Passengers from London:-Lady Malcolm; Mrs. Lloyd; Mrs Earl; Mrs. McCrea; Mrs. Curr; Mrs. Walker; Mrs. Beauchamp; Misses Toad, Gilmore, E. Gilmore, Bury, Orde, and Bruce; Sir B. Malkin, Recorder of Penang; Majors Lloyd and Hardy, B. N. I; Lieut. McCrea, H. M. 44th Regt. ; Mr. H. Brougham, Cadet, N. Cavalry; Mr. J Tullock, Cadet, N. I.; Mr. H. Comaux, Cadet, Artillery; Mr. Archibald Grant; Mr. Earl; Mr. Pittar, Merchant.

Jean, (Brig,) Edwards, from Bombay (date not mentioned) aud Penang 29th Nov. 23. Lord Amherst, Thomas Rees, from China 13th, and Singapore 25th, November. Passengers from Macao:-Mrs. Alexander and Family; N. Alexander, Esq.; Miss Barwell. From Singapore:- Mrs. Shaw.

Bencoolen (H. C. C. S.) W. Tullis, from London 9th August.

26. Beatrice, (Bark,) J. G. Liddell, from Mauritius.

Nasser, (Arab,) Hajee Amber, from Judda, Bombay 9th, and Aleppee 24th, Oct. 27. Enterprize, (H. C. Steamer,) C. H. West, from Khyouk Phoo 22nd December. Kent, (Brig,) W. Hughes, from Moulmein 29th November.

DEPARTURES.

DEC.

1. Resolution, G. Jellicoe, for Madras.

4. Asseerghur, (H. C. Sg. V.) D. Ross, for the Coast of Arracan, viâ Chittagong. Timor, (Amr.) J. Henry, for Boston.

6.

8. Caledonia, (Bark,) A. Symers, for Penang.

11. Resource, T. J. Warren, for London, viâ Madras and Cape.

Passengers for London:-W. Barton, Esq.; Lieut. O'Halloran, B. N. I.; Dr. Babington, B. M. S. For Madras:-Mrs. Gray; Mrs. Dogherty and child; Alex. Grant, Esq. B. C. S.; Major Wiggen and Lieut. F. Gray, M. S.; Dr. Dogherty, H. M. S. 12. Allalevie, G. F. Andre, for Bombay.

Passengers:-Mrs. Andre and child, Mrs. Winfield and child, Mrs. Luxmore, and two children; Captains Winfield and Luxmore.

15. Vesper, D. Brown, for London.

Passengers:-Mrs. Brown, Mrs. Vanvoorst, two Master Wardens, and two Mas

ter Bryces.

16. Burrell, (Bark,) J. Metcalf, for Mauritius.

Star, (Amr.) M. Griffing, for Philadelphia, viâ Madras.

21. Woodlark, (Bark,) J. W. Tozer, for Moulmein and Rangoon.

Fazel Karreem, Dawood Khan, Nacooda, for Bombay.

22. James Sibbald, W. Darby, for London, viâ Madras.

Passengers for London:-Mrs. Corrie; Mrs. J. E. Ellerton and child; Mrs. Deer and three children; Mrs. Pringle and two children; Mrs. Minchin; Capt. Minchin; Lieut. Wilson; Dr. Spencer, Rev. Mr. Deer, and Master Jackson. For Madras :-Charles Bagley, Esq.

23. London, J. Wimble, for London.

Passengers for Madras:-Mrs. Pendergrast; Mrs. Conolly; Misses Pendergrast, McLeod, and Barnes; Col. Pendergrast; H. Conolly, Esq. M. C. S.; — Bailey, Esq. For London-Mrs. McKillar; Miss Paulin; Miss Gibson; Capt. Castorphan; Dr. J. Brown; Mr. McKillar and Mr. J. Wright.

26. Childe Harold, T. Leach, for Penang, and Singapore.

Passengers:-Mrs. Rawson; J. S. Rawson, Esq.; R. Holdsworth, Esq. and a European female servant.

Bolton, (H. C. C. S.) T. W. Aldham, for London.

Passengers:-Mrs. Cox; Mrs. Halhed; Mrs. Beeby; Mrs. Penney; Mrs. Piffard; Mrs. Pearce; Miss Hebron; Capt. G. C. M. Cox; Lieut. Halhed; Lieut. Peru; Lieut. Mundy, H. M. S.; W. T. Beeby, Esq.; Rev. J. Penney; Rev. C. Piffard, and 17 chil

dren.

27. Minerva, (Brig,) P. L. Pope, for Bombay.

28. Coromandel, T Boyes, for Vizagapatam and London.

Passengers for London :-Mrs. Bedford and two children; Mrs. Remington, and two do.; Mrs. Hobson and two do. ; Mrs. Fergusson, and one child; F. Skipworth, Esq. C.S.; Capt. Troup; Lieut. Malcolm. From Vizagapatam to London: Mrs. Gardener and two children, Mrs. Spier and three do. Mrs. Sprye, and three do.; Mrs. Williams and two do.; H. Gardener, Esq. Civil Service; Capt. Spier, Madras Army; Capt. Lucas, ditto. For Madras:-Ensign Showers.

Mercury, (Bark,) C. Bell, for Singapore.

29. Emily, (Bark,) W. Wyatt, for Penang. Derrea Dowlut, W. Smith, for Madras.

Mean,

,998 55,8 1,6

,045 69,2'7,1

,939 76,3' 11,6

,939'71,6' 8,1

of the sky," cy. is cloudy;

THE

CALCUTTA CHRISTIAN OBSERVER.

February, 1833.

'I.-Letter from the late Rev. Dr. Ryland to Baboo Rammohun Roy.

[Never before published.]

