The Shepherd of Hermas

SAINT HERMAS THE APOSTOLIC MAN. TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS CONCERNING ST. HERMAS.

(GALLAND., *Veterum Patrum Bibliotheca*, vol. I, Venice, 1765, in-folio, p. 51.)

I. ST. IRENAEUS, *Against Heresies*, bk. IV, ch. 20, no. 2, ed. Massuet. The Scripture has well said: "First of all, believe that there is one God, who created and perfected all things, and made all things out of that which was not, so that they might be: He who contains all things, but cannot be contained by any." It exists in Book II, Mandate 1.

II. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, *Stromata*, bk. I, ch. 17, p. 369, ed. Oxon. The Shepherd, the Angel of Repentance, also speaks to Hermas concerning the false prophet: "For he speaks some true words. For the devil fills him with his own spirit, if he might be able to break some of the righteous." Book II, Mandate 10, ch. 1.

IDEM, *ibid.*, ch. 29, p. 426. Therefore, that divine Power which speaks to Hermas in the revelation says: "Visions and revelations are on account of those who are double-minded, who dispute in their hearts whether these things exist or not." Book I, Vision 3, ch. 4.

IDEM, *ibid.*, ch. 4, p. 430. For the Power which appeared to Hermas in the vision says: "That which it is permitted to be revealed, shall be revealed." Book I, Vision 3, ch. 3.

IDEM, *ibid.*, ch. 9, p. 452. The Shepherd, however, while speaking ^C generally regarding those who have fallen asleep, knows of certain righteous people among the Gentiles and the Jews, not only before the coming of the Lord but also before the Law, who were acceptable and pleasing to God; such as Abel, Noah, and any other righteous person. He says, therefore, that the apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, even when they had fallen asleep, preached with power and faith to those who had fallen asleep before them. Then he adds: "And they themselves, etc." Book III, Similitude 9, ch. 16.

IDEM, *ibid.*, ch. 12, p. 458. The virtue, therefore, which sustains the Church, as the Shepherd says, is faith, through which the elect of God are saved: but that which acts with manly vigor is restraint. Following these, truly, are simplicity, knowledge, innocence, modesty, and charity. Now all these are daughters of faith. Book I, Vision 3, ch. 8.

PASTOR. — PROOEMIA.

^A It must be feared, then, he says, that we should fear the Lord for edification, but not the devil for destruction. And conversely, the works of the Lord, that is, the commandments, ought to be loved and observed; but the works of the devil are to be feared and not performed. Book I, Mandate 7.

The same author also says that penitence is a great understanding. For he who repents of the things he has done, no longer does them or speaks [of them]. But by afflicting his soul for the things in which he has sinned, he does good. The forgiveness of sins, therefore, differs from penitence; but both show that these things are within our power. It is not right, then, for one who has received the forgiveness of sins to sin any further; for concerning the first and only penitence for sins (that would be for those existing before, in the pagan and former life—I mean that which was in ignorance), penitence is immediately set before those who have been called, cleansing the place of the soul from transgressions, that faith may be grounded. But since the Lord is the one who knows the hearts, and foreknows things to come, and [knows] the instability of man, and the waywardness and cunning of the devil, He foresaw from above, from the beginning, that [the devil], envying man because of the remission of sins, would suggest certain causes of sin to the servants of God, acting craftily and wickedly so that they might also fall with him. Therefore, because He is of great mercy, He gave to those who, even in the faith, fall into some transgression, a second penitence: which, if anyone should be tempted after his calling, and be forced, and cunningly circumvented, he may receive one further penitence for repenting. Book II, Mandate 4, chapters 2 and 3.

Immediately afterwards, the Shepherd says: "You will escape the power of the wild beast, if your heart becomes pure and without spot." Book I, Vision 4, chapter 2.

For did not the Power also, which appeared to Hermas in the vision in the figure of the Church, give him the book to transcribe, which He wished to be announced to the elect? And he, he says, transcribed it to the letter, not finding how he might complete the syllables. Book I, Vision 2, chapter 1.

III. TERTULLIAN (the Catholic), Book *De oratione*, ch. 12.

As for the custom some have of sitting down after their prayer is finished, I see no reason for it, unless we are to cite the example of that Hermas, whose writing is commonly inscribed "The Shepherd," who, after finishing his prayer, sat down upon a bed, and we ought, upon that account, to claim it as a practice to be observed. Certainly not. For it is stated simply and for the sake of the narrative, not as a matter of discipline: "When I had prayed and had sat down upon the bed," that is, for the order of the narrative, not as a rule of devotion. Otherwise, nowhere would there be any need to pray except where there is a bed: indeed, anyone would be acting against Scripture if he sat on a chair or a bench. Book II, in the Proem.

TERTULLIAN (the heretic), Book *De pudicitia*, ch. 10.

"God is good; He lays His bosom open to His own, not to the pagan: a second repentance will receive you: you shall be a Christian again from being an adulterer." These things you say to me, most benign interpreter of God! But I should yield to you, if the writing of the Shepherd, which alone loves adulterers, had deserved to be included in the divine instrument; if it were not judged by every council of the Churches, even your own, as among the apocryphal and false; [a book] which is itself an adulteress, and therefore the patroness of her associates; from whom you also are initiated—to whom, if this Shepherd of yours, whom you depict on the chalice, perhaps shall give his patronage, [he is] a panderer and he himself also...

of the Christian sacrament; deservedly, therefore, [it is] an idol of drunkenness and an asylum for adultery following the chalice; from which you would drink nothing more willingly than the sheep of the second repentance. But I drain the scriptures of that Shepherd who cannot be broken. Lib. II, mand. IV, cap. 3 and 4.

IDEM, ibid., cap. 20. And surely the Epistle of Barnabas (that is, the Epistle to the Hebrews) is more accepted among the churches than that apocryphal Shepherd of adulterers.

IV. AUTHOR of the Homily *De aleatoribus*, near the beginning. It exists at the end of the Works of S. CYPRIAN, pag. 19, edit. Paris., 1726. For the divine Scripture says: Woe shall be to the shepherds. But if the shepherds themselves are found to be negligent, what will they answer to the Lord for the flock? What will the flock say of the Lord? That they have been harassed by the flock? It is not believed of them; it is an incredible thing that shepherds could suffer something from the flock: [rather,] they shall be punished the more on account of their lie. Lib. III, simil. IX, cap. 31.

V. ORIGEN, Homil. VIII, in Numeros, tom. II, pag. 294, B. edit Paris., 1733. That the day of sin is reckoned into a year of punishment is shown not only in this book, in which there is nothing at all that can be doubted, but similar things are also designated in the little book of the Shepherd, if indeed that scripture is deemed receivable by anyone. Lib. III, simil. VI, cap. 4.

IDEM, Homil. X, in Josuam, tom. III, pag. 423, D. Likewise, a figure is described even in the little book which is called the Shepherd, concerning these things. For he says that there is a certain tree which is called an elm, which does not bring forth fruit, yet it bears a vine which brings forth much fruit; and from the fact that it is an aid to the vine, which, leaning upon its strength, can either bring forth or preserve much fruit, even the elm, which is unfruitful, seems necessary and useful on account of this very fact, that it serves a fruit-bearing vine. Lib. III, simil. II. See the Homily of Caesarius of Arles, XVII, edit. Basil. (XXIV, in *Biblioth. Patrum*).

IDEM, Homil. I, in Psalmum XXXVII, tom. II, pag. 681, D, E. Moreover, there is a time when we are instructed also by stewards and agents, that is, by those angels to whom it has been entrusted to dispense and rule our souls; just as it is described in a certain place concerning the Angel of repentance, who receives us to be chastised, as the Shepherd explains: if indeed that little book is deemed receivable by anyone. Lib. III, sim. VI, cap. 3.

IDEM, Homil. XIII, in Ezechielem, tom. III, pag. 404, F. In the book of the Shepherd, in which the angel teaches repentance, twelve virgins possess their own names: faith, continence, etc. For you can read, if you wish. Then when the tower is being built, when you have taken up the strengths of the virgins, you will receive equally also that which is said concerning the gates. Lib. III, sim. IX, capp. 2 and 15.

IDEM, Comment. in Osee ex Philocalia cap. 8, tom. II, pag. 439, E. And in the book which is inscribed [as] the Shepherd, the text signifies the building of the tower—which is indeed made of many stones, yet the building appears to be made of one stone—what other thing than the harmony and unity of many? Lib. I, vis. III, cap. 2, and lib. III, simil. IX, capp. 9, 15, 18.

IDEM, Comment. in Matt., cap. XIV, Opp. tom. II, pag. 644, D, E. But if we should venture to use, for the softening of this [matter], a book which is indeed circulated in the Church, but is not held by all to be divine, we might adopt that which is delivered in the book of the Shepherd concerning certain persons who, as soon as they have embraced the faith, are subjected to Michael, but on account of their love of pleasure fall away from his protection and patronage, and are subjected to him who is over luxury and delights, and then to another who is over punishment and chastisements, and after that to him who is set over repentance. Lib. III, simil. VIII, cap. 3.

IDEM, tract. XXX, Comment. in Matth. cap. XXIV, 32. Opp. tom. III, pag. 872, col. 2, A. So also in a certain parable of the Shepherd it is reported (if it pleases anyone also to read that book) that the present age is winter for the just, who appear similar to those nearest to them by nature, and indeed to the other dry trees, but at an opportune time, they appear in their fruits. Lib. III, simil. III.

THE SAME, tract. XXXI, Comment. on Matt. xxiv, 42. ibid., p. 877, col. 2, B. For, as we read in the Shepherd, no one tastes vessels that are full, for they do not change easily; but because half-full ones are believed to be easily changed, they are frequently tasted. Lib. II, mand. XII, ch. 5.

THE SAME, Homil. XXXV, on Luke ch. XII, 58, ibid., p. 973, B. C. We read (if, however, it pleases anyone to accept a writing of this kind) that the angels of justice and of iniquity dispute over the salvation and destruction of Abraham, while both throngs wish to claim him for their own assembly. But if this displeases anyone, let him turn to the volume which is written under the title of the Shepherd, and he will find that two angels are present to all men: the evil one who exhorts to perverse things, and the good one who persuades to every best thing. Lib. II, mand. VI, ch. 2.

THE SAME, vol. I, Comment. on John 1, 1. Opp. vol. II, p. 17, E, edit. Huetii. But it is otherwise with us who believe that God made things that exist from things that did not exist, just as that mother of the seven martyrs in the acts of the Maccabees, and the angel of repentance, taught in the Shepherd. Lib. I, vis. I, ch. 1, and lib. II, mand. 1.

THE SAME, lib. I, On First Principles, ch. 3, num. 3, edit. Paris. nov. vol. I, p. 61, C. For it is also reported thus in the little book which is called the Shepherd, which Hermas wrote, concerning the angel of repentance: First of all believe that there is one God who created and fashioned all things; who, when nothing existed before, made all things to be; who is the one grasping all things, while he himself is grasped by no one. Lib. II, mand. I.

THE SAME, Ibid., lib. II, ch. 1, num. 5, l. c. p. 79, col. 1, B. But that we may also believe this to be so on the authority of the Scriptures, hear how in the books of the Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts one of her sons to endure torments, it is confirmed concerning this dogma: I beg you, my son, look to heaven and earth, and to all things that are in them; and seeing these, believe first of all that there is one God who created and fashioned all things, and made them from that which was not, so that all things might exist. Lib. II, mand. I.

THE SAME, ibid. lib. III, ch. 2, num. 4, l. c., p. 140, col. 2, D. But the book of the Shepherd also declares these same things, saying that twin angels accompany every individual man; and if at any time good thoughts arise in our heart, it says it is suggested by the good angel: but if they are the contrary, it says it is the instinct of the evil angel. Lib. II, mand. IV, ch. 2.

THE SAME, ibid. lib. IV, ch. 2, num. 8, l. c., p. 168, from Philocalia ch. 1. ^A What we also see designated in the little book of the Shepherd, which seems to be despised by some, when Hermas is ordered to write two books, and afterwards to announce to the presbyters of the Church what he learned from the Spirit. Which is written in these words: And you shall write, he says, two books, and you shall give one to Clement and one to Grapte. And Grapte, indeed, shall admonish the widows and orphans; but Clement shall send to the cities that are abroad; and you, indeed, shall announce to the presbyters of the Church. Lib. I, vis. II, ch. IV.

^B The Same, lib. X of Explanations on the Epistle to the Romans, xvi, 14. Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren who are with them. The greeting for these is simple, nor is any signal praise added to them. I think, however, that this Hermas is the author of that little book which is called the Shepherd; which writing seems to me very useful, and, as I think, divinely inspired. But the fact that he attributed no praise to him is, I suppose, for the reason that he seems, as that writing declares, to have turned to repentance after many sins; and thus he attributed no reproach to him, for he had learned that the Scripture does not reproach a man who turns himself from sin: nor does it attribute any praise, because he was still placed under the angel of repentance, by whom, at an opportune time, he was to be offered again to Christ. Read Sedulius in his Collectanea on this same passage of the Apostle, and also the commentaries attributed to Anselm.

VI.

EUSEBIUS, *Hist. eccles.*, lib. iii, cap. 3. ^A Since the same Apostle in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans makes mention, among others, of Hermas, to whom they say the book of the *Shepherd* belongs; it must be known that this has indeed been disputed by some, for which reason it would not be placed among the acknowledged, while by others it has been judged most necessary, especially for those who need elementary instruction. Hence we know that it is even read publicly in the churches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers have used its testimony. Read Nicephorus, lib. ii, cap. 46.

^B IDEM, *ibid.*, lib. iii, cap. 25. Let the writing of the Acts of Paul, and that which is called the *Shepherd*, be placed among the spurious books.

IDEM, *ibid.*, lib. v, cap. 8. Not only does [Irenaeus] know, but he also accepts the writing of the *Shepherd*, saying: "Rightly, therefore, did the Scripture say, which declares: 'First of all, believe that there is one God, who created and completed all things,'" etc. Lib. ii, mand. 1. Read Niceph., lib. iv, cap. 14.

^C

VII.

ATHANASIUS, *De incarnatione Verbi Dei*, num. 3, tom. i, p. 49, D; edit. Paris., 1898.

"But the divine doctrine and the faith in Christ... he says by Moses indeed... and in that most useful book of the *Shepherd*: 'First of all, believe that there is one God, who created and perfected all things, and made all things that were not, that they might be.'" Lib. ii, mand. 1.

IDEM, *De Decretis Nicænæ synodi*, num. 4, tom. i, p. 211, D.

"This, however, as the *Shepherd* has said, has its origin only from the devil." Lib. ii, mand. ix.

IDEM, *ibidem*, num. 18, p. 223, F.

"But in the *Shepherd* it is written (since they cite this book, although it is not of the Canon): 'First of all, believe that there is one God, who created and perfected ^D all things, and made all things out of nothing, that they might be.'" Lib. ii, mand. 1.

[IDEM in Festive Epistle, towards the end, vol. II, p. 963, A.]

"There are also other books outside of these, not indeed reduced into the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read to those who have newly approached and wish to be instructed in the word of piety: The Wisdom of Solomon... and the Shepherd."

[VIII.]

BIDYMUS in the Catena on Job viii, 17, 18, p. 202, London ed., 1637.

"The entire conduct of the dissolute impious man is in the house of wickedness, no differently than the stones outside the building, which are clearly inept for the building of the tower, according to the Shepherd." Lib. i, vis. ii, chaps. 2 and 7, and lib. iii, sim. ix, chaps. 6, 7, 31.

[IX.]

JEROME, book On Illustrious Men, chap. x, with the ancient Greek interpreter.

"Herman, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Romans (xvi, 14) makes mention: 'Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Herman, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brethren who are with them,' they assert is the author of the book which is called the Shepherd, and which is already publicly read in certain Eastern churches. The book is truly useful, and many of the ancient writers have borrowed testimonies from it; but among the Latins it seems to be almost unknown." Read Ado of Vienne, book On Festivals, etc.; Freculphus, vol. II, lib. ii, chap. 4; Honorius of Autun, chap. 10, On the Luminaries of the Church.

IDEM in the Galeate Prologue.

"Therefore the Wisdom which is commonly inscribed as Solomon's, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the Canon."

IDEM, Lib. ii, Commentary on Hosea, chap. vii, 9.

"Whence also in the book of the Shepherd, if it pleases anyone to receive its reading, the Church is first seen as an old woman; then as a young girl and a bride adorned with hair." Lib. i, vis. i, chap. 2; ii, chaps. 1, 4; vis. iii, chaps. 1, 10; and vis. iv, chap. 2.

[X.]

RUFINUS, Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, no. 38, p. 110, Verona ed., 1745.

"There are other books which are not canonical, but have been called by the ancients 'ecclesiastical.' In the New Testament, there is the little book which is called the Shepherd or Hermas, which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter."

[X.]

AUTHOR of the Impure [Imperfect] Work on Matthew xix; Homily xxxviii, p. 142, A. Appendix to vol. VI, Works of St. John Chrysostom, newest Paris ed., 1724.

"Moreover, I venture to introduce a subtler meaning, and to relate the opinion of another wise man. For he explains it thus: Since the people of the Jews were divided into twelve tribes; so also the universal Christian people is divided into twelve tribes, according to certain properties of tempers and diversities of hearts, which only God can discern and know; so that some souls are as if from the tribe of Reuben, and others from the tribe of Simeon, or Levi, or Judah. For I think that all the holy ones are called the five prudent virgins (Matt. xxv, 2), although they are innumerable, on account of the five spiritual senses; and all the sinners, the five foolish virgins, although they are innumerable, on account of the five carnal senses. And just as all the Churches of Christ are called seven Churches (Apoc. i, 4) on account of the seven spirits, although they are many. For in all those in whom, above other virtues, the virtue of wisdom is more abundant, one Church is held to exist. Item, in those in whom, above other virtues, understanding is more abundant, another Church is called, and thus dealing with each spirit, you will find seven Churches. Similarly, and on account of the twelve graces which the Angel sets forth in the person of the twelve virgins in the Shepherd—if indeed that writing pleases all Christians—there are found to be twelve tribes: as for example, all souls in whom, above other

virtues, the virtue of truth excels, is one in tribes. For indeed all graces are not equally in all, but one person excels more in this, while another excels in those (Lib. III, Sim. IX, chaps. 2 and 15).

XII. ^B CASSIANUS, *Collatione* VIII, chap. 17. For that two angels, that is, a good one and a bad one, adhere to each of us, the Scripture itself bears witness concerning good things, etc. But the book of the *Shepherd* teaches most fully concerning both (Lib. II, Mand. VI, chap. 2).

