Immediately after the Deliverance of 1934 was issued, there were many in the church who did not and could not believe that the presbyteries would obey its orders and prosecute members of the Independent Board if they refused to resign from the board. The consensus among conservatives in the church seemed to be that no presbytery would discipline Presbyterians for joining any society whose object was to preach the gospel. This opinion went further in the belief that such action would only arouse members of the church to greater hostility toward the Board of Foreign Missions and the ecclesiastical organization.

In this opinion the conservatives were very wrong, for the relentlessness with which the hierarchy of the church began to function in enforcing the so-called mandate was not to be mistaken. While some presbyteries did nothing at first, the church was soon to witness real efficiency in court procedure.

On August 1, 1934, the administrative committee of the general council issued a letter defending the deliverance of the assembly, adding the information, “that excepting in relatively small areas of our Church, the significance of the action of the 1934 General Assembly with reference to the ‘Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions’ has been clearly understood and warmly approved.”¹

The Rev. A. L Latham, D.D., minister of the Third Presbyterian Church, Chester, Pennsylvania, wrote an open letter in reply to the administrative committee. He said in part,

I have no connection with the Independent Board, and never have had any. Nevertheless, I believe there is abundant ground for the formation of the same. The pity is this, that the Church Council and the General Assembly have done nothing to remove these grounds…The Assembly has not sought to remove the disturbing cause; but rather, to coerce.

²

The Rev. Clarence E. Macartney, D.D., issued a challenge to the action of the general assembly relative to the Independent Board under the tide, “Presbyterians Awake!”³ He challenged the action on six grounds: First, that the general assembly had no right to initiate such action; second, that it violated the right of private judgment; third, that it pronounced judgment without a hearing and trial; fourth, that it amended the constitution of the church by adding, to the subscription vows of candidates for licensure and ordination, a vow to support the boards and agencies; fifth, that it compelled every member of the church to contribute to the boards; sixth, that it was a usurpation of power and inaugurated an era of inquisition and persecution.

The Rev. William B. Pugh, D.D., the reputed author of the Studies of the Constitution, answered Dr. Macartney in an article entitled “Presbyterians Are Awake!,”⁴ condemning Dr. Macartney’s charges as “emphasized by the incorrect statements, the unsupported assumptions, the unwarranted inferences, the serious discrepancies, and the false interpretations which are inserted in the article in support of the various arguments or pleas for rebellion.” Such abusive and intemperate language is rather indicative of the lack of judgment and objective attitude on the part of the one who wrote the Studies. After this tirade, Dr. Pugh attempted to answer each one of Dr. Macartney’s points. Arguments similar to Dr. Pugh’s have already been considered at length in the preceding chapter so no further discussion will be presented here.

A criticism of the action of the general assembly also came from the Rev. Henry S. Coffin, D.D., president of Union Theological Seminary, New York City, a well-known modernist institution. He regarded the founders of the Independent Board as bitter, intolerant, unfair, disloyal, and bigoted, and the officers of the general assembly and the Board of Foreign Missions as tried and true servants of the church. Nevertheless, he did write that the assembly “acted unwisely” and that he read the document with “mixed feelings.”⁵

These protests by a liberal as well as by conservatives made little difference to the church machine. Shortly before the deliverance was adopted, a foretaste of what was going to happen occurred in the Presbytery of Philadelphia when Dr. Machen transferred his membership from New Brunswick Presbytery to Philadelphia Presbytery in January, 1934.

Dr. Machen had been teaching at Westminster Theological Seminary for several years, so he considered it proper that he transfer his membership to the Presbytery of Philadelphia within whose bounds he then resided and labored. On January 23, 1934, he requested that he be granted a letter of dismissal from the Presbytery of New Brunswick to the Philadelphia Presbytery. The letter was granted and he was commended to the Presbytery of Philadelphia as a minister in good and regular standing. On March 5,1934, the presbytery’s Standing Committee on Candidates, Credentials, and Unemployed Ministers recommended that he be received upon the basis of his certificate of dismissal from New Brunswick. Certain members of the presbytery wished to ask Dr. Machen questions about his attitude toward the official agencies of the church. The moderator ruled that Dr. Machen was not required to answer these questions. By a vote of seventy-eight to forty-eight he was received into the presbytery and no appeal was taken to the moderator’s ruling. Following this action, forty-four members of the presbytery filed a complaint with the Synod of Pennsylvania against the presbytery’s action in receiving Dr. Machen. The synod voted to hold the complaint until the synod meeting in 1935.

