great number believed and turned unto the Lord,'_Acts xi, 20. This same event is thus briefly related by Josephus in the seventh book of the Jewish War, c. iii. 3. The Jews at Antioch were continually bringing over a great multitude of the Greeks to their worship, and making them a part of themselves.' The historian then presently adds: Then a certain man named Antiochus, who was one of the Jews, and held by them in high estimation, principally on account of his father, for his father was a ruler of the Jews at Antioch, after having assembled the people, came to the theatre, and charged his own father and others with the design of burning the city in one night; and he delivered up to them certain foreign Jews as accomplices in this conspiracy.' These foreign Jews are said by Luke to have been men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch to preach the gospel.

Here we see the city of Antioch thrown into alarm and confusion by a violent dispute between the Jews. The inhabitants are assembled, a council is held, and Antiochus, a man in high estimation, charges the followers of Christ, among whom was his own father, with the diabolical design of setting fire to the city. By this means he ingratiates himself and his party with the people of Antioch, and causes a decree to pass branding their adversaries as incendiaries, and the followers of a crucified malefactor.

6

The pretence which Antiochus had for this cruel accusation, though not specified by Josephus, was probably the following: Jesus had foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, or more generally, that of Antichrist. The believers had no doubt of our Lord's prediction before they saw it accomplished. But it appears that some of them interpreted his language with an undue latitude, as implying the destruction by fire, not only of Jerusalem, but also of Rome, and the other great cities of the empire. The Sibyl,' says Lactantius, expressly declares Rome is to perish. Hystaspes also has recorded his wonderful dream, in which is represented a youth predicting that the Roman empire, and even the Roman name, would be erased from the world.' This opinion must have been held from the time in which Christ predicted the downfal of the Jewish state; and the actual accomplishment of that event gave it fresh strength and prevalence. The mistaken hopes of some among the believers might have led to the promulgation of it at Antioch; and thus it gave birth to the villainous accusation of An

tiochus, not only against his innocent countrymen, but even against his own father, whose rank and virtues had procured him authority and consequence. This is a remarkable instance of the great enmity which the stubborn Jews cherished against such of their brethren as embraced the religion of Jesus, and strikingly illustrates the truth of his words, that he came to divide the father against the son, and the son against the father. It ought not to be omitted, that a very few years after this a similar event took place at Rome. Nero, it is well known, set fire to the city, and pointed to the Christians as authors of the crime. The accusation was plausible. That monster knew the sentiments of the early believers respecting the approaching conflagration of the capital: he set it on fire, and said that the followers of Christ did so to fulfil their own prediction. The imputation, first at Antioch, and then again at Rome, remote as these places were from each other, points to some one common cause, peculiar to the Christians, and serves to show that cause to be what I have here explained. It proves, at the same time, in opposition to Gibbon, the notoriety and prevalence of the Christian religion, even at this early period.

It is observable from the New Testament, that the followers of Christ among the Jews, never assumed the name of Christians. Neither the Apostle Paul, nor Peter, nor James, nor John, ever addressed the converts under this appellation. The reason is obvious: it was a term of reproach; it was a term invented by their enemies to brand them as heretics and incendiaries.

The same reason induced Philo and Josephus, who were Jews, and contemporary with the Apostles, to decline the use of the words Christians and Christianity, though in their voluminous writings they are historians and advocates of the Christians and their cause. In the ear of a Jew, Christianity sounded a frightful heresy. But these great and wise men considered it as the religion of Moses and the prophets, refined and sublimated by Jesus Christ. They speak of it therefore under those terms by which they designate the religion of their forefathers. In the above passage the Jewish historian calls it the worship' of the Jews, thus setting aside the charge of heresy implied in Christianity. The description of the preachers, as Jews, when bringing over the Greeks to their faith, is also levelled against the odious distinction inculcated by the title of Christians:

and holds up without an epithet Antiochus, seemingly the principal author of that name, as a monster and villain to the end of time.

J. J.

ON THE INSEPARABLE NEGATIVE
PARTICLE NH.

MUCH has been said lately on the subject of the particle Nǹ; and particularly in the Classical Journal, V. xxvi, p. 162, there is a short article, in which the opinions of divers scholars are usefully brought together, and examined. It seems to me, however, that in the midst of a good deal of truth, there still remains some error as to the nature and origin of this particle. I will endeavor to give an explanation of it, which shall remove all difficulties, and reconcile all discordancies.

I perfectly agree with Dr. Blomfield that vλss is by an aphæresis for avλews, but a step beyond this I cannot go with him-I cannot cousent with him to strike v out of the Greek language, but must continue to consider it with Valckenaer as a privative particle, and as legitimate a word as any in the whole vocabulary, being both in force and form no other than the Latin ne, except only that in Greek is an inseparable particle, used only in compounds, while the Latin ne is used equally in compounds, and also substantively and independently.

The theory of Dr. Blomfield is plausible, as long as it is confined to the case where is used as a prefix to words beginning with a vowel. Thus výveμos may be supposed to be put for ἀνάνεμος, Ionice ἀνήνεμος. But what is to become of those compounds, where the principal word begins with a consonant, as νήπλεκτος from πλέκω, νηπαθὴς from πάσχω? Can it be believed, that these words were ever originally and at full length άváπλexτος, and ἀναπαθής ? Νηπαθής and ἀπαθὴς are words of the same import, and equally in use, but avaratns, in the same sense, or in any sense, is a monster purely chimerical. Lobeck's notion, that the use of having obtained properly (i. e. by an apharesis) in the use of νήκεστος, νήνεμος, νήριθμος, its negative force became familiar to the ear, and was by degrees applied improperly to words beginning with a consonant, such as νήκερος, νηκερδής, Toivos, is ingenious, and might be admitted, if no other way of solving the difficulty presented itself. Precisely in this man

ner the French imitators of the Latin, finding mentum a very common termination in it, transferred this termination to their adverbs, and coined the very convenient but not very analogical class of words, such as vainement, fortement, aucunement, comment from cum, souvent from sæpe, &c.