The same, *Collatione* XII, chap. 12. Moreover, that book which is called the *Shepherd* teaches most openly that the freedom of the will is added to man in either direction; in which it is said that two angels adhere to each of us, that is, a good one and a bad one; and that it consists in the option of the human person to choose whom he follows (Ibid.).

XIII. PROSPER, *lib. contra Collatorem*, chap. 30. But after that testimony of no authority, which he inserted into his disputation from the little book of the *Shepherd*, etc. (Ibid.).

XIV. COUNCIL OF ROME, under Gelasius. The book which is called the *Shepherd* is apocryphal. The same is judged by NICEPHORUS of Constantinople, at the end of his *Chronographia*.

XV. MAXIMUS, *lib. De divinis nominationibus*, chap. IV. And in the *Shepherd* Hermas perfecting [the argument], as we read there in the book of the *Shepherd*. And a little later: Thus also we read in the *Shepherd*. ^C

XVI. BEDE, *in Exposit. Actuum apostol.*, to chap. XI, 15. That each one of us has an angel is found both in the book of the *Shepherd* and in many places of holy Scripture (Lib. II, Mand. VI, chap. 2).

XVII. WALAFRIDUS STRABO, *in Visionibus Wettini*, v. 675. Holy Scriptures declare that the inhabitants of heaven are the guardians of men, And the Lord Jesus, teaching, shows that the faithful stand before the face of the Father to serve; And the book of the *Shepherd* demonstrates that same aid (Ibid.).

XVIII. LIBER PONTIFICALIS in *Vita PII I*, no. 2, p. 29, edit. Rom. 1724, in-4. Under the episcopate of this man, his brother Hermes wrote a book in which is contained the commandment which the Angel of the Lord commanded him, when he came to him in the habit of a shepherd, that the holy Pascha should be celebrated on the Lord’s Day. Read the Martyrologies, Bede, Regino, etc.

XIX. In the first of those Epistles which are ascribed to Pope Pius. We wish you to know that Pascha ought to be celebrated on the annual solemnities of the Lord’s Day. In these times, therefore, Hermes, a teacher of the faith and of the Scriptures, shone among us. And although we celebrate the same Pascha on the aforementioned day, yet because some have doubted concerning it, in order to strengthen their souls the Angel of the Lord appeared to the same Hermes in the habit of a shepherd, and commanded him that Pascha should be celebrated by all on the Lord’s Day.

XX. PSEUDO-TERTULLIANUS, *lib. Adversus Marcionem*. After this, then, Pius; for whom Hermas was brother by birth. An angelic Shepherd, because (who) spoke the handed-down words.

XXI. NICETAS on that passage of Gregory of Nazianzus, *Orat.* IV, near the end: ^D Believe that, just as is held in the book of the *Shepherd*, there is one God, who created and perfected all things, and produced them out of nothing into the nature of things (Lib. II, Mand. I).

XXII. THE WRITER of the Life of St. Genevieve, chap. IV, no. 15, in Bollandus, Jan. 3, vol. I, p. 139. For the twelve spiritual virgins, whom Hermas, who is also called the Shepherd, described in his book, stood forth as his inseparable companions; they are named as follows: Faith, Abstinence, Patience, Magnanimity, Simplicity, Innocence, Concord, Charity, Discipline, Chastity, Truth, and Prudence. Lib. III, simil. IX, chaps. 2, 15, and following.

XXIII. JOHN OF SALISBURY, Epistle 172. The Book of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd, as the same Jerome asserts, are not held to be in the Canon. But whether the one that is inscribed as the *Shepherd* exists anywhere, I do not know; yet it is certain that Jerome and Bede testify that they had seen and read it.

DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF SAINT HERMAS

ARTICLE I. Analysis of the work of St. Hermas entitled: THE SHEPHERD.

THE FIRST book of this work is distributed into four visions. In the first, the author says that he saw a woman washing herself in the Tiber; having been captivated by her form, and having desired another like her as his wife, he was rebuked by that same woman and another, an older one. He then reveals that thoughts of this kind, which seem to be in no way evil, are [nonetheless] dangerous and free from no sin. He is rebuked, moreover, because he did not correct his sinning children as was fitting, and he is taught what must be done to wash away this fault. Finally, the Church, built by God, is shown to him, and that all things will be full of His elect.

In the second vision, a book is offered to Hermas by the same aged woman; when he had read and understood it, he is again chastised because he did not prohibit the sins of his wife and sons, ^B and it is revealed to him what he must do to obtain forgiveness. And after a discourse on repentance, innocence, and simplicity has been instituted there, he is commanded to announce that a great tribulation is coming. It is then declared to him that the woman he had seen is the Church, from whom he immediately receives the command that the two copies of the books he had described—one to be sent to Grapté and the other indeed to Clement—should be sent through all the cities so that he himself might direct them.

In the third vision, the same woman shows Hermas the tower that was being built; and she clearly explains to him how, by whom, and with what stones it was being constructed, and which of the stones were used, which rejected, and which were again cut and fitted to the building; and she reveals at last by what reason this tower was a figure of the Church. To these, he attaches the exposition of the three apparitions of the same Church, whom he had seen under the form of a woman.

In the fourth and last vision, Hermas beheld a beast which, in one gulp, could have devoured a whole city had an angel not stood in the way. He learned from the virgin, who figured the Church, that this beast was a figure of the pressure and tribulation that was to come; from her he also received the art by which it could be overcome; and finally, he is ordered to speak these things to the ears of the saints. ^C

THE SECOND BOOK contains the twelve commandments which the *Shepherd*, the messenger and proponent of repentance, commands Hermas to describe. The first of them teaches what must be believed concerning God, who is to be feared. The second, that life is to be led in simplicity and innocence, that alms are to be distributed to all, and that the reputation of no one is to be disparaged. The third, that the truth is always to be asserted and one must never lie. The fourth, that the chastity of body and soul is to be preserved, and what must be done by a husband concerning an unfaithful wife. Certain things concerning repentance are touched upon in passing there. The fifth commandment enjoins equanimity and patience. In the sixth, the two ways and two genii—of whom one is of justice and is to be followed, the other of injustice and is to be expelled—are shown. The seventh, that God is to be feared, but the demon in no way. The eighth, every evil that is to be fled, [and] every good that is to be done. The ninth, what good things are to be requested from God in prayer always without doubt and with perseverance. The tenth prohibits sadness, which is demonstrated to be the daughter of doubt and anger. The eleventh reveals what distinction there is between true and false prophets; concerning which he treats again in the twelfth, where he discusses good and evil desire, of which the former is to be followed and the latter to be fled. After these things, the *Shepherd* commands Hermas to keep all these commandments diligently and urges all to observe them likewise. Finally, the same *Shepherd* demonstrates that this observation of the commandments, for the sake of which men will live to God, is most easy for them.

Furthermore, in the THIRD BOOK, he turns his discourse to the various similitudes by which he continues to instruct Hermas. He teaches, therefore, that one must not be intent on accumulating riches, but on distributing alms. This he proves, indeed, with the similitude of the vine with the rich man, and the elm with the poor man,

which, unless it supports the vine, creeps along and hardly ever yields any fruit. Hence he moves on to other similitudes, and first he makes clear the point that, just as a green tree is distinguished from a withered one not in winter but in summer, so the just man is to be distinguished from the unjust man not in this world, but at the final judgment. Then he compares fasting to the diligence with which a servant strove to tend the vine of his master, more than had been commanded to him personally. By this same similitude he shows how great things God has wrought for men, and with what purity they ought to set their lives in order. Afterward, he sets before the eyes a young shepherd, whose abundant flocks, in their pleasures and delights, depicted men who are given over to pleasures; some of whom are corrupted even to the point of apostasy, others even to the point of death. Yet he does not deny that there are certain pleasures which bring salvation. Hence he comes to the similitude of a great willow, whose branches, lopped off without the diminution of the tree, and distributed to many men, and restored by them in various degrees of dryness and greenness, mystically signified the various ways of observing the divine law. Moreover, some branches, being planted a second and a third time, and recalled to various degrees of greenness, bore the likeness of those who work repentance in various ways for their sins. After this construction of the tower, which bears the likeness of the Church—which he had touched upon more lightly in the first book—he describes it most elaborately: and applying whatever pertains to it to Christians, and especially to those who are repenting, he explains all the duties of religion and piety which were to be performed by each one individually. Then Hermas recounts how the angel, who had handed him over to the Shepherd as a messenger of repentance, commanded him to observe the precepts explained thus far, and to announce to others that they must be observed likewise. Finally, he mentions the promise of that angel, who had guaranteed beyond this that he would send him the Shepherd and the twelve virgins, that is, all the virtues whatsoever, which would remain with him forever.

ARTICLE II. Who is Hermas, the author of this work; whether he is the brother of Pius I, the supreme pontiff.

It is beyond controversy that this work is the same as that which is praised by the most ancient Fathers under the name of Hermas. This is clearly proven from the books of these same Fathers, where not a few testimonies of our author are found transcribed from various parts of this work. Moreover, the author himself throughout this work takes the name of Hermas. Wherefore, it is only a matter of dispute who this Hermas is, and in what time he lived. Therefore, some writers assert without doubt that he was the brother of Pius I, the supreme pontiff. For such was the opinion of the author of the poem inscribed with the name of Tertullian, who sang of him thus:

After him, then Pius, Hermas to whom he was brother by name, The angelic shepherd, who spoke the words which had been handed down.

The author of the *Pontifical*, which is attributed to Damasus, subscribed to the same opinion in this manner: ^A Under the episcopate of this Pius, his brother Hermas wrote a book in which is confirmed the mandate which the angel of the Lord commanded him, when he came to him in the guise of a shepherd, that the holy Pascha should be celebrated on the Lord's Day. The author of the decretal to all Christ’s faithful, which is attributed to Pope Pius himself, also delivered the same thing: "In those times, therefore, Hermas, the teacher of the faith and the Scriptures, shone among us... to this same Hermas there appeared an angel of the Lord in the guise of a shepherd, and commanded him that Pascha should be celebrated by all on the Lord's Day." Furthermore, from these final words, one might not absurdly conclude that one of these two writers borrowed from the other that which he was writing, or that both drew from the same sources. But some, namely Bede and Ado, followed them afterwards—not indeed in the Martyrologies of theirs cited by some, but in the Chronologies. For in that place where Bede, having written that Justin the philosopher ended his life in martyrdom under Pope Pius, immediately added: "Hermas wrote a book, which is called the Shepherd, in which he contains the precept of the angel that Pascha should be celebrated on the Lord's Day." And Ado transcribed the words of Bede thus: "Pius is considered as bishop of Rome, under whom Hermas wrote a book which is called the Shepherd, in which he contains the precept of the angel that Pascha should always be celebrated on the Lord's Day." The author also of the ancient catalog of Roman pontiffs, among the continuators Bucherius and Bollandus, ^B is of the same opinion: "Under this episcopate, of Pius, his brother Hermas wrote a book in which is contained the mandate that the angel commanded him when he came to him in the guise of a shepherd." Finally, the writer of another catalog of these same pontiffs among the same followers of Bollandus said the same thing in fewer words: "Pius, by nation an Italian, from his father Rufinus, brother of the Pastor."

But this opinion can in no way stand. For first, some of these writers contradict themselves. For Ado in his Martyrology writes: "The feast of Saint Hermas, of whom the apostle Paul makes mention..." They assert that this is the author of the book which is called the PASTOR. Yet if Hermas was a disciple of Paul, or if Paul makes mention of him, he surely could not have written his own book—as the same Ado asserts in his Chronology—under the pontificate of Pius, seeing that he was declared supreme pontiff almost a hundred years after Paul. ^C Then these writers relate from the book of Hermas a statute that Pascha should be celebrated on the Lord's Day. But you would look in vain for such a decree in our author. Therefore, either those writers, who seem to have written about a book they had never seen, are entirely mistaken, or they are speaking of another work, one completely and utterly different from ours. Finally, it is manifest that later writers took their opinion from earlier ones, and therefore the origin of this same opinion is to be traced back to the aforementioned poem, or to the author of the *Pontifical*. But both authors are apocryphal, of no name, no diligence, and no authority. ^D

ARTICLE III.

Contrary to this, writers who are far superior to all those mentioned in name and age think that our author Hermas was a disciple of the Apostle Paul, whom he greets in the Epistle to the Romans 2 with these words: "Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas." For Origen writes thus on this place in Paul: "I think that this Hermas is the writer of that little book which is called the *Shepherd*; which writing seems to me very useful, and I think it is divinely inspired." Eusebius 3, however, says: "The Apostle Paul, in those salutations which are read toward the end of the Epistle to the Romans, made mention of Hermas, whose book, which is inscribed *The Shepherd*, is said to be." Jerome 4 also records that it was asserted by others: "Hermas," he says, "of whom the Apostle Paul makes mention in writing to the Romans..." they assert that he is the author of the book which is called *The Shepherd*. To these may be added later writers who have transcribed their words or subscribed to their opinion. Among these, Sedulius borrows Origen's words, and Nicephorus insists on the footsteps of Eusebius. Furthermore, in support of this opinion, that fact could be adduced which Hermas himself testifies: that of the two copies of his book described by his own hand, one was to be sent to foreign cities by Clement: "Clement shall send to the foreign cities; for that is permitted." For whom else does he designate with these words than Clement the Supreme Pontiff, who, when he was sitting at Rome, could from there more easily send this book to all other cities?

Furthermore, if this opinion, to which nothing adverse or repugnant seems to stand, is true, it must certainly be said that these books were published by our author before the end of the first century of the Church. For Clement, according to later and more diligent writers of history, held the Roman see between the years 67 and 76, or according to others, from the year 93 to the year 100, at which time he was sent into exile in the Chersonesus.

We also have no doubt that our writer is the Hermas whose name is recorded in the Martyrologies of the saints, and in the *Roman* it is read noted thus: "At Rome, of Saint Hermas, of whom the Apostle Paul makes mention in the Epistle to the Romans. He, worthily sacrificing himself, and becoming a host acceptable to God, being illustrious in virtues, sought the celestial kingdoms."

But against such great holiness of this man, those things which he proclaims about himself throughout his book cast doubt and misgiving: that he was the father of a family who, through excessive indulgence toward his wife and children, did not oppose their sins; and that he himself had sinned in many and great ways, and had almost never spoken the truth. However, it can be answered that Hermas said all these things not in his own person, but in the person of others; so that by writing ^B he might more easily incite all from every class of people to perform penance for their sins, and show them how great a holiness of life and character is required of Christians. But whatever may be the case regarding our author's holiness, it seems quite likely that he both lived at the time we assigned just above, and published his work to the public.

ARTICLE IV.

However, if our arguments are not sufficiently firm and valid for stricter critics, they must at any rate admit that Hermas's books were widely known, not only before the times of Origen and Tertullian, but even before those of Clement and Irenæus—that is, before the end of the second century, by which time at least Irenæus is said to have written. That this is so will be made plain to anyone by the testimonies of those same Fathers of the Church which we provided above. But whether the same most ancient writers believed this work had been published by Hermas long before, you will easily understand from the fact that it is quoted by them everywhere not as something new and recently published, but as old and ancient. Irenæus, however, the most ancient of them all, uses the authority of his book as if it were one of the books of Holy Scripture with these words 7: "Rightly, therefore, does Scripture say: 'First of all, believe that there is one God,' etc." Which is certainly evidence that in Irenæus's opinion, this same work had proceeded from one of the apostles, or at least from some close successor of theirs. Eusebius 8, however, not only reported the quoted words of Irenæus, but also testified that Hermas's book was praised by others also, whom he calls "most ancient": "We have found," he says, "that some of the most ancient (παλαιοτάτων) writers used its testimony." By which words it will perhaps seem to some that he indicated those who were more ancient than Clement and Irenæus. But in whatever sense they are taken, it is not obscurely signified that Eusebius was persuaded that these books were the first in the Church of antiquity after the Holy Scriptures. Yet it is not to be said that they preceded the first persecution of the Church, since in these same books mention is made of martyrs who had already suffered wild beasts, scourges, prisons, and crosses. But since in them another persecution is also predicted as imminent 10—which we reasonably think to be that which was stirred up by Domitian in the year 92—you may thence not absurdly conclude that this work was handed down by Hermas a little before this year, with Clement already having been assumed into the office of Supreme Pontiff.

ARTICLE V.

That these books of the *Shepherd* were composed by a Greek author and in Greek first, all have posited as so certain that no one has ever brought that into controversy.

^A Such is the care with which we have undertaken to examine the books of our library, that we do not leave that point entirely untouched. Therefore, the principal argument by which this is proved is drawn from these words of Jerome: "Many," he says, "of the ancient writers have used testimonies from it, but among the Latins it is almost unknown." Then Origen, in the public sermon which he held among the faithful Christians, brings forth one single testimony from these books, but only in half, content to send his auditors to the books themselves, undoubtedly Greek, where they might read the rest: "For you can," he said, "read if you wish." Finally, this work has been praised much more often by Greek Fathers than by Latin ones. But no one, I think, will deny that a book almost unknown to the Latins, but very well known and in common use among Greeks (and not only the learned ones, but among all people generally), was written in Greek first.

Nevertheless, against all these things, however valid the arguments may be, some points can certainly be opposed. And first, indeed, all the visions of Hermas, with only one exception, are narrated to have been given in Rome or in the vicinity of that same city. Furthermore, Hermas speaks of fasting in this way: "I saw the Shepherd... saying to me: 'Why have you come here so early?' I replied: 'Because, sir, I have a *statio*.' 'What,' he says, 'is a *statio*?' And I said: 'A fast.'" But surely what Greek author ever spoke in this way: "*Statio* is a fast"? This mode of speaking is truly not proper or peculiar to the Greeks, but to the Latins, as is clearly gathered from Tertullian and others whom you will find cited in the most learned Glossary of du Cange under the word *Statio*. ^B Moreover, it does not escape us at all that one can respond to both points; and to the first, that Rome and other neighboring places are mentioned in this book because it was the head of the whole world, and celebrated among all people. To the second, however, that the disputed mode of speaking belongs solely to the interpreter, who arrogated to himself the right of translating a Greek author’s words with a bolder and more free paraphrase. But whether these responses suffice for everyone, let it be the judgment of others.

ARTICLE VI. Whether the Latin version is barbarous and Anastasius is its author.

