unless reference be to the Faculty’s choice of preachers—and that matter has The Report of the Committee of Seven says in Paragraph 3: ‘Under the Plan and general oversight of the Board of Directors the ordinary govern- ment of the Seminary is committed to the Faculty, and it is competent to determine under rules of its own making all matters committed to it under the Plan.” 124 been discussed in my Memorandum (M., pp. 10-12). But if reference be to the attitude of the members of the majority of the Faculty toward the public policy of the Church, then as individuals neither their right to their opinion on these matters can be denied, nor their right to act in accordance with their convictions as members of Presbytery, nor their right to discuss such issues in the public press. Certainly such action as they have taken in these respects does not seem to me to justify the charge that is made by the President. This right has been freely exercised in the past by members of the Faculty and by members of the Board of Directors and has never been questioned before, so far as I known, by any member of either body. The President states (T., p. 51), that “the majority of the faculty have accepted Dr. Machen’s diagnosis as to health conditions in the Presbyterian Church, and have pinned their hopes on the heroic measures which Dr. Macartney (and the Philadelphia Presbytery have) proposed. No minority member has taken issue with them for doing this, but they, on the other hand, have passed judgment upon their non- concurring brethren in the Faculty and have adopted a policy of suspicion, distrust and discrimination against them.” It is true that as a commissioner to the General Assembly at Indianapolis, I favored and voted for the Philadelphia Overture of 1928. The other members of the majority of the Faculty also favored this ecclesiastical policy, as I pointed out in my Memorandum (M., p. 5); but I do not think that the members of the majority of the Faculty favored the Philadelphia Overture of 1924'—certainly I did not. It is incorrect, therefore, to say that the majority of the Faculty have “pinned their hopes on the heroic measures which Dr. Macartney and the Philadelphia Presbytery have proposed.”’ The President says, as if it were by contrast a noteworthy virtue, that no minority member has taken issue with them for doing this. But why should they, if by taking issue more is meant than holding a different opinion on the subject and acting in accordance with that opinion? If no more than this was meant, then of course they did. But if only this —— “The words in parenthesis appear in the copy of the President’s Statement which he kindly sent to me (p. 4), but are absent from.the Transcript. The use of the plural in the phrase, ‘‘heroic measures,”’ justifies the inference that the President and the members of the minority, in so far as he represents them, differed from the members of the majority not only in their attitude toward the Philadelphia Overture of 1924 but also in their attitude toward the Philadelphia Overture of 1923. *I am informed that one member of the majority of the Faculty supported this Overture in the Presbytery of Philadelphia, although he felt some doubt about its wisdom. 125 was meant, then surely it was not a noteworthy virtue, since the members of the majority were entirely within their rights, however hopeless these ‘‘heroic measures”? may have seemed to the minority. In contrast with this considerate attitude of the minority, the President describes in rather ungenerous terms the attitude of the majority toward the minority as passing “judgment” upon them and adopting “a policy of suspicion, distrust and discrimination against them.’’ In this the President, I think, fails to distinguish between differ- ing from the opinion or policy of a person and passing judg- ment upon a person, and reveals still further the effect of this confusion in his charge of ‘‘suspicion and distrust.”’ The charge of ‘‘discrimination’’ against a person is also a highly colored representation of the fact that in some issues it is quite impossible to separate persons from the opinion which they hold and publicly advocate, they themselves being generally unwilling that such a separation should be made. V. The Faculty Advisership My view concerning the reason for the decision of the Faculty in the matter of the Faculty Advisership has been stated (M., p. 9). But the President, quoting from an article by Dr. Allis (T., p. 51), intimates‘that the decision of the majority of the Faculty in this matter was based upon ‘‘an opinion regarding conditions in the Church and their remedy which it differentiates from the opinion of the other members of the Faculty, and that it feels justified in making this differentiation the basis of discrimination against minority members as to the trustworthiness.” He even adds that ‘‘this raises the constitutional question as to the right of any group in the Faculty, or any member of the Faculty, to judge colleagues in the matter of ecclesi- astical beliefs and attitudes.”? This, I think, shows misun- ' derstanding. The majority of the Faculty by their action did not, in my opinion, express a Judgment implying ‘‘dis- crimination against minority members,’ because of their ecclesiastical policy, ‘‘as to their trustworthiness.” But even if, as the President affirms, difference of opinion among members of the Faculty concerning ecclesiastical issues, raises a constitutional question—and of this the President has offered no proof—this was not, in my opinion, at issue in that decision. VI. The Report of the Committee of Seven The President appeals to the Report of the Committee of Seven of the Board of Directors in regard not only to the 126 doctrinal beliefs of the Faculty but also in regard to the attitudes of the members of the Faculty toward conditions in the Church. He says (T., p. 51): “Tn the report of the Committee of Seven, appointed May 11, 1925, to make a thorough investigation of the internal dissension in the Faculty occasioned by distrust and a divisive partisan spirit, it is specifically stated that all the members of the Faculty are true to the Standards of the Church and their inauguration pledge and that there 1s no room for doubt or criticism as to their doctrinal beliefs or attitudes toward conditions in the Church.” As the doctrinal beliefs of the President are not in- volved in the issue between himself and the majority of the Faculty, an affirmation in regard to what is conceded is not important. But if the Report states, as he affirms, that there was no room for doubt or criticism as to the attitude of any member of the Faculty toward conditions in the Church, then this applies not only to his attitude but to the attitude of the members of the majority of the Faculty as well. There are, however, two considerations which bear upon the Presi- dent’s interpretation of the Report: first, the occasion of the appointment of the Committee, and secondly, the exact language of the report. In regard to the occasion, the Com- mittee was appointed not, as might be inferred from the President’s statement, upon the initiative of the Board, but upon the petition of the President; and the characterization of the condition in the Seminary, which the Committee was appointed to investigate as one of “internal dissension in the Faculty occasioned by distrust and a divisive partisan spirit, was made not by the Board but by the President.® Thus the oceasion of the appointment of the Committee was a charge made by the President against the Faculty or, by natural inference, against the majority of the Faculty. The grounds of this charge were set forth in a paper which the President read to the Board; but, while the contents of that paper have never been disclosed to the Faculty, it may reasonably be inferred that the charge was much the same as that which has now been laid before you. If this be true, then the attitude of the members of the majority of the °In his Remit to the Faculty the Secretary of the Board of Directors reported among other items of business transacted at the meeting of the Board on May 11, 1925, the following: “Dr. Stevenson read a paper which was re- ceived and the following recommendation was adopted: That the Board appoint a Committee of Seven, four ministers and three ruling elders, to make a thorough investigation of the internal affairs of the Seminary on the basis of which there has been distrust, dissension, division and distressing publicity, this Committee to report to the Board at an adjourned meeting to be held not later than the afternoon of June 15, 1925.” 127 Faculty “toward conditions in the Church” must have been involved. If therefore, upon investigation of this charge, the Committee found no room for doubt or criticism of the attitude of any member of the Faculty in this regard, its reek must have failed to sustain the charge of the Presi- ent. But secondly, does the language of the Report. sustain the President’s statement that the Committee found “no room for doubt or criticism’ in regard to the attitudes of the Faculty “toward conditions in the Church’? After affirming In paragraph 1 the doctrinal loyalty of all the members of the Faculty, the report says in paragraph 2: “Such differences as have arisen are not due to doctrinal discord in the Faculty but to the different attitudes of the members of the Faculty to the discussion of questions which are agitating the whole Christian world and to temporary conditions involving the personal relations of members of the Seminary to the government of our Church. If in these matters there is not the same unity that there is in matters of faith and doctrine, the members of the Faculty in their conduct and writing are entitled to exercise that liberty of action and of opinion which is fundamental to our faith and form of government and particularly to the historic attitude of this Seminary.” This seems to me to recognize the right of the members of the majority equally with the right of the minority to exercise in these matters ‘that liberty of action and of opinion which is fundamental to our faith and form of government and to the historic attitude of this Seminary.” This is not, however, quite identical with finding “no room for doubt or criticism” of the differing attitudes in these matters which exist in the Faculty, since the Report expresses no opinion concerning the merits of these attitudes. It would, therefore, be more accurate to say that the Report expressed no criticism either of the attitude of the majority or of the attitude of the minority, the attitude of the majority being under investigation on complaint of the President. The President further adduces from the Report of the Committee of Seven an exhortation to the members of the Seminary (T., p. 51), ‘‘to promote the work of the Seminary by such restraints as will illustrate to the world the ties of fellowship and affection which unite every member of this Institution in the common service of our Lord,’’ and says (T., p. 51), that “the partisan attitude of the Faculty majority disregards this timely exhortation and is a violation of the proprieties which should be observed between members of 4 128 . the Faculty who alike have approved standing according to the expressed opinion of the Directors and in the eyes of the Presbyterian Church.”’ This characterization of the attitude of the majority is not, I think, justified by the facts, as I have tried to show in my Memorandum; and the designation of their attitude as disregarding the “timely exhortation of the Committee” is inaccurate, not only because an exhortation cannot be dis- regarded before it is given, but the exhortation did not have reference to the attitude of the majority which is described as “partisan”, but rather to the form in which difference of opinion in scholarly publications might properly find ex- pression without limitation of that freedom which the Sem- inary has always recognized as legitimate.’ Moreover I cannot admit that the attitude of the Faculty majority has violated the proprieties, unless the principle of majority responsibility, commonly recognized not only in ecclesiastical but in civil affairs, be either denied or abused. I do not think that abuse of this principle has been proven. Com- plaint against it must therefore spring from an unwillingness on the part of the minority to acquiesce in it when it affects them. In its application members of the majority have not been reappointed on Committees but no complaint has been made that the proprieties were not regarded in their case. Indeed no other member of the minority, except the President and Professor Erdman, have made complaint in this regard. VII. Attitude of the Majority of the Faculty to the Assembly The President speaks of the attitude of the Faculty ma- jority toward the Assembly and the Church (T., pp. 51-52), as one of “‘suspicion, distrust and hostility.’’? Doubtless the President is referring to the members of the majority of the Faculty, for the Faculty majority have taken no action in regard to either of these subjects. But here again, I think, ‘The report says in paragraph 5: ‘It is part of the duty, therefore, of the pro- fessors to publish in convenient form the results of their inquiries into theo- logical learning and to seek to maintain and extend those principles which are embodied in the Standards of our Church and have been exemplified in the history of the Seminary. Such scholarly investigation and publication cannot be carried on without some differences of opinion with regard to the subject matter, the form of statement and the timeliness or form of ex- pression. ‘The reconciliation of such differences of opinion is not to be sought or found in a limitation of freedom but rather in an exhortation to every member of the Seminary to seek the peace of the Church and promote the work of the Seminary by such restraints as will temper the forms of state- ment and will illustrate to the world the ties of fellowship and affection which unite every member of this institution in the common service of Him whom we are set to serve and who hath loved us with an everlasting love.” 129 the President’s characterization of the attitude of the mem- bers of the Faculty majority is not justified. If there be, as there may be, difference of opinion about some of the measures adopted by the Assembly, and this opinion be held for reasons which to them seem good and sufficient, the holding of such an opinion by a member of the Faculty should not, without proof, be attributed to unworthy motives. VIIl. The League of Evangelical Students In regard to the statement of the President concerning the League of Evangelical Students (T., pp. 52-53), I do not think that the League “establishes a doctrinal test as the basis of good standing in the Seminary, administered by students, which is at variance with the terms of admission to the Seminary.” The League is a voluntary organization among students of the Seminary upon the basis of common Christian principles for the purpose of testifying to their faith and of interesting other students in the work of the Gospel ministry. It has nothing to do with the terms of admission and is not parallel with or analagous to a proposal to set up a doctrinal test for admission to the Seminary. Membership in it is open to all the students in the Seminary who share its principles, are interested in its purpose and approve of its methods. Its sanction by the majority of the Faculty recognizes the right of students to form such organizations; and I do not know upon what ground this right could have been denied to them in this instance. The President intima tes (Tuo... 53), that by this decision and its consequence ‘‘we are stepping down from our exalted position of scholarship.” But certainly the permission to form such an organization has no bearing upon and does not in any way change the standard of training for the ministry which is prescribed in the Plan of the Seminary. Such a change not even the Faculty nor the Board of Directors but the General Assembly alone is competent to effect. The President thinks that the League brings our students into undesirable association with students of Bible Schools (T., p. 58); but as I do not share his fears regarding the effect of such association, I cannot concur in his formulation of the question which your Committee ought to consider. He says CT. -» D- 93): “Shall Princeton Seminary now, fretted by the inter- ference of the General Assembly, in rebellion against the Presbyterian Church, as at present organized and controlled, 130 because of the fallacy’ that a radical anti-Christian liberalism is dominating the courts, agencies and enterprises of said Chureh at home and abroad, shall this institution now be permitted to swing off to the extreme right wing so as to become an interdenominational Seminary for Bible-school- premillennial-secession-fundamentalism? This, Mr. Moderator, as I see it, is the big question which your Committee ought to consider.” I know of no rebellion in the Seminary against the Presby- terian Church nor of any tendency or desire to become an interdenominational Seminary for Bible-schoo]-premillennial- secession-fundamentalism, for it cannot reasonably be sup- posed that the sanction and presence of a voluntary Chapter of the League in the student body can seriously prejudice this Institution in respect either of its terms of admission or of its educational policy. There might indeed be difference of opinion about the wisdom of granting permission to the students to form such a Chapter, but certainly if such serious consequences as the President describes were plainly involved in it, then those who failed to recognize them must have judged of the matter from a very different point of view. While some think the League unwise in its methods and harmful in its effect here, it is certainly true that a majority of the students favored it and a majority of the Faculty saw no good reason to refuse their sanction to the purpose and plans of these students. Some of these effects are however due, in my opinion, not to the League and to its adherents but to the opposition to the League on the part of a minority in the Faculty and among the students. Similar effects have appeared in the past in connection with the eating Clubs, and like these the difficulties of the present situation will doubtless in time bring about their own adjustments more satisfactorily if resort is not had to repressive measures. ? In regard to the presence of liberalism in the Church, to which the President alludes, this is not denied even in the ’This is the reading in the text of the President’s copy; the Transcript reads “assumption.” °The Board of Directors adopted a similar attitude in this matter upon recom- mendation of the Committee of Seven. The Report of this Committee says in paragraph 4: “The student body hitherto has been permitted, with the friendly advice of the Faculty ordinarily conveyed by a member of the Faculty under powers purposely very vaguely expressed, to organize them- selves in such social and devotional associations and clubs as they have deemed best calculated to promote their social and communal welfare. It does not seem desirable for this Board to curtail their freedom in such mat- ters or to regulate their proceedings. If mistakes occur time and ex- perience will certainly bring about such corrective measures as may be needed and in a manner far more effective and of much larger educational value than would result from the assertion of the authority of this Board.” 