lievers in the fimple humanity of Chrift; and the Gentile Christians, 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 preexistence 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 feparate 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 against them before Tertullian's against Praxeas; and that the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions represent the first Chriftians as Unitarian. The fame point is fupported by the direct teftimony of Tertullian, Origen, and Athanafius, who fpeak of the multitude of believers, the Simplices and Idiote, and the perfons of low understanding, as uninftructed 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 anceftors, and that it originated with the Apoftles themfelves. The

C 2

cautious

cautious and timid manner in which the contrary doctrines were introduced, is also a strong proof of their novelty.

Eufebius's affertion of the novelty of the Unitarian doctrine, made by an enemy to the doctrine without any proof, and contrary to all other evidence, is not to be regarded. The excommunication of Theodotus is no proof against the early prevalence of Unitarianism, as it is probable he was excommunicated on some other account. None of the laity were excommunicated for their Unitarian principles. Through the whole period, from the Council of Nice to the Reformation, as well as fince that time, there have been confiderable numbers of Unitarians either avowed or concealed.

The opinion, held in early times, that the Logos, an efflux or ray from the Divinity, was attached to the person of Chrift, as an energy, but that he was nevertheless a mere man, might be called philofophical Unitarianifm. The ancient Unitarians fupported their doctrine by arguments from Reason and Scrip

ture.

To this hiftory of Unitarianifm (fupported by authorities at large) Dr. Priestley adds his view of the rife of Arianism, which taught that the Logos, which animated the body of Chrift, was a pre-exiftent fpirit, created out of nothing, the Maker of the world, and the inftrument of divine communications to the Jews. He maintains, that there is no trace of this doctrine prior to the age of Arius; that, though in describing the generation of the Son, they had ufed language equivalent to that of proper creation, the early Fathers really confidered him as the uncreated Wildom of God; but that from this incautious language, and the affertion of the orthodox against the Sabellians, that the Father and the Son differed effentially from each other, arose the Arian doctrine. He then ftates,—the arguments used by the ancient Arians, who allowed no difference between generation and creation, and faid that if the Father generated the Son voluntarily, and if, with respect to his perfonality, there had been a time when the Son was not (as the orthodox acknowledged), he muft have been created ;-and the defence of the orthodox, chiefly taken from the confubftantiality of the Father and the Son. He adds a brief account of the Neftorians, Prifcellianifts, and Paulicians, who were nearly allied to the Unitarians.

In the way of episode, Dr. Prieftley difcuffes the question concerni the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception; and, though he acknowledges that the hiftory of this event is fupported by the teftimony of Matthew and Luke, and was believed by Juftin Martyr, and many other early Chriftians, yet he apprehend there are afficient reafons for rejecting it. Thefe, he fays, are there is

at, except in the introduction to Matthew and Luke, mention made of it, nor allufion to it, in the New Teftament;

Teftament; that the Jewish Chriftians only received as authentic a Gospel of Matthew which did not contain the two first chapters; that the introductions to Matthew and Luke contain improbable and incompatible circumftances, particularly the account of the genealogies, the vifit of the wife men, and the cenfus; that no fatisfactory reafon can be given why Chrift should not have been born of two human parents; that, had this nar rative been true, he must have been, from the time of his birth, generally known as the Meffiah; that it is improbable that Mark and John would have taken no notice of fo fingular a fact; that the Jewish Chriftians in general, the early Gnoftics, and many Gentile Chriftians, difbelieved it; that Symmachus wrote againft it; and that, if Jefus were not the fon of Jofeph, there is no evidence of his being defcended from David.

Such is the outline of this work, which the Author has drawn up from materials immediately collected from original writers, and which he particularly addreffes to the learned. With great tranquillity and fatisfaction he commits it to his friends, and to his enemies: he is far from withing that it may efcape the moft rigorous examination; being confident, that, though those who come after him may find fome things to correct in him, all his overfights will not invalidate any pofition of confequence in the whole work.

How far this confidence is well-grounded, we leave to be determined by thofe, who have more leifure for fuch enquiries than ourselves.

ART. III. The Tatler, with Illuftrations, and Notes, historical, biographical, and critical. 8vo. 6 Vols. 11. 11s. 6d. bound. Buckland, &c. 1786.

THE

HESE celebrated Effays, which originally made their appearance at the beginning of the prefent century (a point of time whence fome have dated the era of polite literature), are now reprinted, in an elegant manner, and with that degree of correctness which performances of fuch eftablished reputation. demand.

In that pleafing fpecies of compofition (periodical effay-writing) the Tatler, we believe, led the way; and he has been followed by a numerous train of imitators, fome of whom have trodden invariably in the fteps of their mafter, and difputed with him the palm to which, from his originality, he has poffibly the faireft claim. Let it be remembered, however, that three or four of the number are indifputably writers of merit, and that they have not unfrequently attained to an equal degree of excellence with, and in many inftances furpaffed, their very justly admired prototype:-of which the Spectator, who has been properly ftyled the Arbiter elegantiarum of his time, is a fufficient proof.