Since this work was written in Greek and has perished, nothing certain can be determined by us regarding the style or character of its author's diction. However, regarding its Latin translation, we cannot entirely agree with Barthius, who says first that it is, as it were, mixed with barbarisms, and that it had a semi-barbarous translator. Second, that—if I am permitted to judge—his words are to be given credit, I would call Anastasius the Librarian the author of this translation, of whose industry and writing monuments of similar character exist, both hidden and plain. ^C For as regards the first part, we do not deny that the translation of these books is not entirely of pure or more elegant Latinity; but Barthius enumerates several forms of expression among the barbarisms, which one may find among writers of more polished elegance. But as for the second part, he is convicted of falsehood because, many centuries before Anastasius, we read that certain words of this Latin interpretation, such as they are held in that very text, were transcribed by Tertullian. Nor could you say that this book, as we have noted above, was unknown to the Latins in the time of Jerome, and that this is an argument that it had not yet been rendered into Latin at that time. For that reasoning is futile and vain, since this book was very well known not only to Tertullian, who is older than Jerome; but even to Rufinus and Cassian, who were contemporaries and peers of that same Jerome, and who without doubt saw this book translated into Latin.

ARTICLE VII. That it is not merely an epitome.

Barthius adds a third point, equally false as the others, namely that these books as rendered into Latin are merely a sort of epitome of the Greek text, in which the interpreter knowingly and prudently omitted many of the Greek author's words. For from where will Barthius prove that? Did he have under his hand a Greek example of this work with which he could compare the Latin interpretation? Not at all. On the contrary, that the whole and entirely unmutilated work is contained therein is clearly demonstrated by the fact that all the testimonies—which are indeed many—brought forth by writers from that same original work, are found in it. But, he says, Clement of Alexandria cited one passage from this commentary, the Latin words for which you would seek there in vain. But that is objected in vain. For it is plain and clear that Clement there reported not the author's words, but his mind and sense, which was the only thing he intended.

ARTICLE VIII. Concerning the titles of this work.

This work is titled by ancient writers with many and various titles. For when Rufinus enumerates those books which are called by the elders not canonical, but "ecclesiastical," he speaks of it thus: "In the New Testament, the little book which is called the Shepherd, or Hermas," which is called: "The Two Ways or the Judgment of Peter." What he means by these words must be pondered more attentively. For the little book of the Shepherd cannot be called the "Two Ways," both because this subject is discussed only at the beginning of the sixth mandate, and many other things are treated throughout the whole work; and because the scope of the whole work is entirely different. Nor can it be inscribed "The Judgment of Peter," for you will find nothing regarding this matter in these books. Therefore, some error has crept into the text of Rufinus, or by his words two or three different books are indicated. The first is indeed the little book which is called the Shepherd, about which the question is now being held. The second is a little book; for this word "little book" [libellus] perhaps ought to be understood; li-

- bellus, I say, which are called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; unless perhaps by the Judgment of Peter a third book is designated, which Jerome mentions in these words: ^A *Fifth is the Judgment of Peter among the apocryphal scriptures*, about which we shall have occasion to speak elsewhere.

The common title of this work, and the one that occurs most frequently and with better right among ancient writers, is the *Shepherd* or the *Book of the Shepherd*. For in the second and third books the Shepherd addresses and instructs Hermas, and explains and unfolds to him the visions of the first book, especially the third. Finally, the same work is sometimes called by the name of its author, Hermas, or Hermes, through the change of a single letter made by copyists; or, as Labbe observes, Ἑρμας was simply changed in dialect to Ἑρμῆς. It is, however, more likely that Hermas, since he did not wish to place his own name before his work, wanted it to be inscribed with this title, *Shepherd* or *Book of the Shepherd*. Tertullian, nonetheless, does not seem to approve of this inscription entirely. For he says: ^B *Hermas, whose writing is generally titled Shepherd.* But it is credible that he added this word "generally," that is, "almost always," because among some other writers this work was sometimes marked with a certain other title, which we do not deny.

ARTICLE IX. On the division of this work, its chapters, and the summaries of the chapters.

In the manuscript codices of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, the Colbertine, and others, as well as in earlier printed editions, this work is inscribed: *Book of the Shepherd, messenger of repentance*, but it is never divided into three books. In the edition of Henri Estienne, in the year 1513, the title is the same as in the manuscripts: but at the beginning of the second book it is read continuously and without any division: *Of the commandments by the Shepherd, the angel of repentance. The fifth vision*, etc. Nor did the most ancient Fathers acknowledge any division of this work into three books. Indeed, by Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, ^C Rufinus, and Cassian, it is called the *Book*, or *Little Book of the Shepherd*, *Scripture*, or *Writing*.

Furthermore, in these same manuscript books and older editions, there are no arguments or summaries of the chapters, but it is read simply: *First vision, Second vision*, etc. *First commandment*, etc. *First similitude*, etc. Wherefore the division of the work into three books, just like all its summaries, did not proceed from Hermas, but undoubtedly from those only who adorned the later editions. Hence to no one should it seem a wonder if some of these summaries represent the author's sense and intention less well.

ARTICLE X. What the ancient Fathers thought of these books.

We have already seen how ancient these books are: but what the ancient Fathers thought of them, and what judgment ought to be passed upon them, must now be inquired into more diligently. Irenaeus, therefore, seems to praise them as books ^D of holy divine Scripture: *Well*, he says, *did the Scripture pronounce, which says: First of all believe*, etc. Whence Eusebius writes of this same Irenaeus: *The Book of the Shepherd was not only known to him, but also greatly approved in these words: Well did the Scripture*, etc. Nor was the opinion of Clement of Alexandria indeed any different, who in a similar way says: *Divine, therefore, is that power which speaks to Hermas in the revelation*, [θείως τοίνυν ἡ δύναμις ἡ τῷ Ἑρμᾷ κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν λαλοῦσα]. Origen, moreover, pronounces of this book thus: *Which scripture seems to me very useful, and, as I think, divinely inspired.* But he added "as I think" so that he might signify that he was not entirely persuaded of this. And indeed in certain homilies he makes it open to each person to go into another opinion, if they please. For he speaks thus in one homily: *If indeed that Scripture seems acceptable to any.* And in another: *If indeed that little book seems acceptable to any.*

For this reason, certain most noble writers cast this same book outside the Canon of holy Scripture. First among them must be numbered Athanasius, who says of this book: *Although it is not in the Canon.* Him follows Jerome: *They are not*, he says, *in the Canon.* Rufinus also: *They are not canonical, but ecclesiastical.* Whence he asserts later that the ancient Fathers did not wish for testimonies to be brought forth from them, as from a book of divine Scripture. Certainly in the same sense Eusebius places them in the number of the superior and spurious books: *Among the spurious*, he says [ἐν τοῖς νόθοις], *are to be held the Acts of Paul and the book of the Shepherd.* And by Pope Gelasius and by the author of the *Stichometry*, at the end of the *Chronography* edited by Nicephorus of Constantinople, they are called apocryphal. Finally, the mind of all of them, whose opinion Eusebius recounts in this manner, is no different: *It is to be known that this book was indeed called into doubt by some, on account of whom it cannot be counted among the books of received authority.*

ARTICLE XI. How great is their utility.

The common opinion of the Fathers, which seems more consonant with the truth, is that they consider this book to be most useful, and most apt for forming the morals of a person recently converted to the Christian faith. Eusebius indeed teaches this openly in the place already often cited: *By others it is judged most necessary, especially for those who are to be instructed in the first elements of our religion.* Whence also in the Churches...

we have discovered it to be read, and that some have used the testimony of the very ancient writers themselves. From these words of Eusebius, ^A indeed, we gather three arguments by which the great utility of this book is clearly demonstrated. The first is sought from those most ancient writers who asserted this. For among those whose name Eusebius suppressed, perhaps we should count Origen, already praised by us, who wrote concerning it: *To me it seems very useful.* Athanasius also calls the same book: *The most useful book of the Shepherd.* To these, Jerome must rightly be added by us, in whose judgment too it is *a truly useful book.*

The second argument for the supreme utility of the same book we derive from this: that, as Eusebius testifies, it was read publicly in the churches. And this is indeed handed down not only by that most learned man, but also by Jerome, who says: *Among certain churches of Greece, it is even read publicly*; and by Rufinus: *All of which, to be sure, they wished to be read in the churches.* But certainly, the bishops would not have wished it to be read publicly in the churches unless they had been entirely persuaded that the greatest utility for Christians could be derived therefrom.

Moreover, that book was not only read publicly in the churches, but it was also in everyone’s hands, as we have seen from Origen, and as is clear from Athanasius, who inserts it into the ^B Catalogue of books *which the Fathers ordained to be read by those who approach the faith and desire to be instructed in the word of piety.* Whence again, how much they believed this work to contribute to the utility of Christians is easily understood.

The third argument is still elicited from these words of Eusebius: *That some of the most ancient writers have used its testimony.* For these things manifestly prove how much this book was held in esteem by them and by many others, who likewise brought forth many testimonies from it. This, of course, will become clearer from their own words, related by us among the testimonies of the ancients.

To these three Eusebian arguments, you might perhaps not incongruously add a fourth: that the utility of this book can be easily recognized by anyone from its reading, or even from the mere analysis of it which we have provided. For from that, it is indeed easily gathered that the aim of our author is to exhort and incite men—and, if it were permitted, to compel them—to practice repentance for their sins, to apply themselves untiringly to all virtues (the most excellent precepts of which he provides), and to endure most bravely and patiently, even unto death, the persecutions of tyrants, which were already imminent. That these things are of great utility to Christians, everyone sees.

However, if a judgment regarding the book of our author ^C is to be rendered according to the sharper wit of certain men of this age, one would immediately declare his style of speaking ill-suited and entirely inept for persuading the dogmas of our religion, which must never be taught by feigned dreams and false visions. We cannot, indeed, deny that Hermas could have used another method and a simpler style; yet for this reason, we deny that his work is to be decried or rejected, openly and plainly. For who would dare to scorn, on account of its style and manner of writing, a work which Fathers, most celebrated for their antiquity and doctrine, exalted with such great praises, and which most holy prelates desired to be read publicly in the churches and to be in everyone’s hands? It must therefore be said that Hermas wrote in this so singular style because he judged it to be most apt and effective for attracting and moving the minds of men, and for handing down his doctrine.

ARTICLE XII.

What then, you will say, can it be denied that this book was despised by the ancient Fathers and held for nothing? Certainly, Origen said in express words: *By some it is despised.* But Tertullian says: *The Scripture of the Shepherd alone loves the adulterers... and is judged by every council of the Churches, even yours, among the apocryphal and false.* Moreover, Jerome testifies that it is not only despised but also accused of folly: *That book*, he says, *is to be condemned for the folly of its apocryphal nature, in which it is written that a certain angel by the name of Tyri presides over reptiles.* Finally, Prosper, to a Collatore who brings up the authority of Hermas, replies: *But subsequently [he brings up] that testimony of no authority, which he inserted into his disputation from the booklet of the Shepherd.*

But if these testimonies of the Fathers are examined more diligently, it will become clearly plain, first, that Origen did not say who they were, by what name [they were called], or supported by what reasons, those who held this book in contempt [were]. But certainly, we gather from his own mind that they were obscure men, of no authority, and armed with no moments of reasoning, because that most learned man, as we have seen, thought the doctrine handed down in this same book to be divinely inspired.

As for Tertullian, it is certain that when he was writing these things, he had already fallen into the heresy of the Montanists; and therefore, it should be a wonder to no one if, at that time, he attempted to elude the authority of Hermas, objected to him by the Catholics, with empty contempt and an ineffective attempt. ^D

Furthermore, if you contend that what he himself added is true—that this scripture is judged by the Catholic Churches to be among the apocryphal and false—you will receive the response that he spoke thus in that sole sense, that he might signify that this work is not enumerated among the sacred books of Scripture, or, to use his words, that it is not inscribed in the divine instrument. For he could not af-

- ^A firm that this book is rejected by the Church as apocryphal and false — that is, erroneous, forged, and fabulous — without immediately being refuted by those very men whose testimonies we have adduced above to prove the truth and utility of the same book.

As for Jerome, he himself proclaims the same utility of this book in other lucubrations of his, published both before and after his Commentary on Habakkuk. He could not, therefore, accuse the whole of this book of folly. And in truth, he cast the mark of censorious severity upon only one place in it, where he thought the discourse concerned an angel presiding over reptiles. Indeed, it is not obscurely demonstrated from what is to be said below that the holy doctor chanced upon a corrupt manuscript, from which he could not attain the author's meaning.

Regarding the authority of Prosper, the answer is that this book, which, according to Jerome, was almost unknown among the Latins, was unknown to him as well. Nor can it be absurdly answered that Prosper bore witness that the book of Hermas itself, and not his testimony, was of no authority. Indeed, he perhaps used that word on purpose to show that a testimony brought forward from some place in this book by the Collator did not contribute to asserting his opinion.

ARTICLE XIII. How rashly these books are despised by certain moderns?

^B Since, therefore, so many Fathers of the Church, both most ancient and most learned, openly proclaim the utility of the books of Hermas and extol them with the greatest praises, who would not consider that the rashness of certain modern writers should be rebuked, by whom this book is not only held in the highest contempt but is even boldly repudiated as forged, and, as is likely, corrupted by heretics and filled with heresies and fables? But in truth, we have already proved with arguments not to be despised that it is the true and genuine offspring of Hermas, and therefore is rashly accused of being a forgery. ^C But it is false that it is filled with fables, since it contains only visions which, as we showed a little earlier, were not undeservedly and with full right made use of by the author. It is also false that this book was corrupted by heretics, as is clearly gathered from the various testimonies of the Fathers, taken from all its parts, which are found there in the same words as they were brought forward by them. Yet those same Fathers never complained of the corruptions of heretics, nor will any place ever be able to be pointed out that may have been corrupted by heretics.

ARTICLE XIV. That these books are not full of heresies, and first concerning the good and evil angel assigned to each man.

Finally, it is false that the same book is filled with heresies: a point which must be proved by us more at length. For Bellarmine and certain others accuse Hermas of error because he discourses there of two geniuses, or two angels, one good and the other evil, assigned by God to individual men. ^D Cassian, and before him Origen, took this error from this author. However, Cassian speaks of this opinion as if he believed it were confirmed not by the authority of Hermas, but by that of Holy Scripture. Next, Basil and Gregory of Nyssenus are of the same opinion regarding the two angels, in no way different from Hermas and Origen. The Master of the Sentences, moreover, disputes about it as in no way improbable. Estius, furthermore, asserts that it is uncertain. This opinion, therefore, is unjustly rejected by some others as a pernicious error. Whoever wishes to know more about this question should consult, if he likes, Gazæus on the cited place of Cassian, and in the same author's Collation 13, chapter 12; Maldonatus on chapter 18 of Matthew; Huet, book 2 of his *Origeniana*, question 5, § 30 and following.

Nor should it be overlooked that some have opined that this opinion pertains more to the fables of false religions than that it has a solid foundation in Christian doctrine. But to whom will it become credible that Hermas received that from pagans rather than from apostolic men, his contemporaries? If we argue from the principles of Ambrose and other very learned Fathers, about whom there will be an occasion to dispute elsewhere, it must be said on the contrary that the pagans drew all dogmas of this kind of doctrine from the fountains of our authors.

ARTICLE XV. That these books do not favor the Novatians.

The second error of which Hermas is accused is indeed of greater moment. For they say he discoursed on unique penance according to the errors of the Novatians, to which this book seems to entirely lean. But here it strikes one with wonder how differently learned men sometimes judge the one and same thing, and that not at all obscure. For Tertullian attributes to Hermas an opinion diametrically opposed to the Novatians. For in fact, having embraced the error of the Montanists, who felt the same as the Novatians regarding unique penance, he answers the Catholics who oppose the authority of Hermas to him with nothing else than that he was of a more indulgent sentiment and opinion than they: "I would yield to you," he says, "if the scripture of the Shepherd, which alone loves adulterers, had deserved... [to be] an adulteress herself, and thence a patroness of her associates." Yet both wander equally from the truth. And Tertullian, indeed, who hands down that Hermas, because he was neither a Montanist nor a Novatian, was of a gentler and more lenient opinion; while others assert that he went into the more severe and harshest heresy of the Novatians. But that these are indeed entirely false is proven by the fact that Hermas in his books aims especially at sinners for repentance, by whose help all may obtain remission—

of sins, and he urges them to practice it. For this reason the Pastor is everywhere called by him the Messenger, the one set over repentance, and he concludes his entire commentary with these words: ^A *And when the Lord had seen their good and pure repentance, and that they could persevere in it, He commanded their sins to be blotted out.* By which words the error of the Novatians is utterly overthrown.

However, it is objected that he said openly: *For the servants of God there is one repentance.* But the holy Fathers, who, as was said above, wrote out many testimonies from this book, suspected no Novatian poison to be lurking in it. Why, therefore, he said there is a single repentance cannot be more clearly explained than by the words of Ambrose, who argues against the Novatians themselves thus: *Rightly,* he says, *are they rebuked who think that repentance is to be practiced frequently... for just as there is one baptism, so there is one repentance, which is however performed publicly, for we ought daily to repent of sin: but the latter concerns lighter offenses, the former, graver ones.* Other holy Fathers agree with Ambrose, as we have observed at times regarding this passage of our teacher. Hermas therefore spoke in the same sense as Ambrose: *For the servants of God there is one repentance,* namely, the one which is performed publicly.

It might perhaps be objected more plausibly that the same Hermas wrote concerning the "deserters," that is, apostates from the Christian religion: *Deserters and those speaking impious things, and traitors of the servants of God, for them death is proposed, there is no repentance.* ^B For he seems there to teach the same thing as the Novatians did at the beginning of their heresy, that the power to remit sins for those who gave themselves up by certificates, for those who sacrificed, and for those who abjured the name of Christ, was in no way granted by God to the Church and her ministers. But we answer that the error of the Novatians always consisted in this, that they stubbornly contended that whatever repentance one might perform for these crimes, the ministers of the Church lacked the power to absolve them. But Hermas in no way denied this, inasmuch as he only said: *For them... there is no repentance,* that is, God will not grant them the occasion and power by which they might obtain forgiveness and absolution of sins; or, as he himself says: *He gave the spirit to those who were worthy to practice repentance... But for those whose deceit He saw, and perceived that they would fallaciously return to Him, He denied them a return to repentance.* Which Ambrose also, when he attacks the Novatians more sharply and argues about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, ^C says in a similar way: *Christ therefore denies that those who speak this way pertain to forgiveness.* And a little later, where he discusses heretics and schismatics: *To whom,* he says, *he denies indulgence.* For what else do these words mean than what Hermas says: *For them there is no repentance*?

^A If you insist that Hermas wrote elsewhere: *Those who have known the Lord, and have seen His wonders, if they live wickedly, shall be punished twice as much, and they themselves shall die forever,* it could indeed be answered that Hermas is speaking there of that sin which some of the Fathers, if Morinus is to be believed, denied could ever be forgiven. But to us, it seems more probable that the discourse there is held only concerning those who, persisting in the very will to sin until death, die in a final, as they say, impenitence.

ARTICLE XVI.