In the meantime the general assembly issued its decree against the members of the Independent Board, and the stated clerk of the general assembly transmitted the action of the assembly to the clerk of New Brunswick Presbytery, instead of to the clerk of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, and added,

The Stated Clerk of the General Assembly has on June 13, 1934 notified as therein provided the following named person who to the best of his information and belief is within the jurisdiction of your Presbytery, Rev. J. Gresham Machen, D.D., 206 South 13th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

But the Presbytery of New Brunswick had anticipated the stated clerk of the general assembly in its zeal to obey the assembly’s orders and on June 26, 1934, had passed the following motion,

By motion, the Stated Clerk was authorized to ascertain from the Rev. J. Gresham Machen his answer in respect to the matter sent out by the Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, entitled, ‘The Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions.’⁶

A little later the Synod of Pennsylvania upheld the complaint and declared that Dr. Machen was a member of New Brunswick Presbytery.⁷

An excellent brief on the subject of jurisdiction was written by Dr. Machen’s counsel, the Rev. H. McAllister Griffiths. Its arguments will be considered later on in this chapter. On the surface of the situation, however, it is evident that the stated clerk of the general assembly was presumptuous and, as Dr. Maitland Alexander, a former moderator of the general assembly remarked, “If we are to have a Pope give us one with the wisdom and conservatism of the Vatican.”⁸

As a result of being reinstated in the Presbytery of New Brunswick, more or less by fiat, Dr. Machen was held to be subject to its jurisdiction, and the judicial process against him for membership on the Independent Board was begun by the Presbytery of New Brunswick. Action was started by other presbyteries against several members of the Independent Board, but since Dr. Machen was the president of the Independent Board, and since his trial formed the basis for all of the others, both in form and charges, his trial will serve as a basis for detailed study. On the other hand, mention might be made of other trials.

The other outstanding trials of Independent Board members were those of the Rev. Carl McIntire in West Jersey Presbytery; the Rev. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., D.D., in the Presbytery of Chicago; five members of Philadelphia Presbytery: the Rev. H. McAllister Griffiths, the Rev. Merrill T. MacPherson, the Rev. Edwin H. Rian, the Rev. Charles J. Woodbridge, and the Rev. Paul Woolley; the Rev. Harold S. Laird, D.D., in New Castle Presbytery; and the Rev. Roy T. Brumbaugh, D.D., in Olympia Presbytery. Miss Mary W. Stewart and Mr. Murray Forst Thompson, members of the Holland Memorial Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, were tried by the session of that congregation.

Ministers Griffiths, McIntire, MacPherson, Rian, Woodbridge, and Woolley were ordered suspended from the ministry.⁹ Dr. Buswell was given the sentence of admonition.¹⁰ Dr. Laird was rebuked by the presbytery. Mr. Thompson and Miss Stewart were admonished. And Dr. Brumbaugh withdrew from the church before judgment could be pronounced. It is interesting to note that the Presbytery of Chester refused to take disciplinary action against the Rev. Wilbur M. Smith, D.D., pastor of the First Church, Coatesville, Pennsylvania, for his membership on the Independent Board when it adopted a minority report of its Judicial Committee.¹¹ Here was at least one presbytery which had the courage to stand by its constitutional rights.

Now for a detailed consideration of Dr. Machen’s trial. In answer to the presbytery’s request for information relative to his membership in the Independent Board, Dr. Machen replied on July 25, 1934,

Without prejudicing the question whether I am or am not still under the jurisdiction of New Brunswick or whether, if I am still under the jurisdiction of that Presbytery, the Presbytery is warranted in addressing to me officially the inquiry contained in your letter, I desire to say, very respectfully, for the information of the Presbytery, that I have not severed my connection with the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions; and that I regard die action of the General Assembly enjoining me to do so as being contrary to the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.”

