^{page 518 note 1} The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), p. 319.Google Scholar

^{page 518 note 2} Ibid., pp. 315–17.

^{page 519 note 3} See Herriparin, W., ‘Der geschichtliche Chrisms, Grund unsere Glaubens’ (1892) in Fischer-Appeit, P., ed., Wilhelm Herrmanns Theologische Schriften (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1966), pp. 149–185Google Scholar. This lengthy article was a response to Kähler's, Martin famous lecture, The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ (1892), ed. and trans, by Braaten, Carl (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962).Google Scholar

^{page 519 note 4} The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ, p. 375.

^{page 520 note 5} Lecture Synopses, unpublished lecture summaries, sheet 50. These undated summaries were copied and distributed to the students during the course of the year. Although some were revised for the 1935–36 year, it is not possible to determine when others were given their final form. Mackintosh occasionally instructed students to cross out words, sentences or paragraphs of the summaries and replaced them verbally.

^{page 520 note 6} Ibid.

^{page 520 note 7} Types of Modern Theology (London: Nisbet, 1937), p. 278.Google Scholar

^{page 520 note 8} The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ, p. 30.

^{page 521 note 9} Ibid., p. 35.

^{page 521 note 10} Ibid., p. 363.

^{page 521 note 11} Ibid., p. 364.

^{page 522 note 12} Mackintosh had studied with Kahler in Halle, and was a close friend of Denney. See The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ, pp. 306–320; and ‘Principal Denney as a Theologian’, Expository Times 28 (1916–1917), pp. 488–494.Google Scholar

^{page 522 note 13} The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ, p. 367.

^{page 522 note 14} Ibid., pp. 364, 366.

^{page 522 note 15} The Epistle to the Hebrews played an importantjole in the development of Scottish theology in the second half of the 19th century. A. B. Bruce, A. B. Davidson and Marcus Dods each wrote a commentary, and Milligan's, William widely read book, The Ascension and High Priesthood of our Lord (1891)Google Scholar, was based primarily on the christology of Hebrews.

^{page 522 note 16} The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ, pp. 374–5.

^{page 522 note 17} Ibid., p. 375.

^{page 523 note 18} Ibid., p. 377.

^{page 523 note 19} Ibid., p. 466.

^{page 523 note 20} ‘The Revival of Kenoticism’, Expository Times 21 (1909–1910), p. 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 524 note 21} Thomasius, Gottfried, Christi Person und Werk (Erlangen, 1857), vol. 2, pp. 141–144Google Scholar; Gess, W. F., Das Dogma von Christi Person und Werke (Basel, 1887), pp. 344–366.Google Scholar

^{page 524 note 22} The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ, pp. 477–8; compare this with Forsyth, P. T., The Person and Place of Jesus Christ (1909) (London: Independent Press, 1930), Lecture 11, pp. 291–320Google Scholar; and Forrest, D. W., The Authority of Christ (1906) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914), pp. 40–102Google Scholar. Mackintosh is clearly dependent upon Forsyth and Forrest, and not on Thomasius or Gess, as Baillie, D. M. supposed in God was in Christ (London: Faber, 1948), p. 96.Google Scholar

^{page 524 note 23} The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ, p. 473.

^{page 524 note 24} Forsyth, P. T., The Person and Place of Jesus Christ, pp. 325–357.Google Scholar

^{page 524 note 25} The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ, p. 494.

^{page 525 note 26} Ibid., p. 500.

^{page 526 note 27} Ibid., p. 334.

^{page 526 note 28} Ritschl, A., Justification and Reconciliation, ed. and trans. Mackintosh, H. R. et al. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1900), pp. 577–607.Google Scholar

^{page 526 note 29} ‘The Unio Mystica as a Theological Conception,’ in Some Aspects of Christian Belief (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1923), p. 101.Google Scholar

^{page 527 note 30} Ibid., p. 102.

^{page 527 note 31} Denney's objections were made in a series of articles which appeared in The Expositor between 1900 and 1906.

^{page 527 note 32} ‘The Unio Mystica as a Theological Conception’, p. 110.

^{page 527 note 33} Ibid.

^{page 527 note 34} Ibid., p. 104.

^{page 528 note 35} Ibid., p. 117.

^{page 528 note 36} Ibid., p. 118. See Calvin, , Institute, III, i, 1, ed. McNeill, J. T., trans. Battles, F. L. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), p. 537Google Scholar: ‘We must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value. Therefore, to share with us what he has received from the Father, he had to become ours and dwell in us.’ Although Mackintosh does not refer to Calvin in this context, one can see a basic similarity in their thinking.

^{page 528 note 37} The Christian Experience of Forgiveness (London: Nisbet, 1927), p. 255.Google Scholar

^{page 528 note 38} Ibid., p. 193.

^{page 529 note 39} Ibid., p. 194.

^{page 529 note 40} Ibid.

^{page 529 note 41} Ibid., p. 195.

^{page 529 note 42} ‘Principal Denney as a Theologian’, p. 491.

^{page 529 note 43} The Christian Experience of Forgiveness, p. 198.

^{page 530 note 44} Ibid., p. 200.

^{page 530 note 45} Ibid., pp. 201; 208.

^{page 530 note 46} Ibid., p. 203.

^{page 531 note 47} Ibid., pp. 204; 205–06.

^{page 531 note 48} Ibid., p. 208.

^{page 531 note 49} Ibid., p. 210.

^{page 532 note 50} Ibid., p. 212.

^{page 532 note 51} Ibid., p. 190.

^{page 532 note 52} Bushnell, Horace, Forgiveness and Law (New York, 1874), pp. 36–60Google Scholar. Bushnell describes the atonement as God ‘making cost for forgiveness’. For a useful study of Bushnell's unusual understanding of the atonement, see Johnson, William A., Nature and the Supernatural in the Theology of Horace Bushnell (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1963), chapter 6.Google Scholar

^{page 533 note 53} ‘God's Love and Our Burdens’, The Monthly Visitor, no. 1200 (Stirling: Drummond Tract Depot, 1932).Google Scholar