Rivetus and some other men of the Calvinist sect accuse Hermas of certain other errors, by which his sound and rather entire doctrine ought to be approved by all. For he argues that our author asserts, ^B against the consensus of the Apostle, free will, monastic solitude, and purgatory, revealed by a certain woman in a third vision. But in which places Hermas taught these two former heads of error, as Rivetus speaks, we read that some have indicated. What therefore might be asserted in these books against the consensus of the Apostle concerning free will, we cannot divine; unless perhaps it is that which Cassian reports in these words: *That liberty of the mind in either direction lies within man, even that book which is called the Pastor most clearly teaches, in which two angels are said to be attached to each of us, that is, a good one and an evil one; and it lies in the option of man to choose which he will follow.* ^C For from these words of the Pastor, Cassian infers two things. 1° "And therefore free will always remains in man, so that he can either neglect or love the grace of God," that is, according to his mind, to love the grace of God without any preventing grace. 2° "That all the seeds of virtuosity concerning the soul are naturally inherent in man, inserted by the benefit of the Creator." But these are the consequences of Cassian, by no means those of our author, who neither in the cited place nor elsewhere teaches anything about free will in which he might have departed a nail's breadth from the Apostle and orthodox doctrine.

What indeed Rivetus might mean by "monastic solitude" cannot easily be defined. And truly, if he understands by these words a monastery, or a monastic institution, there is not even a jot of that matter to be found in Hermas. But if Rivetus speaks of a Christian's retreat from worldly affairs and tumults, who would dare to deny that this is commended by the apostles and all the teachers of the Church?

^D Finally, if Hermas asserts purgatory anywhere, he is to be said to have established nothing surely except what is entirely sound and plainly orthodox. Yet, led by a sincere love of truth, we willingly admit that in the place of Hermas which Rivetus praises, it is not of purgatory, but

of penitence to be performed in this course of life, and of the punishments which in the same life are inflicted upon men for their sins, that I have instituted a discussion.

ARTICLE XVII.

Of the various editions and notes on these books.

Barthius, indeed, published animadversions on this book, but he is not undeservedly called by Cotelerius a "critic of the minor sort." And certainly his observations are hardly worthy of anyone spending time to read them. But the annotations of Cotelerius himself are truly worthy of the reader's attention, filled with varied erudition and doctrine. Some, however, are of less utility, and concern Hermas but little, nor do they contribute much to the explanation of his text.

ARTICLE XVIII.

New observations, and first of all on the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

For what, I ask, could more clearly and lucidly declare the supreme divinity of Christ than these words of our author: "The Son of God is indeed older than every creature, so that He was present in council with His Father for the founding of the creature." He who says that the Son of God is older than every creature, certainly declares that He is outside the number of all creatures, and above their condition and nature. And he who is outside the number of creatures, and above ^A their nature, is here without doubt asserted to be uncreated, eternal, and the supreme and highest God. For who is ignorant that there is absolutely nothing intermediate between the created and the uncreated, between God and the creature? Finally, he who hands down that the same Son of God was present with His eternal Father for the founding of the creature, surely asserts most firmly that He is co-eternal with His Father.

In the same sense, Hermas had said above: "In a servile condition the Son of God is not placed, but in great power and authority. For all creatures serve God, since all things, as the Psalmist sings of God, serve You." He therefore who is not placed in a servile condition, this one can neither be nor be called a creature. But he who cannot be or be called a creature, he is certainly God Himself.

But come now, if to all these you should add other things which we read written by our author concerning the same Son of God: "In great power and authority," he says; and elsewhere: "The name of the Son of God is great and immense, and the whole world is sustained by Him"; and immediately after: "Every creature of God is sustained through His Son," you must confess that in these words His supreme divinity is openly declared. For to whom, I pray you, could all those things apply, if not truly to the Son of God, who is of the same immensity, eternity, power, and nature as the Father?

Therefore, one must not listen to I know not what impious Socinian, who falsely objects to us that the Son of God is elsewhere called a servant by Hermas, who only after His death received all authority from the Father over His people. For is Hermas to be thought to have absurdly and foully contradicted himself when, in the same place, as we have seen, he said: "In a servile condition the Son of God is not placed"? What man of sound mind would ever dare to assert this, or even to imagine it in his thought and spirit? Who indeed, if he has ever read this place of our author with fair eyes, would not immediately note that both are correctly handed down and pronounced by him concerning the twofold nature of Christ, both human and divine? For as Christ is pronounced by him, according to His divine nature, older than every creature and not placed in a servile condition, so according to the human [nature] He is called the servant of God. And this, indeed, cannot be explained more clearly than in the words of Hermas himself: "This therefore," he says, "the body of Christ into which the Holy Spirit was inducted, served that Spirit, walking rightly in modesty and chastity, nor did it defile that Spirit at all... He called therefore the Son and good messengers; so that to this body, indeed, which served the Holy Spirit without complaint, some place of standing might be given, lest it should seem to have lost the reward of its servitude." But that same body of Christ also received after its death, and the human nature of the same, all authority over his people, even though Christ himself, who according to

^A his own divine substance had stood ready to contend with the Father, was, as to his nature, so also as to his power, always equal with Him. Since, therefore, the doctrine of our Hermas concerning the supreme divinity of Christ is sound, covered, and integral, and heretics have been able to babble nothing at all against it that is not plainly foolish and inept, one of them, nevertheless, has gnawed at a few of his words, by which he has wrongly attempted to prove that the divinity of the Holy Spirit was denied by him. These, moreover, are the things which he objects to us: "The Holy Spirit does not speak to man when he wants, but speaks when God wants." But if the wicked love of an erring sect had not blinded this Socinian man internally, he would have understood that this is the mind of our Hermas, and a sense easily obvious to all: "The Holy Spirit does not speak to man when man wants, but when God wants." But what, I ask, can be concluded from these words against the divinity of the Holy Spirit? Or rather, what can be concluded from them except to assert His divine nature? For there Hermas asserts that true prophets were inspired by the divine Spirit when He Himself willed it. But who does not know that the strenuous defenders of the Nicene faith used this as a most effective argument—not, indeed, without merit—to defeat the Arians and to unconquerably champion the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the Macedonians?

ARTICLE XIX. Whether the dead apostles preached the name of the Son of God to those who were in the underworld.

This passage of Hermas, therefore, being by far more difficult and obscure—though it is cited once and again by Clement of Alexandria—is held as follows: "The apostles and teachers, who preached the name of the Son of God, having the faith and power of the Son of God, preached to those who had died before, and they gave them that seal. They therefore went down into the water with them, and again they went up; but these went up alive, while those who had died before indeed went down dead, but went up alive. By them, therefore, they received life, and came to know the Son of God; and therefore they went up with them." This word "seal" here sounds like nothing other than baptism, since Hermas immediately adds, "they went down into the water." But since no one can be washed by baptism unless in this life and unless by living men, and yet here it is said that the apostles were baptizing and that the ones being baptized by them were the dead and those released from the body, it must be the case that this concerns only a spiritual baptism. This surely does not diminish the difficulty of the passage, but increases it greatly. ^D For it is certain that Christ, after His death, descended into the underworld. Whence Augustine: "Who, unless an infidel, would deny that Christ was in the underworld?" It is also certain that Christ then manifested Himself to the patriarchs and just men living there, as is understood from these words of the apostle Peter: "Christ having been put to death in the flesh... in which He came and preached to those spirits who were in prison, who were disobedient," etc. In what way, therefore, could Hermas say, "The apostles and teachers preached the name of the Son of God... to those who died before... and they came to know the Son of God?"

Clement of Alexandria seems indeed to cut the knot of the difficulty when, having cited the words of our author, he says that Christ announced the Gospel to the Hebrews in the underworld, but the apostles to those from the Gentiles who were apt for conversion. And it was rightly said by the Shepherd: "They therefore went down into the water," etc. But if Clement seems to untie this difficult knot by this explanation, he certainly falls into another one that is far more difficult. For he teaches that Hermas thought that many of the just men among the Gentiles—when the apostles had preached Christ to them—were liberated from the underworld and gifted by Christ with eternal happiness. Which opinion is indeed repudiated by Augustine as altogether erroneous. Furthermore, Hermas makes no distinction between Hebrews and Gentiles; indeed, he speaks openly of the Hebrews, prefigured by the stones X, XXV, and XXX, with whom the apostles, figured by the fortieth stone, went down and preached to them the name of the Son of God. ^C Wherefore we think—while keeping due reverence for Clement—that the passage of Hermas is to be explained in another sense, namely, the same sense in which Augustine interpreted the words of Peter mentioned above. For truly, when Evodius had demanded of him that those things be explained, Augustine first sets out how great the difficulties are in that place. Then he responds, that by those words of Peter, "To those who were in the flesh, to the spirits," can be understood those who were then in the flesh and were, as it were, shut up in the prison of the darkness of ignorance. And yet he did not think that it could be objected to him that Christ had not yet come in the flesh. Because, says the holy doctor: "He Himself indeed was coming not in the flesh, but in the spirit, with suitable visions, speaking to whom He wished, as He wished." Therefore, in the same sense as Augustine, Hermas could say that the apostles and teachers preached to those who died before, that is, those who had died to the darkness, to ignorance, to infidelity, and to incredulity.

But, you will ask, why then does Hermas add concerning the apostles: "They preached the name of the Son of God... when they had died?" Why should we not also understand this "death" of the apostles in a spiritual sense? Since, of course, their old man had been crucified and died with Christ, and the body of sin destroyed, as Paul spoke. And certainly this interpretation of Hermas's words is confirmed by the fact that he immediately adds: "But these went up alive." Which indeed he himself interpreted concerning the spiritual life, adding: "They received life; and they came to know the Son of God." Finally, from what has been said, it is certain that Hermas is speaking here about spiritual baptism, that is, the knowledge of the Son of God. Why then should this whole passage not be understood in a spiritual sense...

if, at the very least, certain parts of it cannot be explained in any other sense? But as we do not dare to assert categorically that this is the genuine meaning of Hermas's words, so too we will not object to the explanation of anyone who might interpret them in a literal sense, provided it is alien to any error.

ARTICLE XX. Whether Hegrin is the name of an angel.

Another passage of our author appears there, obscure and difficult, where he relates that when he had encountered a monstrous beast, he heard from a virgin, who was a figure of the Church: *The Lord has sent his angel over the beast, whose name is Hegrin, and he has shut its mouth, so that it might not tear you.* Some assume that Jerome persuaded himself that Hegrin is an angel's name—which, indeed, appeared so ridiculous and foolish to them that they branded our author's book with this reproach: “That apocryphal book is to be condemned for folly, in which it is written that a certain angel named Tyri presides over reptiles.” Others, however, have thought that this is so abhorrent to Jerome’s mind that they have claimed he wrote these things about some apocryphal and lost book. And, in fact, what is there in these words that can be accused of folly? Is it because in that way of speaking it is affirmed that an angel presides over reptiles? But both the ancient Fathers (especially Origen in several places) and the scholastic doctors after the divine Thomas teach this, for he says: *Every visible thing in this world has an angelic power set over it.* Is it because he called the angel by the name Tyri? If the matter stands thus, either there is an error in the editions of Jerome’s works, or he himself used a corrupt manuscript codex, since in all others and in the editions we read *Hegrin*. Cotelerius therefore strains all the nerves of his mind ^B to investigate and explore why the angel is called *Hegrin*. But after he had labored long and much, he finally confesses frankly that, without better codices, one can hardly bring forward anything certain.

The most rich library of the most illustrious Colbert, however, has supplied us with a codex—not indeed an ancient manuscript, since it does not exceed 300 years—which seems to exhibit the true reading that Cotelerius had sought in vain, by the change of a single little letter. For thus we read in it: *The Lord has sent his angel over the beast, whose name is Hegrin.* From this, we gather that *Hegrin* is not the name of the angel, but of the beast. But why Hermas called it thus, you might rightly conjecture if you note that the word *Hegrin* is the same as the Greek *agrios*, that is, *untamed, ferocious, or wild*, and *beast*; and it is therefore probable that Hermas alluded to these words of the Psalmist: *The singular wild beast (monos agrios) has pastured upon it* [Ps. LXXIX, 14], namely, the vine. For he indeed declares in that same place that this beast is a figure of the persecution to come. Wherefore, when he added there that the angel is over the beast, that is, over the wild beast that was to come, he meant nothing else but that this same angel was set in charge by God to defend and watch over the Christians against the imminent persecution of tyrants.

ARTICLE XXI. Whether the angels created all things.

The third passage of Hermas that requires some explanation concerns all the angels. For when he had said that the angels are the first among the creatures whom God created, he then adds: *These are the angels who were the first established, to whom the Lord delivered his whole creation to instruct, to build, and to rule over that creation.* For the word *instruct*, in the codex of Saint-Germain-des-Prés—described eight hundred years ago—and also in the Colbertine codex cited above, the word *create* is exhibited. Which reading, if it be true, makes Hermas seem to fall into that error which the most ancient heretics drew from Plato and Philo the Jew, namely, that the angels were the first of all things created by God, and that from him they received the power to create all other things thereafter. But Hermas is certainly not easily exempted from this error. First, the codices that represent the word *create* omit another, namely, *power* or something similar. Therefore, by whatever carelessness the scribes omitted that word, by the same they could have changed another. Then, indeed, even if Hermas used the word *create*, he must be said to have used it not in the stricter sense for the production of a creature out of nothing, as the scholastics speak, but in the broader sense, more customary to Latin authors, for simple production and institution. And this ought not to seem strange to anyone, since Ambrose said in the same sense: *Whatever is made, the same is also created.* Which, indeed, could easily be proven by many other examples.

ARTICLE XXII. Who are called doctors and presidents of the ministries.

There will perhaps not be wanting those to whom these words of our author concerning the holy ministers of the Church will seem thorny: *Bishops, and doctors, and ministers... exercised the episcopate, taught and ministered.* In the third book, however: *Such are those who believed, certain bishops, that is, presidents of the churches... And then they protected, and held a chaste conversation forever.* For who those doctors and presidents of the ministries are, it will not immediately occur to everyone. But these things will become clearer if that which is called into doubt by no one is observed, namely, that deacons are everywhere called by the holy Fathers solely by the name of ministers. From this, indeed, it is gathered that the doctors, who are placed intermediate between the bishops and the ministers, are without doubt those ^D who are the presidents of the ministries, who provided for the needy and widows.

But why are presbyters called doctors? If you ask, you will learn from Dionysius of Alexandria, who, in the same sense as Hermas, said in Eusebius: ^A *Having called together the presbyters and teachers of the brothers in the villages.* Having gathered the presbyters and teachers, who preached to the brothers throughout the individual villages. For what else do these words imply, if not that presbyters were in charge of the individual villages—that is, of the parishes of the villages—and, because they preached there with the brothers, were called doctors? Chrysostom explains this much more clearly and briefly: *For to the presbyters of the Church, he says, has been entrusted both the care and the magistracy (teaching).* As for what pertains to the presidents of the ministries, they were perhaps also presbyters. For Hermas had said a little before concerning the deacons: *The ministers ministered badly.* ^B But from them he came to the presbyters, who, being superior to the deacons, he called the presidents of the ministries. If, however, anyone contends that those same presidents of the ministries are none other than the deacons, because they themselves were ministers and ought to be in charge of the ministries of the poor and widows, we will not entirely disagree.

ARTICLE XXIII.

Concerning dry-eating (xerophagia).

Others will ask why the Pastor ordered Hermas to undergo such a severe fast: *That day,* he says, *on which you will fast, you will taste nothing at all except bread and water.* Jerome indeed confesses that this is the strongest of all fasts. Yet it was formerly customary for Christians to observe it in the final week of Lent. Nor are there wanting those who think this xerophagia was prescribed by some law; ^C and they try to prove this from Tertullian, who, having embraced the heresy of the Montanists, said concerning the Catholics: *They rebuke us, because we also observe xerophagiae,* etc. But this same Tertullian added: *Finally, you respond (naturally, the Catholics) that these are to be observed by choice, not by command.* Therefore, by no law were such fasts enjoined, if we are to believe Tertullian; rather, they were observed by the discretion of each individual. Wherefore, Epiphanius refers these matters to custom, not to precept, in this way: *Moreover, the entire populace has become accustomed to spend those six days in xerophagiae, that is, on a dry diet, which is to take only bread with water in the evening.* If these xerophagiae had been established by the issuance of a law, he would have written concerning them as he did concerning the fast of the fourth and sixth days: *Likewise, a fast is enjoined on the fourth and sixth days until the ninth hour... Therefore the apostles had decreed that on those days there should be fasting.* But, he says, the law mentions this elsewhere: *What if,* he used to say, *the authority for us is to be sought from the apostles' constitution; why is the fast of the fourth and sixth day sanctioned for them by a perpetual law, except for Pentecost? Why, during the six days of Pascha, is nothing at all to be eaten except bread, salt, and water—are these defined as things to be used?* In those cases, certainly, he declared both fasts, as well as the fourth and sixth days, and the six days of Pascha, to be sanctioned by the same law and apostolic constitution. Nevertheless, when the same Epiphanius disputes against the Aerians, who condemned set fasts, although he should have urged this precept most strongly, he reduces it to a mere custom thus: *Furthermore, during the very days of Pascha... we are accustomed to celebrate with the use of dry foods, prayers, vigils, and fasts...* From which you may perhaps not absurdly conclude that the word *praecipimus* (“we command”), which he used above, signifies nothing other than that they admonish or exhort, but do not prescribe, order, or command. ^D For the confirmation of this explanation, one cannot only bring forward that historians report there to have been various customs of the Churches regarding these fasts, but truly also that, by the same witnesses, something of the severity of this fast was, in some churches at least, relaxed a little later. For the author of the *Apostolic Constitutions* readily concedes that salt and greens be added to bread and water: *During the days of Pascha, therefore, beginning to fast from the second day until the Preparation and the Sabbath, for six days using only bread, salt, greens, and water to drink.*

ARTICLE XXIV.

Concerning the marriage bond never being dissolved.

