In the first place, the greater part of the works brought forward as witnesses are themselves challenged, and their own dates are unknown; their now accepted writings are only the residuum of a mass of forgeries, and Dr. Giles justly says:  “The process of elimination, which gradually reduced the so-called writings of the first century from two folio volumes to fifty slender pages, would, in the case of any other profane works, have prepared the inquirer for casting from him, with disgust, the small remnant, even if not fully convicted of spuriousness; for there is no other case in record of so wide a disproportion between what is genuine and what is spurious” ("Christian Records,” p. 67).  Their testimony is absolutely worthless until they are themselves substantiated; and from the account given of them above (pp 214-221, and 232-235), the student is in a position to judge of the value of evidence depending on the Apostolic Fathers.  Professor Norton remarks:  “When we endeavour to strengthen this evidence by appealing to the writings ascribed to Apostolical Fathers, we, in fact, weaken its force.  At the very extremity of the chain of evidence, where it ought to be strongest, we are attaching defective links, which will bear no weight” ("Genuineness of the Gospels,” vol. i., p. 357).  Again, supposing that we admit these witnesses, their repetition of sayings of Christ, or references to his life, do not—­in the absence of quotations specified by them as taken from Gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—­prove that, because similar sayings or actions are recorded in the present canonical Gospels, therefore, these latter existed in their days, and were in their hands.  Lardner says on this point:  “Here is, however, one difficulty, and ’tis a difficulty which may frequently occur, whilst we are considering these very early writers, who were conversant with the Apostles, and others who had seen or heard our Lord; and were, in a manner, as well acquainted with our Saviour’s doctrine and history as the Evangelists themselves, unless their quotations or allusions are very express and clear.  The question, then, here is, whether Clement in these places refers to words of Christ, written and recorded, or whether he reminds the Corinthians of words of Christ, which he and they might have heard from the Apostles, or other eye-and-ear-witnesses of our Lord.  Le Clerc, in his dissertation on the four Gospels, is of opinion that Clement refers to written words of our Lord, which were in the hands of the Corinthians, and well known to them.  On the other hand, I find, Bishop Pearson thought, that Clement speaks of words which he had heard from the Apostles themselves, or their disciples.  I certainly make no question but the three first Gospels were writ before this time.  And I am well satisfied that Clement might refer to our written Gospels, though he does not exactly agree with them in expression.  But whether he does refer to them is not easy to determine