doned for exceeding our accustomed limits by tranfcribing it entire: • Finally let us reflect, that these, after all, are but fecondary objects. Chrift came not to found an empire upon earth, or to inveft his church with temporal immunities. He came to feek and to fave that which was loft"-to purify to himself from amidst the pollutions of a corrupt world, a peculiar people, zealous of good works." As far as our establishment conduces to forward and facilitate thefe ends, fo far, we are fare, it falls in with his defign, and is fanctified by his authority. And whilft they, who are intrufled with its government, employ their cares, and the influence of their ftations, in judicious and unremitting endeavours to enlarge the dominion of virtue and of Christianity over the hearts and affections of mankind-whilst " by purenefe, by knowledge," by the aids of learning, by the piety of their example they labour to inform the confciences, and improve the morals of the people committed to their charge, they fecure to themfelves, and to the church in which they prefide, peace and permanency, reverence and fupport-what is infinitely more, they "fave their own fouls" they prepare for the approach of that tremendous day, when Jefus Chrift fhall return again to the world, and to his church, at once the gracious rewarder of the toils, and patience, and fidelity of his fervants, and the ftrict avenger of abused power and neglected duty.' As to the merit of this fermon, in a ftriatly theological fenfe, we decline giving our opinion. It is enough for us to reprefent as faithfully as we can the Author's leading arguments. The juftnefs of them we leave to the difcallion of others. But though we decline offering our opinion of the fubject, yet we hefitate not to declare our fentiments of the manner in which it is difcuffed. We think it equally a proof of Mr. Paley's ingenuity and good fense; and, what is of more value in the Chriftian' divine,-his benevolence and his piety. May the Lord of the harveft fend more fuch labourers into his vineyard! Ill. Delivered at Pudfey in Yorkshire, Sept. 25, 1782. By the Rev. Philip Holland: an Addrefs on the Nature and Propriety of Ordination; with Questions propofed by the Rev. Jofeph Dawson; and the Answers by William Turner, Junior. A Prayer, by the Rev. William Wood; and a Charge, by the Rev. William Turner, Senior. 8vo. 1s. 6d. Johnfon. 1782 Mr. Holland's Sermon is plain and rational, without any extraordinary elegance of language, or refinement of fentiment. The fubject is-Chrift the light of the world:-a very common fubject, and treated in the common way. Mr. Dawfon fo far explains away the neceffity of ordination, as to reduce it to a public act of devotion, more folemn indeed than ordinary, but as conveying no new power, as investing a perfon with no new office. The Diffenters have generally fuppofed it a requifite qualiñcation previous to the adminiftration of the facraments. Mr. Dawfon fcouts this idea. Minifters have the fame right before ordination as they have after; and he is furprised that young minifters have not afferted it. Ordination, then, is nothing more than a minister's public declaration of his views and engagements, accompanied with prayer and exhortation. He declares what he is, and ruby he is fo: and his fathers and brethren give him good advice; implore the blefling of God on his miniftra tions; and exhort the people to live in love with him and one another. Ordination in this fenfe may only be useful per accidens: it is not neceffary per fe. The questions propofed refpect the general principles of Chriflianity; and they are answered as generally, but fomewhat too flippantly, by young Mr. Turner.-We pass over the Prayer for who would stay to criticife a prayer?-and come to the charge. And here the trial of our patience is fully recompenfed! It is ferious, it is folid, it is affecting; it is every thing we could wish or expect from an excellent and fenfible parent to a beloved fon. "A conftant Reader has been for fome months expecting an account of two publications, a Review of which was announced as intended more than half a year fince. The publications referred to are Lindley's Catechift, and Toulmin's Letters to Sturges."