15 December 2023

“In Death Itself He Was Living”: Hugh Martin’s Atonement Theology

By Dr John C. A. Ferguson

Dr John C. A. Ferguson is minister of Inverness Associated Presbyterian Church and former editor of the Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology.


Hugh Martin (1822–1885) was a Free Church of Scotland minister whose writings chiefly focussed on the doctrine of salvation. Despite the high esteem with which his writings have been held among Scottish theologians such as John Murray and Donald Macleod his works are not widely known. I wish to offer an introduction to Hugh Martin, and his writings and offer reasons why I think his writings are valuable today for Scottish theology and more widely.

A brief introduction to Hugh Martin

Martin was born in 1822 in Aberdeen, Scotland. He was educated in his home city and obtained an M.A. from Marischal College and a B.D. from Kings College, Aberdeen. He was raised in the Church of Scotland. His studies coincided with the Ten Years’ Conflict that preceded the 1843 Disruption and formation of the Free Church of Scotland. Martin attended Assembly debates and was influenced by William Cunningham to the views that would lead to secession from the Church of Scotland.

Martin was licensed to preach the gospel by the Free Church on 19th May 1843 – the day after the signing of the Act of Separation and Deed of Demission. He was called to minister in Panbride, a coastal farming and fishing community near Carnoustie, approximately 12 miles from Dundee, on the east coast of Scotland. He commenced his ministry in 1844. The area is exposed to the North Sea, and high winds and even in the summer can be bitterly cold. It is worthy of note that the landowner Lord Panmure (William Maule) was unsympathetic to the cause of the Free Church. It was ten years before permission was granted for a suitable building. When Lord Panmure died, his son (Fox Maule-Ramsay), a supporter of the Free Church cause, inherited his titles and land. The temporary wooden building Martin ministered in, ill-fitted for protection from the harsh weather, was finally replaced with more suitable premises. One of Martin’s successors later wrote that despite the hardship of those early years, ‘the congregation went on and prospered in the main under the faithful preaching of the Word and the healthful activity and hopeful perseverance of its people.’[1]

Martin married while in Panbride before receiving a call to Greyfriars Free Church, Edinburgh in 1857. His ministry commenced there the following year. His time in Edinburgh was unhappy, he suffered poor health and separated from his wife. Within two years he, ‘became mentally incapacitated for the duties of his office.’[2] There were protracted difficulties in arrangements for early retirement. He officially retired from pastoral ministry in 1865. 

The bulk of his theological writings were composed during his retirement. He also excelled in his studies in mathematics. He was an examiner in mathematics at the University of Edinburgh. He continued to contribute to the life of the church, his speeches are recorded at later General Assemblies and he preached in Free Church congregations. Health was a constant difficulty throughout these years. Even at the best of times, Martin didn’t seem to enjoy good physical health.

Martin was awarded a D.D. by the University of Edinburgh in 1872 in recognition of his theological achievements. He had a sad end to his life, his closing years residing in what we would describe as a psychiatric hospital but was then called a lunatic asylum. He died in 1885 at the Dundee Royal Lunatic Asylum. Notably, his death certificate attributes the cause to ‘organic disease of brain for two years’.[3] Today, Martin is buried in the Grange Cemetery, Edinburgh with his wife and adjacent to George Smeaton and William Cunningham.

A summary of Martin’s writings

Martin wrote on a variety of subjects in addition to theology including scientific education and mathematics. Theological interests include the use of Psalms in worship and church and state relations, pastoral applications of doctrine and commentaries on characters of the Bible, e.g. he wrote a commentary on Jonah and a collection of articles on Simon Peter. His writings are found among books, letters, sermons, theological tracts and articles. Throughout his writings, the subject of chief interest to Martin was the atonement.

Martin’s theology of atonement

Martin’s theology of atonement might be described as Calvinist, covenantal, or federal and confessional. He often refers to ‘the Westminster doctrine’ and it being the ‘catholic’ doctrine of the church. In his writings he refers to Christ’s atonement as, a “satisfaction for sin”[4]; substitution[5]; “vicarious sacrifice”[6]; A “substitutionary oblation”[7]. As a propitiation for sin it is also an expiation of sin in the life of a Christian. In its extent Martin holds to a definite, limited atonement.

