Messalina. From Corsica, his place of banishment, he addressed what was called a Consolation' to Polybius, the freedman of the emperor, on the death of his brother. Seneca's object in this

'Consolation' was to effect his own recall, and the means he used were the most fulsome and cringing terms of flattery towards Claudius. His mean adulation quite failed in obtaining his pardon, and he was only recalled after eight years' exile, through the influence of Agrippina, who made him tutor to her son Domitius, the future Emperor Nero. In the museum at Naples one sees frescoes brought from Pompeii, which represent a butterfly acting as charioteer to a dragon. These designs were meant to caricature the relationship of Seneca to his pupil Nero. No doubt he was drawn violently, and without the power of resistance, through much that was unseemly, by his impetuous charge. No doubt he tried, with the help of Burrus, to keep the reins straight. But he was obliged to connive, and even assist, at things which made people say, with natural surprise, This is a strange part for a Stoic to play!' The poor painted butterfiy behind the dragon could not choose which part he should play. Other things that have been complained of in Seneca are, his violent reaction of spite against Claudius, shewn in the satire which he wrote upon his death; his reputed avarice, and the enormous fortune which, in a short time, he actually amassed under Nero; certain scandalous intrigues, with regard to which there is not evidence enough to enable us to say whether Seneca was guilty of them or not; and, lastly, his possible complicity in the murder of Agrippina. Seneca was no Roman, but a Spaniard, and we can fancy how the milk of his flattery towards Claudius turned sour during his eight years' exile, and how deep resentment settled in his heart. With regard to his accumulating wealth, when it was in his power to do so, we may perhaps explain it to ourselves, by remembering that many ecclesiastics, professing a still more unworldly creed than Stoicism, have done the same. With regard to his privity to the death of Agrippina, all that can be said is, that Seneca was, towards the end of his career, so thoroughly scared by Nero, that all power of independent action was taken from him. Physically timid and gentle by nature, Seneca was not born to play a consistent and unyielding part. Considering his hideous position, we may well condone his offences. If we study his writings, and especially his letters, we shall see that he possessed one essentially stoical characteristic, namely, the intense desire for advance and improvement. The picture of the inner life of Seneca, bis efforts after self-discipline, his untiring asceticism, his enthusiasm for all that he esteems holy and of good report,-this picture, marred as it is by pedantry, and rhetoric, and vain self-conceit,-yet stands out in noble contrast to the swinishness of the Campanian villas, and is, in its complex entirety, very sad and affecting.'

If such be the most favourable representation which can be given of the character and life of Seneca, even by friendly critics, it is obviously not necessary to institute an elaborate

* "The Ethics of Aristotle." By Sir Alexander Grant, Bart. P. 283, vol. i.

Stoicism and Christianity.

675

comparison between such a man, and the most fearless and faithful of men. If Stoicism could do so little for a man like Seneca, who was open to all those lighter and nobler influences by which the characters of cultivated men are affected, we need feel no surprise that, as regards the multitude, it was altogether powerless. The phantom-like form and icy touch of Stoicism could only repel the masses who crouched in the wooden cabins, and yelled and shouted in the arenas and theatres of Rome. A warmer, as well as a firmer, touch was needed to awaken the deadened moral sensibilities of mankind at large. Whatever illumination the stars of pagan wisdom may have given to a few, they never could have been the light of the world. On this point, Dr Lightfoot writes admirably :

"No mere abstract philosophy has influenced, or can influence, permanently large masses of men. A Bible and a church-a sacred record and a religious community-are primary conditions of extensive and abiding success. An isolated spirit here and there may have dispensed with such aids; but, as a social power, as a continuous agency, mere doctrine, however imposing, will, for the most part, be ineffective without such a support: so far we have been speaking of conditions of success which were wanting, indeed, to Stoicism, but which, nevertheless, were not peculiar to Christianity. All creeds which have secured any wide and lasting allegiance, have had their sacred books and their religious organisation. But our Lord's language, of which Seneca's image is a partial, though unconscious echo, points to the one distinguishing feature of Christianity. It is not a record, not a community, but a person, whence the sap spreads to the branches, and ripens into rich clusters. I have already alluded to Gibbon's account of the causes which combined to promote the spread of the church. It will seem strange to any one who has at all felt the spirit of the gospel, that a writer, enumerating the forces to which the dissemination and predominance of Christianity were due, should omit all mention of Christ. One might have thought it impossible to study with common attention the records of the apostles and martyrs of the first ages, or of the saints and heroes of the later church, without seeing that the consciousness of personal union with Him, the belief in his abiding presence, was the mainspring of their actions, and the fountain of all their strength. This is not a preconceived theory of what should have happened, but a bare statement of what stands recorded on the pages of history. In all ages, and under all circumstances, the Christian life has ever radiated from this central fire. Whether we take St Peter or St Paul, St Francis of Assisi, or John Wesley, whether Athanasius or Augustine, Anselm or Luther, whether Boniface or Francis Xavier, here has been the impulse of their activity, and the secret of their moral power. Their lives have illustrated the parable of the vine and the branches."

We cannot pass over in silence the very able and candid dissertation on the Christian ministry which is included in the

present volume. There was no very obvious necessity for discussing such a subject in a Commentary on the Philippians. This Dr Lightfoot allows, and says, he has placed the dissertation in this volume in order to relieve some of the following volumes on Epistles, which will require more elucidation than the Epistle to the Philippians. Dr Lightfoot has, as was to be expected, no sympathy with sacerdotal claims. The universal priesthood of believers is to him one of the greatest truths of Christianity, a truth which has not only promoted the moral and spiritual growth of the individual believer, but has likewise, by teaching the religious equality of all men, worked untold blessings in political institutions and in social life. "For communicating instruction," he writes, "and for preserving public order, for conducting religious worship, and for dispensing social charities, it became necessary to appoint special officers. But the priestly functions and privileges of the Christian people are never regarded as transferred or even delegated to these officers. They are called stewards or messengers of God, servants or ministers of the church, and the like; but the sacerdotal title is never once conferred on them. The only priests under the gospel, designated as such in the New Testament, are the saints, the members of the Christian brotherhood."