―The tracts here mentioned, with feveral others, were configned to the infpection of a gentleman of the corps, who, foon after, fell into a bad flate of health,-in which he had the misfortune to linger, till very lately. He is now happily on the recovery, and hopes to be able, very foon, to pay off his critical arrears. +++ A correfpondent, who figns K. having read our account in the laft Appendix, of the Differtations relative to natural and revealed Religion, published by TEYLER'S THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY at Haarlem, expreffes the fatisfaction given him by the mode of difcuffing the queftions. He is, however, much concerned to find that thofe effays are printed only in the Dutch language; and he wishes for a good tranflation of them in English, in order to excite our countrymen to a candid and liberal inveftigation of facred truths. We heartily aquiefce in this laudable idea. • See, likewise, our Rev. for Feb. in which that Article is concluded. §§ We are obliged to our Norfolk Correfpondent P.Q.R.S. for his hints concerning a General Index to the Monthly Review (the trouble and expence of which, we believe, will never be risk’d). As to the bumourous and witty parts of his Letter, concerning the Roman Eagles and American Controverfy, they are so exquifite, that our fober faculties, unused to fuch brilliancy, are quite dazzled and loft in the fplendor. Y. Z.'s Letter is tranfmitted, and referred to one of our Foreign Correspondents, under whofe department it immediately falls. **The ** The ingenious "Critical Inquiry into the Conftitution of the Roman Legion," printed at Edinburgh, in 1773, is quite out of time, with refpect to the Monthly Review. This Work escaped our notice when it firft issued from the prefs, by its not appearing in the London papers. Authors who print their works in Scotland, or at any country preffes, and neglect to advertise them, muft not be surprized if they pafs unnoticed by the Reviewers: who, though they ought to be Critics, moft certainly are not Conjurors. ERRATUM in our laft, viz. p. 191, Art. 54, 1. 5, (Jenkins's Three Letters to Pentycrofs) for needy,' read werdy. laft Appendix, p. 501. par. 3. for red mine,' r. red ore. THE MONTHLY REVIEW, For A PRI Ĺ, 1783. ART. I. Supplement to Professor LORGNA's Summation of Series. To which are added, Remarks on Mr. Landen's Observations on the fame Subject. By the Tranflator of the above Work, Henry Clarke. 4to. 2s. 6d. fewed. Murray. 1782. ART. II. An Appendix to Obfervations on converging Series. 4to. 1s. 6d. fewed. Nourfe. 1783. N our Review, Vol LXIV. May 1781, we gave an account IN of two Articles which have occafioned the prefent publications; we obferved that the latter of them was rather a fevere review of the former, and endeavoured to ftate the matter fairly between them, as we also mean to do with the prefent Articles. We write for the amufement and inftruction of the Public, regardless of the pleasure or difpleasure of Authors, who, if they mean to acquire the approbation of judges on these abstracted fubjects, ought to make candour and truth the objects from which it fhould be their chief endeavour not to deviate. The world has had more than enough of pretences and profeffions without reality and it is understood that much noise is only meant to mislead the ignorant. The reason of thefe reflections will be apparent to the readers of the present publications. Mr. Clarke's Supplement is not like his Tranflation, full of grofs mistakes; it will not then be expected that we should go fo far out of our way as to give the whole drift of it, because that cannot well be done without difgufting many of our Readers with what they would deem tedious proceffes of complex algebra; we fhall therefore content ourselves with giving a few examples of Mr. Clarke's defence, and Mr. Landen's reply, together with our own real opinion of the matter. REY, April, 1783. U Mr. Mr. C. at p. 51, of his Supplement, fays, Here then has Mr. Landen come to the fame point with Mr. Lorgna; having, we have before fhewn, investigated his theorems for the algebraic fummation (or rather given us the fame theorems again, a little difguifed), and now pointed out the poffibility of fuch fummation, both on the very fame principles with Mr. Lorgna.' Again, he says, Now, would not any impartial perfon, enquire with aftonifhment,-what could be Mr. Landen's motive for publishing these Obfervations? Was it to fhew the fallacy of the criterion abovementioned, he has entirely defeated his own purpose by mistaking the principles; what he has faid thereon being, to the laft degree, futile and frivolous indeed; and, in fhort, from what has been faid above, is evidently nothing at all to the purpose. Or was it, invidiously to pluck