INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
OF the translations of this work into other languages I need say nothing. Those which exist in English, so far as I can ascertain, are the following:—that of Hollier (London, 1728); that of Bunce (London, 1759); that of Hohler (Cambridge, 1837); and that of Marsh (London, 1844). All these may be regarded as books of uncommon occurrence. I have no occasion to speak of their merit. Only one of them has been before me during the execution of the present version. I refer to that by Mr. Hohler, which has undoubtedly many happy renderings, but not a few so ludicrously wrong that I have been amazed. Why, I know not, but I have been asked from time to time to do what I have now done. My first idea was to go carefully over one of the old versions and to republish it with any alterations which seemed necessary. But considering all the circumstances of the case, and that such a volume would at best be regarded as a mere sartor resartus, I resolved to translate the book for myself as soon as my leisure permitted. I have done so, and venture to lay the result before those who may be interested in it.
Although twenty years have come and gone since I made the acquaintance of the six books on the Priesthood, I send them forth with the same impressions as I received at the first: it is often difficult to convey the sense in tolerably intelligible English without a periphrasis; the work is one of extraordinary excellence, both for its language and its ideas; it will always be valuable to the aspirant to ministerial honour and usefulness; it is characterised by serious deficiencies which render other teachers necessary; and it is a remarkably interesting study for all who wish to know more of the Church of the latter half of the fourth century.
The opinions I have now uttered may be developed with some advantage.
1. With reference to the translation. I have said ‘it is often difficult to convey the sense in tolerably intelligible English without a periphrasis;’ and I may add that cases also occur in which I have felt it would be better for my readers if I slightly condensed the expression of the original. My aim has been throughout to steer as closely to the text as was possible without being excessively bald. Yet I have taken so much liberty in the construction of my sentences that I have not produced a mere ordo verborum. Consequently some may find that in construing the Greek, my version will not supersede the necessity for study. I wish it to be so. In rendering certain words I have not always used the same English term because it is notorious that many words must be viewed in their relations to the passages in which they stand. There are certain other words, chiefly technical and professional, with which I have desired to take no liberty whatever. If the terms of office employed by S. Chrysostom are really not always identical with those now in use in any branch of the Church, why should they be modernised to suit our practice? My aim herein has been to let my author speak for himself, in order that there may be no mistake when words like ‘priest,’ ‘presbyter,’ ‘minister,’ ‘bishop,’ ‘ruler,’ and so forth occur. It may be urged that ‘priest’ and ‘presbyter’ are etymologically identical; and so they are in English, but practically they differ. Therefore when S. Chrysostom says, ἱερεύς, I put ‘priest,’ and where he has πρεσβύτερος, I have ‘presbyter.’ Again, there are certain metaphorical words which I found it simply impossible to reproduce in English, and these I have rendered ad sensum as I best could. The care I have taken to be faithful to my author is such that I hope few serious misrepresentations of his meaning will be found. There are places in which I have been compelled to differ from all previous translations, but in all such instances I have followed my deliberate judgment, and this is all I have to say about them. The text I have adopted is that of the well known Leipsic edition of Tauchnitz, because it is not only a good one, but the most widely circulated. A few of its deviations from the Benedictine edition have been indicated in the margin. Solely for the purpose of facilitating reference, I have retained the consecutive numeration of the short sections of the Leipsic book, and for the same cause have printed each as a distinct paragraph. The headings of the chapters are substantially the same as in the Greek, except in the third book where the Greek is deficient. The larger divisions of the Tauchnitz edition I have left unnoticed, because they do not always represent those which I have called chapters. For the division into chapters I have followed an edition of the Latin version of the Benedictines. With these explanations, I trust my principles and method will be understood: the execution must speak for itself.
2. I have said that the work of Chrysostom is ‘one of extraordinary excellence both for its language and its ideas.’ Its aim is to magnify the priestly office, and to render those who enter upon it conscious of their awful responsibilities. In his endeavours to realise this aim the author has wrought out a plot, which adds to the interest of the subject, and enables him to discuss the topics which may arise, in the form of a dialogue resting on a sort of narrative. Whether the events introduced actually occurred I know not, but in any case they are such as might have happened. Perhaps the solemn obligations imposed upon God’s ministers were never more strikingly exhibited. Arguments, comparisons, texts of scripture, examples, and whatever may give force and energy to the main idea, are abundantly introduced. Those however, who would fully realise the lavish exuberance of resources must read the Greek, for no translation can accurately represent it. The composition of the book is such that I have been compelled to reject the old opinion that it was written in the early years of S. Chrysostom. The command of language, the solidity of judgment, and the profound knowledge of human nature and spiritual things here displayed, do not belong to the youthful and inexperienced.
3. I said the work ‘will always be valuable to the aspirant to ministerial honour and usefulness.’ He who aspires to the honour alone, will be likely to tremble under its terrible denunciations; but he who looks forward to usefulness in the Church of God may be led by it to earnest self-examination, to sincere humility, and to prayer for the grace of God to sustain and aid him in that for which no man alone is sufficient.
