ness. But upon the other point proposed, viz. what the statements of Hermas really mean, I shall endeavour to shew, and, if I am not greatly mistaken, shall say enough to prove, that nothing but a manifest assumption of the question at issue will enable Mr. Wordsworth to claim him in support of his views.

The utmost uncertainty appears to exist, both as to the age of the work, and the person of its author. Baronius, as Archbishop Wake observes, considers him to have been the brother of Pope Pius, who was "living 164 years after Christ; that is to say, 107 years after the writing of St. Paul's Epistle to the Roinans,"-the Epistle in which mention is made of Hermas. (Archbishop Wake. Introductory Discourse on the Genuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers, ch. viii.) In this opinion Mosheim expresses his concurrence. "Hermæ, qui vocatur Pastor, quia Angelus, pastoris formâ et habitu primas in eo partes agit, ab Hermâ, fratre Pii, Romani Episcopi, sæculo secundo exaratus est." Instit. Histor. Eccles. Sæc. I. Part II. c. ii.; adding, in the note in loc: "Id nunc ex fragmento pervetusto libelli de Canone Sacramentorum constat, quem Lud. Anton. Muratorius... in lucem protraxit."

The following is the account given by Spondanus of the views entertained in respect to this writer by the early church: "Liber autem Hermæ, seu Hermetis, qui inscriptus est Pastor, antiquis optimè notus extitit, quem citasse reperiuntur Irenæus, Origines, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullianus, Athanasius, Eusebius, Hieronymus, et siqui alii, eundemque ut utilem librum laudant; quem tamen Origines à nonnullis contemni tradit; Hieronymus vero apud quasdam Græcas ecclesias publicè legi; sed apud Latinos pene ignotum esse. Et quidem Latinis sic is innotuit, ut eum inter Apocryphorum genera adnumerarint, quæ legi in Ecclesia possint, non tamen citari ad fidem Catholicam astruendam, hac enim censurâ à majoribus fuisse notatum affirmant Tertullianus, Ruffinus, et Prosper; idemque à Gelasio Romano Pontifice æquè inter apocrypha recensetur. Usos eo quoque Arianos ad suam ipsorum hæresin confirmandam testatur Athanasius. Et ante Gelasium atque Prosperum, ut apocryphum, non absque trepidatione citari solitum, sanctus Hieronymus significat." (Annales Ecclesiastici, ann. 159.) Bishop Bull is a strong advocate for the faith and authority of Hermas, calling him an Apostolic writer, and speaking of him as highly thought of in the Primitive Church. In support of his assertions he appeals to the usual references from the Fathers, beginning with Irenæus, and adds, “Qui plura volet de antiquitate et auctoritate hujus libri, adeat doctissimi viri, Joannis Pearsoni, nunc Cestriensis ecclesiæ dignissimi antistitis, Vindicias Epistolarum S. Ignatii." (Defensio Fidei Nicenæ. Vol. V. p. 46. Ed. Burton.)

The learned Pearson entirely rejects the idea of Hermas being the brother of Pope Pius. Vindicia, Part II. cap. xiii. His judgment is elsewhere thus given: "Cum hæc fuerit tam antiqua, tam constans eorum qui in Græcâ Ecclesiâ floruerunt de libro Pastoris sententia; Cùm autorem prodant Hermam à S. Paulo nominatum ; Cùm librum ipsum in aliquibus Ecclesiis publicè lectum ad institutionem Catechumenorum à Patribus commendatum memorent; Cùm ipsi aut sacrum et divinum aut certè utilissimum librum pronuntient, et ideo tantum in Canone non ponendum, quod de eo aliqui dubitarunt, an credibile est Nicephorum aut alium quemvis Ecclesiæ

Græcæ alumnum, eundem ut falsum et fictum, ut pessimæ notæ apocryphum jugulare, et ab omni Ecclesiæ luce removere voluisse ?" Part I. cap. iv.