Let us proceed from the obscure places of Hermas to those which, by their own light and clarity, can illustrate the question concerning the never-to-be-dissolved bond of matrimony, which Augustine called most obscure, most involved, and most difficult. For Hermas teaches that it is not right for a man who has dismissed his adulterous wife to take another in marriage while she is alive: *If the woman persists,* he says, *in her vice, let the man dismiss her, and let him remain alone himself. But if he dismisses his wife and takes another, he also commits adultery.* By these words of Hermas, certain people are refuted, especially Chemnitz, who audaciously asserts that this question was discussed more dreadfully after the times of Augustine. But the Fathers who were more ancient than the same Augustine, he says, were not so harsh, hard, dreadful, and cruel as to deny an innocent spouse the possibility of entering into another union; but they taught, he says, that it is more right, more excellent, and more perfect if even he who has been separated from an adulteress either remains without a spouse or receives back the reconciled wife. But Hermas, who, although far more ancient than Augustine, none the less defined such unions as adulteries in the same way he did. The same is asserted by Athenagoras and Justin, as we shall see in their proper places, and also by Clement of Alexandria. Finally, this is confirmed by Origen himself, and by Jerome, whom Chemnitz produced for the confirmation of his own opinion. For he objects with these words of Origen: *I know some...*

who preside over churches, who have permitted something beyond Scripture to allow a person to marry while their former spouse is alive. But he himself immediately adds: *And they have indeed acted against Scripture, which says: "The wife is bound," etc.* We do not deny that they are in some measure excused by Origen, who subjoined [immediately]: *Yet they did not permit this altogether without reason; for perhaps, because of this sort of infirmity of incontinent human beings, they permitted [it] because of a comparison with worse [evils], against those things which were written from the beginning.* But that most learned man does not, as you see, absolve them of blame. Yet he considers them to be excused only in that, so that a lesser evil might be avoided in order to avoid a greater one, they permitted it. However, he asserts that this permission, however just it may appear, is repugnant to the authority of Holy Scripture; and consequently, he signifies not obscurely that such marriages are proscribed and condemned by the same Scripture.

Hieronymus, however, whom Chemnitz also objects to us, stands against him still much more clearly than Origen. For where he writes to Oceanus in [Epistle] 30, that Fabiola had married another man while her former husband was still living, because she had persuaded herself and thought that her husband had been lawfully dismissed by her, he immediately subjoins: *Nor did she know the rigor of the Gospel, in which every cause for marrying is amputated while the husbands are living.* He then narrates how Fabiola performed public penance for this second marriage, just as if she had committed adultery. And not only does Jerome there teach that these marriages are prohibited by Holy Scripture, but he also declares it openly and plainly in his Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew.

A real difficulty, we must not deny, arises from these words of Epiphanius: *But to whom one who is dead does not suffice, when, because of some occasion of whoredom and adultery or some other flagrant wickedness (κακῆς αἰτίας), he has made a divorce with her, if such a one takes another wife, or a woman has married another man, the authority of the sacred writings absolves them from all blame; nor does it reject them from the Church or from eternal life, but deems them to be tolerated on account of their weakness.* Therefore, the most learned Petavius thinks this passage of Epiphanius is corrupted: yet he admits that the same Epiphanius there subscribed to the opinion of certain ancient writers, to whom such marriages seemed permitted to innocent spouses after a legitimate divorce. But if the passage of Epiphanius is corrupt, what certainty can be concluded from it? Moreover, Epiphanius discusses those second marriages which he affirms were permitted not only for the cause of whoredom and adultery, but for any flagrant wickedness whatsoever (κακῆς αἰτίας). But certainly, it will never be proved to anyone, I think, that Epiphanius allowed an innocent spouse to enter another marriage against the authority of Scripture because of the flagrant wickedness of any other spouse. It is therefore more probable that ^A Epiphanius was there discussing the contraction of nuptials after the death of a spouse; or that nothing certain can be defined from his text until it is corrected. It is certain, therefore, that this was the opinion of the Fathers even before the age of Augustine, that marriage could never be dissolved by anyone for any cause. If, indeed, anything is brought forward that was done or written to the contrary, it was a toleration of some lesser evil whereby another greater sin might be avoided, or at any rate some abuse, disapproved by all others.

Wherefore our adversaries appeal to the divine authority of Matthew, who states in express words: *Everyone who puts away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery; and: He commits adultery; and he who marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery.* But if you say that neither Mark, nor Luke, nor Paul, who speak about this dismissal of a wife, have made mention of this exception anywhere, and that [that exception] is of such moment that, if it had been posited by Christ, it would never have been omitted by them; those men will immediately reply that, unless it had been added by Christ, Matthew would never have handed it down so expressly. But whatever may be said about their sacred text, it is certain that there is no conflict among them as divine writers, nor any dissension at all. Since, therefore, there is one consensus of them all, we think they can be reconciled in such a way that this exception of Matthew, *except for the cause of fornication*, is not to be referred to the word *puts away*, but to the word *marries another*. Wherefore there will be no other sense of the words of Matthew than that the power was given by Christ to that man whose wife is an adulteress, to put her away, but not to marry another. In which sense he does not differ from Paul and the others, who admit that there are several causes for which spouses can be separated from one another.

You will persist, however, [saying] that if the exception is referred to the word *puts away*, there will be no other cause of divorce according to Matthew except fornication or adultery. Yet from Paul, and even from our Hermas, and the rest of the Fathers, there are other—and indeed more—causes for which spouses can be joined apart from one another. The exception of Matthew, therefore, ought necessarily to be referred not to the word *puts away*, but to the word *marries another*. The whole force of this argument rests on the fact that Matthew made mention of only one exception. But we respond that he mentioned only one not that he might exclude the others, which Paul and the others commemorate, but because that one was the greatest of them all and the most grievous. He therefore omitted other exceptions with prudent silence because they were lighter, because they demanded a separation for a shorter time, and because, finally, his intent was to commend the marriage bond—which is most tight and which is never to be dissolved by any man—to all [as something] more and more [to be honored] by the commemoration of one primary and preeminent exception. ^{B C D}

ARTICLE XXV. Of the apocryphal book concerning Heldam and Modal.

Before we take our hand from the tablet, we shall give a few words of warning that the book concerning Heldam and Modal is praised by Hermas; these were two men whose mention is made in the sacred books of Numbers. But the Athanasian Synopsis and the Stichometry, superadded to the Chronography of Nicephorus, relegate this same book to the apocrypha. Furthermore, we note these things so that the antiquity of this book, which exceeds the age of our author, may be observed by everyone.

J. B. COTELERIUS' JUDGMENT ON THE SHEPHERD OF S. HERMAS

(Apostolic Fathers, ed. Amsterdam, 1724, vol. I, p. 73)

That which is wont to happen in human judgments, that some attribute more than is proper, others less, while a third group keeps to moderation and equity; if I were to pronounce that this has happened in the case of the book of Hermas, I would not fear that I might be considered to have strayed from the path of truth. For those who have inserted the Shepherd into the catalogue of divine Scriptures have certainly exceeded the bounds of what is right, since today it is read by the whole Church outside the Canon. But that opinion belonged to certain Churches of those in Greece, among whom, as Jerome testifies in his treatise *On Illustrious Men*, after Eusebius’ *History*, bk. III, ch. 3, it was read publicly. For it becomes credible that a part of the Church held the work to be canonical, and a part to be ecclesiastical: concern- ^A ing the latter, the testimonies of Athanasius in his *Paschal Letter* and of Rufinus *on the Symbol* do not allow us to doubt; just as the former is confirmed both by authors who recount the writing of Hermas among doubtful volumes, which were admitted by some and rejected by others; and by ancient hand-written codices of the Bibles, some of which also include the Shepherd, as that of the library of Saint-Germain, as well as by ancient hand-written Stichometries, which similarly contain Hermas; such as exists in that same most rich library, and in the library treasury of the most Christian King, edited above in the prolegomena to S. Barnabas; and finally by the teachers of the Church who accede to the same opinion. For Irenaeus seems to cite it as Scripture. Clement of Alexandria hints that it is a divine revelation. Tertullian, in his book *On Prayer*, ch. 12, does not disapprove of its veneration, provided that superstition be absent. Catholics, in the same Tertullian’s book *On Modesty*, oppose it to the Montanists to confirm the authority of the faith: just as, in Athanasius, the Catholics use it against the Arians. Origen thinks it is divinely inspired Scripture, although he does not wish it to cause prejudice to those who think otherwise. Cassian finally mixes testimonies derived from it with sacred texts.

But on the opposite side, much of the honor due to the Shepherd of Hermas is taken away by Tertullian of the ancients. That man, changed in a wondrous degree by the deceptions of the Montanists from that Tertullian who was the author of the orthodox book *On Prayer*, ^B assails the Shepherd’s writing in his work *On Modesty* as a heretic, calling it apocryphal, false, adulterous; a lover, patron, and companion of adulterers; and asserting that it is expelled from every council of the Churches, even our Catholic ones, and from the divine Instrument. Where the error of some person regarding Nonnus is laughable, as if Tertullian were dealing with the woman taken in adultery mentioned by John the Evangelist at the beginning of chapter VIII. Those who hold the book of the Shepherd in contempt think no less honorably than they should of Origen. I omit Prosper, for it is not surprising that a man living among his own Latins, among whom Jerome reports that the Shepherd was almost unknown, should have attributed no authority to a work unknown to him. I also pass over Eusebius, Jerome, Gelasius, and Nicephorus CP., who number it among the spurious and apocryphal. ^C Now regarding those titles, I have already put forth my opinion on what they signify in the notes on Barnabas. Yet I would now wish to add to what was said there, concerning that division of Scripture into canonical, doubtful, and apocryphal; that some work, neither of a false name nor of harmful doctrine, can be called apocryphal, which is placed outside the Canon by all the Churches. And with that signification, I think, the Shepherd of Hermas is apocryphal to Nicephorus CP. I come to the more recent ones; men, as it seems to me, of hard forehead. For who, I ask, would not be astonished when he reads the judgments of some regarding a volume celebrated so greatly by so many and such great men? These declare the book to be most excellent and most useful. But those others defame and harass it as a fountain of the Novatians and Pelagians, as a whirlpool of Montanist superstitions, and furthermore as a supporter of the Arians; as fabulous; as (oh, great crimes!) an establisher of free will, of monastic solitude, and even of purgatory; as conspicuous by the crudity of its Christianity and the relics of paganism; as pseudepigraphical and supposititious; as other than that which the Holy Fathers once used in their hands; and finally as barbarian and interpolated by heretics, with errors and fables inserted. These accusations and similar ones, based on a frivolous or non-existent foundation, when we have arrived at those places, if it shall have seemed necessary, God willing, we shall not leave without refutation. The middle course, therefore, they have held, both in the past and...

recently, whoever have judged the Shepherd of ^A Hermas to be a work, not indeed canonical, but ecclesiastical, and of excellent quality, and a bulwark of the Catholic faith against the harshness of Montanus; and furthermore, the offspring of Hermas, that apostolic man (for no reason proves the contrary), whom Paul in the end of the Epistle to the Romans bids to be greeted. For those who substitute Hermes or Hermas in that place, or confuse both, seem to be deceived by the fable of the *Liber Pontificalis*, where, in the likeness of Hermas, some Hermes is imagined, the brother of Pope Pius I, the writer of the book that contained the Command of the angel, seen in the habit of a shepherd, concerning celebrating Easter on the Lord's Day. This fiction many have embraced, and especially I know not what poet lurking under the honest name of Tertullian, in Book III *Against Marcion*, at the end; also the fabricator of the epistles of Pope Pius, ep. 1; Bede, Ado, and others in their Chronicles and Martyrologies; and furthermore the author of the *Catalogus Pontificum Romanorum*, edited by Egidius Bucherius in his Commentary on the Paschal Canon of Victor, which perhaps on account of pseudo-Damasus should be corrected. But it was also easy for scribes to change Hermas to Hermes, and Hermes conversely to Hermas. And so, perhaps, in the *Master of the Sentences*, Book IV, dist. 35, n. 5, from Hermas was made Hermes: similarly in Rufinus’s interpretation of Origen, Book I *De Principiis*, ch. 3, and Book IV, ch. 2. Finally, in that last place, the first chapter of the *Philocalia* shows *Hermas*. And on the other hand, perhaps the aforementioned poet had written *Hermes*, not *Hermas*, unless perhaps the error which the pseudo-Pius seems to have committed was that he held Hermes and Hermas to be one and the same. Nor with a dissimilar, although different, depravation do the editions of St. Jerome’s book *On Hebrew Names*, in the chapter on the Epistle to the Romans, exhibit *Ermon*, anathematizing "grief"; whereas both the thing itself, and the chapters on Numbers and the Acts of the Apostles, persuade that *Ermen* should be restored: although *Ermon* is also explained in the same sense in the chapters on Deuteronomy and Joshua (where *Emon* wrongly appears) and on the Psalter.

Now truly a question arises from the more obscure words of Rufinus on the Creed. Which, if they are distinguished thus: "The little book which is called of the Shepherd or of Hermas, which is called the Two Ways or the Judgment of Peter"; our one book will bear four names: Shepherd, Hermas, Two Ways, Judgment of Peter. But if, where a comma is seen, a greater distinction is placed, two dots or a dot with a comma, two bi-nominal books will be constituted, one of the Shepherd or of Hermas, the other of the Two Ways or the Judgment of Peter. For my part, I do not doubt that different volumes existed: I suspect rather that it was written by Rufinus, "The little book which is called of the Shepherd or of Hermas; and which is called the Two Ways or the Judgment of Peter." The reasons why I do not confuse the works are these: 1. Concerning one little book he would have spoken thus: "Which is called of the Shepherd, or of Hermas, or of the Two Ways, or of the Judgment of Peter." 2. In the whole Shepherd, there is not even a word about Peter. 3. It offers too few things about the two ways at the beginning of the sixth mandate for it to receive its name from that.

^B Certainly there is much more among Barnabas and in the *Apostolic Constitutions*, which do not give this denomination to those writings. 4. Clearly St. Jerome in his *Catalogue* distinguishes the *Judgment of Peter* from Hermas's *Shepherd*: for he discusses the former under Peter, the latter under Hermas. And these things to Rufinus. From the words of Origen, however, Book IV *De Principiis*, ch. 2, in *Philocalia* ch. 1, p. 22: "For this reason we also explain that which is in the book 'The Shepherd,' which is despised by some, where Hermas is commanded to write two books, and after these he himself announces to the elders of the Church what he had learned from the Spirit." From this, I say, discourse, learned men have conjectured that the *Shepherd* had been illustrated by commentaries by Origen. Although he speaks only of the present exposition, which indeed he subjoins in the same place immediately after the testimony of Hermas. There is also another error of some, so crass that it does not even need refutation. They say that by Jerome, in the *Prologus Galeatus*, the *Shepherd* is not understood as the book of Hermas, but the third book of Maccabees, using a twisted and far-fetched deduction from *pastados* or *pastidos*. Although from other places of Jerome and of others the matter is most manifest.

Finally, Barthius, whose many animadversions on our author we have, while he slips in many places, he also commits a crime against that ancient version in four ways. First, by calling it rustic, semi-barbarous, semi-ancient: which it is by no means. Another, rashly and without any reason, nay against all reason, by affirming that it is an epitome rather than an interpretation. But it is clear that the matter is otherwise from the agreement of the texts brought forward by the ancients. Indeed, those things seem to be cited from the *Shepherd* by Clement, *Strom.* II, pag. 384: "Faith indeed comes before, fear builds up, but love brings to perfection." ^C Faith indeed precedes, but fear builds up, and love perfects; which are not found there; but they are Clement's, interspersing his own amidst the Hermaic. The third crime: when he prophesies with futile conjectures that it was written after the times of Jerome, and by Anastasius ^D the Librarian. Be it so, let us concede that it everywhere smacks of barbarism: shall we for the same reason ascribe the most ancient interpretation of Irenæus to Anastasius? But Jerome testifies that the volume of Hermas was unknown to most Latins of his time! What then? But much earlier it was most known to the African people; inasmuch as from the reading of it a custom had grown of sitting down for the assigned prayer, to use the words of Tertullian. But among Latin Catholics, in the time of Zephyrinus and the same Tertullian, it was used to strangle the impiety of Montanus. Certainly, before Anastasius, it is mentioned by Jerome, Rufinus, Cassian, Gelasius, Bede, and Walfrid Strabo, Latin writers. Is it necessary

that all these should have read it in Greek, and not from our interpreter? I pass over the remaining points of Barthius, lighter than dust and wind, to touch upon his final error. It consists in the fact that he attributes to John Tarinus the opinion—which that very learned man called *oude kat' onar*—that he assigned the Latin translation of the Shepherd to Rufinus as if it were to the first chapter of the Philocalia. Just as we cannot assert anything for certain, so we suspect that in the early ages of the Church, the Latins were not without a translation of this most praiseworthy work; but that it was different from ours, nothing compels us to say. However, before I take my hand from this, I wish to warn you, reader, that the chapter headings are absent from the manuscript codices which I have used: and in the marginal notes, which I saw fit to append to the text, the letter G signifies the codex of St. Germain, the letter V the codex of St. Victor; with a mere asterisk, before the eighth chapter of the third vision of the first book, both codices are indicated, and thereafter only the Victorine. Added in this edition are various readings from an ancient codex of the Discalced Carmelites in the suburbs of Paris; these could be read at the end of the entire volume in the Paris edition. Added also are those readings found at the bottom of the page of the Oxford edition of 1685, from the Bodleian and Lambeth library codices.

GALLANDI’S PROEMIUM TO S. HERMAS

^A CAP. I. Who and of what kind Hermas was. He must be distinguished from Hermas, who is said to have been bishop of Dalmatia, and from Hermas the Pastor, brother of Pius I. Clement of Rome is followed by Hermas, a man also apostolic, celebrated not only by the most ancient of the Fathers, but also greeted by the Apostle in his epistle to the Romans, before Paul himself had reached Rome. But our Hermas must be carefully distinguished from Hermas or Hermes—who indeed were distinguished by the same Apostle, both by the variety of the name and by the fact itself, with Patrobas placed between them. For in the passage cited he says: "Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren." The former of these, if we are to believe Pseudo-Dorotheus and Hippolytus, is said to have been bishop of Philippopolis; the latter, bishop of Dalmatia. Each must also, by a better right, be separated from Hermes the Pastor, of Aquileia, brother of St. Pius I, under whose pontificate, nearly a hundred years after Paul, he wrote the book *De Paschate*, now lost or at least hitherto undiscovered. But very learned men, Nourry, Fontanini, and others, have long since produced more on these matters; to whom, therefore, so that my discourse may not run on longer than is fitting, we refer our readers. In the meantime, however, led by the authority of ancient and especially of modern writers, we think it must be asserted that the work inscribed *The Shepherd* belongs to the Hermas whom Paul greeted immediately before Patrobas; most especially because the author everywhere in the book itself assumes the name Hermas, not Hermis or Hermes. That the writer was an Italian, and perhaps even a Roman, or at least lived for a long time among the Latins, many traces found here and there in his work testify. ^B For from the very beginning it has this: "He who had brought me up sold a certain maid at Rome. But after many years I recognized her when I saw her, and began to love her as a sister. After some time had passed, I saw her being washed in the river Tiber," etc. Describing also his travels and his stopping-places, he mentions Cumae; for in the cited passage, for "cum his" ("with them"), it seems that Cotelerius rightly conjectured that "Cumis" ("at Cumae") should be read. He also mentions the Campanian Way, and likewise Arcadia: whence no small light is added to our conjecture; and I should think such words as these confirm it equally: "When," he says, "I was walking in the field, and was observing an elm and a vine... I am debating about this vine and elm." To illustrate this passage of Hermas, the explanation of the Virgilian hemistich applied by Cotelerius is apt: "He spoke," he says, "according to the situation of Italy; in which vines are grown higher." Thus elsewhere: "The same vintage does not hang on our trees." To these I would especially wish you to add that Hermas, writing in Greek, used the word *statio*—*staseōs*—to indicate a fast in the manner of the Latins: a, thing which, in that sense, the aforementioned learned man mentions that he has never read as being used by the Greeks. Nor indeed does Du Cange produce any example of this word accepted with the same meaning among the Greeks, nor does Petavius, cited by him. ^C Furthermore, that Hermas was once rich, and had taken a wife from whom he had children, who nevertheless was to be his sister; so indeed

she, having been separated from the marital bond, no longer performed the duties of a wife, the author himself attests. But the main point of the matter is that our Hermas was a presbyter of the Roman Church at the time he was writing his work, the *Shepherd*; a fact that Dodwell has rightly inferred 18. "For the author himself," says that critic, "is commanded to transcribe two copies of his Revelations 19: one to be transmitted to outside churches to Clement, the other to Graptè, to be read to the widows and orphans instructed under the care of the widows; but his own third copy, he, Hermas, was expected to read to the elders or presbyters of the Roman Church. Just as, therefore, it was the duty of Clement, the bishop of the Roman Church, to send the little book to the rest of the bishops of foreign churches, and for the widow Graptè to read it to her fellow widows and orphans, so indeed it was consistent that Hermas, who was to announce it to the presbyters of the Roman Church, was himself likewise a presbyter of the same Church." So far that learned man. Furthermore, it pleased Mosheim to note 20 a few other things about our Hermas, which, however, it is not of great importance to recount.

