ページの画像
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

Alii autem Lucæ Evange- Others say, the Epistle to the liftæ aiunt Epiftolam etiam Laodiceans was wrote by the ad Laodicenfes fcriptam. Et Evangelist Luke. But bequia addiderunt in eâ quædam cause the Hereticks have innon bene fentientes, inde non serted fome (false) things, it legitur in Ecclefiâ; etfi legi- is for that reason not read in tur a quibufdam, non tamen the Church. Though it be in Ecclesiâ legitur populo, read by some, yet there are nisi tredecim Epistolæ ipfius, no more than thirteen Epistles et ad Hebræos interdum. of Paul read to the people in

the Church, and sometimes that to the Hebrews,

To the fame purpose is the account of Jerome a. Legunt quidam et ad Laodi- There are some who read (an cenfes, fed ab omnibus explo- Epistle under the name of ditur.

Paul) to the Laodiceans; but

it is rejected by all. IV. The Epistle under the name of Paul to the Laodiceans, is fpurious and Apocryphal. As to the antient one it is evident, because it is rejected by all the primitive Christians who have mentioned it, as appears by Philaftrius and Jerome. To which add, that Epiphanius, blaming Marcion for making use of it, calls it, tñs din zons 'Amosów b, i. e. an Epistle which was not wrote by the Apostle. But my concern is with that which is now extant; and that this is spurious and Apocryphal, is evident; because

1. I have above shewn, that it was a groundless opinion that St. Paul wrote any Epistle to the Laodiceans.

2. This Epistle is not cited in any of the primitive records of Christianity, nor known to any of the primitive Christians; not placed in their catalogue of sacred books ; not read in their Churches, &c. Apocryphal therefore by Prop. IV, V, VI.

3. That which most notoriously and demonstratively proves it Apocryphal is, that it is for the most part transcribed or

· Catal. Vir. Illuftr. in Paulo.

b Hæref. 42. p. 375.

stolen

stolen out of another book, or books. (Prop. XIV.) This is observed by Erasmus ·, Fabritius 6, &c. the former of whom fays, it was stole out of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, but the latter more truly, that it was stolen out of the Epiftle of that Apostle to the Philippians. This will be most apparently manifest by a bare casting the eye upon the Epistle itfelf, and those references and places of Scripture, which I have for the easier proof placed in a parallel column by the side of it.

4. Sixtus Senenfis (Biblioth. Sanct. 1. 2. p. 88.) attempts to prove it spurious by an argument somewhat like the former, viz, because, as he says, there is nothing in it but what is more largely in the Epistle to the Colofians, and therefore Paul would not command that it should be read among the Colorfians. Which indeed were a very

undeniable argument,

if the fact were true, and the contents of the Epistle to the Laodiceans were the same with that to the Colossians ; but that the fact is not so, will be also evident by the parallel column which I have placed by the side of the Epistle above.

5. It is Apocryphal, because it is not in the Syriack Version. (Prop. XV.)

The acute Erasmus (on Col. iv. 16.) attempts to prove this Epistle spurious by the difference of its stile from that of St. Paul; Nihil vereor afleverare eam, quam Stapulenfis edidit, Pauli non effe. Non est cujusvis hominis Paulinum pectus effingere; tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus : at hæc, præterquam quod brevissima eft, quam jacet, quam friget! Legat qui volet Epistolam; extat enim in Jacobi Fabri Stapulenfis Commentariis, nullum argumentum efficacius per suaserit eam non effe Pauli, quam ipfa Epiftola. “ I am not « afraid to assert, that the Epistle to the Laodiceans, which “ Stapulenfis published, is not St. Paul's. It is not every “ scribbler that can imitate the genius and stile of Paul ; Paul « thunders, lightens, speaks forth mere fames and fire: but “ this Epistle, besides its shortness, how languid and cold is “ it! Let any one read the Epistle (it is extant in Jacobus

Annot. in Col. iv. 16.

• Cod. Apocr. Nov. Teftam. t. ii. p. 873, &c.

