In Honor of the Anniversary of the Call of Rev Cotton Mather from Labor to Reward

The Duties of Children to their Parents by Cotton Mather

---

DEUT. 27:14, 16

The Levites shall speak, and shall say unto all the
Men of Israel, with a loud voice:
Cursed is he that setteth Light,
By his Father or his Mother.
And All the people shall say, Amen.

I am going to Entertain you with a Discourse, that cannot have a fitter preface, than those words in Psalm 34.11: Come, ye Children; Hearken unto me, I will teach you the Fear of the Lord. The Children of my Neighbors are now appearing among us. Yea, Our Little Ones are no Little part of the Assembly. And very many of these are the Children of Pious Parents, the Children whose Piety has therefore been fervently desired and required by their Parents. Come, Ye Children, Hearken to me; I will tell you, what you shall do, that your Parents may be Happy in you, and that your own Happiness may be secured and increased.
There was a Solemnity sometimes observed upon the Two Mountains of Ebal and Gerizzim, in the Land of Israel. On the Top of Mount Ebal there stood the Six of the Israelitish Tribes and Six on the Top of Mount Gerizzim. Certain Levites with the Ark of God, in the Valley between them, directing themselves unto Mount Ebal with a Loud Voice, uttered very Distinctly, no less than Twelve terrible Curses, unto which the Tribes on that Mount, made the very Heavens ring, with a dreadful, Amen, unto them.
But between each of these Curses, the Levites directed themselves unto Mount Gerizzim, with Blessings directly opposed unto those Curses; and the Tribes on that Mount, gave the Shout of a Joyful, Amen, upon them.
'Tis true, the Order prescribing the Blessings, is not so distinctly Recited by Moses, as that of the Curses; because 'tis Reserved as the Special Glory of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ, and of His Glorious Gospel, to bring in the Blessings of Obedience.
Until the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ arrive unto us, the Law does pronounce unto us nothing but Curses, we hear nothing but a Thunder of Wrath Cursing of us.
The Second of the Direful Curses, which the Levites of God, facing to Mount Ebal, pronounced was, Cursed be he that sets Light by his Father or his Mother.
Doubtless, when the vast Body of people, as one man, replied, Amen, upon it, it sounded like an horrible Thunder-clap. Yea, but the Thunder-clap is not yet over; the peals of it, are this very Day to be again Sounded, in the midst of you, O Congregation of God.
We read, that when the thing thus Appointed, was first observed by the Tribes of Israel, in the Days of Joshua, [Joshua 8:35]. There were the Little Ones, in the Congregation. It is not amiss, that there are so many Little Ones in the Great Congregation here come together; and unto Them especially, am I now to bring that Warning from God.
The heavy Curse of God, Will fall upon those Children, That make Light of their Parents.
To Set Light by one's Parents, is in other words, to Treat them with any Ungodly Contempt: And, you mind it, My Children, that the Curse of God is denounced, not only upon Children, which cast Contempt upon their Fathers:
Oftentimes the Fathers have the Wisdom to keep up their Authority, and keep themselves above the Contempt of their Children.
But the Mothers do more frequently by their Fondness, and Weakness, bring upon themselves, the Contempt of their Children, and Lay themselves Low, by many Impertinencies.
Now, behold, the Admonition of Heaven; the Children which cast Contempt upon their Mothers do also bring themselves under the Curse of God.
The Curse of God! The Terriblest Thing that ever was heard of; The First born of Terribles! Can't I mention this Tremendous Thing, The Curse of God; and, Oh, My Children, Will not you Tremble at it?
Who can forbear crying out, as Elihu did, when he heard the Thunders of God railing in the Heavens over him, At this my heart even Trembles, and it is moved out of its place! I hope, none of you are come to such a Degree of Atheism, as to Defy, the Curse of God: You won't mock at the Fear of the most Fearful Thing, in the World.
But give me your Attention, while I do from the Oracles of the Almighty God, handle that CASE among you.
C A S E
What Respect, to their Parents must be rendered by the Children, that would not by Affronts to their Parents, bring down upon themselves the dreadful Curses of God?
The Lessons, which I have now to Set you, My Children, be these.
1) Maintain in your own Spirits, a Dread of those Dreadful Curses, with which the God of Heaven uses to take Vengeance on the Children, who put not Respect, but Contempt, upon their Parents. Beyond, how dreadfully the Judgments of God follow the Children that Set Light by their parents; and Oh, my Warned Children, upon the sight of those Warnings, cry out, Lord, my Flesh trembles for fear, and I am afraid of those Judgments!
Indeed there is no Sin more usually Revenged, with the Sensible and Notable Curses of God, than that Sin, The Contempt of Parents.
Exasperated Parents themselves, do sometimes Imprecate Curses upon their Children; and the Invisible World with a strange, but a quick work, usually says, Amen, to those Curses.
But, I beseech of you, O Parents, that be your Exasperations What they will, you forbear to use any Imprecations on your Children. Alas, They will be Cursed Children fast enough, without the least ill wish of yours to hasten it.
When it was Instituted, that the Levites were to proclaim, Cursed is he that sets Light by his Father, or his Mother, One part of the Institution was, All the people shall say, Amen. Truly, it often comes to pass, that when the Curses of God come upon them that set Light by their Parents, it shall be so, that all the people shall take Notice of it; all the people shall see an Amen, set unto it, shall see it Ratified. Children, I must be a little particular with you.
First. Undutiful Children, for the Sin of the Contempt they cast upon their Parents, are often Cursed by God, with being Left unto yet more Sin against Him. I could not have spoken a more Terrible word! This is most certain, The more Sinful any man is, the more Cursed is that man. It is an amazing Vengeance of God, that gives a Sinner up to Sin for Sin, and Curses a Sinner for one Sin, by Leaving him to another.
But Undutiful Children, are commonly Cursed, and Banned by such a Vengeance of God. We read of some Sinners, whom the Justice of God gives up to Sin, and this is one Brand upon those doleful Sinners, in Rom. 1:30: Disobedient unto Parents.
The Fifth Commandment stands in the Front of all Six, upon the Second Table of the Law. Children, If you break the Fifth Commandment, there is not much Likelihood, that you will keep the rest; No, there is Hazard, that the Curse of God, will give you up to break every one of them all.
Undutiful Children soon become horrid Creatures, for Unchastity, for Dishonesty, for Lying, and all manner of Abominations: And the Contempt which they cast upon the Advice of their Parents, is one thing that pulls down this Curse of God upon them.
They who sin against their Parents, are sometimes by God given up to Sin against all the world beside. Mind the Most Scandalous Instances of Wickedness and Villainy; You'll ordinarily find, they were first Undutiful Children, before they fell into the rest of their atrocious Wickedness.
Secondly, Undutiful Children for the Contempt they cast upon their Parents are often Cursed by God, with a Mischief brought upon all their Affairs. A Strange Disaster uses to follow Undutiful Children, much Evil pursues that kind of Sinner; there is a secret Vengeance of God, perplexing their Affairs; through that Vengeance of God, None of their Affairs do prosper with them.
When David was vexed with one of his Undutiful Children, he could foretell, in Psal. 55:19. God shall Afflict them. There is a Secret Blast of God, upon Undutiful Children.
They are Afflicted in their Estates: It is the Curse of God upon them, for their being Loathe, to do what they could for their Parents, with their Estates.
They are Afflicted in their Bodies: It is the Curse of God upon them, for their Dishonouring the Parents of their Bodies.
God Afflicts them with Reproaches: 'Tis the Curse of God upon them; they have Reproached or Despised their Parents.
They are followed with one plague after another, by the Irresistible Wrath, and Curse of God: they can't comprehend, how they come to be so plagued in all their Interests: 'Tis it may be their Contempt of their Parents, that has been the Worm at the Root, which causes all to wither with 'em. And if these Undutiful Children, ever Live to have Children of their own, God pays 'em home in their own Coin; God pays 'em in the Undutifulness of their own Children, in the Undutifulness of their own Children, God makes 'em to possess the Iniquities of their Youth.
Judah, cast Contempt upon his Parents, by Marrying a Canaanitess, as it should seem without their Consent: God Cursed this Judah with a couple of Children who were such Wretches, that the Immediate Hand of Heaven, dispatch'd 'em out of the World.
You have doubtless been inform'd of that famous History, in the Theatrum Historie; A vile Son did once beat his old Father, and then Drag him to the Threshold of the House, by the Hair of the Head. Afterwards, when he grew Old himself, (which by the way, was a Rare Thing!) his own Son did in like manner beat him, and then Drag him also, by the Hair of the Head, not only to the Threshold, but out of the Doors, into the Dirt. Hereupon he cried out with Anguish, Ah! If this Varlet had pulled me only to the Threshold, I had been served, but just as my Father was by me! Children, Remember this.
Thirdly, Death; Yea, an Early Death, and a Woeful Death, is not seldom the Curse of God upon Undutiful Children for their being so. It is the Tenour of the Precept, Honour thy Father and thy Mother, that thy Days may be long upon the Land. Mind it, Children; Your Days are not like to be long upon the Land, if you Set Light by your Father or Mother.
When Absalom, with his Crue, was manifesting a Bloody Undutifulness, his offended Father predicted thus much, That those bloody and crafty men, should not Live out half their Days. Why, he knew, that the very Finger of God, had once written as much as this comes to; That Children, which did not Honour their Parents, must not look to have their Days long in the Land.
We have all heard the Fate of that Undutiful Absalom; now some Travellers Report that in the place where Absalom was Buried, there is now a vast Heap of Stones, thus produced: It is customary for them, that go by the place, to throw a Stone upon it, using these words;
Thus it shall be done unto the Son that Rebelleth against his Father.
Stand still, O my Children and Look with Horror upon the Grave of Absalom: Read there, and see the Curse of God upon the Undutiful.
Children that cast Contempt on the Parents, who have been the Instruments of their Life, do thereby, what, but make Forfeitures of their Life?
It becomes Children to reckon it one main Design, and Business, and privilege of their Life, to be Comforts unto their Parents: When they cease to do so, God with a direful Curse often gives that Order about them, Take away the Life of that Undutiful Creature! That Creature shall no longer Live in the World. It was an Edict of Heaven, in Exod. 21:17. He that curseth his Father or his Mother, shall surely be put unto Death.
And what shall then be done unto the Children, that prove Curses unto their Father, or their Mother? Undutiful Children are so; But the Curse of God puts them to Death for it: And because those Undutiful Children are Wicked over much, therefore they Die before their Time.
Yea, 'tis no unusual Thing for the Death of Undutiful Children, to be Embittered with some Extraordinary Circumstances of Confusion and Calamity. I tell you, O Undutiful Children; There is Danger, Lest you be so Cursed of God, as to be Hanged on a Tree, at the Last.
It is Remarkable, That the Most of them, who are Executed on the Gallows, do at their Execution cry out of This: Oh, 'Tis my Undutifulness unto my Parents, 'Tis my Disobedience unto my Parents, that hath brought me unto this Lamentable End!
It is a memorable passage, in Prov. 30:17: The Eye that mocks at his Father, and despises to obey his Mother, the Ravens of the Valley shall pick it out, and the young Eagles shall Eat it. It seems, an Untimely and a Tragical Death, often Exposes the Carcasses of those Children, to the Carnivorous Fowls of Heaven.
There was a Law in Israel, Deut. 21:21: That the Rebellious Child should be put to Death. After Stoning, he was Hang'd up; for in Israel they Hang'd up none, till they had first otherwise kill'd him; and no doubt, his Corpse being taken down, as it was to be done before Sunset, it was thrown into a Noted Pit, such an one as that, into which they threw the Corpse of Judas over the Precipice; and there the Fowls of Heaven prey'd upon it. Agur perhaps alludes to This; And we often see it so, that the Rebellious Child, is left of God, unto those Crimes, for which he is put to Death, e're it be long.
More than so; Undutiful Children are Unnatural Children; And the Curse of God sometimes gives over Unnatural Children to commit the most Unnatural Murders. They have Murdered themselves, and been Self-Destroyers: As they have Sinn'd against Nature, so they Die the most against Nature, that can be.
A Young man in this Country Drown'd himself; but he Left behind him a Writing to his Father, wherein he complain'd, O Father, I have kept my Soul, as long as I could; My Ruin was the pride and stubbornness of my Tender Years!
But is this all? No; Lastly; All the Curse of God upon Undutiful Children hitherto, is but the Death, riding the Pale Horse in the Revelation; whereof 'tis said, Hell followed. I am after all to tell you, That the Vengeance of Eternal Fire, will be the portion of Undutiful Children after all; Children that cast Contempt upon their Parents, God will cast into the Vengeance of Eternal Fire at the Last, and into Everlasting Contempt.
Surely, the Damned, are the Cursed of God! Hear, O Children; If you are the Children of Rebellion, the Curse of God will make you the Children of Perdition, throughout Eternal Ages.
Undutiful Children, what are they, but the Children of Belial? This is as much as to say, they are the Children of Satan; and unto Satan they shall go. The Bible has call'd 'em, The Children of the Devil; And whither shall the Children of the Devil go, but into the Everlasting Fire, prepared for the Devil and his Angels? The Fiends of Darkness, will be the Ravens, and the Eagles, that shall fasten their Talons, in the Eyes of those Children.
