The Gospels are plainly the Genesis of the New Testament. They furnish the great facts of our Lord's life, death, resurrection, and ascension, upon which all Christianity is built. The coming of the Holy Ghost as a fact is not found; but it is promised, and its significance in large measure made known. The Church also, in one character of it, is prophetically announced.

The four gospels have each (with all other books of Scripture,) their characteristic differences, but the first three are more widely separated from the fourth than from each other; on which account they are often called the " synoptic" gospels, as giving a similar view of the history they narrate. There are thus two clear divisions, .the fourth gospel being not a fourth according to its spiritual meaning, but the full Christian gospel in contrast with the rest. .All, I need not say however, have their necessary place; each bringing out some perfection which otherwise would be lacking in the general picture. The divine numbers (3 and i) are stamped on the two divisions.

Four views of the Lord's person and work are found in the gospels, and in connection with each aspect presented, the presentation of perhaps all other truth has characteristic and important differences.

The order of the books is doubtless also providentially given, and is most probably that in which they were written. Matthew is the evident link with the Old Testament, which it cites continually, and with which its subject and character correspond; while John is as evidently that which opens out the deepest and fullest glories of the Lord's person, as well as the highest character of His work. Mark, again, comes nearest to Matthew, plainly; while Luke, with all his differences, opens the way to John.

If our view of the application of the Scripture-language of numerals be at all correct, we should expect Matthew to speak of divine sovereignty; Mark, of divine interference in grace for us; Luke, of our being brought to God. We shall not find these expectations disappoint us.

Matthew begins with the Lord's legal genealogy, which proves Him to be Son of David, heir to the throne in Israel. But He is also announced as Son of Abraham, through whom the blessing of all nations is to come, and here the introduction of four women's names, significantly all Gentiles, prove His title spiritually. But the throne of Israel is Jehovah's throne; the coming kingdom, heaven's kingdom:the blessing for Jew or Gentile requires salvation to be wrought for both; and so immediately we are assured that He who is come is Immanuel-" God with us," and Jesus, because He should save His people from their sins.

In this threefold character, then, Matthew presents Him, the last not developed as in John, but underlying the others. His first title is what is first insisted on. He is come to His own. When they do not receive Him, the kingdom passes in the meantime to the Gentiles, His Son-of-Abraham title is made good; always, however, with a prophecy of blessing and fulfillment of promise to Israel in the time to come. The first two chapters in this way give us the character of the book. Israel's King is hailed by Gentiles while rejected by His own. Jerusalem is alarmed, the Magi worship, the Lord takes in Egypt the place of rejection, yet there begins again for God the nation's history, the secret of that remarkable quotation of Hosea, " Out of Egypt have I called My Son." It is on this representation by Another all their blessing depends.

The King and kingdom are thus the characteristic thoughts in Matthew, its link, plainly, with the Old Testament. Two and thirty times its distinctive-phrase is found-"the kingdom of heaven." God is on the throne; and though made known as Father, nearness of intimacy there is not with Him. The work of salvation is intimated, but as to be accomplished.. There is no present joy of it as yet. Discipleship, and its responsibility in walk and life, are emphasized; but the outflow of the heart of God does not awaken man's heart in response as yet it will. Over all these is a certain restraint and reserve. Forgiveness of sins is governmental, and may be revoked (18:34). The shadow of law has not yet given place. Only when we reach the cross we find the intimation of a blessing which the other gospels go on to develop. The aspect of the cross in Matthew we shall consider later.

Mark's gospel, which seems in some respects almost an abridgment of Matthew, is nevertheless, in the view of His person, in entire contrast. He is at the very outset declared to be the "Son of God," but this to give its character to the lowly service in which throughout He is found. The "kingdom of God" we have still, but now never "of Christ" or "of the Son of Man."Save as accusation on the cross, He is never even " King of the Jews."His title of "Lord" is very seldom taken. But He is the Son of God in service, with divine power and riches in His hand, serving in love; which requires nothing but power to entitle it to serve. There need be, and is, therefore, no genealogy. The earnestness of His service is marked by the frequency of the word " immediately." Half of all the occurrences throughout the New Testament of the Greek word which this translates are found in this gospel. The singleness of His service is seen in His knowing nothing of His Master's business save that which is given Him to communicate (13:32).The tenderness of it in all the smaller features of His ministry:how "He was moved with compassion;" how He was "grieved with the hardness of their hearts;" how He touched one, lifted up another; how " He marveled because of their unbelief."Here too, as in Luke, the ascension is given as the fitting close to His path of humiliation,-"the right hand of God;" even then His service being unceasing as His love, so that we read, "And they went forth and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following."