4. I said the book ‘is characterised by serious deficiencies which render other teachers necessary.’ I suppose this will be admitted by all classes of readers, because the peculiarities of none of them are fully and exactly represented. This is true in relation to abstract doctrine, to forms and ceremonies, and to church discipline and government. Nothing is more natural than that we should persuade ourselves that the opinions and practices of our favourites agree with our own. Probably S. Chrysostom will be claimed by Roman and Anglican, by High Church and Evangelical, by Episcopalian and Congregationalist. So far as I can judge all will be right, and all will be wrong. The Romanist will find prayers for the dead, and the Anglican will observe no appeal to power external to the Church. The High Churchman will notice the exalted terms in which priestly dignity and sacramental efficacy are propounded; while the Evangelical will be gratified by the prominence given to God’s grace and word and Spirit. The Episcopalian will see in Chrysostom a man who exalts the bishop’s office with all his eloquence; and the Congregationalist will observe how at least the shadow of lay participation in ministerial appointments lingers on, how lay influence is recognised as perfectly legitimate when lawfully used, and how absolutely S. Chrysostom repudiates the civil power in matters of religion. Every party then, I have no doubt, may discover here what will seem to favour it. I am not aware that I am required to account for this circumstance, but I believe it my duty to mention it. Chrysostom may be none the worse Catholic for occupying such a position. But this very fact will justify the remark at the head of this paragraph. Those who claim our author because he has some of their characteristic features, will do their best to set him right where he does not come up to their standard. What he says which appears to be opposed to them, must be explained by means of an interpreter. His very silence on certain topics which are thought to be of importance in the respective sections of the Christian world must be accounted for. Why, for example, does he never mention the Virgin, the intercession of the saints, prayer to the saints, purgatory, the Bishop of Rome, etc.? Why is he silent as to all set forms of prayer, priestly vestments, incense, crosses, crossings, and a host of other matters? How is it that he does not clearly distinguish between the various orders of the clergy? Why is he so vague and indefinite in regard to some of the chief doctrines of Christianity? With reference to this last matter, it is true that he insists upon the necessity for a right faith, but many things are left unsaid, and there is a marked absence of much that would be acceptable to most. The Rev. C. Bridges notices this in his well-known work on ‘The Christian Ministry,’ where he says: “We must however, remark upon the evident deficiency of Chrysostom’s treatise in those lively views and exercises of faith, which are the grand stimulants to our work.… His deficiency disables him indeed, as a sustaining comforter to the desponding minister.” The elaborate vindication of deception when practised for a good end, will fail to satisfy many. The quotations from the Apocrypha will not please some. The entire argument in justification of the writer’s own real or assumed evasion of the clerical office and work, will be regarded as adapted to keep back the timid as much as to repel the unworthy. Whatever position we occupy we shall find that this extraordinary production is not adequate as a representation of ministerial functions and encouragements. Its one grand feature is the manner in which it insists upon the awful responsibilities and obligations of the Christian priesthood. For our times, and for all times, it is of unspeakable value, but it is not enough alone, and recourse must be had to other teachers to make good its defects.
5. I said that the book ‘is a remarkably interesting study for all who wish to know more of the Church of the latter half of the fourth century.’ By this I mean that the book has an archæological value. It throws some light upon the condition of communities of monks, widows, and virgins. It suggests interesting reflections upon the choice and election of the clergy, and the position of the laity in regard to such occasions. It teaches us indirectly the relation of the Church to the secular and civil power, and a great many other matters which are more than curious. I cannot here indicate all the points which I have in view, but I imagine that a careful perusal of the work would help any one who desired to understand the inner life and action, and the external relations of the Church in the time of Chrysostom. Even what is said of the sacraments, of prayers for the dead, and of the state of the departed has an importance in the history of Christian doctrine.
I do not undertake to defend or to oppose any of the opinions advanced by S. Chrysostom in this work. It is true that he teaches baptismal regeneration, the power of priestly absolution, and at least the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper; that he views this last Sacrament as in some sense a sacrifice, and says the priest has to pray for the dead. It is true that he is silent as to tradition, and exalts the Scriptures as God’s Word, and the source and standard of Christian truth. It is true that while he magnifies the priestly office and the importance of the prayers of the clergy, he makes the living word spoken or preached by them their great instrument, connecting with it the holiest of examples, and the most forcible reasoning. It is also true that he quotes the Apocryphal equally with the Canonical books; but never appeals to fathers, councils, or any other authorities. The sum and substance of all this perhaps is, that according to Chrysostom the Holy Scriptures are God’s supreme and sole law in the Church, and the clergy are entrusted with power to interpret, preach, defend, and enforce that law in the name of God for the Church’s good. It follows, that while God rules the clergy by the Scriptures, the clergy rule the Church mainly by the same means. This is my understanding of our author’s general principle, and I leave others to see whether I am correct or not.
I have overlooked one matter which may require a word of explanation: I find that some previous translators have frequently introduced the word ‘Bishop’ where the Greek has it not, and have from time to time translated ἱερεύς by ‘Bishop.’ This has perhaps been done to produce apparent consistency. But I have not followed the example set me, for two reasons: first, because such a proceeding seemed opposed to my principle of never making S. Chrysostom say what he did not certainly mean; secondly, because the book is distinctly intitled, ‘Of the Priesthood,’ and therefore should not be taken as primarily a manual for bishops, but for such as had not received full clerical orders. If I am not wrong the term ‘Priesthood’ here fairly includes ‘Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.’
The conditions which I have imposed upon myself have not allowed me to attempt the production of a graceful and eloquent composition. I have tried to catch the spirit of the original, and have not been inattentive to its form. But it is confessedly beyond my command of language, if it be not more than the English tongue is equal to, to imitate the precision and elegance of the Greek. If it should be thought that my phraseology falls far short of the original, and is from time to time even colloquial, I could not deny it. S. Chrysostom himself manifestly endeavours often to speak familiarly and freely, but then he also often soars away in a style which is inimitable. Even at his best however, I should be sorry to compare him with the great and grand masters of Grecian oratory. The power and beauty which this noble language exhibits in his hands, is, after all, a power and beauty which has passed its meridian. We admire the intellect, piety, earnestness, and eloquence of the speaker, but we are conscious that his language is shorn of its glory.
The reader will observe that I have not undertaken the labour of annotating the translation. But I have endeavoured to point out in the margin many passages of Scripture which are directly or indirectly referred to in the text.
B. H. C.
LONDON,
February, 1866.