II. The ‘Clergyman’ maintains that the Bampton Lecturer is

open to the charge of professing to appeal to Scripture reasonably interpreted, while in reality he is guided by the Creeds and doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church. ‘The Lecturer,’ he says, ‘proffers his dogma to be tested by the Bible, thoroughly investigated and reasonably understood. To prove his confidence justified and his conclusions sustained by the Bible is the one great end of his carefully compiled, and, from his own side, virtually exhaustive pleadings. If he had not chosen to stand thus on indefensible ground, I should not have ventured to criticise his lectures. Against the evidence for the doctrine of our Lord’s Deity regarded as a revelation through the Church, or as resting on ecclesiastical authority, I have said nothing. The Christian Church is as grand a fact in the world’s history as is the Bible, and with reference to the doctrine under con- sideration, the mind of the Church Universal has long displayed a perspicuity, explicitness, and uniformity of expression, of which the Bible is conspicuously destitute },’
This criticism is repeated by the ‘Clergyman’ in other, and _ sometimes less temperate, language elsewhere i,
Thus, for example: ‘I only contend that in Scripture alone, it {the doctrine of our Lord’s Divinity] has no adequate logical basis, and cannot possibly be deduced by methods of rational interpretation. Assume there is in the Church an authority, co-ordinate with, and in some respects superior to, Scripture, and, so far as I am concerned, the controversy is at an end. I
to justify its acceptance’ (p. 184), This reading is retained by Westcott and Hort, New Test., Cambr. 1881. h Examination, p. 2. 1 Thid. pp. 3, 27.
556 Note 7. On Two Criticisms of this Work.
do not wish to enter upon the question whether the claims of Church authority can be satisfactorily vindicated. Mr. Liddon exposes himself to criticism by not avowing that he interprets from the ground of ecclesiastical light and prerogative, not from the ground of reason. He wants to be thought rational when he is ecclesiastical, but the two conditions are different; the latter is held by many to be the nobler and more enlightened condition, but it is specifically distinct from the formerj,’
Here, perhaps, it might be sufficient to reply that, as might be inferred from what has been already said, the real fault of the Lectures in the ‘Clergyman’s’ eyes is, that they assume that trustworthiness of Scripture which their critic impugns :-—‘ In assuming the Gospels, and more especially the last of them, to furnish verbally correct accounts of Christ’s sayings, Mr. Liddon has followed a method which vitiates all his reasonings. With the essentially Protestant and rational criticism by which time- honoured assumptions about the Bible have been besieged and curtailed, he makes only a semblance of grappling Κ᾿’
Again: ‘Unless we are content to resign our reason and judgment in deference to some higher authority, a choice between the guidance of the Fourth Gospel and the prior narrations is here forced upon us. From which are we to collect our dogmatic knowledge of Christ’s personal rank? The writer of the last Gospel does more than supplement his predecessors: if the orthodox interpretation of his language is right, he corrects them, and takes ground which convicts them not merely of reservation, but of ignorance and blundering on a vital point. For Protest- ants who hold Scripture to be the Divine and sufficient Rule of Faith, there is no way of escape: they must either esteem the Logos doctrine a misty speculation, or depress other portions of the New Testament, while they exalt what they conceive to be a contribution from St. John!
It may be needless to say that the Lecturer does not accept this account of the relation of St. John to the earlier Evangelists, and for reasons which appear to him to be very sufficient. He quotes this and the preceding passage in order to shew the real character of his difference with the ‘Clergyman.’ That differ- ence mainly turns, not as the ‘Clergyman’ suggests, upon the existence and character of the Church's authority in questions of doctrine, but upon the trustworthiness of Scripture as the most authoritative source of our knowledge of doctrine. The ‘ Clergy-
4 Examination, p. 118, κ Ibid. p. 44. - 1 Ibid. p. 86,
Note 7. On Two Creticisms of this Work. 557
man’ at the same time, but unintentionally, misrepresents the attitude of the Bampton Lecturer towards Church authority. If the Lecturer had learnt from the Church of England that ‘ Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation ™,’ he had also learnt from her that the Church ‘hath authority in con- troversies of faith™’; and, in view of the real history of the formation of the Canon of the New Testament, the last proposi- tion is at least as reasonable and as certain as the first.
