oracle of Jacob concerning the time that Shiloh was to come; the 70 weeks of Daniel; the prophecies of Haggai and Malachi, of his coming while the second temple stood; and which was now destroyed when he wrote this Epistle, and the like: Monsieur le Moyne(e) will give him a ready answer, viz. that these passages relate chiefly to the time of Christ's appearing, and that this was no controversy in those days; the Jews not only confessing it, but being ready at every turn through this persuasion to set up some or other for their Messiah, to their shame and confusion. It was therefore then but little necessary to use those arguments against them, which now appear to be the most proper and convincing: since the state of the question has been altered, and the Jews deny either that their Messiah is come, or that it was necessary for him to have come about that time that our Saviour Christ appeared in the flesh.

'36. But though the chief design of this Epistle was to convince the Jews of the truth of our religion, yet are there not wanting in the latter part of it, many excellent rules, to render it still very useful to the pious reader. Indeed some have doubted whether this did originally belong to this Epistle ;(f) or whether it has not since been added to it. But seeing we find this part quoted by the Fathers, as belonging to St. Barnabas, no less than the other; and that the measure assigned to it in the antient Stichometries, can hardly be well accounted for without it: I do not see but that we ought to conclude, that our author did divide his Epistle into the two parts in which we now have it; and that this letter, as well as the former, was written by him.

37. As for the translation which I have here given of it, I have made it up out of what remains of the original Greek, and of the old Latin version; and of each of which, though a part be lost, yet it

(e) Proleg. ad Var. Sacr.

(ƒ) Præfat. Usser. ad Edit. Oxon. p. 11, &c.

has so fallen out, that between them we not only have the whole Epistle, but that too free of those interpolations which Vossius tells us some had endeavoured to make in this, as well as in Ignatius's Epistles.(g) The passages of holy Scripture which are here quoted according to the Septuagint, I have chose rather to set down as they are in our English Bible, than to amuse the common reader with a new translation of them. Upon the whole, I have endeavoured to attain to the sense of my author, and to make him as plain and easy as I was able. If in any thing I shall have chanced to mistake him, I have only this to say for myself, that he must be better acquainted with the road than I pretend to be, who will undertake to travel so long a journey in the dark, and never to miss his way.

CHAPTER VIII.

OF THE SHEPHERD OF ST. HERMAS; AND OF THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS.

That the Hermas mentioned by St. Paul, Rom, xvi. 14. was probably the author of that book which is here subjoined under his name. There is little remaining of his life, more than what is taken out of his own book. Of his death; uncertain whether he died a martyr. The antient fathers divided in their opinions of this book: nor are our later critics any less. That there are many useful things in it. Of the second Epistle of St. Clement: that it is not of equal reputation with the former: by some denied to be St. Clement's. It is most probable that it was written by St. Clement, and has many excellent things, and worthy of that holy man, in it. These two pieces now the first time translated into our own language.

1. THERE is not a greater difference between the learned men of the present times concerning the Epistle of St. Barnabas, than there was among the antient Fathers heretofore, concerning the authority of

(g) Is. Vossius Annot. in Barnab. p. 318.

that book, which next follows, under the name of Hermas. Who this Hermas was, what he did, and what he suffered for the faith's sake, is in great measure unknown to us. That there was one of that name at Rome when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Church there, his remembrance of him, Rom. xvi. 14. will not suffer us to doubt. Nor is it improbable but that it was the same Hermas(h) who afterwards wrote this book: and who appears not only still to have continued his relation to the Church of Rome, but to have written at such a time as may well enough agree to one of St. Paul's acquaintance. The former of these may be collected from his second vision, (i) which he seems to have had at the same time that Clement was Bishop of Rome, and to whom therefore he is commanded to communicate a copy of it: and for the latter, might the conjectures of two of our greatest critics() be allowed, who apply the affliction of which he speaks in another of his visions() to the destruction of Jerusalem then at hand, it would follow that this book must have been written within twelve years after the Epistle to the Romans, and so in all probability by that Hermas, of whom St. Paul speaks in that Epistle. But though I rather think that the tribulation which Hermas foretold,(m) relates to the persecution under Domitian, because it is there said to be the trial of the Christians, who should be tried as gold in the fire, but yet should overcome it, and not be hurt by it:(n) (a character that exactly agrees with what Tertulian writes of that perscution ;)(o) yet even this does not hinder but that the Hermas mentioned by St. Paul, might still be living, and be the author of the book we here have under his name.

