actually mentioned them. But such unfair practice (as I have observed in the former part) was very common with this triAing writer, the better to adorn and grace his Catalogue. But to return to my observation, it does not appear that St. Austin did cite or look upon these Epistles of Paul to Seneca as genuine, because he has never mentioned them: I add, nor is it probable that he ever saw them, or heard of them; for if he had, it is almost impossible to suppose but that he would have mentioned those of Paul to Seneca at the same time, and in the fame place, where he mentions those of Seneca to Paul. But let us suppose, that when he mentions the one, he implied also the other, it does by no means appear that he cited them, as Rivet says, or acknowledged them as genuine, as both he and the authors above-mentioned conclude, concern, ing him and Jeroine. All those Fathers say, 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 seem 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 persons among us, but I see no reason to acknowledge them. Had either of these Fathers known or believed these to be the genuine Epistles of St. Paul, can it be imagined they would have said no more of them? Would they not have declared their belief in this matter, and recommended them to the perusal of the churches? Would they not have cited them, or transcribed either some part or the whole of them into their works? This seems to me good presumptive evidence against the unanimous opinion of the learned, that neither of these Fathers acknowledged these Epistles as genuine. And I cannot but observe here, that though Mr. Du Pin says they seem to have owned them as genuine, yet a few lines after he leems to contradict himself, and says, It is to be observed, that they do not declare positively that these Epistles 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. Austin did not believe these to be the letters of Seneca, viz. because, fays he, that

F 2


Father (lib. 6. c. 11. a De Civit. Dei) says, that Seneca has neither praised nor difpraised the Christians; but the former of these is evidently done in these Epistles. · It may indeed be objected against my observation, that Jerome seems to have believed the genuineness of these Epistles, because it was upon the account of them that Jerome placed Seneca in his Catalogue of Christian or Ecclefiaftical writers. (See the place above.). This influenced Rivett, Pamelius, and others to this opinion. But to this I answer, (1.) That Jerome did this very probably in conformity to the opinion of those who did read and look upon these Epistles as genuine ; who, if he had omitted it, would for this reason have looked upon his work as imperfect. (2.) That very sender reasons would prevail upon Jerome to give any person a place among his Ecclefiastical writers. On this score we find Josephus and Philo Judæus have their places assigned them among the Christian writers in this book; the former because of his testimony concerning Jesus Christ d; the other because of his accounte of the Therapeutæ, or Effenes in Egypt, whom Eufebius , and after him Jerome 5, suppose to have been Christians ".

But to say 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 all his writings, he does not so much as mention the name or any thing concerning thefe Epiftles to Seneca, which is such an omission as he cannot be supposed guilty of, if he had believed them to be genuine, and written by that Apostle.

... The book is not cited by Du Pin, but I have put lib. 6. because I there (chap. 11.) find what be re

what here. fers to; Seneca Chriftianos in neu. tram partem commemorare ausus eit, ne vel laudaret contra suze patriæ veterem consuetudinem, vel reprehenderet contra propriam for. fitan voluntatem. : Loc. supra cit.

“ Annot. ad Tertull. de Anima,

C. 20. p. 373.

d Antiquit. Judaic. I. 18. c.4.

• De Vit. Contemplat. p. 889, &c.

f Histor. Ecclesiastic. 1. 2. C. 16, 17, 18.

& Catal. Vir. illustr. in Marco & Philone.

H See concerning this above, Part II. ch. xvi.