131 Report of the Commission of 1925, and its influence in some of the courts of the Church is a fact which cannot be dismissed by characterizing as a fallacy (or as an assumption) the belief in its existence. And surely the right to oppose it cannot be denied to those members of the Faculty who do not accept it, if the right not to oppose it is conceded to others who do not accept it, each group exercising that liberty of opinion and of action in this matter which is recog- nized by the Board of Directors as legitimate apart from any judgment concerning the relative merits or consistency of those differing attitudes. IX. An Evangelical Awakening The situation is said by the President (T., p. 53), to be ‘made all the more difficult by the conviction on the part of the majority of the Faculty that this revolt against influences and policies supposed to be controlling factors in the Seminary and in the Church for several years past, is in answer to prayer, and marked by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.” In support of this statement about the conviction of the majority of the Faculty, a quotation is made from Dr. Machen’s book and another from an article in The Presby- terian, referring to ‘“‘an evangelical awakening in the Church’”’ which latter (T., p. 55) is spoken of by the President— apparently with scorn—as ‘“‘the awakening which he (2. e., Dr. Machen) and Dr. Macartney brought about.” Certainly the President has not made the situation less difficult by his statement. For it is true that members of the majority of the Faculty have made the consistency of the Church’s witness to the Reformed Faith a subject of prayer, holding as they do that Faith very dear, and in doing so they may also have believed that the response which was made to the endeavor to secure such consistency was in answer to prayer. Believing this, the hope may well have been quickened that the Church would be blessed with an evangelical awakening. That human agents might be employed in such an awakening is not an unnatural inference from Christian premises. It is therefore distressing to learn that such an attitude and such a hope can be characterized as it is by one who does not agree with the opinion of his colleagues concerning these matters or share their conviction that even as methods of ecclesiastical policy may be a proper subject of prayer, so may their issue be interpreted as evidencing an answer to the prayer of faith. And nothing, I think, could more plainly than this indicate the difference not only in opinion but in spirit, which separates 132 the President from those who hold the views which’ he so strongly condemns. X. The Future of the Seminary The President concludes his statement with this question Clay Oardath. “Ts this Seminary to be what its Charter prescribes (The Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. A.), or to be the institution of a turbulent section in our own. and other churches?”’ To this I would reply that the Seminary has been and still is the Seminary of the Presbyterian Church, loyal to the provisions of its Plan, loyal to its trust obligations, and loyal to the standards of our Church; and that neither I nor other members of the majority of the Faculty can acquiesce in the characterization of those who have responsibility for the policy and welfare of the Seminary as ‘a turbulent section in our own and other churches.” XI. Conclusion Let me say in conclusion that I tried in my Memorandum to present some of the issues upon which there has been difference of opinion in our Faculty. I sought to show that this difference of opinion found expression in different con- crete decisions, and I attempted to indicate briefly the reasons for the decisions of the majority of the Faculty in some of these issues. The statement of factinmy memorancum showed that upon all of them the attitude of the President differed from that of the majority of the Faculty; and in conclusion I pointed out the reason for the attitude of the majority of the Faculty toward the administrative policy of the President as formulated in his speech at Baltimore. In this my Response to the Statement by the President to the Committee I have endeavored to review the issues which he presented and to relate my view of them to his interpretation and opinion, more particularly in so far as his Statement concerned the majority of the Faculty. | In regard to the form of the President’s Statement, I cannot but think it unfortunate that the attitude of the majority of the Faculty should be described as pervasively in terms of “suspicion,” of ‘‘distrust,’’ of “dissension,” of “division,” of “discrimination,” of “hostility,” and of “a partisan spirit.”” Such a description seems to me neither just nor true; and I have listened to the repetition of it with diminishing interest. I regard it not only as improper but as unprofitable, since, without concession of honesty of motive, 133 there is no common ground upon which difference of opinion may be discussed with mutual respect and without detriment to mutual good-will and e:teem. But even such a difference of opinion in regard to the standards of discussion is not of great importance; and certainly it is not the fundamental issue in the Seminary. This issue is not the fact of difference of opinion in the Faculty, or the form in which it is expressed, or the various occasions of it, since, with one exception, these matters do not seriously affect the welfare of the Seminary. This, however, is not true of the administrative policy of the President. Apart from his office, the attack by the President upon the majority of the Faculty and his public opposition to the judgment ‘of the Board of Directors would have no greater significance than a similar action by another member of the Faculty. But a policy which the President advocates in opposition to the Board of Directors is related directly to the welfare of the Seminary, since it seeks to determine the Seminary’s course; and this, as experience has taught, is fraught with serious consequence. It is ultimately for this reason that the ma- jority of the Faculty have expressed to you (M., p. 15) their deliberate opinion that the fundamental issue in the Seminary is the administrative policy of the President. The grounds of the President’s policy in the present issue have been presented to you, and to them response has now been made in so far as they concern the majority of the Faculty. We of the majority therefore rest, with the state- ment that the principles for which we have contended are, in our opinion, of supreme importance to the welfare of the Seminary as wegunderstand it and seek to serve it—those principles being, in brief summary: 1. The authority of the Board of Directors under the Plan to determine the policy of the Seminary. 2. The right of the Board of Directors to maintain, and of the Faculty to teach and defend, the doctrinal position of the Seminary under the Constitution of the Church. 3. The right of majority responsibility and control in the conduct of the affairs committed to the Faculty by the Plan or by the Board of Directors. 4, The right of the members of the Faculty in the dis- charge of their duty as Presbyters to exercise liberty of opinion and of action in matters pertaining to the public policy of the Church. 5. The right of the students under Faculty supervision to form organizations on the basis of Christian principles for worthy purposes. 134 Upon these principles we have based our statements; and we venture to express the hope that they will commend them- selves to your judgment. * * *" * * Extracts from the Interlocutory Discussion at the Second Faculty Hearing Dr. Thompson: The Committee seems to think it might be well, as a matter of convenience, for Dr. Erdman to make a brief reply to the specific questions of Dr. Vos, without inter- fering with a more extended statement. Dr. Erdman: With reference to the statement that Dr. Machen called me a modernist, I think Dr. Machen has never called me a modernist. I have no such memory of having made such a statement, and if I have said it, I withdraw it and apologize now. Dr. Thompson: Does that satisfy Dr: Vos? Dr. Vos: Yes. Dr. Erdman: In reference to my changing an article which I had written. My change was to entirely delete the sentence where the phrase ‘‘editors’” was used. The word ‘‘editors”’ was not made “editor’’ but it was deleted before the article reached Dr. Kennedy. Dr. Luccock: I think you said that you had no reference to him. Dr. Erdman: I had no reference to Dr. Vos. Dr. Vos: I would like him to reply, whether he had another member of the faculty in mind. I would like him to say who it was, if he feels like it, or it was not this or that one. Dr. Erdman: I had supposed that the article emanated from a certain editor of the Presbyterian, but I afterwards found that I was mistaken in such a suspicion. I have in writing before the Committee a reply to Dr. Allis’ question, and I can read that if desired. Dr. Allis: May I ask Dr. Erdman whether he has stated who he meant, who the member of the faculty was? Dr. Erdman: I have made no affirmation to anyone as to what I suspected, but I did think the material came from Dr. Allis. I never said he wrote the article, and I never said that Dr. Machen wrote it. But I think the material came from Dr. Allis because of statements he made at the time. Dr. Allis: May I ask Dr. Erdman, was not he aware that Dr. Machen had been an editor, and that I have never been an editor of the Presbyterian? I have written for it, but Dr. Machen had been an editor. It was announced on December 27, 1923, that five men would be associated with Dr. Kennedy 135 | a Associate Editors, and Dr. Machen was named among them. Dr. Thompson: You were not named? : Dr. Allis: I was not named. I do not understand the phraseology, because it seems to me plain that Dr. Machen was meant, and would be naturally understood as the one who was meant. Dr. Erdman: AssoonasI was given a copy of the Presby- terian I looked to see who were the editors, and I saw that the one I had suggested, Dr. Allis, was not an editor. Imme- diately I telegraphed saying, “‘Cut out the whole paragraph.”’ I corrected my own statement, and Dr. Kennedy got it three days ahead. Dr. Machen: May I ask Dr. Erdman if he can present to this committee the text of that telegram; can he present the exact text of the telegram to which he alludes? Dr. Erdman: It can be secured from the office of the Presbyterian. Dr. Kennedy has it. I don’t think it is a vital point. Dr. Thompson: I don’t know what the habit of the Western Union would be in that matter. | Dr. Erdman: I did not keep a copy of it. Dr. Thompson: All you can speak from is memory. Do you suppose the Presbyterian has it, Dr. Machen? Dr. Machen: I have no knowledge. It seems a matter of vital importance to have the exact wording of that telegram. Dr. Thompson: Who would be responsible for deleting the portion if the telegram was received, and the article? Would it be the Editor, Dr. Kennedy, the business manager? Assume for the moment that Dr. Erdman had sent the telegram asking that a certain portion be deleted, and that telegram was received in time, whose business would it have been? ) Dr. Machen: It would have been the business of the responsible editor of the Presbyterian, Dr. Kennedy. He isin charge of the editing of the paper. Dr. Thompson: If he did that, the chances are that the telegram might not have been filed away and kept. Dr. Armstrong: I don’t seem to get the matter clear in my mind. It seems that the telegram was sent to the editor of the Presbyterian at the time the article was sent, and reached the editor of the Presbyterian before the letter reached him, but though the editor of the Presbyterian did not publish the letter, the letter was published first in the Advance. As I understand it, Dr. Erdman said that he sent the telegram to the Presbyterian, and. he wrote a letter to the Advance, but the editor of the Advance published the letter, and it was only 136 a week later that the Presbyterian published it as a reprint. I was not quite clear as to the connection. Dr. Erdman: That is the fault of Dr. Kennedy. If Dr. Kennedy had not reprinted from the Advance, Dr. Machen would not have written as he did write. Dr. Kennedy did a ereat wrong in not printing what he got first. He reprinted from something which he got ten days later. Dr. Kennedy should have stated that I had deleted that phrase. Dr. Luccock: Dr. Machen, do you have any question in your mind about Dr. Erdman having sent this telegram after he makes the statement that he did? Dr. Machen: I decline to answer that question. It hardly seems to be a proper question. I have not made any allegation against Dr. Erdman’s truthfulness in this matter. Dr. Erdman has not cited the exact wording of this telegram. Not the general substance of the telegram namely, but the exact wording of the telegram seems to be votally important. Dr. Erdman has not himself stated that the exact wording was. Dr. Erdman: I said, Delete the phrase ‘‘who are also editors of the Presbyterian.”’ | Dr. Machen: Let us see if we can reconstruct the tele- eram. Delete the phrase, Who are also editors of the Presby- terlan. Then the question of course arises, how the letter would have read if that phrase had been deleted, and what possible bearing it can have on the question at issue. If the phrase were deleted, it does not seem to me that it could have been intelligible. I cannot see how anything is changed. Dr. Luecock: Do I understand that the Advance pub- lished later a corrected statement? Dr. Erdman: Yes. Dr. Machen: The Presbyterian Advance inserted, so far as [am aware, what is printed in my “Documents,” pp. 38-39. In that connection I desire to call your attention to the fact that Dr. Erdman is said there to have written to the Presby- terian Advance. He did not telegraph to the Presbyterian Advance, but he wrote to the Presbyterian Advance. The article had already appeared. I cannot see how the correction even if it had been more important than it was, would have changed the essential features of the situation. He thought two Princeton men were editors, but later found only one man. The inference I would draw would be to change the plural to the singular. I think that is the impression the public got, that two men were listed, and he is blaming these men, he thought there were two men, but later found that only one was named. The inference the public would draw is that he had intended to make his letter refer to me who am the only editor of the Presbyterian. There is not the slightest hint 137 there that he desired to delete the clause. Suppose the clause were deleted, how would the letter then read? The letter appears in “Documents,” p. 10-138. Suppose we delete in accordance with Dr. Erdman’s memory. I cannot see that the sentence is intelligible, but it still contains an attack upon some members of the faculty, and then the entire next para- eraph goes on to discuss the spirit of those members of the faculty. The thing by which I feel aggrieved does not depend at all upon one phrase in that article, but it is the entire attack which runs through that section of the letter, upon certain members of the faculty of the Seminary. I contend that the public never received any intimation that I was not attacked and was excluded from this attack, and I contend in the second place that if the attack was directed against colleagues of mine, I am still inclined to feel aggrieved by it. The public was certainly never given any intimation that I was not intended. That is the point to which I refer. Dr. Thompson: Dr. Machen, do you think that you are left as a sole survivor of this attack, all other members of the faculty having been eliminated, and whatever damage or injury comes to you abides, but the others are relieved? Dr. Machen: No sir. I contend almost the opposite of that, that the plural was used, and still there is no explanation of the plural at all. The correction made in the Presbyterian Advance might lead someone to think that I alone was in- vended, and yet if the reason for the use of the plural was that Dr. Erdman thought more than one member of the faculty was also an editor of the Presbyterian, there must have been in his mind a desire of criticism of a plurality of the members of the faculty, and the mere fact that he felt someone else was a member of the editorial staff of the Presbyterian, when he was not really an editor, does not explain the original use of the plural. Dr. Thompson: If I get the proper impression, it was: here is a letter which casts reflection upon members of the faculty who are also editors. Now Dr. Erdman makes an effort, let us say, to delete enough of that to strike out the plural phrase. Suppose he succeeds. He still leaves one editor of the paper, and the paper shows that that person 1s J. Gresham Machen, so that whatever of infelicity remains, it is certainly fastened upon Dr. Machen. It seemed to me that if the other members of the faculty had gotten out from under, you are the one person who remains on whom the burden has fallen. Dr. Luccock: I agree with Dr. Machen that the effect of the deletion is to give a sort of blanket criticism of the mem- bers of the faculty. I think the effect of the turn that Dr. 138 Erdman’s statement gives to us is, that Dr. Erdman did not intend to reflect personally on Dr. Machen. I do not think that gets Dr. Erdman out from under the charge that he has criticized the members of the faculty. I don’t think the correction he made takes off that sting. Dr. Erdman: I admit that frankly, and I admit that in my own mind there was a relation between members of the faculty who had been closely associated with the Presby- terian, and this attack. An attack appeared in the Presby- terian, which another editor told me was untrue and unfair and which demanded some answer. I went to the editor and said I did not think it was true and I wanted a chance to answer. The next article he wrote was this one, and I thought it would be well to answer it. It had two specific charges. One was that I had injured the First Presbyterian Church, and that I was aiding to defeat this Seminary. I was defending the Church and the Seminary; and I was stating that the Church had never been in connection with the University and was not given to rationalism, and I was defending the Semi- nary by the statement that any division was due to a spirit of bitterness. I am sorry now that it was written. What I stated seemed to me to be true, and seems to be at the bottom of a great deal of our trouble. Dr. Machen was an editor of the Presbyterian at this time, and he never attempted to shield me from any attack that came out in the Presbyterian. Now came this egregious attack, and when I answered it, instead of disclaiming any complicity with such an attack, Dr. Machen, as an editor of the Presbyterian, writes to state that what I have stated is not true, that there is a division here, and it is due to my indifference as to doctrine, and moreover, that I am willing to take sides with and make common cause with those who are willing to oppose Christianity itself. He states that in answer to my article. He has obviously been wrong in that whole course. He was responsible with the other editors for not correcting the statement. I did not have him in mind when I wrote this reply. My intention was to show that we are not doctrinally divided. I am not doc- trinally indifferent. I wish to oppose rationalism as much as any other man. What has divided us is a bitter intolerant spirit. I have no doubt I have shown it and I regret it. Ido want to get it out of my heart. If I could explain just a word, Dr. Machen, about the Advance. I wrote the letter to the Presbyterian and asked that it be published. Then I telegraphed the same afternoon, so that they would have the correct form. I wrote to the Advance saying to them that this article was being sent to the Presbyterian, and if it was not published in the Presby-. 