THE INFLUENCE OF THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON

THE WRITINGS OF JOHN HENRY NEWMAN

by

ANDREW RAYMOND WADSWORTH

submitted in accordance with the requirements for

the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

in the subject

BIBLICAL STUDIES (NEW TESTAMENT)

at the

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA

SUPERVISOR: PROF. CHRIS L. DE WET

February 2021
 DECLARATION

Name: Andrew Raymond Wadsworth_______________________________________

Student number: 64090213________________________________________________________

Degree: PhD Religious Studies (New Testament)________________________________

Exact wording of the title of the thesis as appearing on the electronic copy submitted for examination:

The Influence of the Theology of John Chrysostom on the Writings of John Henry Newman

I declare that the above thesis is my own work and that all the sources that I have used or quoted have
been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references.

I further declare that I submitted the thesis to originality checking software and that it falls within the
accepted requirements for originality.

I further declare that I have not previously submitted this work, or part of it, for examination at Unisa
for another qualification or at any other higher education institution.

________________________ 20 February 2021

_____________________
SIGNATURE DATE

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ENGLISH SUMMARY AND KEYWORDS ................................................................................................5

AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING EN TREFWOORDE ..................................................................................7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................................................9

ABBREVIATIONS FOR PRIMARY SOURCES ...................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 18

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 18
1.1 Introductory Remarks ................................................................................................................................ 18
1.2 Problem Statement, Aims and Hypothesis................................................................................................. 25
1.3 Contribution of the Study........................................................................................................................... 26
1.4 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 28
1.5 Availability and Citing of the Sources ........................................................................................................ 28
1.6 Literature Review ....................................................................................................................................... 29
1.7 Structure of Thesis ..................................................................................................................................... 57

CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 60

NEWMAN’S PREPARATION FOR READING THE FATHERS ............................................................ 60

2.1 Early Life .................................................................................................................................................... 60
2.2 Education at School ................................................................................................................................... 62
2.3 University Education .................................................................................................................................. 64
2.4 Holy Orders ................................................................................................................................................ 72
2.5 A State of Flux ............................................................................................................................................ 76
2.6 Becoming a Catholic .................................................................................................................................. 81
2.7 Newman as an Educator............................................................................................................................ 83
2.8 The Influence of the Fathers on Newman .................................................................................................. 88
2.9 Newman Opposes Rationalism .................................................................................................................. 94

CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................................. 101

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM AS PASTOR AND PREACHER ....................................................................... 101

3.1 Constructing a Biography of Chrysostom ................................................................................................ 101
3.2 Chrysostom’s Early Life ............................................................................................................................ 102
3.3 Priest and Preacher in Antioch................................................................................................................. 107
3.4 Bishop in Constantinople ......................................................................................................................... 111
3.5 Transition into Exile and Death................................................................................................................ 117
3.6 His Writings ............................................................................................................................................. 119
3.7 Early and Enduring Fame and Influence .................................................................................................. 124

3
 3.8 Characteristics of Chrysostom’s Writing .................................................................................................. 132
3.9 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................ 136

CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................................ 140

NEWMAN’S READING OF CHRYSOSTOM ........................................................................................ 140

4.1 How Chrysostom Came to be Read in England ........................................................................................ 140
4.2 How Newman Came to Read Chrysostom ............................................................................................... 143
4.3 How was Newman Guided in his Reading of Chrysostom?...................................................................... 145
4.4 Newman Writes about Chrysostom ......................................................................................................... 147

CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................................ 161

COMMON PRINCIPLES OF THE PATRISTIC ERA SHARED BY NEWMAN AND CHRYSOSTOM

.................................................................................................................................................................. 161
5.1 Setting Up the Comparison ...................................................................................................................... 161
5.2 The Dogmatic Principle ............................................................................................................................ 162
5.3 The Sacramental Principle ....................................................................................................................... 174
5.4. The Principle of Divine Providence .......................................................................................................... 194
5.5 The Principle of Development .................................................................................................................. 207
5.6 The Comparison Continues ...................................................................................................................... 220

CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................................................. 221

LETTERS OF DIRECTION FROM NEWMAN AND CHRYSOSTOM ................................................ 221

6.1 Working with Presumptions .................................................................................................................... 221
6.2 Chrysostom and Olympias ....................................................................................................................... 228
6.3 Newman and Maria Giberne ................................................................................................................... 233
6.4 Common Themes of Spiritual Direction ................................................................................................... 245
i. Dealing with Despondency .................................................................................................................. 246
ii. Solicitude for Health and Welfare ..................................................................................................... 251
iii. Consecration to a Life of Virginity ................................................................................................... 256
iv. The Importance of Prayer ................................................................................................................. 259
v. The Consolation of Friendship ........................................................................................................... 261

CLOSING REMARKS ............................................................................................................................. 269

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................... 272

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 274

4
 ENGLISH SUMMARY AND KEYWORDS

THE INFLUENCE OF THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON

THE WRITINGS OF JOHN HENRY NEWMAN

John Henry Newman makes a number of significant references in his autobiographical writings

to his devotion to John Chrysostom. Is this simply a matter of piety, or does it reveal a deeper

connection to the point that Newman is influenced in his own theological understanding,

spiritual insight, and pastoral practice by Chrysostom? This thesis attempts to demonstrate that

Newman’s very particular preparation for reading the Fathers, and in particular, his

comprehensive grasp of Greek, orientated him, from an early age, towards an immersion in

Patristic thought, a fact largely demonstrated by his Letters and Diaries. Citation of

Chrysostom as a theological authority, in Newman’s doctrinal writings, and in his published

preaching, becomes increasingly evident, and demonstrates what might be considered

theological characteristics the two theologians hold in common. In Newman’s spiritual

direction, particularly in his spiritual accompaniment and guidance of women, there appears to

be a correlation with advice given by Chrysostom in similar circumstances; in the present study

this is treated in a comparison of the letters of Chrysostom to Olympias, and Newman’s

correspondence with Maria Giberne. Beyond any theological similarities, and influences both

explicit and implicit, there is evidence that Newman saw in Chrysostom someone very similar

to himself: a profound theological thinker, who rose to prominence as a result of his preaching,

and who met with serious institutional opposition expressed in a deeply personal way, suffered

a considerable amount of loss as a result of holding to his convictions, and yet remained

undeterred in his fidelity to what he understood to be his mission, as a priest, a theologian, a

teacher and a pastor.

5
Keywords: John Henry Newman; John Chrysostom; Patristic influence; Preaching; Religious

correspondence; Theological comparison; Spiritual direction; Religious institutional

opposition; Patristic reception; Interpretation of Scripture; Women in religion.

6
 AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING EN TREFWOORDE

DIE INVLOED VAN DIE TEOLOGIE VAN JOHANNES CHRYSOSTOMOS OP DIE

GESKRIFTE VAN JOHN HENRY NEWMAN

John Henry Newman maak in sy outobiografiese geskrifte 'n aantal belangrike verwysings na

sy toewyding aan Johannes Chrysostomos. Is dit bloot 'n kwessie van vroomheid, of dui dit op

'n dieper verband met die punt dat Newman in sy eie teologiese begrip, geestelike insig en

pastorale praktyk deur Chrysostomos beïnvloed word? Hierdie proefskrif poog om te toon dat

die besonderse voorbereiding van Newman vir die lees van die Kerkvaders, en in besonder, sy

omvattende begrip van Grieks, hom van jongs af tot 'n verdieping in die patristiese denke

georiënteer het, 'n feit wat hoofsaaklik deur sy Briewe en Dagboeke getoon word. Die

aanhaling van Chrysostomos as 'n teologiese gesag, in Newman se leerstellige geskrifte en in

sy gepubliseerde prediking, word toenemend duidelik en demonstreer wat beskou kan word as

teologiese eienskappe wat die twee teoloë gemeen het. In Newman se geestelike begeleiding,

veral in sy geestelike bystand en begeleiding van vroue, blyk daar 'n korrelasie te wees met

raad wat Chrysostomos in soortgelyke omstandighede gegee het. In hierdie studie word dit

ondersoek in 'n vergelyking van die briewe van Chrysostomos aan Olympias, en die

korrespondensie van Newman met Maria Giberne. Behalwe enkele teologiese ooreenkomste

en invloede, eksplisiet sowel as implisiet, is daar bewyse dat Newman iemand baie soortgelyk

aan homself in Chrysostomos gesien het: 'n diep teologiese denker wat as gevolg van sy

prediking prominent geword het en aansienlike institusionele weerstand op 'n diep persoonlike

manier weerstaan het, en ‘n aansienlike mate van verlies as gevolg van sy oortuiging gely het,

en tog onbelemmerd in sy getrouheid aan wat hy as sy missie verstaan het, gebly het, as priester,

teoloog, leraar en predikant.

7
Trefwoorde: John Henry Newman; Johannes Chrysostomos; Patristiese invloed; Prediking;

Godsdienstige korrespondensie; Teologiese vergelyking; Geestelike begeleiding;

Godsdienstige institusionele weerstand; Patristiese resepsie; Skrifuitleg; Vroue in godsdiens.

8
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank all those who have helped me complete this thesis; in particular, my

supervisor, Prof. Chris de Wet. I will always be grateful for his guidance. I must also thank my

own Oratorian community in Washington DC, and those who have helped me bring this work

to completion. Fr. Guy Nicholls of the Birmingham Oratory has, through the many long years

of his friendship, afforded me the greatest insight into Newman and his debt to the Fathers.

I dedicate this study, with great gratitude, to all those who have formed me, and principally, to

the memory of my beloved parents, Jean and Raymond Wadsworth.

“… having received a beginning and root from you, and bringing you the fruits of your care

for your descendants.”

St. John Chrysostom, In illud, vidua elegatur (1 Tim 5.9)

9
 ABBREVIATIONS FOR PRIMARY SOURCES

General

ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers Series.

NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series.

PG Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca. Ed. Jacques-Paul Migne.

162 vols. (Paris: 1857–86).

PL Patrologiae cursus completus: Series latina. Ed. Jacques-Paul Migne.

162 vols. (Paris: 1841–65).

SC Sources Chrétiennes Series (Paris: Cerf, 1943–).

John Chrysostom and Other Ancient Sources

Ad pop. Ant. John Chrysostom, Ad populum Antiochenum = De statuis hom. 1–21.

Adv. Jud. John Chrysostom, Adversus Judeaos.

Aug., De doctr. Augustine, De doctrina Christiana.

Cat. John Chrysostom, Catecheses ad illuminandos 1–8.

10
Comp. reg. et mon. John Chrysostom, Comparatio regis et monachi.

De Bab. John Chrysostom, De S. Babyla contra Julianum et gentiles.

De bapt. Christ. John Chrysostom, De baptismo Christi.

De incomp. John Chrysostom, De incomprehensibili Dei natura hom. 1–5.

De prov. Dei John Chrysostom, De providentia Dei.

De sac. John Chrysostom, De sacerdotio

De stat. John Chrysostom, De statuis hom. 1–21 = Ad populum Antiochenum

hom. 1–21.

Diab. tent. John Chrysostom, De diabolo tentatore hom. 1–3

Dom. non est in hom. John Chrysostom, In illud: Domine, non est in homine

Ep. Olymp. John Chrysostom, Epistulae ad Olympiadem.

Illum. cat. John Chrysostom, Ad illuminandos catecheses 1–2.

Inan. glor. John Chrysostom, De inani gloria et de educandis liberis.

11
In Act. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in acta apostolorum

In Col. John Chrysostom, In ep. ad Colossenses hom. 1–12

In 1 Cor. John Chrysostom, In ep. 1 ad Corinthios hom. 1–44.

In 2 Cor. John Chrysostom, In ep. 2 ad Corinthios hom. 1–30.

In. Eph. John Chrysostom, In ep. ad Ephesios hom. 1–24.

In Eutr. John Chrysostom, In Eutropium.

In Gen. hom. John Chrysostom, Homiliae 1–67 in Genesim.

In Gen. serm. John Chrysostom, Sermones 1–8 in Genesim.

In Heb. John Chrysostom, In ep. ad Hebraeos hom. 1–34.

In Is. John Chrysostom, In Isaiam hom.

In Jn. John Chrysostom, In Ioannem hom. 1–88.

In Matt. John Chrysostom, In Matthaeum hom. 1–90.

In Tit. John Chrysostom, In ep. ad Titum hom. 1–6.

