1815.] Legality of Obligations constructed under a false Name. MR. EDITOR, 213 luxuries of the whole collective body of the Creator to remove from this subhumanity" besides, used to be frequently lunary scene. the subject of his reflection, commiseration, and, if we may be allowed to bazard a conjecture, of his humane indignation. For which reason, and because he ascribed all their calamities, in common with those of the other classes of the community, to the fatal effects of war, he was such an enemy to all wars that, had he been contemporary with them, he would no doubt have as strenuously reprobated the Crusades themselves, as he has all along vehemently opposed the expensive conflicts in which this country has been so many years involved. Respecting his opinions on the subject of religion, which much more deeply interest us all, he was of a pious turn of mind, and intimately versed in both the Old and New Testament, which he considered as being the only infallible exemplar by which the conduct of our life ought to be guided. He was, however, of a cheerful disposition, and, with respect to the religious tenets of others, perfectly liberal and untinctured with the slightest degree of moroseness. Many tracts in manuscript, on the subject of religion, which he has left in the possession of his family, would, if published, afford a subject of admiration, and be a fresh proof of the astonishing native powers and versatility of his mind. In deed, at what period of his life, incessantly engaged as we have all along seen him, he could have acquired the facility and excellence in English composition, which he has evinced in various printed works, is matter of wonder.* In his domestic economy he was exemplary in the extreme. To his children he incessantly preached up the wholesome doctrine of method, without the strict observance of which he alledged, that excellence was not to be attained in any thing. In his own person he was cleanly almost to fastidiousness, and perpetually inculcating the same disposition in those about him. He was temperate in his habits; so cheerful a companion, as to be the life of the numerous companies of friends by whom he was equally respected and admired; a respectful and affectionate husband, and tender and anxious father. Such was Mr. Joseph Bramah, whom it has pleased Among others of his works, see his Letter to Sir James Eyre, in which he displays manly writing and sound argument, acompanied with irresistible irony. NEW MONTHLY MAG.-No. 15. IN reply to the enquiry in your number of the 1st inst, made by "Common Sense," I beg to state, that with respect to contracts of marriage, entered into by a false christian as well as surname, the party would be clearly liable to prosecution. If under age, (as such an imposition could not be practised with the consent of parents or guardians,) banns must have been published under the marriage act, (26 Geo. 2d, cap. 33) and which being in a false name, are void, and the marriage might consequently be set aside. If of full age, the same observation applies to banns, and if by licence, the party must have committed perjury in obtaining such licence. I have therefore no doubt, that he would be subject to a prosecution, if the marriage should be vacated at his instigation, on account of such informality. Contracts, however, in the way of commerce, are of a different sort. Here the name, under which the contract is made, is immaterial as to the binding obligation upon the person entering into such contract. His identity, in consequence of the doubt which may have arisen from using a feigned name, is all that is necessary to bind him; and if, in an action brought upon a bill accepted in a feigned name, he should plead in abatement, that his name was different from that on the bill, the holder need only reply, that he was as well known by the one name as the other, and prove the acceptance by the false name, or his using it on other occasions, and the plea would be of no avail. I would just add, in order to deter persons so disposed from thinking lightly of such a fraud, that although there is no specific punishment for such conduct, yet in case of adverse fortune, such a man is excepted out of the relief given by the legislature to unfortunate debtors, and would not be entitled to the benefit of an insolvent act. Feb. 14, 1815. MR. ELITOR, LEX SCRIPTA. THE doubts expressed by ALEXIS, in your number for December, respecting the long-exploded doctrine of purgatory, can, I imagine, be obviated in few words. "It is through the application of the blood of Christ alone, that the souls of any, whether Christians or Heathen, can be rescued from hell, and made partakers VOL. III. 2 F 214 Purgatory-Ann Moore-Cock Fighting, &c. of the heavenly mansions. Now this blood, we are told, "cleanseth from all sin," consequently, if, through the unspeakable mercy of God, unenlightened Heathen have an interest in it, they be come, by its transforming influence, equally as meet for the habitations of the saints in light, as the