¹²

When Dr. Machen’s determination not to resign from the Independent Board was learned by the Presbytery of New Brunswick, the following action was taken by the presbytery on September, 1934:

That a special Committee be appointed to confer further with Dr. Machen with respect to his relationship with the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions and to make recommendations to presbytery for the disposition of the matter involving the mandate of the General Assembly to the presbytery and the relation of Dr. Machen to the Independent Board.

¹³

A committee of five ministers and two elders was appointed, of which the Rev. D. Wilson Hollinger of Trenton, New Jersey, was the chairman. Dr. Machen never met with this committee because it refused to allow him the privilege of the preserve of a stenographer. He wished this privilege for himself as well as for the committee if it desired, since every member of the committee was opposed to him. In fairness and for the sake of accuracy he believed that a written record was essential. After much correspondence, the committee finally allowed Dr. Machen to present his point of view concerning membership in the Independent Board in written form. This statement has already been discussed in detail in the preceding chapter.

At a meeting of New Brunswick Presbytery on December 20, 1934, the following action was taken on recommendation of the special committee to confer with Dr. Machen.

(1) That Presbytery prefer charges against the Rev. J. Gresham Machen, D.D., for offenses which are as follows: With the violation of his ordination vows; with his disapproval of the government and discipline of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.; with renouncing and disobeying the rules and lawful authority of the Church; with advocating rebellious defiance against the lawful authority of the Church; with refusal to sever his connection with the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions as directed by the General Assembly, with not being zealous and faithful in maintaining the peace of the Church; with contempt of and rebellion against his superiors in the Church in their lawful counsels, commands and corrections; with breach of his lawful promises; and with refusing subjection to his brethren in the Lord. (2) That a Prosecuting Committee be appointed by Presbytery, which committee shall conduct the prosecution in all its stages in whatever judicatory. (3) That the Presbytery transmit the case against Dr. Machen for hearing and decision to a special judicial Commission to be duly elected by the Presbytery.

¹⁴

Dr. Machen was cited to appear before the Special Judicial Commission on February 14, 1935, from which sessions the public was to be barred. The first session of the trial was held in the First Presbyterian Church, Trenton, New Jersey, in the presence of a large audience composed mostly of Dr. Machen’s followers and a number of newspaper reporters. The protests of the defendant against a secret trial had compelled the commission to open the meetings of the trial to the public.

Every member of the commission was challenged by the defendant’s counsel as to his right to sit on the commission. Dr. Culp was challenged because he had signed the Auburn Affirmation. Mr. Magill was challenged because he had been a member of the special committee to deal with Dr. Machen, and which committee had recommended that Dr. Machen be tried. Dr. Kuizenga was challenged because he occupied the chair of apologetics at Princeton Seminary, to which chair Dr. Machen had been appointed by the board of directors, and because there existed a doctrinal controversy between Princeton and Westminster Theological Seminary where Dr. Machen served as professor. Mr. Morris was challenged because his statements had already prejudiced the case, and because one of his elders was a member of the prosecuting committee. Mr. Morris had stated that if Dr. Machen could not keep step with the overwhelming majority of the general assembly he should get out of the church. Mr. Hankinson was challenged because his pastor, the Rev. A. Kenneth Magner, was a member of the prosecuting committee. Mr. Cooley was challenged because his pastor was a signer of the Auburn Affirmation. Dr. Kummel was challenged on the same ground, and further because he had been illegally elected to the commission.¹⁵

The charges and specifications against Dr. Machen, which were only an elaboration of those recommended by the special committee to confer with Dr. Machen, were also presented at the first session.¹⁶ At the second meeting all the challenges against members of the commission were disallowed except those against Mr. Magill, so that six, instead of seven, continued to sit on the commission.

