features which come from the _Logia_ of Matthew. Every one, besides, drew largely on the Gospel tradition then current. This tradition was so far from having been exhausted by the Gospels, that the Acts of the Apostles and the most ancient Fathers quote many words of Jesus which appear authentic, and are not found in the Gospels we possess. [Footnote 1: In Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, iii. 39. No doubt whatever can be raised as to the authenticity of this passage. Eusebius, in fact, far from exaggerating the authority of Papias, is embarrassed at his simple ingenuousness, at his gross millenarianism, and solves the difficulty by treating him as a man of little mind. Comp. Irenaeus, _Adv. Haer._, iii. 1.] [Footnote 2: That is to say, in the Semitic dialect.] It matters little for our present object to push this delicate analysis further, and to endeavor to reconstruct in some manner, on the one hand, the original _Logia_ of Matthew, and, on the other, the primitive narrative such as it left the pen of Mark. The _Logia_ are doubtless represented by the great discourses of Jesus which fill a considerable part of the first Gospel. These discourses form, in fact, when detached from the rest, a sufficiently complete whole. As to the narratives of the first and second Gospels, they seem to have for basis a common document, of which the text reappears sometimes in the one and sometimes in the other, and of which the second Gospel, such as we read it to-day, is but a slightly modified reproduction. In other words, the scheme of the _Life of Jesus_, in the synoptics, rests upon two original documents--first, the discourses of Jesus collected by Matthew; second, the collection of anecdotes and personal reminiscences which Mark wrote from the recollections of Peter. We may say that we have these two documents still, mixed with accounts from another source, in the two first Gospels, which bear, not without reason, the name of the "Gospel _according_ to Matthew" and of the "Gospel _according_ to Mark."