12
Cyr,. Cat. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses mystagogicae quinque.

Hier., Comm. Isa. Jerome, Commentariorum in Isaiam.

Hier., Vir. ill. Jerome, De viris illustribus.

Lib., Or. Libanius, Orationes.

Opp. John Chrysostom, Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae.

Orig., Cels. Origen, Contra Celsum.

Pall., Dial. Palladius, Dialogus de vita Iohannis Chrysostomi

Pall., Epp. Palladius, Epistulae ad episcopos.

Quod nemo laed. Quod nemo laeditur nisi a se ipso.

Soc., H.E. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica.

Soz., H.E. Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica.

Subintr. John Chrysostom, Contra eos qui subintroductae habent virgins.

13
Theod. John Chrysostom, Ad Theodorum lapsum libri 1–2.

Vid. elig. John Chrysostom, In illud: Vidua eligatur (1 Tim. 5.9).

Works of John Henry Newman

The abbreviations follow those listed by Joseph Rickaby in his Index to the Works of John

Henry Cardinal Newman (London: Longman, 1914, reprinted Westminster, Maryland:

Christian Classics Inc., 1977), with additions for the volumes of the Letters & Diaries. The

date given last in brackets, in every case, is the date of the edition according to the pages of

which that particular volume is indexed. Thus, P.S., vol. i, is indexed according to the standard

edition of 1910 (Longmans). In the preparation of this study, I frequently consulted the online

versions of Newman’s works held at the National Institute of Newman Studies in Pittsburgh

and accessed at www.newmanreader.org. The pagination follows the standard edition of

Longman, unless an alternative edition is noted.

Apo. Apologia, published 1865 (1908).

Ari. The Arians of the Fourth Century, 1833, 1871 (1908).

Ath. i., ii. St. Athanasius, two volumes, 1841–1844, 1881, 1887 (1911).

A.W. Autobiographical Writings, 1956.

Diff., i., ii. Difficulties of Anglicans—

Vol. i., 1850 (1908).

Vol. ii., 1865 x 1874 x 1875 (1910).

Dev. Development of Doctrine, 1845, 1878 (1909).

14
Ess., i., ii. Essays Critical and Historical—

Vol. i., 1828 x 1835 x 1836 x 1837 x 1838 x 1839 x 1840: 1871

(1910).

Vol. ii., 1840 x 1841 x 1842 x 1846: 1871 (1910).

G.A. Grammar of Assent, 1870 (1909).

H.S., i., ii., iii. Historical Sketches—

Vol. i., 1853 x 1824 x 1826 x 1833–1836: 1872 (1908).

Vol. ii., 1833–1840 x 1860 x 1873 x 1858 x 1859: 1872 (1912).

Vol. iii., 1854, 1856, 1872: 1859 x 1838 x 1834–1835 (1909).

Idea Idea of a University, 1852 (1910).

Jfc. Lectures on Justification, 1838, 1874 (1908).

L.D. Letters and Diaries, edited posthumously at the Birmingham

Oratory—

Vol. i Feb 1801–Dec 1826.

Vol. ii Jan 1827–Dec 1831.

Vol. iv Jul 1833–Dec 1834.

Vol. v Jan 1835–Dec 1836.

Vol. xi Oct 1845–Dec 1846.

Vol. xv Jan 1852–Dec 1853.

Vol. xviii Apr 1857–Dec 1858.

Vol. xix Jan 1859–Jun 1861.

Vol. xx Jul 1861–Dec 1863.

Vol. xxi Jan 1864–Jun 1865.

Vol. xxv Jan 1870–Dec 1871.

Vol. xxvi Jan 1872–Dec 1873.

15
 Vol. xxvii Jan 1874–Dec 1875.

Vol. xxix Jan 1879–Sept 1881.

Vol. xxx Oct 1881–Dec 1884.

M.D. Meditations and Devotions; Oratory papers, posthumous (1912).

Mix. Discourses to Mixed Congregations, 1849 (1909).

O.S. Sermons on Various Occasions, preached 1850 x 1852 x 1853 x

1856 x 1857 x 1859 x 1866 x 1873: See Contents, ix–xi: published

1857, 1870, 1874 (1908).

P.S. Parochial and Plain Sermons, i., ii., iii., iv., v., vi., vii., v.

Vol. ii., preached 1830 x 1831 x 1832 x 1833 x 1834 x 1835:

published 1835, 1869 (1908).

Vol. iii., preached 1829 x 1830 x 1831 x 1834 x 1835:

published 1836, 1869 (1910).

Vol. iv., preached 1835 x 1836 x 1837 x 1838:

published 1839, 1869 (1909) {viii}.

Vol. v., preached 1834 x 1836 x 1837 x 1838 x 1839 x 1840:

published 1840, 1869 (1907).

Vol. viii., preached 1825 x 1830 x 1831 x 1832 x 1836 x 1837

x 1839 x 1840 x 1841 x 1843: published 1842–1843, 1869

(1908).

The dates of the several sermons are given in Subjects of the

Day, 411–24.

[Transferred to index by date in NR].

S.D. Sermons on Subjects of the Day, preached 1831 x 1836 x 1837 x 1838

x 1840 x 1841 x 1842 x 1843: published 1843, 1869 (1909).

16
T.T. Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical, 1847 x 1870 x 1872 x 1835 x

1858 x 1870 x 1859: 1871 (1908).

U.S. Oxford University Sermons, preached 1826 x 1830 x 1831 x 1832 x

1839 x 1840 x 1841 x 1843: published 1843, 1872 (1909).

V.M., i., ii. Via Media—

Vol. i., 1837, 1877 (1911).

Vol. ii., 1830 x 1834 x 1835 x 1836 x 1837 x 1838 x 1841:

1883 (1908).

V.V. Verses on Various Occasions, written 1818–1865: published 1867

(1910).

17
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introductory Remarks

Some things are a long time in the making. I have that feeling about the study that I am about

to present. I was born just thirteen miles from the Oratory which John Henry Newman founded

in Birmingham in 1847. As such, I grew up in its shadow, hearing about it from my earliest

years. My maternal grandparents had known people who had known Newman, so the link was

personal. It became even more so in 1992 when, already a catholic priest, I became a novice at

the Birmingham Oratory. Almost thirty years later, and after a winding road that I believe

Newman would recognize, I am a member of the Oratorian Community of St. Philip Neri in

Washington, DC. The intervening years have brought me many opportunities, and much

practical experience, in the reading of theology and the study and translation of ancient texts.

It is my intention, therefore, in this present study, to bring some of these diverse strands

together in an attempt to understand my own journey better and to consider how Newman was

himself shaped and guided by the very particular education and almost unique preparation that

Providence bequeathed to him.

On 13 March 1864, in a memorandum to himself entitled, “Written in prospect of death,”1 John

Henry Newman (1801–1890) commends himself to the intercession of a number of saintly

patrons. Among them is the fourth-century bishop of Constantinople, John Chrysostom (ca.

349–407 CE). Beyond what one might expect of the piety of a nineteenth-century catholic

priest, Newman’s patrons include a number of the Fathers of the Church. I am of the view that

this evidences the immense influence the Fathers had on Newman, initially through his early

1
M.D., 421.

18
schooling, which had equipped him with an excellent command of both Greek and Latin

necessary for the reading of the sources. This influence is then subsequently evident in

Newman’s preaching as an Anglican, and in his participation in the project of the translation

of the Fathers as part of the endeavour of those who subsequently became the “Oxford

Movement”.

I have taken Newman’s memorandum to himself of March 13 1864 as the starting point for an

investigation into whether this seemingly pious thought was in fact expressing a deep-seated

relationship with a man who lived sixteen hundred years before him, but whose life and thought

exercised a powerful influence shaping not only Newman’s theological formulations, but his

understanding and experience of what it means to be Christian. To the consideration of the

memorandum of March 13 1864, I would add a further memorandum Newman wrote to himself

on 23 July 1876,2 in which he requests to be buried in the Oratory’s private cemetery in Rednal,

in the same grave as his close friend, Fr Ambrose St. John. A request he later ratified on 13

February 1881, when he also indicated the words he wished to be inscribed upon the memorial

tablet to be placed in the cloister of the Birmingham Oratory following his death:

JOANNES HENRICUS NEWMAN

EX UMBRIS ET IMAGINIBUS

IN VERITATEM

DIE - - A.S. 18

Requiescat in pace

2
Ibid.

19
In his addendum, Newman writes something very curious: “I should like the following, if good

Latinity, and if there is no other objection: e.g., it must not be if persons to whom I should defer

thought it sceptical.” Why would a Latinist of Newman’s calibre and experience say, “if good

Latinity”? I find it strange that Newman, who had such a perfect classical education for his

day, should express such a caution concerning the correctness of the Latin. Unless, of course,

he was telling us something. The memorandum goes on to explain:

My only difficulty is St. Paul, Heb. x,i, where he assigns “umbra” to the Law—but

surely, though we have in many respects an εἰκών of the Truth, there is a good deal of

σκιά still, as in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

It is clear that the Greek references the text from Hebrews he cites:

Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν οὐκ αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα τῶν

πραγμάτων κατ' ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις ἃς προσφέρουσιν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς

οὐδέποτε δύναται τοὺς προσερχομένους τελειῶσαι· (Stephanus Textus Receptus,

1655)

Umbram enim habens lex futurorum bonorum, non ipsam imaginem rerum: per

singulos annos, eisdem ipsis hostiis quas offerunt indesinenter, numquam potest

accedentes perfectos facere: (Vulgata Clementina, 1592)

For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the

things; by the selfsame sacrifices which they offer continually every year, can never

make the comers thereunto perfect: (Douai-Rheims Bible, 1582)

20
So, I take it to be a reasonable assumption that the epithet, Ex umbris et imaginibus in veritatem,

is in fact Newman’s own construct from this verse of Scripture.3 I think this is a reasonable

assumption, in that the two words he quotes in Greek, figure substantially in the epithet. What

if there is a further source, closer in content and expression to Newman’s epithet which gives

rise to his own cautious translation of Greek into Latin? Is it possible to identify the source of

such a Greek text that might be the basis of Newman’s Latin epithet? Could one locate such a

source in Chrysostom? It occurred to me that this might be a possibility. At least sufficient

possibility to merit pursuing an enquiry.

In his Index to the Works of John Henry Cardinal Newman, Joseph Rickaby lists all Newman’s

references to Chrysostom, making it an essential reference work. One of his references for

Chrysostom slightly confused me as it is not a citation of Chrysostom, and unlike Newman’s

references to Clement, Dionysius, Origen, Basil, Athanasius and Nazianzen, there is not even

a mention of his name. It is a couplet in Newman’s poem, “The Greek Fathers,” of 28 December

1832. The couplet in question reads:

From thee the glorious preacher came,

With soul of zeal and lips of flame.4

Newman does not name Chrysostom here because he is describing him as “the glorious

preacher with soul of zeal and lips of flame,” a eulogy he grants to no other theologian. So

often, rather than cite Chrysostom, it is my impression that, consciously or unconsciously,

3
For a fuller theological reflection on the relationship for Newman between image and truth see A. Dulles, “From
Images to Truth: Newman on Revelation and Faith,” Theological Studies 51 (1990): 252–67.
4
V.V., 103.

21
Newman mirrors his formulations; he paraphrases what Chrysostom describes. He is telling us

how important he considers Chrysostom to be. As a consequence, I searched for possible

sources of Newman’s Ex umbris et imaginibus epithet, and I have identified four possibilities,

although I do not doubt that there could be others.

I began with two that are to be found in the correspondence with Olympias. In what Newman’s

Greek text gave as the second of the letters, we read: “God leads the race of men through

types and shadows [σκιᾱς] …”5 Towards the end of what Newman knew as the eighth of his

letters to Olympias we read: “[E]scaping from the earth, and especially the bonds of the flesh,

open the wings of your wisdom, not letting it be submerged by shadows [σκιᾱς] and smoke

…”6 Both of these citations give the incidence of possible sources of umbris et imaginibus.

In the second Baptismal Catechesis, Chrysostom writes: “[T]he eyes of the soul ‘make unseen

things visible from the seen.”’7 This is certainly a contender for the source as it enraptures

something of its sense when it implies that it is in the very act of believing that unseen things

become visible.

