incarnate Saviour is never absent from His Church, and the ancient promise is fully realized: "My presence shall go with thee." The angel of the everlasting covenant accompanies the Israel of God, in a "pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night." Jehovah is with His people. The blessed "SHEKINAH" that once stood in mystic glory over the mercy-seat, in the Tabernacle and the Temple, is now permanently enshrined in our nature, and dwells among us in a real, substantial way. "The word was made flesh," says John, "and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth."

Lastly this presence of Christ is a permanent one "always sure to the end of time." Not only constant and unvarying, but also abiding or permanent-absolutely permanent is the Redeemer's presence-like His person, "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." In all ages of the Church has this presence been felt as a divine force, binding, like a golden cord, the members of Christ's mystical body together, and giving efficacy and success to the labor of His servants. The triumphs of the Church are all attributable to Him "who is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person." He, the only begotten Son of God, is still present in the "tents of Jacob." He yet "dwells in the midst of Jerusalem," and "walks about Zion." When the Redeemer says: "Lo, I am with you you alway, even unto the end of the word," the promise is to be regarded as pre-eminently belonging to His holy apostles and their successors, and designed to sustain and comfort them, and give success to their ministry. By the power of His Spirit He strengthens, supports, and inspires with ever-increasing zeal and energy the heralds of the He daily performs His miracles of mercy in connection with their labors. In His grace, therefore, and in His promised presence, let the ministers of Christ confide; and, so confiding, victory over sin and hell, and the songs of triumph will be certain!

cross.

Bethlehem, Pa.

D. Y. H.

ART. III.-ALEXANDER ON MARK.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK, EXPLAINED BY JOSEPH ADDISON ALEXANDER. New York: Charles Scribner, 1858. pp. 444.

WE understand this to be one of a series of commentaries upon the historical books of the New Testament, which Dr. Alexander is furnishing, while Dr. Hodge is engaged in the same way upon the didactic books; thus promising in time a complete commentary on the New Testament from one of the most learned and eminent theological faculties of our country in the spirit of the Calvinistic theology. Dr. Alexander has already published on the book of Acts; beginning at the end of the New Testament Pentateuch, probably for no reason but that of his own convenience. It seems from his preface to this volume not so much accidental, that, of the four Gospels, he has taken up that of Mark first. This would seem in part a sort of reaction against the disposition, heretofore prevalent even in the most orthodox circles, to depreciate the Second Gospel, and "treat it as a mere abridgement, supplement, or compilation, without any independent character or value of its own ;" and to be due also to the conviction, that "there is something in its structure, which makes it eminently fit to give the first impression of the Gospel History, and prepare the reader for the study of the other books."

In the Introduction, which is in this view an interesting and noticeable part of the volume, the author discusses briefly-we may say too briefly-the question of the relation of the Gospel of Mark to the others, and with it of course the relation of all the Gospels among themselves. This might appear at first a very simple question. The ordinary reader of the Bible, whose familiarity with the sacred volume has prevented his reflection upon its struc

ture, takes this and other of its peculiarities as matters of fart and motters of course. Yet the fact of these four Gospels is remarkable: very remarkable; without parallel in the Listory of literature. There have often been, it is true, vasions blogmar Lies of one prominent person, by different hands presenting the subject in different lights; but each offering itself to the pubile as complete. These four Gos pels also probably were each offered by its author as complete, and each complete in itself, and makes a definite impression as a biography of Christ. But here they are,