To accept the Church’s guidance in recognising the contents and the authoritative character of the Canon of Scripture, and then to refuse her any voice whatever in its interpretation, seems to the present writer impossible; and if he has, in his Lectures, appealed to the natural force of Scripture language, this has not been in any spirit of fancied independence of Church authority, but because he sincerely believes that there is no real antithesis between the judgments of that authority in ages when it was still unimpaired by division, and an honest criticism of the Sacred Text. The function of Church authority, as it was understood by such writers as St. Irenzeus, was not to add new doctrine to the Apostolic deposit, as the ‘Clergyman’ apparently supposes, but to shew what the Apostolic deposit really does contain; to take mankind, as it were, by the hand when ex- ploring the vast field of Scripture; to call attention to expres- sions, or occurrences, or lines of thought which might otherwise escape observation ; and thus to furnish the reader, not with additional material, but with a true point of view, and a sym- pathetic intellectual and moral temper, for discovering those profound unities and truths for the sake of which alone the Church sets value on Scripture at all. The Christian Revelation was in fact committed, not only to the pages of a Sacred Book, but to the guardianship of a Sacred Society; and the second factor can just as little be dispensed with as the first. If the Church may not contradict or exceed the teaching of the Book, the true authority and import of the Book cannot be long upheld apart from that illuminated consciousness of the Church, which originally recognised it as being the Word of God.
This consideration will perhaps explain a feature of the Lectures on which the ‘Clergyman’ has felt it to be his duty to comment, again and again, with much severity. The Lecturer has called attention very deliberately, not only to the great dogmatic passages in which Our Lord’s Divinity is expressly
m Art. VI. = Art, XX.
558 Nolte Ll. On Two Criticisms of this Work,
taught, but to that much larger number of passages or even paragraphs in which it is so far implied that, while of themselves they do not prove the doctrine, they look, so to speak, towards it, and are read most naturally, if we assume that it is true. The ‘Clergyman’ often discusses the reference made to such passages in the Lectures, as if the Lecturer had appealed to them as dicta probantia, and had thus put a strain on them which, obviously,
they cannot bear. Their real place in the argument is supple-’
mental and subsidiary; and if they were not accompanied or rather introduced by explicit statements of another character, they could not be appealed to at all. But, as the Lecturer con- ceives, their cumulative force is very great, and as the ‘ Clergy- man’ truly observes, the Lecturer cannot be ‘charged with originating the use®’ which he has made of them. He has learnt this ‘use’ from the authority to which alone he owes it that he receives the Bible as the Word of God, in any serious sense, at
all; while reflection has not brought with it any distrust either _
of his teacher or her lessons..
At the same time the writer must not shrink from professing his conviction that, if there were no Church at all to guide him, the natural sense of such passages as Rom. ix. 5, or of Col. i. 15-17, or of St. John i. 1-14, is that our Lord Jesus Christ is of one Substance with the Father, Very and Eternal God. If the ‘Clergyman’ would consider Philippi’s P commentary on the first of these passages, or Bishop Lightfoot’s4 on the second, or Professor Westcott’st on the third, he would perhaps feel that there is more to be said in favour of this conclusion than he has hitherto been able to admit. But, in the absence of faith in the trustworthiness of Scripture, no critical insight into the real scope of its language would be of much service. According to the ‘ Clergyman,’ the ‘ really Scriptural position’ is, ‘ that Christ fills, in the scale of being, a place not perfectly defined, but cer- tainly above man, and as certainly beneath Gods.’ This, as he elsewhere says, is the Arian Creed; and it is open, as has been urged in these Lectures, to the grave objection that it could not have been held by serious Monotheists, such as were the Apostles of our Lord. But in a note the ‘Clergyman’ explains that the formula above cited is only tenable ‘if every statement
ο Examination, p. 44. P Comment. on the Romans in loc, @ Epistle to the Colossians in loc.
τ Gospel of St. John (Speaker’s Commentary), in loc,
5. Examination, p. 248.
Note 7. On Two Criticisms of this Work. 559 of Scripture is accepted in its natural rational meaning with unquestioning acquiescence. He adds ‘The Christ of an un- critical Biblical Protestantism is an Arian, superhuman Christ. The Christ of a critical Protestantism is a merely human, but extraordinarily endowed Christt. It is difficult to see why he should, upon the ‘Clergyman’s’ principles, be even as much as this: but the avowal shews that, even after the sense of Scrip- ture has been minimized by negative criticisms to a point which is fatal to all that is most precious in the Christian Creed, the little that remains is after all peremptorily rejected, and we are left with an estimate of the Divine Saviour of the world which might have been gathered not less readily from the Koran than from the New Testament.