But in Mark, as in Matthew, there is not yet the nearness to God we shall find in the next gospel. The Father is mentioned as such but five times, and "your Father," only in one place (11:25, 26). Not the children's but the servant's place is here, although it is recognized that the servants are children. Governmental responsibilities and rewards are before us as in Matthew, but there, of disciples, each for himself subject; here, of laborers for the accomplishment of divine purposes:ministers, after the pattern of Him who, as " Son of Man, came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many." The shadow that lies upon both these gospels is revealed, as soon as we look at the cross, where in each the Lord's cry is found, " My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"The fourfold view of the cross which the Gospels present, it is now long since that I have endeavored to show to be that of the early chapters of Leviticus. There, omitting the meat-offering, which is not sacrificial, we have just four sacrificial offerings. Two of these, the burnt and peace-offerings, are "for sweet savor:"the peace-offering, that which speaks of peace and communion with God; the burnt-offering, of the perfection of the work itself to God. Luke and John,. I have no doubt at all, give us respectively the peace and the burnt-offerings:of this, by and by. But in the two other,-the sin and trespass-offerings,-the judgment of sin is the side dwelt upon, the necessary result of divine holiness, but not that which is sweet savor to Him. In the trespass-offering, sin as injury rather,- whether as regards God or man; in the sin-offering, sin as sin. The one has to be repaired; the other, expiated.

Which, then, does Matthew present? and which, Mark? I have been accustomed to take Matthew as the sin-, Mark as the trespass-offering; latterly, with some doubt, indeed, but still not such as to make me alter the judgment which had been long formed. I am now convinced that this is wrong, however, and that it should be reversed. Matthew, I am now clear, represents the trespass and Mark the sin-offering.

The difficulty lies mainly in this, that in the type, the sin-offering alone is that which shows us the full judgment of sin in the outside place in which the victim is burnt upon the ground. But both gospels show our blessed Lord in this outside place:the cry of forsaken sorrow is as much in one as in the other. There is perhaps no such thing in Scripture as a mere repetition of the same thought; and this, while a perfection of the Word itself, is a difficulty in the interpretation of it. What has pressed upon me of late is this, that the trespass-offering (as I have elsewhere said,) is a question of divine government; the sin-offering, of the divine nature. Now Matthew we know to be the gospel which speaks of government. We see too in this why the trespass-offering can put on the aspect of the sin-offering; because the claim of divine government requires the display of the holiness of the divine nature.

In Matthew we find the double answer of God to the work of Christ. Having gone for us into the outside darkness, it is dispelled:the vail of the temple is rent in twain from the top to the bottom. The glory of God can shine out:the way in to God is opened for man.

But the Lord gives up His spirit also:the double portion of man is death and judgment. Judgment He takes first, and, having exhausted this, dies:the answer to this is seen in the resurrection of many of those who slept, who after His own resurrection go into the holy city and appear unto many. Now death is the stamp of divine government upon the fallen creature, as the cup of wrath is the necessary outflow of His holiness against sin. Matthew and Mark both give the rending of the vail, but Matthew alone the resurrection of the saints. This shows again that Matthew gives the governmental view of the cross, the trespass-offering.

There is another indication in the fact that in Mark the grace which is the result of the cross is not only fuller–"the gospel to every creature" preached with the signs of the enemy's work overcome, and the effects of man's judgment at Babel overruled,–but also it is grace unmixed. Compare in this way Psalm 22:with Psalm 69:So in – Mark there is no prophetic Aceldama, no " His blood be upon us and on our children," no judgment even of the traitor. " Who is to be judged," as another has well asked, " for God's laying our sin on His beloved Son?" In the governmental gospel these things have their right and necessary place, and their omission would be as much a defect in Matthew as it is a perfection in Mark.

