you to read the latter passage; here you see plainly that God is one being, and the mediator between God and men is not God-man or a man with two natures, but simply the man Christ Jesus,' another being as distinct and different from God as words can possibly express. No reply.

66

They, after reading Philippians ii. 6-8, said, that Christ thought it not robbery to be equal with God, that he was equal with God and became God incarnate. To this I said, that Christ being in the form of God is a clear proof that he was not really God; he was in the form of God by the miraculous power that was given to him; this power he made no use of for his own benefit, but suffered all the indignities and death as if he had no power at all to keep himself; these are all the changes that the above passages speak of. For thus submitting to the will and pleasure of God, God hath highly exalted him. If Christ was God equal to the Father, as you interpret, how could the Father exalt him at all? They, however, did not pay much attention to what I said: here I wished to read the above passages, and the notes on them in the Improved Version of the New Testament which I took with me, but they would not admit its authority.

"They having read John xx. 28, asked me, If Christ was not God, why did he not reprove Thomas for calling him God? I said there was no occasion at all to reprove him, for by those words, ' My Lord and my God,' he meant God himself, whose power had restored Christ to life again. Will the resurrection of Christ prove him to be God to Thomas, who before said, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe'? That is, he will not believe that Christ was alive; and if Christ did not appear to the satisfaction of Thomas as he wished, it appears from Christ's answer to him (verse 29), that he would never believe even in his resurrection, and how is it possible that he should ever believe him to be the immortal God?

them, was the Lord of Hosts put to death by the Jews? They made no reply, but smiled. The conversation lasted nearly four hours; they spoke a great deal, I spoke but little, for in general I am a very poor speaker in English. Added to this, they would hardly allow me time enough to read my proofs in full to their questions. As far as I can recollect, the above is the substance of our conversation. In the end, either thinking that I was irrecoverable to their persuasion, or wishing to discountenance ine in the eyes of my countrymen, of their persuasion, that were the audience, they ordered the native preacher again to read in Tamil, Acts xxviii. 25-27. He having finished reading, just as I was going to observe to them that the speaker in Isaiah was not Christ, as they interpreted, but the holy spirit, they, without waiting to hear me, suddenly got up and went upon their knees to prayer. After prayer they shook hands with me. Before I took my leave, I gave into the hand of the Rev. Mr. Saidler a priuted catalogue of my printed Tracts, and told him that from those tracts they will understand my views much better than they can learn from me through my bad English in a short conversation. To this he said, I think that as I do not understand the original languages, they would not criticise, or would not think it worth their while to criticise those works, or something to that purpose. Then I took my leave and came away.

"In the beginning of our conversation, while relating the history of my own couversion, I told them that the Athanasian Creed in the Book of Common Prayer had nearly set me astray, but providentially for me, by reading the Rev. Theophilus Lindsey's List of False Readings of the Scriptures and the Mistranslations of the English Bible, I was encouraged to think for myself. They told me that they themselves did not mind the Athanasian Creed, and will not speak about it.

"In a former conversation the Reverend Mr. Massie, to prove the existence of the evil being called the devil, after alleging several arguments and passages of Scripture, pointed to 2 Peter ii. 4, and Jude 6. I observed to him, if those there called angels were devils, we have nothing to fear about them, for they are bound in chains of darkness and cannot get out of their bonds to go about to do mischief. O yes,' he said: for example, I was preaching in a country place in Scotland, and a man came and disturbed us, and I

was obliged to get him put into prison: by this, though I was bound to prosecute the disturber, yet I was at liberty to go about as before.' By this I understood his idea, though not clearly, to be, that though the guilty angels were bound, yet they were at full liberty to range about and do mischief as they pleased; but his example is nothing to the purpose, for in this it was not the accused, but the accuser, that was at liberty to go about. How can this apply to the case of the fallen angels? They were not the accusers, but the accused. However, before I made any objection to his example, some persons came to visit, and I was dismissed."

"Extract of a Letter from a Gentleman at Moelmyne, dated 13th July, 1827. "I have lately met with an Unitarian Christian who was one of William Roberts's people; he was originally an idolatrous Hindoo, but has been baptized, and has taken the name of Robert Mc Donald, and wears an European dress. He speaks intelligible English, and can also read it, but understands it imperfectly. He has the Tamul Version of the New Testament, with which he appears to be very familiar. His zeal certainly exceeds his knowledge, and I am sometimes afraid that he sets a greater value upon being au Unitarian than upon being a Christian. I have therefore deemed it necessary to caution him against exalting the peculiarities of a sect at the

expense of those grand catholic doctrines of Christianity in which all believe; not to forget the pure and excellent precepts of Jesus while contending about his nature, and especially (which I found him disposed to do) not to unchristianize all who are not Unitarians. However, he makes himself knowu to all, whether Christian, Mussulman, Hindoo, or Boodhist, as an Unitarian, and has succeeded in exciting the inquiries of several gentlemen in the cantonment, as to the nature of the Unitarian system. They asked him for books, but he had only a few small tracts to offer them, the humble appearance of which did not operate prepossessingly in their favour. A sol Unitarian, though the man, I am perdier, he says, told him that I was an suaded, does not know the meaning of the term, and how he stumbled on it, I cannot conjecture. He came to me, and related his history, and the wishes of some gentlemen whom he had been talking with for books, and I lent him at different times Belsham's Calm Inquiry, Wright's Essays, the Improved Version, and some other works which he tells me have circulated through the Lines, and have excited in some approbation, in others anger. That they have been read, I have proof in many remarks penciled on the margins of Belsham. I have given him several books, aud have promised to leave with him all my Unitarian ones when I go away."