The attitude of the commission toward the central issue of the trial, that of doctrine, became evident when the defense objected to the presence of Dr. Kuizenga of Princeton Seminary on the commission. One of the prosecutors immediately arose and said, “We would like to object, Mr. Moderator, to the introduction of this, to anything that goes back to the Princeton Seminary, or the doctrinal phase of this case.¹⁷

The question of jurisdiction was the next matter argued. The defense maintained that New Brunswick Presbytery had no jurisdiction in the case for three reasons: first, Dr. Machen had been dismissed by the Presbytery of New Brunswick as a member in good and regular standing and received by the Presbytery of Philadelphia, March 5, 1934, on recommendation of the standing committee on Candidates, Credentials, and Unemployed Ministers by a vote of seventy-eight to forty-eight. That was an established fact which no one could refute. Second, the complaint which had been filed with the Synod of Pennsylvania by the forty-four members of Philadelphia Presbytery could not possibly stay the action of the presbytery in receiving Dr. Machen. The Book of Discipline, chapter XII, section 8, recognizes a complaint against a “particular delinquency, action or decision” of an inferior judicatory, but a “stay” or an arresting of the case until the decision is rendered by the next superior judicatory can only take place in the matter of a “decision.” A “decision” involves contemplated action in the future, while in the case of Dr. Machen’s reception an “action” had been taken which made it a fait accompli. Third, the required one-third had never properly signed the complaint. The Rev. W. K. Eubank, D.D., who had seconded the motion to receive Dr. Machen unanimously, had signed the complaint. There were 132 present at the meeting, so that with Dr. Eubank’s name subtracted there lacked one for the required one-third to “stay” the action. What is more, the Rev. J. R Jackson had withdrawn his name from the complaint, so that actually the complaint did not contain the required one-third.

With respect to this question it is worth noting that on April 1, 1935, by a vote of sixty-six to thirty-two, the Presbytery of Philadelphia adopted a memorial to the Synod of New Jersey stating that Dr. Machen was still under the jurisdiction of Philadelphia Presbytery.¹⁸

As a response to the arguments on jurisdiction, the prosecution set forth two grounds for believing that New Brunswick Presbytery did have jurisdiction over Dr. Machen. First, Dr. Machen had never presented a certificate of membership from Philadelphia Presbytery. Second, the stated clerk of the Philadelphia Presbytery had never returned the stub of Dr. Machen’s certificate to the clerk of New Brunswick Presbytery. The defense immediately replied that the lack of receipt of the certificate stub by the clerk of New Brunswick Presbytery could not possibly change one’s membership, and that the Book of Discipline recognized no degrees of reception as a member. No attempt was made by the prosecution to answer the three arguments of the defense. As was anticipated, the commission ruled in favor of the prosecution.

Further objections by the defense relative to prejudgment of the case by New Brunswick Presbytery and to the fact that proper charges and specifications had never been presented by New Brunswick Presbytery to the commission were overruled, thus ending the second session of the trial.

On March 7, 1935, at the third session the dramatic and tragic point of the trial was reached. In order to appreciate this climax it is necessary to note the contrast between the defendant, Dr. Machen, and the personnel of the commission.

Without dispute it can be stated that before the commission of New Brunswick Presbytery stood one of the greatest theologians of his generation. His large and accurate fund of theological knowledge, his loyalty to the historic Christian position as held by the Presbyterian Church in the USA, his keen incisive mind, and his outstanding contributions to the defense of Christianity through his books and his teaching in the classroom for over twenty-five years, placed him above the members of the commission. Dr. Machen by common consent was regarded as a great defender of the faith. No one could accuse him of turning either to the left or to the right of sound doctrine. Yet, there he stood that day on trial for his ecclesiastical life because he had been willing to defend the truths of the gospel and accept whatever persecution would come to him on that account.

