New Series, Vol. 'V, ISTo. 18. <3 00 By Kail. S 3 By Carrier. 1 50cts Additional after .throe Months.'' J framtait jjttslnjfemit.' THURSDAY?. APRlIii3O,lB6B. THE BOOK OF THE BEGINNING.* The first book of Revelation possesses a charm and an importance which fill the mind and which it is not easy to describe. As prophecy goes miraculously before, so Genesis goes miraculously behind, all events of the world’s history that could be recorded or remembered. It tells us the be ginnings of all the things and all the arrange ments in winch we are most deeply interested, not only of the world and of all the orders of beings inhabiting it; but of our moral condition, of sin and redemption; of tbe church and society; of true religion and of heathenism; of life and death; of crime and punishment; of the family, the tribe, and the nation. Here we see God emerging, from timeless, formless eternity, and condescend ing to the limitations of creative activity; Here is the beginning of matter, of time, Of spaee, and of form. Here the fire-mist of a boundless chaos, without form and void, ( resolves itself, under the’ broodings of the Spirit .of God, into a beautiful world, tenanted by happy sentient beings, and by the last work of all, the roof and crown of things —the free, mdr&l, religious being-man. Here, at the beginning, stand the lost purity, the lost joy, the lost Paradise of the race. Here is man’s monstrous failure, and God’s instant promise of a. far greater recovery through a Hero-Redeemer. Here is the first profession of faith in the divine promise, which separates from the world, and which, in Abraham as in Peter, is the immovable rock on which the church of God is founded. What battles of giants have been, and are now being fought between truth and error, between the Bible and soience, falsely so called, for the occupancy of this ground, so early pre-empted by the Holy Ghost through Moses! It is a life struggle. Yield but this commanding ground to error, and it will cover the whole region of .reve lation. Let but a false philosophy, Materialism, Pantheism, Positivism, sway out.ideSs oftTie'b&- ginnings of things, and wd'have assented : td"thb ’ premises of all their arguments. Deny 1 the fall, doubt its historic reality, and you cast away the foundations of New Testament theology. Deny the facts of the first three chapters of Genesis, - and you turn the story of Gothsemane and of Calvary into a shallow human tragedy. Geology, astronomy, payohology, zoology, eth nology, philology, chronology, historical criticism and research in ancient ruins have all been ar rayed in hostility to Moses. Andin spite of the frequent failure of similar attempts, eadh age seems to bring up. the old objections in anew fashion, besides inventing new,, ones for itself. Not only is an immense • age ascribed to the un formed matter of the earth, bnt vast geologic epochs are put over agaioat the simple six days of Moses; and the contents of caves and peat bogs are supposed to give.* far different and more trustworthy account oftheage of man than Gen esis. Indeed, the very idea of beginning is re placed, in a pretentions school of modern natural ists, by that of infinitesimally gradual develop ment; and a freaty of scientific imagination is re garded as worthier of credence than a sober sim ple statement of the alone adequate cause of all things,—the miracle of creation. The immense chronologies of Egypt and China are set over against the six thousand years of the Scriptural chronology. The persistent character of the va rious types of iuankiud, as shown by ancient monuments, is made an argument against the chronology or the ethnology of the Bible. The rejection of one error —that of Darwinism—is put upon the ground of another, equally destructive of the claims pf Moses to historical credibility,— that of the diverse origin of different races of men auk other living things. While historical and, grammatical criticism expati ates, as if under special license, over .all these primitive documents, defying its own laws in its intemperate zeal\to destroy their authenticity, their integrity, their antiquity. “It reduces the Old Scriptures not only to fragments, but to fragments of fragments in most ill-assorted and jumbled confusion. Its supporters find themselves at last ill direct opposition to their favorite maxim, that the Bible must be interpreted as though written like other books. For surely no book was ever so composed or so compiled. In the same portion, presenting every appearance of narrative unity, they find the strangest juxta- ♦Laxoa.—Genesis, er the First Book of Moses, to gether with a general theological and bom'iletioal in troduction to the Old Testament; By John Peter Lange, D.D., Professor in Ordinary of Theology in the University of Bonn, Translated from tJie.German,. with ndditious. By Prof. Tayier Lewis, LLJ)., Sohneetady, ,N. Y., and A, Gosmin, D.D , Lawrenceville, N. J., Bvo. 665 pp., $5.00. New York: Charles Scribner .