Enough, perhaps, has been said to shew that the Lecturer has τ carefully considered what his critics have had to say about him. He has indeed read them through attentively. Aud if he does not farther accompany them, they will believe that this is not from any disrespect, but partly because a large book would be needed in order to discuss some far-reaching questions which they severally raise, and partly because, as has been already suggested, a large proportion of his differences with them in detail are due to earlier and deeper differences of principle. But there are some matters of detail which he has been led to reconsider in the light of their criticisms, and it is a pleasure to express his obligation to both of them, but especially to the ‘Clergyman,’ for corrections which his book thus owes to them, in its pre- sent form,
τ Examination, p. 248, note.
Ne ex.
The numerals refer to the Lectures, the figures to the pages.
A.
Abraham, promise to, ii. 46; Divine manifestations to, 53; ‘Seed’ of, 79; his seeing the day of Christ, iv. 189.
Adam, the first and the Second, vi. 308. Adoration, distinguished from ‘ad- miration,’ vii. 368; of Christ in the New Testament, v. 239, 245; vii. 371 8q. ; not a ‘secondary wor- ship,’ 383; embraced His Man- hood, 387; referred to by early Fathers, ib. sq.; embodied in hymns, 392 sq.; offered in the Eucharistic office, 396; noticed by Pagans, 398 sq.; defended by Christian writers, 401 84. ; carica- tured in ‘Graffito blastemo,’ 403 ; offered by Martyrs, 405 sq.; even by Arians, 411; and by early So- cinians, 412; in the English Church Service, 1. 40; vill. 482; Note G.
Adrian, on worship of Christ, vii. 398.
fons, v. 2233 Vi. 312, 320; Vil. 437.
Agnoete, heresy of, viii. 470.
‘ Alexamenos adores his God,’ vii. 404.
Alexandria, real function of its Theosophy, ii. 71; Eclectic school of, vii. 363; Christian school of,
429.
Alford, Dean, v. 239, 240; vi. 291, 293, 318, 321, 330, notes.
Alogi, rejected St. John’s Gospel, Vv, 210, 219.
Ambrose, St., as a commentator, ik 40, vii. 425.
Ananias, prayer of, to Christ, vii. 377.
Andrewes, Bishop, on Christ’s Sacri- fice, viii. 485.
‘ Angel of the Lord,’ the, ii. 53 sq.
Angels, the holy, vi. 300, 313, 326, :
349, 385.
Ante-Nicene Fathers, their testi- mony to Divinity of Christ, vii. 419; their language not ‘mere rhetoric,’ 425; doubtful state- ments alleged from, 426 sq. ; ten- tative position of, 428; their real mind shewn when the doctrine was questioned, 432.
Antichrist, the token of, i. 23; v.
244.
Anti-dogmatic moralists, 1. 37.
Antinomianism, vi. 288, 289.
Antioch, Council of, its rejection of the ‘Homoousion,’ vii. 440; School of, 356, 446.
Apocalypse, the, at one with St. John’s Gospel in its Christology, v. 245; the Lamb adored in, ib. ; vii. 382; probable date of, vi. 280.
Apocrypha, the, of second century, Vv. 220.
Apollinarianism, i. 25; v. 264; viii. 463.
Apollinaris of Hierapolis, v. 215.
‘Apostasy, the God-denying,’ vii. 433.
Apostles, theories as to disagree- ment of, vi. 281; with differences of method, preach one Divine Christ, 283, 356 sq.; all sent by Christ, vii. 375.
7 ndex.
561
Apotheosis, among Romans, no pa- rallel to worship of Christ, i. 27; Ὑ 271 5,11: 570:
Arianism, its conception of Christ, i, 10,720; 32); νῖ. 314: Vill.. 403; its worship of Him, idolatrous in principle, vii. 411; its inference from received belief as to Theo- phanies, ii. 57; its view of ‘ Wis- dom’ as created, 61; its connec- tion with early Judaizing move- ment, vi. 356; vii. 446; and with Greek dialectical method, 363; various antichristian forces com- bined in it, 446; its popularity,
446.
Arnobius, on Christ’s Divinity, vii.
