^{page 529 note 1} The only full-length study of Campbell published is Bewkes, Eugene Garrett, Legacy of a Christian Mind (Philadelphia, 1937).Google Scholar

^{page 529 note 2} Campbell, John McLeod, The Nature of the Atonement (London, 1867).Google Scholar We will refer to the third edition, which contains additional appendices and an analytical table of contents.

^{page 529 note 3} ibid., p. 137.

^{page 529 note 4} Moberly, R. C., Atonement and Personality (London, 1917).Google Scholar

^{page 529 note 5} Lewis, C. S., ‘The Perfect Penitent’, in Mere Christianity (New York, 1952), pp. 56–61.Google Scholar

^{page 530 note 6} Torrance, James B., ‘The Contribution of John McLeod Campbell 10 Scottish Theology’, Scottish Journal of Theology 26 (1973), pp. 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 530 note 7} Campbell, p. 129.

^{page 530 note 8} ibid., p. 137. Jonathan Edwards, ‘satisfaction for Sin’ in The Works of President Edwards (New York, 1844), ii, 1–3.

^{page 530 note 9} Campbell, p. 137.

^{page 530 note 10} Bruce, A. B., The Humiliation of Christ, Cincinnati, n.d., pp. 319–320, 442.Google Scholar

^{page 530 note 11} Campbell, pp. 135–6.

^{page 530 note 12} ibid., p. 136.

^{page 531 note 13} ibid., p. 137.

^{page 531 note 14} ibid., p. 256.

^{page 531 note 15} Tuille, George M., ‘The Place of John McLeod Campbell in British Thought Concerning the Atonement’, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation (Victoria University of Toronto, 1961), p. 203.Google Scholar

^{page 531 note 16} Campbell, p. 149.

^{page 531 note 17} Dickie, Edgar P., ‘Introduction toj. M. Campbell’ in Campbell, John McLeod, The Nature of the Atonement (Exeter, 1959), xviii.Google Scholar

^{page 532 note 18} Campbell, p. 146.

^{page 532 note 19} ibid., p. 159.

^{page 532 note 20} ibid.

^{page 532 note 21} ibid., p. 160.

^{page 532 note 22} ibid., p. 138.

^{page 532 note 23} ibid., p. 139.

^{page 532 note 24} ibid., p. 135.

^{page 533 note 25} Bewkes, p. 295.

^{page 533 note 26} Moberly, p. 22.

^{page 533 note 27} ibid., p. 110.

^{page 533 note 28} ibid., p. 99.

^{page 533 note 29} ibid., p. 117.

^{page 533 note 30} ibid., p. 28.

^{page 533 note 31} ibid., pp. 38–9.

^{page 533 note 32} ibid., p. 41.

^{page 533 note 33} ibid., p. 42.

^{page 534 note 34} ibid., p. 43.

^{page 534 note 35} ibid., p. 117.

^{page 534 note 36} ibid., p. 42.

^{page 534 note 37} ibid., p. 44.

^{page 534 note 38} ibid., p. 46.

^{page 534 note 39} ibid., p. 283.

^{page 534 note 40} ibid., p. 284.

^{page 534 note 41} ibid., p. 285.

^{page 534 note 42} ibid., p. 286.

^{page 534 note 43} ibid., p. 402.

^{page 534 note 44} ibid., p.404.

^{page 535 note 45} Dale, R. W., The Atonement (London, 1902), p. 424. Cited by Moberly, p. 405.Google Scholar

^{page 535 note 46} Moberly, p. 405.

^{page 535 note 47} ibid., p. 406.

^{page 535 note 48} Bruce, p. 320.

^{page 535 note 49} Crawford, T. J., The Doctrine of Scripture Respecting the Atonement (Edinburgh, 1871), p. 323.Google Scholar

^{page 536 note 50} ibid., p. 324.

^{page 536 note 51} ibid., p. 326.

^{page 536 note 52} Moberly, pp. 53–4.

^{page 536 note 53} Mackintosh, H. R., Some Aspects of Christian Belief (New York), n.d., p. 91.Google Scholar Cf. Denney, James, The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation (New York, 1918), p. 259.Google Scholar

^{page 536 note 54} Mozley, J. K., The Doctrine of the Atonement (London, 1915), p. 193Google Scholar; Stevens, G. B., The Christian Doctrine of Salvation (New York, 1905).Google Scholar Both cited in Bewkes, p. 181.