[Apart from the interest which attaches to the following remarks, from the peculiar circumstances which called them forth, they possess independent merits. They exhibit all that sound sense and lucid simplicity of expression which generally characterizes the other productions of their eminent author. They are besides admirably suited to our present purpose, viz. that of furnishing a brief popular view of a subject on which it is our intention, in future numbers, to insert a series of more elaborate articles.-ED.]

DEAR SIR,

Bristol, January 1, 1823.

Though I have often heard with pleasure of your disposition to inquire after truth, and of your examination of the Scriptures; yet you can know nothing of me, unless you can recollect that our brethren at Serampore or in Calcutta have mentioned me as an old minister, who was concerned in the first establishment of the Baptist Mission, which sent Dr. Carey, &c. to India. I hope, however, that you will read, with patience and attention, a very few remarks, which I feel inclined to make, on your third No. of the Brahmunical Magazine, in reply to No. 38 of the Friend of India.

I profess to write influenced only by the love of truth, and by sincere benevolence towards yourself; and I trust you will, so far at least, give me credit, as not to refuse noticing the remarks I shall now offer to your serious consideration.

How far you profess yourself convinced of the inspiration and divine authority of the Old and New Testament I cannot ascertain. But, if you have found in the Bible a far superior kind of morality to what you can find in any other writings whatever, it is surely worth while carefully to examine it. These writers were really authorized to make known the will of God to man, and did speak as they were inwardly moved by an influence truly divine and supernatural.

For if, notwithstanding the purity of their morality, they spoke falsely, when they said, "Thus saith the Lord," and the Lord did not speak by them, then they cannot be exempted from the character of impostors and liars: though it must, in that case, remain a

I

very strange and wonderful thing, that men, who durst to make such high, but such false, pretensions, should yet give such a system of morality, and advance such sublime ideas of God's natural and moral perfections, as no other men ever attained to, but by their means.

Their honesty and simplicity indeed, in other respects, freely recording each other's faults and their own, &c. may well enhance our surprize, that they should thus speak lies in the name of the Lord; but still nothing can excuse them, if they pretended to speak by inspiration, while they were not inspired.

If they were not divinely taught and commissioned to reveal the things of God, then we may borrow just as much as we please from their writings, and at the same time reject what we please.

But if, indeed, it can be satisfactorily proved, by innumerable miracles, often wrought in the presence of a multitude of enemies ; by a variety of prophecies, many of which have been fulfilled by divine providence long after the delivery of the predictions, and some of which are still fulfilling; by the moral character of the penmen, and especially by the unparalleled character of Christ, which the Evangelists have drawn, without the addition of a single encomium on their master, or an invective against his enemies and murderers; by the goodness of the doctrine, and the importance of the discoveries made in the Scriptures; and also, by the blessed effects which they have had on the hearts and lives of all those who have received them with genuine faith; if I say, by all these sources of evidence, it can be proved that these writings are really a divine revelation, then we ought not to refuse our assent to whatever they testify, merely on account of its being what we could not have discovered of ourselves, without such a revelation.

A true revelation may justly be expected to contain, not only many things clearly stated, of which a very sagacious man might have attained some vague idea without it; and which even persons of inferior capacity would have found out, by the exercise of their reasoning powers, if they had not been criminally inattentive, and prevented from discovering them, by the depravity of their hearts : but also many things which no human intellects could have discovered, without divine information.

When natural history and philosophy present us with so many mysterious facts, which we can neither deny nor explain; when we cannot account for vegetation, magnetism, electricity, the voluntary motion of animals, the union of soul and body in man, &c. shall we object to a revelation strongly proved to be divine, because it tells us some things concerning the nature of God, which neither our senses nor our reason could have found out without it; and which even now they are revealed, we cannot fully comprehend as to the modus of them?

The doctrine of the Trinity, taken by itself, as detached from other doctrines of Scripture, might seem an unprofitable speculation; but viewed in connection with the whole plan of human redemption, it appears indeed to be of great importance.

Who will dare to affirm, that it is impossible, that there should be a distinction in the divine nature, which is more than nominal or official, and yet does not amount to the existence of three separate Gods?

Let it be particularly kept in mind, that we do not say, that God is three, in the same sense in which he is one; and therefore it does not involve any contradiction.

If, indeed, we should, for a moment, conceive of the existence of three Gods, and yet consider them as co-equal, co-eternal, and possessing the very same natural and moral perfections, so that where the one is, there the others are; what the one knows, that the others know; what the one loves, that the others love; what one wills, that the others will; surely this would not only be infinitely different from the existence of three Beings of different abilities, and even of opposite dispositions; but it would soon appear more difficult to point out the difference between them, than their unity.

However, the Scriptures teach us, the Unity of the Godhead, or the Divine Essence; and yet teach us to believe a Trinity in the Godhead, for which we cannot find a better term than a distinction of persons as there are three, to whom the personal pronouns, I, thou, and he, are applied. See John xiv. 16, 26. Christ required his disciples to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; and the Apostle Paul invoked spiritual blessings from the same divine persons. We also find divine attributes and divine works repeatedly ascribed to each of these persons, and the Scriptures represent divine worship as being paid to them.

The terms "Father" and "Son" are used to express the distinction between the first and second persons; and doubtless were chosen as the best adapted to our understandings, to point out the difference; yet not exactly corresponding with the application of these terms to creatures who come into the world in succession. Yet it should be remembered, that these terms are correlates; he is not a Father, who has no Son. We believe that the first person was always the Father, and the second was always the Son. We believe the Father to be God, and the Son to be God; but yet the Son is not the Father, because that is the term employed to express the distinction, not the unity.

We believe, that the Holy Spirit formed our Lord's humanity in the womb of a virgin; but we have no idea of a sexual intercourse, which would imply a previous incarnation of the Spirit.