“The Creed,” you say, “consists of a series of propositions deduced by fallible man.” This of necessity would be the case, since _the truth_ was by the wisdom of God committed to the keeping of fallible man, and with it, the command to “take heed to THE doctrine.” But the question is are they correct deductions from the _infallible_ word of God? You admit that they are, all “must admire,” you say, “the extraordinary subtlety and acuteness with which _erroneous theories_ are rejected, and _the correct deductions from scripture_ are maintained,” {49b} and again “the matters treated of in this Creed are of such _fundamental_ importance and so including the _very essentials of Christianity_.” {49c} If so, if the deductions be _scriptural_, the spirit of the clauses cannot be otherwise, for “_he_ that believeth not shall be damned,” and I presume that by believing you would contend for the necessity of a _sound_ faith—“the truth as it is in Jesus.” “You are not,” you say, “so feverishly sensitive as many good men of our Church as to Trinitarian definitions, esteeming a lively ‘faith working by love,’ the grand desideratum of the gospel,” {49d} and so no doubt in a right sense it is. But _South_ draws a distinction between a lively and a _living_ faith, “our faith must not only be _living_ but _lively_ too.” Admitting this distinction, how far behind you does the Unitarian (or rather _Humanitarian_, if sects would but assume their most appropriate designation), fall in the profession of a like faith? He holds after a fashion, St. Paul’s “word of faith,” Rom. x. 9, and in works of kindness to his fellow creatures and _morality_, falls nothing behind the most orthodox Trinitarian. In this sense his faith is lively, and _artlessness_ and _simplicity_ are the boasted characteristics of his Creed. He “confesses with his mouth the Lord Jesus”—but then it is that he “was a man constituted in all respects like other men, subject to the same infirmities, the same _ignorance_, _prejudices_, and _frailties_, that he suffered death, not to appease the wrath of God, not as a _satisfaction_ to divine justice, not to exhibit the evil of sin, nor in _any sense whatever to make atonement to God_ for it; for this doctrine, _in every sense_, and according to every explanation they explode as _irrational_, _unscriptural_, and _derogatory from the divine perfections_, but as a _martyr to the truth_, and _as a necessary preliminary to his resurrection_.” {50} They confess Jesus with the mouth, but they deny the _gospel of Jesus Christ our Redeemer_. And is this believing to the saving of the soul? is this a “confession unto salvation?” Is this THE doctrine? But the rulers of Christ’s Church are to charge some that they teach _no other_ doctrine, than the doctrine which is according to godliness, and great is the _mystery_ of godliness. They are to rebuke sharply that men be _sound_ in the faith. We must in