Page images
PDF
EPUB

AGD

[ocr errors]

AD

or

or

or

He conjectures that it is the past participle of agere; and produces it in the following manner :

AG Dum agitum.agtum

ACTum - аст AT. The moft fuperficial reader of Latin verse knows how easily the Romans dropped their final um: and a little consideration of the organs and practice of speech will convince him how easily agd or act would become AD or at, as indeed this preposition was indifferently written by the ancients.

Mr. Tooke is of opinion that for is no other than the Gothic fubftantive FAIRINA, cause : and oF (written by the AngloSaxons Af) is no other than a fragment of the Gothic AFORA, pofteritas, proles, &c. &c. and means always consequence, offspring, fucceffon, follower.

He confirms his hypothesis respecting these and the other prepositions with much good sense and ingenuity ; and illuftrates his observations by a number of pertinent examples, for which we refer the curious reader to the work itself.

In the laft chapter the Author creats of the adverbs, and he applies to them, his preceding reasonings on the nature and cha. racter of the conjunction and the prepofition.

All adverbs' (says he) sending in Ly (the most prolific branch of the family) are sufficiently understood. The termia nation being only the word like corrupted; and the corruption is so much the more easily and certainly discovered, as the termination remains more pure and distinguishable in the other fifter languages, in which it is written lich, lyk, lig, ligen.

Mr. Tooke examines the other adverbs, and proves, by their etymology, that they are for the most part verbs; and the rest are nouns. E. g. Adrift is the past participle (adrised) of Agrigan. Aghajt, pait participle of agazed, &c. &c. &c.

AYE or yea is the imperative of a verb of northern extraction, and means have it, popefs it, enjoy it. And yes is ay.es, have, possess, or enjoy that.

No and not have the same extraction. In the Danish nödig, in the Swedish nódig, and in the Dutch noode, node, and no, mean aver fe, unwilling,

We have thus given a general view of Mr. Tooke's new doctrine of indeclinables; and we have been the more copious on this article on account of its fingularity, as well as its importance. A new track is opened to the grammarian and lexicographer; and we have little doubt, but that the more it is investigated, the clearer will the evidence of its truth and stability appear.

B-K.

Arti

[ocr errors]

ART. II. Ax Hiftory of early Opinions concerning Jesus Chrift, com

piled from original Writers; proving that the Christian Church was at first Unitarian. By Joseph Priestley, LL.D. F. R. S. Ac. Imp. Petrop. R. Paris. Holm. Taurin. Aurel. Med. Paris. Cantab. Americ. et Philad. Socius. 4 Vols. 8vo. 11. 45. Boards. Johnson, 1786.

HAT our periodical work might be of some value farther

[ocr errors]

it our pradice, wherever we have seen, occasion, to enter, in a general way, into the examination of opinions, and to give our judgment, together with the grounds on which it has been formed, upon disputed questions in literature, and science. And in doing this, although we may sometimes have been censured by those who have not understood the whole extent of our plan, we apprehend we have provided a more useful as well as interesting miscellany, than if we had only acted the part of Journalists. There are, however, many subjects which take so exteosive a range, and which require such minute details in the discuffion, that it is impoffible for us, within the limits that we have prescribed to ourselves, ca.do them juftice. In these cases, we have sometimes judged it expedient to attempt nothiog farther, than to give a general summary of the arguments, which writers on the differ, ent sides of the question in dispute have advanced, still leaving the matter sub judice. And even where we have at firft em barked in any controversy, whenever we have found that we were in danger of being led beyond our proper limits, and espe. cially when we have seen the cause taken up by writers who ap, peared inclined to discuss the subject at full length, we have commonly chosen to retire from the field of action, and content ourselves with the more humble office of historians.

This is the mode of conduct, wbich, in the present state of the controversy between Dr. Priestley and his antagonists, we find it neceffary to adopt. The dispute is now drawn out to an extent so far beyond our expectation, that it would engross much too large a portion of our journal, to prosecute the subject.in the manner in which we at first took it up. And we are, be-. fides, too well acquainted with the numerous causes of uncer, tainty, and occasions of debate, which the writings of the Christian Fathers afford, to entertain any hope, that the dispute concerning the person of Christ will be brought to a speedy issue, upon the ground of an appeal to them. For these reasons, we chuse rather to decline a combat, which we want room to main. tain, than, by allowing a disproportionate share of attention to this object, to incur censure from the general body of our Readers, for having suffered ourselves to be drawn aside out of the path of our duty to the Public by the seducing ignis fatuus of theological controversy.

AGD

AD

or

or

[ocr errors]

аст

AT.

!

He conje&tures that it is the past participle of agere; and.

1. produces it in the following manner :

aGDum agitum.agtum or

ACTum The moft fuperficial reader of Latin verse knows how easily the Romans dropped their final um: and a little consideration of the organs and practice of speech will convince him how easily agd or act would become ad or At, as indeed this preposition was indifferently written by the ancients.

Mr. Tooke is of opinion that for is no other than the Gothic substantive FAIRINA, cause : and of (written by the AngloSaxons Af) is no other than a fragment of the Gothic AFORA, Pofteritas, proles, &c. &c. and means always consequence, offspring, fucceffion, follower.

He confirms his hypothesis respecting these and the other prepofitions with much good sense and ingenuity; and illustrates his observations by a number of pertinent examples, for which we refer the curious reader to the work itself.

In the laft chapter the Author treats of the adverbs, and he applies to them, his preceding reasonings on the nature and character of the conjunction and the preposition.

* All adverbs' (says he) < ending in Ly (the most prolific branch of the family) are sufficiently understood. The termination being only the word like corrupted; and the corruption is so much the more easily and certainly discovered, as the termina: tion remains more pure and diftinguishable in the other fifter languages, in which it is written lich, lyk, lig, ligen.