^{page 536 note 55} Macquarrie, John, ‘John McLeod Campbell, 1800–72’, Expository Times 83 (1972), pp. 263–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 537 note 56} ‘Total inability’ is usually seen in Reformed theology as one aspect of ‘total depravity’ (Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, II (Grand Rapids, 1977), pp. 26ff.Google Scholar; Strong, Augustus, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia, 1907), pp. 637–644Google Scholar; Bloesch, Donald, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, I (San Francisco, 1978), p. 90).Google Scholar L. Berkhof draws a distinction between ‘total depravity’ as referring to sin's ‘pervasiveness’ and ‘total inability’ as referring to ‘its effects on man's spiritual powers’ (Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, 1939), pp. 246–8). The emphasis is upon sin involving every aspect of the person (Calvin, Institute, II.9), and thus humanity has ‘wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation’ (Westminster Confession, 9.3). Barth concludes that if reconciliation and justification involve the whole person, ‘then there can be no reservations with regard to his corruption’ (Church Dogmatics, IV/i (Edinburgh, 1956), pp. 499–500). Hodge interestingly enough relates inability directly to repentance: ‘What the Bible and all the Confessions of the churches of the Reformation assert is, that man, since the fall, cannot change his own heart; he cannot regenerate his soul; he cannot repent with godly sorrow (emphasis mine), or exercise that faith which is unto salvation’ (p. 264).

^{page 537 note 57} Paul also mentions Christ as our ‘redemption’. We have no salvific parallel to this, but this in no way invalidates the previous pictures of wisdom, righteousness, and sanctification.

^{page 537 note 58} J. B. Torrance, p. 306.

^{page 537 note 59} Moberly, pp. 136–53.

^{page 538 note 60} Cited by Campbell, p. 144.

^{page 538 note 61} Moberly, p. 42.

^{page 538 note 62} Lewis, p. 60.

^{page 538 note 63} ibid., p. 59.

^{page 538 note 64} ibid., p. 60.

^{page 538 note 65} Moberly, p. 90.

^{page 538 note 66} ibid., p. 66.

^{page 538 note 67} Campbell, p. 178.

^{page 538 note 68} Torrance, p. 310.

^{page 539 note 69} Campbell, p. 377.

^{page 539 note 70} ibid., p. 127.

^{page 539 note 71} ibid., p. 159.

^{page 539 note 72} The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation (New York, 1918), p. 118.Google Scholar

^{page 539 note 73} ibid.

^{page 539 note 74} Campbell, p. 173.

^{page 539 note 75} ibid., p. 195.

^{page 539 note 76} Moberly, pp. 137–8.

^{page 539 note 77} ibid., p. 286.

^{page 540 note 78} ibid., p. 285.

^{page 540 note 79} Campbell, p. 249.

^{page 540 note 80} ibid., p. 345. cf. xxv.

^{page 540 note 81} Moberly, pp. 191–2.

^{page 540 note 82} Campbell, xliv.

^{page 541 note 83} Hengel, Martin concludes in his New Testament study, The Son of God (Philadelphia, 1976), pp. 92f.Google Scholar, thai ‘son of God’ was a ‘metaphor’ used in early Christian theology for ‘expressing both ihc origin of Jesus in God's being … and his true humanity’.

^{page 541 note 84} Church Dogmatics, III/2 (Edinburgh, 1960), pp. 19ff.Google Scholar

^{page 541 note 85} Anderson, Ray S., On Being Human (Grand Rapids, 1982), p. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 541 note 86} ibid., p. 14. In addition, as my friend and colleague Donna Van Haren has pointed out, Macquarrie's objection would be equally true of any soteriology (apart from a strict ‘moral influence’ theory) which seeks to relate the individual Jesus of Nazareth to all of humanity in a salvific sense. One wonders whether Macquarrie would wish to press his objection this far.

^{page 542 note 87} Michel, O., ‘son of God’, New International Dictionary of Mew Testament Theology, Brown, C., ed., Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, 1978), p. 639.Google Scholar Cf. Cullman, Oscar, The Christology of the New Testament (Philadelphia, 1959), p. 290.Google Scholar

^{page 542 note 88} Johnson, S. E., ‘son of God’, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible Buttrick, G. A., ed., Vol. 4 (Nashville, 1962), p. 410.Google Scholar

^{page 542 note 89} ibid., p. 409. It is also tempting to see the baptism of Jesus as recorded in Matthew as an indication of how vicarious repentance and the sonship of Jesus are intertwined. John's baptism is a baptism ‘for repentance’ () (3.11). He is genuinely surprised when Jesus comes to be baptized by him (v. 14) (a response similar to the modern opposition to ‘vicarious repentance‘?). Jesus states that its purpose is ‘to fulfill all righteousness’ (v. 15, only in Mt.) (). Is it coincidental that the baptism is crowned with the pronouncement by the Father, ‘This is my beloved son …’ (v. 17)?

^{page 542 note 90} Schweizer, Eduard, ‘νióζ’, Theological Dictionary of the Mew Testament, Kittel, G. and Friedrich, G., eds, Vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, 1972), p. 378.Google Scholar

^{page 542 note 91} See the successive order of forgiveness before repentance in Calvin's theology (InstituteIII.3.1, 2). Cf. Torrance, p. 311.