When our Lord Jesus Christ, the Judge of the World, foretells, that in the Day of Judgment, having said unto those on His Right Hand, Come ye Blessed, He will say unto those on His Left Hand, Depart, ye Cursed, into Everlasting Fire, with the Devil and his Angels; He seems to allude unto the action between Gerizzim and Ebal. Truly, the Children Damn'd of old, upon Mount Ebal, for Setting Light by their Father or their Mother, will be They, whom the Lord Jesus Christ, will one Day Doom, to Depart from Him into Everlasting Fire, with the Devil and his Angels. It was said, in Prov. 20:20 - Whoso curseth his Father, or his Mother, his Lamp shall be put out in Obscure Darkness.
Children, If by Undutifulness to your Parents, you incur the Curse of God, it won't be Long before you go down into Obscure Darkness, even, into Utter Darkness: God has Reserv'd for you the Blackness of Darkness forever.
Be it known to you; that Undutifulness to your Parents, will bring you to feel many Stripes, from an Enrag'd Conscience in the World to come; for you know the Will of God; Your Undutifulness is a Sin against your Conscience.
Yea, be Dutiful to thy Parents, or expect all the formidable outpourings of an Infinite and Eternal Wrath upon they Soul.
Thou dost not value the Wrath of thy Parents; It is a Light Thing to thee: But the Wrath of the Lord God Omnipotent, Oh, Don't make Light of That; It is a fearful thing to fall into the Hands of the Living God!
I hope, we have been long enough upon Mount Ebal. Shall we now turn a little unto Mount Gerizzim?
II. Let the Signal Blessings of God, upon Children who treat their Parents with due Respect, find much Respect with you, be a great Encouragement unto you, have a strong Impression upon you.
The Levites, as far as we understand, were to turn unto Mount Gerizzim, and with a loud voice to say, Blessed be he, who doth not set Light by his Father, or his Mother: And all the people were to say, Amen.
Hearken, O my Children, to the Blessings of God, that shall be poured and showered from on High upon the Dutiful; and let them charm you, into all possible Dutifulness.
There are Children, whose continual Desire and Prayer it is, That they may be in all Things made Rich Blessings unto their Parents. They Honour their Parents, and are an Honour to their Parents. Their Parents do with Glad Hearts behold their Wisdom, and must bear this Testimony for them, Never were Parents more Happy in their Children.
O the Blessings that belong to Children of such a Character! If it might be said, as it was by David, when God gave the Temple of the Lord; in Psal. 127:5 Blessed is the man, that hath his Quiver full of such Arrows,; Then surely, Blessed are the Arrows, that are in the Quiver of such a man!
The Holy Spirit of God sets a special Remark, upon that Command, which requires Children to be Dutiful unto their Parents: in Eph. 6:2 - 'Tis the First Command [of the Second Table] with a promise, That it may be well with thee.
It shall be well with you, O ye Dutiful Children: you have the word of a God for it. You may note it, That in the Command, what we Translate, That thy Days may be Long, is to be read, That they may prolong thy Days.
Who are those They? They are they Father, and thy Mother. But how can thy Father, and thy Mother, prolong thy Days? How, but by Blessing of thee, in the Name of the Almighty God.
If the Days of such a Child be not prolong'd, we must allow a Sovereignty in such Dispensations of Heaven; but there is cause to hope, for such a Child, that God has prolong'd his Days, in the happiness of the Heavenly Word.
This is plain; Those Parents, that are Blessed with Dutiful Children, do with an inexpressible Agony wish all sorts of Blessings to their Children. If it were in their power, to confer Blessings upon their Children; Oh, how much would they do for them!
Now because, 'tis in the power of God alone to confer Blessings upon us, these Parents go to God, for their Children, and they say with good old Jacob, God Bless the Lads!
I assure you, such Benedictions from obliged Parents, have a more than ordinary Authority, and Efficacy in them. For one's Parents to go before God, and plead, Ah, Lord, such a Child of mine, has Loved me, and Served me, and Helped me; and his good Carriage is to me, has been such, that even upon that Account I have reason to wish him all the good in the world: I therefore bring that Child unto thee, and I pray thee to Bless him with all Blessings of Goodness: To be thus Blessed by one's Parents, O my Children, 'tis a thing of more value than if a rich Inheritance were to be received from them.
This is very certain, There is no point of Religion, more certainly and commonly Rewarded with Blessings in this world, than that of rendering unto Parents the Dues that pertain unto them. A signal Prosperity, even in this world, uses to attend those Children, that are very Obedient or Serviceable unto their Parents. Those Reckabites, that Obey the Commandment of their Father, Thus said the Lord of Hosts, They shall stand before me forever.
There are Children, who have with unspeakable pleasure, supported their Aged Parents, in their Necessities; They have said unto their Necessitous Parents, like Joseph, Thus saith thy Son, come down to me, Thou shalt be near to me!
I believe, There are some at this very Time, in this very place who can say, That from the Time, they did for their Parents as they have done, God hath signally Smiled upon them.
Friend, That Aged Father or Mother, in thy House, is not only the Glory of thy House, but a better and a richer Thing than a Mine of Silver there.
Children, Be Blessings to your Parents, and be Assured, That those Parents will be Greater Blessings to you, than you can be to Them. They will be so as Long as they Live; yea, more than so; After your Parents are Dead and Gone, the Effects of their Prayers will yet Live: All the Prayers which those Gratified Parents put up for you will be still Answering, after they are Dead, as long as you yourselves do Live.
David had been a Son, very Tender of his Parents: and now, says, David, in Ps. 27:10: When my Father and my Mother forsake me, then the Lord will take me up: He'll Requite all that I did for my Father, and my Mother.
Shall I go a step further? When you yourselves also are Dead and Gone, even Your Children may Reap the Fruits of what you did for your Parents: Your Posterity, may fare the better for your Dutifulness.
The Jews have a Notion among them; 'That for the sake of the Honour, that Esau paid unto his Father, the Israelites Long after might not Extirpate the Edomites, who were the Posterity of Esau. Moses tells the Israelites, You have compassed this Mountain Long Enough. Why? Because Esau compassed a Mountain in Hunting for his Father.
But after all; Dutiful Children acting upon principles of Christianity, may hope to meet with their Christian Parents in Heaven; There Abraham the Religious Father, Their Isaac the Dutiful Son, there Jacob the Dutiful Grandson, are Together; Blessed are they that meet there, in the Light of the face of God; Blessed throughout Eternal Ages! Consider This, O Children; and Set not Light by your Parents.
But being, by these Considerations prepared for it, it may now be Time to say;
III. The Respects that Children must render unto their Parents, are comprised in those Three Words, Reverence, and Obedience, and Recompence.
Children do Set Light by their Parents, or cast Contempt on them, if they withhold any of these Three Regards from them, and the Curse of God, will Revenge the Contempt.
First, You Set Light by your Parents, if you withhold from them, the Reverence that is due unto them.
The God of Nature hath placed a Distance, between Parents and their Children; Children then Set Light by their Parents when they Forget this Distance.
There is first, and Inward Reverence, that Children owe unto their Parents.
It was Enjoined in Lev. 19:3: Ye shall Fear every man, his Mother and his Father. Children, you Set Light by your Parents, if your minds are not Struck, with some awful Apprehension of their Superiority over you; if you don't see an awful Image of God, in their Superiority; if you don't look upon them, as the very Deputies of God, in their several Families.
But this Reverence must have some Outward Expression given of it.
There is an Outward Reverence, that Children owe unto their Parents. Hence 'tis said, in Mal. 1:6: If I be a Father, where is my Honour? Hence 'tis said, in Prov. 31:28: Her Children Rise up, and call her Blessed.
Their Speeches, both to their Parents, and of their Parents, must be full of Reverence. When Children speak to their Parents, their Language must carry in it, some Acknowledgment of their being such.
Thus in Gen. 31:35: She said unto her Father, my Lord. When Children speak of their Parents, they must show a concern, that nothing Abusive be uttered. Thus, in Psal. 127:5: The Children of Youth, seem to Defend their Father, from the Enemies in the Gate, or, False-Accusers.
And their Actions towards their Parents must yet more Emphatically Speak the Reverence, which they would Retain for them. Thus is Gen. 48:12: Joseph bowed himself, with his Face to the Earth, before his Father. Thus in I Kings 2:10: Solomon Rose up to meet his Mother, and bowed himself unto her, and She Sat on his Right Hand.
Now, Children, you Set Light by your Parents, if you Talk Saucily and Clownishly unto them; If you Reproach them, defame them, and Backbite them; if your Behaviour towards them have any malapert Impudence in it.
Though your Parents may give you never so much Occasion of Complaint, it becomes you to make as Little Reflection upon it, as ever you can. Say Nothing, but what the Glory of God makes it Necessary for you to say.
Though they should happen to do you any Injuries, you may not show those Resentments, that you have upon the Injuries of other Persons.
Secondly; You Set Light by your Parents if you withhold from them, the Obedience that is due unto them.
If Children don't Study to Do, what their Parents would have them to do; and if the Word and Will of their Parents have not the Force of a Law upon them, the Children do Set Light, by them, in such a misbehaviour.
It was demanded in Eph. 6:1: Children, Obey your Parents in the Lord, for this is Right. Children, you Set Light by your Parents, if you don't count it a Right, a Just, a Fair Thing, and a Thing very Reasonable, for you to be the Servants of them, who have done so much for you their Children, and beware of Crossing them, who have done so much to Comfort you.
It was said, in Col. 3:20: Children, Obey your Parents in all Things, for this is well-pleasing unto the Lord. But, Children, You Set Light by your Parents, if it be not also very Well-pleasing unto You, to Please them, so far as without Sin you may do it; and if you be not unwilling at any Time, to give them any Displeasure.
When the Father of Joseph laid his commands upon him, he obey'd those commands, though with the Risk of his very Life. It should be the very Joy of your Life, to yield Obedience unto the commands of your Parents.
Do your Parents give you any Instruction? You are call'd upon, in Prov. 4:1: Hear, ye Children, the Instruction of a Father." Most of all, in the Grand Motions & Changes of your Life, Children, your Parents are to be consulted, and the Satisfaction of your Parents is to be proposed.
In your Callings, and in your Matches especially the Directions of your Parents must be of Exceeding Moment with you; Indeed Nothing should be done without them! Wherefore, Children, you Set Light by your Parents, if you make nothing of their Commands, and if you tread their just Reproofs under foot.
You Set Light by them, if you Leave Undone what they Desire, and much more, if you Do what they Forbid.
You Set Light by them, if their Anger, be a Light matter with you.
Thirdly, You Set Light by your Parents, if you withhold from them the Recompence that is due unto them.
Those Children Evidently Set Light by their Parents, who are Insensible of the Obligations which their Parents have laid upon them, or, who count any thing too much to be done by Children for their Parents.
Of Joseph 'tis said, in Gen. 47:12: He Nourished his Father, and all his Father's Household with Bread. And it is elsewhere pressed upon us, Despise not they Mother, when she is old. Children, you Set Light by your Parents, if you don't Requite them as well as you can, and if you imagine that you ever can Requite them Enough. It was a Sad saying of Luther's, That One Father will more willingly maintain Ten Sons, than Ten Sons will maintain One Father. But those Children do Set Light by their Parents, who had not as liev [willingly, gladly, freely] maintain their Father, as maintain their Children; and who would not gladly be to their Mother, the Restorer of her Life, and the Nourisher of her old Age, as the Mother of Ruth, found her Son-in-Law to be unto her.
It was demanded, in I Tim. 5:4: Let the Children Learn to show piety at home, and requite their Parents; for that is Good and Acceptable before God. Those Children have no Piety in them, they Set Light by God, as well as by their Parents, unto whom it is not a most Acceptable Thing to make some Recompence unto their Parents, for all the vast Benefits which their Parents have heaped upon them.
Children, Do you think, you can ever make a Recompence unto them, that have Born you, and Bred you, and Fed you, and Endured Thousands of Sorrows for you.
One says, 'Many treat their Parents, as they do their Candles: they Set them in High Candle sticks while they are full of Tallow, but when all their Substance is wasted, they tread them underfoot. And some there are, who do not Support their Parents, but Wrong them, and Rob them, and Pillage them. They Waste their Parents.
Alas, Children, you Set Light by your Parents in all of this Impiety. But, Oh, don't make Light of this Impiety; Say, Destruction from God is a Terror to me!
IV. By Father and Mother, All sorts of Parents are intended;
Let the Caution be accordingly Extended, and Set Light by no sorts of Parents Whatsoever.
Natural Parents cannot safely come under the Contempt of their Children: God will Curse the Children that Set Light by Them; and can you dream then, that God will allow any Contempt of Political Parents, of Ecclesiastical, or of Scholastical?
There are Parents in the Commonwealth, as well as in the Family;
There are Parents in the Church, and Parents in the School, as well as in the Commonwealth. If you Set Light by these Parents, you Herd yourselves among the Cursed of God.