Dr Lightfoot, as a matter of course, admits that at first presbyter and bishop were two names for the same office, and that, even at the close of the apostolic age, the traces of the episcopate, properly so called, were few and indistinct. There follows a good account of Rothe's ingenious theory of the origin of episcopacy. According to Rothe, as late as the year 70 no distinct traces of episcopal government had as yet appeared in Gentile Christendom; but early in the second century it was firmly and widely established. It had arisen, he says, in this way: The great apostles--St Peter, St Paul, and St James-had been carried away by death; the church was distracted by dissensions between Jewish and Gentile brethren, and threatened by Gnostic heresy. "Out of this need the Catholic Church arose." The remaining apostles, St John especially, organised, for the church, a new constitution. Dr Lightfoot adopts a theory very like, if not altogether identical with that of the distinguished German Presbyterian. Episcopacy, he maintains, was created by the needs of the times, and arose "in the mysterious period which comprises the last thirty years of the first century, and on which history is almost wholly silent." We shall not follow the long catena of testimonies by which Dr Lightfoot endeavours to offer historical proof for this statement. He admits, however, that in these days bishops did not hold the same position of supremacy which was, and is, occupied by their later representatives. We must

Early Episcopuсу.

677

demur, however, to his conclusion, that the institution of the episcopate "cannot, without violence to historical testimony, be dissevered from the name of St John." We may conjecture that St John, if living, knew something of the beginnings of the changes which were making themselves visible; we may conjecture that he approved of them, or we may conjecture that he viewed them with disapproval and displeasure. To call, however, such conjectures "historical," is unlike a writer usually so candid as Dr Lightfoot. It may be fairly argued that the church had a right to establish such an office as the episcopate, if the times demanded it; but to claim apostolic authority for it, because it is possible that one or two of the apostles were living in extreme old age when its first faint beginnings were made, is a plea which will scarcely bear argument.*

We have said nothing of the notes to the epistle. It is less necessary, as most who are interested in the subject will study them carefully for themselves. They are eminently deserving of such study. Especially are they valuable for the manner in which the author illustrates the contrasts and connections of pagan and Christian thought, in the history of words and phrases. We cannot conclude without expressing a hope that, before a very distant date, we may have another instalment of the series of which this volume forms a part. Different sections of the church are drawn closer to each other by such contributions to the better understanding of their common heritage. Books like those of Dr Lightfoot do not create the immediate sensation which is caused by those which abound in startling paradox, or by those other works in which ingenuity and imagination are employed to distort into fantastic forms the characters and lineaments of the ancient faith. The popularity of such books, however, is as passing as it is sometimes startling. But a real contribution to a better understanding of the Bible endures, because it has connected itself with that which is enduring. And he who has helped his fellow-men to understand even one page of the Bible better, gives a new power and brightness to those truths which are the light and life of a world, which, except where they shine, is

And

*Passages from the fathers may, it is true, be cited shewing that St John had to do with the appointment of bishops. Clement of Alexandria says, that St John went about from city to city, "in some places to establish bishops, in others to consolidate whole churches, in others again to appoint to the clerical office one of those who had been signified by the Spirit." again, Tertullian writing of Asia Minor says, "The sequence of bishops traced back to its origin will be found to rest on the authority of John." There is no indication, however, in these passages that St John appointed chief pastors or bishops in the modern sense of the word.

still the same world as when the old emperors lived evil lives in it, and the pagan sages lost themselves in dim speculations. J. G.

ART. II.—Hugh Broughton.

"THE Great Albeonian Divine, renouned in many nations for rare skill in Salem's and Athen's tongues and familiar acquaintance with all Rabbinical Learning."

These laudatory words form part of the title page of a bulky folio volume of Hugh Broughton's works, collected and edited by Dr John Lightfoot, some fifty years after the author's death. But notwithstanding the reverend admiration of the learned editor, himself a man eminently qualified rightly to appreciate the real merits of his author, we suspect that the number of those whom a laudable curiosity may have prompted to cultivate the acquaintance of the "Great Albeonian Divine, through any of his own writings, is very limited. In a brief conversation with the late gifted Dr James Hamilton, not many months before his last illness, we remember the agreeable surprise with which he heard an incidental reference to the name of Broughton; remarking, with his usual benignant smile, "Ah, H. Broughton! Well, it's a long time since I heard any one mention his name before." But it did not require many words to convince us, that to his own rare knowledge of books and authors he had added that of Broughton also.

The almost total neglect into which the writings of this remarkable man have now fallen, is not altogether explained by the peculiarity of their style and diction, which the lapse of time has rendered unfamiliar to the taste of modern readers. The relative importance of some of the questions hotly debated in his day, has considerably changed, theologians are now more generally agreed on others of them, and this gradual change of opinions and circumstances has comparatively divested of interest many of the subjects on which he expended enormous erudition. But what undoubtedly constitutes the most serious defects of his writings, and, in some instances, gives them a tinge of repulsiveness, is the excessive predominance of the controversial element. The author appears at times as if he were inspired with the genius of contention, while the violence of his language towards his opponents sometimes sharply touches