& Co. Philadelphia; Claxton, Bemsen & Haffelfinger. positions of passages from different authors and. written at different times. There are the most sudden transitions ' even in small paragraphs* having not only a'logical,' but a grammatical con nection. To make the confusion worse, there 1 is brought in occasionally a third or a fourth writer, an editor,'.dr reviewer*.and all thiswithout any. of those'actual proofs or tests* which’are applied to other ancien t writings,'and'in fehy use of which thm 1 higher criticism,' as'it; .calls itself, is, so much inclined to vaunt.” 4; ACommentary ontheßook of Genesis which will meet-the demands'not only; of this enormous adverse criticism, biit 6f the'healthful spirit of inquiry in the church,itself, will be one of ihe'| highest, and most meritorious achievements of J modern Christian' culture. . English-speaking' scholars have not, as yet,’produced such a work. Commentaries on which, in the sense re quired in this day, can be called good, have scarcely been attempted, in England or, America.. After Bush, a whole- generation passed, and only ’ yesterday the comparatively brief works of Mur phy and Jacobus broke the silence'of ouV Bibli- 1 cal scholars, on this, in many respects the most , important and interesting book of the whole Bible. Their books, indeed, have true merit, but they are still more heralds of a better, broader and more satisfactory era of criticism and interpretation in ’this important field’. It is to' the believing section‘of the indefatigable Bihle- ; workers of G ermany that We turn for adequate methods and material in the interpretation of I Genesis. Combined with the best results'of the more clear-headed; direct and practical Christian thought of America,’sit would produce a wort which must heeds be accepted as the'last aiid best word of Christendom on 'these' ancient and * pro-- found problems of Revelation. . Lange’s Com mentary Oh GfeNESis, with the emendations of its ‘American editors, especially of Tattler Lewis, may, on these grounds, justly olaim pre eotinence among all that have yet appeared. Its issue last weak from the press of Scribner & G 0.," may, without- exaggeration, *be described as an' . England ~ahid-< America.- < 'lts complete' 'introduc l tory apparatus, including also'an' introduction to the whole Old- Testament, the special introduc tion of Prof. Tayler Lewis, as well as his'learned and vigorously written contributions at various points in the body of the work, (twenty-nine in all), greatly, enhance its value. Difficulties are rather welcomed than evaded by the indefatigable author and his associates; some answer, worthy of his regard, will be.found by the inquirer, to every Reasonable question he may raise. It is, indeed, more than could' be expected of any human work that it should satisfy all who consult it. Certainly we'may say, without hesitation, that it sensibly aids in the great work of "iecoh ciling faith and reason on some of these lqng de bated and momentoustopics. The theological world is already deeply in debted to the publishers of this volume. And the unwavering energy, enterprise, and liberality with which they are carrying forward this great est biblical work of the age, is settling their claim to pre-eminence in this line of the' publishing business in the Western world. * Tayler Lewis, LIST OF REVIVALS. A gratifying, but very imperfect table of re vivals since the new year, in our branch of the Church, will be found on one of the inside pages. In this, the names of one hundred and forty eight churches are given, in which more or less power ful manifestations of the Spirit’s converting grace have appeared. Only sixty-nine of the churches have reported the number received on examination; the total reported from these is 1956. It is, perhaps, safe to assume that nearly four thousand persons have been admitted to the 148 churches on the list, since the beginning,of the year. Consulting our files for the correspond ing period last year, we find only about half this number Of revivals reported, the average results, of which, in each instance, certainly do not ex ceed those which we now summarize. However, we think it has been observed that the revival season, so to speak, commenced later this year than last. The indications often vouchsafed, in an encouraging degree, in the last quarter of the year, were missing amid the commercial embar rassments and political excitements of the season of 1867, and only with the week of prayer did we seem to enter upon an era of spiritual refreshing which seems to be approaching more and more to a continuous state of the Evangelical churches. With these limitations as to time, we think the revival of the present year will be found quite as powerful and pervading, quite as rich in results numerically, and as to the quality of the material gathered in, quite as promotiye of lay activity in PHILADELPHIA, THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1868. new forms and in old, as any of, those preceeding it in recent times. ' . !