 Martin’s understanding of the atonement is as a satisfaction for divine justice, yet he is not of the view that this theme exhausts the meaning of atonement, neither does he reject the validity of other metaphors that were used among contemporaries who took a different view. Instead he argues that where metaphors are appropriate, they derive their truth from Christ’s offering himself as a sacrifice to God as a reconciliation for the sins of his people.[8]

There is a twofold result for Martin: i) the study of atonement incorporates a full range of biblical concepts, however ii) when secondary themes are made to be primary and made to be the essence of atonement they turn into falsehood and error. He says, “when they claim to be of the essence of atonement, they fight against their own realisation.”[9]

To offer some examples as to how other metaphors graft into his understanding of atonement, Martin writes of the atonement being a “moral example”. It was by, “substitutionary sacrifice for sin, satisfying Divine justice, that Christ had scope for that unmurmuring patience by which He left us an ‘Example’ that we should follow His steps (1 Pet. ii. 21-24).” The atonement as “a Governmental Display” is rooted in his propitiatory work (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 4:10). Christ’s atonement is a “moral influence”; “a fountain both of Moral Influence and of regenerating energy to turn us unto righteousness, only because He there gave Himself in justice-satisfying substitution, ‘the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God’ (1 Pet. iii.18).” [vv. 13-17 refer to a Christian’s behaviour].[10]

It’s noticeable that the Christus Victor motif is not one Martin mentions in his survey of other views of the atonement. It became more prominent again through Gustaf Aulen’s writings in the following century. But it does feature in Martin’s writings on the atonement. He frequently makes applications of the atonement towards Satan and demonic powers.[11]

Martin’s book “The Atonement” concentrates on three aspects of Christ’s atonement which he believes important for maintaining the church’s confessional doctrine in the face of diverse views of atonement promoted in his day, including ‘the moral example’; “the moral influence”; “governmental display” and “martyrdom” views.

In a bid to defend and promote the church’s confessional position, Martin emphasises three doctrines with reference to which he argues the atonement must be discussed. (1) the covenant of grace, (2) Christ’s priesthood and (3) Christ’s priestly action in his death.

The covenant of grace

Martin’s view of the covenant of grace is in keeping with Thomas Boston; for Boston, the substance of the covenant of grace between God and mankind and the covenant of redemption between God’s three persons are best considered as a single covenant, the covenant of grace. A single covenant comprises the covenantal arrangements agreed in God’s eternal counsel and his administration of the covenant in time.

The covenant is not designed to procure God’s love or forgiveness for the lost but is rather the fruit of it, whereby sinners are saved and his holy justice upon sin upheld.

In addition to the positive Scriptural attestation to the covenant and its connection to Christ’s atonement (e.g. Matt. 26:28 and Heb. 13:20), the covenant of grace offers defence against objections to the atonement as a satisfaction of divine justice. One objection Martin addresses is that Christ’s atonement entails an injustice that the innocent are punished while the guilty escape. The objection falls away in view of Christ’s covenant oneness with the church. Christ and the church are one and indivisible “so far as their legal standings and responsibilities”[12] by virtue of the covenant of grace. The objection depends on considering the two parties separately. The covenant views the two parties as one and indivisible. In so doing, Martin isn’t arguing for any new point within the development of covenant in Scottish theology but is instead applying the theology to objections frequently heard in his own time.

Christ’s priesthood

A second emphasis in Martin’s writing on atonement is with respect to Priesthood. The atonement ought to be discussed with respect to Christ’s priesthood. I wish to focus on one aspect of Christ’s priesthood that Martin draws attention to, but before doing so, on the general theme, it is worth noting John Murray’s comment, in a reference he makes to Martin, that summarises the cause for drawing attention to priesthood. Murray writes in Redemption: Accomplished and Applied; “That Christ’s work was to offer himself a sacrifice for sin implies, however, a complementary truth too frequently overlooked. It is that, if Christ offered himself as a sacrifice, he was also a priest.”[13]

Christ’s action in his priesthood

A point Martin focuses on within Christ’s priesthood is what he describes as Christ’s action in his priesthood. That is Christ’s voluntary, intentional, willing and living work as a priest, leading up to and in his death. Thereafter his priestly action continues in his intercession.

As with the covenant, Christ’s action in his death is not a new point in theology. Martin’s concern was it being overlooked in his time. His contribution is to recover the point and in detail show Christ’s priestly action in his death.