et pursuing enh its own way with the public and standing for itself; nor accidentally thrown together in a sort ermiscellany; but placed side by side as integral parts of ene bock, as with a purpose, and that the purpose of one author. Certainly a notable phenomenon. No doubt the true theory of it is that stated in the most general way by Dr. Alexar ler: "That the four Gospels were intended to present the life and eLaracter of Christ in four harmonious but distinguishable aspects, each adapted to produce its own impression independent of the others, yet all reciproesy necessary to secure the aggregate effect to be wrought by this part of the sacred history" (p. 9). As to the na ture or residence of this intention," however, the author does not particularly speak; nor does he advance to the next question, "Why there are four Gospels, and only four; or, What are these four harmonious but distinguishable aspects? What is the peculiar impression aimed at by each Gospel, or the particular point of view, from which each is composed? Why, after all, would not one comprehensive Gospel have answered every purpose? A question surely as legitimate as the first, and necessary to it. "The fourfold form of the Gospel History is a lawful and interesting subject of inquiry, as to its specific purpose, over and above the ultimate solution, of which all such questions are susceptible, by simple reference to the will of God. The question is not whether God so willed it, which is absolutely certain, but whether he willed it for a definite reason, either partially or wholly ascertainable

by us, and if so, not without effect upon our methods of interpretation." (p. 7.)

In this more specific form the question in hand is one of deep and wide interest; especially in its connections with the great conception of a unity of life throughout the history, as well as among all the branches of the Church ;a conception, which, now that it has been fairly reached by the theological mind, can never be given up, but must become more and more the basis of all true views of the course of things in the world. The best solution thus far suggested for the problem of the fourfold Gospel, is the view of Neander, Olshausen, Schaff, and other recent interpreters and Church historians, which refers to different "tendencies" of the religious and theological mind at the time, resulting from the great antithesis of Judaism and heathenism. These tendencies or types of thought, were in the nature of the case, just four in number; (1) a more strict or logical Jewish form of Christian thought; (2) a more liberal or intuitive form of the same; (3) a general historical and scientific Gentile conception of Christ and his works, and (4) a contemplative and mystical view from the same Gentile position. These tendencies are very distinctly represented respectively by the four leading apostles, James, Peter, Paul, and John. In point of fact, the four Gospels in their existing canonical order, exactly follow the order of these gradations. Matthew writes with constant reference to the Scriptures, and presents the Messiah of the Jews. Mark writes, according to a well-known and credited tradition, under the influence of Peter, and is absorbed with the actual appearance of the Lord as the Christ of God, according to the Jewish conceptions, but less concerned with its conformity to the Scriptures, than with its present intrinsic interest and joyfulness and its promise of blessing. Luke, under the influence of Paul, presents a general historical conception of Christ, and so brings in that side of his history, which was turned towards the world, instead of confining himself to that, which looked towards Judaism. John forgets all these distinctions

in a profound spiritual view of the Lord, which lies underneath them all. May we not say, that each Gospel's treatment of the genealogical element of the biography of Jesus forms the stamp of its peculiarity in this point of view? It is certainly characteristic, that Matthew gives the lineage of Christ from Abraham; Mark neglects it entirely; Luke gives it from Adam, and John traces it from eternity

into time.

Whatever may be the thought of this particular theory, something of the kind is needed to answer the question, which Dr. Alexander himself opens, and even to support the part of the answer, which he himself gives. And we may fairly presume, that something of the kind must be true. On the principle here involved the true explanation of the quadruplicity of the Gospel is to be framed. For this theory at once furnishes the conditions of totality in the quadruplicity-showing why the "four aspects" present the complete view of Christ in his advent-and gives the human agency its due share in the arrangement and organism of the four Gospels, as in the original production of each. The true idea of inspiration in general, and of divine supervision in the organization of the inspired books as a whole, must involve that of an organic union and coöporation of the divine Spirit with the human nature. The person of Christ, where the organic union of the two na tures is exemplified in perfection, is the key to the true theory of inspiration, as it is to the whole relation of God to the world.

This view allows a certain truth even to the idea, which naturally comes first to the reader, that the fourfold form of the Gospel is accidental: in other words, that there was no conscious design on the part of the several authors to produce mutually complemental books. We need not even suppoзe-what, however, is quite supposable,- that St. John was moved to contribute his peculiar exhibition of Christ by a survey of what had already been written and a sense of the remaining want. So far as the subjective purposes of the authors are concerned, the several Gospels