■;<■ a?. Nine new volumes are about'bCjKii; added to the Committee’s excellent Kit'.' and juvenile boojcs. T,he gopd,, and thorough evangelical spirit hitherto! shown by the Committee in this deparfbMiift ’of - their! work) hot to : the exclusion of ' thenec.essary ele-‘ ments of interest in plot and style, will be found to theisenew : tyf)lu^i^ and teachers' are) never .heard to complain of hny thing wrong 'Ot inappropriate J slicing into the hands of thhir childrenffom ’t^'li^ sof 5 of the'Com mittee, , Nor, .will they hear these.portions of the library of dujness.., Purf chasers may buy securely, knowing thatian ade quate and conscientious judgment has 'alrfeidy beCn pronounced by the Dulles, and, his faithful and sub-coni; mittee,: while the externals r .o£ typography and that indispensable adjunct,. well-drawn and hand some illustrations, .abd'skilfully* pri^idlid ; by the Business ' 'Rev. Mr. 'Crittenden.The course of . the Committee'is onward. A larger income will enable them. jp ; call out a wider range and perhaps a higher degree of abi lit#} but no publication if any branch of the Church is using what it 'more satisfactorily to ; the Christian public,. It is difficult tocharacteme-withsufficientse-: verity the assumption of exclusive orthodoxy, Calvinism', and conformity to thetheology of the Reformation, which are so coollyapd habitually made by the public men. and organ; of the other branch. > Surely they are the pesoplennd Calvin ism will die with : them; All wbb'db 1 iibt under stand the Cohfbssiii or tfije Reformed sense as they do, are incontinently denounced as reject ing it. And there is little, orihe hesitation in ascribing -insincerity, orookednessor downright: falsehood JoirtweejEho-claim. to h^j^hesysteinj. but who #lll'not conform to their precise view of it.An illustration of these lofty and ridiculous pretensions tp the; exclusive .possession of the Westminster standards, and of histbricCaivinism is found in the following extract from the jFVes- v byterian of last week: .The italics are our own. . Another point which is gradually disclosing it self is, that the doctrinal, portion of the Basis pro posed by the Philadelphia Convention ie not agree able to a number of our New School brethren.' It was adopted by their .'representatives in this Con vention, afterit’had'beeh amended in an important particular by Dr, Henry B: Smith, one of the ac knowledged leaders ot .the New. School Presbyte rian. Church., But it is not .accepted, in itspureand simple form, by many in. this.ministry, and perhaps many in the eldership, in the New, School branch oif the Church. ' The additions proposed to be made to it id various’quarters, in the : Way of providing for liberty of interpretation or Of explanation'show the nature of the objections made to it. It is thought to bind a little too tight- It does not fit easily upon limbs which ; haye hitherto been unrestrained. ■ 'J’his again re-acts upon the Old School men who hearti ly consented'to this part of the Philadelphia plat form, but who now begin to suspect that this par ticular plank in the plaflorm is not so strong As they thought it to be, or that others have a singular facility for slipping off frtrn it, and jumping -on again as occasion may offer. The wide acceptance which the Philadelphia Basis met with, grew out the of per suasion that it tags , fully, honestly accepted, the churches represented in that Contention. Tne dis covery that the New School Church cannot, receive it without amendment excites apprehension, and much abates the generous enthusiasm 1 which marked that famous'Convention. > ■> ! ' > , The single meaning of' this paragraph is: Bp cause we have protested that by historic or Re formed sense, we did not mean the sense of a single modern Cocceian school of Reformed doc trine; because we did not intend to be bound by the interpretation of Princeton and of A llegW ny, therefore we rejected the Reformed en tirely 1' Did ever any observer of regenerate or un regenerate humanity meet’'with such' An il lustration of the evangelical grace of humility ? Will any one doubt that iEsop actually did see a frog trying to achieve the dimensions and impor tance of an ox, since this croaking school of theology tries to erect itself into the entire Ref ormation Calvinism,—to comprehend in itself the vast and many sided-movement of Calvinis tic thought? , We warn our Princeton friends, who, as representing one of theseegreat Calviriis tic movements, are worthy of all honor and re spect, to desist from the perilous and ridiculous role of :the ambitious frog. It is belittling, and if persisted in, is sure 'to lead to a melancholy catastrophe. As for Ourselves, we can alwaly's find something better to do than to argue, with those who donbt our honesty. We need only say that the amend ments suggested on our side to the Philadelphia platform, are designed to guard it from a one sided interpretation. Those ,who choose may in sinuate that we mean covertly to abandon it. We are glad to find from the regular correspon- PUBLICATION COMMITTEES LIST. " EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS. dence of. the same paper, that there are some important persons on its .field who take diamet rically opposite views, on this subject, to those pf the editor. We refer to the letter of its Ro chester correspondent, “ Doulos Christou,” upon thftlatp'Briblo Convention, w;hich, ,our readers frill remember, exhibited in .speeches and resolu tions the utmost readiness 1 , on both sides, to al low this‘'New. School idea Of a diversity hot in consistent with Calvinistic unity. The extract is as follows:: ‘‘The most marked approbation was given when .Hall, pf Rochester, one of the' staunchest Old 4ay of t war among the boldest and most _ uncbmpromlsiug, exclaimed, iVIy soul carries still the scars of a veteran, but it indignantly arid vehemently revolts at the idea of using tbe union as a trap by which to catch her etics.''