That these quotations and citations were forgeries is an idea that cannot be seriously entertained by anybody. There were originals from which the quotations were taken; and presumptively, those originals were the “Memoirs” so often referred to by Justin; and _presumptively_ our Gospels were those _Memoirs_, since they answer the description. And unless it can be shown that _other_ writings _that will answer the description_ were then extant, this presumption is well nigh conclusive. [1] Ap. cc. 5, 23, 32, 42, 50, 53, 63; Dial. cc. 48, 57, 68, 76, 85, 100, 101. [2] Ap. c. 60: Dial. cc. 7, 94, 140. [3] Abbot, p. 45; Fisher, p. 39; Sears, “The Heart of Christ” (A.D. 1873), pp. 46-67. [4] Abbot, pp. 40-50. CHAPTER VII. NO OTHERS PROVED. The latest work in this country which denies the genuineness of our Gospels, is “The History of the Christian religion to the year two hundred.” (Chicago, 1881.) The author says it is the result of an investigation extending through several years, two of which were spent in the library of congress, “which is peculiarly rich in the department of biblical literature.” He claims that his volume “will be found to be the most complete record of the events connected with the Christian religion during the first two centuries, which has ever been presented to the public.” He shows no lack of ability or disposition to make as strong a case as possible against our Gospels. And he understands the issue. For, he says, the question what Gospels were used by Justin, “is of the highest importance.” In this work, then, if anywhere, should there be proof of _other_ writings than our Gospels, that will meet the requirements of the case. But what do we find? It gives a list of “_forty Gospels_,” before the decree of Pope Gelasius, A.D. 494. The only marvel is that the list is not longer. The greater portion are the now extant Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations, which may be found in Vol. XVI., of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Much confusion, says[1] Dr. Ezra Abbot, has arisen from the fact that the term “Gospel” was in ancient times applied to speculative works which gave the writer’s view of the Gospel, _i. e._, of the doctrine of Christ, or among the Gnostics, which set forth their _gnosis_; _e. g._, among the followers of Basilides, Hippolytus tells us, “The Gospel is the knowledge of supermundane things.” Of all the Apocryphal Gospels, Samuel Ives Curtiss, the well-known German professor in the Chicago Theological Seminary, writes:[2]—