There is another possibility, however, which expresses even more of the content implied in

Newman’s epithet. It is to be found in a text of which the attribution to Chrysostom’s is

uncertain, but a text to which we know Newman had access in an edition (Montfaucon’s first

edition of the Opera Omnia), which did not rule out the fact that it might be authentically

Chrysostom. It is to be found in the homily De beato Abraham (Λόγος εἰς τὸν μακάριον

5
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp. 2; in D. Ford, Women & Men in the Early Church: The Vision of St. John Chrysostom
(South Canaan, PA: St Tikhon’s Monastery Press, 2017), 66.
6
Ibid., 8; in Ford, Women & Men, 40.
7
Chrysostom, Cat. 2.9; my own translation.

22
Ἀβραὰμ). I believe Newman thought this homily was composed by Chrysostom, but he was

too good a scholar to disregard the scepticism of those who had made a more detailed study of

the matter.

Interestingly, more recent research on this text by Demetrios Tonias has suggested that the

homily may actually be by Chrysostom. 8 There are a range of opinions concerning the

attribution of this homily. The compilers of Chrysostom’s Opera Omnia certainly had differing

views which later led Migne to categorize the homily among the dubia at the end of his

Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 50. The Institut de recherche et d’histoire des texts (IRHT) identifies

twelve extant manuscripts of De beato Abraham, dating from the tenth to the sixteenth

centuries. Three of the twelve manuscripts are incomplete, which may have contributed to some

of the doubts surrounding the attribution of this homily.

Migne’s edition is taken from Bernard de Montfaucon’s Opera Omnia (the edition which

Newman consulted, and which is found in his library at the Birmingham Oratory), and

describes the various opinions concerning the authenticity of the text. Henry Savile (1549–

1622), John Bois (1561–1644), and Louis-Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont (1637–1698), along

with Montfaucon (1655–1741), all questioned the authenticity of the homily. Migne

nevertheless resisted the temptation to catalogue this text among the spuria. In Montfaucon’s

evaluation of the text, he notes the general impression of some of the early compilers of

Chrysostom’s works that the homily did not have the style and quality consistent with an

authentic homily of Chrysostom. Montfaucon cites this as the principal evidence of the lack of

8
The facts that I report on this text are all drawn from the recent study of D. Tonias, Abraham in the Works of
John Chrysostom (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2014), see particularly 155–76 for the background on the homily,
and 187–96 for a proposed English translation.

23
authenticity. He does admit, however, that, in support of Chrysostom as author, there is

something “extremely familiar” in the opening of the homily when the preachers asks: Εἴδετε

πολιὰν σφριγῶσαν, καὶ γῆρας ἀκμάζον; (“Do you see the vigorous grey hairs and the ripe old

age?”).9

Here is the passage from which, I would argue, Newman sources the epithet, Ex umbris et

imaginibus, with the Greek and Latin equivalents from Montfaucon’s edition which Newman

has in his library:

Do you see how the shadow [σκιά/umbra] came first in order that the truth

[ἀλήθεια/veritas] might be believed? How is it that these things are shadow

[σκιά/umbra] but those things are truth [ἀλήθεια/veritas]? Do you see, as I said

before, that whenever God intends to organize something out of the ordinary, he

first prefigures and foreshadows [σκιαγράφεἴ /praemittere] it, so that when the

truth [ἀλήθειας/veritas] is manifested it might be acceptable? For it is necessary

that the image [εἰκόνα/figura] be inferior to the truth [ἀλήθειας/veritate], for if

it were perfect, it would not be shadow [σκιά/umbra] but truth [ἀλήθεια/veritas].

The shadow [σκιά/umbra] came first and then the colorful truth

[ἀλήθεια/veritas] came and clearly showed the image [εἰκόνα/imaginem].

I would argue that the concurrence of umbra/imaginem/veritate in this text is compelling

evidence that Newman may have distilled his epithet from this passage which he, and others at

the time, believed to be by Chrysostom. I can find no other passage in the Fathers where these

9
PG 50.737; in Tonias, Abraham in the Works of John Chrysostom, 187.

24
concepts are expressed so clearly. It is certainly a question open for further research in the light

of the recent scholarship that defends Chrysostom’s authorship.

1.2 Problem Statement, Aims and Hypothesis

On the basis of this initial enquiry, prompted by Newman’s epithet, the present study has

emerged as a broader project to establish the extent of the influence of Chrysostom on the

writings of Newman. It seemed to me a striking thought that in formulating an epithet that sums

up his entire life and work, Newman may have looked to Chrysostom. To what extent does that

imply an influence which is discernible in Newman’s writings and in his theological

formulations?

Once Newman became a Roman Catholic (1845), there is more specific reference to

Chrysostom in a biographical work which first appeared in the Rambler magazine (1859–

1860), and which took on a more substantial form in Newman’s work, Historical Sketches: The

Church of the Fathers (1876), and most specifically, in the second part of that book, “The Last

Years of St Chrysostom.” There are also points of connection in the biographies of Chrysostom

and Newman, often evidenced in Newman’s extensive correspondence which serve, in a

secondary and seldom conscious way, to underline the similarities between these two

theological minds.

The aim of this study is to construct a dialogue between a prolific expositor of the Christian

faith born in the mid-fourth century CE, and a man of faith writing in the nineteenth century.

More particularly, the main aim of the study is to explore Newman’s understanding and use of

Chrysostom in his written works and to chart how this is shaped by his own experience and, in

turn, to demonstrate how Chrysostom’s person and thought can be seen to influence Newman’s

25
theological formulations. I am asking: how did Newman interpret and use Chrysostom in his

own works? And based upon this enquiry: what might have given rise to his particular approach

to Chrysostom? I hope to explore some of the ways in which Chrysostom’s own writings

respond to the problems of his day, both in terms of theological controversy and in what he

perceived to be his own response to the various pastoral challenges of his time. Newman, like

Chrysostom, wrote both in response to doctrinal difficulties and pastoral situations; to what

extent does he do so in imitation of Chrysostom? Did Newman fashion aspects of his thought,

and even his own identity, in the light of what he came to understand of Chrysostom’s person?

My hypothesis is that there is considerable evidence of Newman’s dependence upon

theological formulations that are found in Chrysostom. I also argue that, at a less explicit level,

Newman is influenced by what he learned from a close reading of Chrysostom. I explore

Newman’s education as a preparation for reading the Fathers (Chapter 2) and I offer a

biographical account of the life and work of Chrysostom (Chapter 3), in order to establish a

basis for the comparative elements of this study. I intend to present my reasoning for these

hypotheses largely in my consideration of the common principles found in their writings,

principally examined in relation to dogmatic, sacramental, providential and developmental

principles (Chapter 4). I also will seek to make a direct comparison of the spiritual direction

that Newman and Chrysostom offer in particular selections of their respective correspondence

(Chapter 5).

1.3 Contribution of the Study

To my knowledge, no one has yet undertaken a study of the specific influence of Chrysostom

on Newman, although there are a number of more generic studies about Patristic influences on

26
his theology,10 and a fine study on Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers (2009) by Benjamin

King.11 This present study contributes towards identifying Chrysostom as a significant element

in the matrix of some of Newman’s theological formulations and pastoral strategies. In the

early twentieth century, Newman was very much perceived as the champion of orthodoxy

against theological modernism. His carefully nuanced identification of ways in which doctrine

could be said to develop, became an important formulation at the time of the Second Vatican

Council (1962–1965), when the Roman Catholic Church began its very public process of

considering how the historical patrimony of ancient Christianity could be effectively preached

in the modern world. More recently, Newman has been considered as something of a mentor

for all who seek truth, regardless of their affiliation, or lack of affiliation, to a religious system,

as he has increasingly come to be seen as someone whose own quest resulted in a complex

journey of considerable soul-searching, significant personal loss, and frequent

misunderstanding during his lifetime. He is popular, not only as a writer who articulates his

own intellectual and spiritual journey in an accessible manner expressive of a more universal

experience, but as a modern-day “Saint” and “Father of the Church” for those who hope that

the age of such things is not past. The recent decision of the Catholic Church to canonize

Newman 12 is, in many ways, a realization of these aspirations. In her study, The Fathers

Refounded: Protestant Liberalism, Roman Catholic Modernism, and the Teaching of ancient

Christianity in Early Twentieth-Century America (2019), Elizabeth Clark identifies something

of Newman’s significance in this regard when she writes: “Historical development … is more

10
See U.M. Lang, “Newman and the Fathers of the Church,” New Blackfriars 92.1038 (2011): 144–56.

11
B.J. King, Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers: Shaping Doctrine in Nineteenth-Century England (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009).
12
Pope Francis canonized John Henry Newman on 13 October 2019, in Rome.

27
than the unfolding of a germ, in which the end is already given in the beginning, as John Henry

Newman imagined.”13

1.4 Methodology

I intend to make a literary-historical study, seeking to understand the writings of Chrysostom

and Newman by reference to their cultural context. I embark on an initial study of Newman

(Chapter 2) and Chrysostom (Chapter 3), considering briefly their biographies but

concentrating principally on the characteristics of their ministry and preaching, as evidenced

in what we have of their writings. I then embark upon an enquiry as to how Newman read

Chrysostom, what was the path that led to this study, and who were his mentors (Chapter 4). I

also intend to examine some theological formulations of the Patristic era which are common to

Chrysostom and Newman, considering their significance of such a commonality (Chapter 5).

Furthermore, I wish to offer some commentary on aspects of biographical connection between

Newman and Chrysostom, how they share a commonality of approach to spiritual direction

evidenced in their correspondence (Chapter 6), and how Newman’s education and theological

formation made him particularly receptive to Patristic influences.

1.5 Availability and Citing of the Sources

I have been fortunate to have direct access to Newman’s complete works in the standard edition

published by Longmans, together with the Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, edited

by the Fathers of the Birmingham Oratory (1978–2008), in the library of my own community.

In the same library, I have also had access to the Opera Omnia of John Chrysostom in Migne’s

13
E.A. Clark, The Fathers Refounded: Protestant Liberalism, Roman Catholic Modernism, and the Teaching of
Ancient Christianity in Early Twentieth-Century America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2019),
95.

28
Patrologia Graeca (1857–1886) and the critical editions of Chrysostom’s writings in the

various volumes of the Sources Chrétiennes series. As the latter stages of my preparation of

this study have coincided with the period of restrictions as a response to the COVID-19

pandemic, when personal access to archives and libraries has been somewhat restricted, I have

made extensive use of the North American Patristics Society digital library, and the digital

collection of the Newman Reader of the National Institute for Newman Studies, together with

other digital resources that provide easy access to theological texts (see also the note under

“Abbreviations” at the beginning of this thesis).

1.6 Literature Review

Considering the extraordinarily wide range of biographies of Newman, we might wish to

categorize them as being, in general, of three distinct types: strictly biographical studies (e.g.,

Ward [1912]14), those which emphasise his thinking and faith (e.g., Bouyer [1958]15) and those

that attempt to do both (e.g., Ker [1988]; Ker and Merrigan [2009]16). If we wished to add a

further category, we could include those biographies which tell Newman’s story through the

particular prism of one aspect of his life and work: as a convert (e.g., Trevor [1962]; Newsome

[1993]17), as a theologian (e.g., Jaki [2000]; Dulles [2002]18), as a reformer (Turner [2002]19),

14
W.W.G. Ward, The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman Based on His Private Journals and Correspondence,
2 vols. (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1912).
15
L. Bouyer, Newman: His Life and Spirituality (London: Burns & Oates, 1958).
16
I. Ker, John Henry Newman: A Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988); I. Ker and K. Merrigan,
eds., The Cambridge Companion to John Henry Newman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
17
M. Trevor, Newman: The Pillar of Cloud and Newman: Light in Winter (London: Macmillan & Co., 1962);
D. Newsome, The Convert Cardinals: John Henry Newman and Henry Edward Manning (London: John Murray,
1993).
18
S.L. Jaki, Newman’s Challenge (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000); A. Dulles, John Henry Newman (London:
Continuum, 2002).
19
F.M. Turner, John Henry Newman: The Challenge to Evangelical Religion (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 2002).