139 terian, they should publish it if they wished. I see now my mistake in not thinking it was so important to write the Advance. I wrote a letter to them. Unfortunately the Advance was on press when my first letter arrived. They, cleaned off the whole back page and put that letter in. Dr. Luccock: You did not authorize them to print until the Presbyterian had had time not to print? Dr. Erdman: That was my intention. I thought it would come out in the Presbyterian in the correct form. Dr. Luccock: Ishould like to ask you this question. Have you ever foltowed Christ’s rule in Matthew 18:15—both of you? Dr. Erdman: I did meet Dr. Machen and I did it with the best of intention. He afterwards wrote me that he was excited and we did not get as far as we might. Dr. Machen: I did write to Dr. Erdman. If he had come to talk about the matter, I should have been delighted to receive him in accordance with the injunction you suggest. Dr. Lucecock: Why didn’t you initiate it? It might have been a wise thing to go to him then. | Dr. Machen: I think Dr. Erdman should have come to me. Dr. Erdman: Did I not come and say, we differ here, we seem to have misunderstanding of each other, we ought to talk these matters over ? Dr. Luccock: The impression that 1s on the Church is that the greatest trouble in Princeton Seminary is that you men who are appointed to teach young men to preach the Gospel of reconciliation, are not yourselves applying it to your own relationships. Dr. Machen: That is entirely true, and I have tried to show Dr. Erdman’s contribution to that. The personal attack such as he made against colleagues in the Presbyterian Ad- vance was a most extraordinary thing. As I have said I am delighted if a proper settlement is effected. I should be most overjoyed. I have not received any advance from Dr. Erd- man, and I regard myself distinctly as the injured party. I should be overjoyed if I found sorrow on Dr. Erdman’s part for the injury he has wrought against me and nothing would give me greater delight than to restore our relationship. Dr. Luccock: Christ’s rule is that the injured party should go to the one who has transgressed against. him and lay the grievance before him. Dr. Machen: Before it becomes public. Dr. Erdman: I did go to him and I did say we should become Christian friends and his letter indicates that he did not feel like so doing at that time. I think I have a copy of his letter. I walked with him as far as I could, he kept going 140 away from me, and I followed for a long distance. He said the gulf is too great between us and that it is a matter of principle. Dr. Machen insists I have attacked him in public. I have not done so except in my statement that there is a spirit of bitterness in the faculty. It is true and it has been true for some time. I am willing to do all that I can to get that spirit out. Dr. Machen: I would like to say this, that I think that one of the mistakes which has contributed to this unfortunate personal situation here is that we have not honored the facts; that we cannot have understanding unless we first make perfectly plain what the exact facts are upon which we base our criticism of one another. Dr. Erdman made a very sweeping indictment of me because of my acquiescence in attacks which Dr. Erdman says had been made in the Pres- byterian, and had been made over a period of time. He has not presented to you these attacks. He has not presented the evidence upon which he has based a very serious allegation against me. I have endeavored in this collection of documents to present the facts, to document what I have said, and I do think we should make great progress if at every time when assertions are made about attacks in the Presbyterian, that the exact page should be cited where these attacks are found. Tam unable to agree with Dr. Erdman’s characterization of the article by the editor of the Presbyterian. He has cited the sub- stance of that in a way which I think is not in accordance with the wording of it which appears here. We are getting more and more in a morass unless everything we assert is documented. They should be cited so that I can examine them to see on what the objection is based. I should like to see, if it can be obtained, the exact wording of the telegram to which Dr. Erdman has referred, because in the form in which it now seems to be, the letter still seems to me to involve the objec- tionable features to which I have referred. I do not see that the letter could have been published in that form because it would have been unintelligible. The matter would be clarified by having the exact wording of the telegram. And there are a great many other matters of fact in what Dr. Erdman has said which I would like to take up. I do not know whether I am engaged in the debate in a satisfactory way. But to secure the exact facts upon which our criticisms of one another are based does seem to me extremely important and will, I. think, contribute to a real settlement of this unfortunate matter. There is one matter I want to speak of. The original publication of the letter in the Presbyterian Advance. I have received the impression from Dr. Erdman that he did not 14] intend that letter to be published in the Advance until it had been first determined whether the Presbyterian would print it. But he has told us that he does not remember the exact wording of his letter to the Advance. The editor of the Advance in his first printing of the letter states something with regard to the way in which it came to him which seems to be contradictory to what Dr. Erdman intended when he sent it to the editor of the Advance. In Documents, p. 10,. . .“probably on the assumption that the Presbyterian will not print a communication which so exposes the methods by which it spreads slander concerning even the most con- servative men, etc.’’ The editor of the Advance clearly displays there a complete ignorance of any admonition that he should delay the publication until it had been determined whether the Presbyterian would publish it. It was sent not as a general letter, but as a letter to the Presbyterian, to another editor so that that other editor could print it, not as a general letter, but as a letter to the Presbyterian. That seems to me to run counter to all canons of literary propriety and if it was not intended that the letter should be published in the Advance until after the Presbyterian had refused to publish it, I cannot see any reason for sending it to the Advance at all at that early stage. It would have been the property of the Presbyterian until it was determined whether they would publish it. It might have been sent as a general letter for simultaneous publication. The editor of the Ad- vance displays a total ignorance of any admonition from Dr. Erdman that the publication of the letter should be delayed until after the Presbyterian had refused to publish it. He says it was sent probably on the assumption that the Pres- byterian would refuse to publish it. _ Dr. Erdman: There was no statement of Dr. Machen’s name, to say the least. What he proceeds to do is to issue a long statement in which there is a specific attack upon me by name. It was published all through the country. His entire letter is a personal attack upon my personal integrity as a Christian minister. Can that be proven by anything in my life as a Christian minister for the last forty years? Dr. Machen took occasion from my statement that there was bitterness in this faculty, to take that to himself and he wrote his article for which he has never apologized. He followed that up by a good many actions which are personal in their character. And it seems to me that as Christian men, we ought to put these things behind us. The general public 1s not interested in them. They want us to live together as Christians. We ought to forget them and to delete them from our memories. We have made mistakes, but let’s live 142 together as Christian gentlemen and call the chapter a closed chapter. Mine was not a personal attack by name, what he did was. It seems to me that we ought to get together as Christian gentlemen and forget the past, and not suspect one another. Dr. Thompson: Dr. Luccock has been rather clear and insistent upon Christ’s method. We have pretty near taken the step for both of you gentlemen. We have paved the way as much as we can. We cannot do one thing more than we have done, and unless you two gentlemen can resolve these differences, no resolution of this faculty can doit. The faculty are as helpless as this committee. Dr. Machen’s paper today has set up a principle with which I agree, that the great issues before the Church are the fact and character of God, the fact and character of Christ, the fact and character of the Scriptures, all leading up to the great fact of supernaturalism and the proclaiming of the Gospel. He cited this much better than I can. That is the great issue for which this seminary is standing and all seminaries of instruction, and we are standing for it in the standards of the Westminster Confession. But the differences within the body of the faculty which have been asserted here and affirmed, ought to be in some way resolved. This committee would be helpless in the situation. I was not even assuming that the faculty can resolve the differences between two members. If there were differences between Dr. Wilson and Dr. Loetscher, all you could do would ‘be to say, What are you going to do to resolve them? We have done all we can. I don’t think the faculty can do any- thing more, nor can the directors, nor the trustees. We have arrived at a stage of helplessness so far as we ourselves are concerned. Talk about the doctrine of inability—we have reached that point. Dr. Erdman: It does seem to me the whole trouble i Is a past difference between Dr. Machen and myself. Dr. Thompson: That is only one fact in it. Dr. Erdman: But I do feel, according to Dr. Machen’s statement here, that Dr. Machen thinks it is more serious than any personal difference. He really believes, I think he does, that I want to make this an inclusive seminary, or in some way favor the forces of rationalism or liberalism, and that I do not want to make common cause against them but with them. If this committee could persuade Dr. Machen that I am perfectly sincere in my statements in defending the evangelical faith, and have not done anything else in my life, if we “could persuade Dr. Machen that that is true, I believe he would forgive me for what is past. Dr. Thompson: But there are administrative difficulties in which the President was involved, when you have answered 143 that situation. The statement was made here that Dr. Stevenson and Dr. Erdman have both been unwilling to contend, or whatever term may be used, in their attitude toward unapproved elements. That has been unfortunate. I thought that statement, as I read it, was a strong statement. Dr. Luccock: The importance of this personal relation is not that it is the biggest issue. If this is resolved we can talk over the other things as friends and not have the personal issue beclouding them. Dr. Vos: It seems if there is to be handshaking—his letter still goes on in an indefinite way to say there is bitterness in the faculty, that it is not confined to one person, it is a disease spread through the whole faculty. If that is to be resolved, I wish to shake hands with Dr. Erdman. Dr. Hodge: I do not wish to say very much, because I spoke too much before. I wish to plead with this committee not to think that the troubles here are simply matters of bitterness of spirit. There is a fundamental difference with respect to the church’s witness to the truth. I agree with everything Dr. Erdman says about his own views and his own orthodoxy and all of that. I give my hearty recognition to everything he says, but I must judge by the votes cast for him in the Assembly, by the fact that the whole of the New York Presbytery and Synod were rejoiced at his election, not because he agreed with them, but because he would make it easier for them than Dr. Macartney; and by his defense of the 1920 reunion program; and when he was Moderator, after the judicial decision had been given in respect to the case of the Virgin Birth, he took up Dr. Matthews’ suggestion to appoint a Special Commission, when they had a report that was signed and sealed to settle all unrest in the Church. I agree thoroughly that Dr. Erdman’s own views are no doubt just as my views, but. I do believe that there are differences here with respect to the attitude which individual members of the seminary take as to the importance of the church’s testimony to the truth, which are fundamental and deep seated, and which have nothing to do with personal bitterness at all, and I protest against the idea that this 1s a matter of personal bitterness. I have not any bitterness for anybody. It is a question of principles, and men can differ a out principles without getting bitter about it. But you cannot say that because men agree together with respect to doctrine that they agree with respect to the importance of the doctrine of the importance of the Church’s testimony. Dr. Thompson: Do you mean to say that there is no impression made upon the student body, and the church at large, that there is bitterness here? ‘~ 144 Dr. Hodge: I think there has been great misrepresentation made upon the church at large and upon the student body here. Dr. Luccock: I quite-agree with you, there is a good deal more to it than personal differences. Dr. Hodge: There are more important things. Dr. Luccock: Both issues are here and we have to deal with all the issues, and do not think for a moment that because just now the emphasis 1 is on the personal difference, that the other is out of mind. Dr. Hodge: I understood the chairman to imply that these matters of personal bitterness were things that had practically brought the committee to a standstill, and they were the fundamental things, at least that is what was told to me. Dr. Thompson: I think you did not get that clearly. So far as the resolution of these two men are concerned, we have gone as far as we can go. That is only one factor in the issues. This is the thing that is immediately before us. I don’t see what more we can do to bring about the reconciliation of these two men, in this matter of publicity in the Presbyterian which seems by common consent to be a matter of offense to both parties. Dr. Erdman says Dr. Machen’s statement has hurt him. Nobody has been prepared to dispute this state- ment. What reconciliation can be made. Each seems to have ground of offense toward the other. We could settle that by some other method perhaps. Dr. Machen: Do I understand you to state that it 1s your judgment that Dr. Erdman has ground of offense? Dr. Thompson: He states that he has. Dr. Machen: Dr. Erdman made some reference to some- thing which was in the hands of the Committee in writing. May I ask if it be proper to say whether Dr. Erdman has made ~- a statement, as I thought he had not? Ae. Erdman: I sent in a few sentences in reply to a question by Dr. Allis. Dr. Machen: The principle I ade was, that any of these statements should be sent to the interested parties. I have not seen Dr. Erdman’s statement. ; A letter of Dr. Erdman to Dr. Thompson, was then read as follows: ‘““My dear Dr. Thompson: Let me thank you for the transcription of the Hearing of the Faculty by the General Assembly’s Committee. By the statements on page 74 I am reminded that a request was made for me to put in writing my impression as to the authorship of the article in the Philadelphia Presbyterian of - 145 January 29, 1925, which intimated that my installation as pastor of the First Presbyterian Church was strengthening the forces of rationalism and so endangering the interests of the Seminary. Allow me to state that I never supposed that Dr. Machen was concerned in the authorship of this article. Inasmuch as Dr. Allis had expressed great opposition to the arrangements which were being made for my installation, I had imagined that he was in some way concerned with the origin of the article in question, but as I had no proof, I have never made any statement as to its authorship other than to say that I did not attribute it to Dr. Machen. Let me ask the Committee to request Dr. Allis to state in writing whether he was the author or whether he has any knowledge as to the authorship or origin of this article. My reply to this article attempted to defend the First Church, and also to defend the Seminary by stating that the Faculty of the Seminary was not divided on doctrinal issues, but that the divisions were due to suspicion and a bitterness of feeling. Dr. Machen seized upon the opportunity of making what seemed to me a very injurious attack upon me in which he associated the name of Dr. John Timothy Stone. To this attack I never made any reply. ‘The Additional Statement”’ published by Dr. Machen, December 18, bases its charges almost entirely upon the one or two incidental sentences in my reply, with some further references to the ‘‘basis of union of 1920.” I will not burden the Committee by any detailed discussion of this ‘‘Additional Statement,’’ only to say that it does not seem to me that it is either temperate or true. It can easily be judged, however, in the light of the facts already in the hands of the Committee. I refer to it more particularly, however, in order to answer the pertinent question asked by Dr. Luccock (on page 74 of the transcript you have sent to the Faculty.) It was Dr. Luccock’s suggestion that Dr. Machen and I should state our grievances and also the terms on which the differences might be resolved. Let me say then that my grievance against Dr. Machen is that ever since 1920 he has been making state- ments in reference to me which I regard to be untrue and has shown the spirit which is manifested in the documents he has placed before you. On the other hand, he regards me as having greatly injured him and as having been guilty of untruth. Such being the conditions, my proposal and desire is to regard all these matters as by-gones, and to agree lo forgwe and forget, and to do all in our power to work harmoniously with 146 all the members of the Princeton Faculty. I shall be very happy, indeed, if such a result can be attained, as I harbor no resentment, and desire only the best interests of the Seminary and of our Church. Yours very sincerely, (Signed) Charles R. Erdman.” Dr. Machen: May I ask what the date of that is? Dr. Thompson: December 23rd. Dr. Machen: I raise a point with regard to that matter. It does seem to me that contrary to what Dr. Erdman says, that concerns me in a most intimate way. It was in ac- cordance with the principle which was understood at the close of the last meeting that all such statements should be sent to the interested parties. I feel aggrieved at not having had placed in my possession this statement, and not having it at this moment. Dr. Thompson: If I am to blame, I apologize. It never occurred to me that it was my duty to do that. Dr. Machen: It never occurred to me to blame you. Dr. Erdman should have sent that to the interested parties. It contains a proposition and it should have been in my hands that I might deliberate upon it in the same way that he might deliberate on the statement I made. As far as it concerns me, the inquiry as to whether we had presented a statement of our grievances, and the manner in which we should resolve our differences, I desire to record the fact that that is what I have done in my “Additional Statement”’ and in very spécific terms I have stated in that on pages 19-20, the manner in which I think a resolution of our personal difference could be secured. I should like to call attention to that portion of my statement, and that I have presented this to Dr. Erdman. Dr. Thompson: I have a letter from Dr. Machen of December 18 in which he says “‘I am now submitting an additional statement.’ I understood this to mean that you were doing what you said you were doing. There are state- ments of the ground on which Dr. Machen is willing to have reconciliation. I had no misunderstanding myself. Dr. Erdman has submitted no documents. What we have gotten from him as his own correspondence. Dr. Allis:: I did not know that Dr. Erdman had made a communication. I think I had heard that Dr. Erdman had written, but I knew nothing of its content. I did not know that a question was to be asked of me. I was not aware until the letter was read a few moments ago that Dr. Erdman had made any such request. IJ wish to say in this matter that I do not think it is necessary for me to present it in writing, as Iam prepared to speak now with regard to the subject, but I 147 should like to reserve the right to make, if it may be wise, a somewhat fuller statement in writing later. I think it has been made clear, Mr. Chairman, by the dis- cussion in the faculty in this hearing, that Dr. Erdman’s letter as first sent to the Presbyterian referred to ‘‘editors’’ of the Presbyterian, to the members of the faculty who were also editors of the Presbyterian. That clearly included Dr. Machen. It did not include any other member of the faculty. The statement which appeared in the Presbyterian Advance, and which has been cited here, that Dr. Erdman thought there were two members of the faculty, but found there was only one. That would seem to narrow it down still more defi- nitely to Dr. Machen, consequently I do not feel that I was attacked by Dr. Erdman in that letter, and I did not reply. I debated with myself as to whether I should do so. I wish to state Mr. Chairman that I did not write that editorial. I did not approve of that editorial. I did not see it until it appeared in the Presbyterian in the usual way. I wish to say further, however, that as Dr. Erdman has intimated to you in his letter, I did object, I did protest against events which had taken place in Princeton, and on January 5, 1925, I attended a meeting of the Philadelphia Presbytery of which I am a mem- ber. I intentionally left the meeting of the Presbytery at the same time as Dr. Kennedy left, and I discussed with him the situation as I saw it in both its legal and its larger aspects. I told him very definitely and earnestly that it would be necessary to make the facts known. I do not recall having directly asked him to write that editorial, and as I have said to you, I never saw it until it appeared in print. When I left Dr. Kennedy, he seemed to me to be non-committal. I did not know what he was planning to do. I had no knowledge of it until it appeared in print. I am prepared to say that I think, while exception may be taken to the form of the editorial, and also the question of the wisdom of it, that it is correct in essential facts, and I am prepared to maintain that if it is desirable that I should do so. Dr. Luccock: Do you mean to give the impression that Dr. Kennedy got these facts from you? Dr. Allis: Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that Dr. Kennedy got many facts from me. Just how many I do not know. The matter had been discussed to a considerable extent ‘more or less in the public press, and I may say further that Dr. Kennedy stated to me that he was entirely responsible for that editorial, and that he was prepared to state it pub- licly if it should be desired. Dr. Stevenson: I did not understand that all papers would be in duplicate and circulated. Dr. Machen did that 148 in his own case, and he rather requested it. Afterwards it occurred to me in answer to some questions that had been raised, that I should present a statement before your Com- mittee in answer to Dr. Armstrong’s paper. 