analogous in some respects to that of Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress in modern times; and critics have frequently compared the two works. In ancient times two opinions prevailed in regard to the authorship. The most widely spread was, that the Pastor of Hermas was the production of the Hermas mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans. Origen13 states this opinion distinctly, and it is repeated by Eusebius14 and Jerome.15 Those who believed the apostolic Hermas to be the author, necessarily esteemed the book very highly; and there was much discussion as to whether it was inspired or not. The early writers are of opinion that it was really inspired. Irenæus quotes it as Scripture;16 Clemens Alexandrinus speaks of it as making its statements “divinely;”17 and Origen, though a few of his expressions are regarded by some as implying doubt, unquestionably gives it as his opinion that it is “divinely inspired.”18 Eusebius mentions that difference of opinion prevailed in his day as to the inspiration of the book, some opposing its claims, and others 7 maintaining its divine origin, especially because it formed an admirable introduction to the Christian faith. For this latter reason it was read publicly, he tells us, in the churches. The only voice of antiquity decidedly opposed to the claim is that of Tertullian. He designates it apocryphal,19 and rejects it with scorn, as favouring anti-Montanistic opinions. Even his words, however, show that it was regarded in many churches as Scripture. The second opinion as to the authorship is found in no writer of any name. It occurs only in two places: a poem falsely ascribed to Tertullian, and a fragment published by Muratori, on the Canon, the authorship of which is unknown, and the original language of which is still a matter of dispute.20 The fragment says, “The Pastor was written very lately in our times, in the city of Rome, by Hermas, while Bishop Pius, his brother, sat in the chair of the Church of the city of Rome.” A third opinion has had advocates in modern times. The Pastor of Hermas is regarded as a fiction, and the person Hermas, who is the principal character, is, according to this opinion, merely the invention of the fiction-writer. 13 Comment. in Rom. xvi. 14, lib. x. 31. [But see Westcott’s fuller account of all this, pp. 219, 220.] 14 Hist. Eccl. iii. 3. 15 De Viris Illustribus, c. x. 16 Contra Hæres., iv. 20, 2. 17 Strom., i. xxi. p. 426. 18 Ut supra. 19 De Pudicitia, c. xx., also c. x.; De Oratione, c. xvi. 20 [This statement should be compared with Westcott’s temperate and very full account of the Muratorian Fragment, pp. 235–245.] 9 Introductory Note