29
as a controversialist (Page [1994] 20 ), as a priest (Skinner [2010]; Vélez [2012] 21 ), as an

Oratorian (Murray [1968]22), as a cardinal (Bellasis [1916]23), as a spiritual director (Wilcox

[2013] 24 ), as a correspondent (Strange [2015] 25 ), as an educationalist (Arthur & Nicholls

[2007] 26 ), as a mystic (Zeno [1986] 27 ), as an aesthete (Nicholls [2019] 28 ), as a liturgist

(Kwasniewski [2019]29), and as a saint (Vélez [2017]30). An indispensable accompaniment to

these insights is the thirty-two volumes of The Letters and Diaries of Cardinal John Henry

Newman31, edited at the Birmingham Oratory between 1961 and 2008, and more recently, since

2019, the first fascicle of a collection of some 250,000 letters and photographs conserved at

the Birmingham Oratory and made accessible by means of a digitization program which has

been a collaborative project coordinated from the National Institute for Newman Studies in

Pittsburgh.

By way of introduction, I will comment now on those biographies which I consider having

been most significant in the preparation of the present study, given that I reference many of the

others in the body of my work. Ian Ker (born 1942) is generally regarded as the leading

20
J.R. Page, What Will Dr. Newman Do? John Henry Newman and Papal Infallibility, 1865–1875 (Collegeville,
MN: Liturgical Press, 1994).
21
G. Skinner, Newman the Priest: A Father of Souls (Leominster: Gracewing, 2010); J.R. Vélez, Passion for
Truth: The Life of John Henry Newman (Charlotte, NC: TAN, 2012).
22
P. Murray, Newman the Oratorian: Oratory Papers 1846–1878 (Leominster: Gracewing, 1968 [2004]).
23
E. Bellasis, Coram Cardinali (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1916).
24
P.C. Wilcox, John Henry Newman: Spiritual Director 1845–1890 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013).
25
R. Strange, John Henry Newman: A Portrait in Letters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).
26
J. Arthur and G. Nicholls, John Henry Newman (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014).
27
C. Zeno, John Henry Newman: His Inner Life (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1986).
28
G. Nicholls, Unearthly Beauty: The Aesthetic of St John Henry Newman (Leominster: Gracewing, 2019).
29
P.A. Kwasniewski, Newman on Worship, Reverence, and Ritual (N.p.: Os Justi, 2019).
30
J.R. Vélez, Holiness in a Secular Age: The Witness of Cardinal Newman (New York: Scepter, 2017).
31
I. Ker and T. Gornall, eds, John Henry Newman, Letters and diaries of John Henry Newman, 32 vols. (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1978–2008).

30
authority on Newman, having published some twenty major studies on his life and work. Ker

began his preparation for a lifetime of scholarship concerning Newman by being himself a

member of Newman’s Oratory in Birmingham. In these formative years he was fortunate to

learn from Fr. Stephen Dessain (1907–1976) who was the most significant Newman scholar in

the community at that time, and who was responsible for the editing of the first twenty volumes

of the Letters & Diaries. After Fr. Dessain’s death, and following Fr. Ker’s own departure from

the Oratory, he was further assisted by the then archivist at the Oratory, Gerard Tracey (1954–

2003), who was himself responsible for the on-going project of editing and the publication of

the Letters & Diaries.

Ker offers a type of intellectual biography of Newman32 that recognizes that much of his life

was caught up in controversy, and that much of his written work arose out of this, whether it

was the Tracts for the Times, which included the controversial Tract 90 (January 1841) which

led to his conversion to Catholicism, or his Idea of a University (1852), which arose out of the

struggle to establish a Catholic University in Ireland. There is also the spiritual autobiography

Apologia pro vita sua (1864), which arose out of accusations of disingenuousness in his

conversion to Catholicism, or The Grammar of Assent (1870), on the justification of belief in

an increasingly sceptical era. Ker traces these controversies, and thereby narrates the contours

of Newman’s thought, along with his complex relations, good and ill, with many leading

Anglican and Catholic personalities of his day. Ker draws on both published and unpublished

sources to examine Newman’s extraordinarily varied life and career. In his commentary, he

often stresses the underlying complexity of Newman’s character, and the range of his

achievement as major prose writer and as a major religious leader who in some sense can be

32
Ker, John Henry Newman.

31
seen to anticipate the Second Vatican Council and the modern ecumenical movement. For Ker,

Newman was a universal Christian thinker, whose significance transcends his own time.

In his presentation of Newman, Ker is able to highlight aspects of his multivalent personality,

demonstrating how each particular facet contributes to the man and his work. One of the

features of the cumulative effect of reading Ker’s study of Newman is the importance he gives

to the fact that Newman becomes, and remains, a catholic priest, and a member of the Oratory

of St. Philip Neri. Not that he particularly highlights these aspects of Newman, but he is always

careful to include priestly and Oratorian references in his narrative, in recognition that they are

not just insignificant details but actually add something important to our understanding of the

man. I share with Ker the fact of being a former member of the community of the Birmingham

Oratory and, although we were not there at the same time, some of those who influenced Ker

in his formation were still alive at the time I was there (1992–1994). Consequently, I too tend

to look for these same priestly and Oratorian aspects of Newman’s experience which led me

towards a number of studies that do not often feature in the study of Newman.

Principally among these studies, I want to single out a significant work of scholarship on

Newman’s unpublished Oratory Papers presented by Dom Placid Murray OSB, a monk of

Glenstal Abbey, Ireland, in his study, Newman the Oratorian.33 Murray presents Newman’s

own manuscripts from the time immediately following his reception into the Roman Catholic

Church (1845). This was while he was in Rome preparing for ordination as a catholic priest,

highlighting the process of discernment he engaged in in identifying the Oratory of St. Philip

Neri as the best fit for him, and his band of friends, in establishing their apostolate back in

England (1847), and the addresses he gave to his fledgling Oratorian community (1846–1878).

33
Murray, Newman the Oratorian.

32
Newman himself gradually came to understand what the choices he had made implied, not only

for himself as a priest, but for those whom he gathered around him, and those whom he was

sent to serve. These manuscript texts are prefaced by a series of insightful essays in which

Murray considers Newman as a priest, his approach to the care of souls and preaching, and in

this, his retention of aspects of his Anglican patrimony.

Another helpful study to understand this aspect of Newman’s experience has been Gerard

Skinner’s Newman the Priest: A Father of Souls.34 Skinner presents a comprehensive portrait

of Newman’s priestly vocation, both as an Anglican and then subsequently as a Roman

Catholic. He fleshes out some of the detail that Murray references in his study, drawing

extensively on correspondence and notes that Newman made along the way that reveal the

process whereby his own understanding develops and changes. Although Newman is

considered exclusively through the prism of the priesthood, Skinner tells a very human story

of hopes and disappointments, friendships and personal betrayals, emphasizing that which in

Oratorian circles would be called the “apostolate of personal influence,” that is, the way the

life of each person we encounter impacts on us, just as we have an impact on them. Written by

a priest, of a priest, this is a fascinating account of the fundamental significance of this

sacerdotal aspect of Newman’s experience for his life and work. Skinner’s study does not

extend to the identification of the sources of Newman’s theological formulations as his is

largely a narrative account. It is my hope that in certain aspects of the present study I may be

able to supply information in this respect.

Because of the seminal importance of Newman’s Letters & Diaries for any biographical

understanding of him, there are two studies which I have found particularly useful in the

34
Skinner, Newman the Priest.

33
process of trying to grasp how Newman’s relationships, some of which lasted a lifetime, are

documented in this most personal way. In his John Henry Newman: A Portrait in Letters,35

Roderick Strange creates a biography assembled purely from Newman’s letters. Strange has a

considerable pedigree in this field as he is “the only full-time doctoral student whose doctoral

research Stephen Dessain directed,”36 and to whom he dedicates his work. One of the strengths

of Strange’s scholarship is that, like Ker, he establishes a narrative that copes with the

polysemous complexity of Newman’s character. He especially does so in his introduction

where, apart from a strong sense of the storytelling from which he creates his biographic

account, there is a helpful identification of the principles which seem to underpin and govern

Newman’s life. As Strange writes: “When he had recognized in an issue a matter of principle,

his adherence to that principle was unswerving.”37 What Strange does not provide—although,

to be fair, he would not claim to have intended to do so—is an analysis of the cumulative

aspects of Newman’s correspondence, either in thematic terms, or over the many well

documented relationships that spanned his long life.

For that type of commentary, and in relation to a particular aspect of the present study, one

may read Joyce Sugg’s book, Ever Yours Affly: John Henry Newman and His Female Circle.38

Here is a thoughtful examination of one aspect of Newman’s personality that warrants little

consideration from most of his biographers, namely his relationship with women. Like

Chrysostom, Newman is sometimes easy prey to those who would label him a misogynist. Such

a narrative is as easily constructed for a Victorian catholic priest as it is for a fifth-century

bishop. Sugg does not set herself the task of debunking such an accusation but in common with

35
Strange, A Portrait in Letters.
36
Ibid., viii.
37
Ibid., 5.
38
J. Sugg, Ever Yours Affly: John Henry Newman and His Female Circle (Leominster: Gracewing, 1996).

34
those scholars who rely largely on the unique resource of Newman’s correspondence, she

weaves a convincing picture of a man who had no difficulty in relating to women of a great

variety of temperaments and backgrounds, and in a considerable range of circumstances.

Like Strange, Sugg was greatly aided in her research by the archivist of the Birmingham

Oratory, Gerard Tracey, who collaborated with, and then succeeded, Stephen Dessain in the

editing of the Letters & Diaries. Most of the women Newman corresponded with were, like

himself, converts to Catholicism, many having converted as a direct consequence of his

guidance. While some were educated and well read, others had little formal education.

Newman seems to have made no distinction on this basis, attempting to offer to all the counsel

he believed to be their due. Sugg makes an important observation in identifying Newman’s

importance as a resource for scholars of the nineteenth century, when she explains: “Because

they wrote to Newman who was both a great keeper of his own correspondence … many of

their letters have survived and a great many more of his to them.”39 There is an inestimable

value in having both sides of a correspondence, and it is something of a rarity on this scale.

Sugg groups the women progressively under the following categories: the Family, the

Converts, the Writers, the Nuns, the Nunnish Ladies and the Later Years. My own interest in

Newman’s life-long friendship with Maria Rosina Giberne (1802–1885) emerges under several

of these chapter headings, and Sugg’s insightful and intuitive analysis was of great importance

for the argument in Chapter 6 of this thesis.

39
Ibid., 3.

35
Peter Wilcox’s study, John Henry Newman: Spiritual Director 1845—1890, is another

important biographical study to consider.40 Wilcox, himself a psychotherapist and spiritual

director, has produced an insightful study exploring Newman’s approach to spiritual direction.

Taking Newman’s relationship with those to whom he offers spiritual direction, as recorded in

his collected correspondence, Wilcox plots the course of the theological development of

Newman's thought, expressed in his counsel to others. He succeeds in describing Newman as

a director of both spiritual insight and pastoral sensitivity. As such, Wilcox asserts that “a major

resource for his spiritual counsel is found in his enormous correspondence,41” and in Newman,

the same skill evidenced in his most sophisticated theological writings is to be found in letters

which reveal his understanding of the spiritual development of those with whom he was in

correspondence. Wilcox sees Newman as a respectful listener who then speaks cautiously,

while recognizing that “When he was writing to friends, he could afford to speak bluntly and

express opinions unguardedly”42. Newman offers something of a challenge but never makes

demands which push people beyond their capacity to respond.

Wilcox’s portrait of Newman demonstrates a very high degree of integration, motivated by his

conviction that “living a spiritual life in an active and dynamic way touches a person’s

fundamental attitudes and actions of life; it seeks to know how to live in order to be open to

God and others” needed to be lived in a dynamic way.43 Although during his life he did not

accept the designation of “spiritual director”, it is evident in his letters “that directing others

through various facets of the Christian life was one of his dominant concerns.44” This study

40
Wilcox, Spiritual Director.
41
Ibid., xi.
42
Ibid., xix.

43
Ibid., xv.
44
Ibid., xvi.

36
investigates Newman’s understanding of spiritual direction between 1845–1890. “It examines

the major areas in which Newman gave spiritual direction through an analysis of the

correspondence from his Catholic years. 45 ” Furthermore, it highlights those aspects of

Newman’s spiritual life which are evidenced in the way he counsels others. The letters are

considered chronologically in order to identify the principal ways Newman offered direction

to others, and also to chart development in the advice he offered. Of particular interest to me

in this study were the many references to the spiritual direction of women considering a life in

the Church which suggested to me the possible comparison with Chrysostom’s letters to

Olympias. I hope to explore aspects of this dimension of both Newman and Chrysostom in the

discussion concerning spiritual direction that arises in Chapter 6.