And yet the same learned writer thus speaks, in his earlier Exposition of the Creed: " Hermas, in his book called the Pastor, was thought to give sufficient strength to this opinion, whereas the book itself is of no good authority, and in this particular is most extravagant; for he taught that not only the soul of Christ, but also the souls of the Apostles, preached to the spirits below; that as they followed his steps here, so did they also after their death, and therefore descended to preach in hell.” (Art. V. p. 363. Ed. Ox. 1820.) Cotelerius, after stating the various opinions of others in former and later times, thus expresses his own judgment: "Medium itaque beati tenuere, cùm olim, tum nuper, quicunque Hermæ Pastorem judicavere ouvraypa non quidem Canonicum, sed Ecclesiasticum et optimæ notæ, et propugnaculum fidei Catholicæ adversus Montani duritiam ; ad hæc fœtum Hermæ, Apostolici illius viri (nulla quippe ratio contrarium evincit) quem Paulus in fine Epistolæ ad Romanos salutari jubet." (Judicium de S. Hermæ Pastore.)

Fabricius, in his Bibliotheca Græca, quotes the opinion of Semler, "Hermæ librum, qui inscribitur Pastor, esse miserrimum scriptum ...et ab homine quodam Christiano, Judæorum disciplinæ quondam alumno, in Ægypto, Alexandriæ confictum;"-and of Mosheim, "Hermam fuisse aut mente captum et fanaticum, aut quod verisimilius videtur, licitum sibi duxisse colloquia cum Deo et angelis fingere, quo dogmata et præcepta, quæ vera et salubria fratribus putabat, faciliores aures et animos invenirent." Itigius, after stating the observation of Blondel, that the visions of Hermas were " larvati somnia Prophetæ," records his own opinion in terms scarcely less severe : "Certè Angelus Hermæ apparens ea nonnumquam loquitur quæ Angelo lucis minus conveniunt, et quæ larvati Prophetæ somniis quàm divinis visionibus similiora sunt." (Dissertatio de Hermæ doctrinâ, cap. 1.)

The same writer discusses seriatim the several false doctrines which Hermas, truly or falsly, is charged with advocating. To one of these' charges only shall I particularly allude-and that (for a reason hereafter to be given), on account of its connection with the name of Clemens Alexandrinus: "Mira sunt quæ Hermas, lib. 3, simul 9. c. 16 disserit. Videtur enim asserere, quòd Patriarchæ aliique fideles ante Christi adventum mortui, ut in regnum Dei ingredi possent, post mortem baptismo opus habuerint, ideoque Apostoli et alii novi Testamenti Doctores justis defunctis baptismum predicaverint," the notion this which we have seen condemned by Bishop Pearson. "Dubium non est," adds Itigius, "quin Hermas Apostolos post mortem inferis evangelium prædicasse illisque salutem attulisse statuerit. Nec desunt alii veteres in eodem...errore versati...de quibus egi in exercitatione inaugurali...ubi inter alios Clementem Alexandrinum...allegavi, observans quòd Clemens in hoc errore ducem Hermam statuerit." xix.

In my last paper I mentioned Dr. Burton's opinion, that if the book was put forth as a writing of the first century, it must have been done with a deliberate intention to deceive. How far it is applicable to the support of primitive doctrine, in the judgment of the same distinguished and lamented Scholar, is evident from his own very cautious use of it. "The language of this book," he says, in his Testimony

of Ante-Nicene Fathers, "is so mystical and figurative, that I shall only bring one testimony from it, the literal meaning of which it seems impossible to misunderstand."

The facts of the case, then, appear to be these. Whether Hermas was or was not coeval with the Apostles must be admitted to be matter of perfect uncertainty. His book is quoted by the Fathers, beginning with Irenæus, in various terms of approbation or disapprobation. The language of Irenæus, the first witness, is indeed very strong: "Bene ergo pronuntiavit Scriptura quæ: Primo omnium crede, quoniam unus est Deus, qui omnia constituit et consummavit, et fecit, ex eo, quod non erat, ut essent omnia; omnium capax, et qui à nemine capiatur." As these words, however, of Hermas are nothing more than an assertion of the Divine power and attributes conveyed almost in the very words of Scripture, it is not improbable that Irenæus so adduced them, meaning by Scriptura, the Scripture as compendiously expressed in this passage. The Greek Church, it appears, early recognized it as an useful book, and in some cases allowed it publicly to be read. To the Latins it was for a long time unknown. Both in ancient and modern times it has been charged, in several particulars, with inculcating false doctrine, which, however, some of our most eminent Divines, as well as of the Ancient Fathers, have as strenuously denied.

