Thus, A.: "I honour and admire Caius for his great learning." B.: "The knowledge of the Sanscrit is an important article in Caius's learning." A.: "I have been often in his company, and have found no reason for believing this." B.: "O! then you deny his learning, are envious, and Caius's enemy." A.: "God forbid! I love and admire him.

I know him for a transcendant linguist in the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and modern European languages;--and with or without the Sanscrit, I look up to him, and rely on his erudition in all cases, in which I am concerned.

And it is this perfect trust, this unfeigned respect, that is the appointed criterion of Caius's friends and disciples, and not their full acquaintance with each and all particulars of his superiority." Thus without Christ, or in any other power but that of Christ, and (subjectively) of faith in Christ, no man can be saved; but does it follow, that no man can have Christian faith who is ignorant or erroneous as to any one point of Christian theology?
Will a soul be condemned to everlasting perdition for want of logical 'acumen' in the perception of consequences ?--If he verily embrace Christ as his Redeemer, and unfeignedly feel in himself the necessity of Redemption, he implicitly holds the Divinity of Christ, whatever from want or defect of logic may be his notion 'explicite'.
Ib.p.

18.
'But the whole three Persons are co-eternal, and co-equal'.

And yet this we must acknowledge to be true, if we acknowledge all three Persons to be eternal, for in eternity there can be no 'afore, or after other'.
It must, however, be considered as a serious defect in a Creed, if excluding subordination, without mentioning any particular form, it gives no hint of any other form in which it admits it.