[blocks in formation]

The Epistles contain in them several Evidences of their Spuri.

ousness. Their Stile different from the Stile of Paul and Seneca. Several Contradi&tions in them. Several Things

trifling. Several Things false. V. THERE are several internal evidences and characters in '

the Epistles of Paul to Seneca, and Seneca to Paul, which demonstrate their spuriousness. For,

1. Nothing can be more unlike than the file of these Epistles is to the known stile of St. Paul and Seneca, in their confessedly genuine Epistles. This is easy to be observed, and cannot but be at first visible 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 observes, that the Epistles under his name to Paul, are no more like the excel. lent ftile of Seneca, than the answers to them are like the divine and inspired stile of St. Paul. The file of those (says a learned author) which are attributed to Seneca, is barbarous, and full of idioms that do not belong to the Latin tongue. The Epistles attributed to St. Paul have not the least tincture of the gravity of that Apostle, but are rather compliments than instructions. It would be fuperfluous to produce instances. I choose rather to observe, that the learned Sixtus Senensis, who believed the genuineness of these Epistles, was so sensible of the fact and the force of the objection against them, that he endeavours to evade it by a strange and groundless supposition, viz. that Seneca in these letters did designedly disguise

Epistolas ad Paulum dico, quæ certain whether or no this Life of non magis eximium noftri auctoris Seneca was wrote by Schottus, but ingenium fapiunt, quam responsio. I presume it was, because he pubnes ad illas Deo plenum xai J£600- lished the edition. ao Pauli ftilum, ideoque a doctis Dù Pin's History of the Canon non magis pro Senecæ germanis ag of the New Teftament, vol. 2. noscuntur, quam refponfiones ab ch. Vis. §. 4. Ecclesia pro Paulinis. I am not

F 3


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

2. The subscriptions of the letters are very unlike those used by the fupposed authors in their genuine Epistles. Such is that of Seneca's subscribing 'in the first Epistle, Bene te valere, Frater, cupio, “ I bid thee farewell, O brother," and addressing him with the same title, Epist, iv, a compe lation not in use among the Heathens, but peculiar to the Christians : such is Seneca's subscription, such are St. Paul's subscriptions, vale, and opto te bene valere ; and especially that Epift. v. Vale, devotissime magister; which is not only a very barbarous; and very late, but very unlike (as the others are) to the usual way of St. Paul's concluding his letters,

3. Several parts of these letters suppose Paul to have been at the time of writing at Rome'; whereas others imply the cons frary. That he was then at Rome, is implied in the first words of the first letter, in which Seneca 'tells Paul, that he fupposed he had been told the discourse that pased the day before between him and Lucilius by some Christians who were present; as also in the first words of Paul's first Epistle, and that part of Seneca's second, 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 part of Paul's second, where he hopes for Seneca's company, and in several other places. But on the other hand several parts of the letters suppose Paul not at Rome, as where Se. neca (Epist. iii.) complains of his staying so long away, and both Paul and Seneca are made to date their letters, when such and such persons were consuls; see Paul's fifth and fixth, and Seneca's sixth, seventh, and eighth. Now, had they been both in the same 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 consuls ? Paul therefore is supposed to be, and not to be at Rome at the same time, which is a manifest contradiction. They are therefore spurious by Prop. VII.

: Videtur autem Seneca ftylum finum aliquantulum in his Epistolis obumbraffe de industria et diffimu. lasse, ut fi forte in alienas manus Epiftolæ veniffent, etsi infcriptæ no. mine Senecæ, potuissent nihilominus

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



4. Besides this contradiction, the very dating of their letters by consulships seems to be na small evidence of their spuriousness, because it was a thing utterly unknown that any persons ever did fo; nor have I ever observed one such instance in the Epistles of Seneca, Cicero, or any other writer.

5. There are several mistakes in them as to the names and times of the consuls, which are mentioned. This observation I .. find made by others, and shall think it sufficient therefore to refer the reader to them a, and the common chronologers.

6. The trifling contents of these Epistles seem to prove their {puriousness. They contain nothing in them, says 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 those of Paul. Besides, what can be more trifling than Paul's fifth letter, which is all taken up in a servile 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 consists only in allowing Paul to do so ? 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 surprised at the thoughts


Loc. jam cit.

· Viz. Du Pin and Fabritius, locis cit.

« 前へ次へ »