Remember, O Servants, thy Master, is thy Father, and thy Mistress, is thy Mother. Do not Set Light by thy Master, or thy Mistress, Lest the Curse of God at last hang thee up in Chains, among the Monuments of His Indignation.
Because thy Superiours in the Family, are thy Parents, therefore there is laid that Charge of God upon thee in 1 Pet 2:18: Servants, be subject unto your Masters, with all Fear, not only to the Good and Gentle, but also to the Froward.
The Proud hearts of many Servants, make them discontent at their Servile State. The Subjection expected from them throws them into a very crumbling Discontent.
Ye proud Wretches, your Sin, was the very Sin that at first made all the Devils in Hell. The Devils, those proud Spirits could not bear to be Servants in such a Station as God had ordered for them; and for this their Pride, The Almighty has Cursed them, and Damned them.
Servants, have a care, Lest by your Pride you fall into the Condemnation of the Devil. It is the Providence and the Ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ that hath made you Servants; and if out of Regard unto Him, you carry it well in your Servitude, He will graciously Accept all that you do, as if done unto Himself.
It was therefore said, in Col. 3:23, 24: Servants, whatever ye do, do it heartily as unto the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord you shall Receive the Reward of the Inheritance, [which belongs unto Sons] for ye Serve the Lord Christ. Well then, Don't Set Light by your Masters. If they be Masters, where is your Fear of them?
Expose not their Failings, if you see any in them. Let there be no Sullenness, no Sauciness, no Rude Retortings, in your Deportments towards them. Give them no cause to complain, with Job, I called my Servant, and he gave me no Answer.
Be not those Eye Servants, that will do their Master's will, no longer than their Master's Eye is upon them; The All-seeing eye of the Almighty God is upon you.
Transgress not their just Commands, either Wilfully, or Carelessly; If you do, the Commands of God are also Transgressed in your Miscarriages.
Indeed, if your Masters bid you do an ill Thing, you must with modest Expostulations, rather Suffer than Obey. But if they bid you do what is Fit and Right, you Sin against God, if you do it not; If they will not obey you, Masters, Turn them out of Doors.
Nor is this all that Servants have to do: Servants, you must use all Diligence, and Faithfulness, in your Master's Business. A Slothful Servant is truly called a Wicked Servant.
But Eleazer, the Servant of Abraham, would not Eat his Victuals, till his Masters Business were dispatched. Let your Master's Business be honestly discharged, though you should like Jacob, when a Servant, have your Sleep departing from your Eyes.
When your Masters do send you on Errands, Loiter not; Be not Sluggards to them that feed you.
And be the true Sons of Israel; able to say, Thy Servants are True men. Gehazi was a Servant that Lied unto his Master; but God made that Liar to become a Leper. Of all Faults in your Servants, I advise you, Masters, never to let that of Lying be unpunished.
But that of Stealing often accompanies it; of which, O Servants, beware; for God will never let That go unpunished. I vehemently call upon you, That you never venture to wrong your Masters unto the value of a Penny as long as you Live. Mark it, you'll Entail Eternal Vexations upon you, and God will make you lose a Pound for every penny, whereof you have wrong'd your Masters.
Have you ever purloined from them? Oh, Fly penitently unto the Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ for pardon, and make as much Restitution, and as full Reparation, as ever thou canst; or the Jealous God, will never pardon thee, till the Torments of the Damned, have Exacted the utmost Farthing from thee.
Servant, Be such a Blessing in thy Master's House, as Joseph was to his. Contrive all the ways imaginable, that thy Master may be the better for thee. It may be, thy Master will Bless God for Thee. However God will Bless thee in thy Serving of him. If you slight all these Things, Look for the Curses of God. And now, Let people Remember, That Rulers are Parents. Don't Set Light by Them. The Charge of God upon people, is That in Tit. 3:1: Be Subject, and Obey Magistrates, and be ready to every Good Work, and speak evil of no man; much less of the Magistrates.
Our Setting Light by Excellent Magistrates, has been the Scandalous Crime of our Country; and for that Crime whole Colonies may come to smart under the Revenges of God.
Let Churches Remember, That Pastors are Parents. Don't Set Light by Them. The Charge of God upon Churches, is That in Heb. 13:17: Obey them that have the Rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your Souls, as they that must give Account, that they may do it with Joy, and not with Grief; for that is unprofitable for you.
There hath been a Disorder, called, Corahism, sometimes very Extravagant. But for Setting Light by Ministers, that have been Holy, and Able, and Faithful, and Painful Men of God, God sometimes removes a Candlestick out of its place, or at least says, Never shall a Burning and a Shining Light more be seen standing in it.
Let Scholars regard their Tutors as their Parents. My Child, The Master of the School is a Father to thee. Those that were under the Education of Moses, are called, The Sons of Moses.
Wherefore, Scholars, Do you with all Conscience of God, Honour your Tutors; and perform the Tasks which they Impose upon you. Don't Set Light by thy School-Master; but Love him, and Prize him, and Hearken to him, and be Thankful to him, and Thankful to God for him. These are ways to Escape the Curses of God.
V. They that have at any Time Set Light by their Parents, must Go to God in Christ for His Pardons , that so His Curses may not overtake them.
Who is there that can say with the Son in the Gospel: who said unto his Father, Lo, these many years do I Serve thee, neither transgressed I at any Time thy Commandment? The Dutifullest Child among us all, hath been so Defective in his Dutifulness, that he dare not plead it before God, in his Justification; He must say, as in Psal. 143:2: Lord, Enter not into Judgment with thy Servant; for in Thy sight shall no man Living be Justified.
What then shall we do? Why, we read concerning Mount Ebal, where the Curses of God were Fulminated in Deut. 27:5,6,7: It was commanded, In Mount Ebal, thou shalt Build an Altar unto the Lord thy God, and thou shalt offer Burnt Offerings thereon unto the Lord thy God, and thou shalt Offer Peace-Offerings, and Rejoice before the Lord thy God. And we find that Joshua, afterwards did accordingly.
It is an Ingenious Note of one upon it: This was no more than Needed, for the Maledictions had no sooner been uttered, but Condemnation and Execution had instantly Ensued, if these Sacrifices with the Merit of Christ therein Typified had not seasonably interceded.
Children, you hear the Convex of Heaven resounding from Ebal with the Comminations of God, Cursed is he that Sets Light by his Father or his Mother.
Our Consciences tell us, That we have done it many a time. Away then, Away to the Antitype of the Altar on Ebal. Oh, plead with God the Burnt Offering of Christ, and the Peace-offering of Christ, that the Curse of God may not seize upon us, that we may not be Burnt in the Flames of His Indignation, that He may be at Peace with us forever.
When it was denounced Cursed is he that Sets Light by his Father or his Mother, it follow'd, that all the people said, Amen. AMEN, is the very Name of Christ. May all the people now fly to that, AMEN,, that they may be sheltered from the Curses of God.
And, Oh, call it to mind the Example of the Lord Jesus Christ. There never was in the world, so Dutiful a Son as He! We read in Lu. 2:51: He went down with His Mother, and His Reputed Father, and though they were very Low in the World, He became subject unto them. We read in Jn.19:17:
That when He was in His Last Agonies, it was a Thing lying very near His Heart, that His Widow-Mother, might be provided for: He said unto a Disciple, Behold, thy Mother! Intimating that He would have him, take her Home unto his own House.
Now, be your Dutifulness to your Parents, never so complete, Let this Righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ, be all that you will plead with God, as your Title to the promised Blessings of the Dutiful.
VI. Do not Go on, Children, If you value your Lives, and Souls, do not Go on to: Grieve your Parents, by any Disrespect unto their Admonitions, or by any Vanity whatsoever.
You cannot more Make Light of your Parents, than when you Make Light of their Counsels: Your Contempt of their Counsels, will speedily bring down God's Curses upon you.
Moses did well, when he Hearkened unto the voice of his Father-in-law, and did all that he had said. It is the voice of Heaven, in Prov. 1:8: My Son, Hear the Instruction of thy Father, and forsake not the Law of thy Mother.
Is it not the Instruction of thy Father, That thou shouldest avoid all Vicious Company; and, That thou shouldest Pray in Secret every Day; and, That thou should Read and Hear the Word of God, with Assiduity [diligence, zeal, constancy]? Or if not so, yet it may be, the Law of thy Mother, who is in Travailing pains for thee, to see Christ formed in thee.
Now, don't Make Light of the Admonitions, with which thy Parents are thus calling upon thee. If thy Parents Enjoin upon thee any thing that is not Sinful, it will be a Sin for thee to Refuse the doing of it: How much more is the Sin, if thou dost Refuse to do what the Great God has first Commanded, and thy Parents Enjoin because the Great God has first Commanded?
Oh, my Children, I am afraid, I am afraid, there are some of you, that may read your Doom, in those Ominous words, in I Sam. 2:25: They hearkened not unto the voice of their Father, because the Lord would slay them.
It is an unutterable Grief that some of you give unto your pious Parents; They see, that you are still poor, carnal, and thoughtless Creatures: and that perhaps a piece of gay Attire, is of more Account with you, than a Christ, or a Soul.
'Tis told them, That the Ungodly Youths in the Town do horribly poison one another. These youths cry up an Indifferency in Religion, and say, 'Tis out of fashion for a man to be of one Religion more than another; that is, in reality to say, 'Tis out of fashion to be of any Religion at all. So they insensibly draw one another on, to deride Seriousness in Religion, and the most Serious and Lively Preachers of it; Until they become Idle, Profane, Sottish Debauchees, and betimes Ripe for the Fiery Indignation of God.
Your Parents are Trembling, with an unknown Distress and Anguish, Lest you be Entangled in a Familiarity with these Ungodly Youths. It fills your Parents with a grievous Horror, That they cannot see the marks of a Regenerate Soul upon you; They never hear you let fall a word, that may discover in you the least care of a Never-dying Soul. They cannot find out that there are any Transactions between the Lord Jesus and you, about the Salvation of a Soul in the Hands of the Destroyer.
As Austin (Augustine) says, of his Blessed Mother, Toties Fiolios parturiebat, quoties a Deo eos deviare cernebat, so it may be said perhaps of thine, She never sees thee Sinning against God, but it brings the Anguish of a New Travail upon her.
It may be, you once had some Good Beginnings, in Religion; Your Parents felt their Hearts within them Leap for Joy, at those Beginnings; They Hoped Well, This my Child was Lost, but is found; was dead, but is alive! But seeing all your Goodness gone, like the Morning Cloud, and the Early Dew, it throws them into an Extreme Consternation.
How Cheerfully would they give all they have in the world, if they might say of you, Behold, they pray! They are every Day Extremely uneasy, lest you Die before you are New born, and it had been Good for you, that you never had been Born at all.
Ah, Vain Children; Give, Give some Relief to this Grief of your Parents. Fall down before the Lord, and say, Lord, Thou shalt be my Father, and the Guide of my Youth. Turn to God in Christ, and become Devout Children. Then, say they, My Heart, O my Children, shall Rejoice, even mine!
But your Parents count that you make Light of them, so long as you Lightly Esteem the Rock of your Salvation, and make Light of God, and Christ, and the Covenant of Grace.
And now, I Earnestly testify unto you, That if you Go on, to Sin against God, and against your Parents, the Curses of the great God are impending over you. Those Curses will horribly Wound the Head of those that go on still in their Trespasses.
Yea, though you are the children of Pious Parents, the Advantage you might have had by that, shall be changed into a Misery. The more Pious Parents you have had, the more Forlorn Children shall you be throughout Eternal Ages.
We read that even the Children of Abraham themselves, will be Cast into the Fire of the Wrath of God, if they do not bring forth Good Fruit before Him; And we read of such among the Damned, as Cry out, Oh! Father Abraham, I am Tormented in this Flame!
It is a Strange passage, that I find lately published. The famous Dr. Twiss had been a very wicked Boy. There died a School fellow of his, that was more wicked than he. The Ghost of the Dead Lad, appeared unto Twiss, and horribly Cried out, I am Damned! This was, as his worthy son assures us, the occasion of Twiss' Conversion unto God.
Oh Tis to be Feared, That many of our Young People, who have died at home and abroad, and after the Madness of that Ungodly Life, by which they broke the Hearts of their Parents, are Gone unto the Dead; if they could in Ghost now appear unto their Fellow-Sinners, yet Surviving, they would horribly Cry out, I am Damned! I am Damned, for my Ungodliness!
But you have Enough to Warn you, against all Ungodliness, without One Coming to you from the Dead. And while we thus Warn you, there is this terrible Intimation to be added unto all the rest.
Refractory Child; Thy Pious Parents, themselves will not own thee, in the Day when God shall Curse thee, and cut thee off, and cast thee out forever. And all the Grief which thy Pious Parents here Endured for thee, and from thee, will be Oil to the Everlasting Flames of that Grief, which thou shalt Endure in the Place of Dragons.
Oh, come to a Right Mind, Thou Prodigal; and by Repentance give unto thy Pious Parents cause to say, This is a dear Son, and a pleasant Child. Then the God of Heaven Himself will Bless thee, and say, I will Surely have Mercy upon them.