1 did this at the eleventh hour and sent a copy of it to you. Dr. Armstrong: I may not be in order, but it was my understanding that when the question was asked in respect to supplementary statements, provided they were in the hands of the secretary of the committee, that they should be put into the transcript. Dr. Machen: I presented my statement to Dr. Erdman and he did not present his statement to me. Dr. Whallon: I feel with Dr. Luccock, that this matter of | the relation between Dr. Machen and Dr. Erdman is very important, and it goes out from the Seminary, and is keenly felt by the alumni of the institution. There are those who are sympathetic with Dr. Erdman, and those with Dr. Machen and they are extremely anxious that this personal difference should be bridged over. We are very hopeful that that will be the case. As we have heard this matter, I gather this, that Dr. Machen has stated that he had never made any state- ments against Dr. Erdman until this coming out of the article in the Presbyterian. Then he replied. Dr. Erdman makes it clear that he did not intend that to apply to Dr. Machen. Dr. Machen thought it did apply to him, and that he has been injured. Dr. Allis in the transcript said that he had no information before that you did not hold Dr. Machen in mind in writing that article. These are matters of misunder- standing, and if they could be cleared up I think it would be very helpful in the life of the Seminary and in the feeling of the alumni of the institution. If the statement could be made, the grounds on which you could come to agreement with Dr. Machen, it would be a very valuable contribution to the committee. Dr. Erdman: That I should publish a statement that I did not believe Dr. Machen wrote the article? Would he withdraw his statement and his accusation? Dr. Machen: The publishing of a statement by Dr. Erd- man that he did not have me in mind, or still more, the mak- ing of such a statement in private would not benefit the situation in the slightest. I should resent the attack upon colleagues of mine just as much as when it was made against. me. I have tried to set forth the grounds, the way in which I think the settlement could be obtained, on pages 19 and 20 of this Statement. I do bespeak some consideration for the very concrete statements I have made. I do not think we shall get anywhere in this matter without the consideration 149 and careful study of the facts in the case. I have tried to make my case as plain as I can. With regard to my state- ment about Dr. Erdman, I do desire to call the attention of the committee to the terms in which it is couched. I did feel under some provocation at the time, but I very carefully re- frained from any personal attack upon Dr. Erdman, and I would like to quote one statement in my letter at the time, in my reply to the statement in the Advance, on page 29 of my documents. I do submit that that high personal esteem has not been impaired. After the attack is made I still speak of him personally in these terms. I do maintain that I have not engaged at all in the kind of derogatory discussion of Dr. Erdman’s motives and Christian character which he engaged in his letter. This is set forth in my statement. I have tried to point out the differences between my statement with regard to Dr. Erdman and his statement with regard to me. I have tried to make my case in writing and I have tried to correct supplementary misunderstanding. But my case that I am making with regard to this matter 1s found in my two statements and I am not trying to repeat it here at all. Dr. Luccock: One of my difficulties is in understanding your point of view, when in the same breath you say you hold him in personal esteem and honor him, and then say he-is indifferent and one who makes common cause with the enemy, and yet maintain that you have not said anything reflecting upon him personally. I cannot get that. Dr. Machen: I do not apply these terms to which you refer, to him personally. A great many men hold that Christianity is primarily a life, and that doctrinal indifference can go along with loyalty to Christ. That position of doc- trinal indifference is held in a far more thorough going way by high minded men for him I have high personal esteem. I do not question Dr. Erdman’s devotion to the doctrines ot the Christian Church. I have limited it with regard to ecclesiastical matters. I have defined it in a way which prevents it from being offensive. There is no impugnment of his own personal devotion to Christ. There is an impugn- ment of his ecclesiastical policy and my difference in principle is extremely important, in my judgment. Dr. Luccock: Do you think one can be personally de- voted to Christ and make common cause with the enemy? Dr. Machen: Because he may be ignorant of the fact that the enemy is an enemy. J Dr. Thompson: I think I committed myself to hear Dr. Smith and Dr. Loetscher. os +k ok ES *k 150 Verbal Statement of Professor J. Ritchie Smith I should like to state in the very beginning of my few words, that I have no complaint to make against any of the brethren in the faculty. I have no personal grievance. My relations have been and continue to be of the most cordial and pleasant sort. So that what I have to say will be entirely impersonal. I shall not undertake to enter in any degree into the mass of personalities of which we have heard so much. JI think the matter has been quite fully discussed and all sides have been presented, and it is not becoming in me to express any judgment upon matters of personal difference between my brethren of the faculty. So that the few words I have to say simply relate to two points of difference that would perhaps distinguish me from the majority of the faculty. I greatly regret the use of the terms “majority” and ‘“‘minority’ and am sorry that any such division has taken place. Since it has taken place, it is necessary to indicate my own personal standpoint, the points of difference as they lay in my own mind in the matter of the witness bearing of the Church. I conceive the witness bearing of the Church to be one of its greatest duties and one of its highest privileges, and I yield to no man in the importance of the Church and seminary witnessing to the truth. There is the way of controversy, and there is the way of a direct and constructive presentation of the truth. Each of these methods has a distinct place and value, and IJ shall not undertake to determine the relative place of them in the Seminary or in the Church. There are times and places when controversy is required. There are times and places when the more direct and immediate presen- tation of the truth is more impressing and more effective, and it is largely, moreover, a matter of temperament and dis- position. Some men by nature incline to one method and some men incline by nature to the other, and every man ought to be able to choose for himself which he can use most effectively, and it is not fair to conclude that a man who uses either method is indifference to the witness bearing of the Church, if he bears his witness in one form or another. For myself, I have always found it to be more suited to my disposition and temper, and more effective, to deal with truth not in the controversial way but in the way of a direct presen- tation ef the truth and leaving the truth to make its own application and appeal. I have no quarrel with any man who has a different way, and I think there are many men to whom the controversial method is more congenial and more effective. Hither method is entirely legitimate and it ought to be left 151 to every man to choose which method he prefers, without any risk of incurring any censure in the matter of bearing: witness. The second point of difference which may exist between me and my brethren in the faculty, is in our attitude to'the President of the Seminary. I conceive the President of the Seminary as having labored very hard in the work given him here and has labored efficiently, and is entitled to support. Now the ground on which support is refused him by some of my brethren is that he favors an inclusive policy in the seminary. Now whether that is a good thing or a bad depends entirely upon the definition of the term. There is an inclusive policy which I should deprecate as much as any man. There is an inclusive policy which I favor and it may be well to say a few words regarding that. Historically and legally, there is no question that the - seminary represents the whole Church. It was founded by the Church; it is the creature of the Church, the organ and agent of the Church, deriving all its authority from the Church, and as the Plan of the Seminary states, the General Assembly is the fountain of its power and the General Assem- bly has very high authority over the seminary in all aspects, so that historically and legally, there can be no question that the seminary is the creature of the Church, is subject to the Church. It cannot be superior to the Church, nor separate from the Church, nor independent of the Church. It cannot be detached from the Church, and I should deprecate very cordially any policy of isolation from the Church. That is merely the historical and legal side of the matter, which is, I think, the less important side. When we come to the doctrinal aspects of the case, the matter is not quite so simple as on the historical side, and yet I think there is a very real sense in which an inclusive policy is perfectly legitimate in the case of the Seminary. I would mean by that an inclusion simply of those elements in the Church which are true to our Standards in their purity and integrity. I would be very far from favoring any departure in any direction from the testimony of our Standards, or any weakening of our allegiance to them. I think there is no question about that. There is no question that there 1s anybody in this faculty with a leaning toward doctrinal unsoundness in any respect. For myself, for fifty years I have been preaching the old doctrines I learned here in Princeton Seminary. I have taught them habitually and I continue to teach them. They are good to live by, and preach, and to die by when the time comes, and I have no question that this system of doctrine which we hold here is the true system as taught in the Word of God. No question about that whatever. 152 But we have no distinctive theology in Princeton. That has been taught from the time the Seminary was instituted. We have no theology of our own. There is no “Princeton”’ theology as distinct from any other form of theology of course. What we are teaching is Calvinism, or the Reformed system of faith in its purity and integrity, and I conceive that any- body in the Church, or any element in the Church which is true to the system of doctrine that is taught in our Confession, may properly be represented by Princeton Seminary. There are differences of doctrine on immaterial points in the Board of Directors, in the Seminary faculty. For example, we have in the Seminary faculty, or have had in recent years, all the varied aspects of doctrine with regard to the personal return of Christ, premillenial, postmillenial and amillenial, and | don’t think the Seminary has suffered from these varied forms within the limits of the Confession of Faith. Variety of opinion leads to the enrichment of doctrine and not to the detriment of doctrine; our system 1s not impaired but strength- ened by these minor differences which are all the more effective testimony to the truth of the system in which all who hold these views unite. Some of my brethren do not believe as I do. I do not question their right to differ from me. I think these are matters which every individual man must settle for himself, and within the limits of our Constitution; these are only illustrations of the differences that may properly be found to exist, and which I say tend.rather to the enrichment than to the detriment of our form of faith. I have been brought up at the feet of old Dr. Hodge, whom I revere as a noble Christian man, as a great teacher, as the very exemplar of orthodoxy, and I teach the system that Dr. Hodge taught in all its simplicity; but there are certain particulars in which I have differed from Dr. Hodge, on which I teach differently from him, several minor points that I could mention. J do not think that the fact that I have differed from Dr. Hodge on some minor points in any degree affects my’ loyalty to the Confession of Faith or to the in- tegrity of the system in which I was brought up. And I use this simply as an illustration of the fact which seems to me obvious enough, that within the limits of our Confession, and in the ranks of those who hold to that system in its purity and integrity, there are differences of opinion upon minor points. If we are turning to points of more importance, if we are in any degree overstepping the bounds of the Con- fession, if we are transgressing the limits of the Reformed theology, I should immediately say the case is absolutely different, and I would not be willing for one moment to have the seminary forsake its historical position as the defender of 153 the Calvinistic or Reformed system in its integrity and purity. I would not have any system of inclusion, which included elements hostile to that system, and the only inclusion I would recognize is the inclusion of all those who hold that system pure and entire, and yet cherish within the limits, certain minor differences of opinion. I differ from my brethren in this respect, that it seems to me that is about the position of the President of the Seminary. If this is not his position, and if he is inclined to bring into the Seminary or into the’ representation of the Seminary in any degree, what we call the liberal or modernistic elements, I should oppose him as heartily as any of my brethren, but because I do not think he holds that position, because I have satisfied myself in public utterance and in private utterance, that his attitude is that which I have been indicating, I have been inclined to support him, and to believe that the inclusion he desires is not one which would affect the integrity of our system in any _degree. That is a difference of opinion between me and the brethren. It is not a difference of principle as I conceive it, because if I saw the matter as they do, I should take the same position they do. Because I do not view his attitude in the same light, I take this difference of position. I feel the inclusion which he stands for, and which I favor, is simply an inclusion of the kind which I suggest is within the limits of the Standards of our Church. This is all I have to say upon these matters. I want to say in conclusion, that I see no reason, after all I have heard, apart from personal considera- tions, I see no reason why we brethren cannot all work to- gether, pray together, serve together in the interests of the Seminary, of the Presbyterian Church, and of the Kingdom of God. * *K k ok 5 Verbal Statement of Professor Frederick W. Loetscher I feel like introducing my statement with the remark that too much is being said and written and printed on this whole matter. Much may be said on both sides. Whether we are advancing any good cause by the kind of debate we had here this afternoon or not, I do not pretend to say. My approach to the few remarks that I wish to make will be along the historical line. I think our troubles became open here at the time of the organization of the Evangelical League, and in connection with the change in the position of the student adviser. I understand Dr. Wilson has said just what I should like to say; in my humble judgment any member of the faculty is thoroughly competent to perform the duties of that position, but the trouble that has arisen 154 has been due in my humble judgment to this fact, that the faculty has been seriously deficient in Christian courtesy and charity to one of its members. About their legal right to do what they did, I have no question whatever. When this League arose there came to be a very wonderful zeal in behalf of doctrine, not only on the part of some students in the seminary, but on the part of some members of the faculty. It was quite an unwonted interest that was manifested all of a sudden in devotion to pure doctrine. My position in the matter, the moment the question came before the faculty was determined by an experience that I had as an acting-lecturer in the New Brunswick Seminary. My first acquaintance with this proposed league was in connection with the fact that the student body in that seminary—their smallness in num- bers does not make the principle at stake any different—were to be passed by in the selection of official candidates for membership in the League, on the ground, as I think it was mentioned at that time, that some of the students who had gathered at some conference, after some of our men had made remarks that were, whether serious or jocose, effected to undermine the confidence of our students in the theological fitness of the brethren at New Brunswick to be members of the League. It appears that this particular Seminary was to be black-listed because some of its professors were under suspicion. ‘That led me to think that the best kind of advisor whom the faculty might appoint to supervise the inception of this League was one who, up to that time at any rate, was not conspicuously zealous for the League, and it was known that Dr. Erdman was not. That would have been sufficient to determine my vote in the matter. I refer to this because that is the historical origin of the phrasing of majority and minority. That we should be labeled as ‘majority’ or ‘minority’? members with regard to perfectly colorless com- mittee appointments, only illustrates the evil that is con- nected with this habit of fastening labels on members in the Church, or in bodies like this faculty. The more important consideration I think that was in the minds of a number of us was that we felt, that inasmuch as this came as a proposal from the student body, it was all the more obligatory upon the faculty to stand by that member of the body who for 16 or 18 years had performed the duties of this office with conspicuous fidelity and success. I did not know what now appears to be the truth, that a small group of students, Mr. Schofield in particular if his statement is to be accepted at its full value, was responsible for the action of the student cabinet in having Dr. Erdman set aside, and having the recommendation come before the faculty, that the 155 faculty should appoint another student adviser. If that is true, and the whole truth, it all the more confirms me and I judge some other members of the faculty, in the position that Christian courtesy was the sufficient principle that ought to have controlled our action in these circumstances; that we should have said to this body of students, “‘We commend your zeal, but we do not wish publicly to reflect upon the theo- logical standing of one of our honored members.’ The faculty did not do so. They have stated in the majority report sub- mitted to you, that in their judgment, Dr. Erdman lacked the qualifications that the adviser ought to have in this alleged crisis in the affairs of the student body. Of course it is difficult to tell a historical story straight. Dr. Machen refers in his book to the year 1924-25 as being one of the notable spiritual advances in the Seminary, and I don’t doubt that that is perfectly true for a considerable number of the students who were keenly interested in this League, who looked into the theological questions involved in the matters before the Church, in the public debates, who were engaged in private and public prayer. But, as I say, there are other aspects of the case. When that particular class left this campus, one of them came to see me, and I casually asked him what he thought of the League. He said, ‘‘Dr. Loetscher, I think that League is the work of the devil.’ And he checked himself, and said, “I should not have said it that way.’ But he had been living in this Seminary for three years on terms of pleasant Christian intercourse with his brethren, when, after the organization of this League, whatever lies back of the fact, his class mates and he could no longer greet each other on the campus, could not walk together any more. How much of that there was, I don’t know, but I do know also that relatives, having interest in the future seminary connections of members of the family, came to me as I don’t doubt they have come to the rest of us, inquiring about the religious conditions of this institution as reflected in this League. And there were those who told me that they could not, under the circumstances, think of sending anyone to this Seminary for whose religious welfare they were particularly solicitous. There is truth on both sides of this thing, but the point I make is that the faculty was most unwise and lacking in Christian courtesy, - when they took the particular action in the behest of a group of students in publicly humiliating one of their members by asking someone else to take the duties of that office after the many years in, which he had efficiently performed it. I deprecate the labeling of members of the Faculty. It 1s a matter of convenience, probably, but personally, I wish it 156 understood before this Committee and before my brethren, who in fact are familiar enough with those aspects of the case, I refuse to be a partisan in all these questions. I try to weigh them as they rise before us. I am very sorry for some of the public acts of my colleagues Dr. Stevenson and Dr. Erdman. I cannot undertake to defend some of their statements in which they have, I think, been deficient in Christian courtesy, and reflected upon the actions of their brethren. I think the great trouble with us here is that we are keen for truth, but we are lacking the insight of true spiritual wisdom, Christian charity and love. There is a crisis in the Church, but I think we were particularly full of zeal for the cause of God, we ought to be specially careful that we level our shafts at the enemy, and not at those who by every consideration of Christian charity ought to be regarded as our friends and our allies. There is this rather remarkable fact that underlies our situation here. Every member of the minority group, so called, have been or is a pastor of a church. All the majority party, not one member has ever been a pastor, except one, Dr. Greene, and that was 30 years ago. Now it seems to me that there is something ultimate there that underlies our varying approaches to the problems before the Church. I think there are some members of the majority party, so-called, who cannot understand what Dr. Smith has just told them, and yet the Church is full of men of just that type, men who are convinced that they can do their best - work by never referring to the controversy in the Church at all. I was the guest of such a man some months ago. I think he had been twenty-five years in his pulpit, the son of a distinguished Presbyterian minister. I took occasion to ask him at the time of our excitement here about the student League, what he does, as a matter of fact, in his own adminis- tration. He said, I never mention the word modernism, or conservatism, or fundamentalism. I just go on preaching the Gospel today, the same Gospel that I learned in the Seminary, and that I have preached ever since I have left the Seminary. That man has no gift for polemics. I think there are men to whom we owe a debt of gratitude because they are not of that type, but we have been inclined in the faculty to discount the Christian character, at least the theological correctness, of men who, as the phrase once had it, are not on fire for the Gospel, by which I judge it was meant that a man cannot be a true and effective preacher of the Gospel unless he is a polemic preacher. I judge there is a sense in which that is true, true as set over against that which is opposed to it. But I think we all feel, at any rate at least those who have been in the pastorate, that it is possible for a man to do his 157 very best work by doing it constructively with a positive presentation of the truth, and by steering clear, if he has no gift for polemic preaching, of that kind of belligeraney which some identify with true orthodoxy. The question, therefore, that has divided us as I see it, is this. How far may we go in the exercise of Christian charity toward those who differ with us in regard to the attitude that we ought to take toward matters in public debate? How far does my loyalty to conviction prevent me from exercising Christian charity toward my brother in the ministry? We differ along that line. I suppose the members of this minority group differ as to the way in which they decide questions of that kind on their merits. Personally I feel, for example, that we ought to be much more particular when we select a Stone Lecturer, who comes as an official teacher for a period of a week, than I think we need to be with regard to the simple Sunday morning ministrations in Miller Chapel. There are many men in the Church whom I should like to hear preach, and who I think would give us acceptable minis- tration, even though I should know in advance that they and I would differ as to what. the attitude of a minister ought to be toward some of the things in public debate. Much has been said about having liberty for the majority party. I think we all alike need to safeguard the principle of Christian liberty, and so far as I know my own relationships to these matters in regard to which there has been divergence of opinion, it has just been along that line. But I think some of us feel our need to be a little more elastic, charitable, generous, more flexible in the administration of our work. I think the Committee well knows, that while, as has been said, the Seminary owes no member of the Presbyterian ministry an invitation to come to preach to us, we have been exceedingly rigorous and narrow in our interpretation of the question: ‘‘Who are worthy and eligible men to conduct this hour’s service on Sunday morning?’ There are some whom we would not care to hear, perhaps because they are not good preachers. There are other men of distinction in the Church, whom I should like to hear because I like to get into personal! touch with them. I like to judge by my own ears as to the kind of message which they are giving to their brethren in the Church at large, and I feel that no great harm is done if _ we should have a little more charity in our make-up than we seem to have had in recent years. As for the bad names that have been used with regard to some of us, I take more or less of comfort from the fact that much the same kind of thing was said about Alexander Hodge and Samuel Miller in their day, because they refused to be stampeded by the theological 158 panic of the time. We have been suffering from that. We have had a theological panic. There is a crisis in the Church, but I think it behooves us all the more to be careful in the selection of our targets when we come to express our judg- ments as to brethren in the Christian ministry, and ‘par- ticularly in the Presbyterian ministry. J think we need to administer the affairs of the seminary as an institution of the general Church, with a larger degree of charity toward those with whom we may differ, not on matters of fundamental doctrine, but on matters pertaining to the politics of the Church, if I may so say in the presence of so many ex-moder- ators and future moderators. The great question is not who is chosen annually in the Assembly. Dr. Macartney and Dr. Erdman are both admirable Christian ministers. While there may be a special fitness in selecting one as against another, I do not think we ought to indulge in the uncharit- able and unChristian manifestations that we have had in this body, because we have had divergence of opinion on such practical matters of church polity. * * * * * Further Verbal Statement of President Stevenson Dr. Stevenson: Statements made contradict mine and ehallenge proof. If you desire any testimony from me in answer to allegations that have been made, I am willing to make some statement. Dr. Thompson: I don’t know of any mis-statements re- garding you. I don’t know of any statement that impugns the integrity of another man’s statement. If there is such, bring it to our attention. Dr. Stevenson: In speaking, I was not wishing to intimate that there is anything personal whatsoever. I can say in all sincerity that my attitude toward my brethren is most friendly and I cherish no personal grievance. I have no feeling of having been personally slighted, but matters have been alluded to that have pertained to questions of adminis- tration, and if you will permit me I would like to answer two or three statements made this afternoon. The first was by Dr. Machen with regard to the statement I made as to his position regarding Dr. Davis. I have here all the correspondence on that matter. I have here a tele- eram sent by Dr. Macartney in respect to the action of a Committee appointed by the Directors consisting of Dr. Crane and myself to wait on Dr. Davis to take the work in systematic theology during the temporary illness of Dr. Hodge. This telegram reads: ‘Have just talked with Laird and I feel critical situation in theology requires further de- i i i a i 159 liberation.”’ He advises that the students be advised that we have the matter under deliberation. That telegram came when Dr. Crane was here. Dr. Crane and I had met to take this matter up as per instructions of the Board of Directors. It had been decided that Dr. Davis should be invited. This telegram intercepted the invitation. Dr. Crane received the telegram in my room. We asked what we should do about it. I suggested we should eall Dr. Laird. Dr. Crane called Dr. Laird only to be informed that after the Committee had met and had come to a decision, Dr. Machen had seen Dr. Macartney and had persuaded him that it would be in the interests of liberalizing the seminary if Dr. Davis should be invited to take up that work. They talked it over on the telephone, and these two men rather reached the conclusion they would go ahead. At any rate Dr. Crane took the re- sponsibility to going with me and inviting Dr. Davis to render that service. After we had invited him, Dr. Machen refers to commotion on the campus. This agitation was reported to me by Dr. W. 5S. Plumer Bryan who was a visitor on the campus. He came to my house in great concern and said that things were in a most serious situation and it had grown out of this action of mine, supposedly mine, in inviting Dr. Davis to take up this work. I called a meeting of the faculty. We met here. I explained the steps that had been taken and why they had been taken. Dr. Davis sat in that corner and after I had made the statement, he rose and said that he had been invited by the Committee, but that if there was opposition on the part of the faculty, he did not wish to accept, and he left it to the members of the faculty as to whether he should do this, and he retired. After he retired, I went round and asked whether they were agreeable. It was then that every member of the faculty, as I recall it, consented with the exception of Dr. Machen. It was that to which I alluded. That did create a situation with regard to Dr. Davis. That he was grieved was reported to me by his daughter after his death, that he was so upset by these differences in the faculty, that he did not believe he could live through it. His own family think that his health was seriously affected, and the one thing that was most grievous to him was the fact that he was conscious in teaching his students, that they had been warned not to accept his teachings. I was challenged for having stated that Dr. Machen had remarked concerning certain men that they were not Chris- tians. I do not make it a point to spy on my brethren, but occasionally when something impresses me, I make a record of it, and I simply read this for what it is worth, as there may 160 be members of the faculty who were present at the time. “Nov. 21, 1925. In discussing the schedule of preachers, containing the name of a Southern Methodist, Dr. Loetscher inquired, ‘How can we invite a man who is not a Calvinist, when members of the faculty object to Presbyterian ministers who were recommended by the Committee?’ To this Dr. Machen made objection. ‘My objection to them (and the men were Watson, Covert, Vance) was not because they are not Calvinists, but because they are not Christians.’”’ That s my clear recollection of the statements made at the time. Another matter is my objection to the appointment of committees. And in connection with that the statement, as I recall it, by Dr. Machen was to the effect that I had as President, had the authority to appoint committees for a long time, and the intimation was that repeatedly I had shown a disregard for the majority of the faculty. I would like Dr. Machen to indicate any committee that I have appointed in which that has taken place. On the contrary, the very com- mittee that made these changes in nominations, was a committee which I appointed, consisting of two members of the so called majority, and one of the minority. I wish to be corrected. I am not aware of anything that is regarded as an abuse of power. There had been very few committee appoint- ments made. It was difficult to get men to take appointment on committees. The other thing, the League. If it were voluntary, without pressure being brought on other students, ‘If you don’t sign it you will be regarded as one not believing in the Gospel, and therefore put off by yourself,’ if it were not drawing a dividing line, particularly at the beginning of their course, I would join with them. I have said that again and again. If you make this a voluntary organization, if you don’t press campaigns and bring all sorts of forces to bear on incoming students as soon as they arrive on the campus and represent it to them that they will not be regarded as evangelical. I suppose my experience was with the Student Volunteer movement, which organized volunteer bands, and went on that basis. That made a dividing line in nearly every institution in the country and I cite that as an illustration of what would happen if that’ sort of policy was conducted, as I believe it has been. It has been even conceded by the majority, that it is literally true that in this institution there are two mutually exclusive types of Christianity, and it was their business in testifying to draw the line. I cannot recall all the objections that were made to state- ments of mine as Dr. Armstrong read them, and with a certain tone of voice. I thought if I had meant this in the same way, 161 even as he mentioned scornful attitude, I certainly owe all the faculty an apology, because that was not my spirit. I was try- ing to face honestly a situation here, that I think you agree is somewhat baffling and difficult perhaps just to diagnose, and when he repeated the words “suspicion and distrust and opposition,’ I feel I am not cherishing personal resentment. I feel that is the way I have been treated. I have been under suspicion, that I do not have the confidence of my brethren. that I have. to reckon with their opposition. I ask, why is this? Wherein have I been so guilty that these men feel justified in organizing a majority to carry on, as has been car- ried on here, and have that kind of control, instead of trying to work together as a united faculty in order that we may be of one accord and one mind? | Allusion has been made, and I don’t need to comment . further on what has been stated about an inclusive Church. I think Dr. Smith has described what I have in mind very accurately. If I ever meant the church would recognize heresy, and men who do not believe in the authority of the Scriptures, who do not accept the Virgin Birth, if I have ever meant any intimation of that kind, I would make public _apology, because I do not hold to anything of that kind. The matters that have come up have affected the attitude of the Seminary towards the Church, towards the Assembly, towards the Boards and Agencies of the Church, and in order that my position might be made clear I went to the trouble of writing out in full a document, a copy of which you have, which | submitted to the Board of Directors. The Chairman of the Committee of the Board of Directors asked me to make copies for his Committee of Seven, but not to let it go abroad. It might be a good thing to give my brethren a copy of it. I went to particular trouble to indicate my views as to the way we should get at this trouble in the Church which we are talking about. I deplore with them, modernism and all that is involved. I think Dr. Machen will bear me witness that I have gloried in his testimony and have commended his testimony on more occasions than one. When his book- “Christianity and Liberalism’’ was written, I commended it from a theological point of view. I deplored statements he made that 50 cents out of every dollar went to the propaga- tion of error. I could not consent to that, and in his latest book wherein he speaks of the fact that in some Boards it has been considered bad form to mention the Cross of Christ. | could not consent to that, because I don’t believe he has proved it, so far as the Board I am identified with. I don't think it could be proved. There is a Presbyterian way to go about and try to to settle it, as there is a Presbyterlan way In 162 this faculty that has been indicated in what you have stated. If the members of the faculty think any brother in the faculty does something he cannot approve of, ought to go and tell him frankly, and if he cannot convince him that he is wrong, he has a right of appeal to the Board of Directors, and have it rectified. And with all due respect to Dr. Wilson, he did not come to me, he went to the Board of Directors, and the Board brought it up against me, as to why I had invited Dr. Lueas to speak, and after I had answered the Board of Directors, and told them why I had invited Dr. Lucas, Presi- dent of Forman College, and they approved of it, Dr. Wilson still holds that against me, and makes complaint in the face of the action of the Board of Directors. It seems to me we have to take this into account. We have a plan. Is that plan in its definitions, and in the relationships involved, adequate? I came here as President, appointed by the Board of Directors, and I had one idea as to what it meant to be President, but I found the faculty had another idea as to the Presidency. It was little different from the chairmanship of the faculty, and in fact the President is nothing more than, 1t was spoken of as primus inter pares. Dr. Thompson: It seems to me it is wnus inter pares. Dr. Stevenson: But you take the situation. He is the representative before the Church. If that means anything he is to represent the seminary to the Church, and the Church to the seminary, and have some part in inviting men here. It all now goes over to Dr. Wilson. He is the one that now has a power the president does not have. Dr. Wilson, and we trust him, Dr. Wilson in consultation with the students can invite anybody here, but I cannot. I am not permitted to invite anybody to come here without bringing it to the faculty. The same thing is true of Dr. Erdman in his depart- ment of practical theology. It seems to me that there is a point, where, contrary to the Plan of this Seminary, which makes it very specific that it is the Board of Directors that supervises the instruction in a particular department, that needs to be reported to when there are any charges made, that my good brethren are sitting in judgment on the faculty as to what they do, and are condemning them for certain things they do, when it is the Board of Directors that is to decide that. Dr. Armstrong has alluded to the action of the Board of Directors taken a year ago, October 13, 1925. It is true that I as President requested the appointment of a Com- mittee but it is not true that the intimation in doing so was that I brought any complaint against the majority of the Faculty. Most of that paper is taken up with a definition of my own position, and as to whether it met with the approval 163 of the Board of Directors. If the matter of the League be regarded as a matter reflecting upon the faculty, it might be considered so. The rest was the matter which was agitating the seminary at the time. Newspaper reporters were here constantly. I gave out no information to anyone of them, nor did I have an interview published. It was among the alumni and it was on the campus, and on that basis I requested a ‘committee be appointed. I did use the language to which Dr. Armstrong referred, and the Board incorporated that in the appointment of its Committee. At that time some of these matters of which so much has been made, were brought to the attention of the Board, particularly this Plan of Union. I called attention to it, and I printed an article in the Presby- terlan. Certainly that Committee was advised as to that particular thing, and if my relation to it and Dr. Erdman’s was reprehensible, as it is represented, then certainly that Board of Directors was negligent of a great trust, when having it before them, it brought out the decision to which Dr. Arm- strong has alluded, and certainly did not take the action that - he has alluded to, that any of us by inference, because we were related to that, we were not loyal to the