The doctrinal point of Christ’s action in his death is made in his book, The Atonement and is a recurring theme in his book The Shadow of Calvary. This book is a study of Gethsemane, Christ’s arrest and trial. This study was originally offered in the form of the Scottish or Sabbath lecture. Martin observes throughout the Passion narrative Christ’s intended, voluntary offering of himself to God. He aims to show throughout the Passion narrative that Christ is in command. Whether it is shown by his captors who fall away at his arrest when he speaks (John 18:6), the brevity with which he speaks to Judas (Matt 26:50; Luke 22:48), or when he rebukes Simon Peter for cutting off the high priest’s servant’s ear and in so doing also affirms again his authority over angelic beings and powers (Matt 26:52-54), or his words to Caiaphas, and the guard who struck him (John 18:19-23); or in his other interactions, Martin aims to show Christ’s command – while he is also suffering – in these situations.

Christ’s priestly action continues in his laying down his life on the cross. Martin describes this as the most powerful of his works. The atonement is, “the most livingly active work He has ever yet ‘accomplished’ (Luke ix.31)”.[14] The title of this article is drawn from one of his expressions, “in death itself he was living”.[15] The main point Martin wishes to convey is that Christ was not subjected to death, but death became his subject. His will was in his death. Paradoxically to us, he lives in his death. He draws from texts conveying the idea, such as Hebrews 7:16, Christ “has become a priest… by the power of an indestructible life” and Galatians 2:20 “I am crucified with Christ… and I now live.”

Christ’s action in his death points to the uniqueness of Christ’s death, his death is unlike any other in that he was obedient unto death and that in so doing he gave himself. On his declarations on the cross, “It is finished” and “Father into thy hands I commit my spirit.”; Martin comments,

Manifestly He was master of His own life when he thus spake. No one was taking it from Him; He was laying it down of Himself: He was offering Himself to God, presenting His united soul and body to the sword of justice to separate them in death; and in testimony of this it is added that, having thus spoken, “he gave up the ghost”—He dismissed His spirit.[16]

His priesthood continues in his death, his body and soul remaining in his possession, being his body and his soul, united to his Godhead and therefore remaining in his power. And so Martin would write, regarding Christ’s death, “Even when he died in his human nature, he was living. He was always the Living One, yea, the Life, the very Life; and never more gloriously so than in his death-destroying death.”[17]

I recall my late doctorate supervisor John Webster especially appreciating that last quote during my research on Martin’s theology, describing the point as a hallmark of a reformed theology. In a draft chapter he wrote beside the quote, “This is very good!”

Martin’s attention to Christ’s priestly action isn’t intended to hide Christ’s sufferings, minimise or set them aside. His aim rather is to observe his life and death as a priestly offering to God, in keeping with texts such as Psalm 110:4 “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” and Hebrews 5:2, “every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins”. Dogmatically, Christ’s action, his offering, is observable throughout his earthly ministry. It is bonded together with his sufferings. Martin refers to the atonement as “an offering in suffering, and as suffering in offering.”[18] The offering is not to suppress Christ’s suffering, hide it or take away from it. Indeed for Martin, the nature of the offering heightens the suffering. This is brought to light when Martin discusses Christ’s sorrow and affliction in Gethsemane. An example of where he emphasises Christ’s suffering while speaking of his offering, he says, “in offering himself a sacrifice to God’s justice he should at the same time fall a victim to man’s hatred and hostility, his death being not only voluntarily endured but also brought about by violent and wicked hands”.[19] Christ’s suffering – as his offering – is also unique and Martin speaks of the difficulty of inquiring into both.[20] But the main point is that the atonement is both an offering and suffering and not a suffering only.[21]

I have found the point of Christ’s priestly action made in The Atonement and then shown through the passion narrative in The Shadow of Calvary most helpful for observing Christ’s intentional work in the hours leading up to the cross and then on the cross, thereby demonstrating the uniqueness of Christ’s death. His writings have assisted me to see, more comprehensively than before in the gospels, the fulfilment of Jesus’ sayings of John 10:17-18.

