LECTURE I.

INTRODUCTORY. PART I.

PRINCIPLES OF THE INVESTIGATION

Subject of Lectures defined—Question of Inspiration irrelevant here—amount of external evidence of authenticity commonly required in similar cases—authenticity of N. T. books not to be denied because of the miraculous nature of their contents—Criticism based on the rejection of the supernatural; Strauss, Renan, author of Supernatural Religion—Naturalistic explanation of Gospel Miracles: Paulus—Strauss's Theory.

LECTURE II.

INTRODUCTORY. PART II.

BAUR'S THEORY OF EARLY CHURCH HISTORY.

The Tübingen (or Tendency) School—its basis in the Clementine writings—St. Paul assailed in them under name of Simon Magus—Marcion—The Paul-Simon theory—Two kinds of Ebionites—Wholesale rejection of N. T. books necessary to Baur's theory—the search for anti-Paulinism in the Gospels—unsuccessful—Baur admits but five N. T. books as genuine—internecine character of strife in early Church as alleged by him—its speedy and complete reconciliation.

LECTURE III.

INTRODUCTORY. PART III.

THE ANTI-PAULINISM OF THE APOCALYPSE.

Alleged anti-Paulinism of the Epistles to the Seven Churches—improbability of this view—The calling of the Gentiles recognized in the Apocalypse—its alleged anti-Pauline language paralleled in Paul's own writings—Rapidity of supposed counter-revolution in favour of Paulinism.

LECTURE IV.

RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. PART I.

THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY; IRENÆUS, CLEMENT, AND TERTULLIAN.

Paul's teaching, as collected from his unquestioned Epistles, and from the Acts—assumes the fact of the Resurrection—includes miracle—Facts admitted by Strauss as to reception of Gospels—IRENÆUS,—links connecting him with Apostolic age—estimate of the Four Gospels in the Church of his age—his testimony retrospective—CLEMENT of Alexandria—various texts of the Gospels—inference from this fact—TERTULLIAN—Early Latin version of Scriptures—rendering of title Logos—Discussion of Zahn's theory that the Latin translation is later than Tertullian.

LECTURE V.

RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. PART II.

THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT; CAIUS AND HIPPOLYTUS

THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT—described—its date, how determined, Hernias—conjectures as to its author—its contents—whether St. Jerome was acquainted with it—CAIUS and HIP- POLYTUS—Caius—his estimate of the Gospels—Hippolytus—his Refutation of Heresies—his extracts from heretical writers—use made by these of N. T. books—especially of Fourth Gospel—by Valentinus—by Basilides—First mention of St. John as author of this Gospel—it tacitly claims him as such—but does not mention his name.

LECTURE VI.

RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. PART III.

THE MIDDLE OF THE SECOND CENTURY; JUSTIN MARTYR, TATIAN

JUSTIN MARTYR—his date—mentions and cites Memoirs of our Lord—his citations vary verbally from the existing Gospels—his substantial agreement with the Synoptic Gospels—his inaccuracy in quoting the Old Testament—improbability that he used a Gospel now lost—whether he used apocryphal Gospels—proofs that he knew the Fourth Gospel—Thoma's theory, Dr. Ezra Abbot—Justin derives from Fourth Gospel his Logos doctrine—not from Philo—hence also his baptismal language—Fourth Gospel used in the Clementines—Strauss's failure to shake these conclusions—Dr. Edwin Abbott's views untenable—Renan's inconsistency on this subject—TATIAN—his date and heresy—his knowledge of Fourth Gospel—his Diatessaron—recent recovery of Commentary on it by Ephraem Syrus—its ample attestation of the Fourth Gospel equally with the others—Other helps towards restoring the Diatessaron.

LECTURE VII.

RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE EARLY CHURCH. PART IV.

THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND CENTURY; PAPIAS, APOSTOLIC FATHERS

PAPIAS—his remains scanty and fragmentary—unfair inferences from the silence of Eusebius—Papias's Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord—his sources of information—his witness to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark—recent doubts of the identity of these with our first and second Gospels—Argument from the silence of Eusebius—Schleiermacher's theory of the original Matthew and Mark—Renan's theory of their formation—Meaning of the word Logia in Papias's account of Matthew—explanation of his apology for Mark's method—probability that Papias knew Luke's Gospel—true explanation of plan of Papias's work—whether he preferred his traditions to the written Gospels—probability that he knew John's Gospel—THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS—Clement of Rome—The early Fathers do not cite the Gospels by name, nor verbally—Barnabas.

LECTURE VIII.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. PART I.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THEIR ANTIQUITY

Inferences from the titles of the Gospels—use of the word in the singular and in the plural number, p. no; written Gospels necessary from the first—Our Lord's discourses as reported by the Synoptists—presumption that these would be written down at an early date—this presumption extends to the narrative of his actions—These three narratives not independent—the sceptical criticism is tending to revert to the early date claimed for them—no earlier Gospel extant—the four took their place without authoritative decision of Church—Luke's account explains the oral common basis of the Synoptics—he mentions written narrations prior to his own—no authentic tradition as to their publication—Early necessity for authoritative records—Gospels once published and accepted not easily changed.

LECTURE IX.

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. PART II.

THEORIES AS TO THEIR ORIGIN

Inquiry not precluded by belief in Inspiration—though difficult not hopeless—Three chief hypotheses to account for the common matter of the Synoptists—various combinations of these—each hypothesis to be examined irrespectively of theories of Inspiration—Alford's objection to First and Second Hypotheses—verbal variations from documents in secular authors—variations in narratives of St. Paul's conversion—The Third hypothesis will account for agreements in narrating of incidents—but the First or Second is needed to account for agreement in order of narration—absence of agreement in order of discourses—Gospels of Matthew and Luke independent of one another—Various forms of Second hypothesis—inadmissible modifications of it—Modifications of Third hypo thesis—Hypothesis of Hebrew common document—will account for verbal variations—Hypothesis of common Greek original required by verbal coincidences—and by common citations of O. T.—Further elaboration of hypothesis of Greek original—Rushbrooke's Synopticon—Dr. Edwin Abbott and the Triple Tradition—his theory of the common documents rests on an inadmissible assumption—The Synoptists narratives of the Passion—The Triple Tradition rests on a single attestation—which probably is that of Peter—traces of his testimony in Mark—Mark represents the original source most closely—but is possibly latest in publication—Matthew and Luke did not copy Mark—Mark's last twelve verses.

NOTE ON THE CONCLUDING VERSES OF ST. MARK'S GOSPEL

Early testimony to their authenticity—The testimony of the two great uncials—Improbability involved in the rejection of the verses—Some questions of textual criticism cannot now be decided with certainty.

LECTURE X.

THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF ST. MATTHEW.

THE HEBREW GOSPEL

Existence of an early Hebrew Gospel probable—Early Patristic evidence that Matthew wrote in Hebrew—"Witness of Papias, Irenæus, and Eusebius—of Jerome and Epiphanius—Internal counter-evidence—No Greek text other than ours known to the Fathers—Hypothesis of a two-fold original—The 4 Hebrew Gospel—not identical with the Ebionite Gospel—not the source of the Clementine quotations—Jerome's Nazarene Gospel not the original of Matthew—Origen's evidence concerning the Hebrew Gospel—Jerome's inconsistency—estimate of the value and age of this Gospel—first trace of it found in Ignatius—it was used by Hegesippus—Palestine was bilingual—Greek original of St. Matthew on the whole more probable.

LECTURE XI.

APOCRYPHAL AND HERETICAL GOSPELS

Hone's collection of N. T. Apocrypha—Hilgenfeld's—APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS—The Protevangelium—its antiquity—The pseudo- Matthew—The Gospel of Thomas—its legends of our Lord's childhood—its date—The Gospel of Nicodemus and Acts of Pilate—Evangelic fragments—HERETICAL GOSPELS—were chiefly Gnostic and Encratite—Gospel of the Egyptians—Gospel of Marcion—Tertullian's examination of it—reconstruction of it—attempt to make it out prior to Luke's—also to John's.