Again, even the threefold witness to the Lord in the traitor who betrayed Him, the judge who gave Him up, and of Heaven in the dream of Pilate's wife seems to me now more in accord with the governmental trespass-offering than with the sin. Mark entirely omits them, and by what it omits as well as what it brings forward thus concentrates our attention on the one point of that forsaking of God which is the essential feature of the sin-offering.
In Luke we find the manhood of the Lord emphasized, as His deity is in John. Thus His genealogy is traced from Adam, not merely from Abraham. Not only His birth is dwelt on, but His childhood also; and how He grows in wisdom and in stature. His prayers are noticed where in the other gospels they are omitted, as at His baptism and at His transfiguration. So, His being " full of the Holy Ghost." Seldom is He the Son of David here; and Mary has the prominence in the early history which in Matthew belongs to Joseph.

Taking thus a place among men as Man, it is no wonder that angels tell, not simply of God's "good will toward," but rather of His "good pleasure in men," for so it should be read. And accordingly the peace-offering aspect of the work of Christ is what Luke's gospel gives. God and man meet together and are at one, as in that characteristic fifteenth -chapter, in which all the mind of Heaven displays itself in joy in the recovery of what was lost,-"joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth,"-joy which reflects itself in the heart of that repentant sinner, and fills the mouth of the dumb with song.

Thus Luke opens with a burst of melody. Elizabeth, Mary, Zacharias, the angels, the shepherds, Simeon, Anna, are all praising; and the burden of their song is what the former gospels had nothing of-a present Saviour and a realized salvation. So in the synagogue at Nazareth, the opening of the Lord's ministry is the declaration of present grace to heal and save,-the acceptable year of the Lord proclaimed as come. Again, in the seventh chapter, the forgiveness of a sinner of the city; in the tenth, the parable of the Samaritan; in the eighteenth, of the Pharisee and publican; in the nineteenth, the story of Zacchaeus,-all speak the same language. But the cross, as we might expect, has preeminently this peace-offering character. There is no cry of one forsaken any more. It is not even "My God," but "Father." The shadow may be over the land, but no more on the soul of Him who in peace is interceding for His murderers, and opening paradise to a poor sinner at His side.

Thus peace, grace, remission, salvation, are all (as compared with the former gospels,) characteristic of the present one. The blessing is there for man, made over to him, filling his heart with joy and praise. Compare, in Matthew, "Blessed are the poor in spirit," with Luke's " Blessed are ye poor;" or the words at the institution of the supper in Matthew and Mark, " This is My blood, shed for many" with those in Luke, " This is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you."

And now John's gospel comes to complete the picture, and fill the whole scene with the glory of the Only Begotten, God manifest in the flesh. Man is seen to be dead utterly. The Light come into the world fully manifests its condition. Hence the law given by Moses, useless here, is only contrasted with the grace and truth come by Jesus Christ. Judaism, whose principle was law, is over also-its privileges and its responsibilities. The very language of a Jew is treated as a foreign tongue, and translated into Gentile language, the common speech of men. For we start in this gospel with the fact of that rejection of Christ which the former ones had proved. The world, made by Him, was ignorant of its Maker. This, Luke has shown. His own, to whom He had come, received Him not:this is Matthew. All this made it a scene in which God indeed could work, but He alone. Thus the fact and meaning of new birth are what we find in John, and alone of all the gospels:here it meets us at the threshold. Men must Be born of God. The Life must not only shine in the world, but quicken souls, that they may see and rejoice in it. So quickened, there ensues another thing:children of God as born of Him, they are given the place of children, and the Spirit of His Son takes His place within them. Hence the apprehension of the revelation made to them by One declaring Him whom none as yet had seen, but who now declares Him as in His bosom, the Only Begotten of the Father.

Hence Christ is here the Word, God and with God, Eternal Life, and who, if made flesh, becomes in the world the Light of it. He is Quickener of the dead, Baptizer with the Holy Ghost, the true Witness, that we may have fellowship with Him.

Then, as to the aspect of His work, it is the Burnt-Offering, the type of the perfections for the heart of God of that in which we are accepted. His own witness is given that the work He came to do is finished. The blood and water show the result for man, and the Spirit also testifies, because the Spirit is truth.

In John there is no transfiguration, and no vail rent at the cross. The reason is apparent-that the glory has been shining out all through, and not exceptionally:not glory conferred on Him as Son of Man, but the glory of full Godhead.