Machen saw it coming....

  Dr Machen strongly sensed the danger of deteriorating academia that could result from "federal standards". ... You'd be hard pressed to find a college prof that could readily tackle this one... 

 

 

 Guess who saw the "dumbing down" of our society coming all along???

You guessed it......

He saw, from a godly perspective, the dangers inherent in the democratization of academia. This is a transcript of his testimony before the House and Senate Ethics Committees in which he vehemently protested nationalized education "standards"

 

Now, the questions are, "What standards?" and "Is it even possible any longer for our society to regain the proportionate level of intellect we had a century ago?"

 

 

 

Testimony before the House & Senate Committees on the Proposed Department of Education (1926)

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)

---

The following is a transcript of the proceedings of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, and the House Committee on Education, February 25, 1926, Congress of the United States, Washington D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock am, Senator Lawrence C. Phipps presiding. Name of those present: Senators Phipps (chairman), Ferris, Copeland, and Brookhart, of the Senate Committee, and Messrs. Reed of New York, Robison, Holaday Lowrey Black of New York, and Fletcher, of the House Committee.
SENATOR PHIPPS: The committee will be in order. We will hear first from Dr. J. Gresham Machen, of Princeton Theological Seminary.
DR. MACHEN: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee, there are two reasons why a man may be opposed to a bill which is introduced in Congress. One reason is that he thinks it will not accomplish its purpose. The other reason is that he thinks that the purpose that it is intended to accomplish is an evil purpose.
It is for the latter reason that I am opposed to the bill which forms the subject of this hearing. The purpose of the bill is made explicit in the revised form of it which has been offered by Senator Means, in which it is expressly said that the department of public education, with the assistance of the advisory board to be created, shall attempt to develop a more uniform and efficient system of public common school education. The department of education, according to that bill, is to promote uniformity in education. That uniformity in education under central control it seems to me is the worst fate into which any country can fall. That purpose I think is implicit also in the other form of the bill, and it is because that is the very purpose of the bill that I am opposed to it.
This bill, I think, cannot be understood unless it is taken in connection with certain other measures of similar kind which have been proposed in the last few years; in the first place, of course, the so-called child-labor amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which I think was one of the most cruel and heartless measures that have ever been proposed in the name of philanthropy, which is saying a good deal. Another similar measure, of course, is the bill which has now been introduced, I believe, and which has appeared a number of times during the last few years, establishing in a very radical way a system of Federal aid to the States, with conditions on which this aid is to be received. It is perfectly clear of course, that if any such principle of Federal aid in education is established, the individual liberty of the States is gone, because I think we can lay it down as a general rule, with which everyone who has examined the course of education recently will agree, that money given for education, no matter what people say, always has a string tied to it. That appears in gifts of money by private foundations, and it appears far more, of course, when the gift comes from the Federal Government, which has already been encroaching to such an extent upon the powers of the States. But this bill establishing a Federal department of education, which has in it the principle of Federal aid, is a step and a very decisive step in exactly the same direction, and it is for that reason that we think it is to be opposed.
It is to be opposed, we think, because it represents a tendency which is no new thing, but has been in the world for at least 2,300 years, which seems to be opposed to the whole principle of liberty for which our country stands. It is the notion that education is an affair essentially of the State; that the children of the State must be educated for the benefit of the State; that idiosyncrasies should be avoided, and the State should devise that method of education which will best promote the welfare of the State.
That principle was put in classic form in ancient Greece in the Republic of Plato. It was put into operation, with very disastrous results in some of the Greek States. It has been in the world ever since as the chief enemy of human liberty. It appears in the world today. There are many apostles of it, such as Mr. H.G. Wells, for example. I suppose the root of his popular Outline of History is that with our modem methods of communication we can accomplish what the Roman Empire could not accomplish, because we can place education under the control of the State, and, avoiding such nonsense as literary education and the study of the classics, etc., can produce a strong unified state by having the State take up the business of education.
The same principle, of course, appears in practice in other countries in modem times, at its highest development in Germany, in disastrous form in Soviet Russia. It is the same idea. To that idea our notion has been diametrically opposed, and if you read the history of our race I think you will discover that our notion has been that parents have a right to educate children as they please; that idiosyncrasies should not be avoided; that the State should prevent one group from tyrannizing over another, and that education is essentially not a matter of the State at all.
The principle of this bill, and the principle of all the advocates of it, is that standardization in education is a good thing. I do not think a person can read the literature of advocates of measures of this sort without seeing that that is taken almost without argument as a matter of course, that standardization in education is a good thing. Now, I am perfectly ready to admit that standardization in some spheres is a good thing. It is a good thing in the making of Ford cars; but just because it is a good thing in the making of Ford cars it is a bad thing in the making of human beings, for the reason that a Ford car is a machine and a human being is a person. But a great many educators today deny the distinction between the two, and that is the gist of the whole matter. The persons to whom I refer are those who hold the theory that the human race has now got behind the scenes, that it has got at the secrets of human behavior, that it has pulled off the trappings with which human actors formerly moved upon the scene of life, and has discovered that art and poetry and beauty and morality are delusions, and that mechanism really rules all.
I think it is very interesting to observe how widespread that theory is in the education of the present day.
Sometimes the theory is held consciously. But the theory is much more operative because it is being put into operation by people who have not the slightest notion of what the ultimate source of its introduction into the sphere of education is. In this sphere we find an absolute refutation of the notion that philosophy has no effect upon life. On the contrary, a false philosophy, a false view of what life is, is made operative in the world today in the sphere of education through great hosts of teachers who have not the slightest notion of what the ultimate meaning is of the methods that they are putting into effect all the time.
For my part, I cannot bring myself to think, with these persons, that the lower things in human life are the only things that remain, and that all the higher things are delusions; and so I do not adhere to this theory. And for that reason I do not believe that we ought to adopt this principle of standardization in education, which is writ so large in this bill; because standardization, it seems to me, destroys the personal character of human life.
The aim in the making of Ford cars is to make every one just as much like every other one as possible; but the aim in education is to make human beings just as much unlike one another as possible. I admit that the aim in the case of Ford cars is not always attained very well. The removal of idiosyncrasies in Ford cars is not always perfectly carried out. I can say from my experience with Ford cars before the days of self-starters that sometimes a Ford car will start and sometimes it will not start, and if it will not start there is no use giving it any spiritual advice at all. Sometimes, despite everything that Mr. Ford can do, there is too much individuality in a Ford car; but the purpose is to make every one just as much like every other one as possible. That is the purpose of a great many educators when it comes to education today, and it is the purpose that underlies the tendency in this bill. It is to remove idiosyncrasies, to interfere with people who have peculiar ideas in education, and to try to produce a uniformity of education in this country.
I do not believe that the personal, free, individual character of education can be preserved when you have a Federal department laying down standards of education which become more or less mandatory to the whole country. Of course, there are people who say that a Federal department does not mean anything. They say that when they talk to men of our way of thinking. A good many people seem to have the notion that a Federal department, like the House of Lords during the Napoleonic wars, will "do nothing in particular and do it very well"; but for my part I do not believe, when you get a department with a secretary who has a salary of $15,000 and a great many secretaries under him, and when you get this dignity of a department, that you are going to find that that department is going to be very modest about the funds for which it asks.
I think it is perfectly plain that we are embarking on a policy here which cannot be reversed when it is once embarked upon. It is very much easier to prevent the formation of some agency that may be thought to be unfortunate than it is to destroy it after it is once formed. Now, I think, is the decisive time to settle this question whether we want the principle for which this department will stand.
But at that point, of course, there may be an objection. People will say: "Why, you have been arguing for individual liberty in education, and the right of individual parents to educate their children as they please, and all that; but is not that interfered with already by the States, and is not this bill the same in principle as the control of education by the individual States which we already have?" I am perfectly ready to admit that there have been grievous sins in the sphere of education on the part of individual States. We need only think of the Oregon school law, which actually attempted to take children forcibly from their parents and put them under the despotic control of whatever superintendent of education happened to be inpower in the district where the parents resided. We need think only of the Nebraska language law, which was similar to laws in other States, which actually prevented, even in private schools, the study of languages until the children are at an age when every teacher knows they are too old ever to learn language well. It actually, therefore, made literary education-which most certainly is not overdone in this country -- a crime. Finally we need only think of the Lusk laws of the State of New York, one of which actually provided that every teacher in a course of instruction, public or private, formal or informal, should take out a State license and be subject to State visitation and control.
I am perfectly ready to admit that no interference with liberty could possibly be more complete than measures such as those; but the fate of those measures is very instructive for the question with which we are dealing. The Lusk laws were repealed. The Oregon school law and the Nebraska language law fell before that last bulwark of our liberties, the United States Supreme Court, which may God protect; and Justice McReynolds said, in the Oregon school case, that the child is not the mere creature of the State. And in that principle there lies everything for which we are contending today.
Then in the States there is a great safeguard in numbers. There are 48 States at this time, and they are very different. So although it is perfectly conceivable that one State may go very bad, it is not, perhaps, likely that all of them will go utterly bad. There is great safety in numbers; and therefore I hold that the control of education by the Federal Government is very different in principle from the control that is already exercised by the States, because the control by the States can be checked better in a constitutional way than control by the Federal Government, and also because there is a great difference in principle between having control by one central authority and control by a great many different sources of authority.
But it will be said: "Why, do you actually mean that we should have these 48 States, each with its own separate system of education, and a lot of crazy private schools and church schools?" Why, people tell us we shall make a perfect mess of it if we have any such education as that. Well, I say, with respect to that, that I hope with all my might that we may go on making a mess of it. I had a great deal rather have confusion in the sphere of education than intellectual and spiritual death; and out of that "mess," as they call it -- we call it liberty -- there has come every fine thing that we have in our race today.
But then people say: "What is going to become of the matter of equal opportunity? Here you have some States providing inferior opportunities to others, and the principle of equal opportunity demands Federal aid." I may say, Mr. Chairman, with regard to this matter of equal opportunity, that I am dead opposed to it -- dead opposed to the principle of equal opportunity. What shall be done with a State that provides opportunity for its children inferior to that provided by other States? Should the people of that State be told that it makes absolutely no difference, that Washington will do it if the State does not do it? I think not. I, think we are encouraging an entirely false attitude of mind on the part of individual parents and on the part of individual States if we say that it makes no difference how responsibilities are met.
