Page:Tracts for the Times Vol 3.djvu/184

36 to His divine nature, making His manhood an adjunct; whereas to say that man is God, does the contrary of both of these,—leads us to consider Him a man personally, with some vast and unknown dignity superadded, and that acquired of course after His coming into existence as man. The difference between these two modes of speaking is well illustrated in the recent work of a Socinian writer, whom on account of the truth and importance of his remarks, it is right, with whatever pain, to quote.

It will be observed of this passage, that the writer implies that the orthodox mode of speaking of the Incarnation is not exposed to a certain consequence, to which the mode at present popular is exposed, viz. the tendency to explain away Christ's divinity. Man is, is the popular mode of speech; is man, is the Catholic. To return. It seems then that Mr. Erskine proceeds in the orthodox way, illustrating the doctrine that became man; Mr. A. starting with the earthly existence of our  does but enlarge upon the doctrine that a man is. Mr. Erskine enforces the Atonement, as a Manifestation of 's moral character; Mr. A. the life of with the same purpose,—with but slight reference to the doctrine of the Expiation, for of course he whose life began with his birth from Mary, had given up nothing, and died merely because other men die. Here then is something very like Socinianism at first sight.

But again, let us see how he conducts his argument. Here