424.
Artemon, his allegation as to doc- trine of Christ’s Divinity, vii. 434.
Articles of Religion, the, on the In- carnation, v. 261; on the Sacra- ments, viii. 487 sq.
Athanasian Creed, i, 24; v. 263; vu. 447.
Athanasius, St., his analysis of Ari- anism, 1.18; his use of αὐτόθεος, iv. 203; on adoration of Christ, vii. 411 ; on limitation of human knowledge in Him, viii. 468; on Council of Antioch, vii. 440; why he contended for Homoousion, 444 ; on prayers to Christ for the emperor, Note G.
Athenagoras, on the Logus, v. 221; vii. 421; on the ‘Generation,’ 427.
Atonement, doctrine of, dependent on Christ’s Divinity, vii. 480 sq.
Augustine, St., on doctrinal terms, i. 33; on Theophanies, ii. 57; on the variety of ecclesiastical cus- toms, iii, 122, note; on” Ev ἐσμεν, iv. 186; on St. John’s Gospel, v. 229; on St. Paul’s description of a moral dualism, 265; on Sacra- ments, Vill. 492.
B.
Balaam, prophecy of, ii. 80.
Baptism, i, 31; Vv. 254; Vi. 351; viii. 488.
Basil, St., viii. 427.
Basilides, cognizant of St. John’s Gospel, v. 218.
Baur, admissions of, i, 27; iv. 176; v. 228, 237; ignores dogmatic character of Christ’s teaching, i. 3 ; on ‘Sonof Man,’i. 7; on Hebrew monotheism, ii. 96; on Fourta Gospel, v. 212, 228, note; on St. James and Paul, vi. 285; on number of Pauline epistles, 310; on ἁρπαγμόν, 320, note.
Beryllus, denies Christ's human Soul, i. 25.
Blandrata, vii. 413.
Boethius, on ‘ Person,’ i. 33.
Boileau, on phenomenon of the Church, iii. 120,
Bretschneider, his ‘ Probabilia,’ v. 21:1
Browne, Bishop Harold, on human limitations in Christ, viii. 476, note.
Bruno Bauer, v. 229.
Buddhism, its spread not parallel to that of Christianity, iii. 135, 136; does not aim at universality, 123; does not deify Buddha, vii. 385.
Bull, Bishop, on Subordination, iv. 202, note; on St. Paul and St. James, vi. 286; on Origen, vii. 402; against Petavius, 427; on Christ’s human knowledge, viii.
475:
Bushnell, on boldness of Christ’s ‘plan,’ iii. 118, note.
Butler, Bishop, on the moral obliga- tions created by revealed truth, 1 41.
σ.
Cabbalism, vi. 284.
Cesarea Philippi, i. 1.
Cakya-Mouni, iii. 135; vii. 385.
Calixtus, ii. 52.
Calvinism, Sacramental teaching of, viii. 488; downward progress of,
492.
Canticles, the Evangelical, their sig- nificance, v. 251.
Catechism, Church, Sacramental teaching of the, viii. 489.
Cave, on Council of Antioch, vii, 440, note,
Celsus, as an opponent of Christi- anity, v. 219; vii. 400; on idea of a universal religion, iii. 119;
00
562 Index.
on Christians’ worship of Christ, iii. 145; vii. 400; refers to St. John’s Gospel, v. 219.
Cerinthus, heresy of, v. 223, 228, 242.
Chalcedon, Council of, its dogmatic language, i. 25; v. 261, note.
Channing, why anti-dogmatic, i. 38 ; his position criticised by Renan, iv. 160; his use of the phrase— ‘Christ’s Divinity,’ vii. 443; ex- plains away worship paid to Him, vii. 373; on obsecrations in Li- tany, i. 40; on authoritativeness of Christ’s teaching, iii. 118; on His ‘plan,’ 114, note; on His character, iv. 197, 208 sq.
Charity, in St. John, v. 245; a pro- duct of the Incarnation, viii. 502 sq.
