A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

Of the Books of the Sibyls, Mercurius Trismegistus, and Hystas∣pes: Of the Letters of Lentulus and Pilate, concerning Jesus Christ: Of the Epistles of Seneca to St. Paul, and of those of St. Paul to Seneca: And of a Passage in the History of Josephus.

WE joyn all these prophane Records together, that have been heretofore alledged in fa∣vour of the Christian Religion, that so we may examine them; and although we should * 1.1 reject them, yet we do not believe that we do any wrong to Religion, which is sufficiently furnished with solid and convincing Proofs, without standing in need of those that are false or dubious. We begin with the Verses that are attributed to the Sibyls, which are frequently cited by the ancient Writers to convince the Pagans of the Truth of the Religion of Jesus Christ; but before we proceed to Examine them, it would be expedient to give some account of these Sibyls and their Books.

It is difficult to assign a true Etymology of the Word Sibyl; Lactantius, and after him St. Jerom, affirm, that the Sibyls were so called, because they were the Interpreters of the Decrees of the Gods; and that their Name consisted of two Greek Words a 1.2, signifying the Counsel of the Gods, which being written in the Aeolick Dialect compose that of Sibyl. It is derived by some from an Hebrew Word, and by others from an obsolete Latin Adjective b 1.3, that signifies, Subtil or Acute; but this later Conjecture is false, since the Word Sibyl was used by the Greeks before the Latins. The most probable opinion is, that the Name Sibyl, which was proper to the famous Delphick Prophetess, afterwards became common to others, as that of Caesar, peculiar only to Julius, was after him appro∣priated to all the succeeding Emperors.

Nothing is s•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉s of the S•…•…s c 1.4, many of the ancient Wri∣ters •…•…s of her of Delph••s. S•••••••••• and some Others 〈…〉〈…〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 produceth three, her of Delph••s, her of Erythr••, and her of C••••••. •…•…, the L••••y••k the Delph••ck o•• Erithr••••••, the Cuman and the Ba∣bylonian. Aelian, V••••••s, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and most other Writers, reckon ten, and some add others to the number, but they do not agree about their Names, nor the Place of their Habitation, and they often 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them one with another.

However, it is certain, that the Name of Sibyls was given to certain Women, who being transpor∣ted with Enthus••••sm d 1.5, and an extravagant Fury, caused either through a violent Inflammation of Choler, or by the possession of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, pronounced divers obscure and e••••gmatical Sentences that passed among the Heathens for Oracles and Predictions. It is reported, that the Sibyl of Cuma wrote them on the Leaves of Trees e 1.6, and that a Collection of them was offered by a certain Woman to Tarquinius f 1.7 King of the Romans, who bought part thereof, which he caused care∣fully to be laid up in an U••n or Stone-Pot, and to be placed in the Capitol, having created Officers on purpose, whom he called D•…•…iri, whose Office it was to keep those Oracles with care, and to consult them upon urgent Occasions. The number of those that executed this Commission was by little and little encreased, for there were afterwards ten, and at last fifteen, constituted for this purpose; and very severe Punishments were in••••icted on these persons, if they suffered the Books of the Sibyls to be seen. It is related by Di••nysius Halicarnass••us, and Valerius Maximus, that one of these Duumviri was put▪ to Death as a Pa••ricide, that is to say, he was sow'd up alive in a Sack, and thrown into the Sea, for permitting some of the Sibylline Verses to be transcribed. These Books were thus preserved until the year 671, after the Foundation of Rome, which was the 83d before the Nativity of Jesus Christ. But the Capitol being burnt in that year, these Books were likewise consumed with the rest of the Ornaments of this Palace, as is observed by Dionysius Halicarnassaeus, Pliny, and other Authors. When the Capitol was rebuilt, the Consuls made a Proposition to the

Senate, to send Ambassadors into Greece to Erythrae, as also into Asia, to collect the Oracles of the Sibyls, and to transmit them to Rome: Whereupon Octacilius Crassus, and L. Valerius Flaccus were deputed to go unto Attalus King of Pergamus, who brought out of Asia a thousand Verses attributed to the Sibyls, which they had gathered together throughout all the Parts of that Region from the Copies of divers private Persons. But fora••much as there were many things therein that seemed to be false or super••••uous, fifteen Men were appointed to Revise and Correct them, and after this Cor∣rection they were placed in the Capitol in the room of the others. In the time of Augustús, these Books were again reviewed; above two thousand Verses attributed to the Sibyls were burnt by the Command of this Emperor, and those that were allowed to be Genuine, were enclosed in two Gol∣den Boxes in the Temple of Apollo. Some are of opinion, that these Writings were burnt in the Con••••ag••ation of Rome under Nero, but they have not produc'd any convincing Proofs of this mat∣ter. However, it is certain, that as long as there were Pagan Emperors at Rome g 1.8, the Oracles ascri∣bed to the Sibyls were carefully preserv'd there, to which they had Recourse on all extraordinary and emergent Occasions, and Julian the Apostate designing to re-establish all the ancient Heathen Super∣stitions, caused the Sibylline Books to be diligently sought for, and consulted.

There are now extant many Greek Verses attributed to the Sibyls, which are divided into eight Books; but at present it is almost generally agreed throughout the whole World, that they are a fictitious Work, as the Time in which they were written h 1.9, the Style i 1.10, and the Things therein con∣tained k 1.11, do most clearly demonstrate. And if it be certain, that the eight Books, which we now have in our possession under the Name of the Sibyls, are counterfeit, it is no less true, that those that were in the hands of the Fathers, and which they cited, were equally spurious, and also that they were not much different from those that we have at this day; I affirm therefore, First, That the Books of the Sibyls, alledged by the Fathers, were not really those Sibylline Oracles that the Romans preserved, with so much Care; For besides that these last were so strictly kept, that a Copy of them could not be procured by any means whatsoever, much less common, as those were that are quoted by the Fa∣thers, which were every where visible; it is plain, that they comprehended such matters as were altoge∣ther different from those that are usually found in the Writings of the Fathers. For in the former profane Things were only comprised, concerning the Ceremonies of the Heathens, whereas the later

