358 AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIANITY ix 



dialect. Finally, as to the second Gospel (" Nine- 

 teenth Century," p. 365) : 



He [Mark] is full of minute observations, proceeding, beyond 

 doubt, from an eye-witness. There is nothing to conflict with 

 the supposition that this eye-witness . . . was the Apostle 

 Peter himself, as Papias has it. 



Let us consider this citation by the light of 

 " Les ^vangiles " : 



This work, although composed after the death of Peter, was, 

 in a sense, the work of Peter ; it represents the way in which 

 Peter was accustomed to relate the life of Jesus (p. 116). 



M. Renan goes on to say that, as an historical 

 document, the Gospel of Mark has a great 

 superiority (p. 116) ; but Mark has a motive for 

 omitting the discourses, and he attaches a " puerile 

 importance" to miracles (p. 117). The Gospel of 

 Mark is less a legend, than a biography written 

 with credulity (p. 118). It would be rash to say 

 that Mark has not been interpolated and re- 

 touched (p. 120). 



If any one thinks that I have not been warranted 

 in drawing a sharp distinction between " scientific 

 theologians " and " counsels for creeds " ; or that 

 my warning against the too ready acceptance of 

 certain declarations as to the state of biblical 

 criticism was needless ; or that my anxiety as to 

 the sense of the word "practical" was super- 

 fluous; let him compare the statement that M. 

 Renan has made a "practical surrender of the 