In application of this point of Christ’s priestly action today, I think Martin would urge caution when speaking of the atonement primarily as a penal substitution, not that the doctrine necessarily implies a suffering-only on the cross; but it could be construed that way; the substitution being in his suffering, when the substitution is also in his offering. He would agree that the atonement is a penal substitution, but I think he would counsel care in the use of the term, that it is made clear that the atonement is both Christ’s suffering and offering. Accordingly, I think he would wish for the term to be supplemented concerning his priestly action on the cross. He might wish for it to be said in explanation of the term, penal substitution, that it is a priestly offering; or in explanation of it being a priestly offering, it is a penal substitution. Doing so would serve to buffer against characterisations of Christ as “only a victim” which plays into the hands of those who have described the atonement as a divine abuse. He writes:

If He died a mere passive victim, He did not die a victor: and no subsequent glory can in that case redeem what in that case was defeat[ed]. But He died a triumphant agent. He prevailed against death to live until He said, “Tis finished,” and then to die, not merely voluntarily, but by positive priestly action, giving Himself to God.[22]

Martin’s observation was that these 3 points – covenant, priesthood and Christ’s priestly action – had fallen out of view in his time, which is why he found the need to highlight them. Of these three, I think the third point – Christ’s priestly action – is the best entrance into Martin’s theology today, as it tracks along repeatedly in the gospel narratives.

In drawing this part to a close, I think it fair to say that for Martin the wonder of Christ’s work on the cross is comparable to and even exceeds that of the incarnation. So for Martin, the study of the cross elicits worship to God and Jesus Christ. Christ’s death is unique and divine both in its accomplishment and in its achievements.[23]

Reasons why Martin’s writings are not so well known

Martin’s theological positions declined in popularity in his time.

In The Atonement (1870), he writes regarding an objection that the doctrine of the covenant of grace is ‘old-fashioned’, with the perception that the doctrine of the covenant of grace taught by the Disruption ministers and esteemed by their parishioners is falling out of view among the next generation of Free Church ministers.[24] In The Shadow of Calvary (1875) he comments, “in many quarters the covenant of grace seems to be forgotten. But the theology of Confession of Faith and the pages of Boston and the Erskines are still dear to the Scottish people.”[25]

The difficulty of reading Martin’s writings

This is partly due to form and partly to content. In form, for example, in The Atonement, Martin readily admits in the preface, that it’s not as much a book on the atonement as it is a collection of papers on the atonement, some of which are directly connected, others being more miscellaneous in their nature. In terms of content, I find myself having to reread his writings more than once to grasp his arguments and am not always successful in doing so. In reference to Christ’s action in his death, he writes of, “the severe mental exercise for which there is in this simple familiar truth such manifest scope”.[26] This intensity of study is reflected in his writings and felt by his readers. Most I know who have read Martin say have found his books a very challenging read.

Martin’s engagement with contemporary theologians

Martin’s interest in defending the doctrines of atonement in its time resulted in his engagement with theologians such as Ralph Wardlaw, F. D. Maurice, F. W. Robertson, Horace Bushnell, who are not so well-known today as, for example, Schleiermacher and John McLeod Campbell. Consequently, some of the debates that he enters into would be unfamiliar to many readers now, though for those accustomed with the range of views there are on the atonement, the concepts involved, if not the names would be familiar.

Strengths and weaknesses of Martin’s writings


Martin’s study of the atonement leads to a detailed opening up of the subject that yields depth in understanding and a multi-faceted view of the atonement in its accomplishment and applications, including pastoral applications and theological implications. He applied the powers of his intellect to the study of the cross, and at the same time he also devoted his energy to the study, so that when he speaks of “the severe mental exercise”[27] previously described I take it as a partly auto-biographical statement. If a downside is the challenge in reading his works, an upside is the benefits gained from studying them.


Martin’s theological writings are mostly systematic in their nature, but he didn’t write a systematic theology. Nor did he write a systematic theology of atonement. It would be desirable for instance to have more from Martin on the relationship of the threefold office of Christ as prophet, priest and king and as to why the priesthood is foundational to the royal and prophetic offices for atonement. Priesthood is foundational in his theology of atonement, but the point is not developed in “The Atonement” as thoroughly as might be hoped for.

Martin builds upon and applies the theology of those who have gone before him. It means however that some of his positions are – on the page – inherited rather than argued. For example his view of the covenant of grace as a single covenant in contrast to a separate covenant of grace and covenant of redemption. He doesn’t offer an argument as to why one is preferred to the other.

As mentioned before, his concentration on contemporary voices. Martin’s writings may be more widely known had he offered critiques of earlier nineteenth-century theologians who have proven more influential over time, such as Schleiermacher and McLeod Campbell.