were full of Predictions and Instructions relating to Christianity. The Books of the Sibyls were ne∣ver consulted among the Romans, without extracting from them some Superstitions perfectly Pa∣gan l 1.12 They were informed therein, that they ought either to offer some sort of Sacrifice to the Gods, or to fasten a Nail in the Capitol, or to celebrate some particular Games to the Honour of Jupiter. At another time it was found to be necessary to cause the Statue of Aesculapius to be brought to Rome to erect a Temple to Venus, to offer Sacrifices to the Infernal Deities, and to appease the Heathen Gods with peculiar and extraordinary Solemnities. Lastly, Nothing was ever gathered from these Books, but Ceremonies that were absolutely prophane. On the contrary, the Fathers alledge no∣thing out of the Writings of the Sibyls, but what relates to the Christian Religion, and to the true Worship of God. Is there any probability, that these Prophetesses should have uttered Things so different, and that they should have taught in one and the same Book, the way of Worshipping the True God, and the greatest superstitions of the Gentiles? Who can imagine that these Books, that were kept by the Romans to Authorize all their Superstitious Rites, and which they esteemed as the most sublime and refined part of their Religion, should contain far clearer Prophesies concerning Jesus Christ, than all that was ever declared by the Jewish Prophets? Moreover, not only the Books of the Sibyls that are now extant speak of our Saviour in such plain Expressions, as look more like a Hi∣story than a Prophecy; But the same thing may be said of the Books cited by the Fathers, that com∣prehend the same Predictions, and even more distinct. For can there be a plainer Prediction con∣cerning Jesus Christ, than the Verses produced by Eusebius in the Prayer attributed to Constantine?

There is but one God, who is also the Saviour; Who hath suffer'd for us; Who is mark'd out in these Verses.

The Acrostick quoted in the same place is not more obscure. Can any thing be spoken more ex∣presly concerning the Creation of the World, the last Judgment, and the Life Everlasting, than what is produced by Theophilus Antiochenus, as proceeding from a Sibyl? All the other Sibylline Verses reci∣ted by the Fathers, are written almost after the very same manner on every particular Subject, and this obliged the Author of the Exhortation to the Gentiles, attributed to St. Justin, to affirm, that the Sibyl had foretold the Advent of Jesus Christ in clear and evident Terms, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now what an absurdity is it to believe, that the Heathens, from whom God had concealed the Coming of his Son, and whom he suffered to walk in Darkness, should have more notable Prophecies among them, than all those of the Jews, to whose Custody he had committed the Sacred Writings, and to whom he had given the knowledge of the Messiah?

Moreover, this Argument might be urged farther, and it might be demanded from whence the Si∣byls could receive the knowledge of the Messiah. It is alledged by some, that they were Inspired by God; and by others, that they took from the Holy Scripture, all that they uttered concerning Re∣ligion; but there is no probability neither in the one nor the other Assertion; For what likelihood is there that God should inspire Sorceresses and Priestesses of false Gods, that deluded Mankind, to cause them to adore the Daemons with which they were possessed? Or who can imagine, that God should make use of such Instruments to reveal his Mysteries so clearly to the World? And on the other side, how could they draw those Truths out of the Old Testament, that are but very obscurely expressed there∣in, and which the Jews themselves could scarcely understand?

It remains only for a more full demonstration of the falsity of the Sibylline Oracles that were used by the Fathers to shew, that they differed very little from those that still bear the same Title. To evince this, it will be sufficient to observe, that excepting three or four Passages, all the others quoted by the ancient Authors, being very numerous, are expressed in equivalent Terms in the Sibylline Books that are read even at this day. Now the strongest Argument that can be alledged to prove that a Work is ancient, is, that those Passages that have been cited by the ancient Writers are found therein. Do we not frequently demonstrate the Antiquity of an infinite number of Books, only because a particular Passage recited by some ancient Author, is there to be found? Why then may it not be concluded after the same manner, that the Sibylline Books, tho' forged, are the same with those that were formerly extant? And this Proof is of so much the more force, because this may be urged not only against one single Passage, but very many, that are alledged by different Authors, and also be∣cause the Sibylline Oracles still remain in the same Language in which they were cited. Moreover it is not to be admired, that there are some Passages which are not found therein, and that there are others which are not Verbally expressed, because some places in these Books are wanting; and it hath been often observed, that the ancient Writers are not usually very exact in their Quotations, but ad∣here to the Sense rather than the Literal Expression. It might likewise be added, that all that is related by the ancient Fathers concerning the Books of the Sibyls that were heretofore in use, is conformable to these: The Author of the Exhortation to the Gentiles affirms, that the Style of the Sibylline Wri∣tings was not very polite; these are of the like nature; they were then reported to contain divers Anachronisms, and this Defect is also at present observable among them, They Treated concerning Jesus Christ, the last Judgment, Hell, &c. all these Things are in like manner comprised in those that

we now have in our possession. Lastly, these last are very ancient, and belong to the time of the most ancient Fathers; for some Opinons may be found there, that could not be maintained but in the Primitive Ages of the Church: Such are the Errors of the Millenaries; That Nero is Anti-Christ; that the End of the World was near at hand; that it should happen in the time of Antoninus; that Rome should soon be destroyed 948 years after its Foundation, and many other Things that could never be asserted by later Christians, who would have been very far from admitting such No∣tions, when they were convinced of the falsity of these Predictions. Upon the whole matter it ought to be concluded, that the Books of the Sibyls were certainly forged in the Second Century, but it is difficult to determine the precise time, and by whom this was done; all that can be alledged as most probable is, that they began to appear about the end of the Reign of the Emperor Antoninus Pius m 1.13

M. Vossius in his last Book gives us an Hypothesis of the Sibylline Oracles somewhat different from this; he acknowledgeth that the ancient Writings of the Sibyls which were preserved until the burn∣ing of the Capitol, were entirely prophane, and differed from those that are cited by the Fathers; But he maintains, that among those that were brought from Greece by Octacilius Crassus, there were some Prophecies inserted that had been received from the Jews, who pretended that they were written by the Sibyls, in which the Coming of the Messiah was foretold, and that these were cited by the Fa∣thers under the Name of The Books of the Sibyls, which Title was actually attributed to them.