the laurels from the head of a man who appears to have fairly merited them, by publicly misrepre fenting and defaming his work,-this defign is alfo rendered abortive for the miftakes which Mr. Landen (and fome others) have found in Mr. Lorgna's treatife, are, evident to every one, not mistakes in principle, or effential errors, but only trifling inaccuracies or negligences in the application of some few examples to the general theorems; which theorems are now univerfally acknowledged to be "exceedingly accurate, extensive, and ingenious." And with regard to the Commentator, I must take the liberty to inform the Obfervator, as it may be of service in future, that illiberal language is not argument; and that the epithets oftentatious, boafting, vaunting, &c. which he has so profufely heaped upon him, appear to be ill-beftowed on the man whole character is publicly known to be juft the reverse. Vid. Hift. of Manchester, oct. edit. vol. ii.' He fays, moreover, in a Note, It cannot be supposed, that a perfon who could inveftigate the general theorems in that [M. Lorgna's] treatife, which are carried through such a number of intricate transformations, could be ignorant of so trifling a matter, as being 6 I ityty In answer to thefe and other charges, Mr. Landen fays, at p. 1. of his Appendix, The purpofe of my writing is chiefly to vindicate the reputation of a deceased friend, whose valuable work is unjustly depreciated, to fet off one of much less value, publifhed under a fpecious Title, and with a boaftful Preface; promifing to exhibit a method entirely new and much more general than any other which had before appeared on the fubject, whilft the contents of the book are very far from anfwering the expectation fuch title and preface are calculated to raise: and I trust that the expofing fuch difingenuity, and beftowing applaufe where due, will not be deemed difcommendable by the Pubc, in a writer whofe own works are not brought into the comparifon.' 'I do not fay (p. 2.) that Mr. Simpson's method is the fame as M. Lorgna's; but I contend, that it is more perfpicuous and elegant than his, and not lefs (if not more) general. Mr. Simpfon, in folving the problem, does not confider how the propofed feries may arife by taking fluents and fluxions, as Mr. Lorgna has done; but he refolves the feries which is to be fummed into as many other feries (each having a fimple denominator, and being fummable by a known theorem) as there are factors in each denominator. And thus eafily, in four or five pages, obtains a general folution to the problem; about which Mr. Lorgna has written a treatife, without exhibiting any thing equally comprehenfive. Mr. Clarke talks of my putting Mr. Simpfon's theorems to the rack, in order to extort a fecret from them which they do not contain: but it is evident that, without any torture, those theorems impart fuch a fecret as Mr. Clarke may blush to find divulged! The formula (p. 9.) which Mr. Lorgna deduces are none of them properly adapted for finding the complete criterion of algebraic Jummation, which is vainly pretended to be pointed out! Nor are they better adapted for finding, by induction, a general theorem like Mr. Simpson's: for after all Mr. Lorgna has done, though he has made a book of his labours, he has not discovered any fuch theorem! nor does it appear that he had any notion of a general theorem being attainable by induction.' Will it be believed (p. 11.) that if he had well understood the problem, he would have omitted fome principal parts of its folution? And can it be fuppofed that if Mr. Clarke had understood it better, he would not in his notes have fupplied the defects? Truly (p. 14.) may it be faid, we seldom find a writer fo little skilled in the fubject he treats of, as our Author and Commentator appear to have been with refpect to the clafs of feries whofe fum mation they have attempted. !? Of the numerous errors. (p. 17.) which I might have remarked in his treatife, I have (in my Obfervations), only adverted to three; which are all of one kind and fuch as I confider as errors of judgment (that might, if not corrected, mislead the Reader), not as trifling inaccuracies or negligences, as the Supplement-writer calls them. For, whatever he and his Aythor may now know; it is not to be doubted (after fo many proofs) that as they had in the cafe where yi, repeatedly conEidered the Log. of as the Log. of 1, and therefore 0; Ily has if fuch expreffion had again and again occurred, they would U 2 gain |