CAP. II. The work of Hermas, inscribed SHEPHERD. Concerning its Greek fragments, and the ancient Latin version.

It seems more worthy of note that Hermas, in describing his visions, appears to have imitated the prophet Zechariah; and indeed, "it is believed that he composed his work in such a singular style, which he judged to be most suitable and effective for attracting and moving the minds of men, and for handing down his doctrine," as the learned man conjectures 21. The learned Dodwell, however, thought otherwise 22. But his book is called by the ancient Fathers, whether Greek or Latin, the *Shepherd* or the book of the *Shepherd*; from which perhaps this kind of denomination is derived, because in almost the entire work the Shepherd is introduced speaking to and instructing Hermas. But now it is distinguished into three books, of which the first comprises four Visions, the second twelve Mandates, and the third ten Similitudes. This division, however, is to be ascribed to later editors; since neither the manuscript copies nor ancient writers acknowledge it; indeed, Cotelerius and others have observed that the chapter headings are absent from the surviving manuscripts.

That this work was first written in Greek, no one ignores; it is to be lamented, however, that the text has long since perished through the injury of time, so that only a few places remain, interwoven into the works of the older Greek Fathers. By means of these scraps, and especially by those fragments which occur quite frequently in the *Doctrine to Antiochus the Duke*—among the supposititious works of Athanasius, first published by the most learned Montfaucon—this loss can in some way be repaired. Regarding this pseudo-Athanasian work, it will have been of service to hear the illustrious editor 23. "The *Doctrine to Antiochus the Duke*," he says, "though it is the invention of an idle man, is yet precious and commendable on this account, that it exhibits to us in Greek a great part of the book of the *Shepherd*, which has long since perished in Greek; and indeed [the text is] so pure, and so consistent with the Latin *Shepherd* of Hermas, that it is evident it was for the most part transcribed from it word for word. For, in the first place, this writer represents Antiochus coming to St. Athanasius on account of bodily infirmity, so that he might together with him lessen his ailment through his prayers, and prepare a way to repentance through his admonitions. Athanasius, after he was restored to health, hands down to him twelve Mandates, which are nothing other than those twelve Mandates of the *Shepherd* of Hermas, of which the second book consists, yet in such a way that he does not always produce them whole, but with some things removed. Then many other things from the same book are stitched on here and there, and finally he narrates the great and long vision of Antiochus, which he likewise borrowed from the third book of the *Shepherd*. This little work, therefore, although at first glance it may seem to be of little value, is nevertheless of the greatest moment, since it supplies us with many and long fragments of that book, which was published in the age of the apostles and mentioned with praise by so many Fathers." So far the aforementioned scholar.

Although the Greek text of Hermas has indeed perished, a complete Latin interpretation survives, the author of which is completely unknown. But whoever he may have been, it is established that his version is most ancient, inasmuch as it seems to have been very well known in the African Church in the age of Tertullian; which is clearly gathered, in any case, from his book *On Prayer*, from which we have taken the passage inserted among the testimonies of the ancients. Rightly, therefore, the opinion of Barth, who ascribes the version of the *Shepherd* to Anastasius the Librarian, has been exploded by learned men 24: since indeed it is reported to have been known long before by Jerome, Rufinus, Cassian, and other Fathers older than Anastasius; and furthermore the ancient author of the homily *On Gamblers*, among the works of Cyprian, is found to have used it, to pass over others. But the things which the same critic adds regarding this ancient version, with which he tries to disparage it, are of lesser moment than that we should spend time in refuting them.

CAP. III. In how much price it was held among the most ancient of the Fathers. Valued as rightly very useful. Hence it is undeservedly rejected by some. A few objections taken from the authority of ancient Fathers are resolved.

Among the most ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks, the *Shepherd* of Hermas was held in such high price, and was of such great authority among them, that by some of them, such as Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen 25, it was counted among the canonical Scriptures: and so it is no wonder if that work is found in ancient libraries...

and in the ancient Stichometries, ^A placed after the books of the New Testament. Athanasius, however, Jerome, and Rufinus attribute to it the same place as that which they assign to the work inscribed under the name of the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, as well as the books of Esther, Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees. In a word, the Shepherd of Hermas is everywhere held by the ancient Fathers, not indeed as a canonical book, but as an ecclesiastical one of the best quality, and furthermore as most necessary and useful, prepared for the defense of the dogmas of the faith, and highly suitable for the instruction of the people.

But, if one were to listen to certain people, Hermas is to be considered the fountainhead of Novatian and Pelagian 26 errors, a whirlpool of Montanist superstitions, and a patron of the Arians—an impure dogmatist, moreover, who supposedly asserts free will 27, purgatory, and monastic solitude: in brief, his writings are to be regarded as the dreams of a masked prophet, and therefore to be rejected as supposititious and filled with heresies and fables. Thus, indeed, do these morose censors attack the apostolic writer, and slander his Shepherd, which is to be commended for its excellence and utility, and so highly celebrated by the more ancient Fathers. Yet, very many learned men have demonstrated that their accusations are most trivial and of no weight at all.

Let us now proceed, lest we be said to have passed over all the objections in silence, to discuss here at least those which are repeated from the authority of the Fathers. Among these, the principal one taken from St. Jerome occurs, whose words are as follows: "That apocryphal book," he says 28, "is to be condemned for folly, in which it is written that a certain angel named Tyri presides over wild beasts." In this passage, it has seemed to many that the holy doctor has scorched the Shepherd of Hermas with the mark of ^C a severe censure, looking, of course, to that saying of the apostolic man 29: *The Lord sent His angel who is over the beasts, whose name is Hegrin, and shut its mouth that it might not tear you.* Hence, they say, the greatest doctor not only holds the Shepherd of Hermas in contempt, but even discerns it to be foolish. Truly, those who think thus of the reasoning seem to wander far from the truth. Even if we suppose St. Jerome had that place of Hermas in mind, is he to be said to have rejected the entire book of the Shepherd on that account? For that someone may detect or declare that something in any work was written less correctly or with too little caution, no one in his right mind would say that this entirely destroys the authority of the whole work. Next, how can it be that that holy doctor should have inveighed so bitterly against the Shepherd, when, writing *On Illustrious Men* 30, he calls it a truly useful book, and testifies that it was read publicly in certain churches of Greece, and declares that he has ^D used the testimonies of ancient writers? He declares that he wrote this, however, later, after he had published his Commentary on Habakkuk; for he mentions this same book in the same work 31, where he reviews his own writings; so that if he had previously written anything rather harshly about Hermas, he appears to have corrected and amended it himself later on.

Nor, finally, is the matter so well explored that we are forced to accept the Jerome objection concerning the work of the Shepherd: for we read not Tyri, but Hegrin in Hermas today. Which word perhaps arose from this, as the illustrious Cotelerius quite learnedly conjectures, that in the text of Hermas there existed a shorthand script of the word *egrēgor* (ἐγρήγορος), the last letters of which being worn away in the lower part, the ancient interpreter may have thought it should be read as *Hegrin*; and not having grasped the force of this reading, he rendered the Greek word into Latin letters as *Hegrin*: when, however, it should have been read as *egrēgoros* (Vigil), from chapter IV of Daniel, where it is read that by the ministry of the *Vigil* (Watchers) the king of Babylon was sent to the beasts: to which the apostolic writer may have had reference. Others 32, however, from the reading of the Colbertinus manuscript, which reads thus: *The Lord sent His angel over the beast whose name is Hegrin*, conclude that *Hegrin* is not the name of the angel, but of the beast. Hermas, indeed, would have written in Greek *agrios* (wild), looking to that of the Psalmist 33: *Ἐλυμήνατο αὐτὴν ὗς ἐκ δρυμοῦ, καὶ μονιὸς ἄγριος κατενεμήσατο αὐτήν. The boar from the wood has wasted it (the vine), and a wild beast has devoured it.* To which conjecture the context seems favorable. Forasmuch as Hermas declares immediately in the same place in an apocalyptic style that this beast is a figure of the coming tribulation: so that, therefore, when he wrote a little before that an angel had been sent by the Lord over the beast, his sentiment is to be received as concerning an angel sent by God for the aid of the Christians, who might console and sustain them in the coming tribulation, or impending persecution.

Furthermore, Tertullian is brought up from the more ancient writers, who, tearing the Shepherd harshly 34, calls the writing apocryphal, false, adulterous, and therefore rejected by all ecclesiastical assemblies. But these are the words of Tertullian, who had long since lapsed into the heresy of the Montanists: which indeed counts for a great deal in praise of Hermas. For otherwise, the orthodox Tertullian seems elsewhere to have thought differently 35. Other writers, too, older than or contemporary with Origen, are reported to have brought the little book of the Shepherd into contempt, the names of whom the very Adamantius himself mentions in silence 36. But since the same Origen writes elsewhere 37 that the work of Hermas seemed very useful to him, and hands down 38 at the same time that, while it is not held by all as divine, it is nevertheless circulated in the churches: hence one might rightly argue that the Father had...

regarded them as superior writers; and therefore, that he did not praise them by name, because he either judged them to be of no authority, or acknowledged the ecclesiastical book had been rejected by the same parties without merit and without any weight of reason. Unless you would rather conjecture that the writers mentioned by Origen held the Shepherd in contempt for this reason, because they were disputing against some who drew testimonies from it as if it were accepted into the canon of the Scriptures, to which faith should by all means be given.

In which sense perhaps Prosper should also be understood, responding to the Collator who objected to the authority of Hermas, that his testimony was of no authority 39. Or rather, it should be said with others that Prosper rejected the authority of the Shepherd for the reason that he was entirely ignorant of it; for, by the witness of Jerome 40, the book of Hermas was almost unknown among the Latins. Nor indeed have they conjectured without cause who thought that Prosper said considerately that the testimony which the Collator inserted into his discussion from the little book of the Shepherd was of no authority; not because the holy Father rejected the book of Hermas entirely, but because he saw that the testimony brought forward from the same book by the Collator contributed nothing to the establishing of his opinion. Consult the most learned man 41.

Furthermore, when Eusebius, Jerome, Gelasius in his Decree, the author of the Stichometry, [the one] attributed to Nicephorus of Constantinople, and other ecclesiastical writers recount the Shepherd among the apocryphal and spurious books, their opinion is not to be accepted as if it were a work of harmful doctrine or false name; but because it was acknowledged by the Church as placed outside the Canon, as learned men have long since warned, and we have touched upon above. But enough of these: now let the discourse run to another matter.

CAP. IV. The time when Hermas wrote is inquired into.

Now truly, let us turn our mind to inquiring into the time when Hermas wrote, a matter which we do not have so well explored that it is easy to fix its certain mark. Yet if anyone examines his Shepherd more attentively, he may perhaps discover some indications not to be spurned, from which he might rightly judge that this little work was committed to writing before the destruction of Jerusalem, or about the year of Christ 70. This opinion has indeed been followed by many learned men—Dodwell in the first place, Mill 43, Cave 44, Baraterius 45, and, to omit others besides, the venerable Fontaninus 46; who, however, forgetful of himself, subsequently calls Hermas an ecclesiastical writer of the second century. Which judgment rests upon these moments of reasoning: namely, first, ^A that Hermas is said to have lived under the pontificate of Clement 47; whom, while the temple was still standing, we have shown above to have sent his former Epistle to the Corinthians. Next, the author seems to look back to the Neronian persecution, while he makes mention 49 of those who had already deserved well of God, and suffered wild beasts, scourges, prisons, and crosses for the sake of His name. He mentions the same persecution again, while he professes shortly after that he had escaped it in these words 50: "A beast of such a kind meets me, that it could destroy a people; but, by the power of God and His singular mercy, I escaped it." And again: "You have escaped," he says, "a great tribulation because of your faith, and because you did not doubt such a beast." He calls Nero the beast, being taught by the Apostle, to whom the same tyrant is called a lion, where he says: "But the Lord stood by me, and strengthened me: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion" 51. So the Fathers and interpreters everywhere. That Hermas spoke of this persecution, both here and also elsewhere 52, the things which we have discussed above to the same effect scarcely allow one to doubt 53. Finally, the apostolic man makes mention of a pressing tribulation to come; by which phrase he perhaps looked to that "great tribulation and wrath" 54 so often foretold in the New Testament, namely, the destruction of Jerusalem. On which matter, Dodwell [speaks] quite eruditely in the place just cited.

CAP. V. What labor has now been spent anew on his Shepherd being published.

Very many editions of the Shepherd are indeed in circulation, ever since Jacobus Faber first published that work in Paris in the year 1513. We, however, have procured for ourselves, from those which have appeared since the year 1672, the resources whereby our own might turn out more exact and more polished, as was fitting. And first indeed, we have thought it necessary to gather into it all that remains of the Greek, although the Oxford editor felt otherwise. But as for those fragments of the Greek text that are far more lengthy and pertain to the I and II books of Hermas, we have at last borrowed them from the Doctrine to Antiochus, [which is part] of the excellent Montfauconian edition of the Athanasians, not thinking to follow Fabricius in company with Clericus and Russell: for he, being the first to describe it thence, thought it should be adapted in some places so that it might adhere more to the ancient interpreter; which we have taken care to note in its proper places. We have also detected in the same pseudo-Athanasian work some fragments of the Shepherd, which escaped both the learned editor and others also who followed him, which we have warned of in the notes subjoined.

We have reviewed the ancient version with no less diligence, having studiously collated the various readings which Co-

Cotelerius and Fell brought forward from the manuscripts—readings which we have found that Clericus and his transcriber, Russell, had frequently neglected. In performing this task, we have sometimes been involved with such strictness that our concern might perhaps appear excessive. Yet, in my own opinion, the matter is safe, since in an editor cultivating this type of study, diligence is considered more a thing to be praised than to be desired. Finally, we have endeavored to subjoin those places in Holy Scripture which it is perceived the apostolic man had in mind. This plan, indeed, Johann Albert Fabricius had already begun; he had collected the places of the New Testament to which Hermas ^A seems to have alluded, as Reimar testifies; but since this Fabrician collection has not yet seen the light, we have chosen to undertake this task, whatever it may be—both to oppose Dodwell, who judged that Hermas was not accustomed to bring forward even testimonies from the books of the New Testament, and above all to make it known how immoderate is the censure of Whitby, who asserts that Hermas had scarcely touched upon the sacred scriptures with his lips, or indeed had made use of them at all. ^B

ON THE DOCTRINE OF ST. HERMAS

(LUMPER, *Historia theologico-critica de vita, scriptis et doctrina SS. Patrum*, etc. Augsburg, 1783, Vol. I, p. 116. — What Lumper brings forth concerning the life and writings of St. Hermas, he has drawn almost word-for-word from Cotelerius and Gallandi, and hence we omit it.)

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION

When Hermas first made public the admonitions received in the visions described by him, they attained such authority, especially in the Church of the Greeks, that they were used not only to confirm the truths proposed to the faithful, but also to refute and combat heretics. Thus St. Irenaeus uses the testimony of Hermas to confirm faith in one God, the creator of all things. He is also cited by Clement of Alexandria to prove that God uses false as well as true prophets for the utility of the Church in refuting the incredulous, who regard divine revelations as fables; and to demonstrate that our works and words must ^C be in mutual agreement; he was also used by Tertullian to show the posture in which one ought to pray; and lastly by Origen, to prove that one day of penance atones for a year of punishment.

ARTICLE I. DOGMATIC OBSERVATIONS. § I. On Holy Scripture.

The three books of Hermas provide us with an excellent witness to the reverence toward the sacred books that flourished at that time. For Hermas, who made use of no apocryphal work of the New Testament, drew many things from the canonical books which pertain to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; to the Acts of the Apostles; to the Epistles of Paul—namely, to the Romans, the Ephesians, the Hebrews; to those of James, the first and second of Peter, the second and third of the divine John, and the catholic epistle of St. Jude; as well as to the Apocalypse of the blessed apostle John, after whose example he seems to have written. From the many places in Hermas, in collecting which the honorable Lardner also showed himself diligent, we here set forth only the more significant ones, together with those in parallel with the Apocalypse. ^D

§ II. On the Mystery of the Most Holy Trinity

The most holy mystery of the Trinity, the Pastor sets forth in this work under a certain similitude. The Lord of the vineyard, he says ^B, is shown to be He who created all things and gave them power. The Son, however, is the Holy Spirit. But that servant is the Son of God. But why does Hermas in this place call the Son of God a servant? It is surely by reason of His human nature; and with respect to ^A that divine nature, or rather, the divinity—namely, that He exists specifically from God the Father as the most holy Spirit—(the Spirit Himself being most holy), the esteemed Mr. Bull replies ^B (16). For in that sense the title of Holy Spirit can be attributed to the individual persons of the most holy Trinity. Indeed, the appellation of Holy Spirit is attributed properly to the third ^C hypostasis of the divinity, not in respect of the ousia, or nature; for in that way the Father is also the Holy Spirit, and the Son likewise (17); but by reason of the ineffable procession, whereby He Himself proceeds from the Father through the Son. That this is the case will be easily seen by one examining the passage; for the whole discourse of Hermas there is about the Son of God, who for our salvation was made a servant, and assumed the body which was servilely preserved. Thus far Bull. ^D The learned P. Mösslin sets forth the matter differently in his notes to this passage, and in my opinion much more clearly and happily, when he says: "It is not to be wondered at that the Holy Spirit is compared with the Son of the Lord of the vineyard, because Scripture itself ascribes to the Son, as well as to the Holy Spirit, a special care and governance of the Church." Thus we read in Matthew: *Behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the age* ^B (58-59). And in John: *And I will ask the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you forever, the Spirit of truth* (60). Therefore, Hermas calls the Holy Spirit the Son of the Father of the family, because He, just like the Son of God, exercises constant care for the Church.

