Our former article dealt with the purpose, the meaning, and the history of the petition and the movement of the Dutch to acquire a chair in Dutch history, language, and literature [at the University of Chicago]. And one should say offhand that this case was one about which all Dutchmen in the United States were in accord, and in which the scions of the same nation could work in harmony, especially when we find that the list of signatories contains men from all walks of life and from every party. We find there the names of five professors of Hope College, namely, Kollen, Kleinheksel, Nykerk, Van der Meulen, and Raap. Further, from the theological school and the Calvinist college at Grand Rapids, come the names of Van Dellen, Hemkes, Ten Hoor, Heins, Berkhof, Rooks, Schoolland, Van den Bosh, Kuiper, Broene, and Rinck. The following are names of professors in Evanston: Hartfield, Curme, Brown, Harris, Goddard, Baillot, Eduard, Clark, and Roloff. The following 2are professors of Bryn Mawr: Tessels, Weijhe, Holbrook, Clark, Smith, Wheeler, Frank, Brown, and De Haan. From Hartford we have the following professors of Trinity College: McCook, Huizinga, Adams, Gettel, and Urban. From Lincoln, Nebraska, come the names of Professors Hinman and Courtney French, and Professor Vos and Professor Orthaus are of Bloomington, Indiana. At.Lake Forest we have Professors Nollen, Van Heenderen, Betten, and Clapp, and at Macon, Georgia, Professors Daniels, Burks, and Koets. And added to this are a great number of names of clergymen and church members from all the Dutch settlements, especially from Iowa, Chicago, and Michigan, too many to reproduce here. And last there is a communication from Theodore Roosevelt to Congressman Diekema, which reads thus:

Oyster Bay, New York, September 21, 1908.

My dear Congressman Diekema:

I have just received the copy of the petition for the establishment of 3a chair of Dutch at the University of Chicago, which I am informed has been signed by some six hundred Americans whose fathers or forefathers come from Holland. I trust that I need hardly say that I am in full accord with the purpose of the petition, and I beg you to assure the petitioners of my cordial sympathy in the matter and of my hope that the board of trustees of the University of Chicago will be able to grant the request.

With great regard,

Sincerely yours,

Hon. G. J. Diekema, M. C.,

Holland, Michigan.

If ever a movement could be called nationalistic, then we may say that this movement is a Dutch national movement which is being acclaimed with hearty 4sympathy everywhere in the world where the Dutch live. And yet everyone who knows our Dutch people, divided as it always has been into different parties and groups, with aims continually in conflict with one another, wonders whether a movement could ever be started, no matter how nationalistic in scope, which did not have obstacles in its way. There are always a few who are leaders in their own circles, and in defense of their groups they always have in view their own groups' welfare and the real or imaginary faults of other groups, so that they regard doubtfully in advance anything that does not originate in their own circles and is not meant for them. If they see anything come up which in itself looks inviting, then they naturally ask: Why is that not meant for us? So a certain Mr. S., a professor in Hope College, in an article in De Hope, sent to me with the request to answer it, asked: Why do they not seek to establish a chair of Dutch history, language, and literature at Hope College? The objections brought forward by Mr. S. in the article against the establishment of the chair at the University of Chicago I will gladly discuss, especially since this was the only article that sounded a sour note in this widely extended and general movement. I regret that this 5article came from Hope College, a school so long favorably regarded both in America and in the Netherlands.

This [article], however, does not in the least influence the sympathy for this movement, for against this one Professor S. stand no less than five other professors and the President of the United States, who signed the petition to the University of Chicago. But it causes me pain that from the institution of Van Raalte, who with his colony left the old Fatherland and braved all hardships and sufferings to escape party persecution, now after only half a century should come the voice of partisanship, and that [this college] should close its eyes to the national cause for which all the scions of the Dutch race could work together. It is painful to hear from such a place the age-old exclamation: Why not give these donations to our institution? Why not establish that chair in our college? That Mr. S. is on the wrong track is readily seen when he refers to the writings of Dr. Kuiper and seeks his support in them, whereas Dr. Kuiper himself, as was manifested by the letter which we published, conclusively declares himself in favor of the movement.

We do not doubt in the least the good intentions of Mr. S., but we may take it that he evidently has misunderstood the writings of Dr. Kuiper or has drawn from them the wrong conclusions, conclusions opposed to Dr. Kuiper's personal convictions. This is all the more evident because Professor Barinck, who also firmly adheres to Calvinistic principles, proves to be in full accord with Dr. Kuiper and with the entire movement. Ignorance of American conditions, especially of the University of Chicago, cannot be charged against Dr. Kuiper and Professor Bavinck. They are conscious of what they do and write. Both have been in the United States, have delivered Stone lectures, and know the University of Chicago better than many others. But let us discuss one by one the objections of Mr. S. His first objection is that the teaching of Dutch history and literature at the University of Chicago could not be done "to the glory of God," although the Scriptures demand of us that we shall do everything to the glory of God. Let us see how true this is.