Martin’s style of writing. In places can come across as overly harsh towards those with differing views, even at times on matters that are not confessional.[28]

Martin in the broader setting of Scottish theology

Martin’s writings stand in the long tradition of federal theology, his writings build upon, develop and apply his church’s theological tradition. The divergent paths in theological commitments of Martin’s writings may be observed upon comparing John Macleod’s Scottish Theology with T.F. Torrance’s volume by the same name. Macleod’s book concludes with Martin’s theology along with John Kennedy of Dingwall, while T. F. Torrance’s does so with John McLeod Campbell.[29] Corresponding to the divergence of two camps, each claiming “reformed theology” there has been a gravitating towards one or the other. In terms of the present day, it appears to me these two schools only comprise a small minority within Scottish evangelicalism, and federal theology is less widespread now than in Martin’s day. Yet Martin has also had a lasting influence in Scotland, evident in the writings of John Murray and Donald Macleod and largely, while not exclusively, among the churches that trace their roots through the formation of the Free Church of Scotland in 1843 where his writings are still highly revered.

Subjects that arise for further research in Scottish church history and theology

Subjects that arise from my studies of Martin for further research in the field of Scottish church history and theology

Theological method

Martin’s writings lend themselves to the study of theological methods in the nineteenth century. His theology is of interest with respect to Bavinck’s critique of Hodge’s theological method, for Martin employs the same methods as Hodge.[30] A method of arriving at the doctrine of the covenant of grace is by induction, “Scientific or Baconian induction”,[31] “principles analogous to those of truly Baconian philosophy”.[32] It seems to me Martin’s theology lends support to Paul Helm’s appeal that “Hodge’s references to induction should not be misunderstood. This cannot [be] the logic of general induction, but the induction in question is from the bounded set of expressions in the canonical scriptures.”[33] Helm’s appeal is in keeping with Martin’s comments on the inner logic of Scripture and the relationship between theology and philosophy in The Atonement.[34] In brief, I think Martin’s writings could help address the matter that Bavinck is concerned with in Hodge’s method.


A key theological point in Martin’s writings concerns the threefold office of Christ and it raises the question of how Christ’s priesthood is appropriated to his royal and prophetic office in nineteenth-century Scotland. A study that would also be of interest is Martin’s understanding of Christ’s divine and human natures.[35]


Overall, Martin’s significance for Scottish theology is bound up with the time in which he ministered and demands the study of the period in which he lived. Simultaneously, his theology serves today as a model of atonement – his defence of age-old doctrines of atonement, while allowing for new veins of thought, not displacing the old – and warning against doing so – instead viewing aspects of the atonement in their relations to one another; as such his theology models a bringing out of treasures old and new (Matt 13:52). Martin’s writings offer a significant correction where the emphasis has been what happened to Christ on the cross rather than what he did on the cross, the value of this point, again, not a new point in theology, but one he brings to light, transcends his time period. Where the evangelical church today is proclaiming Christ’s action in his death then Martin’s writings are not rendered obsolete, but I believe those who do, would find Martin’s writings valuable for his deliberations upon both Christ’s work on the cross and how the whole of Christ’s life was an offering to God. For these reasons, I believe Martin’s writings will continue to influence the field of Scottish theology, be of service to the church and are deserving of widespread attention.

About the author

Dr John C. A. Ferguson is minister of Inverness Associated Presbyterian Church and former editor of the Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology.


[1]  James Innes, History of Panbride Free Church Carnoustie: A Memorial of the Disruption in 1843, Delivered 14th May 1893 (Carnoustie: A. Reid, 1893), 23.

[2]  ‘Dr. Hugh Martin’, Proceedings and Debates of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland (1881), 46.

[3]  Douglas Somerset, ‘Life of Hugh Martin’, The Bulwark: Magazine of the Scottish Reformation Society (Oct 2008–Mar 2009), 25.

[4]  Hugh Martin, The Atonement: In Its Relations to the Covenant, the Priesthood, the Intercession of our Lord (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1870. Repr. Edinburgh: Knox Press, 1976), 15.

[5]  Martin, The Atonement, 53.

[6]  Martin, The Atonement, 15–16.

[7]  Martin, The Atonement, 69.

[8]  Martin, The Atonement, 69.

[9]  Martin, The Atonement, 71.

[10]  Martin, The Atonement, 69-70.

