words, "In the beginning was the Word"! The most instructive part is
still to come, however, for although in May 1887 Dr. Lightfoot says:
"There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the authorship,"
&c., in a note now inserted at the end of the essay, after referring to
the newly-discovered works, he adds: "On the relation of Victor's
_Diatessaron, which seems to be shown after all not to be independent of
Tatian_ ... See Hemphill's _Diatessaron_." [153:2] On turning to
Professor Hemphill's work, the following passage on the point is
discovered:--

"It will be remembered that Victor, Bishop of Capua, in the year
543, found a Latin Harmony or compilation of the four Gospels
without any name or title, and being a man of enquiring mind he at
once set about the task of discovering its unknown author. I have
already mentioned the way in which, from the passage of Eusebius, he
was led to ascribe his discovery to Tatian. This conclusion was
generally traversed by Church writers, and Victor was supposed to
have made a mistake. He is now, however, proved to have been a
better judge than his critics, for, as Dr. Wace was the first to
point out, a comparison of this Latin Harmony with the Ephraem
fragments demonstrates their substantial identity, as they preserve
to a wonderful degree the same order, and generally proceed _pari
passu_." [153:3]

But how about Luke i. 1 as the beginning? and the genealogies? Nothing
could more clearly show the uncertainty which must always prevail about
such works. Shall we one day discover that Victor was equally right
about the reading _Diapente_?

I have thought it worth while to go into all this with a view of showing