This Hypothesis, which is well enough contrived, yet lies liable to many Difficulties; for first, the Collection of Oracles ascribed to the Sibyls, that was made after the burning of the Capitol, related no less to the Pagan Superstitions, than the ancient Verses ascribed to the Sibyl of Cuma. Secondly, Since the Predictions concerning Jesus Christ, expressed in the passages of the Sibylline Books, and quoted by the Fathers, are clearer than those that were contained in the Prophecies of the Jews, there is no pro∣bability that they could proceed from any of that Nation. Lastly, The Doctrine comprised in the Books of the Sibyls, seems rather to be that of a Christian than of a Jew, since the Coming of Jesus Christ, is therein manifestly foretold; the Resurrection of the Dead, the Last Judgment, and Hell Fire, are expresly described in plain Terms; and mention is made of the Millennium, of the appea∣ring of Anti-Christ, together with many other Things of the like nature, which could not be rela∣ted, but by one that had been instructed in the Christian Religion. Therefore it is much more pro∣bable, that the Writings attributed to the Sibyls were forged by a Christian, rather than by a Jew.

However, none ought to be surprised that we reject those Books as supposititious, which have been quoted by the Ancients as real, and it must not be imagined, that we thereby contemn the Autho∣rity of the Fathers, or that we impugn the Truth; on the contrary, we should do an Injury to it, if we should endeavour to support it by false Proofs, especially when we are convinced of their Forgery. The Fathers are to be excused for citing the Sibylline Verses as true, because they had not examined them, and finding them published under the Name of the Sibyls, they really believed that they were theirs; but they that are certainly informed of the contrary, would be inexcusable if they continued to rely on such Testimonials, or refused ingenuously to confess what the Truth obliged them to own. And indeed it ought not to be admired, that the Fathers did not examine these Books critically; it is sufficiently known, that they wholly applied themselves to Matters of the greatest Consequence at that time, and that they often happened to be mistaken in prophane Histo∣ries, and to cite fictitious Books; such are the Works of Hystaspes, and Mercurius Trismegistus, which they almost always joyned with those of the Sibyls; as also the Acts of Pilate, Apocryphal Gospels, divers Acts of the Apostles, and a great number of other Records that have been undoubtedly forged.

But altho' the most part of the ancient Writers cited the Oracles of the Sibyls, yet there were even then many Christians that rejected them as Counterfeit, and could not be perswaded to approve the practice of those that made use of their Testimony, whom in derision they called by the Name of Sibyllists. This is attested by Origen, in his Fifth Book against Celsus: Celsus (says he) objects, that there are Sibyllists amonst us, perhaps, because he hath heard it reported, that there are some a∣mongst us who reprove those that affirm, that the Sibyl is a Prophetess, and call them Sibyllists. St. Au∣gustine hath likewise acknowledged the falsity of these pretended Oracles; and as often as he makes mention of them, he declares that he is not convinced of their Truth, particularly in Lib. 18. c. 45. De Civit. Dei. Were it not (says he) that it is affirmed, that the Prophecies that are produced under the Name of the Sibyls and others concerning Jesus Christ, were feigned by the Christians. And in cap. 47. It may be believed, that all the Prophecies relating to Jesus Christ, that are not contained in the Holy Scri∣ptures, have been forged by the Christians: Wherefore there can be nothing more solid in confuting the Pagans, than to alledge those Prophecies that are taken from the Books of our Enemies.

But the Heathens (say they) doubted not of the truth of the Predictions of the Sibyls that were urged by the Fathers; they only put another sense upon them, nay they even proceeded so far as to own, that the Sibylline Verses foretold the Nativity of a certain new King, and a considerable Revo∣lution. This is mentioned by Tully in divers places; moreover when Pompey took the City of Jerusa∣lem, it was commonly reported, that the Sibyl had foretold, that Nature designed a King for the People of Rome; the Senate was likewise astonished at it, and, by reason of this Prediction, refused to send a General, or an Army, into Egypt. Lentulus (according to the Testimony of Cicero and S••llust) flatter▪d himself, that he should become this King that was intimated by the Sibyl. Others have interpreted this Prophecy, with respect to Julius C••sar or Augustus, as is observed by Cicero and Suetonius. Virgil, in his Fourth E••logue, produceth the Verses of the Cuman Sibyl, foreshewing the Birth of a new King that should de••oend from Heaven. In short, it is most certain, that the Gentiles acknowledged that the Books of the Sibyls were favourable to the Christians, insomuch that the later were prohibited to read them, as appears from the Words of Aurelian to the Senate, recited by Vopiscus. I admire, (says he) Gentlemen, that you should spend so much time in consulting the Writings of the Sibyls, as if we were debating in an Assembly of Christians, and not in the principal place of the Roman Religion.

These Arguments seem to be very plausible, but if we examine them, we shall find that they con∣tain nothing that is solid: The Pagans never submitted to the Authority of these Books of the Sibyls that were quoted by the Fathers; on the cantrary it is manifest, that Celsus was perswaded that they were forged by the Christians; and St. Augustine plainly declares, that this was the general Opinion of all the Gentiles. The Sibyl••••e Verses mentioned by Tully were Paracrosticks, that is to say, the first Verse of every Sentence comprehended all the Letters in order, that began the following Verses; now among all the Verses of the Sibyls, only those cited by Constantine are composed in Acrosticks. As for the Asse••tion, that in the time of P••••pey, Julius Caesar, and Augustus, there was a general report, that it was ••oretold in the Sibylline Books, that a new King should be born within a little while; we may easily reply with Tully, that the Verses attributed to the Sibyls by the Heathens were made after such a manner, that any sense whatsoever might be put upon them; and that, perhaps, mention might be made therein of a certain future King, as it is usual in this kind of Prophecies. Therefore when the Grandeur of Pompey began to be formidable to the Roman Empire, they thought it fit to make use of this pretence, to prevent him from going into Egypt with an Army. And Lentulus, to whom this Charge was committed, being Governor of Syria, vainly flattered himself with this Prediction, which •…•…ight peradventure be further confirmed by the Prophecies of the Jews, who ex∣pected the Coming of the Messiah, believing that he ought to be their King.