In order to get to grips with Newman’s theological formulations, I consulted a number of

commentators, but at this stage, I would like to mention three that afforded particular insight

and orientation. Reinhard Hütter’s recent study, John Henry Newman on Truth and Its

Counterfeits: A Guide for Our Times, 46 offers an in-depth account of several aspects of

Newman’s thought. Particularly significant for me was his treatment of the development of

doctrine which helpfully sources Newman’s highly significant formulations in this regard,

which I take up in my discussion of common theological principles in Chapter 5. The narrative

Hütter offers in his epilogue is relevant here, “A Newmanian Theological Journey into the

Catholic Church,” which identifies in a seamless narrative the process of Newman’s transition

from a faith that essentially Christological in character something which had a greater ecclesial

dimension.47

45
Ibid., xxi.
46
R. Hütter, John Henry Newman on Truth and Its Counterfeits: A Guide for our Times (Washington, DC:
Catholic University of America Press, 2020).
47
Ibid., 130–66.

37
Andrew Meszaros’s work, The Prophetic Church: History and Doctrinal Development in John

Henry Newman and Yves Congar, is another helpful analysis, particularly in situating

Newman’s receiving from the Fathers and giving to the Church of the twentieth century.48

Whereas Hütter, and many others, frequently look back at supposed sources for Newman’s

thought, Meszaros provides the mirror image of that discourse, taking Newman’s formulations

as prophetic, preparing for the resourcement of the Nouvelle théologie, which arose in France

and Germany, in the middle of the twentieth century, and is particularly represented by

theologians such as the Dominican. Yves Congar (1904–1995), and the Jesuit, Henri de Lubac

(1896–1991), who claimed in their theological discourse to be returning to the Patristic sources

of systematic theology. In his discussion of Congar’s reception of Newman, Meszaros

identifies a number of important characteristics of Newman’s theological formulations that are

useful, in turn, for sourcing Newman’s own ideas.49 Particularly significant is his synthesis of

the history of the development of doctrine.50

Given that I have conceived my own study as trying to grasp the indebtedness of Newman to

the Fathers in general, and to Chrysostom in particular, I found one book absolutely essential,

not only in identifying the origin of Newman’s thought in this regard, but also because it

conveys something of the journey he underwent in processing these Patristic teachings, not

only in the years of his formal education but throughout a long life of on-going study. Benjamin

King’s work, Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers: Shaping Doctrine in Nineteenth-Century

48
A. Meszaros, The Prophetic Church: John Henry Newman and Yves Congar (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2016).
49
Ibid., 18–59.
50
Ibid., 96–126; 162–97.

38
England,51 was seminal in aiding one to grasp how Newman’s study of the Fathers, and in

particular, the Alexandrian Fathers, was a major resource for his Anglican, and later Catholic

theological formulations, and furthermore, how his reading of the Fathers influenced and

shaped perceptions of Christian doctrine from the nineteenth century onwards.

King does not follow the convention of many commentators who view Newman’s Anglican

and Catholic writings separately, choosing instead to plot the course of the gradual

development of his doctrine through the 1860s and 1870s, during which time Newman

increasingly came to understand “doctrine as a theological science.” 52 King notes that

Newman’s shift to “development” becomes his way of explaining the victory of the orthodoxy

of Athanasius, which “allows little room for complexity or dynamism.”53 He explores how

Newman was able to construct a geography of heresy, according to which Antioch was home,

literal or spiritual, to all of the major heresies of the third and fourth centuries. He affirms that

Newman made Antioch home to Sabellianism, Arianism, and Nestorianism, all of which were

the consequence of biblical literalism, philosophical reasoning, ecclesiastical insubordination,

Judaizing, effeminacy, and general moral turpitude. King’s work is especially important in

understanding better some of the theological undercurrents that are very much present in

Chrysostom’s writings, and so making it easier to identify Newman’s consistent attraction to

these Patristic formulations.

One insight of King which I found to be of particular significance, and to which he gives great

emphasis in his study, is the idea that in Newman’s day the forces of liberalism and secularism

51
King, Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers.
52
Ibid., 56.
53
Ibid., 185.

39
which were pitched against the Church are very similar to those forces arrayed against the

Church in the time of Athanasius and, later, Cyril, namely Arianism and Nestorianism. Reading

King moved me more in the direction of the world of the Fathers, and I immediately identified

a need to understand the theological matrix of the world from which they emerged.

As a start to this aspect of the research, the work of Frances Young, and, in particular, two of

her major studies: Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture,54 and her later

work, From Nicaea to Chalcedon,55 were crucial. In her study of ancient scriptural exegesis,

Young offers something of an overview of how Patristic exegesis developed. It charts the

influence of the educational system of late antiquity on Patristic biblical exegesis, showing how

what some might consider to be somewhat crude reductions were transformed into moral,

typological, and allegorical methods (and the theologians in both Alexandria and Antioch

progressively adopted a more nuanced approach). Young demonstrates how interpretive tools

of Graeco-Roman culture were progressively adopted in order to establish a Christian culture

which was distinctive and based on Scripture.

The relevance of this study for my own research lies in the fact that Young substantially

challenges traditional notions of Patristic scriptural interpretation by looking beyond the simple

dichotomy based on allegory vs. literalism, examining a far wider spectrum of reading

strategies used by writers in both Alexandria and Antioch. Quite importantly, Young outlines

the matrix of Patristic thought which informs much of Newman’s early theological education,

and consequently influences the shaping of his own theological formulations.

54
F.M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,
1997).
55
F.M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010).

40
Young’s 2010 historical study, From Nicaea to Chalcedon, comprises five essays which have

as their focus the major theological voices contemporary to Chrysostom. Their thought is

summarised, and the biographies are considered in such a way that their writings are seen to be

shaped by their human experience. She organizes her study around the notion that we are

gradually led to understand why the Fathers identified particular issues which motivated them

sufficiently to enter into the fray at a given moment, often with passion and, sometimes even

forcefully.

The study includes a presentation of the Christological controversies. Young’s study was

conceived to stand alongside existing histories of doctrine of this period, and therefore serves

as a reference work for the period. Her study draws on a very considerable body of research

with the aim of broadening understanding of the culture, history, and the crucial issues that

were being played out in the first centuries of Christianity. Initially, Young discusses nineteen

theologians who were major players in the Christological controversies of the fourth century.

In her consideration of her nineteen chosen writers, she incorporates much recent research and

offers judgments on many of the sources that she quotes. Her approach is basically to examine

certain theologians around whom she clusters problems and presuppositions. This book

assisted my own research in identifying more clearly the different characteristics of the thought

in the writings of the Fathers, many of which find a resonance in Newman’s writings.

In trying to flesh out this increasingly obvious dependence of nineteenth-century theologians

on Patristic teaching, Elizabeth A. Clark’s work remains one of the most authoritative and

thought provoking. Her first study on this topic, Founding the Fathers: Early Church History

41
and Protestant Professors in Nineteenth-Century America,56 and her later work, The Fathers

Refounded: Protestant Liberalism, Roman Catholic Modernism, and the Teaching of Ancient

Christianity in Early Twentieth-Century America,57 both offer the insight that what Newman

was experiencing in England was in fact part of a much larger experience in the broader

English-speaking world. Consequentially, the American theological academy underwent a very

particular metamorphosis.

In her first study (2011), Clark takes the view that Princeton Theological Seminary, Harvard

Divinity School, Yale Divinity School, and Union Theological Seminary, by means of their

Church History and Theology curricula, provided the nearest equivalent to graduate schools

of the humanities in nineteenth-century America. These academic institutions, all of which

were Protestant, were established to educate and prepare the clergy for ministry, but later

became the birthplaces of a non-sectarian theology based on reading the Church Fathers.

Drawing upon a considerable quantity of archival materials, Clark explains that these students

of theology went on to further studies in Germany, and in this way, encountered trends of

thought which challenged their own concepts of faith in a new and stimulating way. Professors

from both Union and Yale found it difficult to reconcile the German biblical and philosophical

criticism they encountered with what they understood to be the convictions of American

evangelicals. The German models they encountered engendered a wholly positive view of early

and medieval Christianity that placed it at serious variance with the basic Protestant

56
E.A. Clark, Founding the Fathers: Early Church History and Protestant Professors in Nineteenth-Century
America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011).
57
Clark, The Fathers Refounded.

42
assumptions of the time that the Church had declined progressively between the time of the

Apostles and the Protestant Reformation58.

In an attempt to harmonize these approaches, these American theologians came up with a sort

of counterbalance to hostility of Protestants to the Roman Catholicism of their day, and also

towards periods in history which they considered to be Catholic, and most notably, the Patristic

era. Clark offers a consideration of the gradual growth of Church history as a distinct area of

academic research and teaching throughout the ninteenth-century United States. She identifies

six individual scholars who, at the four institutions already named, made a significant

contribution to the development of a historiography of the early Church in English: two

published editions of the Didache in 1884 and 1885. Perhaps more importantly, they achieved

all this without the resources many comparable modern-day academics take for granted (easy

access to primary sources, often in digital form). Clark’s academics were to exert a powerful

influence over entire generations of future scholars, many of whom would themselves go on to

become important pastors and theologians.

This background study sheds significant light on the period when Newman and his colleagues

were working on their Patristic translation project in Oxford, and just how that project was

fundamental in a developing understanding for Newman of ecclesiology and the way in which

doctrine is faithfully transmitted, and yet authentically developed. From Clark’s work, I felt

myself to be more obviously directed towards a thorough immersion in Chrysostom. I began

this aspect of the research with an attempt to establish a biographical narrative. Whereas, in the

case of Newman, this is relatively straightforward, as his life is well documented, not least

from his own writings and correspondence and myriad biographical studies based upon these

58
Clark, Founding the Fathers, 3–5.

43
reliable sources, with Chrysostom, it is an entirely different matter. The details of his life before

his rise to fame as a bishop (397 CE) are unclear and lack scholarly consensus. Once he became

a bishop, Chrysostom becomes a more obvious focus for controversy, and the reasons given

for his deposition from Constantinople after only six years are various and complex. The

diversity of approaches adopted in interpreting the sources59 suggest that factors leading to his

deposition and exile are likely to have been multiple. I give a narrative account of Chrysostom’s

life in Chapter 3.

As Chrysostom bequeaths to us a more extensive patrimony than any other Greek Father, he is

among the most studied figures in early Eastern Christianity. Most studies are either from a

theological or spiritual standpoint, or from a chronological perspective, such as his two

twentieth-century biographers, Chrysostomus Baur60 and, more recently, John Kelly.61 These

approaches have resulted in a hagiographic treatment whereby Chrysostom is characterized as

a holy man who was misunderstood in his day, and consequently was both mistreated and

under-appreciated. This is a view which was influenced by the success of his supporters’

accounts and the general reception of his writings.62 An alternative view would be to see him

as politically naïve and authoritarian, someone who was somewhat aloof, and who alienated

the nobility, and in particular, the wife of the Emperor Arcadius (395–408 CE), the Empress

Eudoxia (d. 404 CE), and even many of his own clergy.

59
See the discussion in W. Mayer and B. Neil, eds, Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to the Rise of Islam
(Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013).
60
C. Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, vol. 1 (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1929).
61
J.N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (London: Duckworth,
1995).
62
W. Mayer, “The Ins and Outs of the Chrysostom Letter Collection: New Ways of Looking at a Limited Corpus,”
in Collecting Early Christian Letters from the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity, ed. B. Neil and P. Allen (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2015), 129–53.