Reformed faith, Dr. Stevenson: The same thing holds with regard to the Church. There are many things done by Boards and General Assemblies, that I do not approve of. I did not approve of the union with the Cumberland body, and opposed it in the Assembly and in New York Presbytery. Strange to say New York voted against the union. It came up in a constitutional way, and was debated, and there was nothing for me to do but acquiesce and accept.it as the judgment of the Church. I have to adopt myself to that. Iam amember of the Board of Foreign Missions. Dr. Erdman would bear me out in this, that again and again, accusation has been brought against that Board as not being sound, of sending men out who are not sound in the faith. Now one may have his private opinion about that, but that matter was before the Assembly on several occasions, and a special committee was appointed three or four years ago to investigate that matter, which came to the conclusion that there was no truth in it or basis infact. Inthe Assembly when Dr. Macartney was Moderator, in 1924, when Dr. Wilson was a member of the Foreign Missions Committee, at that time there was insinuation that the Board of Foreign Missions was not sound, and there were criticisms made, but there under the leadership of Dr. Mac- Lennan, there was as great a statement made as to the character of the work of Foreign Missions as could be made. It seems to me that in the administration of an institution like this, that is a principle to go on, and to assume that that 164 has come up constitutionally, and we can take it as a working basis. I have found this difficulty, that there is suspicion here. If Dr. Wilson will permit me, I would like to quote from him a statement which was made this autumn—he will correct me, in which he said that the student cabinet had decided to invite a representative of the Board of National Missions, and the Board of Foreign Missions, and the Board of Educa- tion here to speak on a Tuesday night. He spoke with trepi- dation about bringing it up. He didn’t want to cause a blow up. He said, I will warn them before they come here as to what they will say. It is difficult to invite them to come on a Tuesday evening—and that is different from a Sunday morning. That makes it very difficult in the administration of an institution, which is to train young men to serve the Boards and Agencies of the Presbyterian Church, because if the secretaries of these Boards are of such a character that they may not be brought to the institution without being warned as to what they are going to talk about, and having their remarks confined to specific subjects, there is some justification for the language, which may have been too strong, of suspicion and of distrust and more or less antago- nism against the Presbyterian Church as at present organized. That has been intimated here today in a statement about the last General Assembly and the Commission of Fifteen. That was properly appointed; it has done its work, and the mind of the Church is pleased with that work. It seems to me that if that is brought forward in a constitutional way, and is decided by the General Assembly, that we as an agency of the Presbyterian Church, are bound, officially at least, to be in line with it, even though our personal views may differ, and not be antagonistic over that Committee, or claiming that the situation is different, and we cannot abide by its decisions, and carry on any kind of agitation that would continue the unrest in the Church. For the first time, in 1924, I was called a ‘“‘wretched liberal.’”’ There is a part of the Plan that is seldom alluded to. I think it is the 6th Article, at any rate it is the article framed by our fathers, which has re- mained largely the same for more than a century, on devo- tion and the improvement of practical piety. It is the most searching part of the whole constitution. I am distressed generally about the situation in theological seminaries. I was told this last week that in one of our other seminaries con- ditions are just as bad as they are here, only they have sense to keep quiet. I probably come under it myself. I read some time ago that which I take to heart and I copied it from a statement made by the editor of the British Weekly on the 165 perils of theological seminaries, who, in his Life and Letters of Wm. Robertson Micol, said ‘““No one had a keener sense of the demoniacal streak in each of us, to stop our work and talk about others. I have known many professors in my ‘ time, and some very intimately, and I am speaking quite seriously when I say, it is the most demoralizing business as carried on in Scotland. The vast holiday, the majestic temper induced by the work . . . the petty cliques among the professors, gradually corrupt the finest and noblest natures, and I have never known a man made a professor without him being deteriorated.” Dr. Thompson: There are certain unfinished matters we thought we should like to talk over with you a little while this morning. I think we ought to say we have a number of recipes offered to us for the better adjustment of affairs here. We have not adopted any of them. Up to this morning the Committee is not committed to any of these things, but it might be well to mention them in passing as a prelude to our morning exercises. We have found some difference of opinion here and there of course in the Trustees, the Directors, and others. In the meeting with the Directors we found what we may think of as a long standing difference between the Trustees and the Directors. “De don’t see how we are going to resolve that point of view. It comes on about the word “approval.” The Trustees are a close corporation, self per- petuating, and while they are probably the result of the Assembly’s action, in a sense it may be said that the Assembly created them, the State of New Jersey legally created them. I think this Board of Trustees feels it is not a rubber stamp affair, and it has a function to perform, and a right to express its own opinion in regard to proposals of the Board of Direc- tors. The Directors are there to direct the theological seminary, and I think they have rather adequate and complete and definite authority in the matters pertaining to the direc- tion and control of the Seminary. You can readily see how there would be divergence of opinion. The methods they have undertaken to bring about harmony of relation—they used the interlocking method. Dr. Laird is the sole surviving interlocker. It was well conceived, in a good spirit, probably wise in purpose, but it didn’t accomplish the thing they thought it would accomplish. The Board of Directors are more or less a rotating body in the sense that the Assembly can always change a certain number. They are probably more or less permanent. My classmate, Dr. Patterson, was here until his death. The Trustees are a pretty continuous body. I suppose it is desirable and was the intention to have it so, but the technical right is there to change, but the 166 failure to use authority occasionally causes it to fall into dis- use, and these brethren have a sort of long standing difference of opinion until they have learned to wink the other eye when somebody is talking to them. I don’t know how deep it is, but it is obvious there is some cleavage there. I don’t think that is a matter we need to quarrel about, nor to find a source of division. It is a matter that can be adjusted, so that we can go on with some degree of peaceful methods. In the discussion of these things it was suggested that the Board of Directors resign, and the Assembly elect a new Board. That as you see, was rather a radical proposal. Then it was perhaps thought that we should unite the two Boards and get one Board and have central authority, and we could define rights and preogatives and functions, of the Board and the faculty, and that this sort of revision of the authority vested in the Board of Trustees might clear up this question of administration, and in clearing it up might open the way to another type of organization that might prove more har- monious. We have been thinking that over, but we have not reached any conclusions. We are not prepared to indicate yet what the mind of the individual members of the Committee would be. I may say here that Senator Ernst and Mr. Bradley, being attorneys and with experience, have undertaken to make a study of that question and they have asked for some advice from someone whose name I do not recall, supposed to be a competent attorney—Mr. MacCarter. I understand Dr. Maitland Alexander has asked for three opinions from three attorneys. That gives you the status of that question. I suppose that matter will come up for further thought later. Among the other recommendations, it was thought that the President should resign. That suggestion was offered. and it was also offered that the President and Dr. Machen should both resign, and that that would relieve the situation and’ would open up the way. These are what you call the counsels of desperation. People saw the situation and said that is the only thing to do. If you get rid of the faculty you get rid of all your miseries. Other men have said that the Seminary would go out of existence almost if we did not have the counsel and ability of certainmen. That is fine. We have . not proceeded upon the theory that we wanted to eliminate anybody, but what the situation would disclose to us. I wanted you to know that these things have been suggested to us. How we feel about them?—we are not committed to any theory of any of these things. You need not feel disturbed by any more or less unfounded remarks that get around. We have tried to tell you what our mind is, and we thought we 167 would start off with some discussion of the relation of the seminary to the Church, as we understand it. This is the seminary of the Presbyterian Church. It is the oldest, and I presume they thought they would never have another. Sub- sequently another one was organized, the Western Seminary, and it was proper then to call it the Western, and you know how that strikes a man who has lived in Denver where they call Kansas City ‘way down Hast.’”’ So far as its organization is concerned, it is the same as Princeton. I assume its relation to the Church at large is much the same. If I am not mis- taken, its character is much the same. The theory seems to be present here that the Theological Smeinary of the Presby- terian Church, historically, and from every point of view, has been an interpreter, as we think it always ought to be, of the Standards of the Church, from the standpoint of logical and consistent Calvinism, and that its interpretation of the Re- formed Standards always has been in line with that. If I may say the word wit out misrepresentation, it has been a more or less restricted view of the Calvinism of the Standards set forth. There is another less restricted view of the Standards that is taken, and there is a difference of opinion perhaps or a form that has grown up, that what a man does when he accepts ordination, he accepts the Confession of Faith as containing the system of doctrine. The word “‘substance’’ of doctrine has been a debated issue. In the movements that have come from union and from reunion, it is inevitable that there should have been some stirring up of the situation, and perhaps a good deal of writing and speaking and some resolu- tions adopted, that would seem to modify slightly the point of view, but as we understand it, Princeton wants to stand definitely on its historical position, and to defend the faith as Princeton has always interested and understood it, and Princeton has no desire to be a school of what might be called liberal Calvinism, but a school of consistent Calvinistic teaching through and through. If we do not get this right we will be pleased to stand corrected. That is our conception now, although it startled some members of the Committee to feel that the statement was made in that sense, that the Seminary could not represent the entire Church, and assumed as I thought that through, that there was a feeling here that the Church was somewhat more inclusive than the interpre- tation of the Standards made here. In other words, the New School theology has come in and there is a more liberal, attitude toward the Confession taken by a certain portion of the Church, and perhaps in certain theological seminaries. That was a point: of view that could be tolerated as intra confessional, and not contra confessional. But it was not the 168 interpretation that Princeton desired to deliver, but Princeton recognized that as intra confessional, and yet not Princetonian, and not our point of view. I see that issue rather clearly, and I can see how honest and good men might differ as to whether they want to take this or that policy, but whether that means that the Seminary does not represent the whole Church in the sense that the Church at large might read that statement, I am a little at doubt. If you say to the Assembly or to the Church at large, in any printed document, that Princeton does not represent the entire Presbyterian Church, but repre- sents a particular interpretation of the Standards. I think you would open yourselves to some sort of misunderstanding and misconception that we need to clear up, and I think our discussion has not been as definitive as we might desire if we were going to make it public. I assume at some time that these things will become matters of common knowledge. We don’t want to misrepresent Princeton in that matter of the faculty. Princeton does not want to misrepresent herself before the Church, and be an object of continuous debate and discussion. She wants her position clear and definable, so that everybody would know, and I think that would be a great contribution to this whole situation throughout the the Church, because I suppose you don’t all know there is a kind of feeling over the country that somehow at Princeton there is something wrong. What’s the matter? And I have not felt at liberty to go into an exposition of the situation. I think we now ought to get that so clearly before us that we would feel we had made a contribution to the stability of the Princeton position. There is no member of the Committee that wants the Seminary to modify its position, but we want no misrepresentation and misunderstanding on the outside as to what the Seminary wants to do, and its attitude toward the Church. It is a large broad issue. I trust I have said enough to make the situation clear to you. Is there any contribution that this session can make toward that issue this morning? * * * * * Further Interlocutory Discussion at the Second Faculty Hearing Dr. Erdman: There is questioning outside, and there are a good many persons who think that this is a modernism controversy 1n some way, and that some members of the faculty do desire to introduce new members to the faculty who would represent so called modernism and liberalism. Our position is more conservative than that. We do desire to maintain the historic position of Princeton, even its 169 Calvinistic position as outlined. If we could affirm that, it would be a great help in placing Princeton in a right position before the Church at large. I think it would meet certain difficulties which have existed among us as members of the faculty. Not only two members of the faculty have been involved in the present situation. Others of us have been involved, and if we could believe each other and trust each other in an affirmation of this kind, I think it would go far toward relieving all difficulties. It is as follows: “We the members of the Faculty of Princeton Seminary do hereby affirm that to the best of our knowledge, no member of this Faculty desires to alter the historic position of the Seminary in its absolute loyalty to the standards of our Church.” I count it a great privilege to affirm personally that I do not desire to change the position, the historic position of Princeton Seminary, and I pledge myself anew so long as the few years remain that I shall do all in my power to maintain the well known position of Princeton Theological Seminary. I think all the other members of the Faculty agree in that, and if we could make it, it would show we really trust each other, as far as we know, we all agree to it. It would help us as a faculty, and it would put us in a good position with the Church at large. We do wish to maintain the historic position » of Princeton Seminary. It expresses not only an individual conviction, but confidence in one another, which is very desirable at this time. Dr. Thompson: Dr. Erdman offers that. Dr. Smith seconded it. Dr. Machen: By whom could this resolution be passed? It could not possibly be passed by the faculty, because we are not organized for business. Dr. Thompson: It is not a part of the records of the faculty, but a conference at which record is made, an ex- pression of opinion. We are trying to get what our state of mind is, and we are making inquiry as to our situation, and what are the remedies. If we are assured here that we all agree that Princeton Seminary, through its faculty, now wants itself understood along this line, this is an individual con- ference. It would not bind legally or authoritatively the faculty or the Board of Trustees, but it is an action of a friendly conference. Dr. Erdman: It simply expresses the feelings of our hearts. Dr. Thompson: If we should agree to this, I should expect the question never to come up in the faculty, not in the near future, and it certainly would not come up in this Committee. 170 It expresses our sense of the proprieties now. It is a con- viction we hold. Could we adopt it ex animo? Dr. Luecock: I think the resolution would express the attitude of the Committee. Dr. Thompson: If we should say that there was no dis- senting voice in the faculty, but all agreed that they desired to’ stand upon this basis, that would be a statement to the Assembly and to the Church of the exact position, and there could be no kind of misunderstanding if that statement were clearly made. That is what we are seeking. Dr. Vos: This pledge is not nearly as explicit as the pledge I subscribed to when I was inducted into my professorship. There is great ambiguity in maintaining loyalty to the Standards of the Presbyterian Church. In what sense does the average Presbyter maintain it? We know very well that as a matter of fact there are differences tolerated in the Presbyterian Church, there are Presbyters who subscribe to the Confession of Faith, and do it with an attitude that is sub-evangelical, I call it. I don’t mean Dr. Erdman has any such thought in his mind. ‘The word historical is very flexible. ‘Dr. Hodge: I do not feel that this is an answer to all. It seems to me that everybody asserts that they desire to maintain the historic position of Princeton Seminary, but the point is really the attitude of the institution toward the latitude of interpretation which Dr. Vos has spoken of. I recently looked over again Dr. Henry Sloane Coffin’s book, “Some Christian Convictions,’ and some books of Dr. Merrill, which deny explicitly the authority of the Scriptures in matters of doctrine, and the supernatural element in the New Testa- ment, so that these men are not what Dr. Vos would call Arminian. It is a distinctly naturalistic interpretation of Christianity. These men are in good and regular standing in the Presbyterian Church and they have subscribed to the Confession of Faith, and as long as that attitude remains in the Presbyterian Church, and she is to tolerate that view in the Church, which of course is totally different from the New School view, totally different from the Arminian view, I think that the best thing that we can do is to get along the best we can. There may be difference of opinion as to the attitude of individual members toward the views that I am speaking of, and this affirmation that Dr. Erdman presents might be taken for granted. If we formally pass anything like this it might be misunderstood, although it might be not rightly so interpreted. It might be understood that we all were at one in fundamental attitude toward the existence of these views in the Church, and toward a united Church, and 171 there I think, there might be perhaps a very marked differ- ence of opinion. As long as the situation in the Church at large is as critical as it is at the present time, it seems to me it is the best thing to let the thing slide along. Dr. Thompson: Dr. Hodge, I have no desire to argue the case, but this resolution as I understand it, recognizes the fact of course to which you refer, and now reaffirms to this Committee your position as being the historical position that you have always maintained and that you are united in that judgment. That would quiet in my opinion for example, any disposition out in the Church to wonder about Princeton. Princeton logically stands for what she stood for, and this Committee has said