Afterwards when it happened that Julius Caesar, and Augustus after him, actually made them∣selves Masters of the Roman Empire, the Prophetical Expressions of the Sibyls were interpreted in their favour▪ neither was it necessary on this account, that they should clearly point at the Coming of Jesus Christ, ••s it is expressed in the Writings of the Sibyls that are alledged by the Fathers; but it was sufficient, that they mentioned a future King, which is the usual practice of all those that un∣dertake to utter Predictions of extraordinary Events. This gave occasion to Virgil, who intended in his fourth Ec••••gue to compose Verses in Honour of Pollio his Patron, as also to Extol Augustus at the same time, and to describe the Felicity of his Reign; this, I say, afforded him an opportunity to do it with greater Majesty, to make use of the name of the Sibyl▪ and to pronounce these Verses:

Ultima Cumaei venit jam carminis ••t as; Mag•…•… ab integro 〈◊〉〈◊〉 n••scitur or do: Jam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 progenes C•…•… alto; Jam redit & Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna.

By which nothing else is meant, but that at the Nativity of Saloninus the Son of Pollio, under the Consulate of his Father, and the Reign of the greatest Prince in the World, the Golden Age should return, as it was foretold by the Sibyl; That Plenty and Peace should flourish throughout the whole Universe, and that the Virgin Astr••••, the Goddess of Justice, who had abandoned the Earth at the beginning of the Iron Age, should descend again from Heaven: What is there in all this, that re∣sembles the Prophecies concerning Jesus Christ? Or rather, what is there that is not altogether pro∣phane, and ••••gned by an Heathen Poet, who only makes use of the Sibyls Name to flatter the Am∣bition of Augustus, and to add greater Authority and Lust••e to that which he says in his Com∣mendation? Lastly, the Words of Aurelian do not intimate, that the Christians were forbidden by the Pagans to read the Sibylline Books, but only that the Christians looked upon them as prophane Writings, which in no wise related to their Religion, and to which they gave no Credit.

THE Books that are attributed to Hystaspes, and Mercurius Trismegistus, and cited likewise by the ancient Fathers, are not more Genuine than the Verses of the Sibyls. There is nothing now extant of Hystaspes, and this A•…•… was altogether unknown to the ancient Heathens; but the same thing connot be said of Mer••••ri•••• Sirnamed Trismegistus n 1.14, who is mentioned by the most

ancient Pagan Writers o 1.15 as an incomparable Person, and an Inventer of all the Liberal Arts and Sciences. He was an Egyptian, and more ancient than all the Authors, whose Works are still ex∣tant: * 1.16 He is believed to be as Old as Moses; he either wrote, or at least it is said that he wrote, Twenty five, or Thirty thousand Volumes. But we have only two Diologues at present under his Name, one whereof is called by the Name of Poemander; and the other of Asclepius, who are the principal Speakers. The first Treatise is concerning the Will of God, and the second Treats of the Divine Power; these have been cited by the ancien•• Fathers, to prove the Truth of our Religion, by the Authority of so famous an Author. But it is certain that they cannot be his, p 1.17 for the Author of these Treatises is a Modern Platonick Christian, who argues from the Principles of that Phi∣losophy, and hath taken from the Holy Scripture, that which he writ concerning the Word of God, and the Creation of the World.

IT were needless to shew the falsity of a Letter attributed to Lentulus, and directed to the Senate * 1.18 and People of Rome, concerning the Actions of Jesus Christ, since the Forgery is apparent: It is pretended to have been written by Lentulus, as Governour of Jerusalem, altho he never was so; the Superscription thereof is inscrib'd to the Senate and People of Rome; whereas ever since there were Emperors, it was the general Custom among the Governours of Provinces to write immediately to them: Moreover the Contents of this Letter are ridiculous, there is a mean and unworthy Deseription of the Person of Jesus Christ; as particularly it is said, that his Hair was of a light Colour, long and loose after the manner of the Nazarenes; the style is also very far from the Purity and Elegancy of the Age wherein Augustus lived. In short, this Letter is not so much as mentioned by any of the ancient Writers.

THE Letter of Pilate to Tiberius on the same Subject, concerning the Miracles of Jesus Christ seems * 1.19 to be more Authentick; for it is recorded by Tertullian in his Apologotick, that Tiberius being informed of the supernatural and wonderful Operations, that were performed by our Saviour in Pale∣stine, which were so many Testimonies of his Divinity, made report thereof to the Senate, and determi∣ned, that he ought to be Enrolled among the Gods; but that the Senate having rejected this Pro∣position, Tiberius nevertheless persisted in his Opinion, and forbad his Subjects to persecute the Chri∣stians. It is added, a little after by the same Author, that Pilate being a Christian in his Heart, wrote to Tiberius concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Eusebius in the second Book of his History Chap. 2. produceth this passage of Tertullian, and giving a large Account how the same of our Sa∣viour was spread abroad, and came to the Ears of Tiberius, he says, that Pilate sent a Letter to the Emperor, according to the usual Custom of the Governors of Provinces, who were obliged to give an Account of the most remarkable Occurrences that happened within their Jurisdiction, and that he wrote to him concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, avouching that he had been informed of his Miracles by many, and that a great number of People esteemed him as a God, after he rose again from the Dead. We find in the Orthodoxographa, after the Epistle of Lentulus another attributed to Pilate and directed to Tiberius, wherein the same things are contained. But it is difficult to determine whether this Letter was extant in the time of Eusebius, or afterwards forged from his Story. How∣ever, there are divers learned Men, that doubt of the Truth of this History, which hath but very lit∣tle probability in its Foundation; for what Likelihood is there that Pilate should transmit these things in writing to Tiberius, relating to a Man whom he had condemned to Death? And altho▪ he had written them, is it credible that Tiberius should have made a Proposition to the Senate, for the ad∣mitting this Person into the number of the Gods upon the bare report of a Governour? And if he had propounded it, who can doubt but that the Senate would have immediately submitted to his Judgment? Therefore, tho' this Relation cannot be absolutely Charged with Falsehood, yet it ought at least to be accounted as dubious. [Dr. Pearson late Bishop of Chester in his Lectures upon the Acts of the Apostles (p. 64, 65.) vindicates the Truth of this Story against the Objections of Tana∣quil