The University of Chicago is a gigantic institution, with a teaching staff 7numbering between 300 and 400. That is no small community to be controlled by only a few persons. Most of the professors know only a small number of their colleagues. The various departments hardly concern themselves with one another. Men of all principles function there, for the most part independent of one another. The names of modern men such as Foster and Mathews, which are used by Mr. S. as scarecrows, have therefore nothing to do with the teaching of Dutch history and Dutch grammar. I have now associated for six months with the men of the University and have never had the pleasure of meeting or of hearing Professors Foster and Mathews. Therefore, I conjecture that the men who teach theology at Hope College are immeasurably more in danger of falling under the influence of those professors than the man who will teach Dutch history in Chicago. The department of history in Chicago teaches nothing but history; it has nothing to do with theology or philosophy; its teachers associate with one another and appreciate one another according to the knowledge of history which they have. Should you think that if some one was appointed to teach Dutch history and had all the sources for that work at his disposal and was master of his field, just as others are, each in his 8own field, any one in the world would make remarks about the teaching of our history according to the method of Groen or of Fruin, both great historians, who so wonderfully agreed on the most important points? Then why could not the instruction in our history be really historic as well as in accordance with our principles regardless of the institution in which it is taught? Whether a thing is done to the glory of God or not depends on whether it complies with the ordinances which God has instituted for it. And what other demand could Mr. S. make for the teaching of Dutch history then that it be faithfully examined for truth and taught as Groen the Calvinist and Fruin the liberal both understood it? Regarded objectively, the University of Chicago has no scruples against the teaching of Dutch history and literature, and subjectively it depends entirely on him who is called to this task. This automatically brings us to the second objection of Mr. S., namely, that a professor in Dutch history and grammar at Chicago would be doomed to be a biased teacher. Yes, still more. Professor S., further says:

"A Hugo Munsterberg is in his place at Harvard University because he entirely 9harmonizes with its aims, but a T. De Vries at the University of Chicago would be like a mouse in a strange warehouse."

These words of Mr. S. are an insult to the University of Chicago as well as to me personally; they are at war with the truth and with brotherly love, against which, according to the Apostle, [one may not offend with impunity] (Romans 14, 4).

I have personally listened in the University to men with different aims, among whom are the best orthodox speakers of the Baptist, Episcopal, and Presbyterian Churches, without ever discovering a trace of prejudice. Frankly and sincerely they proclaimed in the great auditorium of Mandel Hall their convictions, and again and again I saw the complete freedom of thought which was also accorded to men of Calvinistic principles. That the evolutionists shall speak freely, and men such as Foster and Mathews shall enjoy the same right and make use of it, is permitted not only in the University of Chicago but even in most of the churches of America, among them the Presbyterian 10churches also; is that any reason why Mr. S. should condemn their ablest leaders as biased teachers? It appears to me that Mr. S. has formed an opinion which is out of line with the truth about this great institution, the University of Chicago, in all its functions, just as some simple Calvinists asserted that Philip II., like Herod, was consumed by worms, and as some simple Catholics said of Calvin, his opponent, exactly the same thing, without knowing that such stories are not founded on the truth.

Condemnation and prejudice have never occurred to me, and in the teaching of Dutch history and literature they are entirely out of place. Such teaching entirely depends on the measure with which the teacher himself is provided with material--whether he has the necessary sources at his disposal, and whether he is able to make known the incontrovertible results of the best investigations, against which no one in the University will have any objections. Now is it not lightly judged and at the same time in opposition to brotherly love when Mr. S. mentions me personally and declares that I, as teacher of Dutch history and literature in the University of Chicago, will be as a mouse in a 11strange warehouse? Has he the right to judge thus when I am unknown to him, while men like Dr. Kuiper and Professor Bavinck, in whose shadow, according to his own statement, he would like to stand, and who have known me for the last twenty years, express themselves so entirely differently? Not only the teaching of Dutch history and literature but also the writing of articles must be to the glory of God; therefore it should be done according to God's ordinances and not flippantly. All to the Glory of God and for the magnifying of His Holy Name! What a beautiful and holy principle! May every Christian write it on the tables of his heart and through it be built up in the holiest belief! But that selfsame holy principle is abused when it is used as a weapon to mow down everything outside the vision of one's small circle, and when one adds: If you want to do anything worth while, then you must undertake it in our circle. This might appear to be a Calvinistic principle, but indeed it is not.

Apply this holy principle, for instance, to your own life, to your eating, your drinking, to your conversation, to your speaking and writing; then 12do you not come to the conclusion that measured according to this rule, the holiest things in this life have yet a preceding principle, that of obedience? And does it not cause you to say, if things are well with you: 0 God, have mercy upon my soul! It is so easy to misuse this holy principle flippantly and with it to break down everything because there is so little in this present life which can bear up under temptation. With it you can bring numerous people into discredit, every one, in fact, who must work among those of other opinions, be it in politics, in the community, in the missions, or in the [public] service as ambassador or consul; and likewise in the labors through which our national history must come to take its rightful place in the great center of the American population you may in this way flippantly enough try to estrange the hearts of our Christian people from all these things and say that in your circle, in your school, in your church, in your immediate vicinity this evil demand is being satisfied, and then it would appear to be Calvinistic, but the Calvinists have ever done just the opposite. In their own circles they were strict with the critic of God's Holy Word. They came together to confess their transgressions, to hear revival sermons, and to humble themselves 13before their God. And for those who were called to work in foreign circles and in foreign lands they were full of love; they remembered them in their prayers before God and strongly supported them with all the means at their command; and assured of that support and sympathy, [these workers] went their way among all people, over all seas, into all lands, and there gave testimony, as wise men who knew the time and its ways. Thus was the knowledge of Calvinism and of the deeds which God had done among our people made known in all lands, and His Name was honored. And so it should be now.