Curist, His person an object of perpetual interest, i. 11 sq.; how viewed by modern philosophers, 13; Lives of, 15, and Note A; His Manhood real, i. 18 sq.; vi. 306 sq.; His condescension, vi. 314, 315; His Nativity, according to Synoptists, v. 250 sq.; His early life, iii, 109 sq.; vi. 315; His temptation, Note C; His Human Will, v. 264 sq.; His Human Knowledge, i. 22; viii. 464 sq.; Moral perfection of His Character, i. 23; iv.167, 195 sq.; His sense of Sinlessness, 165 sq. ; vastness of His self-assertion, 169 sq.; and of His claims, 175 sq.; v. 253 sq.; the Messiah of Pro- phecy, ii. 79 sq.; iii. 117; His Teaching, iv.1648q.; v. 252; its Infallibility, viii. 461 sq.; His Priesthood and Atonement, viii. 484 sq.; His position as Founder of a Kingdom, iii. 102; His ‘Plan,’ 107 sq.; and its realization, 120 sq.; His Example, i. 26; viii. 494 sq., note C ad fin. ; His Sympathy, i. 26; His Miracles, iv. 155 sq.3 v. 238; His Transfiguration, v. 256; vi. 304; His Agony, i. 21; v. 206, 276; viii. 471; His Death, i. 22; iv. 2003; vi. 300; Viii. 480 sq.; His Resurrection, iii. 147 ; iv. 156 sq.3; Vv. 256; viii. 481; His Ascension, v. 256; His Inter-
cession, i, 26 ; viii. 493 ; His office as Second Adam, vi. 308; as Me- diator, vi. 306, 309; viii. 461; Incorporation into Him, vi. 292, 351; bearing of His Manhood on our inner life, i. 26; viii. 489; Christianity concentrated in Him, iii. 129; vi. 337; His living power, i. 36; His Presence in and with Christians, vi. 343, 348, 352, 3533 Vill. 490, 496, 498; His intense hold on souls, iii. 127, 128; His moral creativeness, iii. 131; viii. 496 sq.; His future return as Judge, iv. 1753; wor- ship paid to Him, in His earthly life and after it, see ‘ Adoration’ ; His Godhead, the seat of His Single Personality, i. 23, note; v. 224, 229 sq.; implies Co-equality and Consubstantiality, iv. 184; co-existent with His perfect Man- hood, i. 24, n.; Vv. 265 sq.; Vili. 458; intimated and affirmed in Old Testament, ii. 49 54. ; gradu- ally unfolded, i. 40; v. 277; im- plied in much of His language, iv. 175 sq.; explicitly revealed by Him, 179 sq.; titles expressing It, vi. 316 sq.; in fact necessary to His moral excellence, iv. 199 £q., 208; vi. 314; attested by Synop- tists as by St. John, v. 246 sq. ; proclaimed by Apostles, Lect. v. and vi.; vii. 437; net imagined by ‘enthusiasm,’ v. 270; con- fessed by the early Church, vii. 4148q.; protects truths of natural religion, viii. 452 sq.; supports other truths of faith, iii. 148; vi. 303; viii. 461 sq.
Christianity, social results of, iii.
132; viii. 496 sq.; causes of its success, lil. 134 sq.
Christian life, the, dependent on
Christ, iii, 129.
Chronology of St. John and the
Synoptists, v. 226, note.
Chrysostom, St., as a commentator,
vii. 425; on Arianism, vi. 321, note.
Church, the, not a ‘republic,’ iii.
102; originality of its conception, 112; continuous progress of, 120
Lndex.
563
sq.; present prospects of, 123; viii. 507; universality of, vi. 338 ; losses and divisions of, iii. 123 8q.; recuperative powers of, 133 ; sustained by faith in a Divine Christ, 147; viii. 506; super- natural life of, vi. 334, 338 sq.
Cicero, scepticism of, iii. 141.
Clarke, Dr., Arianism of, i. 17, n.,18.
Clement of Alexandria, St., on St. John’s Gospel, v. 213; on worship of Christ, vii. 390, 395; on His Divinity, 422; inaccurate lan- guage of, 427, 431.
Clement of Rome, St., on Nero’s persecution, vi. 280.
Colenso, Dr., rejects Deuteronomy, viii. 477, 478; denies Christ’s infallibility, ib. and 462, 463; his objections to worship of Christ, Note G.
Coleridge on Socinian worship of Christ, vii. 413; criticises Atha- nasian Creed, 447.
Colossians, Epistle to, character of, vi. 284, note; 337.
Common Prayer, Book of, i. 40; viii. 482, 489; NoteG.
‘Communicatio idiomatum,’ v. 261; vi. 310, note.
Comte, his philosophy and ritual, iii. 126.