most eminent Christian. If the objection of your correspondent holds true with respect to the salvation of Heathen, it may be applied with equal force to that of Christians; for perfection in holiness is not attainable in this sublunary state; the most eminent saints upon earth have always the remains of corruption within them. How, then, the question recurs, are they to be purged from this indwelling corruption, so as to be rendered fit for those lands of pure delight where saints immortal reign," and where nothing that is unclean shall ever enter?not surely by passing through this state of purgation, as maintained by the church of Rome, an idea equally repugnant to scripture and to common sense. No; a plan is adopted, differing indeed in every respect from the former, but infinitely more worthy of Almighty power and grace: they have their robes washed in the blood of that Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world,-who suffered, the just for the unjust, that he night bring us to God." Having thus, I trust, in some degree, solved the doubts of your correspondent concerning this (I had almost said blasphemous) doctrine, I cannot conclude without cautioning your readers not to pry too curiously into the mysteries of Divine Providence, particularly with respect to the future state of "the Heathen world." While we are convinced that the name of Jesus Christ alone saves from sin, we must add, "that great is the mystery of godliness." Such knowledge is too great for us; it is high; we cannot attain it. This, however, we know, and we have it from an authority which is indisputable, that it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and for Sidon, and for all the Pagan and Mahomedan world in the day of judgment, than for those who despise the proffered terms of the gospel, and who, living in a Christian country and enjoying the Bible and the means of grace, still live, without God, and consequently without hope in the world. MR. EDITOR, THEOPHILUS. I SHOULD be obliged to any of your correspondents who can inform me what [April 1, has been the situation, residence, and MR. EDITOR, C. D. K. IN answer to the enquiries of your correspondent X. Y. Z. in your magazine for this month, respecting the inhuman custom of throwing at cocks on Shrove Tuesday, I beg leave to refer him to the late Mr. Brady's excellent work, “Clavis Calendaria, or a compendious Analysis of the Calendar," vol. ist, p. 213, where he will find a great deal of information and research upon that and many other old English customs. The fighting of cocks has been attri buted to the Athenians, but its origin seems involved in obscurity. It was brought hither by the Romans. With respect to the baiting of bulls, it is said to have been introduced into England as an amusement about the time of King John. The plea of utility was used in justification of bull-baiting, as a bull was rarely killed without being first baited, and perhaps the flesh of so large and apparently so coarse an animal might not have been considered eatable without being first subjected to this barbarous operation. Hackney, Feb. 13, 1815. A. B. C. 1815.] MR. EDITOR, Mr. Taylor on Infinite Series. I AM much obliged to your Correspondent Philomath for his endeavouring to solve the instances proposed by me in your magazine, of deficiency in the aggregates of infinite series. But though I have no doubt his reply to me is exactly such as would have been made by the greatest of modern mathematicians, it is certainly by no means satisfactory, as I trust the following remarks will abundantly evince. 215 1-1) 1 (=1+1+1+1+1, &c. and, consequently, 1 divided by 1+1+1+1 +1, &c. gives 1-1, relative nothing, or an infinitely small quantity. By 10 means, therefore, must it be admitted, as Philomath says, "that nothing divided by any number must give nothing for the quotient;" for this assertion does not apply to relative but to absolute nothing. And 1-1, -, and other expressions of a similar kind, while they remain in this form, are something belonging to quantity, i. e. are infinitely small quanti ties, as I have largely shewn in my Elements of the True Arithmetic of Infinites. Your correspondent says that " I have combined an imaginary quotient with the true quotient," when I assert that 1−3+1-÷+W—, &c. is the true quotient of 1 divided by 2+1-1. Now, that this is the true quotient is indisputable, if it be admitted to be universally true, that in all legitimate division the To which may be added, "that if nodivisor multiplied by the quotient is thing divided by any number must give equal to the dividend; and that this nothing for the quotient," the remainder, must be admitted I think no mathemati+, in the above instance, ought, cian will deny. Let this quotient, then, be multiplied by 2+1-1, as follows: And it is evident that the product is 1, the dividend. For I am sure I need not inform Philomath that in the multiplication of an infinite series the product is to be collected in this way; as this is demonstrated by Saunderson, in the first volume of his Algebra. But to say, Sir, as your correspondent does, that because the remainder in when divided by 2+1-1, to give no thing, on the supposition that is absolute nothing. So far, however, is this from being true, that the sum of the terms of the quotient, when continued to infinity, is =1++, &c. Nor will the sum of the terms, in whatever way they may be collected, be absolute nothing. 