F•••••••• so fully▪ that I shall set down his Reasons at large: And 1. He says, that T•…•… might have taken his Information from the Acts of the Senate, wherein the Votes and Acts of every day were ••••••stantly set down. 2. He observes from S••••••••••ius, that Tiberius acquainted the Senate with every thing that he was informed of, whether publick or private, of great or of little Concern. 3. He observes that Tib••••i••s often took no notice when the Senate decreed things against his own Opinion; and this also is expresly affirmed by 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 4. The Senate refused to Rank Jesus Christ amongst the Gods out of a Complement to Ti••••••ius, who had before refused Divine Honours, Com∣manding that no Sta•••••••• of his should be Erected in their Temples, unless for Ornament; they might probably theref•••••• suspect that this was propos'd by Ti••••••ius, who never spoke his mind plainly in any thing▪ to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them, who could not attribute those Honours to any Body else which Tiberius had forbidden to be paid to himself, without making that Person greater than Tiberius. 5. It is not probable that Pontius Pilate should neglect so remarkable a thing, as the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, when all the Governours of particular Provinces were obliged to send Relations of every one that was considerable under their Governments to the Emperors who sent them: And the Question is not, ••s F••••••r mis-understood it, whether the Christians then made any considera∣ble Figure in the World; but whether upon Pilate's transmitting an Account to Tiberius, of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ at Jerusalem, when he was Procurator of Jud••••, the Emperor did not propose to the Senate that this Jesus Christ might be ranked amongst the Gods; which being positively asserted by Tertulli••n, cannot be disproved by any Negative Arguments that may at this time of day be brought against it.

But tho' these Reasons which are urged by this great▪ Man against Tanaquil Faber, sufficiently vin∣dicate the Truth of Tertullian's Authority in this Matter; yet that is no Argument why the Epistle that go's under Pilate's Name should be Genuine. Pilate sent this Account of Jesus Christ in the Acts of his Administration, not in a particular Letter to the Emperour. The Acts are quoted by Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and St. Chrysostome, and this Letter was made in all probability when the Ori∣ginal Acts were lost.]

BUT we have reason to reject the Thirteen Epistles, as well those of Seneca to St. Paul, as the o∣thers * 1.20 of St. Paul to Seneca, as undoubted Forgeries; altho' St. Jerome, and St. Augustine seem to own them as Authentick. For (1) These Epistles are not written according to the style of St. Paul, nor in that of Seneca q 1.21. 2. It is declared therein, that in the Fire that happened in Rome under Nero, there were only 132 Houses burnt, which is a manifest falshood since it is certain, that a great part of the City was consumed as Tacitus informs us r 1.22. 3. The date of these Letters is false s 1.23. 4. They contain nothing that is worthy of Seneca, or of St. Paul. t 1.24 Lastly, it may be easily discer∣ned, that they were feigned by some Persons, merely to gratifie their Fancy, and to Exercise their Fa∣culty of Invention.

A late Author acknowledging, that the Epistles extant at this day under the Name of Seneca to St. Paul, and of St. Paul to Seneca are counterfeit, and yet not daring to affirm, that St. Jerom and St. Au∣gustine, who believed them to be Genuine were deceived, hath imagined that the real Letters of St. Paul to Seneca, and of Seneca to St. Paul were lost since their time; and that those that we now have in our Possession, were substituted in their room. But besides that the respect that we have for these two Fathers, ought not to hinder us from believing, that they might be mistaken in a matter of so little moment u 1.25: it is also to be observed, that they do not positively assert, that those Epi∣stles were Authentick, but only that they were generally reputed to be so; and that they were read un∣der their Names: x 1.26 Moreover it might be easily demonstrated, that the Letters which remain in

our hands at present, and those that were extant in the time of St. Jerom are the same, for he de∣clares that Seneca wished in one of his Epistles, to be among his Followers, what St. Paul was a∣mong the Christians, which bears a great Analogy with what we find in the 11th Letter of Seneca to St. Paul y 1.27. It is not known, when or by whom these Epistles were forged, and it is difficult to de∣termine, whether it were on their Account, that there is this passage in the false Acts of the Passion of St. Linus, that Seneca and St. Paul wrote divers Letters one to another; or whether the Narrative of this Author, gave the hint to those that forged these Letters, as Cardinal Baronius conjectures.

LAstly among all the profane▪ Monuments that might be quoted for the Confirmation of the Truth of the Christian Religion, none seems to be more considerable than this passage of Josephus, taken * 1.28 from Book 18. chap. 4. of his Jewish Antiquities, wherein he declares: That, at that time there was a wise Man named JESUS, (if we may only call him a Man; for he wrought many Miracles, and taught the truth to those that received it with joy,) who had a great number of Disciples, as well among the Jews as the Gentiles; that he was the CHRIST, and that being accused by the chief of his Nation, he was crucified by Pilat's Order: That nevertheless, he was not abandoned by those ▪that loved him, because he had appeared unto them alive on the Third day, as was foretold by the Prophets, and that he was the Au∣thor of the Sect of the Christians, which remains at this day.

This Testimony of Josephus is produced by Eusebius, St. Jerome, and several others after them, as a Record very important for the establishing of the Christian Faith; but in these later times, when Matters began to be examined more accurately, there have been, and there are even at present ma∣ny learned Men, who maintain that this passage doth not really belong to Josephus, and it must be Confessed, that their Conjectures are not altogether to be disallowed, for they affirm,

1. That the style is intricate, not very fluent, and different from that of Josephus, whose▪ Expres∣sions are generally clear and elegant.

2. That it is evident, that this passage was inserted afterwards into the Texts of Josephus; because the Coherence of the following Sentence is interrupted; for immediately after the end thereof, we read, About that time the Jews began to be afflicted again, with another Calamity, words that have no manner of Relation to what went before, concerning our Saviour: but which manifestly appertain to the Account of the Massacre of the Jews, whom Pilate had caused to be slain in Jerusalem, that came just before this passage concerning Jesus Christ; which plainly shews (say they) that it doth not belong to Josephus, and that it hath been afterwards added.

3. They argue, that in case this passage were taken seperately, yet even then it might be easily per∣ceived, that those are the words of a Christian, and not of a Jew; since Jesus Christ is therein called God, his Miracles and Resurrection is acknowledged, and it is declared, that these things were fore-told by the Prophets; How can it be imagined that this should proceed from a Jew, especially Jo∣sephus, who seems to doubt of the Miracles recorded in the Books that were written by Hebrew Authors?

4. What probability is there, that Josephus a Person extremely addicted to the Interest of his own Nation, should speak so honourably of Jesus Christ, whom he did not believe to be the Messiah, (as is observed by Origen in his Book against Celsus) and that he should accuse his Country-men, as having unjustly put him to Death?