so, and their inquiry develops the fact. Would it not be well to say that to the Church, or shall we put on the soft pedal, and say nothing about the attitude of the Seminary? Are we to say there was no expression of opinion at this conference? Look at the Committee now. What must the Committee do when it reports to the Assem- bly? Shall we say to the Assembly that we found that Princeton Seminary faculty was one in maintaining and sus- taining their historical position with no changes of interpre- tation? Dr. Thompson: Let me speak to the question you raise. The thing that this Committee has in mind is the situation of the Seminary as related to the Church at large. Here’s a Church covering 48 States, with nearly two million members, 10,000 preachers and 12 Seminaries. The Assembly has appointed a Committee of inquiry, and we do not want Princeton to be misrepresented outside. That is the general issue. We are trying to get over a thought that will quiet the mind of the Church as to your exact position. That does not involve any other controversy outside the Seminary. It defines the position of the Seminary on the question to which you speak, recognizing the difference of opinion that may legitimately exist within the Faculty, we know of no desire to change our allegiance or our testimony. If it does any good to you brethren, it won’t hurt us. We all recognize without saying it, that there might be slight differences. There can- not be contra confessional differences without some trouble. We are doing this for the sake of testifying to the Church that Princeton Seminary is just where she has been for some time, and whatever differences we see, do not change the attitude of the Seminary. These differences in the Board of Directors might have caused you some anxiety, but it hasn’t changed your position as teachers of theology. The great need of the Seminary is to be a teacher and a trainer of preachers, and to stand as the interpreter of her standards. This is a fountain 172 of theological learning and you are the exponents of the Church. Your great function is not to sustain the faculty but to teach students, and this institution is here because we want to train young men, not because we want to find a place for older men. Weare here bringing out annually a group of men into the ministry, by research, and teaching and advice and counsel. It is a fountain of learning, gathering up its research, and its teaching, and its advice and counsel, and giving it to young men as to the holy calling of the ministry, and you turn them over to the Presbyteries and you say: See if these are fitted for the ministry? Whether it 1s desirable at this juncture for this Committee to report on the State of the Seminary, that is the issue as I see it. If it is not desirable, we can go ahead and it will be nothing to us. We put it up to you to say whether it is desirable to do that. Dr. Armstrong: I like very much the way in which you have phrased this matter. It seems to me we can say ex- actly what you have proposed. Recognizing legitimate difference of opinion, we all desire to affirm our loyalty to the historic position of the Seminary in respect to the Standards of the Church. I think the positive statement rather than the negative would be wiser and would cover the desire’ of all of us more fully than the negative statement. “You have phrased it in a way that appeals to me. Dr. Erdman: My resolution goes further and expresses confidence in one another, which I would like to do. .I have thought that some members of the faculty thought that some of us could not do that. I should like to affirm not only my own belief and desire to maintain the position of the Sem- inary, but to have it affirmed that we all trust each other. I should like to ask Dr. Machen, is there any particular doctrine on which he thinks we differ? I have been here 20 years, and I don’t know of any doctrine where we differ. I really believe that some members of the faculty have felt that, for instance, . I would like to change the historic position of the seminary and would like to introduce other men. Dr. Thompson: That turns not on aJlegiance to doctrines, but on a question as to what the historic position of the seminary has been. Dr. Machen: I feel that there is a great difference of opinion as to the historic position of this seminary, its attitude toward doctrinal controversy, and a great many things. I am not making or calling in question at all the loyalty of any member of the faculty to the Confession of Faith. There has been great confusion in introducing that question as though it were a question here. I still feel we should leave indefinite 173 the question of difference of opinion. As to specifically the historic position of Princeton Seminary, I think there is difference of opinion. We should find it is rather great, and while I don’t like the use of the word “legitimate” in the clause, | am frank to say, because I think that word is capable of misunderstanding, I hold that my view of the historic position of Princeton Seminary is in one sense the only legitimate view, the only view which is in accordance with the facts, and so I don’t like the ambiguity in that word. I should prefer to see the clarifying clause there. We cannot determine here how great is the divergence with regard to the question of the historic position of Princeton Seminary. I should be inclined to affirm, that no matter how widely they differ from me as to what the historic position is, that these colleagues, as far as my observation goes, are desiring honestly to maintain what they hold the historic position of Princeton Seminary to be. Dr. Hodge: My attitude is precisely that. I don’t feel like doing it, but put it the way Dr. Machen puts it. . Dr. Thompson: I believe Dr. Machen is hot footed when it comes to the intellectual statement of controversy. Dr. Erdman: I am not referring to Princeton’s attitude toward controversy, but the historic position of the seminary toward our Confession of Faith. The impression abroad is that there is a desire on the part of some of us here to introduce so called modernism. None of us want to do that thing. If we could state it, it would be a great help. Our attitude to doctrinal controversy would be hard to define, but our attitude as a Seminary toward revealed truth as set forth in the Confession of Faith, seems to be a unit, a remarkable unity. We all agree as to the doctrines of our Church. What we want to say is that we all agree to these doctrines as set forth in our Confession, and as held by Princeton during these years, and we are willing to trust each other in that particular. As to our attitude toward controversy, that is a larger question, which we could not settle here. If we could settle our attitude toward doctrines as set forth in our Standards—we want them maintained, and we want that stated to the Church. Dr. Hodge: Who does that? Anybody? Dr. Erdman: It is a common statement that we want to bring modernism into this faculty. That is a general state- ment all over the Church. Dr. Lueccock: Dr. Machen, a question. Is there an area of opinion within which the members of the faculty may hold difference of view, and all of them regard each other as within the Princeton position? 174. Dr. Machen: Certainly there is an area of difference, but I think they are not prepared to determine that the differences do not go beyond that area. That is my point. I do hold that with regard to a good many matters, the relation between life and doctrine, the attitude and place where emphasis is to be put—there is great divergence of opinion as to what the position of the seminary is. I hold also, although I am quite ready to affirm that I do not believe any of the members of this body are trying to introduce modernism into this faculty, I do hold that the optimistic attitude of certain members of the faculty toward the condition of the Church at large would, if it was unchecked, soon introduce modernism into this faculty. That is my position. I am perfectly ready to affirm my belief in the desire of everyone to maintain what he conceives the historic position of the seminary to be, and to exclude modernism, but I do hold there is very great difference of opinion as to what the historic position of Princeton Seminary is, and what course must be adopted to exclude modernism from the seminary. I believe that our relations will be better if we frankly recognize such difference of opinion, and I am not clear in the course of this debate whether Dr. Erdman, the mover of the resolution, or anyone else here, has said anything which would militate against the amendment which I am proposing, “that whatever difference of opinion may prevail in the faculty as to what the historic position of Princeton Seminary is, all the members of the faculty, ete.” Dr. Whallon: How assuring would that be to the Church? Dr. Machen: It is dangerous to assume that there are no divergences of opinion here. We can avoid when we recognize each other’s opinion, personal unpleasantness. I think it would be an absolute misrepresentation of the condition at Princeton to say to the Church that there is no serious divergence of opinion, because I think there is, and I do not believe in representing to the Church what is not so. I am not arousing any one’s fears. I am leaving that entirely open. One person may think the divergence is less serious than I think it is. I am recognizing the fact that we may hold different views as to what the historic position of the seminary is, but that we all agree that as far as we can see, we are all endeavoring to maintain the position as we see it. Dr. Erdman: I really don’t understand what Dr. Machen means by difference of opinion. I don’t think we do agree as to ecclesiastical matters, how we ought to deal with this or that matter. We stand for the great corporate testimony here, a rather unique and united testimony as a faculty. If 175 we could state that to the world—I don’t think that is an ambiguous thing. What is the great difference between us doctrinally? If we are united, let us state it to the world. We do feel we are united in our attitude to the truth and our desire to propagate the truth as Princeton has stood for it, conservative, orthodox, Calvinistic. It would draw our alumni together, and it would show where we stand. If we qualify it, it makes it too weak to amount to anything. Dr. Hodge: There is an ambiguity now that I think could be cleared up easily, and the form of the resolution as Dr. Machen makes it, clears it up. If it is not desired to put it in that form, if Dr. Erdman wishes to have it inserted that all the faculty are in harmony with the Standards of the Church, I should think that there should be no objection to such a resolution at all. The minute you introduce the phrase “historic position” and exclude matters of ecclesi- astical polity, you introduce ambiguity. I don’t think the faculty agreed with Dr. B. B. Warfield on the Cumberland Union. If you are going to use that phrase, you cannot ex- clude all- these wider questions upon which there are differ- ences. If we are going to make this categorical affirmation, let’s say—confine it to the fact that the Committee found all the members of the faculty in harmony with the Confession of Faith. If you are going to introduce the phrase ‘‘historical position of Princeton Seminary,’’ introduce Dr. Machen’s modification. Dr. Erdman: I specified the historical position as related to the Standards of the Church. | Dr. Luecock: Do you agree that in respect to doctrine alone the faculty is united? Dr. Machen: No sir, I would not agree to that. I am not willing to sit here in judgment upon the doctrinal loyalty of my colleagues. I do not like that method. If I were going to give an opinion about the doctrinal position of any col- league of mine, I should have to read everything he had written, and I would not like to undertake the business. There is no greater harm done in the Church than by this sort of passing upon the doctrinal position of colleagues in this way. I don’t like that business exactly. Dr. Vos: I had a dread of this word “historical position.” T have the same dread of it that I have of “‘system of doctrine”’ which opens a wide door for the slipping in of all kinds of heresy. I would be willing to vote for that if it were defined or qualified. The “historical position as it is outlined in the Plan of the Seminary and acknowledged by all the teachers in it at their induction into office.”’ 176 Dr. Thompson: This seems to be the exact statement of the resolution as we are thinking of it: ‘We, the members of the faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary, do hereby affirm that to the best of our knowledge, all the members of this faculty desire to maintain their absolute loyalty to the standards of the Presbyterian Church in the Usv Ae | Dr. Allis: I rise simply to state that we desire to affirm, and not add this clause with regard to other members of the faculty. It has developed that there is a great deal of opinion as to what this phraseology will mean and exactly how it will be understood. It has developed in the course of the hearing, that there are differences of opinion as to the attitude which members of the faculty, as presbyters, should take and so forth, and consequently it seems to me that if we are to be asked to affirm, not merely our own loyalty, but our con- ception with regard to the loyalty of the members of the faculty, we should clarify our position. If we could as Dr. Armstrong intimated, adopt some statement as proposed-by you, a positive statement of what the position of the faculty is and ought to be, we could make it simpler and positive and ‘to the point. Dr. Loetscher: I think there is no objection to that. We are all of one mind. The moment we try to interpret what in the long course of 100 years this seminary has said through this, that or the other influential professor, we would get into a nebulous region. It would be highly important to qualify our statement by some such parenthetical clause as Dr. Machen suggested. I have studied a great deal in the history of our Church, and there are many features of that historic position that are unknown to me even now, and I may say to some of my colleagues, that if we are going to introduce that phrase, we will have to have some kind of qualification. The safe thing is to omit it. I think we can all agree on this. Dr. Thompson: Let there be clear understanding that this is not a formal vote; it is a conference, in which we are expressing our sense of what the situation is, so that the Committee could have a basis on which to make its report to the Assembly without any hesitancy or uncertainty. It is an informing thing to us, rather than a formal vote of the faculty. Dr. Hodge: I think two things have emerged from the © discussion. One thing is that Dr. Erdman has fears, or has asserted that they are spread through the Church, the idea that he, perhaps, wishes to introduce modernism. I did not suppose that such an opinion was very widespread, but still Uy he wants that allayed. Then the second point that has emerged is, that if we express ourselves as he originally meant, there is not unanimity. After this discussion, I should like to suggest to the Committee very respectfully, if, without the faculty passing any such resolution at all, the Committee would state to the Church on the basis of this discussion, with the assent of all here, that they found that the faculty of Princeton Seminary, every member was loyal to the Standards of the Church. That would answer two purposes; first, it would remove the ambiguities of any resolution we might try to form; second, it would allay any fears that are in Prof. Erdman’s mind, that anybody in the Church may suppose he is not loyal to the Standards. It would be a declaration of the Committee on the basis of the discussion they have had, without asking the faculty to pass any resolu- tion which involves first, a view of the historic position of the Seminary, and the understanding of what that is, and second, in setting no judgment of one member of the faculty upon another member of the faculty. I don’t see why the Com- mittee cannot satisfy everything that Dr. Erdman wishes by making such a statement to the Assembly without asking the faculty to go on record formally. Dr. Machen: I'am inclined to raise no objection to the resolution as last read. I do not agree with Dr. Hodge’s recommendation to the Committee. I would like to have the resolution read once more. I do want it to be clear that anything I am assenting to is not an interpretation of this. Dr. Luccock: May the Committee state that the faculty believe of each other that they are loyal to the Standards? Dr. Machen: That is what I object to. I do not hold to that. Dr. Thompson: We are not disposed to go into technical details. We do not want to spend our time in an academic discussion of subsidiary issues, because we feel that these will solve themselves, or abide or continue, and they may not be a source of disturbance to the Seminary or the Church. We are here in the interests of the adjustment of the seminary itself and to the Church. In view of statements that have been made here, Dr. Machen ought to have an opportunity to explain or define his own position concerning the Boards and | Agencies of the Church. I happen to be Moderator and I happen to be travelling a good deal. I find out that people are saying, You are chairman of the Committee; what do they mean by their attitude toward the Boards and Agencies. They somehow feel, that Dr. Machen has an attitude toward the Board and Agencies, in his public works, that is pretty 178 deliberate, and that may or may not represent the Church. Dr. Machen has said in his books, printed certain things about his attitude, that I wonder whether Dr. Machen would be willing to say something to this Committee for its enlight- enment on that thing. I may add that reference has been made to it here. Demand has been made for proof. I don’t know that we demand proof, but on what ground are state- ments of that sort made? Are the statements an expression of personal opinion, or statements of fact? I must agree, in reading, as I have read, these two books on the table, that I have run into a good many statements that I have marked, and said, Is this a dogmatic statement of fact, or an expression of opinion on the part of the writer? I have sometimes felt the form made it rather a dogmatic statement of fact, with no room for difference of opinion. I want to see whether I was doing him an injustice or he was doing himself an injustice whether there was some unconscious difference there. There are people who feel that the General Assembly has authorized these Boards, and is operating them, and there is a legitimate way of doing these things, and probably these are more or less indirect statements about them, but it does a damage that cannot be repaired. Well now, if statements like that go unchallenged, everybody has to be debating this issue. What method of relief is there? Here are statements made, and I think there are people who criticize Prof. Machen’s position on that ground, and it would be fair for us to ask him— Dr. Machen: I would be glad to make a statement to the Committee. I feel hampered by not having perhaps an idea of what statement specifically it is. Dr. Thompson then read from ‘‘What is Faith” p. 46, and “Christianity and Liberalism’’ p. 58. Dr. Machen: Mr. Moderator, what I have said in my books of course are altogether matters of opinion. They are my honest opinion and I recognize that other persons have a different opinion, but that does not mean that I hold that we both have a right to our opinion in the sense that they are both true. Any man that states a thing, states it not as some- thing that is true to him, but true to everybody. Of course they are matters of my opinion. People can take them or leave them. My books are matters of my opinion. Dr. Thompson: You made some reference to the difference between a professor and an executive or administrative officer, whether a man in a theological seminary as professor in speaking, is to be treated any different from what a private run-of-mine preacher would do out in the Church. Dr. Machen: Essentially not sir. I do think there is freedom unless it can be shown that what a professor says is 179 contrary to the Confession of Faith, in which case he is not to be dealt with more strictly than any ordinary minister, except that the institution might object to his violation of his pledge, his installation pledge, which is stricter than the ordination pledge of ministers. But of course it does seem to me that he is amenable in just the same way as any other minister is essentially. Mr. Moderator, I have listened to your reading of this passage in which the word anti-theistic occurs, and you will observe that I have said anti-theistic or agnostic modernism. I