Conception, the Immaculate, defini- tion of, not parallel to that of Homoousion, vil. 435 sq.; im- pugned and on what grounds by Cardinal Turrecremata, Note H.
Confucianism, spread of, not paral- lel to that of Christianity, ‘iii. 136.
emo: the Apostolical, vii. 399.
Coquerel on St. James, vi. 289, note.
Corinthians, Epistles to, character of, vi. 334 8q.
Council, Fifth General, vii. 387, note; Sixth General, v. 266, note.
Councils, i. 25, 37; vii. 429.
Creation, how Incarnation is re- lated to it, v. 268; ascribed to Christ, vi. 321.
Creator, prerogatives of the, i, 303 iv. 203; v. 236; vii. 367.
Creeds, scops of modern objections
to, i. 35 sq.; lasting necessity of, Vii. 445 84.
Criticisms of this work, see Note I. Ρ. 549.
Crucifixion, the, a stumbling-block, iii. 140, 144.
Cyprian, St., on Christ’s Divinity, vii. 424.
Cyril of Alexandria, St., on limita- tion of human knowledge i Christ, viii. 469; on His Sacrifice, 485; on Sacraments, 490, notes.
Cyril of Jerusalem, St., on reality of Christ’s Manhood, i. 26; on efficacy of His Death, viii. 485.
D.
Daniel, Book of, on ‘Son of Man,’ i 6; iv, 175, 1933 on Christ’s dominion, ii. go; iii. 113.
Davidic period of Prophecy, ii. 80 sq.
Decretals, the False, viii. 479.
‘Definition,’ theological, objected to, i. 35.
Deism, unable to guard the idea of God, viii. 452 sq.
Deutero-canonical books, ii. 62
Deuteronomy, recognized by Christ, viii. 476.
‘Development,’ doctrinal, sense of the term, vii. 435 sq.
Diognetus, letter to, vii. 420.
Dionysius of Alexandria, St., ortho- dox although misunderstood, vii. 424 8q., 433, 438; on the Pres- byter John, Note F.
Dionysius of Rome, St., vii. 433.
Divinity of our Lord, see ‘Christ.’
Docetism, i. 19, 24, 25; ii. 70; Vv. 223, 250.
Doctrinal position of Lectures, i. 34.
Doctrine and morals, in Apostolic writings, vi. 284, 291.
‘Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles,” a J udaizing work, v. 217, note J, Dogma, modern dislike of, i. 37; v. 271; inseparable from religion, i.3, 4; Christ of, identical with Christ of history, iv. 154. See ‘ Creeds.’
Dollinger, on ‘apotheoses’ at Rome, i. 27, note; on Stoicism, i iii. 146, note; on ἁρπαγμόν, vi. 320, note; on John Presbyter, Note F.
002
564
Lndex.
Dorner, on Schleiermacher, i. 16 ; on Jewish Theology, ii. 71; on ‘Son of Man,’ v. 252; on St. John and the Synoptists, 257; on Justin Martyr, vii. 430.
E.
Ebionitism, i. 15; v. 223, 250.
‘Ecce Homo,’ i. 15; Note A; on Christ’s foundation of a Society, iii, 112; on His miracles, iv. 163; on His humility, 198; on His condescension, vi. 314.
Ecclesiasticus, date of, ii. 65.
‘El,’ ii. 89.
Elizabeth, her greeting of Mary, v. 251.
Ellicott, Bishop, on passages in St. Paul, vi. 315, 319, notes; on human limitations in Christ, viii. 472, note.
‘Elohim,’ ii. 49 ; Note B.
Emanatists, vii. 439.
‘Emmanuel,’ ii. 90 ; v. 250.
Enoch, Book of, i. 7; vi. 305.
Enthusiasm, Christ not deified by, Vv. 270,
Ephesians, Epistle to, vi. 284, note,
337. Ephesus, Council of, v. 261. Eucharist, the Holy, iv. 159; v. 256; Vi. 3355 Vil. 3975 Vili. 480. Eulogius, against Agnoete, viii. 470. Eutychianism, v. 264; viii. 470. Evangelists, fundamentally at one in their representations of Christ,
Vv. 247 sq.
Ewald, his view of Christ, i. 15, 16; Note A; on St. John’s Gospel, v. 220, 271.
‘ Examination’ of these Lectures, by a Clergyman, Note I. 549 sq.