C 3

If,

If, however, the Papers now before us are not abfolutely first in point of merit, they muft undoubtedly be confidered as of "the very first clafs"-and confequently entitled to confiderable praife. When we reflect, indeed, on the bright constellation which at the period in queftion was feen in our literary hemifphere; when we confider, likewife, that our Author was the contemporary and friend of Addifon, from whofe elegant pen he occafionally received affiftance, there is little caufe to wonder at his having been fo generally fuccefsful in the execution of his work.

It is to the care and affiduity of Dr. Percy, Bifhop of Dromore, that we are indebted for the very curious anecdotes, and literary information, which are to be found in the notes to the feveral Effays, that have fo long been in the hands of the Public as the lucubrations of Mr. Ifaac Bickerftaff. But with refpect to the design and nature of the undertaking, the publisher shall fpeak for himfelf.

The Editor of these volumes claims no other merit than that of introducing them to the Public. Neither the plan, nor much of the execution of it, is his own.

It is now about five and twenty years fince the outlines of the undertaking were sketched, in conjunétion with the late Mr. Tonfon, by a writer of diftinguished tafte and talents; who was prevented from purfuing it, by avocations of a far different and more important nature. It has been confiderably altered, and carried much farther than was at firft intended; but all the information which was obtained by the active zeal and well-directed inquiries, which that gentleman made among men of the first eminence in the world of letters, though fometimes fuperfeded on indubitable authorities, has been faithfully preferved, and is diftinguished by a fignature, in the accumulated collection, which the Reader has now before him.

In all cafes where the writers could be ascertained, their names are mentioned, and memoirs of them are now in preparation, which will either be published in a feparate work, or interwoven with the illuftrations of the Spectator and Guardian almost ready for publication, and principally with-held,, in hopes of their being benefited and enlarged, by expected communications from aged and literary people, friends to this undertaking.

Thefe admirable Effays, at their first publication generally clear, might be in lefs need of comment; but as they frequently allude to facts which no longer exift, notes become now indifpenfibly neceffary. This part of the work has been the more difficult to execute, because the paffages that moft require explanation, contain allufions to popular fashions, modes, and follies, feldom recorded in common books, nor very minutely in fuch as are uncommon, being chiefly to

Though Steele at all times stood forward as the oftensible author of the Tatler, many excellent Papers are to be found in it, the preduction of other pens.

be

be learnt from perfonal information. To obtain this, neither trouble nor expence has been fpared; nor will they be with-held or regretted, if this part of the work fhould be fo fortunate as to meet with the approbation of the Public, and become the means of enticing people to a better acquaintance with ufeful papers, which, for fome time back, have been, perhaps, more generally bought than read.'

Steele, Swift, and Addifon, formed, at this time, the grand triumvirate of wits, and were the principal writers in the Tatler. Of these there is little to fay in addition to what is already We hall, however, fele&t an anecdote or two of each, of them, which cannot but be acceptable to our Readers, fince it is from fuch particulars that we fhould judge of the characters and difpofitions of men; and not, as fome are too apt to ima gine, from their writings, or literary courfe in life.

Steele's want of economy in the management of his private affairs, is pretty generally known: the following ftory, however, relared of Addifon and his friend, do honour to both.

Steele built, and inhabited for a few years, an elegant house adjoining to the Palace at Hampton, and which he distinguished by the name of the Hovel at Hampton-wick. Being embarrailed in his circumftances, he borrowed a thousand pounds of Addifon on this house and furniture, giving bond and judgment for the repayment of the money at the end of twelve months. On the forfeiture of the Lond, Addifon's attorney proceeded to execution-the house and furniture were fold: the furplus Addifon remitted to Steele, with a genteel letter, fating the friendly reafon of this extraordinary procedure, viz. to awaken him, if poffible, from a lethargy that must inevitably end in his ruin. Steele received the letter with his wonted compofure and gaiety, met his friend as ufual, faid he confidered this ftep as meant to do him fervice"- and the friendship fubfifted to the end of Addison's life, with a few little bickerings (fays Dr. Birch) on economical occafions.

Steele's expence in his periodical publications (fays his Annotator) was certainly very confiderable. In the procefs of his very laborious and beneficial publications, he might have been eafel a little, fometimes by whole Papers, and at other times by fhort hints from unknown hands, all which would cost him nothing but the trouble of digefting, and tranferibing. But laudable as Steele's views certainly were, and though his publications were visibly ferviceable, his auxi liaries, in general, did not affift him gratis. Of this expence, from which Steele's genius might well have exempted him, and to which his indolence only, and his fashionable life fubjected him, it is not now poffible to flate with precifion, or any kind of accuracy, the full amount. It may, however, enable the curious to form fome eftimate, to inform them, and on filial authority, that the celebrated Bishop Berkeley had one guinea and a dinner with Steele, for every Paper of his compofing, published in the Guardian, in the interval between the 7th and 8th volumes of the Spectator.

Steele (in 1725) on a principle of doing juftice to his creditors, relinquished, in their behalf, all his lucrative places, grants, and

C 4

employ