LECTURE XII.

THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART I.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL

Common authorship of this Gospel and First Epistle—motive for questioning this fact—Early external testimony to the Epistle—Baur assigns a late date to the Gospel—his followers tend to place it earlier—Renan takes an exceptional line—Motives for denying its Apostolic authorship—its witness to our Lord's Divinity—to His self-assertion—His self-assertion attested by the Synoptics likewise—Apocalypse admitted to be John's—Christology of the Apocalypse—Christology of St. Paul's Epistles—St. John's doctrine compared with St. Paul's—Dr. Pfleiderer on the Christology of Apocalypse.

LECTURE XIII.

THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART II.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE APOCALYPSE

Diversity of style between these two books—Early external attestation of Apocalypse—Millennarian use of it—tended to discredit the book—ascription of it to Cerinthus—whether Caius was responsible for this ascription—Recovery of new fragments of Caius—The Alogi—Did they ascribe the Gospel to Cerinthus—Dionysius of Alexandria—His arguments against the Johannine authorship of Apocalypse—examination of them—Its coincidences of diction with the Gospel—its points of difference—Solecisms of the Apocalypse—The Greek of the Gospel—its superiority over that of the Apocalypse accounted for.

LECTURE XIV.

THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART III.

THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE

Earlier date assigned by the sceptical school—Theory of Renan and his followers—Nero the Beast—its Number—This theory imputes failure to the predictions of the book—is incredible—attempts to deny that failure is imputed—Ancient conception of Prophecy—Modern solutions of the riddles of the book are but partial—multiplicity of solutions—Other objections to the Neronian solution—Neronian date not improbable—Vischer's theory that the book is composite—Sabatier's modification of Vischer's theory—The chapters said to be purely Jewish bear marks of Christian authorship—The date assigned by Vischer and Sabatier to the publication of the book cannot be reconciled with their interpretation of it.

LECTURE XV.

THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART IV.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE QUARTODECIMANS

The Quartodecimans alleged as witnesses against Fourth Gospel—Real difficulty in its account of Last Supper—solutions offered—a forger would have avoided raising this difficulty—Controversy concerning Easter—Baur's assumption as to the Eastern commemoration—First recorded instance of Paschal disputes, Polycarp and Anicetus—Probable usage of the Apostles—Second recorded Paschal dispute, Melito's book—Third recorded Paschal dispute, Victor and Polycrates—Quarto-deciman testimony to Fourth Gospel—The authority of the Fourth Gospel not affected by controversies as to the day of the Passion.

NOTES ON THE ASTRONOMICAL ASPECT OF THE QUESTION

Jewish New Moon—Table of New Moons—Point of difference between Wieseler and Caspari.

LECTURE XVI.

THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART V.

THE GOSPEL AND THE MINOR EPISTLES

The fourth Evangelist was (i) a Jew—was (ii) a Jew of Palestine—was (iii) of the first century—was (iv) an eye-witness of the events he relates—and a disciple of the Baptist—was John the Apostle—Theory of another John, the Elder—this theory fails to solve the questions of author ship of the Johannine Books—the Minor Epistles—their authenticity questioned—established conclusively by internal evidence—they confirm the Johannine authorship of the Gospel—The Third Epistle, St. John and Episcopacy—The Elect Lady of the Second Epistle—Attempts to allegorize away parts of the Fourth Gospel—Importance of the facts implied in the Third Epistle.

LECTURE XVII.

THE JOHANNINE BOOKS. PART VI.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICS

Omissions of the Fourth Gospel—instance as regards our Lord's birthplace—absurdity of Renan's view of this case—St. John's manner is to assume previous knowledge in his readers—his Irony—his knowledge of previous Gospels—his last chapter—he wrote after Peter's death—supple mental character of his Gospel—his silence as to the Eucharist—the institution of the Eucharist by our Lord involves a claim of Divinity on His part—Synoptic account of institution confirmed by St. Paul—early Christian belief concerning it—the Eucharist implied in fourth Gospel—as also baptism—and the Ascension—The Fourth Gospel written with a purpose—its coincidences with the Synoptics—it contains facts omitted by them—a priori probability of our Lord's earlier visits to Jerusalem recorded in it—traces in the Synoptics of the Judean ministry.