5. Josephus describing in the same Book, Chap. 8. the Martyrdom of St. James, declares, that he was the Brother of Jesus Christ; now if he had made mention of him in some of his preceding Chap∣ters, he would not have failed to take notice thereof, or at least, he would in this place have added somewhat in his Commendation.

6. This Testimony (say they) is not only unknown to the Authors that lived before the time of Eusebius: but Origen expresly denies, that Josephus wrote any thing concerning our Saviour; It is very strange, (says he in Tom. 2. in Matth.) That Josephus who did not acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Messiah, should give so Authentick a Testimony concerning the Innocency of St. James. Would he have spoken to this effect, if there had been in his time so remarkable an Evidence of the Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Works of Josephus, as that which is now extant therein? Theodoret hath also observed, that Josephus knew not our Saviour. But nothing is more considerable than the silence of Photius as to this Matter, who making an exact Epitome of the Books of Josephus, takes no notice of this pas∣sage concerning Jesus Christ, which he would not have omitted, if it had been then found in all the * 1.29 Copies of the Writings of Josephus, and if he had believed that it was written by him.

Lastly, that which deserves a more particular Reflection is, that it is remarkt by Photius in another place, that there was extant in his time a Book concerning the Universe attributed to Josephus, which he judged to be fictitious, in regard that Jesus Christ is too honourably mentioned therein, and he adds afterwards, that he hath been since informed that this Book was written by Caius a Priest of

Rome; Perhaps this passage▪ which is at pr••sent in his A••••iquiti••••, was taken from this 〈◊〉〈◊〉, who ••ere the Name of 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

H•…•… replys to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Testimonies of Ori••••••, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Photi••••, that those Authors happened to meet with certain Manuscripts of Joseph••••, in which this passage had been struck out by the Jews: But 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Answer see•…•… rather to weaken its Authority; for i•• there were ancient Manuscripts, wherein it was not expressed, we have yet more reason to doubt of its Veracity; and the Arguments that have been already produced▪ ••••••••••ciently shew, that it is more probable▪ that it hath been added in some Manuscripts by the Christians, than left out in others by the Jews. However, I shall not under∣take to deside this Question, but shall leave it to the Judgment of the Reader to determine; whe∣ther the Authority of Euse••ius, St. Jer••••••e, and all the Manuscripts of Josephus that we have at pre∣sent in our Possession, ought to be preferred before the above-cited Conjectures of the learned, the general Testimonies of Origen, Theo••••ret and Photius, and perhaps some ancient Manuscripts of Jo∣sep••••s, that are long ••ince l••s••.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Sibyls.
• a 1.2

  COnsisted of two Greek words.] These two words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and in the Aeolick Dialect 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lactantius Lib. 1. c. 6. Hierom. Lib. 1. in Jovin. It is objected against this Etymology that the Adjective 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Three last Syllables whereof com∣pose a Dactyl, make it manifest that the word Sibylla cannot be derived from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.3

  From an obsolete Latin Adjective.] This Adje∣ctive is Sibus, which according to Festus signifies the same as Acutus, or Callidus; a quick, or crafty Man.
• c 1.4

  Nothing is so uncertain as the Number and Names of the Sibyls.] Pl••t•• in his Ph••dr••s mentions but one S••••yl, neither doth he declare to what place she appertained. The Author of the Book de Mir••∣bilibus Auscult••tionibus in Arist••tle speaks of her of Cum••. Diodorus Siculus Lib. 4. gives an Account of her of Delph••s, affirming that she was named D••phne, and was the Daughter of Tire••••••••; but Virgil, P••usa∣nias and Suidas call her by the Name of M••nt••, and St. Clement, by that of Arte••is. Di••••ysius H••lic••rn••s∣s••us, Pliny, Juve••al, &c. mention but one Sibyl: However it doth not follow, that they knew no o∣thers. Str••bo Lib. 13. and 17. assures us, that there were two at Eryth••••, and that the Second called A∣then••is lived in the time of Alexander the Great. Stephanus de Urbibus and Capella, Lib. 2. de N••p••ii•• Philol••giae reckon likewise two, Er••phile a Native of Troy, who came to Cuma, and Symmachia of the City of Erythr••. Soli••••s in Polyhi••t. c, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. produceth three, the Delphick named E••iphile, who was more ancient than Homer, the Erythr••••n, and the C••••••••. Aeli•••• Var. Hist. Lib. 2. c. 35. reckon Ten, the Erythr••••••, the Samian, the Egyptian, the Sardia••, the Cu••an, the Jewish and four others. St. Clement, Str••mat. Lib. 1. M••nt•• (says he) and a multitude of Sibyls; the Samian, the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the Th••ssalian, the Thes∣pr••tick, &c. Lactantius in Lib. 1. recites Ten after Varro: The first is that of P••••s•••• mentioned by Nica∣ner, who wrote the History of Alexander the Great: The second of Lybia, cited by E••••ipides. 3. The Delphick alledged by Chrys••ppus, in Lib. de Divin••ti••∣ne. 4. The Cu••an in Italy, whom N••vius and Pis•• mention, the former in his History of the Pu••ick War, and the later in his A••••als. 5. The Erythr••••n, whom Ap••ll••d••rus Erythr••us affirms to have lived in his City. 6. The S••mi••••, concerning whom Erat••sthe∣nes hath written. 7. The Cuman, called by some Amalthaea, and by others Dem••phile, or Her••phile. 8. The Hel••sp••nti••k born in the Countrey about ••r••y, and in the Town of Marpess••••. 9. The Phrygian, who Prophesied at Ancyr••. 10. The Tiburti•••• named Albunea, who uttered her Oracles at Tybur, near the River Ani•• now called il Tevero••e, at the bottom whereof it is reported, that her Statue was found hol∣ding a Book in her hand. Isidore hath followed the Catalogue of Lactantius, but Suidas reckons up Twelve: Some with Pausanias, confound the Erythrae••n with the Delphick, the Phrygian, the Samian, and the Co∣loph••nian. Others as Capella, and the Author de Mi∣rab. Auscult••t. joyn the Cuman, and the Erythraean. St. Justin makes no Distinction between the Babyloni∣an and the Cuman; according to the Opinion of some, the Per••ick is the most ancient, others attribute the greatest Antiquity to the Cuman, and St. Clement to the Delphick.
• d 1.5