44
In considering primary sources, a thousand of Chrysostom’s homilies have survived either in

their entirety or partially, in addition to some two hundred and thirty-eight letters dating from

his years in exile. In addition to these are fourteen treatises, some dated as early as 378, with

two written in 407, the last year of his exile.63 I have found the work of a trio of Australian

scholars to be of immense importance in this regard: Pauline Allen,64 Bronwen Neil,65 and

Wendy Mayer.66

One of the challenges of reading Chrysostom lies in the fact that it is often difficult to determine

whether homilies belong to his time as a priest in Antioch, or while he was bishop in

Constantinople.67 The editions of the homilies date from seventeenth to nineteenth centuries68

and the definitive identification of the entire corpus of homilies is very much still a work in

progress. Similarly, the correspondence that survives contains numerous chronological gaps,

and was probably assembled selectively by his supporters after his death.69 I must pay homage,

however, to the exemplary scholarship of those who have prepared the various critical editions

of Chrysostom’s works in the Sources Chrétiennes series (1966 to the present). Discovering

63
W. Mayer, “John Chrysostom,” in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Patristics, ed. K. Parry (Oxford:
Blackwell, 2015), 141–54.
64
W. Mayer and P. Allen, John Chrysostom (London: Routledge, 2000).
65
P. Allen and B. Neil, eds, Crisis Management in Late Antiquity (410–590 CE): A Survey of the Evidence from
Episcopal Letters (Leiden: Brill, 2013).
66
W. Mayer, trans., John Chrysostom: The Cult of the Saints (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
2005).
67
Cf. W. Mayer, The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom—Provenance: Reshaping the Foundations, (Rome:
Pontificia Istituto Orientale, 2005), 21–25.
68
Cf. A.-M. Malingrey, ed., Jean Chrysostome: Lettres à Olympias, SC 13 (Paris: Cerf, 1968); A.-M. Malingrey,
ed., Jean Chrysostome: Sur la vaine gloire et l’éducation des enfants, SC 188 (Paris: Cerf, 1972).
69
The ins and outs of the Chrysostom letter-collection: new ways of looking at a limited corpus’, in Collecting
Early Christian Letters: From the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity eds. Bronwen Neil and Pauline Allen,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 129–53.

45
French scholarship in relation to Chrysostom has certainly been one of the most rewarding

aspects of this research project.

Beyond Chrysostom’s own works, we have the earliest account of his life in an anonymous

funerary speech, 70 the ecclesiastical histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, an

anonymous account of Olympia’s life, and Palladius’s Dialogus de vita Iohannis

Chrysostomi,71 plus contemporary textual material from liturgical or archaeological sources.72

More recently, neuroscience and psychotherapy have also been added to the study of

Chrysostom, as seen in Chris de Wet’s and Wendy Mayer’s edited work, Revisioning John

Chrysostom: New Approaches, New Perspectives. 73 The essays in this volume essentially

represent a new wave of scholarly approaches to reading Chrysostom, drawing on a

consideration of cognitive issues and neurosciences, cultural and sleep studies, and history of

the emotions. It includes a discussion of Chrysostom’s debt to the Graeco-Roman notion of

παιδεία, philosophy, and medicine. Picking up the revisionist reading which moves beyond the

negative views of many twentieth-century commentators, this approach to Chrysostom studies

substantially opens up new vistas for exploration. I found it particularly helpful in pointing me

beyond the frequent obsession with narrative approaches to biography, helping me to identify

70
T.D. Barnes and G. Bevan, trans., The Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom (Liverpool: Liverpool University
Press, 2012).
71
Kelly, Golden Mouth, 291–95.
72
W. Mayer and P. Allen, The Churches of Syrian Antioch (300–638 CE) (Leuven: Peeters, 2012).
73
C.L. de Wet and W. Mayer, eds, Revisioning John Chrysostom: New Approaches, New Perspectives (Leiden:
Brill, 2019).

46
aspects of Chrysostom’s thought that are immediately open to dialogue with other theologians,

and in my particular case, with Newman.74

Importantly, and somewhat uniquely, Chrysostom seems to have established a close rapport

working alongside several women deacons of high social standing attached to the churches in

Constantinople.75 Of these women, the most famous—because their relationship is documented

for us in their correspondence—was Olympias, founder of a community of consecrated women

in the city. The importance of this friendship is evidenced in seventeen extant letters

Chrysostom wrote to her, which are much longer and more personal than the rest of his

correspondence.76

Having alluded to the challenges of creating a biographical narrative for Chrysostom, I am

aware of the importance of such accounts as the necessary preliminary to any textual study. Of

the purely biographical accounts currently available, I found Kelly’s Golden Mouth: The Story

of John Chrysostom,77 to be one of the more insightful studies. In particular, Kelly identifies

the key role Chrysostom had in the nascent Roman Empire, at a time when Church and Empire

struggled to find independence within the context of their increasingly complex

interrelationship. Chrysostom lived at a time when the Church was under the shadow of

Arianism, which had been condemned both at Nicaea (325 CE) and Constantinople (381 CE),

but despite this, lived on both within the Empire and beyond, enjoying from time to time the

74
C.L. de Wet and W. Mayer, “Approaching and Appreciating John Chrysostom in New Ways,” in Revisioning
John Chrysostom: New Approaches, New Perspectives, ed. C.L. de Wet and W. Mayer (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 1–
31.
75
W. Mayer, “Female Participation and the Late Fourth-Century Preacher’s Audience,” Augustinianum 39 (1999):
139–47.
76
Malingrey, Lettres à Olympias; D.C. Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia.
77
Kelly, Golden Mouth.

47
support of the structures and the officials of the Empire. This was the world into which

Chrysostom came and which subsequently shaped and formed his theological formulations.

Chrysostom’s struggle against the ongoing consequences of Arianism was of paramount

importance to Newman in his own crusade against theological Modernism.

In trying to understand, in turn, the sources for Chrysostom’s thought, Margaret Mitchell’s The

Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation,78 remains one of

the more important studies in this regard. The recurring theme in her analysis is that above all

other saints, Chrysostom admired the Apostle Paul79. The “heavenly trumpet” is one of the

scores of epithets Chrysostom applies to Paul of Tarsus. Mitchell illustrates how Chrysostom,

as “the golden mouth,” played that trumpet. Mitchell suggests that the interpretation of Paul is

driven by a writer’s understanding of the apostle’s personality and temperament. Chrysostom,

the most extensive exegete of Paul in the early Church, is considered by Mitchell to typify this

insight.

Mitchell collates Chrysostom’s numerous portrayals of Paul—of his body, his soul, and his life

circumstances, and analyses them as complex rhetorical compositions built on well-known

conventions of Greco-Roman rhetoric80 (ἐπίθετον, ἐγκώμιον and ἐκφράσις). Mitchell contends

that in his literary treatment of Paul, Chrysostom idealises him as the archetypal image of

Christian virtue81. Seven homilies in praise of Saint Paul are attributed to Chrysostom (in the

book’s two appendices Mitchell offers her own translation of the seven homilies De laudibus

78
M.M. Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation (Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002).
79
Ibid., 1.

80
Ibid., xv–xvii.
81
Ibid., 135 ff.

48
sancti Pauli). When considering Chrysostom’s homiletic treatment of Paul, Mitchell observes

that the picture we have in our minds of a scriptural writer does in fact shape the manner in

which we interpret his writings when she states: “I would argue on principle that all exegetical

projects depend upon some explicit or (more often) implicit mental image of Paul, the

author.”82

Mitchell also observes that despite Chrysostom’s devotion to Paul, he still considered it “his

duty to constitute and recompose his author time and time again. His Paul was not dead, but

alive.83” Chrysostom’s homilies on the Letters of Paul are frequently considered somewhat

lively encounters in which Chrysostom directs his questions to the apostle using the classical

device of προσωποποιία in order to establish what he presents as Paul’s imagined response.

Mitchell observes that Chrysostom’s somewhat idolized view of Paul resulted in extended

passages praising the apostle, and also plays a dominant role in the judgments he makes in his

exegesis. Thus, as Mitchell notes, “one cannot adequately comprehend John’s exegetical work

without paying direct attention to his devotion to his subject [Paul].84” However, Chrysostom

does not limit himself to a purely personal encounter with Paul but clearly seeks out every

opportunity to present to his hearers and readers a Paul who is unmistakeably a powerful

vehicle for Christian meaning-making and society-formation in the later fourth century.

Like Chrysostom, Newman’s theological writing has its roots in biblical exegesis and

Newman’s own understanding of the Scriptures is essentially that of the Fathers. Mitchell’s

82
Ibid., xix.
83
Ibid., 434.
84
Ibid., 21.

49
study, concentrating on a very particular aspect of Chrysostom’s exegesis, is helpful in

identifying those characteristics which are represented more widely in his scriptural

commentary, and which consequently find a place in Newman’s own method of exegesis.

Essential in this regard is also Wendy Mayer’s seminal work, The Homilies of St John
85
Chrysostom—Provenance: Reshaping the Foundations. Earlier scholars have made

suggestions as to where Chrysostom’s homilies were originally preached or written.86 In her

study, Mayer attempts to demonstrate, and does so convincingly, that many of these attributions

were based on assumptions that are difficult to substantiate definitively. She carefully strips

away all but the most indisputable evidence and concludes that many attributions are not

certain. 87 Nevertheless, in most cases, many scholars will probably still consider that the

traditional assignments are still the most plausible academic conclusions, even though Mayer’s

study reveals the rather tentative assumptions that support them. Mayer’s analysis relies heavily

on texts from Antioch. This study is important in demonstrating connections between homiletic

content and the biography of the preacher, and the hermeneutical importance of identifying the

provenance of writings.

Also helpful in finding a path through Chrysostom’s homilies is James Cook’s Preaching and

Popular Christianity: Reading the Sermons of John Chrysostom.88 Cook sets out to reassess

some of the assumptions which are often made in reading Chrysostom’s sermons as sources of

social history. By contrast, Cook offers a portrait of Chrysostom as a pastor and a consideration

85
Mayer, Homilies of St John Chrysostom.
86
Newman enters into this discussion in his preface to the translation of Chrysostom’s In epistulam ad Galatas
commentarius. I treat this discussion in Chapter 4.
87
Mayer, Homilies of St John Chrysostom, 469–73.
88
J.D. Cook, Preaching and Popular Christianity: Reading the Sermons of John Chrysostom (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2019).

50
of his preaching in its pastoral and liturgical context, before it is treated as theological writing.

In an appendix, Cook argues that Chrysostom followed biblical texts sequentially in his

preaching, and that these sequential patterns can be recovered. These insights have a bearing

on a comparative study of Chrysostom and Newman, as both are theologians whose published

writings often owe their origin to their preaching.

As I intend to offer some commentary on Chrysostom’s correspondence with the deaconess

Olympias, and Newman’s correspondence with Maria Giberne in her discernment of a vocation

to the consecrated life (in Chapter 6), my analysis required a grasp of Chrysostom’s teaching

on consecration to a life of virginity, in order to recognize the similar formulations in Newman.

I found two studies of present-day Orthodox theologians which offered useful insights in this

very specific regard: Josiah Trenham’s Marriage and Virginity According to St. John

Chrysostom,89 and David C. Ford’s Women and Men in the Early Church: The Vision of St.

John Chrysostom.90

Trenham aims to present Chrysostom’s teaching on marriage and virginity. He begins with the

concept that Chrysostom was inspired by a single notion of the spiritual life as a journey of

sanctification, or divinization (θέωσις), thereby identifying a sort of compass for his teaching

and pastoral counsel as a priest, both to married people and those living the monastic life. In

teaching about this common vocation to holiness, Chrysostom drew essentially on the teachings

of the Fathers. Trenham observes that the anthropology of Chrysostom is rooted in Adam’s

creation “as a terrestrial angel in the Garden of delights,”91 which is the vision of Paradise as

89
J. Trenham, Marriage and Virginity according to St. John Chrysostom (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska
Brotherhood Press, 2013).
90
Ford, Women & Men in the Early Church.
91
Trenham, Marriage and Virginity, 83–99.

51
conceived by Chrysostom and serves as a point of reference both for marriage and the monastic

life. Trenham demonstrates how Chrysostom never ceases to exhort his people to try and return

to something closer to the angelic life lived in Paradise.

David Ford is translator of Chrysostom’s Letters to St Olympia (sic),92 working from the text

established by Anne-Marie Malingrey in her critical edition for the collection Sources

Chrétiennes. 93 It is Ford’s English translation that I use in Chapter 5 for those texts that

Newman does got give in his own citing of the letters. In Ford’s 2017 revision of his 1996

study, Women & Men in the Early Church: The Vision of St. John Chrysostom, he articulates

an in-depth commentary concerning Chrysostom’s teaching on virginity by considering it in

relation to his teaching on marriage. I found his observations concerning Chrysostom’s view

of women in general94 particularly helpful in being able to negotiate the advice that Chrysostom

offers Olympias, and the counsel Newman gives to Maria Giberne.