LECTURE XVIII.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Date of this book a vital matter—External attestation of it—Internal evidence—Modern theories of its compilation—The we sections—the author of these—Tradition of Luke's authorship of Third Gospel and Acts—Imagined marks of spuriousness—Unity of authorship of Acts inferred from its structure and contents—and from its diction—Literary skill of the author—Motives for denying its unity—Its supernatural element—Its representation of Paul's relations with the Twelve—The Tübingen version of Paul's History—its in credibility as compared with the account in Acts—Absence of Pauline topics from speeches ascribed to him in this book—Supposed artificial parallelism between its narratives of Peter and of Paul—Frequent occurrence of parallel events in history; the supposed parallel wants its climax—Abrupt close of the Acts—The author's principle of selection of topics—his opportunities of gaining information—his account of Philip the Deacon—he possibly used as materials a diary of his own—His reports of Paul's speeches—His slight use of Paul's Epistles—for example, that to Philippians—Galatians—1 and 2 Corinthians—Reports of Peter's speeches in Acts compared with his First Epistle—External confirmations of the author's accuracy—Holtzmann's theory that the author followed Josephus—Discrepancies between the Acts and Josephus.

LECTURE XIX.

APOCRYPHAL ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

No other Acts but Luke's admitted into the Canon—Apocryphal Acts mostly of heretical origin—after wards expurgated for orthodox use—(i) The Abgar Legend—extant form of it—(ii) The Acts of Paul and Thecla—Tertullian's account of its origin—tinged with Encratism—its story—still extant—time and place of composition—Excesses in the direction of Encratism easily condoned by the orthodox—(iii) The Acts of St. Thomas—Leucian Acts—light thrown by the Acts of Thomas on Gnostic ideas—narrative of this book—Ritual described in it—its doctrine—date and place of composition—(iv) The Acts of St. Peter, the Clementines—the Circuits of Peter, and Preaching of Peter—the Simon-Paul theory—Acts of Peter and Paul—Feast of 29th June—rival traditions concerning Peter—(v) The Acts of St. John—heretical character of the Leucian Acts—second-century traditions concerning John—later legends—Assumption of the B. V. M.

LECTURE XX.

THE PAULINE EPISTLES

The Sceptical school not agreed which of these to reject—Four groups of them—A collection of Pauline Letters early made—this probably set the example of making other collections of letters—Probable time and place of collection of Pauline Letters—St. Paul used by Justin Martyr—Methodius and Justin—FIRST GROUP—1 Thessalonians—2 Thessalonians—its prophecy of the Man of Sin—external attestation of both Epistles, p. 401; precaution against forgery—lost Epistles—SECOND GROUP—note of early date stamped on these Epistles by the character of their contents—short duration of the struggle to impose circumcision on Gentile converts—necessarily early date of Letters written while this struggle was going on—Similar inference from the fact that at the time they were written Paul's Apostolic authority was disputed—The Epistle to the Galatians—abstract of its argument—Comparison with Romans—point of difference between the two Epistles,—The Epistles to the Corinthians—Ambiguity of name Galatian—No need to suppose that the fickleness of the Galatians must be accounted for by their Celtic origin—concluding chapter of Romans—THIRD GROUP—Philippians—Philemon—Colossians—external attestation—internal evidence—objections grounded on its diction—on its Christology—on its reference to Gnostic teaching—Ephesians—external evidence—its affinities with 1 Peter—its close likeness to Colossians—Paley's account of this fact—rejected by sceptical critics—question of priority between the two—Holtzmann's theory—this Epistle contradicts modern theories of early Church history—the Epistle was written when the admission of Gentiles was recent—ruling topics of these two Epistles distinct—literary excellence and influence of Ephesians—FOURTH GROUP—Pastoral Epistles rejected, yet used by Renan—external attestation—rejection by early heretics—objections founded on (i) their diction—on (2) the controversies they deal with—on (3) the difficulty of harmonizing them with the Acts—their diction probably marks them as St. Paul's latest work—their historical contents suggest like conclusion—they imply Paul's release from the imprisonment recorded in Acts—independent evidence of this release—objections to late date—internal evidence for 2 Timothy—its Pauline character—its details—its genuineness carries with it that of 1 Timothy and Titus—Kenan's estimate of all three.