On the other hand, the members of the commission were not only inferior to him in theological knowledge, in brilliancy of mind, and in contribution to the defense of the faith, but at least one of these, the moderator of the commission, the Rev. Cordie J. Culp, Ph.D., had signed the Auburn Affirmation which attacked directly the full truthfulness of holy Scripture and declared that belief in the virgin birth of Christ, his bodily resurrection, his substitutionary atonement, and his miracles is nonessential to the Christian faith. Yet it was this very man as moderator of the commission who now asked Dr. Machen to stand, and in solemn stillness asked him the question, “It is now necessary for the court to inquire as to the plea. How does the defendant plead as to charge No. 1?” To each of the six charges Dr. Machen replied, “Not guilty!”

But the farcical and disgusting aspect of the entire proceedings followed immediately. The Book of Discipline states,

Questions as to order or evidence, arising in the course of a trial, shall, after the parties have had an opportunity to be heard, be decided by the moderator, subject to an appeal to the judiciary or judicial commission, to be determined without debate.

¹⁹

Disregarding this rule and making the trial even more ridiculous, the commission issued the following ruling:

1. This court rules that it cannot accept and hear any further arguments or inferences based on the Auburn Affirmation, or on its signing by certain members of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

2. This court rules that it cannot accept and hear any further arguments or inferences against the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. It is not within the province of this Commission to hear either defence or attack of the Board of Foreign Missions of our Church, since both the General Assembly and the Presbytery of New Brunswick, from which this Commission derives its powers, have given the Board of Foreign Missions their vote of approval.

3. This court rules that it cannot accept and hear any further arguments or inferences based on the Princeton-Westminster Seminary controversy. We cannot entertain any arguments directed against any individuals, Boards, Agencies, Institutions, or Judicatories, against which no charges have been presented in the Presbytery of New Brunswick, and which are not on trial before this judicial Commission.

4. This court rules that it cannot accept or regard any arguments questioning the legality or validity of the Mandate of the General Assembly in reference to the “Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions.” It is one of the well established and fundamental principles of the Presbyterian system that a subordinate judicatory cannot sit in judgment upon the acts or deliverances of a superior judicatory, whether or not we think those acts or deliverances have been wise equitable, and for the edification of the Church. So long as such acts and deliverances stand this Commission has no power but to obey.²⁰

The defense asked for a short recess and then entered a protest.²¹

Another historic church trial comes to mind. Martin Luther, the German monk, was asked by the Diet of Worms to retract what he had written against the doctrines of the Roman church. He was asked two questions, “Do you acknowledge these books to have been written by you?” After the books were listed Luther replied, “As to the first, I acknowledge as mine the books which have just been named; I cannot deny them.” A second question was put to him, “Are you prepared to retract these books, and their contents; or do you persist in the opinions you have advanced in them?” In reply to the second query, Luther asked for time to defend himself. “For this reason I entreat your imperial majesty, with all humility, to allow me time, that I may answer without offending against the Word of God.”²² Luther’s request was granted and the next day was set as the time for a defense. On the next day he gave his defense and ended with the historic words, “And I neither can nor will revoke anything, seeing that is not safe or right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen.”²³

In other words, even in those dark days when justice was supposed to be dead and when alleged heretics were burned at the stake, Martin Luther had an opportunity to defend his accusations against the church and to show that his doctrines were in accord with the truth of the Word of God. But Dr. Machen, in the twentieth century of enlightenment, was denied the very basis of justice and fairness and practically condemned without a hearing.

As a result of this unexpected and unfair move by the commission, the rest of the proceedings became more or less meaningless. The opening speech by the prosecution was given by the Rev. D. Wilson Hollinger, in which he reiterated that the case was not doctrinal but administrative and that the Presbytery of New Brunswick and the church were perfectly orthodox.²⁴ After this the prosecution offered various documents, mostly pamphlets issued by the Independent Board, as evidence to prove their case against Dr. Machen. The whole procedure was little short of ridiculous, especially since the defendant was not allowed to prove that his charges against the Board of Foreign Missions were true.