I believe that in the sphere of the mind we should have absolutely unlimited competition. There are certain spheres where competition may have to be checked, but not when it comes to the sphere of the mind; and it seems to me that we ought to have this state of affairs: That every State should be faced by the unlimited competition in this sphere of other States; that each one should try to provide the best for its children that it possibly can; and, above all, that all public education should be kept healthy at every moment by the absolutely free competition of private schools and church schools.
A public education that is faced by such competition is a beneficent result of modem life; but a public education that is not faced by such competition of private schools is one of the deadliest enemies toliberty that has ever been devised.
Unlimited competition, I think, should be the rule. We already have interchange of ideas in this country. We do not need what George Washington wanted, a national university, because we have both the ends that he desired to accomplish by a national university. You need only to look at the list of students in any of our great institutions in order to see that they come from all over this country. There is that interchange of ideas of which he spoke. And we have also universities in this country that do not make it necessary for anyone to go to Europe to get an education, as he said. If we had no universities, we might want a national agency in education, but we have universities, and we do not want to spoil the agencies that we already have as the erection of a Federal department would check and spoil them in very many ways.
But then people say: "You know that this Federal department of education is in the interest of efficiency." They are always flinging that word "efficiency" at us as though when that word is spoken all argument at once is checked. Well, of course, "efficiency" just means doing things, and I think the important thing to know is whether the things that are being done are good or bad. If the things that are being done by any agency are good, I am in favor of efficiency; but if the things that are being done by the agency are bad, the less efficiency it has the better it suits me.
I think probably most of us have heard the story of the tramp who got up to the third floor of the department store. The floorwalker on the third floor kicked him down to the second floor, where he fell afoul of the floorwalker on the second floor, who kicked him down to the floorwalker on the first floor, and the floorwalker on the first floor kicked him out on the sidewalk. He landed on his back, and got up and said in a tone of deep admiration, "My! What a system." [Laughter.] Now, I am unable to develop the complete detachment or objectivity which was developed by that tramp. I am unable to admire efficiency when it is directed to an end which works harm to me; and the end of the efficiency of a Federal department of education would be the worst kind of slavery that could possibly be devised -- a slavery in the sphere of the mind.
Of course, too, I might argue that Federal bureaus, when they have become overgrown, as they are now, are hardly very efficient agencies. In fact, I am inclined to think that they are the most inefficient agencies that can be found anywhere on the face of the planet. They are discouraging activities by other agencies which would perform the work a great deal better, even where harm is not done, as it is in this sphere, by the existence of the agency itself.
But even if Federal bureaus were the most efficient agencies that history has even seen, I should still be opposed all the more to this Federal department of education, because the result that it is aiming to accomplish is a thing that I hold to be bad, namely, slavery.
A great many educators, I think, have this notion that it is important to be doing something, to be going somewhere. They are interested in progress, and they do not seem to care very much in what direction the progress is being made. It is like a man who goes into the Union Station here, where all the trains start out the same way, and he gets through the gate somehow and sees a train that looks beautiful; it has a lovely observation car on it, and he gets on. When I do that, my ticket reads to Princeton. I get on this lovely train, and when it gets out of the station after half an hour the conductor comes through the train and looks at my ticket, and says: "Your ticket reads to Princeton, N.J., and we are bound for the West, and our first stop is Cumberland." I say: "Well, that makes no difference to me. This is a perfectly lovely train, and I am so glad to be on it; and which way is the dining car?"-- and I just stay on it, and do not care where I am going.
That is exactly the way, it seems to me, with these people who, in the sphere of education, feel that if you call a thing a department of education, and try to spend money for education as you are spending it for battleships, somehow that is an advantage. It depends on the direction in which you are moving.
So that I find in this bill a decisive step in a direction where the progress, if persisted in, will lead to disaster; and what I am hoping for is not merely that this bill may be defeated, but that this whole tendency, gentlemen, may be checked. I think that is the important thing.
MR. ROBISON: What do you refer to when you say "the whole tendency"?
DR. MACHEN: The whole tendency toward uniformity in the sphere of education, and the whole principle of a central control as over against individual responsibility.
MR. ROBISON: Do you object, then, to the activities of the Federal Government in the way of Federal aid to roads and to agriculture and to commerce and to labor?
DR. MACHEN: I object in general to the principle of Federal aid; yes, sir.
MR. ROBISON: I mean, to the activities of the Federal Government in agriculture and roads and commerce and labor?
DR. MACHEN: I do in general. Of course, a line has to be drawn. The Federal Government has a right to regulate interstate commerce. There are certain powers that are delegated to it definitely by the Constitution, and I do not desire to speak about other subjects; but in general I am opposed, sir, to the principle of Federal aid in the spheres where the States are really in control.
MR. ROBISON: In agriculture the activities of the Federal Government may have no relation to interstate commerce, but be directed to other matters.
DR. MACHEN: I am opposed, sir, to the extension of the operation of the principle of Federal aid. I think that it has clearly gone too far even in other spheres; that it has clearly gone too far, and that it should be checked. But I do not desire to speak about other spheres. I am talking specifically about the sphere of education, and in that sphere the principle of limitation of competition, etc., as I have tried to explain, does not come in. In that sphere, I think, we should absolutely avoid the principle of Federal aid.
SENATOR PHIPPS: Doctor Machen, you are connected with the Princeton Theological Seminary. That is denominational; is it?
DR. MACHEN: Yes, sir.
SENATOR PHIPPS: Which denomination is it?
DR. MACHEN: It belongs to the Presbyterian church.
SENATOR PHIPPS: Reverting to your illustration of the Ford car, what has been the result of the plan adopted by the English schools for boys, such as Eaton and Rugby? Does it turn out boys all of the same type, all of the same mold, or does the system take away from their individuality?
DR. MACHEN: I am not prepared to speak about the English public-school system, sir, because I do not know enough about it. I am not prepared to say how far it is monopolistic. I am prepared to say that I think that any central activities in Great Britain are no precedent whatever for central activities in this country. I believe with all my soul in the principle for this country of the division of power between the States and the Federal Government; and it is a very different matter, I think, when you deal with a country such as Great Britain. I do feel, sir, that it is plain that in Great Britain there is very great danger, because of present economic pressure, of the destruction of all of those principles of individual liberty which have made Great Britain great. They have the terrible evils of the present time; and it seems to me that in this country, where we have not the economic pressure, it is for us for the moment, where necessity is not upon us, to go straight on the road of individual freedom; not to be in a panic or turned aside from it.
SENATOR PHIPPS: Are there any further questions to be put to the witness?
MR. LOWREY: I should like to ask some questions, Mr. Chairman. Doctor, are you a member of the National Education Association that is meeting here?
DR. MACHEN: No, sir.
MR. LOWREY: Were you at the meeting when the resolution was passed in favor of this bill?
DR. MACHEN: No, sir; I was not. I have only read about it in the newspapers.
MR. LOWREY: The question I intended to ask is about a matter that has puzzled me somewhat. It seems that the resolution was passed unanimously, and now I am finding a great many who are saying, "I am opposed to it, but I did not vote against it." I think not less than 8 or 10 educators have expressed definitely to me their opposition to it and yet say, "I did not vote that way" I do not see why the fight was not made there if there was strength of opposition. I do not see why some of those men who have said that so definitely to me did not make the fight.
DR. MACHEN: It is a very strange thing to me that that is not done. A great many men feel that there is no use in voting against a thing unless you can defeat it. I do not feel that way. I think it is a very important thing to vote exactly in accordance with your conscience, quite irrespective of the immediate success of your vote in your dealing with that measure.
MR. HOLADAY: Doctor, do you feel that at any time in the past the present Bureau of Education has directly or indirectly interfered with the operation of the school with which you are connected?
DR. MACHEN: No, sir; I do not think that there is anything to be said definitely with respect to the theological school with which I am connected.
MR. HOLADAY: Do you know whether or not the Bureau of Education has ever interfered, directly or indirectly, with the operation of any private or church school?
DR. MACHEN: I have not the evidence before me. I myself am inclined to think that the classification of colleges which has been proposed by it is unfortunate, and I believe that the vast enlargement of such activities by a department of education would be dangerous; but I am not in the present hearing at all personally interested with respect to my activities in the institution with which I am connected.
With respect to the future, I do feel, sir, that I am contending for a principle which is absolutely necessary to the principle of religious liberty. There are in the sphere of education tendencies which are directly opposed to religious liberty, such as the effort to produce a system of morality codes, etc., in the public schools; and the whole notion that the function of the public school is to be enlarged it seems to me is inimical to the principle of parental authority, and is very dangerous. The proper tendency, it seems to me, would be to diminish rather than to increase the function of the public school, and to place the responsibility for the moral and religious training of children exactly where it belongs, upon the individual parents. There is a tendency there which I think is dangerous; and the tendency of those who advocate this bill, with their desire that there shall be a dignity given to public education under central control which it does not possess, that its function shall be enlarged, if continued, I think, will be inimical in the most thorough-going way to religious liberty.
MR. REED of NEW YORK: Doctor, may I ask you a question? Carrying out your principle, if it were left to you, would you abolish the present Bureau of Education entirely?
DR. MACHEN: I could not say that definitely until I examine in detail, sir, all of the functions of the present Bureau of Education. It is perfectly obvious that the Federal Government has some functions in the sphere of education, for instance in the District of Columbia; and I should have to inform myself more particularly before I could answer that question. But I do advocate the abolition of certain functions of the present Bureau of Education, its activities as a general agency in the guidance of the States in their own individual affairs. I think that there are activities which would far better be avoided; but I cannot make so sweeping an assertion as that I should advocate the abolition of the Bureau of Education without examining all of its functions.
MR. REED of NEW YORK: I know that you are sincere in opposing it on principle, not only in education, but in other activities. For instance, we will take the Department of Agriculture. Carrying out your principle, if you had the right to do it, would you be in favor of eliminating Federal aid in the Agricultural Department.
DR. MACHEN: I think this is to be said -- that when you eliminate an agency which has long been in operation you are doing something more serious than the avoidance of an entrance upon those activities; and I should have to examine the dangers which might result from the sudden elimination of such activities in the sphere of agriculture. I do feel, however, that there is a difference between the sphere of education and those other spheres. As I say, I think that when it comes to the training of human beings, you have to be a great deal more careful than you do in other spheres about preservation of the right of individual liberty and the principle of individual responsibility; and I think we ought to be plain about this -- that unless we preserve the principles of liberty in this department there is no use in trying to preserve them anywhere else. If you give the bureaucrats the children, you might as well give them everything else as well. [Applause.]
So that it does seem to me we are dealing with the most important part of human life when we are dealing with education, and we are dealing with a sphere where analogies drawn from mechanical spheres are very dangerous; and yet I am opposed in general to the notion that even in other spheres we should develop the principle that if someone else does not do it, Washington will always step in and do it. I think that is opposed to an economical conduct of life; it is working great moral harm to our people in many other spheres; but the exact limits of the activities of the Federal Government constitute a question with which I am not now attempting to deal.
I have tried to observe, in the sphere of education, the results of the present tendency towardstandardization, and I think those results are lamentable. I think we are having to- day a very marked intellectual as well as moral decline through the gradual extension of this principle of standardization in education. People are ready to admit to some extent that there is a sort of moral decline, but what is not always observed is that there is a terrible intellectual decline, and that intellectual decline comes through the development of this principle of unification and standardization to which I object; for I think that in the sphere of education uniformity always means not something uniformly high but something uniformly low.
