33 
view. In 1884, he held (as was gathered from my private correspond- 
ence with him, and also from “The Substance of Two Speeches,” be- 
fore “the Synod of South Carolina, at. Greenville, S. C., October, 
1884”): That Evolution, as inculcated by Dr. Woodrow, 1. Did not 
contradict any doctrine in the Hvangelical scheme; 2. Did not contra- 
dict any doctrine in the Calvinistic scheme; 3. He was not prepared to 
say that it contradicted the Bible—in its highest, ‘absolute, and infalli- 
ble sense ;” 4. But he maintained, that it contradicted “the Bible as our 
Church interprets it, . . . our Bible—the Bible as it is tous.’ That 
is, he held, four years ago, that Dr. Woodrow’s view contradicted our 
“Church Standards” as to the creation of Adam’s body ; and now, not. 
bene, how does it contradict the “Church Standards”? By contradict- 
ing, (1) not their ‘absolute’ sense, (2) but their relative sense—i. e., 
the sense put upon the “Standards” by the “Church’s prevailing and 
recognised views.” We have then, 1. The Bible—the word of God ; 
2. The Presbyterian Bible; 3. The Presbyterian ‘‘Confession’’— 
founded immediately upon the Presbyterian Bible, and remotely, per- 
haps, upon the word of God—G'od’s Bible; 4. The Presbyterian 
“Church’s prevailing and recognised views,” founded upon and inter- 
preting the Presbyterian Confession, and that Confession founded upon 
and interpreting the Presbyterian Bible, and that Bible founded upon 
and interpreting God’s Bible—perhaps. Now, when the eloquent orator 
boiled all this down, what was the residuum? ‘The statements of 
representative theologians and the orthodox [by what criterion ?] belief 
of God's people in the Presbyterian Church.” It seems to me we may 
put it through two more processes, and so at last, get this concentrated 
extract of the orator’s test of Dr. Woodrow’s fitness to hold the Perkins 
Professorship in the Columbia Seminary, viz.: 1. Vox populi Presbyteri- 
ani vox Dei Presbyteriani; 2. Migut makes rigHt. Such was his 
opinion in 1884. 
What is “his opinion” now—1888? Speaking of “the professed 
Christian Evolutionist” —Dr. Woodrow, e. g.—the Review article says : 
“They,” 7. e., “the Scriptures” and the views of “the professed Christian 
Evolutionist”—Dr. Woodrow, ¢. g.—“are mutually contradictory, and 
one must be true, the other false” (206). It is not now: 1. The repre- 
sentative theologians and the orthodox belief of God’s people in the 
Presbyterian Church; 2. The Presbyterian Church’s prevailing and 
recognised views ; 3. The Presbyterian Confession; 4. The Presbyterian 
Bible; 5. But, in 1888, it is “the Scriptures’—the Bible—God's 
pers Bible in its highest, “absolute, and infallible sense.” Nota 