As a formality, the defense moved for a verdict for the defense which was overruled by the commission. The defense then expressed the willingness to prove that Dr. Machen’s charges against the Board of Foreign Missions were true.²⁵ When the court refused to hear this evidence, the counsel for the defense stated:

Mr. Moderator, the rulings of this court relating to argument and evidence have deprived this defendant of the right to introduce facts and arguments essential to his defense against these charges and to be heard concerning the same. Since this defendant is thus precluded from offering the defense to which he is entitled by the constitution of the Church, the exercise of which right has been denied by this commission, he does not find himself able to present a so-called “case” which would not include these essential facts and arguments, for such a “case” would not be the case which, by the law of the Church, he is entitled to present.

Therefore, Mr. Moderator, under these circumstances the defense has nothing further to say.

²⁶

At the final session of the trial held on March 29, 1935, the commission declared Dr. Machen guilty, suspended him from the ministry of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, but recommended that the sentence take effect only after appeal to the higher courts had been heard.²⁷ Dr. Machen stated afterwards,

The Special Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of New Brunswick has simply condemned me without giving me a hearing. I am condemned for failing to obey a lawful order but when my counsel, the Rev. H. McAllister Griffiths, offered to prove that the order that I had disobeyed was not lawful but unlawful the court refused to him a word of argument. I am condemned for making false assertions about the Modernism of the official Board of Foreign Missions, but when my counsel offered to prove that those assertions were not false but true, the court would not hear a word of the evidence that we were perfectly ready to produce. It is not too much to say that a trial conducted in that fashion is nothing but a farce. The customary attempt is being made to obscure the issue, by representing it as merely administrative and not doctrinal, but I think real Christian people and even the general public are being less and less deceived by such evasion.

²⁸

The Rev. Daniel Russell, D.D., moderator of the Presbytery of New York, said in an interview published in The New York Times of March 31, 1935,

Most Presbyterians hold no brief for the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. Many regret what has seemed at times an intolerant attitude on the part of Dr. Machen toward his brethren.

Nevertheless, there must be a widespread feeling of sorrow together with something of sympathy for the accused in that, after thirty years of distinguished service to religion, this famed scholar, whether through his own fault or otherwise, has been condemned by his Presbytery…and that his denomination, if the condemnation is sustained, can find no place in which his brilliant gifts may be utilized ….

Was Dr. Machen’s trial a fair one? Ecclesiastical lawyers maintain that no question of doctrine is involved. In the more adequate view there are doctrinal differences which run into the heart of the entire problem. These the accused was not permitted to discuss in his defense.

The Rev. A. Z. Conrad, D.D., pastor of the Park Street Congregational Church, Boston, Massachusetts, described the trial as follows:

Not for a generation has anything so high-handed, so unjust, so utterly un-Christian been witnessed as the trial of Dr. Gresham Machen in the New Brunswick Presbytery …It will be a sorry day for Presbyterians if such a travesty as the pretended trial of Dr. Machen is permitted to stand as the judgment of the majority.

²⁹

Dr. Clarence E. Macartney commented,

Sad, lamentable, tragic, unthinkable that the Church Dr. Machen has served for thirty years, and more than twenty of them at our oldest and most famous seminary, and to which he has brought renown by his great talent, should now repay him by casting him out of its fellowship.

³⁰

Thus ended the trial of the Rev. J. Gresham Machen, D.D., Litt.D., before the Special Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of New Brunswick. Dr. Machen appealed the decision to the Permanent Judicial Commission of the general assembly, but he lost the appeal and was suspended from the ministry of the church.³¹ The years that have intervened only make the decision all the more unfair and sad. This travesty of justice remains as a blot on the history of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, and as an illustration that history repeats itself. The church is once more in a state of apostasy and spiritual decay, for how else could it “excommunicate” one of its greatest and most valiant soldiers of the truth?

In 1893 the church suspended Dr. Charles A. Briggs of New York from the ministry because he did not believe in the infallibility of the Bible, and in 1936 the same church suspended Dr. Machen from the ministry because he was determined to follow the teachings of the infallible Word of God. Do not these two actions indicate the tremendous transformation in the Presbyterian church from orthodoxy to modernism?