In this fine study, Bradley J. Gundlach, of Trinity International University, traces the history of the debates over evolution at Princeton University and Seminary from 1845 to 1929. Princeton served as the anchor of Old School Presbyterianism in this period, and previous scholars of this subject have maintained that the Princetonians only reluctantly accepted biological evolution, mainly seeking to modify its teachings to fit their preconceived theology. In contrast, Gundlach argues that the Princetonians' Calvinism itself provided them with the intellectual equipment not only to accept evolution, but to embrace it. These men (and they were all men) believed that God often worked through development (‘process’), and that even theology could change over time. If proper allowances were made for God's superintending of the evolution process (as well as some other key qualifiers), biological evolution itself theoretically posed no threat to Christian orthodoxy. Yet, in the period under consideration, the Princetonians arrayed themselves against many foes. The most consistent one proved to be ‘philosophical materialism’, that is, the view that naturalistic scientific methods provided the best and final way of understanding all reality. While the Princetonians generally accepted a form of biological change over time, they could not abide the notion that evolutionary changes could be explained without reference to providence. Thus, in the 1860s, they formed a ‘battle plan’ to defend traditional Christianity against the ravages of naturalism. Under the leadership of university president James McCosh, Princeton would produce remarkable ‘bright young men’, send them out for graduate training to ‘seize and master’ the enemies' intellectual weapons, and bring them back to Princeton ‘to mold the age’. The most notable of the ‘bright young men’ was Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, whose views are treated extensively in the last several chapters. Warfield is best known for his formulation (with his colleague A. A. Hodge) of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy in 1881, but he too evinced few theological problems with evolution understood strictly as a biological process. In the early decades of the twentieth century, the ambivalence that Princetonians showed toward evolution resulted not from a dispute over whether it was theologically permissible (all agreed that it was, at least in some form), but over whether it was scientifically accurate. The greatest strength of Process and providence lies in Gundlach's painstaking and thorough use of the Princeton archives. He used approximately thirty separate collections there in addition to the vast amount of published material left by the Princetonians. Some readers will wish for more treatment of how broader developments in American history impinged upon the debates at Old Princeton, and will occasionally feel stifled by the intramural focus. Nevertheless, Process and providence will be very useful for historians of science, religion and higher education in this period. It is well-researched, clearly written and will be welcomed by specialists in these disciplines.