ground of its being "a composition of very inferior grade, a sort of school-boy exercise, abundant in rhetorical excesses, couched in very poor language, now containing borrowed expressions from Tacitus, and now others from the existing version of Paul's epistles."* Fleury enriches his treatise by a description of the whole literature of this special subject,† and by his excellent bibliography of the manuscripts and editions containing the alleged correspondence between St. Paul and Seneca. The most recent French writer on this subject is Charles Aubertin, who enters into the full criticism of the contemporary philosophy, and concludes not only that the correspondence is without any claim to authenticity, but that Seneca's writings no more prove him to have been a Christian than do the works of Plato, Cicero, and other Greek and Roman philosophical and moral writers prove them to have been followers of Christ. Lightfoot points out the untenability of Seneca's parallelism with St. Paul on the ground of the former's frequent priority to Paul's writings, the existence of the same parallels in previous authors, the many fallacious coincidences, and the depth of the opposition of his tenets to those of Paul.§ However, Lightfoot thus concludes that there are many coincidences which cannot be explained on these grounds :—

But after all allowance made for the considerations just urged, some facts remain which still require explanation. It appears that the Christian parallels in Seneca's writings become more frequent as he advances in life. It is not less true that they are much more striking and more numerous than in the other great Stoics of the Roman period, Epictetus and M. Aurelius; for though in character these later writers approached much nearer to the Christian ideal than the minister of Nero, though their fundamental doctrines are as little inconsistent with Christian theology and ethics as his, yet the closer resemblances of sentiment and expression, which alone would suggest any direct obligations. to Christianity, are, I believe, decidedly more frequent in Seneca. Lastly after all deductions made, a class of coincidences still remains, of which the expression "spend and be spent" may be taken as a type, and which can hardly be considered accidental. If any historical connection (direct or indirect) can be traced with a fair degree of probability, we may reasonably look to this for the solution of such coincidences. I shall content myself here * "Saint Paul et Sénèque." vol. ii, pp. 281, 282. + Vol. i, pp. 2-9.

Vol. ii, pp. 283–297. § "Epistle to the Philippians," 3d edition, pp. 289–296. London. 1873.

with stating the different ways in which such a connection was possible or probable, without venturing to affirm what was actually the case, for the data are not sufficient to justify any definite theory.*

The weakest part of Lightfoot's criticism is his endeavor to show that these coincidences are due to the Semitic origin of Stoicism, and that Tarsus, especially, being a seat of Stoic philosophy, Paul became acquainted with that system, and used the religious vocabulary of the Stoics in his epistles, or "found in the ethical language of the Stoics expressions more fit than he could find elsewhere to describe in certain aspects the duties and privileges, the struggles and the triumphs, of the Christian life. Lightfoot really attributes the remarkable coincidences between Paul and Seneca to Paul's using Stoical terminology, a thing which cannot be admitted for a moment. Had there been no Stoa there could have been, just as easily, the great structure of the Pauline theology. Paul used the Greek language, with all its charm of imagery and subtle force, as the vehicle of his thoughts; but he placed no dependence, in the constructive part of his theology, on the poor resources of any system of pagan philosophy. It was Seneca, and not any other writer of his entire school, or of all paganism, who used, in the same sense as Paul, such words as flesh, angel, Holy Spirit, and offspring of God.

It is not at all improbable that Paul and Seneca were acquainted with each other. Paul long had in mind a visit to Rome, and regarded that metropolis as a point of departure for missionary labors in Spain, if not in the north, (Romans i, 13; xv, 23, 24,) and we cannot suppose him to have been without interest in the prevailing religious thought of the time and place. This would account for an independent interest in the best contemporary moral writer, Seneca, and would make their meeting no undesirable event on the apostle's part. Seneca, too, would be equally interested in the man who stood at the head of the new faith, and of whose writings he might well have had some knowledge. Once, when an important crisis had arrived in Paul's ministry, in Corinth, and when the issue of an important Jewish persecution of him had to be decided by the governor of Achaia, to whom appeal had been made, the

"Epistle to the Philippians," pp. 300, 301.

0

result was favorable to Paul; for, after the Jews had made. their charge, and Paul was about to open his mouth in his own defense, this governor or deputy, Gallio by name, regarded it unnecessary, and dismissed the charge in these words: "If it were a matter of wrong, or wicked lewdness, ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you; but if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it: for I will be no judge of such matters." The result was, he drove them from the judgment-seat. Now who should this Gallio be but Seneca's own brother, M. Annæus Novatus, who took the name Junius Annæus Gallio on passing by adoption into another family. Farrar, not without good ground, says: "We can easily imagine that Gallio was Seneca's favorite brother, and we are not surprised to find that the philosopher dedicated to him his three books on Anger,' and his charming little treatise 'On a Happy Life!'"* Seldom has a broti:er paid to another such a tribute as Seneca thus pays to his brother Gallio: "I used to say to you that my brother Gallio (whom every one loves a little, even people who cannot love him much) was wholly ignorant of other vices, but even detested this. You might try him in any direction. You began to praise his intellect-an intellect of the highest and worthiest kind . . . and he walked away! You began to praise his moderation; he instantly cut short your first words. You began to express admiration for his blandness and natural suavity of manner. . . yet even here he resisted your compliments; and if you were led to exclaim that you had found a man who could not be overcome by those insidious attacks which every one else' admits, and hoped that he would at least tolerate this compliment because of its truth, even on this ground he would resist your flattery; not as though you had been awkward, or as though he suspected that you were jesting with him, or had some secret end in view, but simply because he had a horror of every form of adulation."+ Must we not suppose that the relations between two such brothers were very intimate? And is there not excellent ground for the conjecture of Schoell, in his Histoire de la Littérature

