ページの画像
PDF
ePub

ad Paulum. In quibus, cum effet Neronis magister, et illius temporis potentiffimus, optare fe dicit, ejus effe loci apud fuos, cujus fit Paulus apud Chriftianos. Hic ante biennium quam Petrus et Paulus coronarentur Martyrio, a Nerone interfectus

eft.

it by thofe Epiftles of Paul to Seneca, and Seneca to Paul, which are read by many. In which, though he was at that time tutor to Nero, and made a very confiderable figure (at Rome), he faith, he wished to be of the fame repute (or fervice) among thofe of his country, as Paul was among the Chriftians. He was flain

by Nero two years before Peter and Paul were honoured with martyrdom.

In St. Auftin's 54th Epiftle, to his friend Macedonius, we read, as followeth.

Merito ait Seneca, qui tem-
poribus Apoftolorum fuit, cu-
jus etiam quædam ad Pau-
lum Apoftolum leguntur E-tain Epiftles
piftolæ, Omnes odit qui ma-
los odit.

It was
true which Seneca
(who lived in the time of the
Apoftles, and who wrote cer-
tain Epiftles to St. Paul,
which are now read) faid, He
who will hate thofe which
are wicked, must hate all

men.

II. Befides the two Fathers above cited, viz. Jerome and Austin, it does not appear that any of the antient Chriftian writers did either fee or hear of any of thefe Epifles. Some indeed of the Popish writers, who have credited the genuineness of these Epiftles, as Sixtus Senenfis, the Jefuit Salmero", and others, produce a paffage out of the Acts of Pope Linus, who was the perfon mentioned by St. Paul in his fecond Epiftle to Timothy (c. iv. ver. 21.) if we may credit the antients, and fucceffor to St. Peter in his bifhoprick at Rome. This

Biblioth. Sanct. 1. 2. p. 89.
Comment. in Phil. iv. 22.

apud Coc. Cenfur. Script. veter.

P. 10, 11.

Irenæus, Eufebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, and others, have recorded. The paffage cited by Senenfis and Salinero out of these Acts, or books, fuppofed to be written by Linus, concerning the fuffering of Peter and Paul, as I find it in the former, is this; fpeaking of the friendship of Paul and Seneca, he adds,

Concurfus de domo Cæfaris fiebat ad eum, fed et inftitutor Imperatoris adeo fuit illi amicitia copulatus, videns in eo divinam fcientiam, ut fe a colloquio ipfius temperare vix poffet, quo minus, fi ore ad os illum alloqui non valeret, frequentibus datis et acceptis Epiftolis, ipfius dulcedine et amicabili colloquio atque confilio frueretur.

ed between them, the pleasure Spondence and advice.

Several of the family of Cafar were wont to attend upon Paul. The Emperor's tutor (Seneca) had fo entire a friendship for him, perceiving his divine knowledge, that he was fcarce able to refrain (from breaking through all dangers) to enjoy his converfation. But though he was not able perfonally to converfe with him, he enjoyed by frequent letters which paffof his free and friendly corre

I eafily agree with Sixtus Senenfis and Salmero, that the prefent Epiftles are referred to in this paffage, but can by no means think that they receive the leaft credit or authority thereby; because it is most notoriously evident, that these Acts of Linus, or Hiftory of the sufferings of Peter and Paul, published under his name, are spurious, and a late forgery, and accordingly are as such rejected by Claudius Efpencæus, Baronius, Bellarmine, Peffevinus, Joannes Maria Brafi

Adverf. Hæref. 1. 3. c.

et Feu-Ardent. in loc.

3. vid.

Hiftor. Ecclef. 1. 3. c. 2. & 4. & 1. 5. c. 6. ex Irenæo.

Hæref. 27. Carpocrat. §. 6. Catal. Vir. illuftr. in Clemen. He refers to the rage of the Emperor against the Chriftians.

Comment. in Philip. cap. ult.

apud Cocum Cenfur. p. 14.

& Annal. tom. 1. ad Ann. 69. n. 9. & ad Ann. 8o. n. 4. Apud eund. p. 15.

h De Scriptor. Ecclef. p. 48. Apparat. in Lino apud Coc. ibid. et Cave Hift. Liter. vol. 1. in Lino, p. 17.

