The next writer referred to for “Peter’s Gospel” is Origen, A.D. 230. Origen says: “There are some who say the brethren of Christ were the children of Joseph by a former wife, who lived with him before Mary; and they are induced to this opinion by some passages in that _which is entitled_ (the italics are ours) ‘The Gospel of Peter, or the Book of James.’” When it is considered that Origen, in most explicit terms, declares that our four Gospels “are the only undisputed ones in the whole Church of God throughout the world,” and that of these, “the second is according to Mark, who composed it as Peter explained it to him, whom he also acknowledges as his son in his General Epistle,” the perversion of his language is apparent. Mr. Norton, whose opinion, it is conceded, “is entitled to great weight,” upon a careful examination of the subject, believes that this “Gospel” was not a history or biography of Christ’s ministry at all, but only a _doctrinal_[12] treatise. _Not a single fragment of it has come down to us._ There is no evidence from any quarter that it was _generally_ received in the churches _at any_ period; on the contrary, the evidence, so far as it goes, proves that it was not so received. It was the Gospel exclusively used by the Ebionites,[13] and neither Justin nor the majority of Christians in his time were Ebionites. Its very suppression by Serapion is conclusive; and there is nothing to impeach Eusebius’ judgment against it. There is no evidence that it was even in existence when Justin wrote, for the mere fact of its being found by Serapion forty or fifty years after is too remote. _Hence_, if Justin, in the paragraph before quoted in chapter four, by “_him_” meant Peter, instead of Christ (which we do not accept),[14] the Gospel of Mark, which in a sense was understood to be Peter’s, was the one intended; and the true construction of the words in question is of minor importance.