Wise in Their Own Conceits.
By Editor
It is noteworthy that men with crotchets, wise above what is written, teaching when they need to be taught, are for the most part wise in their own conceits. They look down upon others with pity if not with contempt. One of these men attempted to explain to us the origin of evil, and when we told him we now understood the matter less than before he explained it, he said, "That's because you have not a philosophical mind." A man with a bee in his bonnet is apt to be wiser in his own conceit than seven men who can render a reason. There was never a more interesting specimen of this amiable weakness than is furnished by Professor Woodrow, of the Columbia Seminary. The Rev. Dr. Palmer, of New Orleans, introduced into the Synod a resolution, which was adopted, expressing very decided condemnation of Prof. Woodrow's teaching, and closing with these words:— "Under this conviction, the Synod of Mississippi depreciates the introduction of this theory as endangering the peace and unity of the church; and cannot consent that a hypothesis, confessed by its advocates to be unverified, and which therefore cannot be dignified as science, should assume to control the interpretation of the inspired word." Professor Woodrow, being the editor of a newspaper, rises to the height of his great argument, as men who are wrong are apt to do, not by answering the allegation of his opponents, but by the remark which we copy. He says:— "Touching the statement that evolution is an hypothesis confessed by its advocates to be unverified, and that it cannot be dignified as science, all we care to say now is that perhaps Dr. Palmer and those who voted with him may not be sufficiently well informed to give an opinion of much value on that point." It will be noticed that the truth or error of the theory of evolution is not raised by Dr. Palmer and the Synod, it is simply a question of fact. Is the theory of evolution confessed by its advocates to be "unverified"? That statement is to be determined not by discussion but by testimony, and even Professor Woodrow will hardly deny to Dr. Palmer and the Synod sufficient ability to read. It requires no great learning, yet we believe Dr. Palmer and his brethren of the Synod have quite as much of that as the professor who treats them so superciliously. If they have kept pace with nothing more than newspaper literature, they know (as Professor Woodrow seems not to know) that the most learned evolutionist of our time, Virchow, the teacher of Haeckel, is the author of the expression applied to evolution, an "unverified hypothesis." Dr. Palmer knew the origin of the term, and doubtless referred to Virchow when he said that evolution is a theory confessed by its advocates to be a hypothesis unverified. Dr. Palmer did not say that evolution is an unverified hypothesis, he said its advocates confess it to be such. And then comes the professor and remarks: "Perhaps Dr. Palmer and those who voted with him may not be sufficiently well informed to give an opinion of much value on that point." Dr. Palmer also said that evolution "cannot be dignified as science." And why not? He answers: Its advocates confess it to be an unverified hypothesis, and therefore it cannot be dignified as science. Surely that is true. No one, not even Professor Woodrow, will pretend to call an unverified hypothesis a science, and however contemptible may be his opinion of the knowledge of his brethren, he will not deny that Virchow is "sufficiently well informed to give an opinion of much value on that point." But this cavalier treatment of those who do not agree with us in opinion is as common almost as controversy itself. It is so natural to think those are wise who hold our views, and to regard other people as fools. It is positively amusing to note the lordly air of superiority which smatterers in science and art assume, as if wisdom would die when they depart this life. They are a happy set of men, these self-conceited fellows. An aromatic odor of self-complacency pervades the air a vain man breathes. He takes off his hat to himself and says: "I always had great respect for you, sir." Vanity is a source of enjoyment, a very shallow sort of enjoyment and short-lived, but while it lasts it gives pleasurable emotions to a feeble mind. But no truly great or truly learned man is vain of his position or attainments. How great must be the consciousness of insignificance in the breast of any man worthy to be called great! How little do the most knowing know! Some, like Newton, confess the sense of it. But those who profess themselves to be wise are apt to become fools. With a strong conviction of every true student that he is only on the outworks of knowledge, with infinite heights to be scaled as well as depths to be explored, the wise man is modest and humble, and prays, "Lord, teach us." "Increase our knowledge." "We know but in part." But it has actually come to this, that even in the church of Christ men cannot express their honest opinions without being taunted with want of information! Is not the road to knowledge open to all, so that a layman as well as a professor may give an opinion as to the probability of his having God for his father, or a beast that perishes? And in what school of manners is it taught to be proper to say to a man who differs from you, "Sir, perhaps you do not know enough to give an opinion of much value." To our rude conception of what is becoming in the discussions of Christian gentlemen, such blows are foul, and therefore not to be allowed. The controversy is not closed by any means. We have noticed that nine Synods have disapproved of Prof. Woodrow's views, and not one has sustained them. The Board of Directors that refused to condemn him has been reconstructed, five out of the eight who sustained him having been replaced by five who "perhaps are not sufficiently informed to give an opinion of much value," but nevertheless do not believe that a professor in a religious school should teach as Professor Woodrow does. Other Synods are yet to "give an opinion," but it is safe to believe, before any more returns come in, that the Synods of the South will vote solid in support of the old, old truth, that the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground.—N. Y. Observer.