MR. HOLADAY: Doctor, I understood you to say that in your opinion the public schools have already gone too far in moral teaching. I should like a little further information about your ideas on that question.
DR. MACHEN: I am not sufficiently familiar with the actual working out of these proposals in detail; but I am opposed in general to the morality codes which have been proposed here in Washington, for example, which represent morality as the result of human experience, and so seem to me to undermine the very basis of morality and to be producing moral decline. My position with regard to moral and religious training in its connection with the State is rather simple. I think it is a very good thing if the public schools release children at convenient hours during the week for religious training, but I am absolutely opposed to any granting of school credit for work done in those hours, to the slightest scrutiny of attendance or of the standards of instruction, or anything of the kind; and I hold that the solution of our difficulties is in the restriction in general of the public schools to their function of imparting knowledge, and the gradual production in the minds of our people of the notion that moral and religious training is a responsibility of the parents and not of the State.
I do not know, sir, whether that answers your question.
MR. HOLADAY: I think so.
MR. ROBISON: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the witness a few questions. What is the nature of your work at Princeton?
DR. MACHEN: I am a professor in Princeton Theological Seminary, which is an institution for the training of ministers.
MR. ROBISON: I understand that, but what is your particular work in that institution?
DR. MACHEN: I am a teacher in the New Testament department.
MR. ROBISON: Have you ever had any experience in teaching in the public schools?
DR. MACHEN: No, sir. I have had an experience of the result of such activities -- a rather wide experience.
MR. ROBISON: Have you ever had any experience in directing the public-school work of any community or State?
DR. MACHEN: No, sir.
MR. ROBISON: Your fear is that this department of education would have a tendency to federalize or centralize and enslave the public-school system of the Nation?
DR. MACHEN: Yes, sir.
MR. ROBISON: And then I take it, as a logical result or sequence, that you are opposed to the present Bureau of Education in so far as it acts as a fact-finding organization, or gives leadership and stimulation, or undertakes to do so, to the public-school work of the Nation?
DR. MACHEN: I am not entirely prepared to answer that question categorically
MR. ROBISON: I mean, outside the District of Columbia.
DR. MACHEN: There are a good many functions in the sphere of education which legitimately belong to the Federal Government; but I am opposed to the extension of an agency which assists the States and assists private individuals, or a Federal agency even in the spheres about which you are speaking.
MR. ROBISON: So that we may understand each other and so that we may understand your testimony, what spheres do you think are properly occupied by the Federal Government, or could be, so far as its relations to the public schools in the States, outside of the District of Columbia, are concerned?
DR. MACHEN: I am inclined to think that it would have been better if it had not entered on that field at all.
MR. ROBISON: No; you said you were in favor of some things. I want to know what those things are.
DR. MACHEN: I mentioned one -- the District of Columbia.
MR. ROBISON: Outside of the District make laws here for the District of Columbia, and make the laws of the Federal Government.
DR. MACHEN: I hate to speak about a subject where I have not all of the facts in hand, and I am not speaking in general about detailed activities of the Federal Bureau of Education. Until I am asked about every one of those activities separately I should not like to make general statements about them.
MR. ROBISON: But your statement was, if I understood you, that you thought there were spheres in which the Federal Government could and should properly participate in public education outside of the District of Columbia. My inquiry is, What are those spheres? What should it do properly?
DR. MACHEN: Well, sir, I do not feel that I can undertake the rather difficult duty of mapping a program for a Federal agency. I am speaking only in opposition to something. I am not speaking in favor of other things or mapping out a legitimate program.
MR. ROBISON: But I asked that question because of your statement that the Federal Government had proper spheres in public education outside of the District of Columbia. I am merely inquiring what are those spheres in your mind?
DR. MACHEN: I do not know that I made that assertion, sir -- that the Federal Government has proper spheres for education outside of the District of Columbia. I am not saying that it has not, and I am not saying that it has, sir.
MR. ROBISON: Then you have not made sufficient investigation to know whether these activities of the Bureau of Education have been helpful or harmful to the public schools of the Nation? Is not that your position?
DR. MACHEN: I think it is quite possible that some of those activities have been helpful; but I am opposed to the increase of the functions of this Federal agency because that increase is distinctly in the interest of a general aid carried on by the Federal Government in the sphere of the individual States, and I am sorry that such a Federal agency is already in existence. I am sorry that that part of Federal activities has already begun. I think it is perfectly proper for the Federal Government to maintain here in Washington certain museums and certain agencies for education in the National Capital. I think a good many of those activities may be of benefit to the people of the whole country, and I am not attempting to draw the line in any clear way.
MR. ROBISON: Now, if I understand you, if you are sorry that there is a Bureau of Education here in Washington, then it follows that your mind tells you that it ought to be abolished; and then, further, if you do not know the activities of the Bureau of Education here and its relation to the public schools and public education of the country, how can you say that an enlargement of this bureau would be harmful or helpful?
DR. MACHEN: I am opposed to it, as I tried to explain, sir, in principle.
MR. ROBISON: I know you said you are opposed to it.
DR. MACHEN: I am opposed to the principle of Federal aid, and I am opposed to the activities of the Federal bureau where they involve the laying down of standards of education -- of certain standards for colleges, for example. I think that is an unfortunate thing. I think it is very much better to have men who are engaged in education examine methods of education, examine standards, rather than to have such agencies of research come before the people with the authority of the Federal Government, with the fear at all times that we shall have an agitation to compel schools to maintain those standards. We have very frequently the principle that the States are to be allowed to do this and that; but if they do not maintain certain standards which have been laid down by Federal agencies of research, they should then be compelled to do it by some sort of an amendment to the Constitution or the like.
MR. ROBISON: I want you to point out what section of this bill in your opinion would give the Federal Government control or direction of any public school or, for that matter, any private school in any State or community.
DR. MACHEN: This provision at the beginning of it-that there is established at the seat of Government an executive department to be known as the department of education. That I think, establishes an extent of Federal activity in principle which will be deleterious, which will lead to a great many activities in the future. If you have a Federal department of education that has a place in the Cabinet, you have a department which is going to extend constantly its activities and is going to ask for more and more funds. We have, of course, an illustration of this in the extremely radical bill which is now in Congress which would extend this principle of Federal aid to the States and which lays down the conditions upon which that Federal aid is to be received. That has always been in connection with this demand for this establishment of a Federal department of education, and I think it is in organic connection with it. The very establishment of a Federal department of education, I think, is dangerous, because it will lead to such measures as those which have been proposed for a great many years, which provide for Federal aid on a large scale.
MR. ROBISON: Do you believe that Congress has the power to pass any law that would give the Federal Government control of the public schools in any State?
DR. MACHEN: I think the powers of the Federal Government in this respect under the Constitution may be doubtful; but I think that there are indirect ways of establishing this unification which are very effective and which are very disastrous.
Now, of course there is another specific portion of this bill which provides for the activities to which I object: "The department of education shall collect such statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress of education in the several States and in foreign countries -- " And so forth. And then there is assistance in devising methods of operation. In the revised form of this bill, Senate bill 2841, we have, as I say, the purpose of such activity explicitly stated
SENATOR COPELAND: Where is that?
DR. MACHEN: It is section 5 of Senate bill 2841: "The department of education shall * * * with the consent of the advisory board hereafter mentioned, attempt developing a more uniform and efficient system of public common-school education." I am opposed to a more uniform system of public common-school education. That is explicit in this revised form of the bill, and I think it is clearly implicit in the section to which I have referred.
MR. ROBISON: There is nothing compulsory there, is there?
DR. MACHEN: There is nothing compulsory in form, but I think there is an establishment of uniformity which has already gone to disastrous lengths in this country, and the encouragement of which I think is a very unfortunate thing. The proper way in which suggestions as to educational standards should come before the authorities of schools is without the extraneous authority of the Federal Government, which, because of the tendency which has been operative in recent years, is far more than merely advisory; it contains all the time an implied threat, you see, and for that reason is very unfortunate.
SENATOR FERRIS: I should like to ask one question.
SENATOR PHIPPS: Certainly, Senator.
SENATOR FERRIS: For my own information I wish to ask what you regard as the basic element or elements in moral conduct. Perhaps that is a foolish question.
DR. MACHEN: The basic elements in moral conduct?
SENATOR FERRIS: Yes, sir. What is the basis. I judge from your remarks that experience received minor consideration.
DR. MACHEN: Yes, sir -- Well, I am an adherent of a certain religious group. We have our definite notion as to the basis of morality, and it is in my belief altogether a religious one. I intend to proclaim that basis of morality is the will of God as revealed by God, and I am interested in the right of all others to maintain that as the only basis of morality. I belong to what is often called a very strict sect, the Presbyterian Church, but it is a sect which has always been devoted to the principles of liberty; and I am unlike a great many of my fellow citizens -- tolerance to me means not only tolerance for that with whichI am agreed, but it means also tolerance for that to which I am most violently opposed.
I was thoroughly opposed, for example, to the Lusk laws in the State of New York which were intended to bring about the closing of the Rand School in the city of New York. I cannot imagine anything more harmful than the Rand School; there is nothing to which I am more opposed, which I think more subversive of morality; and yet I was absolutely opposed to any such law as that. I believe in liberty, and, therefore, when I believe I have a right to proclaim the basis of morality which I think is only in the will of God, I also claim the right for other persons to proclaim whatever else they may hold with regard to it. But to proclaim in our public schools that morality is only the result of human experimentation -- "this is the conduct which Uncle Sam has found in the course of American history to be right" -- that, I think, is subversive of morality; and I do not believe that anyone can encourage moral conduct in others unless he has first in his own mind the notion of an absolute distinction and not a merely relative distinction between right and wrong.
I do not know whether that at all answers your question.
SENATOR FERRIS: I am just wondering whether there is any such thing as moral conduct in the United States Congress or among the citizens of the United States apart from a distinctively religious basis. I am just wondering whether the public schools have any function in the way of teaching morality which is not distinctively religious in its basic idea.
DR. MACHEN: I think that the solution lies not in a theoretic teaching in the public schools as to the basis of morality, because I do not think you can keep that free from religious questions; but I do hold that a teacher who himself or herself is imbued with the absolute distinction between right and wrong can maintain the moral standing, the moral temper of a public school.
SENATOR FERRIS: Is the ethical culturist ruled out from the consideration of morality in his views and conduct?
DR. MACHEN: I am not ruling out anybody at all, sir -- the ethical culturist or anyone else.
SENATOR FERRIS: No; but if religion is the basic element in all morality, then can we have a morality that is not founded on a religious idea?
DR. MACHEN: I myself do not believe that you can have such a morality permanently, and that is exactly what I am interested in trying to get other people to believe; but I am not at all interested in trying to proclaim that view of mine by any measures that involve compulsion, and I am not interested in making the public school an agency for the proclamation of such a view; but I am interested in diminishing rather than increasing the function of the public school, in order to leave room for the opportunity of a propagation of the view that I hold in free conflict with all other views which may be held, in order that in that way the truth finally may prevail.
SENATOR PHIPPS: Thank you, Doctor. [Applause.]

For laughs...Well, sorta...

 

Time to mock those who have done nothing but mock the faith!!

 

 

What's anti-Semitic, smells a lot like sulfur and is shrinking an alarming rate?

 

 

 

 

What do you call 144 Presbyterian Church USA GA delegates?

 

Gross anti-Semitism.

 

What do you call 20 PCUSA ministers that weigh 200 pounds apiece ?

 

 2 tons of heresy

 

 Three Presbyterian ministers from different denominations took part in a survey . They were asked to name two of the four Gospel writers....

 

 The OPC minister said " Matthew and Mark "

 The PCA minister said " Luke and John "

 The PCUSA minister said " Xaviera Hollander and Anton LaVey"

 

 

 

Did you hear about the millionaire PCUSA member who disowned his daughter?

 

 He caught her  reading Calvin's Institutes

 

 

 Did you hear about the PCUSA dietitian who was fired from his job recently ?

 

 He tried to promote drugs and  alcohol as two of the four major food groups

 

 

Did you hear they're coming out with a new  PCUSA symbol ?

 

 A statuette of the goddess Sophia holding a swastika with the rainbow flag draped over her

 

 

 Did you hear about the PCUSA elder who thought Soli Deo Gloria was a  flex fuel compact built in Stockholm ?

 

 

 Three PCUSA seminarians are caught with contraband in their dorm rooms.  Which one got expelled ?

 

 The one that had the 1599 Geneva Bible.

 

 

Did you hear that Madalyn Murray O'Hair and  the Devil  had a wild night in hell that resulted in a love child ?

 

Her name was Cynthia Bolbach

 

 

Did you hear about the new required reading for all PCUSA seminarians?

 

 Mein Kampf

 

 

 What  was the first question David Duke had after recovering from his hangover ?

 

I endorsed who ??!!

 

 

 

Did you hear that both the Michigan Neo Nazis and the Socialist Party of Metro Detroit threatened to file a joint class-action lawsuit against the PCUSA for piracy and copyright infringement ?

 

 

 Both backed down fast when threatened with a countersuit on the same grounds

 

 

 How was it known for centuries that a special  GA delegation was going to meet with Detroit city council prior to the assembly?

 

It's in the Bible..... Matthew 15:14  

 

 

 

 

 What's currently the hottest item  in the Aryan Nation's bookstore?

