THE KING’S BUSINESS 277 Prof. Case evidently sees that he cannot answer the premillenarians from the Bible, therefore he resorts to the contemptible scheme of arousing prejudice against them by accusing them of a lack of patriotism. It is a resort to the old methods of the Salem witchcraft persecutors that are now so universally despised. In the days of the Salem witchcraft excitement, when any unprin cipled person wished to put out of the way those whom they opposed theologic ally, or against whom they had grudges, they would simply accuse them of witchcraft, knowing that there would be no fair trial, and that awful penalties would be visited upon them. Unprincipled theologians today are pursuing prac tically the same course in trying to down their antagonists by stirring up sus picion of their patriotism. We know of one case in which a faithful brother was arrested and put in jail because .of preaching the return of our Lord. The accusation brought against him was that of treason, or disloyalty to the Presi dent. O f course, as soon as the National Government heard of it they ordered his discharge from jail.. Prof. Case is pursuing exactly the same method; though he has not carried it quite so far. That any man who makes any pre tensions to scholarship should pursue this method of theological controversy is almost incredible, but here we have the facts. A prominent pastor in Los Angeles pursued much the same method, announcing in a very prominent way in the Los Angeles papers that he would speak one Sunday night on the ques tion: “ Is It Patriotic to Believe, etc.,” and the point in question was, was it patriotic to believe in the premillennial doctrine, though he did not phrase it just that way. One must be conscious of having a very weak cause if he resorts to such methods of controversy. There are many post-millenarians whom we hold in the highest regard, and they would be among the first to condemn such methods as these, but we regret to say these methods are being followed, not only by the University of Chicago, but by others as well. Prof. Case is quite right when he says that “ the doctrine of the premillenarians-has many sup porters.” It has indeed. Among its supporters it has many of the leading commentators and theologians on both sides of the water. It has the support of three of the recent Moderators of the General Assembly of the. Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, of a recent Moderator of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church, of many of the leading Baptist ministers of the country, of pretty much all the best known evangelists, and a very large proportion of those ministers who are doing an aggressive soul-win ning work in their pastorates. It has, however, the bitter opposition of. a great share of those theologians who have accepted those views of destructive criti cism which unquestionably are of German origin, the views fathered by Welhausen, Graf, and others of that school. While the charge that the money for premillennial propaganda “ emanates from German sources” is ridiculous, the charge that the destructive criticism that rules in Chicago University “ emanates from German^ sources” is undeniable. Everybody knows, who has studied the question, that the school of biblical criticism that centers at Chicago University, to which both Prof. Shailer Matthews and Prof. Shirley Jackson Case belong, is simply an echo of German destructive criticism. We do not think on this account that the teachers in Chicago University should be prose cuted as being traitors, or that the Government would find this “a profitable field for Government investigation.”
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker