He conjectures that it is the paft participle of agere; and produces it in the following manner : The moft fuperficial reader of Latin verfe knows how eafily the Romans dropped their final um: and a little confideration of the organs and practice of fpeech will convince him how eafily agd or act would become AD or AT, as indeed this prepofition was indifferently written by the ancients. Mr. Tooke is of opinion that FOR is no other than the Gothic fubftantive FAIRINA, caufe: and or (written by the AngloSaxons AF) is no other than a fragment of the Gothic AFORA, pofteritas, proles, &c. &c. and means always confequence, offspring, fucceffion, follower. He confirms his hypothefis refpecting thefe and the other prepofitions with much good fenfe and ingenuity; and illuftrates his obfervations 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 prepofition. All adverbs (fays he) ending in LY (the most prolific branch of the family) are fufficiently understood. The termination being only the word like corrupted; and the corruption is fo much the more eafily and certainly difcovered, as the termination 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 reft are nouns. E. g. ADRIFT is the past participle (adrifed) of Toniran. Aghaft, pat participle of agazed, &c. &c. &c. AYE or YEA is the imperative of a verb of northern extraction, and means have it, poffefs it, enjoy it. And YES is ay-es, have, poffefs, or enjoy that. No and NOT have the fame extraction. In the Danish nödig, in the Swedish nodig, and in the Dutch noode, node, and no, mean averfe, 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 importA new track is opened to the grammarian and lexicographer; and we have little doubt, but that the more it is inveftigated, the clearer will the evidence of its truth and stability appear. B-k. ART. ART. II. An Hiftory of early Opinions concerning Jefus Chrift, compiled from original Writers; proving that the Chriftian Church was at first Unitarian. By Jofeph 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. 4s. Boards. Johnson, 1786. TH And HAT our periodical work might be of fome value farther than as a mere record of literature, we have always made it our practice, wherever we have seen occafion, 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 difputed queftions in literature and fcience. in doing this, although we may fometimes have been cenfured by those who have not understood the whole extent of our plan, we apprehend we have provided a more ufeful as well as interefting mifcellany, than if we had only acted the part of Journalists. There are, however, many fubjects which take fo extensive a range, and which require fuch minute details in the difcuffion, that it is impoffible for us, within the limits that we have prescribed to ourselves, to do them juftice. In these cafes, we have fometimes judged it expedient to attempt nothing farther, than to give a general fummary of the arguments, which writers on the differ, ent fides of the queftion in difpute have advanced, ftill leaving the matter fub judice. And even where we have at firft em+ barked in any controverfy, whenever we have found that we were in danger of being led beyond our proper limits, and efpecially when we have feen the caufe taken up by writers who ap peared inclined to difcufs the fubject at full length, we have commonly chofen to retire from the field of action, and content ourselves with the more humble office of hiftorians. This is the mode of conduct, which, in the present state of the controverfy between Dr. Prieftley and his antagonists, we find it neceffary to adopt. The difpute is now drawn out to an extent fo far beyond our expectation, that it would engross much too large a portion of our journal, to profecute the fubject. in the manner in which we at firft took it up. And we are, befides, too well acquainted with the numerous causes of uncertainty, and occafions of debate, which the writings of the Chriftian Fathers afford, to entertain any hope, that the dispute concerning the person of Chrift will be brought to a speedy iffue, upon the ground of an appeal to them. For thefe reafons, we chufe rather to decline a combat, which we want room to maintain, than, by allowing a difproportionate share of attention to this object, to incur cenfure from the general body of our Readers, for having fuffered ourselves to be drawn afide out of the path of our duty to the Public by the seducing ignis fatuus of theological controversy. He conjectures that it is the paft participle of agere; and produces it in the following manner : agitum. agtum aG Dum аст AT. The moft fuperficial reader of Latin verfe knows how eafily the Romans dropped their final um: and a little confideration of the organs and practice of fpeech will convince him how eafily agd or act would become AD or AT, as indeed this prepofition was indifferently written by the ancients. Mr. Tooke is of opinion that FOR is no other than the Gothic fubftantive FAIRINA, caufe: and oF (written by the AngloSaxons AF) is no other than a fragment of the Gothic AFORA, pofteritas, proles, &c. &c. and means always confequence, offspring, fucceffion, follower. He confirms his hypothefis refpecting thefe and the other prepofitions with much good fenfe and ingenuity; and illuftrates his obfervations 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 reafonings on the nature and character of the conjunction and the prepofition. All adverbs (fays he) ending in LY (the most prolific branch of the family) are fufficiently understood. The termination being only the word like corrupted; and the corruption is fo much the more eafily and certainly difcovered, as the termination 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 reft are nouns. E. g. ADRIFT is the paft participle (adrifed) of Aonipan. Aghaft, pat participle of agazed, &c. &c. &c. AYE or YEA is the imperative of a verb of northern extraction, and means have it, poffefs it, enjoy it. And YES is ay-es, have, poffefs, or enjoy that. No and NOT have the fame extraction. In the Danish nödig, in the Swedish nodig, and in the Dutch noode, node, and no, mean averfe, unwilling. ance. 