CHAP. X.

The Letters of Paul and Seneca known in the fourth century. No Christian writers, except Jerome and Austin, saw them. The Acts of Linus spurious. The present Epistles are the same with the ancient ones. Jerome and Austin did not esteem them genuine.

I. THERE were extant in the fourth century, or sooner, certain letters under the name of Paul to Seneca, and Seneca to Paul. This is evident by the testimonies of Jerome, who places Seneca, by reason of those letters, among the ecclesiastical and holy writers of the Christian church d. Lucius Annæus Seneca Cordubensis, Sotionis stoici discipulus, et patruus Lucani poëtæ, continentissimæ vitæ fuit; quem non ponerem in Catalogo Sanctorum, nisi me illæ Epistolæ provocarent, quæ leguntur a plurimis, Pauli ad Senecam, et Senecæ ad Paulum. In quibus, cum esset Neronis magister, et illius temporis potentissimus, optare se dicit, ejus esse loci apud suos, cujus sit Paulus apud Christianos. Hic ante biennium quam Petrus et Paulus coronarentur martyrio, a Nerone interfectus est.

Lucius Annæus Seneca, born at Corduba [in Spain], a disciple of Sotio a stoice, and uncle of Lucan the poet, was a person of very extraordinary temperance; whom I should not have ranked in [my] Catalogue of Saints, but that I was determined to it by those Epistles 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 considerable figure [at Rome], he saith, he wished to be of the same repute (or service) among those of his country, as Paul was among the Christians. He was slain 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 temporibus apostolorum fuit, cujus etiam quædam ad Paulum apo

d Catalog. Vir. Illustr. in Seneca. e So I observe Seneca himself calls him, Epist. 108. p. 833. and not Pho

It was true which Seneca (who lived in the time of the apostles, and who wrote certain Epistles to

tinus, as Senensis read in his copy of Jerome, Bibl. Sanct. 1. 2. p. 88. in voc. Paulus.

stolum leguntur Epistolæ, Omnes odit qui malos odit.

St. Paul, which are now read)

said, He who will hate those

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 ancient Christian writers did either see or hear of any of these Epistles. Some indeed of the popish writers, who have credited the genuineness of these Epistles, as Sixtus Senensis f, the Jesuit Salmero, and others, produce a passage out of the Acts of pope Linus, who was the person mentioned by St. Paul in his second Epistle to Timothy, (chap. iv. ver. 21.) if we may credit the ancients, and successor to St. Peter in his bishopric at Rome. This Irenæush, Eusebius1, Epiphaniusk, Jerome1, and others, have recorded. The passage cited by Senensis and Salmero 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 Cæsaris fiebat ad eum, sed et institutor imperatoris adeo fuit illi amicitia copulatus, videns in eo divinam scientiam, ut se a colloquio ipsius temperare vix posset, quo minus, si ore ad os illum alloqui non valeret, frequentibus datis et acceptis Epistolis, ipsius dulcedine et amicabili colloquio atque consilio frueretur.

I easily agree with Sixtus

Several of the family of Cæsar were wont to attend upon Paul. The emperor's tutor (Seneca) had so entire a friendship for him, perceiving his divine knowledge, that he was scarce able to refrain [from breaking through all dangers m] to enjoy his conversation. But though he was not able personally to converse with him, he enjoyed, by frequent letters which passed between them, the pleasure of his free and friendly correspondence and advice.

Senensis and Salmero, that the

present Epistles are referred to in this passage, but can by no

Biblioth. Sanct. 1. 2. p. 89.

8 Comment. in Phil. iv. 22. apud Coc. Censur. Script. Veter. p. 10, 11. h Advers. Hæres. 1. 3. c. 3. vid. et Feu-Ardent. in loc.

i Histor. Eccles. 1. 3. c. 2. et 4. et

1. 5. c. 6. ex Irenæo.

Hæres. 27. Carpocrat. §. 6. Catal. Vir. Illustr. in Clemen. m He refers to the rage of the emperor against the Christians.

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 spurious, and a late forgery, and accordingly are as such rejected by Claudius Espencæus ", Baronius, Bellarmine P, Pessevinus 9, Joannes Maria Brasichalan, Du Pins, &c. among the popish writers; by Coket, Rivet ", Dr. Cave, Spanheim y, &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, a monk, who lived about the year of Christ MC. mentioned them in his book De Scriptor. Ecclesiast. Besides, it were easy from several evidences out of the book itself to prove it spurious. It appears, as Espencæus a observes, 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 con"cubines 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 b 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 suffering, and that St. Peter was slain by Agrip66 pa'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 ancient fathers." The said author in another place

66

66

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 entreaties and remonstrances.' But this, says Bellarmine, cannot be St. Peter's doctrine, being directly contrary to the doctrine of his fellow-apostle St. Paul, 1 Cor. vii. Upon the whole then, if these Acts of Linus be thus spurious, and a late forgery, I may venture to assert, that though this writer has mentioned the Epistles of Paul and Seneca, which we have now under consideration, yet they receive no credit or authority thereby, and have not been mentioned by any of the ancient Christian writers, except Jerome, and some of them by Austin in the places above produced.

III. The present Epistles, 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 says. So Baronius, Sixtus Senensis, Bellarmine, and Rivet in the places above cited; and besides these Dr. Grabec and Mr. Fabritius d. 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 Epistles, which we have.

The passage in Jerome is;

In quibus optare se dicit, Ejus esse loci apud suos, cujus sit Paulus apud Christianos, i. e. In one of his letters [to Paul], Seneca saith, He wished to be of the same repute (or service) among those of his country, as Paul was among the Christians.

The passage, as it is in the present sixth Epistle 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 circumstance (or station) in which thou art, and that thou wert in the same station that I am.

These passages are so very like, that I think it cannot with any reason be doubted, but that they prove my present observation. All that can possibly 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 Spicileg. Patr. tom. 1. p. 82. d Cod. Apocr. Nov. Testam. p. 2. p. 881.

forgery: but this is an objection so 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 Epistles of Seneca to Paul, and Paul to Seneca, do not appear to have been received as genuine and authentic by Jerome and Austin. 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 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 inquiry themselves, have presumed upon that as fact, which is apparently not so; see Rivet, Du Pin, Dr. Cave, Dr. Grabe, and others in the places above cited, who have carelessly asserted, that Austin looked upon the Epistles 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; 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 above mentioned, 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 saith there is, Libertas-Annæo Seneca quem nonnullis indiciis invenimus apostolorum nostrorum claruisse 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 see how he was led into this mistake. He saw some writers had cited this place of Austin, and that Ludovicus Vives in his notes proposes it as a conjecture, that possibly Austin might know Seneca lived in the apostles' time, by these letters; and hence he concludes that Austin actually mentioned them. But such unfair practice (as I have observed in the former part) was very common with this trifling writer, the better to adorn and 'grace his Catalogue. e Amyntor, p. 31.