LECTURE XXI.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

Question of authorship, not of authenticity of Hebrews—Use of it by Clement of Rome—Accepted by whole Eastern Church as St. Paul's—Testimony of Clement of Alexandria—View of Origen—Western opinion adverse—Tertullian ascribed it to Barnabas—Reaction under Jerome and Augustine—Evidence of MSS. and Versions—Its canonicity well established—Its anonymousness—Internal evidence for and against Pauline authorship—individual passages—its doctrine Pauline—it uses Pauline language and mannerisms—its O. T. citations—its Alexandrian colouring—its general style un-Pauline—Conjectures as to authorship—considerations in favour of ascription to Barnabas—Probably addressed to Jewish Christians of Jerusalem—Written from Italy—Lower limit of date—upper limit doubtful—Note on the Codex Claromontanus.

LECTURE XXII.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER

Eusebius's classification of N. T. Books—External attestations of Peter—it is included in all Canons except the Muratorian—Internal difficulties alleged against it—Written while Christians were liable to be punished as such—It contradicts Baur's views of early Church history—Its Paulinism of doctrine—Place of composition, Babylon—Roman martyrdom of Peter—Addressed to Christians dispersed in Pontus—Its coincidences with Romans—with Ephesians—Seufert's theory—Its coincidences with Epistle of James—Its originality and individuality.

LECTURE XXIII.

THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES

This Epistle classed by Eusebius among Antilegomena—The Seven Catholic Epistles—evidence of Origen concerning it—of Clement of Alexandria—of Hermas—probably of Clement of Rome—of Irenæus—other authorities—Internal evidence—James, The Lord's Brother, first Bishop of Jerusalem—probability of the usual ascription of the Epistle to him—Written for Christian Jews—probably residents in Syria—The author a personal follower of our Lord—wrote before fall of Jerusalem—his picture of the Jews confirmed by Josephus—Other internal evidences of early date—its doctrine not anti-Pauline—its silence as to disputes of Paul's time—late date assigned to it by sceptical school—Purity of its Greek—its verbal coincidences with Romans—Its substantial agreement with Paul's doctrine—its teaching closely akin to O. T. Prophets—but not merely Judaic—Character of the author as shown in it—its moral precepts—moral effects of Christian teaching—This Epistle why placed first of the Catholic Epistles.

LECTURE XXIV.

THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE

Historical attestation of the books of N. T. unequal—a few of them were doubted by critics in fourth century—Cause of the, scantiness of attestation of Epistles of James and Jude—of the two, Jude's has better external attestation—especially in the West—Jude, one of the Lord's brethren—tradition concerning his grandsons preserved by Hegesippus—doubt whether he was of the Twelve—what we are to understand by Brethren of our Lord—Date of the Epistle—against whom were its censures directed?—Its use of Jewish Apocrypha—the Assumption of Moses—the Book of Enoch—The Syriac translation of the Catholic Epistles.

LECTURE XXV.