Since the aim of the present study to provide a comparison of Newman and Chrysostom in

considering their commonality of thinking on a number of theological issues, it becomes crucial

to identify commentary that would aid in coming to an understanding of the theological thought

of Chrysostom. In David Rylaarsdam’s John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy: The Coherence

of His Theology and Preaching,95 one finds a study that connects to the research interests of

this thesis on a number of levels.

92
Ford, Women & Men in the Early Church.
93
Malingrey, Lettres à Olympias.
94
Ford, Women & Men in the Early Church, 59–74.
95
D. Rylaarsdam, John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy: The Coherence of His Theology and Preaching (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2014).

52
Rylaarsdam offers an alternative reading of Chrysostom as a rhetorical theologian, thereby

challenging claims that Chrysostom was largely devoid of theology and exegetically impaired.

In stark contrast to studies which present Chrysostom as someone who was limited

theologically, always critical of others, the suggestion here is that what we find in Chrysostom

is in fact a coherently reasoned approach, particularly when taken on his own terms and within

the context of his own culture. Moreover, Rylaarsdam goes to great pains to show the

prominence of the notion of divine adaptation or condescension (συγκατάβασις) in

Chrysostom’s exegesis. Rylaarsdam is of the view that this provides something of a theological

matrix for Chrysostom’s writing and ministry. 96 He demonstrates this firstly by examining

rhetoric and pedagogy, as understood in Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, and as evidenced in

Chrysostom’s writings.

Rylaarsdam argues that Chrysostom essentially makes the classical notion of rhetoric his own

specifically to enable him to speak about God’s interactions with humankind through the use

of adaptation. The foundational idea is that God configures all his dealings with human beings

to enable them to progress toward their ideal form (παιδεία). A virtue of this approach is that

it does not set Hellenism in opposition to Christianity. Rather, Chrysostom is presented as

someone who has mastered Hellenistic thought and who then goes on to utilize it for a Christian

purpose. In this, Rylaarsdam challenges standard historicist readings of Chrysostom in order

to offer a fuller account of his theology and thereby also that of theologians (such as Newman)

who later enter into dialogue with Chrysostom.

Initially, Rylaarsdam explores different aspects of the notion of rhetoric. He offers an analysis

of συγκατάβασις, particularly as it is expressive of God’s love for humankind (φιλανθρωπία).

96
Ibid., 3.

53
He explains that adaptation does not represent a deviation from theological tradition, least of

all in relation to the school of Cappadocia.97 He goes on to suggest that the aim of classical

education is to instil an ethical ideal in those who are educated, in the same way, God’s

pedagogical aim is to instil virtue in the human heart. In this, God’s programme for enabling

humans to become virtuous is parallel to what we find in the παιδεία; that is, using images

which are corporeal and provide the possibility of both variation and progression.

Rylaarsdam examines Chrysostom’s theology, demonstrating that development (as Newman

might have put it) is found in every aspect of Chrysostom’s theology, to the extent that it

contributes to his overall theological coherence (contrary to the suggestions made by some of

his more recent critics). Rylaarsdam examines notions of creation, history, Christology,

soteriology, ethics, sacramental and pastoral theology in Chrysostom. Moreover, he analyses

Chrysostom’s approach to exegesis and hermeneutics.98 Rylaarsdam describes Chrysostom’s

“sacramental reading” as being neither “Alexandrian” nor “Antiochene”. In this, he says that

Chrysostom manages to avoid the potential pitfalls of either “literalism” or “allegorism”. Just

as “God’s aim in accommodation is to lead humankind to a higher truth”; Chrysostom thereby

negotiates the “excesses of both Origen and Theodore.”99

Rylaarsdam outlines Chrysostom’s understanding of Christology as shaped by divine

adaptation. In the Incarnation, God demonstrates his purpose of bringing humanity into right

relationship with him. In this, God adapts himself to the capacity of human comprehension, as

evidenced in the theophanies recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures. In the mystery of the

97
Ibid., 29.
98
Ibid., 111ff.
99
Ibid., 128.

54
Incarnation, God continues “his teaching and saving activity, actively adapting his pedagogy

in order to persuade people to believe in his plan of salvation (οἰκονομία) and, by means of the

Incarnation making that same salvation possible.”100

Rylaarsdam devotes a whole chapter to Paul and presents him as “an imitator of God’s adaptive

pedagogy.” According to Chrysostom, “no one else was willing to adapt to the degree that Paul

was.” In the record of Paul’s ministry, in his writings, Paul makes a considerable effort to adapt

the message of salvation to the weak.101 Rylaarsdam asserts that this adaptation shows Paul to

be a consummate teacher, reaching many by skilful use of techniques of persuasion and

rhetoric. What others consider to be a lack of theology, Rylaarsdam classifies as a working out

of Chrysostom’s imitation of Paul “becoming all things to all people” (1 Cor 9:22), in that

Chrysostom adapts his approach pastorally to the needs of his audience.102

Whereas other commentators see Chrysostom as being guilty of superficial, chiding moralism,

Rylaarsdam perceives a carefully calibrated theology that implies its own ethics as a fully

formed way of life.103 Where others see hate speech directed at Jews, dissenting Christians, and

many others, Rylaarsdam sees “frank speech” as recommended by the philosophical manuals

for the reform of the most recalcitrant minds.

Rylaarsdam concludes by considering Chrysostom’s concept of the priesthood, showing how

it is expressive of a Christianized notion of the παιδεία. Chrysostom suggests that Scripture be

used as a means of forming people. In this, priests mirror God’s approach, by adapting teaching

100
Ibid., 132ff.
101
Ibid., 158.
102
Ibid., 214–15.
103
Ibid., 148.

55
to the needs of their people. Just as God’s character is a decisive aspect of his persuasiveness,

so the character of priests determines their pastoral effectiveness.

Instead of considering Chrysostom’s preaching as overly direct and simplistic, proposing

approaches to ethical issues which might be considered contradictory, Rylaarsdam uses the

homilies to suggest that anomalies can be explained in terms of thel thorough-going theology

of adaptability which underpins all of Chrysostom’s preaching 104 In accordance with the

current wisdom, Rylaarsdam considers the designation of Chrysostom as “Antiochene” to be

too simplistic. 105 Although he admits that the evidence can be somewhat imprecise, he

maintains that it supports the idea of Chrysostom’s use of a coherent theology of the Incarnation

in which God reveals himself in Christ, becoming all things to all human beings. Rhetorical

devices, as a consequence, are not merely the manner in which Christ presented his own ideas,

but rather govern how Chrysostom understands the self-presentation of God to his creatures.

There are many aspects of Rylaarsdam’s analysis that are engaging, and not least when one

comes to consider how Newman emerges as a major educational thinker, not just within the

world of nineteenth-century Roman Catholic England and Ireland, but as part of a wider

conversation on the nature of university education. Many of the principles Newman bases

himself on find an origin in Greek thought, and more specifically the interpretation of that

thought in a writer like Chrysostom. Rylaarsdam certainly demonstrates how such ideas are

evidenced in Chrysostom, offering an attempt at a construct a credible narrative that plots their

development in his thought.

104
Ibid., 55–67.
105
Ibid., 4–5, 8, 101, 140.

56
One of the challenges I have set myself in embarking upon this study issues from the demands

of a comparative study of two theologians whose worlds are separated by fifteen hundred years.

My aim is both to understand them within their own contexts while setting up a dialogue

between them, noting points of commonality and divergence, and in the case of Newman,

attempting to determine to what extent Chrysostom is an explicit influence in his theological

writing, or whether that influence is largely implicit.

1.7 Structure of Thesis

Chapter 2: Newman’s Preparation for Reading the Fathers

Newman’s early life and education as a preparation for reading the Fathers is the topic of this

chapter, covering what we know of his studies at school and at Oxford, emerging aspects of

Newman’s own patristic study in general and of Chrysostom in particular, as identified in

Newman’s published writings and correspondence. His library at Birmingham, with attention

to the editions of Chrysostom from which he worked, is of relevance. His work as a patristic

translator and a promotor of the study of the Fathers as a foundation for ecclesiology and the

authentication of the view of the apostolicity of the Church of England. I introduce my study

by offering some possible sources for Newman’s epithet ex umbris et imaginibus in veritatem

[“from shadows and images into the truth”] and take into consideration the work of recent

scholars that offers commentary in this regard.

Chapter 3: John Chrysostom as Pastor and Preacher

This chapter concerns the life and work of John Chrysostom and an exploration of the major

characteristics of his theological thought as evidenced in his writings, particularly

concentrating on the events that result in his exile and that show Chrysostom to be an apologist

in response to the heresies and upheavals in the Church of his time. I attempt to consider these

57
theological formulations in their pastoral context, showing that his theology is often in response

to the situations in which he finds himself. Aspects of Chrysostom’s thought which naturally

establish dialogue with Newman, particularly considering his work as an apologist in response

to heretical doctrines or ideas.

Chapter 4: Newman’s Reading of Chrysostom

The riches of the sources of Newman’s autobiographical material make it possible for a

reconstruction of the gradual process by which Newman came to read Chrysostom, and the

means by which he came to understand his theological formulations, and the influence they

exerted on his own theological thought. I also consider some of the some of the more technical

aspects of Chrysostomic references in Newman’s writings, and make some preliminary

observations about Newman’s reading preferences for Chrysostom.

Chapter 5: Common Principles from the Patristic era shared by Newman and Chrysostom

In this chapter I offer a comparative analysis of the theological characteristics of Chrysostom

and Newman, considered under four headings: sacramental, dogmatic, development and

providential (in the sense of Divine Providence). In the first two of these, I argue there is

significant evidence of Newman’s similarity to Chrysostom in his theological formulations.

Since Georges Florovsky (1893–1979), there has been a marked tendency (and more recently

in writers such as Andrew Louth [b. 1944]) to suggest that development is not a characteristic

to be found in orthodox theology. It is my intention to illustrate, however, that when

development is understood as a re-presentation of theological formulations in such a way as to

guarantee their faithful transmission, as Newman suggests, there is evidence in Chrysostom’s

theological formulations of this technique.

58
Chapter 6: Letters of Direction from Chrysostom and Newman

A consideration of the spiritual direction of women living a form of the consecrated life as

evidenced in Chrysostom’s correspondence with the Deaconess Olympias, and Newman’s

extensive correspondence with Maria Giberne and other women who receive Newman’s

direction in the form of correspondence. I would like to make a comparison with what we know

of Chrysostom’s thought concerning consecrated virginity for women and the sort of advice

that Newman habitually offers Maria Giberne in his letters, attempting to identify substantive

points of similarity with Chrysostom’s formulations and considering the possibility that this

was conscious on Newman’s part.

59
 CHAPTER 2

NEWMAN’S PREPARATION FOR READING THE FATHERS

2.1 Early Life

John Henry Newman was born on 21 February 1801 in London, the eldest of six children of a

London banker, John Newman, and his wife, Jemima Fourdrinier, a descendant of Huguenot

refugees. His family would have been described average church-going members of the Church

of England. They had no particularly strong religious tendencies, but even as a small child, it

seems as though Newman’s family fostered in him a love for the Bible which would remain

with him throughout his life. Newman became a pupil at Ealing School, a small private school

in West London at the age of seven. He would be there for the next eight years. Even at this

stage, it is striking to consider that Newman’s classical education got off to a promising start

in that among the extracurricular activities at the school was a Latin play, twice a year.

James Arthur and Guy Nicholls comment on this activity and its later significance for Newman:

… it was customary for the boys to deliver speeches for which prizes, chosen by

the boys themselves, were awarded. Not surprisingly, Newman excelled in every

way. He played leading roles in several plays [Hegio in Phormio, Pythias in

Eunuchus, Syrus in Adelphi and Davus in Andria, all by Terrence], and many years

later was to include Latin plays edited by himself in the activities of his own school

at Edgbaston.106

106
J. Arthur and G. Nicholls, John Henry Newman (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014), 12, 42.

60
It is from these years that we have the first intimations of the sensibility of the young Newman,

evidenced in his letters and diaries, 107 which record significant events and chart the

development of his thought. From these earliest years, Newman records two essential

characteristics which, for the sake of this study, will be seen to have immense importance: his

love for Greek language and culture, which later pointed him towards the Fathers, and the

juvenile conversion which, in so many ways, established and shaped the journey of his

relentless desire for personal holiness. During the years of his early education, Newman’s

experience of these two characteristics is largely facilitated by one person: a teacher of Greek

and Latin at Ealing School, the Anglican clergyman, Dr. Walter Mayers.