* "Seekers after God," pp. 20, 21.

+"Quæstiones Naturales," lib. iv. On the relations of Paul and Gallio, and the character of the latter, comp. Lewin, "Life and Epistles of St. Paul." Second edition. Vol. i, pp. 291, 292.

Romaine: "In all probability the pro-prætor, in his correspondence with his brother, had mentioned this Jewish teacher, who had preached the Gospel for eighteen months in the capital of his province!" It must also be borne in mind that the most striking parallels between Seneca and St. Paul occur in the later works of Seneca, such as his De Vita Beata and De Beneficiis, both of which were composed after A. D. 61— the year when Paul arrived in Rome-and, above all, in his epistles, written near the close of his life. When Paul arrived in Rome he was placed in charge of the prefect of the Prætorian Guards, who allowed him to dwell in a private house with a soldier, who kept him in sight, and gave him liberty to see his friends. Now this prefect was none other than Burrhus, whom we have already mentioned as an intimate friend of Seneca, and associate of the latter at Nero's court. "Is it not natural," M. Scholl well asks, "to suppose that their conversation would have turned upon this bold and eloquent Jewish teacher, who, on account of new religious opinions, had been persecuted in Palestine, and had appealed to the tribunal of the emperor? Would not Seneca have been curious to see and hear this extraordinary man?" We do not regard it necessary to suppose that any special intimacy existed between the Christian Paul and the Stoic Seneca, in order to account for parallelism in their writings. The tradition, deeprooted, and often repeated through many centuries, is at least very significant. Or, as De Maistre says: "The tradition concerning the Christianity of Seneca, and on his relations with St. Paul, without being finally decisive, is nevertheless far more than nothing, if one connect with it certain other presumptions."+ Seneca's mental altitude and achievements prove him to have been ready for at least a guarded interchange of opinions with Paul, and it may well have happened that the influence of the philosopher at Nero's Court had weight in securing such delay of the Apostle's trial as resulted later in the latter's liberation, and in his making one more missionary tour.

* Fr. Ch. Gelpe, Tractatiuncula de familiaritate quæ Paulo apostolo cum Seneca philosopho intercessisse traditur, verisimillima. Lips., 1813. 4to. Quoted in "New Brunswick Review," Feb., 1855.

"Soirées de Saint Petersbourg, IX Entretien."

ART. II.--THE PASSAGE OF THE RED SEA.*

THE departure of the Israelites out of Egypt was their independence day, and the date of the nation's birth. As such it is always referred to, in Scripture, in terms of lofty jubilee and devout acknowledgment of the power of Jehovah, which was so strikingly displayed at almost every step. Two hundred and sixteen years before this event their patriarch, Jacob, had left the land of his childhood and old age, and emigrated with all his family to Egypt, then the most highly cultivated land on earth. Settled in the most fertile part of the country, they had grown to a population of some two millions of souls. Divine Providence had specially fostered them. But now, for about eighty years, the Egyptian government, under a new and jealous dynasty, had adopted a severe policy toward them, and they were gradually reduced to a condition of servitude. Nevertheless, Jehovah had not forsaken them. Moses had been in process of training all these later years as an instrument for their deliverance, and the time had at length arrived for their. emancipation. We need not here review the mighty acts of divine interference by which the Egyptian court were finally compelled to grant the release of the Hebrews. We will come at once to the scenes of their exit from the country. The region where it occurred is not only memorable from the inspired narrative of that event, but is likewise remarkable for its natural features, and interesting on account of the modern associations of the vicinity.

Goshen, the territory occupied by the Israelites in Egypt, was an extension eastward of the "Delta," or triangular alluvial plain around the mouths of the Nile. It seems to have corresponded substantially to the present valley of Tumeilat, which is a fertile, tongue-shaped tract about eighteen miles

*It is proper to state that the writer of the present article had prepared a paper for the "Quarterly" on this subject before he was aware that Dr. Vail had written on the same theme. On learning the latter fact he withdrew his paper, presuming that it would be superseded by Dr. Vail's. The editor, however, stipulated that he should return it for publication if that should prove not to be the case. Finding the editor, on his return from Florida, to be still of the same mind, he has again submitted it, with such modifications as a longer time for consideration has suggested.