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER

Doubts in the Church of the authority of this Epistle—Early opinion unfavourable to it and other of the Catholic Epistles—General acceptance attained by them all—Question reopened at the Reformation—Opinion of Epiphanius favourable—inconsistency of Jerome—and of Didymus—Evidence of MSS. and Canons—Opinion of Origen—of Firmilian—Old Latin Version—Doubtful use of this Epistle by Clement of Alexandria—by Irenaeus—its use by pseudo-Clement—Theophilus of Antioch—Pre diction in this Epistle of the destruction of the world by fire—This destruction early became a point of Christian belief—Use of 2 Peter in so-called Second Epistle of Clement—Doubtful use of 2 Peter by Hernias and Clement of Rome—Its acceptance far short of that of 1 Peter—Grotius's theory—The author claims to be Peter—if not Peter, is a forger—this alternative must be faced—Relation between 2 Peter and Jude—Difference of style between 1 and 2 Peter—points of resemblance between them—Coincidences of 2 Peter with Petrine speeches in Acts—Dr. Edwin Abbott's attack on 2 Peter—Its unworthiness of style—"Baboo" Greek—Defects in its Greek are natural, if it was written by a Palestinian Jew—but cannot affect the question of its genuineness—Its faults of style not discovered by the Greek Fathers—Its alleged borrowings from Josephus—Difficulties in accepting the Petrine authorship—Archdeacon Farrar's opinion—Alleged coincidences with Josephus merely verbal—Not within brief compass—nor in same sequence—nor do they occur in the case of unusual words—No N. T. writer keeps within the limits of Biblical language—The Greek of Philo—Discussion of the words and combinations relied on by Dr. Abbott—Coincidences with Philo's writings found in 1 Peter—also elsewhere in N. T.—Result of examination of Dr. Abbott's criticism—Newly-discovered Stichometry.

LECTURE XXVI.

NON-CANONICAL BOOKS

The Apocalypse of Peter—Recognized in the Muratorian Fragment—quotations from it by Clement of Alexandria—and by Macarius—Its use not quite extinct in the fifth century—Whether included in the Sinaitic MS.—the Psalms of Solomon—Conjectural ascription of passages to this Apocalypse—other Apocalypses—The Epistle of Barnabas—External attestation—Impossibility of accepting some of the contents as inspired—Whether it would be possible to acknowledge its Apostolic origin and deny its inspiration—attitude of the writer towards Judaism—date of the Epistle—to what Church addressed—The Epistle to Clement—Written in the name of the Church of Rome—Importance of the Bishop of Rome merged in the importance of his Church—Proofs of the early use of the Epistle—date of the letter—varying accounts of the order of the first Roman bishops—No good reason for doubting that Clement was really at the head of the Roman Church—Whether the Church of Corinth was in his time governed by a single person—extreme amount of disorder in Corinth—The prayer of Manasses—Bearing of Clement's letter on the question of Roman supremacy—Clement a Jew—authorities for the text of Clement—The Second Epistle of Clement—The Shepherd of Hermas—External testimony—Disuse of non-Canonical writings after rise of Montanism—Tertullian and the Shepherd—Contents of the Shepherd—The date of Hermas—The book written in good faith—and accepted as a record of real revelation—written in the Episcopate of Clement—Rejection of Muratoriaii account—Lightfoot's hypothesis that the original of this fragment was in verse—Church organization in the time of Hermas—Prophets in the early Church—Hermas belonged to this order—whether he was a Jew—Hermas and Theodotion—The Thegri of Hermas explained by Mr. Rendel Harris from Dan. vi. 22—Dr. Hort's further inference—Preliminary consideration unfavourable to his inference—Greek translations of the Old Testament—Theodotion's version of Daniel used in the Christian Church—Epiphanius's account of Greek translations not trustworthy—Theodotion's version in use before the time of Irenaeus—The version used by Hippolytus, Clement, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, respectively—A silent rejection of the Septuagint not probable—Reasons for believing that there had been a previous version—Characteristics of the Christian Daniel—its affinities with the Apocryphal Esdras—Did the New Testament writers make use of the Christian version?—Neither Clement of Rome nor Baruch recognize it—The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles—External testimony—The Church Ordinances—Barnabas and the Two Ways—The Western form of the Two Ways—Krawutzcky's theory—Bryennius's Teaching of the Apostles—its account of Church organization—Whether the author was an Ebionite—Relations of the Didache to Barnabas and Hermas—Dr. Taylor on the Didache—Hypothesis that the Didache is founded on a pre- Christian manual for the instruction of proselytes—Relations of the Didache to Barnabas—and to Hermas—Western form of the book—Whether the Didache in its present form had early circulation in the East—how much of it may be referred to a pre-Christian model—its instructions about baptism—on prayer—on the Eucharist—the last chapter—whether known to Origen.