No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
Hugh Ross Mackintosh (1870–1936) was Professor of Systematic Theology at New College, Edinburgh, for 32 years until his sudden death on 8th June 1936. Regarded as one of the foremost theologians of his day, he was awarded honorary degrees from Oxford and Marburg, and left profound impressions on the countless students from Scotland and around the world who came to hear his lectures. Mackintosh was a formidable scholar; it was said that he had read every important theological book published in Britain and Germany, and he skilfully translated Ritschl's Justification and Reconciliation and Schleiermacher's The Christian Faith. He possessed a discerning eye and a gift for lucid exposition which made him an authoritative interpreter and commentator. A keen student of philosophy, Mackintosh studied its relationship to theology closely; much of his early work dealt with the neo-Kantian epistemology of Herman Lotze that formed the philosophical basis for Ritschlian theology.
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page 520 note 5 Lecture Synopses, unpublished lecture summaries, sheet 50.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