y Collat. xiii. c. 12. 2 Contr. 30. And Cassian y having made use of it in the point of Cassian. free-will Prosper, z without more ado, rejected it as a testimony of no value. And what the judgment of the Collator. c. latter ages was as to this matter, especially after Pope Gelasiusa had ranked it among the Apocryphal books, a Decret. may be seen at large in the observations of Antonius Dist. 15. Augustinusb upon that decree. e Gratian. ¿De Emend. Gratiani Dial. vi. p. 63, Apparat. Pastor. nal. ann. 159. 13. How far this has influenced the learned men of our present times in their censures upon this work, is evident from what many on all sides have freely spoken concerning it, who not only deny it to have been writ- See Possev. ten by Hermas the companion of St. Paul, but utterly tom. ii. titul. cast it off as a piece of no worth, but rather full of error and folly. Thus Baronius d himself, though he & Baron. Andelivers not his own judgment concerning it, yet plainly numb. 5, 6. enough shews that he joined with the severest censures of the ancients against it; and in effect charges it with favouring the Arians, though upon a mistaken authority of Athanasius, which by no means proves any such Epist. ad error to be in it. But Cardinal Bellarminef is more free; he tells us that it has many hurtful things in it, lib. i. cap. 8. and particularly that it favours the Novation heresy; cles. Centur. which I think a very little equity in the interpreting of some passages that look that way, by others, that are directly contrary thereunto, would serve to acquit it of. Brasichellan Others are still more severe: they censure it as being full of heresies and fables: though this Labbeh be thought to excuse, by telling us that they been foisted into it by some later interpolations; ought not to be imputed to Hermas, the author of book. Afros apud Script. Ec 1. in Herm. Jo. M. apud Labbaum de Script. to 1. p. 791. would De Script: have in Herm. to p. 431. 1. i and Rivet. Crithis i. c. 12. tic. Sacr. lib. reformed Hoernbeck Theol. pp. to 1. Miscellan. Sacr. p. 91. Scultet. Medulla pp. P. Daille censures 375. 14. Nor have many of those of the churches been any more favourable in their concerning the present treatise. But then as the chief- de Script. Igest of the ancient Fathers heretofore, though they ad-roque. Obmitted it not into the canon of Holy Scripture, yet other nat. Lar in Vind. Ignat. part 1. p. 19. Cave Hist. wise paid a very great deference to it; so the more mo- lit. p. 21, &c. to. ii. Dogm. 6. ! Not. in Herm. p. 43. C. tal. 1. tom. derate part of the learned men of our present times, esteem it as a piece worthy of all respect and clear of those 1 faults which are too lightly charged by some persons * Præfat. in upon it. Thus Petavius, k who was none of the most Theol. c. 2. favourable critics upon the ancient Fathers, yet acknowledges, concerning the present book, that it was never censured by any of the ancients as guilty of any false doctrine or heresy, but especially as to the holy Trinity. Cotelerius, one of the latest editors of it, esteems it as an ecclesiastical work of good note, and a great defence of the Catholic faith against the errors of Montanism whose judgment is not only followed by m Alex. Na-their late historian, Natalis Alexander, m but is made i. p. 103, 104. good in the defence of it against those objections which some have brought to lessen its reputation. And for those of our communion, I shall mention only two, but they are such as will serve instead of many, to all judicious persons who have at large justified it against the chief of those exceptions that have been brought against » Vind. Ig it; one is, the most excellent Bishop Pearson," in his vindication of St. Ignatius; the other is the learned Bishop Bull, in his defence of the Nicene faith, upon 1. c. 2. p. the subject of our blessed Saviour's divinity; which he largely shews our present author to have been far from doing any prejudice unto. nat. part 1. c. 4. o Defens. Fid. Nicæn. 30. 15. Such have been the different judgments of learned men, both in ancient and modern times, concerning this book. It would be too great a presumption for me to pretend to determine any thing as to this matter; and having subjoined the work itself in our own language, every one may be able to satisfy himself what value he ought to put upon it. That there are many useful things to be found in it, but especially in the second, and I think the best part of it cannot be denied. And for the other two, it must be considered, that though such visions as we there read of, being no longer continued to these latter ages, may warrantably be despised in the pretenders of the present days; yet we cannot doubt but that at the time when this book was written, the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were very frequent and we need not question but that such revelations too among the rest, were communicated to holy men for the benefit of the church. THE SHEPHERD OF ST. HERMAS. THE FIRST BOOK OF ST. HERMAS, CALLED HIS VISIONS. VISION I. 1 Against filthy and proud thoughts; 20 also the neglect of Hermas chastising his children. HE who had bred me up sold a certain young maid at Rome; whom when I saw many years after, I remembered her, and began to love her as a sister. It happened some time. afterwards, that I saw her washing in the river Tyber; and I reached out my hand unto her, and brought her out of the river. 2 And when I saw her, I thought with myself, saying, How happy should I be if I had such a wife, both for beauty and manners! This I thought with myself; nor did I think any thing more. But not long after, as I was walking, and musing on these thoughts, I began to honour this creature of God, thinking with myself how noble and beautiful she was. 3 And when I had walked a little, I fell asleep. And the Spirit caught me away, and carried me through a certain place towards the right hand, through which no man could |