chalan,

g

chalana, Du Pin, &c. among the Popish writers; by Coke, Rivet, Dr. Cave, Spanheim, &c. among the Proteftants. Nor indeed is it strange they should be so universally rejected, if we confider that they are utterly unknown to all the writers of the first eleven centuries after Chrift, and not mentioned by any one until Sigibertus Gemblacenfis, á monk, who lived about the year of Chrift MC. mentioned them in his book de Scriptor. Ecclefiaft. Befides, it were easy from feveral evidences out of the book itself to prove it spurious. It appears, as Efpencæus obferves, to contain the fentiments of the Manichees, and Peter is there introduced, as urging the doctrines of celibacy, and not only forcing away men's concubines from them, but exhorting women, contrary to St. Paul's exprefs advice (1 Cor. vii. 3.), to an undue behaviour to their husbands; and both Baronius and Bellarmine have proved it to be full of many falfities in history and doctrine. Among other things, fays Bellarmine, the Author of it tells us, that Agrippa was governor of Rome at the time of St. Peter's fuffering, and that St. Peter was flain by Agrippa's own hands, without the knowledge or confent of the Emperor Nero, who afterwards blamed the officer for putting him to death. But it is certain, fays the Cardinal, that Agrippa was not governor of the city then, and that the putting of Peter to death was difpleafing to Nero, is contrary to all the antient Fathers. The faid Author in another place relates, that St. Peter urged and obliged the wife of Albanus to leave her husband's bed (upon a pretence of chastity) contrary to her husband's intreaties and remonftrancés. But this, fays Bellarmine, cannot be St. Peter's doctrine, being directly contrary to the doctrine of his fellow-apoftle St. Paul, I Cor. vii. Upon the whole then, if these Acts of Linus be thus fpurious, and a late forgery, I may venture to affert, that though this writer as mentioned the Epiftles of Paul and

[blocks in formation]

Seneca, which we have now under confideration, yet they receive no credit or authority thereby, and have not been mentioned by any of the antient Chriftian writers, except Jerome, and some of them by Austin in the places above produced.

III. The prefent Epiftles under the name of Seneca to Paul, and Paul to Seneca, feem to be the fame with those seen by Jerome. This is (as far as I find) generally agreed by those who have confidered thefe Epiftles, and compared them with what Jerome fays. So Baronius, Sixtus Senenfis, Bellarmine, and Rivet in the places above-cited; and befides these Dr. Grabe, and Mr. Fabritius. The foundation of this opinion is, that the passage which Jerome mentions to have been in the Letters of Seneca to Paul is to be found now in one of thofe Epiftles, which we have.

The paffage in Jerome is;

In quibus optare fe dicit ejus effe loci apud fuos, cujus fit Paulus apud Chriftianos, i. e. In one of his letters (to Paul) Seneca faith, He wished to be of the fame repute (or fervice) among thofe of his country, as Paul was among the Christ

ians.

The paffage, as it is in the present fixth Epiftle of Seneca to Paul, is; Qui meus, tuus apud te locus, qui tuus, velim ut meus, i. e. I could wish that I were in that circumftance (or flation) in which thou art, and that thou wert in the fame ftation that I am.

These paffages are so very like, that I think it cannot with any reafon be doubted, but that they prove my present obfervation. All that can poffibly be objected, is, that perhaps a late forger of thefe Epiftles might, knowing this place in Jerome, take care to infert this, to prevent any fufpicion of his forgery :

Spicileg. Patr. tom, 1. p. 82.
Cod. Apocr. Nov. Teftam.

VOL. I.

F

P. 2. p. 881.

but

but this is an objection fo very precarious and improbable, that I fuppofe it will be enough to fay, in answer to it, that it cannot be of any force, unless there be fome prior proof of the forgery of thefe Epiftles after Jerome's time, which I believe has not yet been attempted.

. IV. The Epiftles of Seneca to Paul, and Paul to Seneca, do
not appear to have been received as genuine and authentick by
Jerome and Auftin. As to Austin, I observe, that he does no
where mention the letters of Paul to Seneca, but only those of
Seneca to Paul. This will be fo evident by cafting the eye
upon the place cited, that I wonder it has not been taken no-
tice of before; but that learned men following one another,
without making due enquiry themselves, have prefumed upon
that as fact, which is apparently not fo; fee Rivet, Du Pin,
Dr. Cave, Dr. Grabe, and others in the places above cited,
who have carelessly afferted, that Austin looked upon the Epi-
ftles of Paul to Seneca to be genuine whereas on the con-
trary, I affirm, that he has never once mentioned them. And
here by the way
I cannot but take notice of a notorious blun-
der in Mr. Toland's famous Catalogue ; who having placed
there the Epiftles of Paul to Seneca, and thofe of Seneca to
Paul, cites not only the places of Auftin and Jerome above-
mentioned, but another place in Auftin's book De Civit. Dei,
1. 6. c. 10. as though that Father had not only in one place
but the other cited thefe Epiftles; whereas all that he faith.
there is, "Libertas-Annæo Senecæ quem nonnullis indiciis
"invenimus Apoftolorum noftrorum claruifie temporibus."
i. e. I have found by fome arguments that Seneca lived in the
time of our Apostles. This is all that Father fays; but where
is the mention of any Epiftles? Where does he cite them as ge-
nuine? But I easily fee how he was led into this mistake. He
faw fome writers had cited this place of Austin, and that Lu-
dovicus Vives in his notes proposes it as a conjecture, that
poffibly Austin might know Seneca lived in the Apostles'
time, by these letters; and hence he concludes that Austin

Amyntor. p. 31.

actually

[ocr errors]
« 前へ次へ »