  Transported with Enthusiasm.] We need only read the Description, that is made by all the ancient Authors of the manner how the Sibyls uttered their Oracles: See Virgil in Ae••eid: Lucan▪ Cl••udian in Pa∣••egyrico H••n••rii Pl••t••••ch. de Orac. Pythiae, &c. It was so evident among the Heathens, that they were pos∣sessed, that they applyed the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to signifie, to Play the Mad-man, Diod. Lib. 4. Now this fury that deprived them of their Senses, cannot be esteemed as an Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but as an Effect of their being possessed with a Daemon, and intoxicated with the Exhalations of inflamed Choler; For in my Opinion, it is an Imagination without any Ground to affirm with St. Jerom, that they received the Gift of Prophecying from God, in recompence of their Virginity.
• e 1.6

  Wrote them on the Leaves of Trees.] Virgil, Aeneid. 6. F••liis tantum ne carmena m••nd••. Juvenal. Credite me f••lium recitare Sibylla.
• f 1.7

  Was offered by a certain Woman to Tarquinius.] This History is Recorded by many ancient Authors; some affirm, that those Books were Presented to Tar∣quinius S••••erb••s, and others, to Tarquinius Priscus. It is Reported, that the Woman who brought them had Nine Volumes, which she offered to Sell at a dear Rate, but perceiving that Tarqui•• would not give her what she required, she burnt Three of them; that afterwards having demanded as much for the o∣ther Six, as she had done for the Nine, and being re∣pulsed, she burnt Three more, when at last the King being astonished at her boldness, bought the Three that were left at the same Price that she had asked for the Nine: See Dionysius Halicarnass••••s. Antiquit. Lib. 4. Aulus Gellius and Lactantius. Pliny reckons but Three Books instead of Nine; and affirms, that Two of them were burnt.
• g 1.8

  As long as there were Pagan Emperors at Rome.] See Dio in Tiberius and Nero, Spartian in the Life of Adrian, Julius Capitolinus in that of Gordian. Trebellius Pollio, in that of Gallienus, and Vopiscus in that of Au∣relian. Aurelius Victor, Ammianus Marcellinus, Lib. 24. Zozim. Lib. 2. Procop. Lib. 1.
• h 1.9

  As the time in which they were written.] It is certain, that the Sibyls were ••ater than Moses, however the Author of this counterfeit Work affirms, that the Sibyl was in Noah's Ark, and nevertheless it is decla∣red in Book III, that these Oracles were written 1500 years after the Grecian Empire was Established. Now after whatsoever manner this may be understood, it follows that all these Predictions concerning the Jews and M••ses, are forged, since these 1500 years conti∣nue till the Destruction of Jerusalem. In Book V. we are informed by the Author, that he saw the se∣cond Ruin of the desirable House; which is plainly to be understood of the last Destruction of Jerusalem. He says in Book VIII. That after Trajan, intimated by the Letter T, one should Reign whose Name was to be taken from the Adriatick Sea, this is Adrian; and that after him Three should Govern at a time, that is to say, Antoni••••s, Marcus and Lucius, and that the last should obtain the Supreme Government▪ which shews that this was written at the beginning of the Reign of Mar•••••• Aurelius, or at the end of that of An∣toninus▪ for in regard that L••••ius was the youngest, it was natural to foretel that he should live longest.
• i 1.10

  The Style.] It appears, that he that counter∣feited these Books, was not really transported with En∣thusiasm, but only pretended to be so: The V••••ses of the Sibyls were obscure and without Order, where∣as these 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not very Irregular: The Affairs of the Emperors are therein Historically digested, and not after a Prophetical manner▪ The style contains no∣thing of that Impetuosity and Enthusiasm that is eve∣ry where Conspicuous in the Expressions of the Sibyls, neither is it like that of Homer who took many Verses from those Prophetesses, if we may believe Diodorus: Moreover the Author of these Sibylline Books was illeterate; for he derives the Name of Ad••m from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; in the Second Book he affirms, that the Four Let∣ters of his Name signifie the four Q•…•…s of the World; tho', in Hebrew and Chaldee, there are but three; he feigns that the Letters of the Name of God, Com∣pose the Number 1697. which is not true, unless it be written in Greek after a Barbarous manner; from the Name of JESUS, which he makes to consist of four Vowels, and two Consonants, he extracts the Number of 888 years, and from that of Rome 948. he vouches the Fables of the ••••••ans, as true Histories; Moreover he says, that the Mountain A•••••••••• is in Phrygia; that the River Eur••t is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Epirus, and that Gog and Magog are Ethi••pians, which shews that this▪ Impostor was ignorant of the Hebrew T••••g••e▪ of Geo∣graphy and History, which we cannot say of the Sibyl.
• k 1.11

  And the things therein contai••••••.] There are certain Principles in these Books, that were not im∣bibed by any but the ancient Christians; the Author is of the Opinion of the Mill••naries, he believes Nero to be Anti-Christ, that the Souls of Men shall remain in Hell until the Resurrection, that the Fire of the Judg∣ment shall serve instead of Purgatory, that the Ter∣restrial Paradise shall be preserv'd, and that at last the wicked shall be delivered from Hell 〈◊〉〈◊〉: he likewise maintains divers other Opinions of the ancient Christi∣ans. Lastly, it cannot be doubted, but that the Accounts in these Books, of the Nativity, Life and Actions of Jesus Christ, have been taken from the History of the Evangelists: And indeed, the Prophets have said no∣thing that comes near the Pla••••ness, that appears in the Books of the Siby••s. I shall omit many other Reasons.
• l 1.12

  The Books of the Sibyls were never consulted a∣mong the Romans, without extracting from them some Superstitions perfectly Pagan.] See Livy in many places, Varro, de Ling. Lat. Lib. 5. Cicero in Verrina ult. Ta∣citus Lib. 15. Suetonius in Jul. Num. 97. Plin. Lib. 5. chap. 17. Solyn. Polyhist. Chap. 10. Val. Maxim. Lib. 1. Numb. 1, and 10. Plutarch in the Lives of Publicola, Fabius and Marius. Pausanias in Phocaicis. Capitoli∣nus in Gordiano. Trebellius Pollio in Galienis, and Vopiscus, in Aureliano & Floriano. Sext. Aurel. Victor in Claudio-Ammian. Marcellin. Lib. 22, and 23. Macrob. Saturnal. Lib. 1. chap. 17.
• m 1.13