How sound, and empty of all suspicion of error, and pure Hermas’s view concerning the supreme divinity of Christ was, the ^C famous Petavius—even though he may appear elsewhere to have favored theante-Nicene Fathers but little—explicitly explains with these words (18): "From the most ancient writers," he says, "...nor has he been accused by anyone of heresy, or of a false dogma, especially concerning the Trinity." Indeed, no one but a man of Socinian and most insane rashness would ever deny how correctly he thought about the divine nature of the Word. For what, I ask, could be clearer and ^D more lucid than these words of our author to clearly declare the supreme divinity of the Word? "The Son of God is indeed older than any creature, so that He was present in counsel with His Father for the creating of the creature" (19). He who says that the Son of God is older than every creature, he surely openly pronounces Him to be outside the number of all creatures and above their condition and nature. But he who is established outside the number of creatures and above their nature is, without doubt, asserted to be uncreated, eternal, and the supreme and highest God. For who would [call] a created [being]—when it is languid, mortal, infirm, and filled with sins—persistently angry at man? Compare Ecclesiasticus, ch. XVIII, verse 24.

^A ignores that there is absolutely nothing intermediate between the created and the uncreated, between God and the creature? Finally, he who delivers that the same Son of God was present with his eternal Father for the founding of the creature, most firmly asserts that He is coeternal with his Father. In the same sense, Hermas had said a little earlier: *The Son of God is not placed in a servile condition, but in great power and authority* (20). For all creatures serve God; seeing that all things, as the royal Psalter sings (Ps. CXVIII, 91), serve Thee. He, therefore, who is not placed in a servile condition can neither be nor be called a creature; but he who cannot be or be called a creature is certainly God Himself.

Indeed, if you add to all these things other things that we read written by our author concerning the same Son of God: *In great power*, he says (21), *and authority*; in another place he says: *The name of the Son of God is great and immense, and the whole world is sustained by him* (22); and immediately after: *Every creature of God is sustained through his Son.* You must confess that the fullness of His divinity is openly declared by these words. For tell me, to whom else, I pray, can all those things apply, unless truly to the Son of God, who is of the same immensity, eternity, power, and nature as the Father? Therefore, some impious Socinian, I know not who, is not to be heard who wrongly objects to us that the Son of God is called a servant by Hermas in that same place, who only after his death received from the Father all power over his people. For is Hermas, when in that same place, as we have seen, he said: *The Son of God is not placed in a servile condition*, to be thought to have contradicted himself absurdly and basely? What man of sound mind would ever dare to assert this, or rather, even to imagine it in his thought and mind? And who, if he has ever read this passage of our author with fair eyes, would not immediately perceive that both are correctly transmitted and stated by him concerning the dual nature of Christ, both human and divine. For just as Christ, according to his divine nature, is older than every creature and is not placed in a servile condition; so, according to his human nature, he is called *the servant of God*. And that is, indeed, something that cannot be explained more clearly than in Hermas's own words: *This, therefore*, he says, *is the body of Christ, into which the Holy Spirit was led, [which] served that Spirit, walking rightly in modesty and chastely, and did not at all defile that Spirit... Therefore [God] called the Son and the good messengers, so that to this body—which served the Holy Spirit without complaint—some place of abiding might be given, lest it should seem to have lost the reward ^D of its servitude.* Moreover, after his death, this same body of Christ, and his human nature, received all power over his people; even though Christ himself, who according to his divine substance was present with the Father for the founding of the creature, had always been of the same nature and power as He. Therefore, since the integrity of our Hermas concerning the highest doctrine of Christ is sound, intact, and whole, and since heretics have been able to babble nothing at all against it except what is plainly foolish and inept; one of them, however, has nibbled at a few of his words, by which he wrongly attempted to prove that the divinity of the Holy Spirit had been denied by him. These, furthermore, are the things which he objects against us: *Neither does the Holy Spirit speak to man when he wills, but speaks then, when God wills* (23). But if the nefarious love of a wandering sect had not completely blinded this Socinian man, he would have understood certainly that this was the mind of our Hermas, and a meaning easily obvious to all: *The Holy Spirit does not speak to man when man wills, but when God wills.* But what, I pray, can be concluded from these words against the divinity of the Holy Spirit? Or rather, what can be concluded from them except to assert His divine nature? For there Hermas had asserted that the true prophets were inspired by the divine Spirit when He Himself willed. But who does not know that the strenuous defenders of the Nicene faith used this as a most effective argument—as they not unjustly thought—to defeat the Arians, and to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit invincibly against the Macedonians.

The Shepherd of Hermas distinguishes two natures in Christ

And [the Shepherd] contains a more distinct solution. Indeed, the Shepherd distinguishes again between the Holy Spirit—or the ^A divine nature in Christ—and the body of Christ, or the human nature; and he teaches in express terms that the servile condition in which he had placed the Son of God is to be referred strictly to the flesh, or that human nature. For after he had spoken of that Spirit which was the first infused into the body in which God was to dwell, he soon subjoins: *This body, therefore, into which the Holy Spirit was led, served that Spirit, walking rightly in modesty and chastity, nor did it defile that Spirit at all.* When, therefore, that body had obeyed the Holy Spirit at all times, rightly and chastely, and had labored with him, and had not succumbed at any time, that body, having labored, did not behave itself servilely, but being strengthened with the Holy Spirit, it was received by God (alluding ^B to the words of Paul, I Tim. ch. III, v. 16, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, καὶ ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ), in which words it is clearly apparent that the Shepherd is speaking about the body or the human nature of Christ, and affirming of that body alone that it acted in a servile manner; and that later, because of that service performed on earth with the Holy Spirit—or the Word in whom it subsisted—it was approved by God and received, that is, exalted to the right hand of Divine Majesty in the highest. Hence the Shepherd had adumbrated the exaltation of the man Christ in the similitude of the servant, whom the Lord of the field—that is, God the Father—wished to make a co-heir to his Son on account of the good work he had performed. For by the servant he means the body, or the human nature ^C of Christ; but by the Son, the divine nature in Christ, as we have already warned the reader more than once. Thus, therefore, the servant was made a co-heir to the Son, when the body or human nature of Jesus Christ was placed after the resurrection at the right hand of God, and, according to its capacity, became a sharer and partaker of the same glory and honor which the Son of God, or the Word, possessed with his Father even before this world was founded.

That I have here presented the genuine sentiment of the Pastor, anyone will easily perceive who reads that fifth similitude of Hermas with some care. Indeed, from all these things it is ultimately most manifest that the Shepherd taught that the Son of God, inasmuch as he is the Son of God and God, in no way had the status of a servant with respect to God the Father, nor ever had; nor was he ever a servant of God except on account of the dispensation of the incarnation, which he voluntarily undertook. Thus far regarding the divine nature of Jesus Christ. But the Shepherd has also described the human nature in Christ, according to which, ^D compared to a servant, the Son of God was subject to many hardships, and bore many evils for the expiation of human sins. For he himself showed us the way of life, with the law which he had received from the Father; and therefore he reigns over all the redeemed, by the power granted to him by the Father over them.

Nothing more powerful can be conveyed to those whom the Shepherd teaches in that same book of Similitudes regarding the absolute necessity in which we are placed of the mediation of Jesus Christ for attaining eternal salvation. He declares clearly that no one can enter into the kingdom of God unless he has received the name of the Son of God. He explains this most grave truth by the likeness of some city surrounded by a wall, which is gifted with one single gate, through which he must necessarily pass who wishes to enter the city. The gate, the Shepherd adds after four or five lines, is the Son of God, who alone is the access to God. Therefore, otherwise, no one will enter to God except through his Son. Eternal salvation, therefore, cannot be obtained without faith in Jesus Christ.

§ III. Concerning Baptism, penance, order, and matrimony.

From the absolute necessity of the mediation of the Savior for attaining eternal salvation, the Shepherd leads to another truth of faith which naturally flows from it, namely, the necessity of baptism and its wonderful efficacy. For before [an individual], he says, receives the name of the Son of God, he is destined for death; but when he has received that seal, he is freed from death and delivered to life. That seal, however, is the water, into which men descend bound to death, but ascend assigned to life. Perhaps a more beautiful text cannot be found to prove the necessity of baptism and its wonderful efficacy. The Shepherd insists so vehemently upon his opinion that he contends that even the just who died before the incarnation could not have entered into the kingdom of God unless they had been signed by this divine sacrament. It is necessary, he says, speaking of the patriarchs, prophets, and just men living before the coming of the Savior, that they ascend through the water so that they may rest: for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God than by laying aside the mortality of their former life. He adds, moreover, that these ancients were signed with the seal of the Son of God, and thus entered the kingdom of God: therefore, they, being dead, were signed with the seal of the Son of God, and entered into the kingdom of God; furthermore, that the apostles and teachers of the Church, after their death, preached to them the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and gave them the baptism which alone was lacking, so that they might be blessed. Since these apostles, when they were dead, preached to those who had died before, and they themselves gave them that sign... only this seal had been lacking to them. Truly, this would be a singular opinion if the Shepherd meant to be understood here as speaking of the baptism of water; but I think, with the learned Fleury, that the discourse here concerns the grace of baptism, or rather, as the learned Cotelier aptly remarks, a metaphorical and altogether spiritual baptism, which he scatters elsewhere, and which demand a benign interpretation so that they may be vindicated from error.

^A As was fitting for souls separated from their own bodies. But Hermas is not the only one to have embraced this opinion; Saint Clement of Alexandria (31) contended for it as well, and he brought forward in support of this cause the texts reviewed a little above. Moreover, what the Shepherd writes concerning the preaching of the apostles brought to the souls of the just who died before the Incarnation carries great weight among the ancients (32).

What the Shepherd hands down regarding penance is indeed very terrifying (33). "Lord," says Hermas to him, "I heard from certain teachers that there is no other penance except that when we go down into the water and receive the remission of our sins; so that we must not sin any further (after the reception of this sacrament)." "This is certainly true," the Shepherd replies to him; "you have heard correctly. But later," he demonstrates to him, "that baptism is not properly penance, but rather remission, and that there is no penance except for those who, after they have been called and joined among the faithful, have sinned through the temptation of the devil." And therefore I tell you, continues the Shepherd (34), that after that great and holy calling, if one is tempted by the devil and sins, he has one penance; but if he should sin repeatedly and perform penance, it will not profit the man who does such things: for it is difficult for him to live to God; for one penance, he says to him at one point earlier, is held only for the servants of God: for there is one penance for the servants of God. I find no difficulty regarding dogma in these texts; but all those who, because of frequent relapses, make penance to be very doubtful, ought to take from them an argument for fear and trembling. I said in the first place that there is no difficulty in these texts as concerns dogma; because in the latter of them the discussion is about public penance, as is extracted with no difficulty from the reason why the Shepherd uses that phrase; for he is speaking there of the crime of adultery, by which someone might often be defiled; but the Church once punished this crime with public penance, which in truth was granted only one time. As for the other text, no difficulty is found in it either, even if it were true that the Shepherd is speaking there of particular penance; for if the matter is rigorously recalled to examination, the author intends to convey only this: that frequent relapses are indubitable signs against the false conversion of those sinners whose whole life is woven with continuous ^B sins and confessions succeeding one another. If, he says, after penance he sins repeatedly, and performs penance, it will not profit the man who acts in such a way; for it is difficult for him to live to God. It should be noted here that the Shepherd does not absolutely assert that a human cannot, at any time of his life, perform true penance, and in the bitterness of his heart, and with a contrite and humbled heart, turn himself toward God; but he only preaches the extreme difficulty of this conversion in the sinners of whom the discussion is held; "it is difficult to live to God," which is indubitable. We find phrases very similar to these, indeed even harsher, in certain other Fathers of the Church, I think in Saint Clement of Alexandria, Saint Cyprian, and Saint Ambrose (35), which would surely have struck terror into the Christians of our own times to preserve that holy fear! Would that the inconsiderate ease of absolutions did not provide an occasion for sinners to slip more easily into sins! Furthermore, the venerable Cotelerius (36) observes that the first Fathers, while they promise only one penance, wrote this for the sake of ^C economy; so that, to be sure, they might make the faithful all the more cautious, solicitous, and studious in preserving the innocence of their baptism. But when a case occurred, they recommended in express words even a repeated penance. Perhaps also, as the venerable Scholliner (37) observes, solemn and canonical penance, according to the discipline of the ancient Church, was granted only once; but private and sacramental penance was granted as often as the sinner seemed seriously disposed. Moreover, Hermas seems to have taught the remission of all sins through true penance so clearly and by design that, in almost his entire work (38), for this reason Tertullian, through calumny, called him the Shepherd of adulterers.

It is indeed very terrible what the Shepherd reports about frequent relapse (39). May we in our own times, who are bound to it, reflect on this holy terror! Would that the inadvertent ease of absolutions did not offer an occasion for sinners to relapse more easily into sins! Moreover, the venerable Cotelerius (40) observes that the first Fathers, as they promise only one penance, wrote that for the sake of economy; so that, to be sure, they might make the faithful all the more cautious, solicitous, and ^D studious in preserving the innocence of their baptism; but where the case has emerged, they have recommended with express words even a repeated penance. Perhaps also, as the venerable Scholliner (41) notices, solemn and canonical public penance, according to the discipline of the ancient Church, was granted only once; private and sacramental penance, however, was granted as often as the sinner appeared seriously disposed. Furthermore, Hermas seems in almost his whole work to have taught so clearly and by design the remission of all sins through true penance (42) that Tertullian on this account called him the Shepherd of adulterers through calumny.

In many places, the Shepherd also teaches that once the fault is forgiven, the entire penalty is by no means forgiven by God on that very account: for thus Hermas writes concerning the laborious works of penance, or satisfaction, and temporal punishments: "We proceeded a little further, and he showed me a great shepherd, and he had as it were a rustic appearance, clad in a white goatskin, carrying a bag on his shoulder, and in his hand a knotted and very hard rod, and a scourge in his hand; but he had a fierce and savage appearance, so that he could frighten some; such was his appearance." He therefore received from...

that young shepherd those sheep which were indeed leading a life of pleasure, but were not exulting; and he drove them into a certain precipitous and thorny place, covered with thistles, to such a degree that they could not extricate themselves from the thorns and thistles; but being entangled there, they were fed upon thorns and thistles and experienced severe tortures from his words; for he drove them, and did not permit them a place to stand even for a time... "He," says the Shepherd, "is indeed a messenger for the just, but he is the prefect of punishment: to him, therefore, are handed over those who have strayed from God, but have served the desires and pleasures of this age. He punishes them, therefore, as each of them has deserved, with cruel and various punishments..." These are the various punishments and torments which men suffer daily in their lives; for some suffer losses, others poverty, others various asperities; others suffer injuries from the unworthy, and many other hardships and inconveniences. For very many people attempt many things with inconstant counsel, and nothing turns out well for them, and they say they have no success in their actions; the things they have done wickedly run up against them, and they blame the Lord. When, therefore, they have suffered every vexation and every inconvenience, then they are handed over to me for good instruction, and they are strengthened in the faith of the Lord, and for the remaining days they serve the Lord with a pure mind, and when they have begun to do penance for their pleasures, then their works, in which they have acted wickedly, rise up into their hearts, and then they give glory to God, saying that He is a just judge, and that they have deservedly suffered according to their deeds, etc. (39).

The preeminence of bishops finds no obscure testimony in the Shepherd of Hermas. For concerning the tenth mountain, he says in book III, Similitude IX, chapter 27, in which there were trees feeding sheep, such are they who believed: certain bishops, that is, presidents of the Churches. And elsewhere he had already written (l. III, Simil. IX, c. 9, see also the vision in Hermas): "Now therefore I say to you who preside over the Church and love the first seats." From which it is gathered that there were at that time first chairs, to which a singular honor and power were conjoined, and which proud and ambitious men coveted. ^B

Concerning afflictions, both those voluntarily undertaken and those imposed by the prefect of penance, the same Hermas writes thus (40): "I know," he says, with safe hearts they do penance. "Do you think, therefore," he says, "that the sins of those who do penance are immediately abolished? Not therefore immediately: but it is necessary that he who does penance should afflict his soul, and show himself humble in spirit in every matter, and endure many and various vexations. And when he has suffered all things that were ordained for him, then perhaps He who created him and who formed all things will be moved towards him by His clemency, and will give some remedy; and this in such a way, if He sees the heart of him who does penance to be pure from every most wicked work... and I will ask that messenger who is set over punishment that he afflict you more lightly; but you will suffer adversities for a little while, and you will restore yourself to your place: only persevere in humility of spirit" (41).

I wish that not only the Protestants, who explode works of satisfaction, would weigh these things, but also those most lenient confessors who, for most grave and long-standing sins, enjoin most light penances, not proportioned by any reason, and by this leniency of theirs are most cruel; since much sharper punishments are to be endured in the other life by these softly penitent ones, which they could have redeemed here by a far easier (comparative) satisfaction; for if we judged ourselves here, we would certainly not be judged there.

Concerning matrimony, Hermas teaches first that the bond of matrimony is not to be dissolved on account of the adultery of either spouse. But if (a husband) dismisses his wife and marries another, she too commits adultery... therefore a husband ought not, having dismissed his spouse, to marry another. This act is similar in both the man and the woman, says the Shepherd (42).

Then he explains how a husband ought to conduct himself toward an adulterous wife. He commands the husband to separate from his adulterous wife (as regards the bed or cohabitation), otherwise he is guilty of her sin, and a participant in her whoredom. But if the dismissed wife does penance, and wishes to return to her husband, the Shepherd commands the husband to receive her: otherwise he admits a great sin. But if the woman, after penance, falls back into the same sins, and persists in them, and does not do penance, the husband ought absolutely to withdraw from her, lest he be a participant in her sin. This case, according to the doctrine of the Shepherd, concerns the adulterous husband and the adulterous wife (43). The Church has declared these rules to be always observed, as being supported by the authority of the Holy Scriptures and tradition. ^{C D}

It declares, finally, that successive polygamy is indeed licit, yet that he who leads a life of celibacy does a thing most pleasing to God (44).