 

 The PCUSA Book of Order

 

 

How did the PCUSA minister prove he was on fire for the faith?

 

He threw a Molotov cocktail through the front window of a synagogue

 

 

 

What's the major observational difference regarding Presbyterian observance of November 10th?

 

 NAPARC remembers the birth of Martin Luther while the PCUSA  celebrates it as the morning after Kristallnacht

 

 

 

 

 

Another powerful stand against apostasy and ethical gymnastics!!

Education:

Ph.D. Fuller Theological Seminary New Testament Studies, University of Zürich, Switzerland; University of Tübingen, Germany M.Div. Princeton Theological Seminary B.A. Whitworth University

Education:

Ph.D. Fuller Theological Seminary
New Testament Studies, University of Zürich, Switzerland; University of Tübingen, Germany
M.Div. Princeton Theological Seminary
B.A. Whitworth University

To the Presbytery of the Inland Northwest

The action of the 2014 General Assembly to permit same-sex marriages by ministers of the

PCUSA and to redefine marriage as a covenantal relationship between “two people” rather than

between a man and a woman places the PCUSA in irreconcilable conflict with both Scripture

and its confessional tradition. As a consequence of this action, I can no longer endorse or be

governed by the polity of the PCUSA. With this letter I hereby demit my ordination as a

teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America.

It is the plenary teaching of Scripture that humanity has been created male and female, and that

this creative order is the one proper basis for the covenant of marriage. Jesus cites and

authorizes this order when he quotes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in relation to marriage: “From the

beginning of creation ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his

father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ Thus, they are

no longer two but one flesh” (Mark 10:7-8). Whenever same-sex relations are mentioned in

Scripture they are always and without exception condemned as an improper deviation from this

order (Gen19; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Judg19; Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10). In no place are such

relationships affirmed, and in no place are such relationships regarded as a God-ordained form of

marriage. In its missionary outreach the early church was repeatedly brought into direct contact

with cultures that practiced and celebrated same-sex relations, but no early Christian text affirms

such relations, and all early Christian texts known to us uphold the Scriptural rule in declaring

such behavior outside God’s revealed will in Scripture.

This same understanding governs the confessional tradition of the PCUSA. The Second Helvetic

Confession (5.246), the Westminster Confession (6.131), and the Confession of 1967 (9.47) all

expressly define marriage as a covenant before God between one man and one woman. The

wording of other confessions that “God condemns all unchastity . . . within or outside of the holy

state of marriage” (Heidelberg Catechism, 4.108), clearly presupposes marriage as a union

between one man and one woman. The admonition of the Confession of 1967 is particularly

relevant in light of the 2014 decision of the General Assembly, “Anarchy in sexual relationships

is a symptom of man’s alienation from God. The church comes under the judgment of God and

invites rejection by the world when it fails to lead men and women into the full meaning of life

together, or withholds the compassion of Christ from those caught in the moral confusion of our

time” (Confession of 1967, 9.47). C-67 testifies to the positive role that orthodoxy plays in

demonstrating compassion to people caught in moral confusion, whereas the decision of General

Assembly does not acknowledge such moral confusion, or if it does, rejects historic orthodoxy in

its attempt to demonstrate compassion.

I know of no doctrine or practice in Christianity that better qualifies for Vincent of Lerins’s

famous definition of orthodoxy—that which has been believed and practiced “everywhere,

always, and by all”—than the definition of marriage as one man and one woman before God.

The approval of the 2014 General Assembly to allow teaching elders discretion to perform “any

such marriage they believe the Holy Spirit calls them to perform” separates the Holy Spirit from

the word, to which the Spirit bears witness, and from the life of the believing community,

through which the Spirit bears witness. This effectively relegates sexuality and marriage to the

subjective judgment of each individual minister. This can—and surely will— be used to justify

other unions equally contrary to the divine will. In condoning same-sex marriage and redefining

marriage the General Assembly of the PCUSA has heard another voice regarding gender and

marriage than the univocal voice of Scripture and tradition, and in its decision to embrace that

voice it has chosen to follow another lord than the one and only Lord of the Church, Jesus Christ.

An ecclesial body that turns from its orthodox heritage and teaches its members to do the same

can no longer command, nor does it deserve, allegiance from the faithful. What the Apostle

Peter said to the Sanhedrin I must say to a denomination that has substituted an alien

anthropology for a Biblical and Christian anthropology: “I must obey God rather than man”

(Acts 5:29).

In submitting this letter, I wish to reassure the Presbytery of the Inland Northwest that this is not

a renunciation of either the Presbytery or its members, whom I honor as faithful servants of

Christ. Nor do I intend this letter to be a renunciation of my original ordination vows, which I

have endeavored to uphold since my ordination on October 2, 1971. This letter is, rather, a

renunciation of the decision of the 2014 General Assembly, and the status to which it would

oblige me, which would necessarily require me to disavow the integrity of my original ordination

vows. I therefore, regretfully, demit my ordination as a teaching elder in the PCUSA.

James R. Edwards June 27, 2014

 

The Duty of Nations to the Church by the Rev David Steele

Man as a creature, is under obligation to obey his Creator. This obligation results from the law of nature, which is the law of God. The most perfect copy or edition of this law we have in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. In the Bible is revealed the economy of the persons in the Godhead. All those who, blinded by the "God of this world," deny the trinity of persons in the Godhead, equally and necessarily deny the economical relations of these adorable persons. Hence, individual and social rebellion against that divine person who is the Mediator. Ever since the fall of man, God deals with the posterity of Adam through the mediation of Jesus Christ. "The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." John 5:22. The Father’s will, made known by the Son, in this economy is,—"That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father," v. 23. As the Father is first in the order of subsistence among the persons of the Trinity, so he is first in the order of economic procedure. "The Son can do nothing of himself," v. 19. By commission from the Father, the mediator rules over the universe. The framework of society originates from God, whether it be domestic, civil or ecclesiastical; he, and he alone, has given them the laws of organization. In the natural order of these social organizations, the domestic economy is primary; the Church and the State may be considered auxiliary. The duties growing out of these social relationships are of divine prescription, and occupy a large proportion of the Holy Scriptures. Unaccountable as it may appear, a large majority of the population of Christendom seem to entertain and cherish the apprehension, that civil society is further removed from accountability to the Most High, than the church or the family. This impious but popular sentiment has been recently endorsed by a learned doctor of divinity.The Mediator having been appointed "head over all things to the church," Eph. 1:22, it would be anomalous indeed, if nations were exempted from his jurisdiction. But it is quite otherwise. Nations are required by the Father to "kiss the Son," Ps. 2:12; and inasmuch as the Son "loved the church, and gave himself for it," it would follow as a necessary consequence, that nations ought to subserve the interests of the Church. Accordingly we find in the actual history of the Church, that Christ has always employed nations and made use of them for the benefit of Zion—raised them up or destroyed them as might best subserve this gracious design. "I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee," Isa. 43:3. And we have his own word of promise, that he will deal with nations hereafter in the same manner. "Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honorable, and I have loved thee; therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life," v. 4. "For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee, shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted," Isa. 60:12.Hence the duty of those nations, within whose dominions the Church of Christ is placed, is plain enough; "he may run that reads it." It is in few words—to "serve the Church." This expression is of extensive import, comprehending many duties to the Church enjoined upon the nations of the earth to "the bride, the Lamb’s wife." But the nations of Christendom have "embraced the bosom of a harlot," instead of the chaste spouse of Christ. In serving the Christian Church, nations are bound to make legislative appropriations for her comfortable subsistence and efficient operation within their dominion; and the civil administration ought to conduct the whole machinery of government in such manner as to evince a real affection to Zion. Such was the affection and the conduct of the "man after God’s own heart," and of all right-hearted men among his countrymen, Ps. 122:9; 137:6. I speak of the duty of nations to the Church, for according to God’s institution of civil government, magistrates are accountable to the body politic. They have the right (and all rights are from God), to call magistrates to account in case of maladministration; and if they concur with their representatives in violating the fundamental provisions of the civil compact—that being founded upon the principles of righteousness—the moral "governor of the nations" will hold them responsible. "The people are above the king," said the famous Samuel Rutherfurd; and he maintained his thesis in perilous times, more than two hundred years ago [i.e., in the mid-17^th century]. Well, if the king, emperor or president wrong the Church within his jurisdiction with the consent of his constituents, the representative "perishes," but he "perishes not alone in his iniquity." His supporters are doomed to perish with him; "Pharaoh and all his multitude" fare alike at the hand of an avenging Mediator. The position which the Church of God occupies in relation to the nations of the earth, is one of superiority. I speak not of the actual condition of the Christian Church in our day, but of her rightful position by the divine appointment. Too often the Church has been used as an engine of state policy, and this with the consent and concurrence of her ministers, who coveted to "wear soft raiment and to be in kings’ palaces." The "civil places and power of kirkmen" has ever been a feature of Antichrist. The Church and the State, being by divine institution co-ordinate, the one may not lawfully invade the rights or intrude upon the jurisdiction of the other. They ought, however, to be mutually helpful in prosecuting the specific and appropriate objects of each. So it was in the commonwealth of Israel, during the civil administration of David, and in the times of his pious and royal successors. As with a sunbeam, God has written on the page of the world’s history, that he will reckon with the nations that "do his prophets harm;" yea, and also with them that "let the Church alone." Where are the proud dynasties of Pharaoh, of Nebuchadnezzar, and of the Caesars? Where is the house of the Stuarts of Scotland? Made "as the chaff of the summer threshing floor, God has swept them with the besom of destruction." Infidel statesmen sagely tell us of the natural decline of empires, just as they do of individuals "paying the debt of nature" [i.e., dying]; but God tells us of "a consumption determined" in the former case, and of "death as the wages of sin" in the latter.—"Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto men more than unto God," let the reader judge. Of civil rulers in our time it may be said as in Ps. 82:5, "They know not, neither will they understand; they walk in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are out of course."

Rev David Steele

 

The Centennial of the Ordination of .......

.....by far the most relevant Reformed theologian of our age.

Exactly 100 years ago today, the Rev Dr J Gresham Machen was ordained by the Presbytery of New Brunswick.

“‘Rejoice with trembling.’ That looks like a paradox. Joy and fear are opposite. At any rate, surely the trembling must limit the joy. Rejoice although you have to tremble. Or, rejoice, but in your joy do not forget to tremble. Or, is the trembling positively necessary to the joy, intimately connected with it? Is the trembling the key to the joy? If we learn to tremble, will the way be open to the joy that we have sought so long in vain? Rejoice, says the modern preacher—but sadness does not seem to flee. Rejoice, says the psalmist—and the Lord put gladness in his heart.”