think that modernism is very much more generally agnostic than it is atheistic. Atheism means the dignified denial of the existence of a personal God, and I do hold that that is comparatively rare, but I do hold that the modernism of the day, taken generally is anti-theistic, is non-theistic. I am speaking in the most general way with regard to the condition of the whole world, and it is my very firm conviction that there is very widespread in the world today, and in the Presbyterian Church in the U. 8. A. a type of thought which is essentially opposed to a clear belief in a personal God. I do hold that these things are logically related, but I also desire to say that one way in which that book “Christianity and Liberalism’? has been generally misunderstood is in this way, as though I were holding that this individual or that maintains the whole logically con- catenated type of belief that I have designated as modernism. I am trying to show the logical relations between two mutually exclusive types of religion in the world. I have avoided mentioning individuals, or discussing the question as to how clearly any individual maintains in all its logical conclusions the type called modernism. Dr. Thompson: I think that is the point of the man out in the territory. He says, I didn’t know there are such folks. Dr. Machen: I do feel that that is my firm conviction. I know that that conviction subjects me to a good deal of criticism, because men who hold a grave view of the state of the Church, and that a great revival is imperatively necessary, have always been very unpopular in the Church. Of course it is a matter of opinion for any one to say my very grave view is in accordance with the facts or not. I honestly hold it is, and that it is the most important duty for every man who holds that view to warn the Church as to the very great danger. That is a question of diagnosis, and it is based upon my conception of the gravity of the great issues. I do not look upon this business of modernism as an isolated thing that crops up here and there, but I look upon it as one mani- festation in our Church of a mighty force that has been in the world for 150 years, which has very largely engulfed the 180 organized Christian life of Europe and Great Britain, which if it is altogether excluded from our Presbyterian Church, could be so only by nothing short of a miracle. I am looking upon the condition of the world as a whole, and I am con- vinced the Church is passing through one of the two or three deadly conflicts in the course of its long history, and as in the case of the previous ones, it is being fought within the bounds of the Church and not outside. You have got to put yourself into my state of mind not about the conditions in any one Church or any one religion, but in the world as a whole. Dr. Thompson: Inreading both your books, the one feeling I had was that Machen had not quite set up the vigor and virility of the power of Christ in the world, as he has set up the disease. After I read your books that is my personal point of view. I have got greater faith in the virility of the Christian belief than you express. It was a little less vigorous than a man of your ability might express. Dr. Greene: I cannot by any possibility make a speech this morning, but neither can I by any possibility refrain from saying that after teaching this subject to which Dr. ~ Machen refers, for a good many years, I am simply compelled to say this morning that I endorse every word and every syllable of what he has tried to say, and I concur in his opinions as to the danger and prevalence of the modernistic view. Dr. Thompson: The Boards and Agencies—what sort of support have you got for making these statements? How do you want us to accept them? Dr. Machen: I was referring to the state of the Church as a whole prior to this much criticized, so-called fundamen- talist controversy, to use the term which I very greatly dishke. It is my: firm conviction that there was in the Church an over emphasis of machinery and organization, the notion that by proper organization of Christian forces, we shall save the world. I think the Church needs a great season of profound repentance and heart searching, and it is for this that I pray, and I believe when that great revival comes, that one of the things that it will bring most clearly is the cessation of all the opposition between life and doctrine which we now find, and people will be deeply interested in getting into their minds the content of the Gospel message first for themselves, and then for propagation to others, a tremendous revival of interest in what is called by its opponents, doctrine. I was speaking in very general terms about Boards and Agencies. It is my conviction that the Boards and Agencies of the Presbyterian Church are not representative of the 181 Church as a whole today. I do not think that they are fairly representative of the Church. Dr. Thompson: What remedy have you for that? Dr. Machen: I have simply greater wisdom in the choice of men who are elected by the General Assembly to the Boards, and the relinquishment by the General Assembly of the idea that everyone who is loyal to the Confession of Faith is therefore a safe person to place upon one of the Boards or Agencies. Something more than loyalty to the Confession is necessary. There must also be a clear conception of the tremendous gravity of this doctrinal issue. I hold that in that straight-forward manner, the confidence of the Church, the conservative part, may be restored. Dr. Hodge: I received not more than a year and a half ago under the letterhead of the Board of National Missions, a series of tracts which I have now thrown away and for- gotten, so that I cannot cite them for you. But they were modernistic in the extreme and worse than modernistic. I don’t think they were written by members of the Presbyterian Church but they were sent to me in an envelope from that office and apparently with the endorsement of that office. Dr. Luccock: I would like to say that I quite endorse everything Dr. Machen has said about the need of revival, and the importance of men embued with the evangelistic spirit in the right sense of the word in the Boards. I feel that Dr. Machen has not made himself understood, and has made himself misunderstood by statements which do not express what, from hearing him here today, seem to be his real opinions. For example, ‘‘there are a few members of the Boards who are evangelical.’’ That is an extreme statement. Dr. Machen: I am convinced of that. You will observe that I have said ‘‘the conservative or evangelical party in the Church.” Dr. Luccock: That is the point. In what sense do you use the word “‘evangelical’’? Dr. Machen: I think every party name is question begging. It is almost bound to be. We talk about the liberal party in the Church. Of course I maintain I am as liberal as any member of the liberal party. I try to call them by the name by which they are inclined to call themselves, and convey my meaning. What I mean by the conservative or evangelical party in the Church, is something more than a collection of all the men who are in their beliefs conservative and evan- gelical, but the men who take the same grave view that I do, and have in a way acted together in the last few years in the Church. There are a great many men who are in 182 their own beliefs as evangelical as those who have formed this party, if you may call it so. I do feel that there is a great lack of representation of the men who have taken the grave view of the issues in the Church that Dr. Macartney takes and that I take. A great lack of representation of that very large body of persons in the Church upon the Boards and Agencies. I think in some Boards the representation of that eroup of persons is extremely slight. JI maintain from our port of view there is no real representation. Dr. Luceock: Do you feel it is legitimate to assume that the party that is led as you say by Dr. Macartney and yourself is the only evangelical group in the Church? Dr. Machen: No sir, I try to maintain and say that that isnotso. I am talking about a stand on ecclesiastical policies. I did not say I was a leader in this party, for I certainly am not, but a very humble follower, and I certainly say. that word of myself, but I do hold that there are other men in the Church who are entirely evangelical in their beliefs, but who really do not know the tremendous danger of the Pres- byterian Church at the present moment, who underestimate the forces that are undermining the Church. Modernism is in the Church in a very much more dangerous way in the preaching of a great many men who would not think of denying the Virgin Birth of Christ or the substitutionary atonement, but who just in their preaching from day to day have left these things out, who have just drifted in a great current. J hold a tremendously grave view of the situation in the Church. There are a great many people who believe altogether every word in the Bible, and who do not see that the 1283 signers of the Auburn affirmation have signed a document which is hostile to Christianity at its very roots, a statement which in its logical outcome attacks Christianity at its roots. Men do not see that. I have tried to convince them of the danger in the small sphere of my influence. The situation in the Church is like this. There are a great many persons in the Church who are definitely modernistie. I hold that, that these signers of the Affirmation know what they deny. ‘There is a body of persons in the Church who know the extreme gravity of the issue, and a large body in the Church, evangelical in their own beliefs, whose eyes from my point of view, are closed to the tremendous danger of the Presbyterian Church, which is just on the point of going over the falls, in my opinion, and we who are trying to warn the people in the Church of the danger of course are unpopular, but with our view of the danger, our action is absolutely necessary as we stand in the presence of God. Dr. Thompson: Conservative and evangelical party—does that mean two parties or one? 183 Dr. Machen: One party. Dr. Thompson: Conservative and evangelical are identi- fied. You say there are a lot of people who think they are— but you doubt it, because they are not as careful in their definition as others. I agree with your diagnosis a moment ago, that the rattling of machinery is no proof of spirituality. On the question of the Boards, I cannot call the roll of the Foreign or National Boards, but every Presbyterian minister knows these men, and he says, Here’s men talking about our Board and Agencies. I know two or three men on the Boards. I wonder if that’s so? Why did he make that statement? They begin to wonder whether your statements are at all in accordance with the facts, and I think your statement is not adequate to the situation. You have made a definite state- ment in three or four lines that ought to have an explanation like you gave here now. It clears the air somewhat. I think that statement is rather too pointed to have clearness or power init. It looks like an attack when it is not meant for an attack. It is not an explanation of a situation in which you regard grave issues to be pending. You are trying to state your mind that it is a grave issue, and the agencies of the Church are not quite representative. The Board of Foreign Missions have got a lot of men like myself, advanced in years, they were put on years before the controversy arose, ahd now with the lapse of years, these men have got a little soft and easy on the doctrines. That is our misfortune. I would ’ hesitate to believe what one might infer from these state- ments, that the organized agencies had been consciously ‘toward the side of modernism or liberalism, and away from the side of conservatism and evangelicism. If we have made mistakes, and we doubtless have, there is a way of correcting them with some courage and faith by a process of calling attention to a situation as you have done, but I think your statement has been a little inadequate. I think you have to defend yourself a little against that. Dr. Machen: My view of the faults of the members is a light one. I take rather a grave view of the faults that need to be corrected in the Boards. In the Board of National Missions there are 14 at present, according to the Minutes of the General Asembly, 14 ministers on the governing Board. Six or nearly one-half are actual signers of the Auburn affirma- tion, and a great number of the others are persons who have not taken any doctrinal pledge at all. They have not sub- scribed in any way to our confession. I have not confidence in a Board that is governed that way. When you have nearly half of the clerical membership of that Board who actually signed this Auburn affirmation, which seems to me 184 ; hostile to Christianity at its very roots, and when there are certainly many in the Church who did not sign it because of the impropriety, my fears are very serious for its government. Dr. Thompson: If you would put that in the statement, you would put the Board on the defensive instead of putting Machen on the defensive. Dr. Machen: Of course I think it would be quite out of place to discuss that in detail. Dr. Hodge: Is it the view of this Committee that every professor in every theological seminary or in this institution, must have full confidence in every Board of the Presbyterian Church at the present time? Dr. Thompson: No, there is no question about that. I am thinking about the state of mind in the Church. They say outside that these things are unwarranted, and that puts Dr. Machen on the defensive, and he gives us a statement here which has not been made public so far as I know. I think if . he had, many people would have said, That puts the Board on the defensive. Dr. Loetscher: He has just given us an illustration of one of our great difficulties. Evangelical, as he now defines it, is not one who has been understood to be evangelical in the historical sense of the word, but one who must have an adequate conception of the gravity of the present crisis. I have no objection at all to his using the word in that sense, but I do feel if that is to be the meaning of a technical term that has had a long history, it ought to be clarified a little. In our invitations to members of the Presbyterian ministry, we have been altogether too free in our application of labels, and technical nomenclatures, and this has brought us into trouble. Some of us looking at these terms historically, feel we cannot, without qualification, accept this new interpreta- tion of historical definitions. We don’t object to their being ~ used by anybody who cares to put a new interpretation upon an old phrase. Historically, evangelical has not meant in the nature of the case, it could not have meant one who was adequately impressed concerning the gravity that arose in the year of grace, 1920. It is this which has caused mis- understandings among us. Dr. Machen: Misunderstanding has arisen in Dr. Loet- scher’s address. I tried to explain in the early part of my remarks here that I spoke in that passage about an evan- gelical party, and I entered into an interpretation of eyvan- gelical. I was using the term all the time concerning a set of ecclesiastical measures and I tried to express by my use of two terms that there was some difficulty about the termi- nology. It is the difficulty of getting a name. 185 Dr. Thompson: There have been people who have said that that expression about 50% of the money given was expended for the propagation of error in some form—they wonder if that is true. What evidence is there that 50% of our missionary monies are expended off the evangelical platform? Dr. Machen: I cannot affirm how much goes to the propa- gation of error or the propagation of truth. I was not aware that any representative of the Foreign Board would maintain that every cent of the money contributed goes to the propa- gation of truth. Dr. Thompson: You may be right about that. The impression that the Presbyterian minister gets is that a pro- fessor in Princeton discussed his own Church. Dr. Whallon: You heard last night when Dr. Stevenson made this statement that at a faculty meeting, in discussing the three men whose names were suggested, that you came to this as a final sentence, your objection to these men was because they were not Christians. Dr. Machen: I of course am bound to say that I made a statement with regard to that in my last statement. I tried to put there my point of view, my lack of memory with regard to the assertion that these three men are not Christians. When we are considering the matter of modernism and evangelicalism, when it comes to that contrast, it 1s not a question of difference of opinion within Christianity, but it is, a question of Christianity and non-Christianity. Dr. Steven- son, according to his statement of things which were written down afterwards—I wish he had presented his notes of that to me that I might say whether it was correct, and that when we are talking about personalities, we might have an oppor- tunity to clarify among ourselves in a brotherly way exactly what we have said and what we meant. I think it is a very grave situation indeed if our facutly meetings are to be carried on in that way. We must give up all discussions of a frank character if that kind of a report two or three years after- wards is given. If we say a thing which others regard as un- just, they should bring their view of its injustice to the man who has made the statement that there might be an oppor- tunity for him to record exactly what he desired to say. Dr. Whallon: I wanted to have your statement about it. You do not recall making such a statement? Dr. Machen: I recall some such statement. I do not recall whether I used these exact words. I was trying to guard against the opinion that in our discussions we were objecting to people because they were not Calvinists. JI would not object to a Methodist in our Chapel, but that our question 186 is something that is deeper than that. If an impression is conveyed that I am making any specifie references to these three men, I do desire to say that I do not want to affirm of these gentlemen that they are not Christians. I am asfar from that as anything in the world. Dr. Luccock: Is it your recollection that you objected to the invitation to these men on the ground that they are not evangelical in the sense that you define evangelical? Dr. Machen: I cannot remember the exact words of my objection. Dr. Luccock: You did object to them? Dr. Machen: I voted against the report of the Com- - mittee. The minutes will correct me in regard to that. Of course my attitude toward the invitation of gentlemen to our chapel is that it is a matter that is purely within the judgment of the faculty, that the faculty may have someone else it prefers to invite. It may not know about the qualifications for this service of some of these gentlemen. But I certainly do regret any impression that might be left in the minds of the Committee that that is my view of these three gentlemen. Dr. Loetscher: The whole thing is pretty clear in my mind. I recall distinctly what a cold chill was sent down my back when that statement fell from his lips, as he took occasion to say much more. I think he was using this charac- terization not with respect to the individual relationship of these men to God, but from the standpoint of his interpre- tation of what their principles of theology would lead to. Dr. Thompson: You can see that if we went on taking up phrase upon phrase that has been published or heard, that this discussion would take us on to the cemetery before we would reach a conclusion. It is an almost interminable thing. I regard that as largely academic myself. What I have in mind is that it is almost impossible for the non- academic world to understand the academic mind. A pro- fessor of mine at Ohio State went to a constitutional conven- tion, and when he came back he said, Now I begin to under- stand what you mean by the academic mind. There is some- thing in Machen’s point of view that is different from the man plowing in the field. When we who are preachers and elders, who are the responsible people, if this controversy could be confined to us, we would be in the logical direction of progress. We don’t always understand each other, we begin to shave definitions. My grand-daughter said to me, Grad- father, I don’t like the dictionary. I said, What’s the matter? It doesn’t explain anything, it just puts one word up against another. We must reach a conclusion—we must reach an end, and I am very appreciative of the fine spirit in which you have listened to us as a Committee. 187 Dr. Wilson: I for one would like to express my thanks to the Committee for the courtesy with which they have treated us all, at least myself. cS *% * *k * Ye ty Ny art Nie A FEAR, } ee Se, Princeton Theologi Ses he BS foie 1 4 ee Se et. v i