Page:Apocryphal Gospels and Other Documents Relating to the History of Christ.djvu/23

Rh books are expressly, and in so many words, rejected by those who have mentioned them, as the forgeries of heretics, and so, as spurious and apocryphal. "Moreover, be says that "When any such book is cited, and not expressly rejected, there are other evidences to prove the author did not receive it as canonical; for instance, Origen quotes once or twice a false gospel, which be elsewhere rejects as heretical, and, besides, declares that the Church receives four Gospels only." I will add another of his remarks:—"Sometimes the Fathers made use of the apocryphal books to show their learning, or, that the heretics might not charge them with partiality and ignorance, as being acquainted only with their own books."

I must not overlook Dr. Lardner, whose materials and conclusions are to be found in his great work on the Credibility of the Gospel History. Both he and Jones owed not a little to Fabricius, but their opinions are their own. Lardner maintains that the false Gospels are quoted by none of the apostolical Fathers, nor by many other early Christian writers; that several of the Fathers expressly condemn them; that there is no evidence of their reception by the Church; that those we know anything about were written later than our four Gospels, which they often