It remains, then, to enquire which of these two Gospels had the priority—­Marcion’s or Luke’s; which is to stand first, both in order of time and of authenticity.  This, too, is a point that there are ample data for determining.

(1.) And, first, let us consider what presumption is raised by any other part of Marcion’s procedure.  Is it likely that he would have cut down a document previously existing? or, have we reason for thinking that he would be scrupulous in keeping such a document intact?

The author of ‘Supernatural Religion’ himself makes use of this very argument; but I cannot help suspecting that his application of it has slipped in through an oversight or misapprehension.  When first I came across the argument as employed by him, I was struck by it at once as important if only it was sound.  But, upon examination, not only does it vanish into thin air as an argument in support of the thesis he is maintaining, but there remains in its place a positive argument that tells directly and strongly against that thesis.  A passage is quoted from Canon Westcott, in which it is stated that while Tertullian and Epiphanius accuse Marcion of altering the text of the books which he received, so far as his treatment of the Epistles is concerned this is not borne out by the facts, out of seven readings noticed by Epiphanius two only being unsupported by other authority.  It is argued from this that Marcion ’equally preserved without alteration the text which he found in his manuscript of the Gospel.’  ’We have no reason to believe the accusation of the Fathers in regard to the Gospel—­which we cannot fully test—­ better founded than that in regard to the Epistles, which we can test, and find unfounded’ [Endnote 217:1].  No doubt the premisses of this argument are true, and so also is the conclusion, strictly as it stands.  It is true that the Fathers accuse Marcion of tampering with the text in various places, both in the Epistles and in the Gospels where the allegation can be tested, and where it is found that the supposed perversion is simply a difference of reading, proved to be such by its presence in other authorities [Endnote 217:2].  But what is this to the point?  It is not contended that Marcion altered to any considerable extent (though he did slightly even in the Epistles [Endnote 217:3]) the text which he retained, but that he mutilated and cut out whole passages from that text.  He can be proved to have done this in regard to the Epistles, and therefore it is fair to infer that he dealt in the same way with the Gospel.  This is the amended form in which the argument ought to stand.  It is certain that Marcion made a large excision before Rom. xi. 33, and another after Rom. viii. 11; he also cut out the ‘mentiones Abrahae’ from Gal. iii. 7, 14, 16-18 [Endnote 218:1].  I say nothing about his excision of the last two chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, because on that point a controversy might be raised.  But the genuineness of these other passages is undisputed and indisputable.  It cannot be argued here that our text of the Epistle has suffered from later interpolation, and therefore, I repeat, it is so much the more probable that Marcion took from the text of the Gospel than that a later editor added to it.