1 8-2 In short, Sir, I contend that 4-++, &c. is as much the true quotient of 1 divided by 2+1-1, as 1-1 +−¿+4−4, &c. is of 1 divided by 2+1; and that the latter is only the true quotient, as well as the former, because in either case the quotient multiplied by the divisor is equal to the dividend. Till it can be shewn that this postulate is not universally true, some other method of solving the difficulty than that of" taking the remainder into the account" must be adopted. Besides, Sir,the reasoning of Philomath does not apply in any respect to other the following instance, instances of a similar nature. Thus, in 3+2—1) 1 (7−1+3−3+2¬¿}}, &c. dividing 1 by 2+1-1 is -1+1, and the quotient is, "the sum of all the terms in the quotient, (after 1,) to whatever extent the division may be carried, will be nothing, because nothing divided by any number must give nothing for the quotient," appears to me not a little extraordinary. For Philomath is doubtless well acquainted with the distinction made by Dr. Cheyne, in his Philosophical Principles of Religion, between relative and absolute nothing; that, as the Dr. says, in p. 8, of the second part of the first quotient is 4, and the remainder that work, relative nothing is an infi-+. But is not the true quotient; 1 nitely little quantity;" and "that unity and, consequently, the sum of the terms divided by an infinite number of unities after it is not imaginary, but in conjuncmakes the quotient relative nothing." tion with forms the true quotient. Here, That this indeed is most true is at once however, when the sum is collected by evident. For it is well known that the making an actual subtraction and addi 216 The Philosophy of Nature and the Monthly Review. [April 1, tion of the terms, the quotient will be equal to, instead of }; and yet while the quotient remains in its present form, and is multiplied by the divisor, it produces the dividend. I shall only observe farther at present, that the following example incontro vertibly proves the existence and evinces the power of what Dr. Cheyne calls relative nothing. country clergyman may be permitted to give an opinion on a subject of taste, I should at once be bold enough to assert, that an admiration of what God has been pleased to grant us, through the medium of Nature, is not only not a sign of barbarism, but, on the contrary, that it operates as a decided evidence of a rich, elegant, and highly-cultivated mind. The article in which the above pas 2−1)1+1+1+1+1,&c. ad infin.{{+i+ sage appears, is a review of the Philo ++, &c. MR. EDITOR, IN the number of the Monthly Review for last December, a passage occurs which is so extraordinary, that I regard it as almost an imperative obligation in its editor to give an explanation; since, in the present state of society, I should suppose it to be called for by the unanimous voice of all his readers: for, as the passage now stands, it is not only a direct affront to all lovers of landscape, but a premeditated insult even to God himself. The passage alluded to is that in which the reviewer says, that "the love of scenery, particularly of the bolder cast, characterizes either a philosopher or a barbarian" or words to that effect. Surely it would require the subtlety of a Thomas Aquinas to point out even one analogy between a philosopher and a barbarian; and how an ardent admiration of Nature, particularly of her sublimer features, can be said to associate us with barbarians, deranges all my ideas of religious feelings as well as of common sense. sophy of Nature,-a work which I have perused more eagerly, and with greater pleasure, than any book within the last four or five years. The review pays the writer of that work some laboured and reluctant compliments; but the whole is written on so unphilosophical a principle, that the praise, so niggardly bestowed, can, I should suppose, give the author frankly confess, that I was utterly astono pleasure. For my own part, I will nished as well as disgusted that the editor should have committed such a learned and beautiful production to the care of such a feeble, ignorant, and tasteless reviewer. I think, too, it was a little impolitic in the editor to admit such a wretched piece of criticism into the society of articles so much better written, since it serves to open the eyes of the public as to the fallibility of reviews in general, when they see how little learning, and how little intellect, is required to form a writer, even in the Monthly Review, which, it must be confessed, is not the worst of the brotherhood. Should the review in question meet the learned writer of the Philosophy of Nature, while