[11]  E.g. Martin, ‘Christ’s Victory over Death’, The British and Foreign Evangelical Review 29 (1880), 669–86, is an exposition of Hebrews 2:14-15.

[12]  Martin, The Atonement, 15.

[13]  John Murray, Redemption Accomplished & Applied (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955), 28.

[14]  Martin, Christ’s Victory, 680.

[15]  Martin, ‘Exchange of Places’, The British and Foreign Evangelical Review 31 (1882), 465.

[16]  Martin, Christ’s Victory, 677; Martin references John 19:13 and Luke 23:46.

[17]  Martin, Christ for Us: Sermons of Hugh Martin (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1998), 53.

[18]  Martin, The Atonement, 86.

[19]  Martin, The Shadow of Calvary: Gethsemane—The Arrest—The Trial (Edinburgh: Lyon & Gemmell, 1875), 295.

[20]  See Martin’s discussion in The Shadow of Calvary of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane; and also Martin’s comments as to why the books ends before the cross, Christ’s sufferings being so severe.

[21]  Martin’s observations on Christ’s death can be contrasted with depictions by FW Robertson’s description which he critiques in The Atonement, ‘Christ came into collision with the world’s evil, and He bore the penalty of that daring. He approached the whirling wheel, and was torn in pieces.’ (Martin, The Atonement, 248–49). Also the 44th Paraphrase,

Behold the Saviour on the cross,
a spectacle of woe!
See from his agonizing wounds

the blood incessant flow;

Till death’s pale ensigns o’er his cheek

and trembling lips were spread;

Till light forsook his closing eyes,

and life his drooping head!

’Tis finished—was his latest voice;

these sacred accents o’er,

He bowed his head, gave up the ghost,

and suffered pain no more.

’Tis finished—The Messiah dies

for sins, but not his own;

The great redemption is complete,

and Satan’s pow’r o’erthrown.

’Tis finished—All his groans are past;

his blood his pain, and toils,

Have fully vanquished our foes,

and crowned him with their spoils.

’Tis finished—Legal worship ends,

and gospel ages run;

All old things now are past away,

and a new world begun.

Martin comments on the second verse, ‘The impression which such phrases are fitted to make upon the mind is just this, and nothing more,— that our Lord unmurmuringly endured inconceivable sufferings,—that He was being subjected to death as the penalty due to sin. All which is true. But they also suggest the idea, that whereas formerly He had been engaged in positive duty, going about doing good, the time for positive and active duty was now passed, and the time for simply suffering had come.’ (Martin, The Atonement, 82).

[22]  Martin, The Atonement, 74.

[23]  See e.g. Martin, Shadow of Calvary, vii–viii.

[24]  Martin, The Atonement, 26-27.

[25]  Martin, Shadow of Calvary, ix.

[26]  Martin, The Atonement, 80.

[27]  Martin, The Atonement, 80.

[28]  E.g. see Martin’s critique of the view that God is related to prelapsarian man as a father; Martin, ‘Candlish’s Cunningham Lectures’, The British and Foreign Evangelical Review 14 (1865), 720-87. At the same time, Martin’s survey in this article regarding the absence of treatment of the doctrine of adoption in reformed theology is worthy of note. It offers a nineteenth century example of an observation on reformed theology more frequently made in recent times (see pp. 724-28).

[29]  Of interest is that a copy of The Atonement available to view on <www.archive.org> belonged to T. F. Torrance, inherited from his father, Rev Thomas Torrance. It is uploaded by Princeton Theological Seminary.

[30]  See Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics (gen. ed. John Bolt; trans. John Vriend; 4 vols.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003–2008), 1:93–94.

[31]  Martin, The Atonement, 33.

[32]  Martin, The Atonement, 36.

[33]  Paul Helm, ‘Charles Hodge & the Method of Systematic Theology’, Online: http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2007/09/charles-hodge-method-of-systematic.html?m=1 [Accessed 9 November 2022].

[34]  ‘The science of theology is perfectly competent within her own sphere for discharging all the duty which lies to her hand. She is under no necessity to confess inadequacy of materials in her own proper department for her own proper work: and when she is tempted to feel under any such necessity, it must be either because she has carried her investigations and efforts outside her own proper sphere, or has not exhausted the materials within it.’ Martin, The Atonement, 12.

[35]  Thanks to John McClean for raising this point in response to the paper.