Under these circumstances, what is the value of the work considered as a witness of primitive doctrine or practice? Mr. Wordsworth will possibly say that he does not appeal to his testimony in point of doctrine, but only to establish the practice of the Church. The distinction will not, I think, in this instance hold good. To say nothing of other places, in which he is quoted in confirmation of doctrines, strictly so called (as on p. 21), he is cited in this case to prove that "the discipline of penance is attested by the Fathers as the constant practice of the first and purest ages of the Christian Church; and this in connection with the statement that it forms "a system," the corner-stone of which "was laid by Christ himself," and "which his Apostles instituted and enforced-ordained...as an effectual means for the cure and prevention of sin," (Sermon, p. 37); and that too in a discourse, one object of which is to inculcate the doctrine (for though Mr. Wordsworth only enunciates this as a doubtful point, Sermon, p. 13, the bearing of the Sermon is manifestly to prove its truth,) that Repentance, "in every case of 'grievous' sin, must imply the further notion of ecclesiastical penance." Surely the connexion between doctrine and practice is here much too intimate to be rent asunder. In order to establish his point, Mr. Wordsworth must shew that Hermas undoubtedly speaks of an Ecclesiastical penance; and not only so, but of a penance considered as a part of such a system as he describes, and, as such, an essential part of Evangelical repentance in the case of deadly and presumptuous sins. Does Hermas, then, undoubtedly attest these matters of faith and practice? and if he does so, what is the worth of his testimony, under the cir cumstances I have already adverted to ?

The decision of the latter question I shall leave to the reader's judgment, and proceed to the other subject of inquiry, what is it that the Pastor of Hermas really does attest? Can we find in it undoubted evidence of the particular fact, in proof of which it is here adduced? The passages referred to by Mr. Wordsworth, in confirCHRIST. OBSERV. No. 54.

2 Z

mation of his views, are Book i. vis. iii. § 5. Book ii. mandate iv. § 3. mandate v. § 1. Book iii. the whole of Similitude vii.“ et alibi.”

He does not particularly specify the words intended in the first of these references. I conclude he must mean, "Quos autem rejiciebant, et ponebant juxta turrim, qui sunt illi? Ait mihi, Ii sunt qui peccaverunt et voluerunt pœnitentiam agere, propter hoc non sunt longè projecti à turre, quoniam utiles erunt in structurâ, si pœnitentiam egerint. Qui ergo pœnitentiam acturi sunt, si egerint pœnitentiam, fortes erunt in fide, si nunc pœnitentiam egerunt, dum ædificatur turris."

The Similitude, from which these words are taken, is entitled, " De triumphantis Ecclesiæ structurâ, et variis hominum reproborum ordinibus." The characters described in the quotation are persons whose day of grace is not yet expired, and who have yet "place of repentance" for their sins.

It is obvious that the force of the passage, if it have any, in relation to the point at issue, depends altogether upon the meaning of the phrase "pœnitentiam agere." Unless Mr. Wordsworth can shew that it necessarily means to perform penance, he has no right whatever to allude to the passage as supporting his opinions. To do so under such circumstances is in fact to throw dust into the eyes of his readers, many of whom, having no leisure or opportunity for personal investigation, may be expected to take for granted that his quotations are strictly apposite.

The same may be said of Book ii. mandate v. § 1: "Et dixi illi, Vellem scire, Domine, nequitiam iracundiæ, ut custodiam me ab illa. Et dixit mihi, Scies: et si non custodieris te ab illâ, perdes spem cum totâ domo tuâ. Sed recede ab illà. Ego enim tecum sum Nuntius æquitatis, et omnes qui ab eâ recedunt, quicumque pœnitentiam egerint ex totis præcordiis vivent Deo; sed et cum illis ero, et conservabo omnes. Justificati enim sunt omnes, qui pœnitentiam egerint, à sanctissimo Nuntio.

The phrase" pœnitentiam agere" occurs in various other passages throughout the work: as for instance, in pp. 173, 198, 204, 216, 220, 256, 259-265, 283, 293, 294, 296, 297, 305, in Russel's Patres Apostolici; and it is the occurrence of this phrase, I imagine, which affords the explanation of Mr. Wordsworth's "et alibi," when he says, in his Appendix, " for further testimony of Hermas, see lib. i. vis. iii. § 5, lib. ii. mandat. v. § 1, et alibi." If I am wrong in suggesting this explanation, I sincerely regret my error, arising from my inability to discover any other. But if this be the explanation, would the reader of Mr. Wordsworth's Appendix have inferred that the "et alibi" meant only a number of passages containing a phrase of doubtful import, which may or may not be intended of ecclesiastical penance ?

