Then, wherever the patristic statements give us the opportunity of comparing Marcion's text with the Synoptic--and this they do very largely indeed--the two are found to coincide with no greater variation than would be found between any two not directly related manuscripts of the same text.

It would be easy to multiply these points, and to carry them to any degree of detail; if more precise and particular evidence is needed it shall be forthcoming, but in the meantime I think it may be asserted with confidence that two alternatives only are possible.

Either Marcion's Gospel is an abridgment of our present St.Luke, or else our present St.Luke is an expansion by interpolation of Marcion's Gospel, or of a document co-extensive with it.

No third hypothesis is tenable.
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.