!'The'resolutions reported were the work of Dr; Walter Clark, of then First church, Buffalo. They paper, we ; think, that has yet been giyjen to the public and to the Church on this subject. ‘ They are ; just wh at we most have, as a distinct understanding, if are' are to have ’ n union, though they may hardly‘satisfy the advocates Of absorption of Allthe other 1 churches into the ' Ol'd' School.’- . Dr. ‘Heacock 'Attacked the 'whole idea and scheme of re-union; for he is nothing if not antagonistic; but even he, I believe, is more and more satisfied with the result of the Convention.” publish with pleasure, pn the next page, Mr. Rankin’s explanation of hiß position in the late Buffalo Convention. We regretted that ho report of his well’considered and valuable 1 historical Argument for liberty was made, and that we were obliged to rely solely on our memo ry in the remarks we made upon it. The point of Mr. : Rankin’s letter seems to be this, that nothing 'beyond a difference of interpretation prevails betiveen the different schools of opinion inour/churphes; and that a difference of doc trine wOhldiiAVolye heresy; which he, of course, does not wish to appear willing to tolerate, as he might 1 be supposed to be, from our remarks; We give hjih ihe'fuil'beriefit of the disclaimer, while we remind him that in one of the very cases which he cites, (that of Craighead), the As sembly recognize doctrines as “different from those of the Reformed church and of our church,” 'bill declares “tbef error; to, be hot'; pf fundamen tal importance,’’ consequently not heresy, nor a ground of .exclusion from the Church, Mr. Rankin also argues that the Governmental The ory bf the Atonement, included in the Hopkin sian oircle of views!, is under the express tolera tion of the General Assembly, which reversed the decision of a lower judicatory condemning Hopkinsianism. This too he considers as allow ing liberty of interpretation only, not difference of . doctrine. We will not argue the case, but refer him to Hodge on the Atonement,-who, page 340, says of the Governmental Theory, among many other elaborate and severe senten ces: ; ‘‘ This doctrine is false,” and page 345, “ The origin,.history and logical development of this doctrine demonstrate that it is radically and necessarily inconsistent with the system of Cal vinism.”; Now the Governmental Theory is none: of ours; and we are quite willing to leave the defense of it to Mr. Rankin and others on that side, but we think we have given a reason why .New School men, wholly within the limits of the Reformed and Calvinistic sense, in the opinion of Mr. Rankin, might, yet claim the toleration of different “ doctrinal views,” and might interpret Mr. : Rankin’s able defense, of toleration as an acquiescence in their claim. ' IMPORTANT* IF TRUE. A gossiping correspondent of the Presbyte rian gives the' following account of matters which ■transpired in the Old School part of the Committee, and in‘the Joint Committee 'itself. The first paragraph will open the eyes of some of our brethren; very wide indeed. “At the recent meeting of the Joint Gommit tee, the Old School members of that Committee had a separate meeting, and resolved, by an unani mous vote, that they could not consent to any terms of union which should bind the United Church to the latitude of interpreting the Confession, which the New School has hitherto allowed. We do not give the resolution verbatim; but such waß its in tent and meaning. The members, personally, were no doubt opposed to any such latitude of construc tion ; and they knew that they might as well throw the whole re-union project into the sea, with a mill stone about its neck, as to go before the churches with any such proposition. 1 “ Another decisive evidence on this subject iB the action of the New School members of the Joint Committee. When that Committee met last in Philadelphia, the Rev. Dr. Patterson, of Chicago, took the ground—l. That a large part of the New School ministers held the doctrines of which Mr. Barnes might be considered the representative. 