1800.] 
can fhift it to thofe ef another whom we 
fuppofe better able to bear it. You al 
ready perceive of what confequence this is 
on many occafions that concern the affairs 
of private life, and I doubt not but it is 
found equally ufeful in matters of more 
publie and political importance. The 
fcarcity of bread will not be a matter of 
greater difficulty to wnderftand than the 
caufes why wars are begun, and why not 
fooner ended. But on this fubje&t I am 
afraid to truft mytelf, left I not only tref- 
pals on your time, but add one to that 
happy number who: miftake fancies for 
facts, and are inclined to triumph as much 
when they make a bold aflertion, as when 
they advance a ftriking proof. And fol 
remain in my ufual flate of ignorance and 
uncertainty as to all the topics alluded to 
in this Jetter, and know only for certain 
that I am, Sir, Yours, &c. 
SCEPTICUS. 
cag 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
BE laudable and ufeful pat labours 
of Mr. Vhomas Taylor, I, and 
doubtiefs many others, have obferved with 
much fatisfaétion, as well as what he an- 
nounces at page 205 of your laft Number, 
for the month of Otober, concerning cer- 
tain forms of nullities and infinite feries ; 
and fhall be glad to fee delivered in detail 
hia developement and demonttration of the 
curious properties he there alludes to, as 
poflibly they may be different from what 
has before been given by another author. 
I fay pofiibly, Sir, becaufe it would feem he 
is not acquainted with any demonftrations 
prior to his own, as he {peaks of thefe as 
new difcoveries, viz. of tie equality of 4 or 

ey and the feries y —1--1—1, &c. 
or of 4== Ae and the feries r—2 - 4 
—8,&c. If therefore, he is not already 
acquainted with it, it may be of ule 
. to inform him, that a demonitration of 
thefe and many other fuch equalities has 
beep amply given many years fince by 
Dr. Hutton, in bis volume of Tra&s, 
publifhed by Robinfons in 1786, particu- 
Jarly in the fir and fecond of thofe 
Traéts, page 1 and page 11, &c. where the 
fubjeét of fuch kird of ferics is amply 
treated of, with general.rules forthe fum- 
mation of them, accompanied with (t:ié& 
mathematical demonitrations. The fub- 
ject is alfo treated of in the Mathematical 
Digtionary of the fame author, under the 
word Series. Iam, Sir, Your’s, &c. 
Durham, OB, 10) 18006 R. H. 
Mr. H. Reid’s Reply. 
3058 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
S.the writer of an article in your intel~ 
ligent Magazine in September is tole- 
rably candid, and generally well informed, 
I will only beg leave to trefpafs upon a-few 
lines for my reply. In the fir place, his 
tefidence in a remote province may only 
be calculated to fupply his want of infor- 
mation. As to the dangers of the church, 
I know of none that threatened any par- 
ticular church, but rather the whole, I 
have probably a much more extenfive idea 
of the Chriftian church than he is willing 
to impute to me. His inference that pri- 
vate aflaffination could not eafily become 
a tenet, becaufe it has not been defended 
here © in writers books,” is inconclufive s 
for printed books and opinions have al- 
ways refulted from tenets held by focieties, . 
and not, as he fays, vicé verfa, unlels he 
would infinuate, that printed books are 
anterior to the writers of them! I have 
no pleafure in dwelling upon the vices or 
follies of any. man er men, I fhall there- 
fore admit that the ravings of the clubs, 
or what he calls Schools of Theifm, were 
abfurd, and that it was for that purpofe I 
recorded them. Another miftake which 
my critic falls into, is his inference that an 
affociation is ‘¢ atrocious, blocdy-minded, 
and profligate,” only becaule a few indi- 
viduals were really fo. Behides, I never 
knew any fociety where any member was 
accountable for the whims and fancies of in- 
dividuals; or any proceedings, not the act 
of the body at large. I never faid the in- 
fidel meetings produced, but only inclined 
to, acts of violence. As to its being the 
duty of every one to rejoice in their diffo- 
lution, I am not certain they are yet dif- 
folved ! T have now feveral reafons for 
fuppofng that the Rife and Progre/s, and 
not the Diffolutien of Infidel, 8c. would 
have been the moit proper title for the 
book. As for pure theifm, had the imi- 
tators of the worf periods of the French 
Revoiution confined themfelves to that, 
like Mr. David Wuliams, independently 
of politics, E believe they would have met 
with no more oppofition from the magi- 
firates than he did. The attempt of Ja- 
cob [liive, the printer, in 1733, to pay a 
lecturer on infidelity, I had forgotten. — 
Surely deifm mut be a barren foil, fince 
this leCturer’s diatribes confifted chiefly of 
{craps from Tindal, Avs for Ellive’s Mo- 
deft Remarks on the Dilcourfes of the Bi- 
fhop of London, trom my reco'le&tion, I 
doubt whether they are fo modeft as they 
fhould have been. But ‘* the decencics of 
piety, &&c.”” my critic fays, © wouid have 
been taught to the worthippers of the 
- Temple of Reafon by the hoftile comments 
or 
