be, that the chief importance
of Tatian consists. Ancient writers speak of him as the author of a
Harmony or Digest of the four Gospels, to which accordingly he gave the
name of _Diatessaron_. This statement however has been called in
question by some recent critics, among whom the author of _Supernatural
Religion_ is, as usual, the most uncompromising. It is necessary
therefore to examine the witnesses:--

1. In the first place then, Eusebius states definitely [277:1]--'Tatian
composed a sort of connection and compilation, I know not how, of the
Gospels, and called it the _Diatessaron_ ([Greek: sunapheian tina kai
sunagogen ouk oid' hopos ton euangelion suntheis to dia tessaron touto
prosonomasen]). This work is current in some quarters (with some
persons) even to the present day.'

This statement is explicit; yet our author endeavours to set it aside on
the ground that 'not only is it based upon mere hearsay, but it is
altogether indefinite as to the character of the contents, and the
writer admits his own ignorance ([Greek: ouk oid' hopos]) regarding
them' [278:1].

His inference however from the expression 'I know not how' is altogether
unwarranted. So far from implying that Eusebius had no personal
knowledge of the work, it is constantly used by writers in speaking of
books where they are perfectly acquainted with the contents, but do not
understand the principles or do not approve the method. In idiomatic
English it signifies 'I cannot think what he was about,' and is
equivalent to 'unaccountably,' 'absurdly,' so that, if anything, it
implies knowledge rather than ignorance of the contents. I have noticed
at least twenty-six examples of its use in the treatise of Origen
against Celsus alone [278:2], where it commonly refers to Celsus' work
which he had before him, and very often to passages which he himself
quotes in the context. It is not ignorance of the contents, but
disparagement of the plan of Tatian's work, which the expression of
Eusebius implies. The _Diatessaron_ was commonly current, as we shall
see presently, in the neighbouring districts: and it would be somewhat
strange if Eusebius, who took a special interest in apocryphal
literature, should have remained unacquainted with it.

2. Our next witness is overlooked by the author of _Supernatural
Religion_. Yet the testimony is not unimportant. In the _Doctrine of
Addai_, an apocryphal Syriac work, which professes to give an account of
the foundation