prevented us from looking right into the heart of those simple acts which are the germs of all that comes after, though they are thus apt to be lost sight of just because of their simplicity and universality.

To sum up the import of this paper in a sentence or two: It seems to me that a thorough analysis of the very simplest fact of experience-one single act of touch-leads right up to Philosophical Pantheism, which, again, is the reconciling bond between philosophy and poetry, and the missing link between religion and both. The poetic sensibilities of the race are scientifically explicable only on the hypothesis of a Universal Life-a conception through which, and through which alone, Philosophy can rise into Religion. And what, one is constrained to ask, is the ultimate worth of Philosophy or anything else, if it cannot rise into this highest of all the circles of thought?

ALEXANDER MAIN.

"SUPERNATURAL RELIGION."

IX. TATIAN'S DIATESSARON.

A

LL that is known of the life of Tatian can be soon told. He was an Assyrian by birth, as he himself distinctly states. If other writers call him a Syrian, the discrepancy may be explained by the common confusion between the two nationalities; or possibly it should be accounted for by his place of residence during the later years of his life. As a heathen he exercised the profession of a sophist, and in this capacity travelled far and wide. His mind was first turned towards Christianity by reading the Scriptures, which impressed him greatly. As a Christian he became the hearer-in some sense the disciple-of Justin Martyr, doubtless at Rome; and when Crescens, the cynic, succeeded in bringing about his master's death, Tatian's life also was imperilled by the plots of this machinator. While he remained in the metropolis he had among his disciples Rhodon, who in later years undertook to refute one of his heretical works. Subsequently he left Rome, and seems to have spent the remainder of his life in the East, more especially in Syria and the neighbouring countries.

After the death of Justin Martyr-how soon after we do not know his opinions underwent a change. Hitherto he had been regarded as strictly orthodox; but now he separated himself from the Church, and espoused views closely allied to those of the Encratites. A leading tenet of his new ascetic creed was the rejection of marriage as an abomination. But he is stated also to have adopted opinions from Gnostic teachers, more especially the doctrine of Æons, which he derived from the Valentinian school." The author of "Supernatural Religion" further says that, "although Tatian may have been acquainted with some of his (St. Paul's) Epistles, it is certain that he did not hold the Apostle in any

The principal ancient authorities for the life of Tatian are the following:-Tatian, Orat. ad Græc. 19, 29, 35, 42; Irenæus i. 28. 1; Rhodon, in Euseb. H. E. v. 13; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. iii. 12, p. 547; Exc. Theod. 38, p. 999; Eusebius, H. E. iv. 16, 28, 29; Epiphanius, Hær. xlvi.; Theodoret, Ber. Fab. i. 20. The statements in the text are justified by one or other of these

honour, and permitted himself the liberty of altering his phraseology." Where did he learn this "certain" piece of information that Tatian thought lightly of St. Paul? Assuredly not from any ancient writer. It is quite true that Tatian is stated to have mutilated some of St. Paul's Epistles and rejected others. But so did Marcion, who held the Apostle in extravagant honour. And the motive was the same in both cases. The Apostle's actual language did not square with their favourite tenets in all respects, and therefore they assumed that his text must have been corrupted or interpolated. So far from its being at all doubtful, as our author seems to suggest, whether Tatian was acquainted with any of St. Paul's Epistles, we have positive evidence that he did receive some; † and moreover one or two coincidences in his extant work point to an acquaintance with the Apostle's writings. His leanings, like those of Marcion and Valentinus, were generally in the opposite direction to Judaism. His tendency would be not to underrate but to overrate St. Paul. At the same time such passages as 1 Tim. iv. 3, where the prohibition of marriage is denounced as a heresy, were a stumbling-block. They must therefore be excised as interpolations, or the Epistles containing them must be rejected as spurious.

The date of Tatian is a matter of some uncertainty. He was a hearer, as we have seen, of Justin Martyr in Rome; and if the chronology of this father had been established beyond the reach of doubt, we should be treading on firm ground. On this point however there has been much variety of opinion. The prevailing view is, or was, in favour of placing Justin's death as late as A.D. 163—165, on the authority of Eusebius; but the most careful investigations of recent criticism have tended towards a much earlier date. The literary activity of Tatian seems to have begun about the time of Justin Martyr's death; and after this we have to allow for his own career, first as an orthodox Christian, and then as a heretic. When Irenæus wrote his first book, Tatian was no longer living, as may be inferred from the language of this father: § and this book must have been written before A.D. 190, and may have been written as early as A.D. 178.|| Again, if we may assume that the " Assyrian," whom the Alexandrian Clement mentions among his teachers, was Tatian, as seems highly probable, we have another indication of date. The first book of the "Stromateis," in which this fact is recorded, was itself written about A.D. 194 * All the references to "Supernatural Religion" in this article will be found in ii. pp. 148 seq., 374 seq.

te. g. Clement of Alexandria (l. c. p. 547) gives Tatian's comment on 1 Cor. vii. 5; and Jerome writes (Præf. ad Tit. vii. p. 686), "Tatianus, Encratitarum patriarches, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli epistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, hoc est, ad Titum, apostoli pronuntiandam credidit."

