ad Paulum. In quibus, cum it by those Epistles of Paul effet Neronis magister, et il- to Seneca, and Seneca to Paul, lius temporis potentiffimus, which are read by many.

In optare se dicit, ejus ele loci which, though he was at that apud fuos, cujus fit Paulus time tutor to Nero, and apud Christianos. Hic ante made a very considerable fibiennium quam Petrus et

gure (at Rome), he faith, he Paulus coronarentur Mar- wished to be of the same repute tyrio, a Nerone interfectus (or service) among those of his est.

country, as Paul was among

the Christians. He was flain by Nero two years before Peter and Paul were honoured with martyrdom.

In St. Austin's 54th Epistle, to his friend Macedonius, we

read, as followeth.

Merito ait Seneca, qui tem It was true which Seneca poribus Apoftolorum fuit, cu (who lived in the time of the jus etiam quædam ad Pau. Apostles, and who wrote cerlum Apoftolum leguntur E- tain Epiftles to St. Paul, piftolæ, Omnes odit qui ma which are now read) said, He los odit.

who will hate thofe which are wicked, must hate all men.

II. Besides the two Fathers above cited, viz. Jerome and Austin, it does not appear that any of the antient Christian writers did either fee or hear of any of these Epifles. Some indeed of the Popish writers, who have credited the genuineness of these Epiftles, as Sixtus Senensis, the Jesuit Salmero, and others, produce a passage out of the Aets of Pope Linus, who was the person mentioned by St. Paul in his second Epistle to Timothy (c. iv. ver. 21.) if we may credit the antients, and successor to St. Peter in his bishoprick at Rome. This

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

apud Coc. Censur. Script. veter. P. 10, II.

Irenæus a, Eusebius b, Epiphanius , Jerome d, and others, have recorded. The passage cited by Senensis and Salinero out of these Acts, or books, supposed to be written by Linus, concerning the suffering of Peter and Paul, as I find it in the former, is this; speaking of the friendship of Paul and Seneca, he adds,

Concursus de domo Cæfaris Several of the family of Cæfiebat ad eum, fed et institu far were wont to attend upon tor Imperatoris adeo fuit illi Paul. The Emperor's tutor amicitia copulatus, videns in (Seneca) had lo entire a eo divinam scientiam, ut se a friendship for him, perceiving colloquio ipfius temperare vix his divine knowledge, that he poffet, quo minus, fi ore ad was scarce able to refrain os illum alloqui non valeret, (from breaking through all frequentibus datis et acceptis dangers) to enjoy his conEpiftolis, ipfius dulcedine et versation. But though he amicabili colloquio atque con was not able personally to filio frueretur.

converse with him, he enjoyed

by frequent letters which paled between them, the pleasure of his free and friendly correSpondence and advice.

I easily agree with Sixtus Senensis and Salmero, that the present Epiftles are referred to in this passage, but can by no means think that they receive the least credit or authority thereby ; because it is most notoriously evident, that these Acts of Linus, or History of the sufferings of Peter and Paul, published under his name, are fpurious, and a late forgery, and accordingly are as such rejected by Claudius Efpencæus f; Baronius , Bellarmine", Peslevinus, Joannes Maria Brafi

eund. p. 15:

· Advers. Hæref. l. 3. c. 3. vid. apud Cocum Censur. p. 14. et Feu-Ardent, in loc.

& Annal. tom. I. ad Ann. 69. • Hiftor. Ecclef. l. 3. c. 2. & n. 9. & ad Ann. 80. n. 4. Apud 4. & l. 5. c. 6. ex Irenæo.

Hæref. 27. Carpocrat. §. 6. h De Scriptor. Ecclef. p. 48.

Catal. Vir. illuitr. in Clemen. 1. Apparat. in Lino apud Coc. • He refers to the rage of the ibid. et Cave Hift. Liter. vol. I. Emperor against the Christians.

in Lino, p. 17° Comment. in Philip. cap. alt.



chalana, Du Pin', &c. among the Popish writers; by Cokee, Rivet ", Dr. Cave, Spanheim', &c. among the Protestants. Nor indeed is it strange they should be so universally rejected, if we consider that they are utterly unknown to all the writers of the first eleven centuries after Christ, and not mentioned by any one until Sigibertus Gemblacensis, á monk, who lived about the year of Christ MC. mentioned them in his book de Scriptor. Ecclefiaft. Besides, it were easy from feveral evidences out of the book itself to prove it spurious. It appears; as Espencæus h observés, to contain the sentiments 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 express advice (1 Cor. vii. 3.), to an undue behaviour to their husbands; and both Baronius and Bellarmine i have proved it to be full of many falsities in history and doctrine. Among other things, says 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 pain by Agrippå's own hands, without the knowledge or consent of the Emperor Nero, who afterwards blamed the officer for putting him to death. But it is certain, says the Cardinal, that Agrippa was not governor of the city then, and that the putting of Peter to death was displeasing to Nero, is contrary to all the antiont 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, says Bellarmine, cannot be St. Peter's doctrine, being directly contrary to the doctrine of his fellow-apostle 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 assert, that though this writer bas mentioned the Epiftles of Paul and

a Biblioth. Patr. tom. 7. apud cofdem.

b History of the Canon of the New Test. vol. 2. chap. 6. 9. 11.

Cenfur. quorund. veterum Scriptor. p. 14, 15:.

s* Critic. Sacr. lib. 1. c. S.

€ Histor. Literar. in Lino, vol. 1. p. 17.

* Hift. Eccl. Secul. I. p. 581.
s Loc. jam cit.
* Apud Cocum ubi fupra.
i Locis jam cit.



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 Christian writers, except Jerome, and some of them by Austin in the places above produced.

III. The present Epiftles under the name of Seneca to Paul, and Paul to Seneca, seem to be the same with those seen by Jerome. This is (as far as I find) generally agreed by those who have considered these Epistles, and compared them with what Jerome fays. So Baronius, Sixtus Senenfis, Bellarmine, and Rivet in the places above-cited; and besides these Dr. Grabe", and Mr. Fabritius b. 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 those Epiftles, zuhich we have.

The paffage in Jerome is ; The passage, as it is in the

present sixth Epistle of Se.

neca to Paul, is; In quibus optare fe dicit ejus Qui meus, tuus apud te loesse loci apud fuos, cujus fit cus, qui tuus, veliin ut meus, Paulus apud Christianos, i. e. i. e. I could wish that I were In one of his letters (to Paul) in that circumstance (or paSeneca faith, He wished to be tion) in which thou art, and of the same repute (or service) that thou wert in the same among those of his country, as ftation that I am. Paul was among the Chriftians.

These passages are so very like, that I think it cannot with any reason be doubted, but that they prove my present obfervation. All that can poslibly be objected, is, that perhaps a late forger of these Epistles might, knowing this place in Jerome, take care to insert this, to prevent any suspicion of his forgery:

p. 2. p.


Spicileg. Patr. tom. 1. p. 82. Cod. Apocr. Nov. Testam. Vol. I,



but this is an objection fo very precarious and improbable, that I suppose it will be enough to say, in answer to it, that it cannot be of any force, unless there be some prior proof of the forgery of these Epistles 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 ta Paul. This will be so evident by casting the eye upon the place cited, that I wonder it has not been taken notice of before; but that learned men following one another, without making due enquiry themselves, have presumed upon that as fact, which is apparently not so; fee Rivet, Du Pin, Dr. Cave, Dr. Grabe, and others in the places above cited, who have carelessly asserted, that Austin looked upon the Epifiles of Paul to Seneca to be genuine : whereas on the contrary, I affirm, that he has never once mentioned them. And here by the way I cannot but take notice of a notorious blunder in Mr. Toland's famous Catalogue a; who having placed there the Epistles of Paul to Seneca, and those of Seneca to Paul, cites not only the places of Austin and Jerome abovementioned, but another place in Austin's book De Civit. Dei, 1. 6. C. 10. as though that Father had not only in one place but the other cited these Epistles ; whereas all that he faith there is, “ Libertas_Annæo Senecæ quem nonnullis indiciis “ invenimus Apostolorum nostrorum claruiffe temporibus.” i. e. I have found by some arguments that Seneca lived in the time of our Apostles. This is all that Father says ; but where is the mention of any Epistles? Where does he cite them as genuine? But I easily fee how he was led into this mistake. He faw some writers had cited this place of Austin, and that Ludovicus 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. 35.


« 前へ次へ »