2 Dr. Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev., 1876-77, p. 1137) refers to an apocryphal work, "The Doctrine of Addai," recently edited and published by Dr. Phillips, in which it is stated that a large multitude assembled daily at Edessa for prayer and the reading of the Old Testament, "and the new of the Diatessaron." Dr. Lightfoot assumes that this is Tatian's Gospel. Even if it were so, however, we cannot discover in this any addition to our information regarding the composition of the work. We have already the fuller statement of Theodoret respecting the use of Tatian's work in the churches of his diocese, so that beyond an interesting reference, no fresh light is thrown upon the question by the phrase quoted. But we cannot see any ground for asserting that the Diatessaron here spoken of was Tatian's Gospel. On the contrary, it seems perfectly clear that the writer speaks only of the four Gospels of the New Testament. {157} consciousness of its supposed heterodoxy, is quite consistent with the fact that it was the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which at one time was in very general use, but later gradually became an object of suspicion and jealousy in the Church as our canonical Gospels took its place. The manner in which Theodoret dealt with Tatian's Gospel, or that "according to the Hebrews," recalls the treatment by Serapion of another form of the same work: the Gospel according to Peter. He found that work in circulation and greatly valued amongst the Christians of Rhossus, and allowed them peaceably to retain it for a time, until, alarmed at the Docetic heresy, he more closely examined the Gospel, and discovered in it what he considered heretical matter.(1) The Gospel according to the Hebrews, which narrowly missed a permanent place in the Canon of the Church, might well seem orthodox to the simple Christians of Cyrus, yet as different from, though closely related to, the Canonical Gospels, it would seem heretical to their Bishop. As different from the Gospels of the four evangelists, it was doubtless suppressed by Theodoret with perfect indifference as to whether it were called Tatian's Gospel or the Gospel according to the Hebrews. It is obvious that there is no evidence of any value connecting Tatian's Gospel with those in our Canon. We know so little about the work in question, indeed, that as Dr. Donaldson frankly admits, "we should not be able to identify it, even if it did come down to us, unless it told us something reliable about itself."(2) Its earlier history is enveloped in obscurity, and as Canon Westcott observes: "The later history of the Diatessaron is {158}