concerning a man who, very probably, knew these things before they were committed to writing; and, even after they were so, might continue to speak of them, in the same manner he had been wont to do, as things he was well informed of, without appealing to the Scriptures themselves” ("Credibility,” pt.  II., vol. i., pp. 68-70).  Canon Westcott, after arguing that the Apostolic Fathers are much influenced by the Pauline Epistles, goes on to remark:  “Nothing has been said hitherto of the coincidences between the Apostolic Fathers and the Canonical Gospels.  From the nature of the case, casual coincidences of language cannot be brought forward in the same manner to prove the use of a history as of a letter.  The same facts and words, especially if they be recent and striking, may be preserved in several narratives.  References in the sub-apostolic age to the discourses or actions of our Lord, as we find them recorded in the Gospels, show, as far as they go, that what the Gospels relate was then held to be true; but it does not necessarily follow that they were already in use, and were the actual source of the passages in question.  On the contrary, the mode in which Clement refers to our Lord’s teaching—­’the Lord said,’ not ’saith’—­seems to imply that he was indebted to tradition, and not to any written accounts, for words most closely resembling those which are still found in our Gospels.  The main testimony of the Apostolic Fathers is, therefore, to the substance, and not to the authenticity, of the Gospels” ("On the Canon,” pp. 51, 52).  An examination of the Apostolic Fathers gives us little testimony as to “the substance of the Gospels;” but the whole passage is here given to show how much Canon Westcott, writing in defence of the Canon, finds himself obliged to give up of the position occupied by earlier apologists.  Dr. Giles agrees with the justice of these remarks of Lardner and Westcott.  He writes:  “The sayings of Christ were, no doubt, treasured up like household jewels by his disciples and followers.  Why, then, may we not refer the quotation of Christ’s words, occurring in the Apostolical Fathers, to an origin of this kind?  If we examine a few of those quotations, the supposition, just stated, will expand into reality....  The same may be said of every single sentence found in any of the Apostolical Fathers, which, on first sight, might be thought to be a decided quotation from one of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.  It is impossible to deny the truth of this observation; for we see it confirmed by the fact that the Apostolical Fathers do actually quote Moses, and other old Testament writers, by name—­’Moses hath said,’ ‘but Moses says,’ etc.—­in numerous passages.  But we nowhere meet with the words, ’Matthew hath said in his Gospel,’ ‘John hath said,’ etc.  They always quote, not the words of the Evangelists, but the words of Christ himself directly, which furnishes the strongest presumption that, though the sayings of Christ were