§ IV. Concerning the observance of the commandments of God and grace.

Beginning a discourse on the divine precepts, he says ^A that they are most easy to be kept by one who loves God, and that there is nothing holier or sweeter than them (45). But when Hermas objected to the Shepherd: "A man indeed desires to keep the commandments of God, and there is no one who does not ask of the Lord that he may be able to keep His commandments; yet the devil is hard, and he rules with his power over the servants of God" (46). The Shepherd immediately answers him that the devil cannot rule over the servants of God who believe in the Lord with all their heart. Moreover, he adds, the devil can struggle, but he cannot conquer; for if you resist him, he will flee from you in confusion. By these words, certain timid souls may be strengthened, to whom Christian virtues bring terror, and who think them in practice too burdensome, nay, even impossible to their nature. Let them only desire, let them love, and nothing will be difficult; he who loves can do all things. By this love they will win the victory over Satan, and they will despise the common threats of this lot; which threats, says the Shepherd, are devoid of power, like the sinews of a dead man. "But do not fear his threats at all; for they are without power, like the sinews of a dead man." This phrase is original and has perfect beauty; and it pathetically explains that we ought to hold the demon in the greatest contempt: yet far be it that this should make us less solicitous and vigilant against his frauds and snares.

A certain place occurs in the Shepherd that could delay a reader little instructed in grace. "For those," says the Shepherd, "whose hearts the Lord saw would be pure and would serve Him with all their heart, He granted repentance: but those whose deceit and iniquity He beheld, and noticed that they would return to Him deceitfully, He denied return to ^B repentance, lest they should again blaspheme His law with wicked words" (47). I say it might seem to some that this Shepherd savors of Pelagianism, or at least semi-Pelagianism, in the matter of grace, which at first sight he seems to concede to the merits and good dispositions of men, by no means acknowledging it as gratuitous on the part of God. But it must be noted first that in the earliest times it never occurred to anyone to institute a discussion concerning the mystery of grace, and to snatch away from it the glory of conversion and the justification of the sinner; and for this reason Hermas presents his Shepherd speaking of grace quite confidently. Second, if this text is rightly re-examined, nothing is found in it that ought to delay us much; for everything that is taught there is reduced to this: namely, that God grants the grace of repentance to man's sincerity and to his good dispositions. Moreover, this phrase is neither Pelagian nor semi-Pelagian, except in the sense of those who hold that this sincerity and these good dispositions proceed solely from free will and from the powers of nature; which, indeed, the Shepherd does not teach here, nor elsewhere, as far as I know in his whole work. Nay, it may even be said not without reason that the Shepherd has used those words; for repentance is one of those graces which God does not ordinarly grant, speaking generally, except after many others, such as faith and hope, which are as it were dispositions to it (48).

§ V. Concerning the angels.

Nor must we omit what Hermas relates in his books concerning his angels. In the first place, he teaches that there is a certain subordination among them, such, namely, that some are more excellent than others (49). Second, he explains what kind of solicitude they have concerning all the affairs of this world. He establishes, however, primarily that St. Michael the archangel has power over the Christian people and governs them. "But that messenger... (these are the words of ^C the Shepherd) is Michael, who has authority over this people, and governs them" (50). Hence the particular devotion of the Catholic Church toward St. Michael is founded in the doctrine of primitive antiquity.

The same Shepherd also declares openly that the Son of God placed angels in charge of the custody of those whom the celestial Shepherd handed over to Him: "To those whom He [the Son] handed over to the Son, the Son placed messengers over them to preserve each one" (51). Although it treats here only of the predestined, it is certain nonetheless that the Shepherd grants the same privilege to other men.

For he grants it, first, to the neophytes themselves, while he says that they are warned by the angels to do good (52). Then he declares in general that two geniuses or two angels are with a man, one of equity and one of iniquity (53). The former incites unto virtue, the other unto vices. That the evil genius himself prepares [those who fall] for repentance, it is evident; because a little above, the angel said to Hermas: "Do you see that many have performed penance and have attained to salvation?" "I see, lord," said Hermas. "That thou mayest know," said the angel, "the great goodness and mercy of the Lord, and that he is to be honored, who gave breath to those who were worthy to perform penance."

^A is as he himself confesses in another place. Our Hermas also mentions an angel, who was over a certain terrible beast which he had seen in a dream, and whom he calls Hegrin. Behold the words of the Shepherd himself: "The Lord has sent his angel, who is over the beasts: whose name is Hegrin, and he stopped its mouth, that it should not tear you," etc. Learned men have offered various comments regarding this troubled passage. The most famous, Nourry, thinks it should be restored from the Colbertine codex, which reads thus: "The Lord has sent his angel over the beast, whose name is Hegrin." The most learned Cotelier had already suspected that Hermas had written in Greek nearly in this way: Επεμψε Κύριος ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν ἐπὶ θηρίον, ᾧ ὄνομα "Αγριον. In support of which opinion he cites that passage of Psalm LXXIX, v. 14: "Ελυμήνατο αὐτὴν ὗς ἐκ δρυμοῦ, καὶ μονιὸς ἄγριος κατενεμήσατο αὐτήν. The boar out of the wood has laid it waste, and the singular wild beast has devoured it," to which conjecture the context indeed seems to be favorable. Since Hermas declares immediately in the same place in apocalyptic style that this beast is a figure of a pressure that is to come. So that, whereas he had written a little before that an angel was sent by the Lord over the beast, his own opinion is to be accepted regarding an angel sent by God for the aid of Christians, who would console and cherish them in the pressure about to come, or in the imminent persecution. The illustrious Cotelier conjectures that the word Hegrin arose from thence, because a shorthand existed in the text of Hermas, the last letters of which being worn away at the lower part, the old interpreter thought it should be read *egreg*; having not at all grasped the force of this reading, he rendered the Greek word in Latin letters as Hegrin, although it should have been read *egregoros*, and translated as "watcher," from the fourth chapter of Daniel, where it is read that the King of Babylon was sent to the beasts by the ministry of a watcher: to which the apostolic writer may perhaps have looked. Thus far the illustrious Galland from Nourry and Cotelier. It has seemed to some that Jerome looked to this vexed passage of Hermas in book 1 on Habakkuk 1:14. Although other learned men may have thought otherwise.

To these we add moreover other opinions of Hermas: the first of which is the doctrine of the apostles after the death of Jesus Christ, which they preached to the saints who had died before, and conferred baptism upon them, without which their good works were useless. This, however, in the judgment of a very perspicacious man, is not to be accepted concerning water, but concerning the grace of baptism; for it was an opinion of many of the ancients that the apostles preached to those who were dead, which St. Peter affirms concerning Jesus Christ.

He states further that revelations and visions are given for the sake of those who doubt and those inquiring into the truth of what has been handed down to them, so that their weaker faith might be confirmed; and that the world is to be destroyed by fire and blood.

^B The last place of the Shepherd worthy of mention concerns the manner of distinguishing true prophets from false. In order that this be obtained, the life and morals of both are to be called into examination. That prophet is true who is filled with the Holy Spirit; but this divine Spirit is quiet, humble, departs from all iniquity and the vain desire of this present age, answers no one, when interrogated, nor does he answer individuals; nor does the Spirit of God speak to man when he wills, but speaks then, when God wills. When, therefore (the Shepherd always speaks), a man comes who has the Spirit of God, into the assembly of the just who have the faith of God, and prayer is made to God, then the holy messenger of the Divinity fills that man with the Holy Spirit, and he speaks in the assembly, as God wills. As regards the pseudo-prophet, he is moved by an earthly spirit, empty, having no power. He exalts himself and wishes to have the first seat: he is wicked, verbose, dwells in luxuries and in many pleasures, and accepts a reward for his divination. By these characters the true are distinguished from the pseudo-prophets.

^C

ARTICLE II. MORAL AND DISCIPLINARY OBSERVATIONS. §1. Concerning penance, prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.

After the Shepherd had instructed Hermas, who was complaining about the tribulations which he was suffering in his house, that all these temporal calamities were the consequences both of his own sins and those of others; he proposes to him the idea of true penance, and who are those…

who truly repent, for whom the fruits of penance are to be earned. "He who does penance," he says, "must afflict his soul, must show himself humble, and must stoutly endure many vexations and various trials; and, above all, he must keep his heart pure from every evil work." These are the things that this ancient writer hands down regarding true penance, and they differ as widely as heaven from earth from the doctrine of heretics and the laxer theologians of our own age.

Nor is it less worthy of note what the Pastor of Hermas sets forth concerning fasting. For he instructs him as to what fasting is acceptable to God, what "stations" are, and shows their reward before God. "Do nothing wicked in your life," says the Pastor, "but serve God with a pure mind, walking in His commandments; nor let any harmful desire enter your mind... If you do this, you will perform a great and acceptable fast to the Lord. And believe in the promises of the Lord, that if you do these things, you will live to God. On the day that you fast, you shall taste nothing but bread and water, and you shall calculate the amount of food which you were going to eat on other days, and the cost of that day which you were to perform, you shall set aside, and give it to the widow, the orphan, or the needy..." This "station" ^A thus performed is good and acceptable to the Lord. It is therefore evident, first of all, against the innovators and enemies of fasting, that corporal mortifications were in use in the Church in the earliest times; secondly, that what was taken away from sensuality was to be bestowed by them upon the poor, otherwise they would not receive the reward of a true fast; thirdly, it is certain that in the age of Hermas, the days destined for fasting were called "stations"; fourthly, that he who fasted withdrew early in the morning to pray, and throughout the day tasted nothing but bread and water. Fifthly, they believed that for a fast to be rightly performed, the expense of other days was to be calculated and set aside for the use of the poor. Sixthly, they judged that good works were to be added thereto, that one must abstain from sins, and that the commandments of God were to be kept.

Speaking of alms, the Pastor instructs equally those who bestow them and those who receive them. He admonishes the former to give them simply, and without distinction to all who beg; he exhorts the latter ^B to go begging only out of true necessity, otherwise they will have to render a rigorous account. Under the similitude of the vine and the elm, the Pastor explains the usefulness of alms. For just as the vine is supported by the elm so that it may bear fruit, so the rich man is helped by the poor man to whom he distributes alms; because the poor man prays to the Lord for the rich man.

As the Pastor treats of prayer, he requires, above all, that we should be assiduous in this holy exercise and approach God with all possible confidence in His mercy, even though the sins by which we are held fast are countless and enormous. "For God is not," says the Pastor, ^C (as the whole people were accustomed [to do], that is to say, to partake only of bread with water as evening came on). Epiphanius, in *Exposition of the Faith*, Ps. XXII. If xerophagies [dry diets] had been established by a given law, he would have written about them in the same way as he wrote about the fast of the fourth and sixth days: "Item, the fast of the fourth and sixth day is commanded until the ninth hour... for which reason the apostles decreed that one should fast." But you will say, Epiphanius mentions this law elsewhere (Haer. 75, s. 6): "What if, he was saying, the authority is to be sought from the apostolic constitutions, why is the fast of the fourth and sixth day sanctioned for them by a perpetual law, except for Pentecost? Why do they define that for the six days of Easter nothing at all but bread, salt, and water should be taken for food?" There, he certainly pronounced both fasts—that of the fourth and sixth days and the six days of Easter—to be sanctioned by the same law and by apostolic constitution. Nevertheless, where the same Epiphanius argues against the Aetians, who condemned set fasts, since he ought to have urged this precept most strongly, he reduces it to a mere custom: "Moreover, on the very days of Easter... we are accustomed to celebrate with the use of dry foods, prayers, vigils, and fasts" (Epiph. ibid., s. 3); from which perhaps it may not be absurd to conclude that the word ^D which he used above signifies nothing other than "they admonish" or "they exhort," but they do not command, order, or enjoin. In support of this explanation, not only can it be brought forward that historians relate that the Churches had various customs regarding these fasts, but even that, by the same witnesses, something of the severity of this fast was relaxed in some churches at least a little later on. For the author of the *Apostolic Constitutions* readily allows salt and vegetables to be added to bread and water.

istor (71), just as men who are mindful of injuries; but ^A He is unmindful of injuries, and has pity on his own creation. Sinners truly, before they approach God through prayer, must withdraw their hearts from all the vices they find in themselves, and return to God with a sincere mind; otherwise, it would be a presumption unworthy of any pardon for them to expect from God the effect of those prayers, which would be futile without these preceding dispositions. Therefore, "purify your heart... and you will receive all the good things you ask for..." Those, therefore, who are not like this, obtain absolutely nothing of what they seek. If it should happen, nevertheless, that even with the prior good dispositions we do not receive our petition, we must not doubt, but rather pray more and more, and repeat no complaints against God, but only against ourselves; for God is always ready to bestow mercy. Be angry with yourself, not with God, because He did not give it to you. From these things we learn two things among others that are equally necessary: the first is that we, because of the multitude and even the enormity of our sins, must not turn away from the path of prayer; the second is that it is necessary, before we ask anything from God, to cast off at least the affection for sin, and to resolve ourselves to true repentance. If these things are neglected, we will experience all our prayers as vain and without fruit, not to mention anything further.

§ II. Concerning the fear of the Lord, worldly business, patience, anger, sadness, and impurity.

In the first place, the sentiment of the Pastor is this: "If you fear the Lord, you will perform all good works (72)." Therefore, through the fear of the Lord, we can perform all works of justice. Moreover, he teaches that this fear is necessary for salvation, that through it we win the victory over the devil and exercise dominion over him, because in reality no power resides in him against the servants of God. "For if you fear the Lord, you will have dominion over him [i.e., the devil], because there is no power in him." Through this fear (to sum everything up in one word), we withdraw from sin, we exercise justice, and we live piously. "Fear God, therefore," concludes the Pastor, "and you will live." It is beyond all controversy that the conversation here is about supernatural fear—namely, that fear which is always accompanied by some love; for indeed, it concerns the fear by whose aid we observe the commands of God and adhere to the works of justice.

The Pastor warns on a double account that one must abstain from a multitude of temporal business and that the disordered concern for the same must be moderated, because those who engage in many businesses commit many sins and can with difficulty serve God. "Abstain," he says to him, "from many businesses, and you will do nothing wrong; for whoever engages in many businesses commits many sins; because ^B they are constrained by their own affairs, and do not serve God (73)."

O happy life of men separated from the world! O blessed solitudes in which man enjoys that perfect quietude, in which he exerts himself in the service of God, and seriously applies himself to the greatest business of eternal salvation! This holy leisure, despite whatever the lovers of this world may blather, surpasses by far the vanities and inanities by which they are detained.

Another motive which the Pastor brings forward, as to why we should not at all be attached to earthly things, is based on the rationale of our state. For he sets it down as a principle that we do not have a permanent city here, but that another (the future one, clearly) is to be sought by us: "You know, you servants of the Lord, that you dwell in a pilgrimage? For your city is far from this city." If, therefore, you know your city in which you are going to dwell, why do you love fields here, and prepare luxuries and buildings and superfluous habitations? For he adds, moreover, "Whoever acquires in this city, does not think of returning to his own city (74)." This teaching is pious and religious; but it is little approved in these our days. Furthermore, this doctrine could strip the mask from many who live in the greatest error, while they endeavor to persuade themselves that the condition of man as a traveler, guest, and exile—in which properly the idea and character of a true Christian consists—can be combined with the condition of a man who is intent on business, indulges in pleasures, and leads his days in goods.

The reasoning of the Pastor against such a way of living differs indeed as much as heaven from earth from the sense, speech, and practice of many Christians of our age, but it is none the less correct, less valid, or less conclusive for that reason.

This angel desires, therefore, that Christians, instead of fields which they wish to buy, or palaces and houses which they wish to build, should spend their wealth in bestowing alms and in relieving widows and orphans. In these uses, according to the Pastor (75) and Truth itself, temporal goods ought to be spent.

Regarding patience and the opposite vice, the Pastor communicates to us those instructions which can by no means be neglected. Concerning patience, he teaches that man, through patience, even gains dominion over all the most wicked deeds—namely, that patience turns man away from these, that those who are patient perform all justice, that the Holy Spirit dwells in them in great peace; that this virtue is valid and strong and has great power, and honors the Lord at all times; in a word, that those who are truly patient easily observe all commands.

(76) He teaches that anger indeed grieves the Holy Spirit and expels him from the heart... relieve souls from necessities, as each is able; and absolve the widows, judge for the orphans; and consume your wealth and riches in works of this kind. Idem, in the cited place. ^{C D}

admits the spirit into the soul, hinders the effect of our prayers, begets fury, and produces innumerable evils. Shortly after, he says the same about sadness, and among other things, that it torments the Holy Spirit... and causes the spirit's anger. Finally, he says: The prayer of a sad man has no power to ascend to the altar of God. ^A Among the many things which the *Pastor* observes against impurity, these will be especially opportune for the edification of the faithful. In the first place, he calls every thought concerning another’s marriage, and concerning fornication, a great sin. Then he teaches that an impure thought can in no way dwell in a pure heart; this is indeed to be understood not of simple thoughts, but of those which moral theologians call "morose," whether we take delight in them or not. Furthermore, he assigns an extremely effective means by which we may avert these evil thoughts from ourselves, and never sin: the unremitting remembrance of God. Elsewhere ^B he subjoins another motive, by which we are incited to mercy, namely, the punishment for sin which we incur, which far exceeds the sweetness perceived in committing it. One hour of sweetness, he says, is limited to its own span; but one hour of punishment possesses the force of thirty days... see, therefore, he concludes, that the time of worldly sweetness and pleasure is fleeting; but that of punishment and torments is longer. Thus, if we thought the matter through well, if we truly loved ourselves, we would hold sensual pleasures in deadly hatred.

Regarding lying and detraction, the *Pastor* commands that we should not speak ill of anyone, and he no less rigorously prohibits listening to those who speak ill, especially if it is done deliberately and willingly. He adds, moreover, that detraction is a pernicious, inconstant demon that never stands in peace, but always remains in discords; and "Those who lie," he says, "deny the Lord, not returning to Him the deposit which they have received; for they received a spirit without falsehood."

THE SHEPHERD OF SAINT HERMAS

BOOK ONE

WHICH IS ENTITLED

VISIONS

VISION I. Against base and haughty thoughts, and the negligent chastisement of Hermas’s children.

CHAPTER ONE. He who had reared me sold a certain young woman at Rome. After many years, however, I recognized her when I saw her; and I began to love her as a sister. After some time had passed, I saw her bathing in the river Tiber; and I reached out my hand to her, and brought her up from the river. When I saw her, I thought in my heart, saying: "I would be happy if I had a wife such as she is in both beauty and character." This alone did I think, and nothing further. But after some time, as I was traveling with these thoughts, I began to honor the creature