2. Hence Origen in his Homily(p) upon that place

(h) Vid. Baron. Annot. ad Martyrol. Rom. Maii ix.

(i) Vis. ii. num. iv.

(k) Dr. Hammond and Mr. Dodwell: see Dr. Cave's Hist. Literar. in Herm.

(1) Vis. iv. § 3.

(0) Apolog. c. 5.

(m) Vis. iv. § 1.

(n) Vis. iv. § 2, 8. () Hom. in Rom. lib. x. c. 16.

of St. Paul before mentioned, delivers it as his opinion, that it was the Hermas there spoken of, who wrote this book. But Eusebius does more :() he tells us that it was the received opinion in those days, that it was composed by him. And that it continued to be so in the age after, St. Hierome witnesses;(r) who speaks yet more positively than Eusebius to the same purpose. From all which we may conclude what is to be judged of that mistake which our latter writers have fallen into, by their too credulous following the author of the Poem against Marcion, under the name of Tertullian,(s) viz. that it was written by Hermes, brother to Pope Pius; in which not only the authors of the pontifical ascribed to Pope Damasus(t) and of the pretended decretal Epistles of the antient Bishops of Rome,() but the martyrologists of the middle ages, Bede, Ado, &c. have generally been involved.

3. It is true Cardinal Baronius has endeavoured to make up this difference, by supposing that the Hermes spoken of by St. Paul, was brother to Pope Pius, and so all parties may be in the right. But besides, that this book was written by Hermas, not the Hermes of whom St. Paul there speaks; the difference of the time renders it altogether incredible,(x) that a person of some considerable age at St. Paul's writing his Epistle, should have lived so long as that Pope's brother is said to have done: whom the Cardinal himself observes to have been living 161 years after Christ (y) that is to say, 107 years after the writing of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. This his Epito mator Spondanus was aware of;(z) and therefore though he seems to have allowed of the conjecture, - yet he could not choose but add this reflection of his

(q) Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 3. (r) Hieron. de Script. in Herm. (s) Lib. iii. (t) In Vit. Pii Papæ.

(u) Epist. i. attrib. Pio pp. p. 194. edit Blondel.

(x) See Bellarmin. de Script. § i. p. 45, in Herm. (y) Annal. Eccl. in fine anno. 164.

(z) Spondan. Epitom. Annal. Baron. add ann. 159.

own upon it; that according to this reckoning, Hermas must have been 130 years old when he died, and in all probability a great deal more.

4. What the condition of this Hermas was before his conversion, we cannot tell; but that he was a man of some consideration, we may conclude from what we read of him in his third vision :(a) where he is said to have been formerly unprofitable to the Lord upon the account of those riches, which, after he became a Christian, he seems to have dispensed in works of charity and beneficence.

5. Nor have we any more knowledge how he was converted, than what his condition was before it is probable from several passages in his book, (b) that he was himself brought over to Christianity some time before his family; who continued yet in the practice of many and great impieties. During this while Hermas was not only very kind to them, but seems to have been so indulgent towards them, as to permit them rather to go on in their sins, than he would take any rough measures with them to draw them off from them.

6. But this was not all he not only patiently bore with them, but was himself disturbed with many anxious cares, (c) to supply them in their extravagances, and often times did not behave himself so well as he ought to have done upon that account. But however, being of an honest and upright disposition, and having a great sincerity in his religion, it pleased God at last not only to convince him of his faults, in thus neglecting his family, but to give them grace to hearken to his admonitions, and to embrace at once both the Christian faith, and a practice also suitable thereunto.

7. What he did after this, we have no account; but that he lived a very strict life, we may reasonably conjecture, in that it pleased God to vouchsafe such

(a) Vis. iii. num. 6.

(c) See below, Vis. i. n. 2, 3.

(b) Vis. i. n. 3. Vis. ii. n. 2, 3.