« Faber

« Faber Stapulenfis's Commentaries), and nothing will more « effectually convince him, that it is not Pul's, than the « Epistle itself.” This judgment of the learned Erasmus, so elegantly expressed, seems to me very far from being right; for though the Epistle be certainly spurious, yet its stile will not prove it to be so, because (as I have observed) it is for the most part taken out of one of St. Paul's genuine Epistles, and consequently must needs be in his stile. It is surprising therefore, that Erasmus should make use of this argument, feeing he himself had made the same observation, though he mistook the Epistle to the Colossians for that to the Philippians; as did also Sixtus Senensis in the same matter a. In the next words that writer proposes a conjecture concerning the author of this forgery, viz. that it was made by the fame person who corrupted the works of Jerome and the other Fathers. I wish he had given us the reasons of his opinion, and told us who this person was. If I were to guess concerning the time of its production, I would suppose that which we have now to be of a very late original, and the composure of some idle monk, not long before the Reformation ; although I am not ignorant that Timotheus of Conftantinople, a writer of the seventh century, according to Dr. Cave , reckons the Epiftle to the Laodiceans

among the more antient forgeries of the Mani. cheesc.

à Bibl. San&t. I. 2. p. 88.

Hutur, Literar. vol. 1. p. 447

< Lib. de variis Hæretic. Vid. Fabr. Cod. Apocr. Nov. Teft. to i. p. 138, 139

VOL. II.

E

CHAP

CHAP. IX.

Six Epiffles of St. Paul to Seneca, and Eight of Seneca to

Paul.

[ocr errors]

THE

HE high opinion that several very learned writers have

entertained of these Epistles, their undoubted antiquity, and their not being (as far as I know) yet translated into Englifh, influences me to insert them here. The Jesuit Salmeron cites them to prove, that Seneca was one of Cæsar's houshold, referred to by Paul, Philip. iv. 22. as faluting the brethren at Philippi ; and would persuade us, that these Epistles of Paul to Seneca are not unlike the Epistles which are now received into the Canon, and directed to particular persons, viz. that of St. Paul to Philemon, St. John's Second Epistle, which is to the elect Lady, and his Third, which is to Caius. Sixtus Senenfis has published them in his Bibliotheque, p. 89, 90 ; from whom I have here transcribed them.

[ocr errors]

Numb. IV. St. PAUL'S EPISTLES to SENECA,

with SENECA's to PAUL.

Epist. 1.

Paulo ANNÆUS SENECA ANNÆUS SENECA to PAUL
Salutem.

Greeting

Epist. I. CREDO tibi, Paule, nun I SUPPOSE, Paul, that ciatum quod heri cum Lucilio you have been informed of that nostro de hypocrisi et aliis re conversation, which passed bus habuimus. Erant enim yesterday between me and my quidam disciplinarum tuarum Lucilius, concerning hypocomites mecum ; nam in hor- crisy and other subjects ; for tos Sallustianos secefferamus, there were some of your Di

ciples in company with us; for when we were retired into the Sallustian gardens, through

quo in loco occasione noftra which they were also paling, alio tendentes hi, de quibus and would have gone another. dixi, nobis adjuncti sunt. Cer- way, by our persuasion they tè quod tui præfentiam opta- joined company with us. I mus, et hoc fcias volo: libel- defire you to believe, that we lo tuo lecto, id est de plurimis much wish for your converliteris aliquas Epistolas, quas fation: we were much dead aliquam civitatem feu ca- lighted with your book of put provinciæ direxisti, mira many Epistles, which you exhortatione vitam moralem have wrote to some cities and continentes, usque refecti su chief towns of provinces, and mus. Quos sensus non puto contain wonderful instructions, ex te dictos, sed per te, certe for moral conduct: such fenaliquando ex te, et per te ; timents, as I suppose you tanta enim majestas earum est were not the author of, but rerum, tantaque generositate only the instrument of conclarent, ut vix suffecturas pu- veying, though sometimes tem ætates hominum, quibus both the author and the ininftitui perficique poffint. Be- ftrument; for such is the subne te valere, frater, cupio. limeness of those doctrines, Vale.

and their grandeur, that I suppose the

age

of

a man is scarce fufficient to be instructed and perfected in the knowledge of them. I wish your welfare, my brother, Farewell.

[ocr errors]

PAULUS SENECÆ Salutem. Paul to SENECA Greeting Epist. I.

Epift. I. LITERAS tuas hilaris he I RECEIVED your letter ri accepi : ad quas rescribere yesterday with pleasure ; to ftatim potui, fi præsentiam ju- which I could immediately venis, quem ad te missurus have wrote an answer, had eram, habuiffem ; fcis enim

the young man been at home, quando, et per quem, et quo whom I intended to have fent tempore, et cui quid dari com to

you:

for

you know when, mittique debeat. Rogo ergo and by whom, at what sea

fons, and to whom I must deliver every thing which I send. I desire therefore you would

« 前へ次へ »