  They began to appear about the end of the Reign of Antoninus Pius. Possevinus affirms, that these Books were written under the Reign of C••mmodus; but he is deceived in taking the Conflagration mentioned in Book V. for the Fire of the Temple of Vesta, that hap∣pened in the time of that Emperor, for the Temple of Jerusaleus is to be understood in this place, which is called the desirable House, and the Guardian Temple of God. We have already shewn, that the Author had seen Lucius and Marcus, but that he knew not the later Emperors. All the Fathers that have quoted the Sibylline Books, wrote either under the Reign of An∣toninus Pius, or after that time, Josephus indeed and Hermas cite the Sibyls, but in general Terms, and there were possibly some Verses extant under their Names, even in the time of Josephus, who produceth one of them concerning the Tower of Babel, Lib. 1. Ant. c. 5.
• n 1.14

  Sirnamed Trismegistus.] In Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Egyptians call him Thaaut; some affirm, that he was styled Trismegistus by the Grecians, because he was a great King, a great Priest, and a great Philosopher; others as Lactantius, that this Name was attributed to him, by reason of his incomparable Learning.
• o 1.15

  Mentioned by the most ancient Pagan Writers:] Plato in Phaedrus declares, that he invented the Chara∣cters of Letters together with Arts and Sciences. Cicero in Lib. 3. de Natura De••rum assures us, that he go∣verned the Egyptians, and that he gave them Laws and found out the Characters of their Writings; It is Re∣corded by Diodorus Siculus, that he taught the Greci∣ans the Art of discovering the Secrets of the Mind. And we are informed by Jamblichus, who quotes Ma∣netho and Scleucus, that he wrote above Thirty five thousand Volumes. St. Clemens Alexandrinus in Stromat. Lib. 6. makes mention of Forty two Books of this Author, and gives an Account of the Subject of some of them. The Works of Mercurius Trismegistus, are cited as favourable to the Christian Religion by the Author of the Exhortation to the Centiles, said to be St. Justin, by Lactantius in the Fourth Book of his Institutions, by St. Clement, in Lib. 1. Stromat. by St. Augustine, in Tract. de 5. Haeres. and in Lib. 8. De Civit. Dei, Chap. 23. by S. Gyril of Alexandria, in Lib. 1. contra. Julianum, and by many others.
• * 1.16

  Hystaspes, and Mercu∣rius Trisme∣gistus.
• p 1.17

  But it is certain that they cannot be his.] The Eternity and Divinity of the Word is clearly explained in the Poemander, and the Author of this Book attri∣butes to the Son, the quality of being Consubstantial with the Father; he declares, that he is the Son of God our God, who proceeds from the Intellect of the Father, and he makes use of the very words of the Septuagint, in describing the Creation of the World: he Discourseth of the Fall of the first Man. In short, he Copies out several passages of the Old and New Testament and follows the Principles of the Modern Platonick Philosophy. But the Book Entituled Ascle∣pius hath not quite so great a Tincture of Christiani∣ty: The Author Treats therein of Idolatry after an exquisite manner; he explains the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he Transcribes many things out of the Holy Scri∣ptures, and the Works of the Grecian Writers: Lastly, he foretels the Extirpation of the Egyptian Reli∣gion.
• * 1.18

  A Letter of Lentulus.
• * 1.19

  Pilaet's Letter.
• * 1.20

  Epistles of Seneca to St. Paul, and of St. Paul to Seneca.
• q 1.21

  Are not written according to the style of St. Paul, nor in that of Seneca.] The style of those that are at∣tributed to Seneca is Barbarous, and full of words that are scarce Latin. The Epistles ascribed to St. Paul, do not suit with the Gravity of this Apostle, and con∣tain Complements rather than solid Instructions.
• r 1.22

  As it is related by Tacitus.] He informs us, that of Fourteen quarters of the City of Rome, there re∣mained but four entire, that there were three, the Houses whereof were wholly consumed, that very little was left in the other Seven, and that those that were left were half burnt.
• s 1.23

  The Date of these Letters is false.] One of them is Dated under the Consulate of Apri••nus and Capit••, that is, Vipsanius and Capit••, Five years before the burning of Rome, and the other under the Consulate of Phrygius and Bassus. But it was under the Consu∣late of Lecanius Bassus, and Li••inius Cr••ssus, that this Fire happened: And the Letter is Dated in March, whereas the Fire did not begin (according to the re∣port of Tacitus) till May following.
• t 1.24

  They contain nothing that is worthy of Seneca or of St. Paul.] There is scarcely one Moral Notion in those of Seneca, or one Christian Precept in those of St. Paul.
• u 1.25

  In a Matter of so little moment.] It is certain, that the Fathers have often cited Apocryphal and counter∣feit Books, as we have already shewn; Natalis Alexan∣der himself the Author of the Opinion, which we now confute, Confesses it, and on the very same Ac∣count rejects the Epistle of Jesus Christ to Abgarus, and that of Abgarus to Jesus Christ, that are more Autho∣rized by the ancient Writers than those Letters of Seneca.
• x 1.26

  But only that they were generally reputed so to be.] St. Jerom in Catalog. I reckon Seneca in the number of Ecclesiastical Authors, by reason of certain Letters which are read by many under the Name of Seneca to St. Paul, and of St. Paul to Seneca. St. Aug. Ep. 14. now the 153. Seneca of whom certain Letters are read written to St. Paul. But in Lib. de Civit. Dei, Chap. 11. He declares that Seneca neither commended nor censured the Christians, and that he hath made no mention of them; therefore he did not believe that these Letters were his.
• y 1.27

  Which bears a great Analogy with that which we find in the 11th. Letter of Seneca to St. Paul.] Ac∣cording to St. Jerom; Optare se dicit servus ejus esse loci apud suos, cujus sit Paulus apud Christianos. ••n the 11th Letter of Seneca we find the following Ex∣pression. Cum sis vertex, & Alt issimorum montium ca∣c••men haud te indignum in prima facie Epistolarum no∣minandum censeas—nam qui meus tu••s apud te locus, qui tuus velim ut me••s. If apud tu••s were put in∣stead of apud te, these words would express S. Jerom's Sense; and they seem not to be capable of admitting any other; however it is evident, that he alludes to this place.
• * 1.28

  ••assage of Jose∣phus, con∣cerning Je∣sus Christ.
• * 1.29

  Biblioth. ••od. 238.