Ezekiel, sense of ‘Son of Man’ in, i, 8.
F,
Faith, grace of, as described by St. Paul, vi. 346 sq.
Faith, the, once delivered, vii. 435 84. ,
‘Fountain of Deity,’ a title of God the Father, iv. 184, 202; vii. 431.
Félix, on originality, iii, 108,
Feuerbach, his view of Christ, i. 13; his naturalistic theory of religion, Vv. 270.
Fichte, his definition of religion, i. 3; his view of Christ, 13.
Firmilian, vii. 439.
Freewill in man, v. 269.
G. Galatians, Epistle to, vi. 332, 333,
355-
‘Generation, Eternal,’ of the Son, iv. 184; vii. 431.
Genesis, its early intimations of plurality of Persons in the God- head, ii. 49.
Gesenius, ii. 62.
Gibbon, his ‘five causes,’ iii. 137;
his sneer at ‘the iota,’ vii. 444.
Gladstone, on ‘Ecce Homo,’ Note A.
‘Gloria in excelsis,’ the, vii. 394.
‘Glory,’ in St. John’s Gospel, ν. 232.
Gnosticism, ii. 70; Vv. 222, 224, 242; vi. 284, note, 312.
Gop, the true idea of, i. 303 vili. 455; not secured by Deism, 452 sq.; Pantheistic misuse of the Name, i. 30; viii. 459, note.
Goethe, on originality, iii. 108; his admiration of the heathen mind, 77:
Grace, vi. 235.
Gregory of Nazianzen, St., on Arian- ism, vii. 446, note; on ‘ignorance,’ vili. 469.
Gregory of Nyssa, St., on Arianism, vii. 446, note.
Guizot, on originality of Christ’s ‘plan,’ iii, 114,
Ἢ;
Hallucination of our Lord asserted by some modern Jews, Note E. p.528.
Hebrews, Epistle to, vi. 284, note, 325; 552.
Hegel, his definition of religion, i. 3; his view of Christ, 13.
Hengstenberg, ii. 88, go.
Heracleon, v. 218.
Herder, on St. John’s Gospel, v. 210.
Heresy, how viewed by St. John, v. 245; by St. Paul, vi. 282, 342.
>
¥ 3 ie >
Index,
565
Hilary, St., on Homoousion, vii. 440, note,
Hippolytus, St., ‘Philosophumena’ of, v. 218; on Christ’s Divinity, vii. 424; inaccurate language of,
427.
Historical estheticism, its objec- tion to dogma, i. 34; ‘historical spirit,’ the, iv. 153.
‘Homoiousion,’ the, vii. 444.
‘Homoousion,’ history of the term, i. 32; vii. 435 8qq.; see Lect, VIL.; how criticised by moderns, 365 ; explains early Church’s worship of Christ, 366 sq.; summarizes her Christology, 414 sq.; a ‘de- velopment’ only by explanation, 435 8q.3 why rejected by Council of Antioch, 438.
Hooker, on ‘being in Christ,’ vi. 353; on human limitations in Christ, viii. 475; on Hypostatic Union, 485.
Hope, its necessity and uses, ii. 73 ; Israel sustained by, 75.
‘Humanity,’ era of, iii. 132; idea of, protected by the Incarnation, vill. 459, 502.
Humanitarianism, i. 15, 25; vi. 2953 328, 3433 Vil. 4343 Vill. 481.
Humanity of our Lord, see ‘ Christ.’
Humility, Christ’s Incarnation the great motive to, vili. 499 sq.
Hymns, fragments of, in the Epi- stles, vi. 3231 sq.; value of, as expressing Christian doctrine, vii.
393 8 .. * Hypostasis, history of the term,
i233: ‘Hypostatic Union,’ i. 17, 23, note; v. 260 8q.; Vili. 472, 485.
i
Ignatius, St., alludes to St. John, v. 216; on worship of Christ, vii. 387; on His Divinity, 419.
‘lpnorance’ and ‘error,’ not iden- tical, viii. 476.
‘Image of God,’ a title of Christ, vi, 321.
Incarnation, the, illustrated by mysteries in our present being, v. 203; how related to Creation,
268; secures belief in a living God, viii. 455; protects dignity of man, 459. See ‘ Christ.’
‘Inferential Theology,’ viii. 448 sq.
Inspiration, ii. 46 sq.; Vv. 221.