Mr. Tooke examines the other adverbs, and proves, by their etymology, that they are for the most part verbs; and the rest are nouns. E. g. ADRIFT is the past participle (adrised) of Aonifan. Aghaft, pait participle of agazed, &c. &c. &c.

Aye or yea is the imperative of a verb of northern extraction, and means have it, poljefsit, enjoy it. And yes is ay.es, have, possess, or enjoy that.

No and NOT have the same extraction. In the Danish nödig, in the Swedish nódig, and in the Dutch noode, node, and no, mean aver fe, unwilling,

We have thus given a general view of Mr. Tooke's new doctrine of indeclinables; and we have been the more copious on this article on account of its fingularity, as well as its importance. A new track is opened to the grammarian and lexicographer ; and we have little doubt, but that the more it is investigated, the clearer will the evidence of its truth and Itability appear.

B-h

[ocr errors]

ART. II. Ar Hiflery of early Opinions concerning Jefus Chri/, com.

piled from original Writers; proving that the Christian Church was at first Unitarian. By Joseph Priestley, LL.D. F. R. S. Ac. Imp. Petrop. R. Paris. Holm. Taurin. Aurel. Med. Paris. Cantab. Americ. et Philad. Socias. 4 Vols. 8vo. il. 45. Boards. Johnson, 1786. HAT our periodical work might be of some value farther

than as a mere record of literature, we have always made it our pra&ice, wherever we have seen occasion, to, enter, in a general way, into the examination of opinions, and to give our judgment, together with the grounds on which it has been formed, upon disputed questions in literature and science. And in doing this, although we may sometimes have been censured by those who have not understood the whole extent of our plan, we apprehend we have provided a more useful as well as interefting miscellany, than if we had only acted the part of Journalifts. There are, however, many subjects which take so extensive arange, and which require such minute details in the discuffion, that it is impoffible for us, within the limits that we have prescribed to ourselves, to do them juftice. In these cases, we have sometimes judged it expedient to attempt nothiog farther, than to give a general summary of the arguments, which writers on the differ, ent sides of the question in dispute have advanced, still leaving the matter fub judice. And even where we have at firft em barked in any controversy, whenever we have found that we were in danger of being led beyond our proper limits, and espe. cially when we have seen the cause taken up by writers who ap, peared inclined to discuss the subject at full length, we have commonly chosen to retire from the field of action, and content ourselves with the more humble office of historians.

This is the mode of conduct, which, in the present state of the controversy between Dr. Priestley and his antagonists, we find it necessary to adopt. The dispute is now drawn out to an extent so far beyond our expectation, that it would engross much too large a portion of our journal, to prosecute the subject.in the manner in which we at firft took it up. And we are, be-. fides, too well acquainted with the numerous causes of uncer. tainty, and occasions of debate, which the writings of the Christian Fathers afford, to entertain any hope, that the dispute concerning the person of Chrift will be brought to a speedy issue, upon the ground of an appeal to them. For these reasons, we chuse rather to decline a combat, which we want room to maintain, than, by allowing a disproportionate share of attention to this object, to incur censure from the general body of our Readers, for having suffered ourselves to be drawn aside out of the path of our duty to the Public by the seducing ignis fatuus of theological controversy.

lievers in the simple humanity of Christ; and the Gentile Chriftians, in general, continued long in the same ftare. It appears, from many authorities, that the former were distinguished by the name of Ebionites or Nazarenes; that both Ebionites and Nazarenes were existing in the time of the Apostles; and that the difference between them was only nominal, both believing the simple humanity of Christ, and observing the Mosaic ritual. No traces are to be found of any Nazarenes, who were believers in the pre-existence or divinity of Christ. Irenæus, in his treatise on Heresy, never confounds the Ebionites with the beretics : they were anathematised merely on account of their adherence to the Jewith law. If the Apoftles taught the divinity, or preexistence of Christ, how came these Ebionites, or Nazarenes, to believe nothing of either of these doctrines ? They made use only of the Gospel of Matthew, exclusive of the two first chapters. Though they were in general poor (as the name Ebionite expreffes), they had men of eminence among them : Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, translated the Old Testament into Greek. Hegefippus was probably an Ebionice, as in his list of beresies, he makes no mention of the Ebionites, and as Euseo bius does not cite him as an authority against their opinions.

That the majority of Gentile Chriftians in the early ages were Unitarians, we have the following presumptive proofs : that there was no creed or formulary of faith in the Catholic church to exclude them; that the first excommunication of a Unitarian which is recorded, was of Theodotus, about the year 200, and the first certain account of a separate society, is upon the excommunication of Paulus Samosatensis, about A. D. 250; that the Gentile Unitarians had no feparate name, except that upon the rise of the controversies respecting the person of Christ, they were called Monarchifts, and that the appellation of Alogi was given them on the pretence of their having denied the authenticity of the writings of the Apostle John; that the Unitarian doctrine, and its profeffors, were treated with great respect and mildness, by those to whom it must have appeared exceedingly offensive; that it was held by the common people; that no treatiles were written against them before Tertullian's against Praxeas; and that the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions represent the first Christians as Unitarian. The same point is supported by the direct teftimony of Tertullian, Origen, and Athanafius, who speak of the multitude of believers, the Simplices and Idiote, and the persons of low understanding, as uninstructed in the true doctrine of the Logos and the Trinity: for, since the do&rine of the fimple humanity of Christ was held by the common people in their time, it may be concluded with certainty, that it was the doctrine which they had received from their ancestors, and that it originated with the Apostles themselves. The C 2

cautious

« PreviousContinue »