2. That those doctrines must be received in the Uni ted Church as of unquestioned orthodoxy. His New School brethren on the Committee, while dis senting from him as to the extent in which Mr. Barnes was a fair representative of New School theology, did not, in any case (t. «., no one of the New School Committee,) dissent, from the claim that the doctrines which he was supposed to represent were entitled to recognition as consistent with our system of doctrine. This claim was in sisted upon. Here, then, wasra"dead-lock. The Old School Committee unanimous in declaring that Genesee Evangelist, ISTo. 1145. ( Ministers $2.50 H. Miss. $2.00. I Address:—l334 Chestnut Street. certain forma of doctrine could not be admitted • the New School Committee unanimous in declaring that they must be admitted. Neither party could yield. Neither party did yield. They adopted a formula on which each, could put its own sense, and departed.” RESPONSE FROM A;. ROME MISSIONARY. From time to time,;we receive funds to be used in furnishing.oiir'paper to Home Mission aries. Recently, we received the following re sponse frpm one, to whom we- were enabled, by the liberality of S. G. Perkin's, Esq., to donate the paper, , . Il] B . Rev. -J. W. Meabs—Dear Brother: I knownot to whom -I am indebted for your excel lent paper, a copy of which’ came in to-day’s mail, from the lhbel on which I should judge it was to be sent for one year; Please to thank the donor for me. I wonld-long Bince ; have subscrib ed for. the American Presbyterian myself, biit being a pioneer, on very small salary, I have been compelled to practice strict economy. I like your paper-much. I likeit because it is a New School paper, a Presbyterian paper, our Church paper, a union, but not a union-atany-sacrifice paper. The past year has been fruitful in bless ings to this little church. We have been pros pered -materially and spiritually. A beautiful parsonage has been erected, costing about $2OOO, paid for, or the payment provided, with the ex ception of about $125. • Twenty-three were ad ded to the church at our communion, the first Sabbath in this month—lo on profession of their faith, 13 by letter. Others are hoping, but wait for more light. Your fraternally, Papers are sent to Home Missionaries or their widows for $2. Three copies for $5. AFFAIRS AT THE CAPITAL. Washington, April 27th, 1868. The President has given us a new sensation this week in the sudden and unadvised nomina tion of Gen. Schoffield as Secretary of War, “ in place of Edwin M. Stanton removed;” thus withdrawing the name of Mr. Ewing and ignor ing . Gen; Thomas. The .nomination has been made without consultation with the Cabinet; ing. the dayhefore-knew-nothing of it, and When first informed of it expressed doubts of its truth, but contented himself by strong assertions thift he was still Secretary ad interim. This move ment is an adihission, by the President himself, thatall his previous action in regard to the De partment has gone for: nanght. It is regarded here as designed to be an olive branch to con servative Republicans, assuring them that if the President is acquitted on the impeachment trial he will endeavor to live amicably with the party. I do not hear of any Senators pacified by this weak device, but I do hear the whole thing ridiculed by members of the House, and others who are free to express their sentiments. ' Arkansas is here, in the persons of Senators and Representatives elected under the new Con stitution, asking for recognition as a sovereign State. Louisiana, Georgia, North and South Carolina have prepared themselves for re-admis sion into the Union under the Reconstruction laws, and will present their Constitutions to Con gress in a few days forAceeptance. The argument of' Gov. Boutwell in the im peachment trial was compart and thorough. It was listened to with closest attention by the leading minds of the Senate, and evidently pro duced a decided effect;upon the minds of some who have been doubtful. ' His man ner of treating the whofe'subject was that of one feeling deeply his responsibility. His argument was not addressed to but to the Sen ate, and His oratory, wHreh usually is impassioned, was subdued, calm monotonous. His moral convictions are very-strong, and, speaking as they do in his tones', his gestures and in every feature of his earnest face, giving directness in his choice of language and structure of senten ces, they carry his arguments home with great power. Mr. Nelson, who followed him, is regarded as the special friend and personal associate of the President, and his rambling speech was very much like the swing “ round the circle.” The most decisive evidence that the advocate was saturated with the teachings of his principal was the audacious avowal before the Senate that in Mr. Johnson’s opinion and his own, the House is incompetent to impeach, and the Senate to try, because the ten rebellious States are still unrep resented, and his intimation that the proceeding might justly have been resisted by force;- At one time the rumor was current that he intended to speak till the close Jp%the President’s term, and from the topics inimllttced there was good reason for the feeling. Judge Chase has taken pains to contradict the rumor that he should charge the Senate as in cases before a jury ; he has no idea of addressing the Senate in that way or at all. The confidence of the Republicans in the certainty of the Presi dent’s removal increases. Some anxious corres pondents in Maine, Illinois and lowa would doubtless feel relieved could ' they have heard three Senators, as a friend of mine did last week, comparing notes of letters received and threats administered on the supposition that these three men were about to betray their country by a vote to acquit the President Their alarmed constitu ents may calm their fears. Fenwiok.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers