ページの画像
PDF
ePub

actually mentioned them. But fuch unfair practice (as I have obferved in the former part) was very common with this trifling writer, the better to adorn and grace his Catalogue. But to return to my obfervation, it does not appear that St. Austin did cite or look upon these Epiftles of Paul to Seneca as genuine, because he has never mentioned them: I add, nor is it probable that he ever faw them, or heard of them; for if he had, it is almost impoffible to suppose but that he would have mentioned thofe of Paul to Seneca at the fame time, and in the fame place, where he mentions thofe of Seneca to Paul, But let us fuppofe, that when he mentions the one, he implied alfo the other, it does by no means appear that he cited them, as Rivet fays, or acknowledged them as genuine, as both he and the authors above-mentioned conclude, concerning him and Jerome. All thofe Fathers fay, is, that they were read; Jerome adds, by many. But does this imply, that they were read and received by them? Do not the words feem clearly to imply and intimate the contrary? Their words are plainly to this effect, There are certain Epistles of Seneca to Paul, which are spread up and down, and read by fome perfons among us, but I fee no reason to acknowledge them. Had either of these Fathers known or believed thefe to be the genuine Epiftles of St. Paul, can it be imagined they would have faid no more of them? Would they not have declared their belief in this matter, and recommended them to the perufal of the churches? Would they not have cited them, or transcribed either fome part or the whole of them into their works? This feems to me good prefumptive evidence against the unanimous opinion of the learned, that neither of thefe Fathers acknowledged thefe Epiftles as genuine. And I cannot but obferve here, that though Mr. Du Pin fays they feem to have owned them as genuine, yet a few lines after he teems to contradict himself, and fays, It is to be obferved, that they do not declare pofitively that these Epiftles were genuine, but only that they were commonly fo reputed, and read under their names; and he, in a note at the bottom of the page, endeavours by a very good argument to prove, that St. Auftin did not believe thefe to be the letters of Seneca, viz. because, says he, that Father

F 2

a

Father (lib. 6. c. 11. De Civit. Dei) fays, that Seneca has neither praised nor difpraised the Chriftians; but the former of these is evidently done in these Epiftles.

It may indeed be objected against my obfervation, that Jerome seems to have believed the genuineness of these Epiftles, because it was upon the account of them that Jerome placed Seneca in his Catalogue of Chriftian or Ecclefiaftical writers. (See the place above.) This influenced Rivet, Pamelius, and others to this opinion. But to this I anfwer, (1.) That Jerome did this very probably in conformity to the opinion of those who did read and look upon these Epiftles as genuine; who, if he had omitted it, would for this reason have looked upon his work as imperfect. (2.) That very flender reafons would prevail upon Jerome to give any perfon a place among his Ecclefiaftical writers. On this fcore we find Jofephus and Philo Judæus have their places affigned them among the Christian writers in this book; the former because of his teftimony concerning Jefus Chrift; the other because of his account of the Therapeutæ, or Effenes in Egypt, whom Eufebius 1, and after him Jerome 5, fuppofe to have been Chriftians".

But to fay no more, that which fully proves Jerome not to have believed the genuineness of these Epistles is, that in this fame book, where he gives an account of St. Paul's life, and alľ his writings, he does not fo much as mention the name or any thing concerning thefe Epiftles to Seneca, which is such an omiffion as he cannot be supposed guilty of, if he had believed them to be genuine, and written by that Apostle.

[blocks in formation]

CHAP. XI.

The Epiftles contain in them feveral Evidences of their Spurioufnefs. Their Stile different from the Stile of Paul and Seпеса. Several Contradictions in them. Several Things trifling. Several Things falfe.

V. THERE are feveral internal evidences and characters in ' the Epiftles of Paul to Seneca, and Seneca to Paul, which demonftrate their spurioufness. For,

1. Nothing can be more unlike than the file of these Epiftles is to the known ftile of St. Paul and Seneca, in their confessedly genuine Epiftles. This is easy to be observed, and cannot but be at firft vifible to those who are at all acquainted with those two writers. Andreas Schottus, in his Life of Seneca prefixed to the second part of his works, well obferves, that the Epiftles under his name to Paul, are no more like the excellent ftile of Seneca, than the answers to them are like the divine and infpired ftile of St. Paul. The ftile of those (fays a learned author") which are attributed to Seneca, is barbarous, and full of idioms that do not belong to the Latin tongue. The Epiftles attributed to St. Paul have not the leaft tincture of the gravity of that Apostle, but are rather compliments than inftructions. It would be fuperfluous to produce instances. I choose rather to observe, that the learned Sixtus Senenfis, who believed the genuineness of these Epiftles, was fo sensible of the fact and the force of the objection against them, that he endeavours to evade it by a strange and groundless fuppofition, viz. that Seneca in thefe letters did defignedly disguise

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

and alter his ftile; left perhaps, if the letters should fall into a wrong perfon's hand, though they had the name of Seneca prefixed to them, they should not be suspected to be his. It being then, fays he, dangerous and contrary to the decree of the Emperor (for a Roman) to keep up a correfpondence with a Jew, or a Chriftian. But every one muft perceive how precarious this conjecture is; and befides, if it were allowed juft, it will no way serve the purpose it is brought for, because the ftile of Paul is equally different; and fome reason must be affigned, why he alfo changed and disguised his ftile. They are spurious therefore by Prop. XI.

2. The fubfcriptions of the letters are very unlike those used by the fuppofed authors in their genuine Epiftles. Such is that of Seneca's fubfcribing in the first Epiftle, Bene te valere, Frater, cupio, "I bid thee farewell, O brother," and addreffing him with the fame title, Epift. iv. a compellation not in ufe among the Heathens, but peculiar to the Chriftians: fuch is Seneca's subscription, fuch are St. Paul's subscriptions, vale, and opto te bene valere; and efpécially that Epift. v. Vale, devotiffime magister; which is not only a very barbarous, and very late, but very unlike (as the others are) to the ufual way of St. Paul's concluding his letters.

3. Several parts of thefe letters fuppofe Paul to have been at the time of writing at Rome; whereas others imply the contrary. That he was then at Rome, is implied in the first words of the firft letter, in which Seneca tells Paul, that he fuppofed he had been told the difcourfe that passed the day before between him and Lucilius by fome Chriftians who were present; as alfo in the first words of Paul's firft Epiftle, and that part of Seneca's fecond, where he tells him, He would endeavour to introduce him to Cæfar; and that he would confer with him, and read over together some parts of his writings; and in that

■ Videtur autem Seneca ftylum fuum aliquantulum in his Epiftolis obumbraffe de industria et diffimulaffe, ut fi forte in alienas manus Epiftolæ veniffent, etfi infcriptæ nomine Senecæ, potuiffent nihilominus

in periculo non videri Senecæ. Periculum enim erat et cóntra imperatoris tunc edictum, Christiani aut Judæi familiaritate uti. Bibl. Sanct. 1. 2. p. 88, 89.

part

part of Paul's fecond, where he hopes for Seneca's company, and in several other places. But on the other hand several parts of the letters fuppofe Paul not at Rome, as where Seneca (Epist. iii.) complains of his staying fo long away, and both Paul and Seneca are made to date their letters, when fuch and fuch perfons were confuls; fee Paul's fifth and fixth, and Seneca's fixth, seventh, and eighth. Now, had they been both in the fame city, nothing can be more unreasonable than to suppose that they would have dated thus: what need could there be to inform each other who were confuls? Paul therefore is fuppofed to be, and not to be at Rome at the fame time, which is a manifeft contradiction. They are therefore fpurious by Prop. VII.

4. Befides this contradiction, the very dating of their letters by confulships feems to be no small evidence of their spuriousness, because it was a thing utterly unknown that any perfons ever did fo; nor have I ever obferved one fuch inftance in the Epiftles of Seneca, Cicero, or any other writer.

5. There are feveral mistakes in them as to the names and times of the confuls, which are mentioned. This obfervation I find made by others, and fhall think it fufficient therefore to refer the reader to them, and the common chronologers.

6. The trifling contents of thefe Epiftles feem to prove their fpurioufnefs. They contain nothing in them, fays Du Pin, worthy either of Seneca, or of Paul; Scarce one thought of morality in the letters of Seneca, nor any thing of Christianity in thofe of Paul. Befides, what can be more trifling than Paul's fifth letter, which is all taken up in a fervile apology for his putting his own name before Seneca's, in the inscription of his letters, and declaring this to be contrary to Christianity; and Seneca's answer, which confifts only in allowing Paul to do fo? They are spurious therefore by Prop. IX.

7. These letters contain several things which are false or contrary to known truths. Such is that in Seneca's fourth Epistle, that the emperor Nero was delighted and furprised at the thoughts

a Viz. Du Pin and Fabritius, locis cit.

Loc. jam cit.

F 4

and

« 前へ次へ »