Treneus, St., i. 8; on the Four Gospels, v. 212; on Christ’s Di- vinity, vii. 421; on His human ‘ignorance,’ 468.
Isaiah, prophecy of, its Messianic richness, and its unity, ii. 84 sq.; his self-abasement, iv. 166.
Israel, Messianic hopes of, ii. 75 sq.3 a Theocracy, ili, 101,
J.
Jackson, Dr., on Hypostatic Union, v. 261, 262, notes.
Jacobi, his view of Christ, i. 13.
James, St., Epistle of, vi. 281, 283, 285 8q., 289.
Jehovah, name of, ii. go.
Jeremiah, prophecy of, ii. 85, 90, lol.
Jerome, St., on Christian society, iii, 127, note; on Ante-nicenes, vil. 430.
Jerusalem, council of, vi. 281, 290.
Jrsus, Name of, ii. go; v. 250, notes.
Jews, their history a witness to Christ, iii. 99; hostility of, to Christianity, 139.
Job, ‘Wisdom’ referred to in, ii.
60.
John Baptist, St., ili. 113.
John Damascene, St., on Hypostatic Union, v. 261, 262, notes; on Two Energies, v. 267, note.
John the Evangelist, St., see Lect. V.; life and character of, 243 86.» 273, 276 sq.; compared with St. Paul, vi. 285, 356; Gospel of, its authenticity, v. 209 sq.; its three purposes, 221 sq.; internal diffi- culties urged against it, 226, note; its relation to the other Gospels, 247 sq.; Epistles of, 240 8q.; Vil. 382, Note F; Revelation of, see ‘ Apocalypse.’
John Presbyter, Note F.
Jowett, Prof., on Philo, ii. 68, 69, notes.
‘ Joyful Light,’ hymn, vii. 394.
566
Index.
Judaizers, vi. 285, 337, 356.
Jude, St., Christology of, vi. 305.
Justification, i. 41; vi. 345.
Justin Martyr, St., on ‘the Angel of the Lord,’ ii. 56; his testimony to St. John’s Gospel, v. 216; on worship of Christ, vii. 388; on Christ’s Divinity, 420; difficulties in his language, 420 sq.
Juvenal, 111, 142.
Κ,
Kant, his definition of religion, ἱ, 3; his view of Christ, i. 12.
Keble, iii. 132; on ‘Son of Man,’ i. 8, note.
Keim, iii. 115, note; Note A.
‘Kingdom of Heaven,’ foundation and laws of the, iii. Io sq. See ‘Church,’
Klee, on question of ‘i ignorance,’ viii. 466 sq., notes.
Kuhn, ii. 64.
‘Kyrie Bleison,’ the, vii. 396.
L.
Lactantius, on worship of Christ, vii. 403; inaccurate language of, 427.
Latitudinarians, on Creeds, vii. 445.
Law, Christianity a new, vi. 291.
Lazarus, raising of, iv. 159, 205; Υ͂. 377.
Lecky, on originality of Christ’ 8 teaching, i iii. 112, note; on ‘reve- rence,’ vii. 367, note.
Leibnitz, on human ‘ignorance’ in Christ, viii. 472, note.
Leo, St., on Hypostatic Union, v. 261, note.
Litany, the, i. 40; viii. 482.
‘Little Labyrinth,’ the, vii. 434, note.
Liturgies, Mozarabic and Eastern, vii. 397, 398.
Logos, the, in Philo, ii. 63 sq.; in St. John, v. 229 sq.; in St. James, vi. 291; in St. Peter, 302; ἐνδιά- θετος and προφορικός, vii. 427.
Lucian, scoffs at worship of Christ, vii. 400.
Lucian of Antioch, vii. 427.
Luke, St., his narrative of the Nativity, v. 250.
Luther, asserts the ‘ubiquity’ of Christ’s manhood, viii. 471.
M.
Manhood of our Lord, see ‘ Christ.’
Manicheans, vii. 438.
Mansel, Prof., on ‘ Reason’ in Plato, ii. 65, note.
Marcion, v. 213, 218.
Martensen, v. 241, 250, notes; viii. 489, note.
Martini, Pugio Fidei, ii. 92.
Martyrs, the, iv. 147; pray to Christ in their agony, vii. 407 8q., 414 sq.
Mary, the B. V., 1, τὸ; iv. 168;