In every one of these instances, without exception, Archbishop Wake translates the phrase by the word repent. Not the slightest intimation does he give in his version that he understood it of penance. That it may possibly have this signification, and that by later writers it is undoubtedly so employed, I readily admit. But that it must be so understood in these passages of Hermas, is by no means to be assumed as a settled point. And yet without such an assumption the citation of them is perfectly irrelevant.

Mr. Wordsworth is too good a scholar to require me to say, for

his information, that " pœnitentiam agere" is a phrase not confined to ecclesiastical writers, and therefore not necessarily to be interpreted in a technical sense, even when it occurs in writers of that description. Particular considerations arising from the context must even in them determine the limitation of meaning; if not, we must take it in its more general and comprehensive acceptation. Of the ordinary signification Facciolati gives the following instances: "Plin. 1. 7, Ep. 10: Ne rursus provinciæ, quod damnasse dicitur, placeat, agatque pœnitentiam pœnitentiæ suæ. Petron. in Sat. c. 132. Curt. 1. 8, c. 6, et Auc. dial. de Oratorib. cap. 15. Pænitentiam agere sermonis mei cœpi, secretoque rubore perfundi." (voc. Penitentia.) And Mr. Wordsworth himself cites from Augustin, “Quod autem Petrus dicitur egisse pœnitentiam, cavendum est ne ita putetur egisse quomodo agunt in Ecclesiá qui propriè pœnitentes vocantur." (Serm. note, p. 19.) Neither is this the only reason why we should hesitate before we arbitrarily affix this limited and technical meaning to the phrase as it occurs in Hermas. The writer himself, if I mistake not, sug. gests considerations which may fairly excite considerable doubt upon the subject. The passage on p. 216 of Russel (viz., lib. ii. mandat. xii. § 3) runs as follows, in the old Latin version: "Dixit mihi, Habes hæc mandata, ambula in his; et audientes homines hortare, ut pœnitentiam agant, et pœnitentia eorum munda fiet reliquis diebus vitæ eorum." But in the Greek original it stands thus : Λέγει μοι· Πορεύου ἐν ταῖς ἐντολαῖς ταύταις, και κατακάλει καὶ τοὺς ἀκούοντας πορεύεσθαι ἐν αὐταῖς, ἵνα ἡ μετάνοια αὐτῶν καθαρὰ γένηται. “ Exhort the men that hear,” says the Latin, that they repent." Exhort those that hear," says the Greek," that they walk in them." In what, then, were they to walk? In the mandates before specified. But what were these mandates ? ̓́Εργασαι δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀρετὴν ἀληθείας, καὶ φόβον Κυρίου, καὶ πίστιν, καὶ ἀγάπην, καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνην .... καὶ ὅσα τούτοις ὅμοια τοῖς προειρημένοις· ταῦτα ἐργαζόμενος εὐάρεστος ἔση δοῦλος τοῦ θεοῦ. From which, it is plain either that the translator, if by "poenitentiam agant he meant ecclesistical penance, wilfully perverted his original; or, if not, that he used it in its general acceptation, considering these several precepts as so many evidences of true repentance.

66

If we adopt the former of these suppositions, we shall perhaps come to the conclusion that there is more weight in the sentence pronounced by Barthius upon this version, Scriptam fuisse post Hieronymi tempora et ab Anastasio Bibliothecario," than Cotelerius is willing to allow. The utmost that even its defender can say for it is, "Nos ut nihil certi afferre possumus, ita suspicamur per prima Ecclesiæ tempora Latinos non caruisse laudatissimi operis versione ; eam vero aliam à nostrâ fuisse nihil nos coget dicere." (Cotelerius Jud. de H. Pastore.) It is not even certain that the Latin Church of the first ages had any version of Hermas at all. If they had, no reason compels us to say that it was a different one to this. Then surely no reason compels us to say that it was this. And yet it is to this version, convicted, as we have just seen, either of wilful falsification, or of being a loose paraphrase, that we are obliged to have recourse for the opinions of Hermas, and to which, as if of undoubted authority, we are referred for the practice of the early Church.

In Book ii. mandate ix. § 1, p. 198, Russel's Patr. Ap., the title of which is "Postulandum à Deo assiduè, et sine hæsitatione," occurs the following passage: "Nam qui pleni sunt fide, omnia petunt