of modern critical views, the Logia of the Apostle Matthew has dis- appeared; how did it come about that the second Gospel did not disappear also, especially in view of its defects, as they would be re- garded, comparing it with the longer narratives of the same type? Whether the authors of the first and third Gospels aimed at super- seding the Logia and Mark is a question that need not be discussed. From Luke’s preface it might plausibly be inferred that he did aspire at giving so full and satisfactory an account of the life of Jesus as should render earlier attempts superfluous. If he did, he was not successful. The Gospel without the story of the infancy, and the Sermon on the Mount, and the detailed appearances after the resurrection, survived. It might be undervalued. There is evidence of preference and partiality for one Gospel as against another in Patristic literature. Clement of Alexandria, true to his philosophy, undervalued all the synoptists as compared with the fourth Gospel, because they showed merely the body of Jesus, while the fourth Gospel showed His spivit. Augustine regarded Mark as a mere pedissequus to Matthew, en laquais, as D’Eichthal irreverently but not incorrectly renders the word.! Still Mark held his place, mere lackey to Matthew though some supposed him to be. The reason might be in part that he had got too strong a hold before the com- panion Gospels appeared, to be easily dislodged, and had to be accepted in spite of defects and apparent superfluousness. But I think there was also a worthier reason, a certain diffused thankful- ness for every scrap of information concerning the Lord Jesus, especially such as was believed to rest on apostolic testimony. Mark’s Gospel passed for a report of St. Peter’s reminiscences of the Master; therefore by all means let it be preserved, though it contained no account of the childhood of Jesus, and very imperfect reports of His teaching and of the resurrection. It was apostolic, therefore to be respected; as apostolic it was trustworthy, there- fore to be valued. In short, the presence of the second Gospel in the New Testament, side by side with Matthew and Luke, is a wit- ness to the prevalence in the Church of the first century of the historical spirit acting as a check on the religious spirit, whose in- stinctive impulse would be to obliterate traces of discrepancy, and to suppress all writings relating to the Christian origins which in their presentation of Jesus even seemed to sink below the level of the Catholic faith.
8. The foregoing five considerations all tend to make a favour-
1 Vide his work Les Evangiles, p. 66.