be wrought by the Lord? the Lord declared, They who shall come to these (times) shall see’” ("Irenaeus Against Heresies,” bk. v., ch. 33, sec. 4).  The recollections of Papias scarcely seem valuable as to quality.  Next we note that Papias could scarcely put a very high value on the Apostolic writings, since he states that “I do not think that I derived so much benefit from books as from the living voice of those that are still surviving” ("Eccles.  Hist,” bk. iii., ch. 39), i.e., of those who had been followers of the Apostles.  How this remark of Papias tallies with the supposed respect shown to the Canonical Gospels by primitive writers, it is for Christian apologists to explain.  We then mark that we have no writing of Papias to refer to that pretends to be original.  We have only passages, said to be taken from his writings, preserved in the works of Irenaeus and Eusebius, and neither of these ecclesiastical penmen inspire the student with full confidence; even Eusebius mentions him in doubtful fashion; “there are said to be five books of Papias;” he gives “certain strange parables of our Lord and of his doctrine, and some other matters rather too fabulous;” “he was very limited in his comprehension, as is evident from his discourses” ("Eccles.  Hist.,” bk. iii., ch. 39).  We thus see that the evidence of Papias is discredited at the very outset, perhaps to the advantage of the Christians, however, for his testimony is fatal to the Canonical Gospels.  Papias is said to have written:  “And John the Presbyter also said this:  Mark being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, but not, however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, but as before said, he was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of our Lord’s discourses; wherefore Mark has not erred in anything, by writing some things as he has recorded them; for he was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by anything that he heard, or to state anything falsely in these accounts” ("Eccles.  Hist.,” bk iii., ch. 39).  How far does this account apply to the Gospel now known as “according to St. Mark?” Far from showing traces of Petrine influence, such traces are conspicuous by their absence.  “Not only are some of the most important episodes in which Peter is represented by the other Gospels as a principal actor altogether omitted, but throughout the Gospel there is the total absence of anything which is specially characteristic of Petrine influence and teaching.  The argument that these omissions are due to the modesty of Peter is quite untenable, for not only does Irenaeus, the most ancient authority on the point, state that this Gospel was only written after the death of Peter, but also there is no modesty in omitting passages of importance in the history of Jesus, simply because Peter himself was in some way concerned in them, or, for instance, in decreasing his penitence for such a denial of his