Having stated my objections to the conjectures of others, I will now claim the liberty of advancing my own, and that is, that the vǹ in question is nothing more than an abbreviated form of aveu. What has happened to many other words, that are constantly in our mouths, has happened to this; it has been maimed and mutilated both in its head and in its tail, and sometimes therefore it appears merely as a, as in άπals, and sometimes as In like manner in our νευ, transformed into vy, as in νηπαθής. language we have made John by an apocope from Johannes, while the Dutch have derived their Hans from it by an apheresis. It rarely, if ever, occurs in its full and proper forin äveu, when used as a privative prefix, but written as άvn, it is not unusual, as ἄνηστις, ἀνηλεγὴς, ἀνήκειφος, ἀνήνεμος, &c., and some of these words suffer an aphæresis, and then appear as vñσtis, unλeyns, &c. In the two last words, indeed, there is a double aphæresis, first of the prefix, and then of the principal word, as these, if written at full length, would be ἀνήεστις, ἀνηαλεγής.

It is a confirmation of the preceding conjecture, that this very aveʊ or avη is preserved in the Latin dialect in the form of sine, and is made subservient to the same use in compounds, and is subjected even to more changes and metamorphoses. Like an it experiences an apheresis, and becomes ne or n before a vowel, and like av it experiences sometimes an apocope, and becomes sin. It suffers also, what I believe av never suffers, that is, a syncope, and then becomes se or s before a vowel. I will give a few instances of each species of abbreviation; of the first in negotium, quasi nevacatium, nemo, quasi nehomo, nudus, quasi neiudutus; of the second in simplex, sincerus, inhumanus, quasi sinhumanus, the borrowed aspirate s rejected; aud of the third in securus, sudus quasi seudus, surdus, quasi seauritus, sobrius, quasi seebrius. Sometimes the s is dropt, as edentulus quasi sedentulus. I need hardly say, that this se negative is to be distinguished from the se intensive in severus, which is probably the Doric (a for dia. Perhaps too semis belongs to this last se, and was originally Cáperov (i. e. diάuerov, dimidium), whence, by a change of aspiration, we have also rv. Dropping the initial ἥμισυ. s we find e also for se intensive in ebrius, quasi ebibus, edurus, egelidus. But this by the way.

Perhaps it may be expected that, as I assume avy to be an

abbreviation of ävev, I should give some other instances of this change of eu into . In this manner we have from evavogos, evander, from evάyyeλos, evangelus, and from evo evoë, the digamma being inserted between the first and second syllables, as in novus from νέος. We have a farther instance of the conversion of Eus into 15 in the proper names Achilles, Ulysses, &c., ̓Αχιλλεὺς, Οδυσσεύς. Perhaps too the imperfect ἐτίθην is regularly contracted from ἐτίθεον, ἐτίθουν, ἐτίθευν, ἐτίθην.

I will just add, that if Dr. Blomfield had banished vw instead of from the Greek language, he should have had my full consent, and the more so because I believe it is this spurious particle va that has bred the suspicion of being also spurious. It is evident, that νώνυμος and ἀνώνυμος, νώδυνος and ἀνώδυνος, are precisely the same words, with the difference only of an aphæresis, and it would be absurd therefore to assign to the same words a different etymology, to make avavuos a compound of ἂν and ὄνομα, and νώνυμος a compound of va and ὄνομα. It is equally evident too, that νηλεής and ἀνηλεής, νήκεστος and ἀνήκεστος, differ only in respect of an apheresis, and therefore it was concluded by analogy, that if avλen's was compounded of av and λen's, vnn's could not be otherwise compounded. But the analogy fails in this, that the supposed vw never is found but as a prefix to some word beginning with a vowel, and that vowel ō; whereas is found not only before the vowels, ē, and ā, but also before consonants, as vnxepon's, výλevσтos, &c. It is certain, therefore, that v exists, as an inseparable particle, before many words beginning with a consonant, and it is probable, that it exists too as such wherever it is found before words beginning with a short vowel. Thus νήκεστος, νηλεής, νήνεμος, νήγρετος, &c. are quasi νη-άκεστος, νη-ελεὴς, νη-άνεμος, νη-έγρετος, and the full words without an aphæresis would be ἀνη-άκεστος, ἀνη-ελεής, &c. In all these instances, according to the common rule, brevis initialis vocalis tollitur ante finalem longam. Whenever the principal word begins with an 7, I will surrender to the exterminating zeal of Dr. Blomfield, and spite of the respect I have for Hederick, Patrick, and my old masters, I must agree in thinking, that ἀνήλιπος and νήλιπος are better formed from ἂν and ἤλιψ, than from my or v and ἤλιψ.

One word now at parting to Professor Dunbar. He remarks that ἀνήκεστος is improperly written for ἀνάκεστος, being compounded of a privative and axéoμa. The very same doubt was a source of perplexity to a grammarian quoted in Schæffer's edition of Gregorius Corinthius, p. 880. His words are these: ̓Ανηλεής ἄνθρωπος λέγεται μετὰ τοῦ ἤ, οὐκ ἀνελεής, καίτοι δοκεῖ