sailing down the Rhone, or sauntering on the banks of the Loire, as it is possible it may do, he will naturally call to mind Mr. Locke's Essay on the Gradations of Beings. Ascending from the caterpillar and the beetle, from fishes, birds, and animals, up to man, he will doubtless continue his sublime speculation on the gradation of intellects, till he arrives at that gigantic order of intellectual beings, at the head of which towers like a pyramid that most dreadful and most wondrous critical Goliath, who wrote the criticism on his most elegant work in the Monthly Review. There, of necessity, he will stop; for "The force of nature can no farther go. One thing can assure the learned writer in the Monthly Review, from my own experience, and that is, that barbarians have no more taste for landscape than an elephant, a wasp, a monkey, or a whale; in fact, no more taste-Poor Swift expires a driveller and a show," for natural beauty than the reviewer himself; and that, I think, is saying a great deal of truth in few words. If a Will you permit me to sign myself an admirer of such critics as Johnson, Blair, and Beattie; but one whom modern cri 1815.] On Popular Superstition. ticism often induces to lift his eyes in astonishment, how such feeble and such meagre trash can satisfy the craving stomach of so hungry an animal as John .Bull! I AGAINST WE. MR. EDITOR, I HAVE just been reading in your magazine a paper on the melancholy existence of popular superstition in this country. The very general prevalence of such notions is most undoubtedly a fact, and a fact which certainly deserves the most serious attention of all, both as degrading to the national character of man, as well as being the source of the utmost mischief to those whose minds are weak enough to yield to their influence. That such fancies should take possession of vulgar and illiterate minds is not at all to be wondered at; but that men highly cultivated, whose abilities and attainments are by no means despicable, and even highly esteemed —that such men should stoop to so humiliating a degree of credulity-is utterly unaccountable. Yet such there have been. The opinions of Johnson on this subject are well known: "That the dead are seen no more," says Imlac in his Rasselas, "I will not undertake to maintain against the concurrent and unvaried testimony of all ages and nations; there is no people, rude or unlearned, among whom apparitions of the dead are not related and believed." It is, indeed, true that many, in all ages and nations, have yielded to a belief in the appearance of spectres, and have even endued them with the power of speech. The Peruvians relate, that long before the arrival of Europeans to their coasts, an oracle had predicted to them that a new race of mortals, unlike those they had been accustomed to see, would invade their kingdom, and destroy their religion; that, subsequently to this, Gahuarhaocac, the son of one of their Incas, beheld a spectre with a long beard, and robes flowing down to its feet, and mounted on an extraordinary animal. It informed him that he was the offspring of the sun, and was called Virachoca. Long after this, on the arrival of the Spaniards, they recognized their long beards, full garments, and the unknown animals on which they were mounted; not doubting but that they were all the sons of Virachoca, they considered it impious to resist them, and immediately offered them their homage:* thus, vic * Vid. Lettere d'una Peruviana, p. 19. 217 Visa mihi ante oculos, et notâ major imago: Obstupui, steteruntque comæ, et vox faucibus hæsit. Tunc sic affari et curas his demere dictis; In Homer also is an instance of the Ilad, xxiii. 68. Hence, then, it is evident, that the grounds on which Johnson chiefly rested his belief are undoubtedly true, though the inferences he drew from them were false and ridiculous. If, merely because a notion has been generally received, it should consequently be laid down as correct, what limits can be set to such an argument? We must then implicitly give credit to the predictions of oracles, for Cicero brings precisely the same argument in favour of that at Delphi. (Vid. De Divin. lib. i.) Innumerable other absurdities might be mentioned, which have ever been sanctioned by the credulous" of all nations and ages." If, indeed, one might judge from appearances, our own countrymen seem, even at this enlightened period, peculiarly to render themselves the dupes of foolish credulity. Instances pass daily before our eyes where an eagerness to snatch at any thing marvellous has led them actually out of their senses. I very much doubt whether the most. strenuous exertions of reason will ever be able to overcome the superstition of the present day; and, however foolish it may be, it is too deeply rooted in their imaginations to yield to any arguments which may be used to persuade them to the contrary. Goblin stories will still be told and credited; the witch will still continue her nocturnal rides; the raven, will still croak in prophecies; and the |