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 importA new track is opened to the grammarian and lexicographer; and we have little doubt, but that the more it is inveftigated, the clearer will the evidence of its truth and stability appear. B— k. ART. ART. II. An Hiftery of early Opinions concerning Jefus Christ, compiled from original Writers; proving that the Chriftian Church was at first Unitarian. By Jofeph 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. 4s. Boards. Johnson, 1786. TE HAT our periodical work might be of fome value farther than as a mere record of literature, we have always made it our practice, wherever we have feen occafion, 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 difputed questions in literature and fcience. And in doing this, although we may fometimes have been cenfured by those who have not understood the whole extent of our plan, we apprehend we have provided a more ufeful as well as interefting mifcellany, than if we had only acted the part of Journalists. There are, however, many fubjects which take fo extenfive arange, and which require fuch minute details in the difcuffion, that it is impoffible for us, within the limits that we have prefcribed to ourselves, to do them juftice. In these cafes, we have fometimes judged it expedient to attempt nothing farther, than to give a general fummary of the arguments, which writers on the different fides of the queftion in difpute have advanced, ftill leaving the matter fub judice. And even where we have at firft em barked in any controverfy, whenever we have found that we were in danger of being led beyond our proper limits, and espe cially when we have seen the caufe taken up by writers who ap peared inclined to difcufs the fubject at full length, we have commonly chofen to retire from the field of action, and content ourselves with the more humble office of hiftorians. This is the mode of conduct, which, in the present state of the controverfy between Dr. Prieftley and his antagonists, we find it neceffary to adopt. The difpute is now drawn out to an extent fo far beyond our expectation, that it would engross much too large a portion of our journal, to profecute the fubject. in the manner in which we at firft took it up. And we are, befides, too well acquainted with the numerous causes of uncer tainty, and occafions of debate, which the writings of the Chriftian Fathers afford, to entertain any hope, that the difpute concerning the perfon of Chrift will be brought to a speedy iffue, upon the ground of an appeal to them. For these reasons, we chufe rather to decline a combat, which we want room to maintain, than, by allowing a disproportionate fhare of attention to this object, to incur cenfure from the general body of our Readers, for having fuffered ourselves to be drawn afide out of the path of our duty to the Public by the feducing ignis fatuus of theological controversy. lievers in the fimple humanity of Chrift; and the Gentile Chriftians, in general, continued long in the fame ftate. It appears, from many authorities, that the former were diftinguished by the name of Ebionites or Nazarenes; that both Ebionites and Nazarenes were exifting in the time of the Apoftles; and that the difference between them was only nominal, both believing the fimple humanity of Chrift, and obferving the Mofaic ritual. No traces are to be found of any Nazarenes, who were believers in the pre-existence or divinity of Chrift. Irenæus, in his treatife on Herefy, never confounds the Ebionites with the heretics: they were anathematifed merely on account of their adherence to the Jewish law. If the Apoftles taught the divinity, or preexiftence of Chrift, how came thefe Ebionites, or Nazarenes, to believe nothing of either of thefe doctrines? They made ufe only of the Gospel of Matthew, exclufive of the two firft chapters. Though they were in general poor (as the name Ebionite expreffes), they had men of eminence among them: Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, tranflated the Old Teftament into Greek. Hegefippus was probably an Ebionite, as in his lift of herefies, he makes no mention of the Ebionites, and as Eufebius 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 prefumptive proofs: that there was no creed or formulary of faith in the Catholic church to exclude them; that the firft excommunication of a Unitarian which is recorded, was of Theodotus, about the year 200, and the firft certain account of a separate fociety, is upon the excommunication of Paulus Samofatenfis, about A. D. 250; that the Gentile Unitarians had no feparate name, except that upon the rife of the controverfies refpecting the perfon of Chrift, they were called Monarchists, and that the appellation of Alogi was given them on the pretence of their having denied the authenticity of the writings of the Apoftle John; that the Unitarian doctrine, and its profeffors, were treated with great respect and mildness, by thofe to whom it must have appeared exceedingly offenfive; that it was held by the common people; that no treatifes were written again ft them before Tertullian's against Praxeas; and that the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions reprefent the firft Chriftians as Unitarian. The fame point is fupported by the direct teftimony of Tertullian, Origen, and Athanafius, who speak of the multitude of believers, the Simplices and Idiote, and the perfons of low understanding, as uninftru&ted in the true doctrine of the Logos and the Trinity: for, fince the doctrine of the fimple humanity of Chrift 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 anceffors, and that it originated with the Apoftles themselves. The |