Hort (Journal of Philology, iii. p. 155 seq., "On the date of Justin Martyr") places it as early as A.d. 148. § Iren. i. 28. 1. See CONTEMPORARY REVIEW, August, 1876, p. 411 seq. Strom. i. 1 (p. 322).

or 195; and Clement there speaks of the Assyrian as one of his earlier masters, whom he had met with in the East, before he settled down under the tuition of Pantænus at Alexandria. In like manner Tatian's connection with Rhodon would point roughly to the same conclusion. On the whole, we shall perhaps not be far wrong if we place the literary activity of Tatian at about A.D. 155-170. It may have begun some few years earlier, or it may have extended some few years later.

Tatian was a voluminous writer; but of several writings mentioned by the ancients only one has come down to us, his "Apology" or "Address to the Greeks." It was written after the death of Justin, but apparently not very long after. At all events, it would seem to have been composed before he had separated from the Church and set himself up as a heretical teacher. Its date therefore is dependent on the uncertain chronology of Justin. The author of "Supernatural Religion" speaks of it as "generally dated between A.D. 170-175," and seems himself to acquiesce in this view. Though I think this date probably several years too late, the point is not worth contending for.

As a rule, the early Apologies abstain from quotations, whether from the Old Testament or from the New. The writers are dealing with Gentiles, who have no acquaintance with and attribute no authority to their sacred books, and therefore they make little or no use of them. Thus the Apologeticus of Tertullian does not contain a single passage from the New Testament, though his writings addressed to Christians teem with quotations from our Canonical books. Hence it is not in this extant work that we should expect to obtain information as to Tatian's Canon of the Scriptures. Any allusion to them will be purely incidental. As regards our Synoptical Gospels, the indications in Tatian's Apology are not such that we can lay much stress on them. But the evidence that he knew and accepted the Fourth Gospel is beyond the reach of any reasonable doubt.

The passages are here placed side by side:

In the last passage from St. John I have stopped at the words. ovde ev, because the earliest Christian writers universally punctuated in this way, taking o yéyovev K. T. λ. with the following sentence, "That which hath been made was life in Him."

Besides these passages there are other coincidences of exposition, with which however I need not trouble the reader, as they may fairly be disputed.

It is difficult to see how any one can resist coincidences like these; and yet the author of "Supernatural Religion" does resist them.

The first passage our author has apparently overlooked, for he says nothing about it. If it had stood alone I should certainly not have regarded it as decisive. But the epigrammatic form is remarkable, and it is a characteristic passage of the Fourth Gospel.

Of the second passage it should be noticed that Tatian introduces it with the expression (rò eipnμévov) which is used in the New Testament in quoting the Scriptures (Luke ii. 24, Acts ii. 16, xiii. 40, Rom. iv. 18); that in the context he explains "the Word" (Logos) to be "the light of God," and "the darkness" to be "the unintelligent soul;" that this use of Karaλaußáve is very peculiar, and has caused perplexity to interpreters of St. John, being translated variously "comprehended" or "surprised" or "overcame;" that the passage in the Fourth Gospel here again is highly characteristic, and occurs in its most characteristic part; and lastly, that the changes made by Tatian are just such as a writer would make when desiring to divest the saying of its context and present it in the briefest form. On the other hand, the author of "Supernatural Religion" has nothing to allege against this coincidence; he can produce nothing like it elsewhere; but he falls back on "the constant use of the same similitude of light and darkness," and other arguments of the kind, which are valueless, because they do not touch the point of the resemblance.

On the third passage he remarks that, unlike the author of the Fourth Gospel, "Tatian here speaks of God, and not of the Logos." Just so; but then he varies the preposition accordingly, substituting ò for the Evangelist's dià to suit his adaptation. Our author also refers to "the first chapters of Genesis;" but where is there any language in the first chapters of Genesis which presents anything like the same degree of parallelism? Here again, he is unable to impugn the coincidence, which is all the more remarkable because the words are extremely simple in themselves, and it is their order and adaptation which gives a character of uniqueness to the expression.

So much for the individual coincidences. But neither here nor elsewhere does our author betray any consciousness of the value