Newman’s fascination and love for the Greek language and culture emerged even while he was

a small child. It seems that he was only seven years old when he received his first Greek book,

the famous and highly popular Aesop’s Fables. He later wrote in his copy: “my first Greek

book Autumn 1811.”108 A diary entry for 25 May 1810 records that he “got into Ovid and

Greek.”109 He also wrote in Greek letters “The book of John Newman”110 inside his copy of

extracts from Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Later entries recount that he “got into Virgil,”111 “got

into Diatessaron,”112 “began Homer”113 and “began Herodotus.”114 Given that these revelations

107
I. Ker and T. Gornall, eds., The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, 32 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon,
1978–2009). The 32 volumes contain 27,000 letters and form the largest single resource for the study of Newman’s
life and thought.
108
L.D., i.6.
109
Ibid.
110
Ibid.
111
L.D., i.7.
112
Ibid., i.11.
113
Ibid.
114
Ibid., i.14.

61
are interspersed with records of a somewhat more conventional childhood, we can only surmise

that Newman considered these intellectual projects sufficiently significant to mention them.

2.2 Education at School

The first indication of Newman’s strong religious leanings comes at around the age of fifteen.

During the years 1808 to 1816, Newman had increasingly come to be influenced by Dr. Mayers,

the Evangelical clergyman who taught at Ealing School. Evangelicals, as a group within the

Anglican community of that time, demonstrated strong links to the sort of Christianity which

later came to be typified by the Methodism of John Wesley, placing supreme importance on

the personal relationship between God and the sinner, without any great importance given to

the notion of Church; it also placed great emphasis on personal holiness.115

Newman’s Letters and Diaries (henceforth LD.) contain an entry dated towards the end of

1816, entitled “Spiritual Notes,” written in Latin,116 (perhaps because of the intimate nature of

the information). This highly personal memorandum, and the correspondence with Mayers

which follows it, 117 underline that the conversion experience the young Newman was

undergoing at the time represented a decisive moment in the process by which his religious

character was formed. Decades later, in his Apologia pro vita sua (1864), Newman recalled the

formative influence of Mayers, making reference, once again to the conversion experience of

his teenage years:

115
As such, Evangelicals never exerted a dominant influence for very long in either Oxford or Cambridge. In later
years, Newman came to consider them as descendants of the Puritans of the seventeenth century.
116
L.D., i.29.
117
Ibid., i.29–31.

62
 When I was fifteen, (in the autumn of 1816,) a great change of thought took place

in me. I fell under the influences of a definite Creed, and received into my intellect

impressions of dogma, which, through God’s mercy, have never been effaced or

obscured. Above and beyond the conversations and sermons of the excellent man,

long dead, the Rev. Walter Mayers, of Pembroke College, Oxford, who was the

human means of this beginning of divine faith in me, was the effect of the books

which he put into my hands, all of the school of Calvin.118

Shortly after his ordination as an Anglican deacon on 13 June 1824, Newman preached for the

first time at Mayers’s parish in Over Worton, Oxfordshire. Later, following Mayers’s sudden

death in 1828, Newman shared the following reflections with Richard Greaves:

Whatever religious feeling I have within me, I owe to his kind instructions when I

was at school and I am especially indebted for it …. And when I think of the

affection he always showed me, the anxious pains he took to be of service to me,

the earnestness with which he seems to pray for me, and the readiness he ever

manifested to assist me in any object I had in view, and again of his deep and

spiritual views of religion, his great Christian love for all Christians, his humility,

his singleness of mind and [purpose], and great generosity, I feel my heart quite

[break] within me at the loss of him …119

There are some first references to the influence of Chrysostom as early as 1826, when Newman

references in a letter to the Revd. E. Smedley that he had derived the principles for strict sabbath

118
Apo., 4.
119
Newman to Richard Greaves (Oriel College, 27 February 1828), L.D., ii.58.

63
observance from Chrysostom, and other Fathers.120 With time, Newman came to gradually

discard his Evangelical convictions and began to immerse himself in both the earlier Anglican

writers, and the Fathers of the Church. In order to try and get a better grasp of Newman’s early

life, it is useful to understand something of the world in which he lived and worked, and which

inevitably shaped and formed him. From 1816 until 1845, his life was entirely focussed in

Oxford. Consequently, it is hard to overestimate the importance of the influence of the

university in the development of his sensibilities, both intellectual and spiritual. A fact

evidenced by the relatively frequent reference he makes, throughout a long life, to the teaching

and experience of his Oxford days.

2.3 University Education

In 1816, Newman left home, aged only fifteen, and entered Oxford University, from which he

would eventually graduate in 1821. The Introductory Note in the LD. records that Newman

was enrolled at Trinity College, Oxford, in December 1816, and began living there the

following June, at the relatively early age of sixteen. Arriving in Oxford when the rest of the

students were leaving for the summer vacation, due to a vacant room becoming available at

Trinity College, Newman spent three weeks in the College, fulfilling the necessary residence

requirement, before he returned home for the long vacation. During that long summer, before

Newman returned to take up full-time study, he worked hard at home preparing for what he

anticipated would be the challenge of life as an Oxford undergraduate:

Newman’s Record of Studies for that long vacation tells us that he read extensively

in Latin and Greek literature and from the Greek Old Testament. He also

experimented translating passages of Cicero into English and then back into Latin

120
L.D., i.274.

64
 which he compared with the original. Many years later Newman explained that “I

had no idea what was meant by good Latin style. I had read Cicero without learning

what it was; the books said, ‘this is neat Ciceronian language’, ‘this is pure and

elegant Latinity’, but they did not tell me why”. Newman absorbed the principles

of Ciceronian style after he studied Provost Copleston’s Latin address to the

University of Oxford.121

As Newman settled into life at Oxford, he found himself reasonably advanced in mathematics

but somewhat behind in his study of Greek and Latin. With the assistance of his tutor, Thomas

Short, Newman did eventually manage to get ahead of his contemporaries in Euclid and

Classics. Newman successfully stood for a Trinity scholarship in May 1818, and at the end of

the month passed responsiones122 with credit.123

Newman obviously benefitted immediately from the tuition he received at Oxford, for less than

a year later, on 13 November 1817, he wrote to his mother:

I have to thank Mr Mullens in a great measure for being able to write Latin, since

he said it was what I was deficient in, and it is what is of the greatest consequence

in taking a degree of all the various branches of the Classics.124

In order to understand what life at Oxford might have been like for the young Newman at this

time, it is important to consider just what Oxford required of its undergraduate students at that

121
Arthur and Nicholls, John Henry Newman, 14 (internal citation from Newman’s Idea, 367).
122
The first of the three examinations at the time required for an academic degree at the University of Oxford.
123
L.D., i.xiii.
124
L.D., i.45.

65
time in terms of Classical languages. Such information is found in a pamphlet of 1773 entitled

Considerations on the Public Exercises for the First and Second Degrees;125 requirements

detailed here for both the Bachelor and Master of Arts degrees remained unchanged until

Newman’s day. The bachelor’s degree examination had three principal parts entitled:

Disputationes in Parviso, Answering under Bachelor, and finally, the Examination. These tests

demanded a knowledge of such subjects as grammar, Latin, rhetoric, logic, ethics, geometry

and the classics of Greece. The requirements for the Master’s degree were much more arduous:

first there was the Determination, a disputation which lasted four hours, held amid great

ceremony on Ash Wednesday, and competed in the days which followed with disputations in

logic and in the general teaching of Aristotle. Then there were the Disputationes apud

Augustinienses, held for two hours a week during each week of the term, and these were

required to be performed by every Bachelor at least once after his Determination. Thirdly, there

were the Disputationes Quodlibeticae, also required after Determination. During this, three

questions were posed to the candidate by the Regent Master and these were presumed to be

prearranged. But afterwards, the floor was declared open and the candidate was to answer any

question raised on any matter whatsoever by other disputants. Fourthly, there were six

Solemnes Lectiones, which at one time consisted of original dissertations in Natural and Moral

Philosophy but had, by Newman’s day, degenerated into mere formalities before empty rooms.

Fifthly, Binae Declarationes were delivered memoriter (“from memory”) before the University

Proctor; and then, finally, there was an examination in such subjects as philosophy and history,

astronomy and Hebrew.

125
C.E. Mallet, A History of the University of Oxford, Vol. 3 (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1927), 162–63.

66
Altogether a somewhat daunting programme, and although it was clear that Newman had

received a good grounding in both Latin and Greek at Ealing School, he was eager to make

serious progress and so, in November of 1817, he again wrote to his mother:

I could not expect to be in the right way at first, and after I had chosen Xenophon’s

Anabasis, I was sorry I had selected a book which I had read before, and which

would not at all advance my progress towards a knowledge of Greek.126

He was painfully aware of the competition he encountered at Oxford, and he was continually

comparing himself less favourably to those he thought to be more able students, “there are

several who know much more than I do in Latin and Greek – and I do not like that.”127 This

tendency for comparison and self-deprecation continued, and even at a later stage, once again

in correspondence with his mother, took the form of a comparison with his own brother,

Francis:

I am convinced he knows much more of Greek, as a language than most of those

who take first classes: and, to complete the climax which is such only because it is

I who say it, he certainly knows much more of Greek as a language, in fact is a

much better Greek scholar than I.128

Whatever Newman’s view of his own shortcomings as a classical linguist, he certainly worked

hard to improve his skills in this respect, and not just by virtue of the studies proposed by the

126
L.D., i.47.
127
Ibid., i.48.
128
Ibid., i.55.

67
university,129 but also by the sort of projects he freely undertook, either alone or with others.

An indication of this would be the many references in the LD. to the texts Newman studied and

which he subsequently presented for examination, which included: Euripides, Plato, Lucretius,

Xenophon, Livy,130 Herodotus, Thucydides131 and Aristotle. It was Aristotle that somewhat

proved to be “the straw that broke the camel’s back,” when he writes in November of 1820,

“The Rhetoric of Aristotle I fear I have determined to throw aside, and with it my hopes of a

first class in Classics.” 132 The “ennui” that examinations caused Newman seemed to have

passed by Christmas that same year, when Newman writes to his sister, Jemima: “I have

brought home for my amusement the original Greek of Aeschylus and have begun learning his

Choruses by heart.”133 This recovery of his equilibrium seemed short-lived in that only two

days later, he writes in somewhat pessimistic terms of his expected examination performance

to his tutor, Dr. George Nicholas: “When I say my name stands no higher than in the

underline134 of Classics … I seem to be recording my own idleness and disgrace.”135 We know

from a letter to his old classics teacher, Walter Mayers, of January 1821, that Newman did in

fact fall beneath the line, gaining his Bachelor of Arts degree with “a second in classics”136 and

furthermore, there is also a full account of the trauma of the examination.137

129
In a letter to his mother (13 November 1817), Newman explains that, “Every one must take up some Greek,
Latin, Mathematics, and Divinity”—clearly considered to be the constituent elements of a good education; see
L.D., i.45.
130
Ibid., 53.
131
Ibid., 67.
132
Ibid., 92.
133
Ibid., 97.
134
This is a contemporary way of speaking of failure in terms of falling “beneath the line.”
135
L.D., i.98.
136
Ibid., 99.
137
Ibid., 99 and a letter to John William Bowden of 21 April 1822; Ibid., 133.

68
Nevertheless, Newman was undaunted in this setback, and accepted the encouragement of the

many people in Oxford who believed that this poor examination result was not a clear

indication of either his ability or his potential. Consequently, he continued working hard and

was elected to a fellowship at Oriel College, Oxford, on 12 April 1822. Writing much later (30

July 1874) of the fellowship examination in his Memorandum on Latin Essay, Newman says:

“I succeeded at Oriel mainly by my Latin writing.”138

That summer (1822), Newman was assisted by Richard Whately in preparation for his teaching

at Oriel, as he spent his time reading and writing lectures. As he became more engrossed in his

academic work, so he also progressively abandoned his earlier Evangelicalism and began to

immerse himself more deeply in reading both Anglican theologians and the Fathers of the

Church. Throughout the 1820’s, Newman maintained his contact with Richard Whately and

Edward Hawkins, both of whom were fellows of Oriel. Their friendship did nothing to shore

up his Evangelicalism. He gradually came to hold the view to that “the future lay between the

parties which had yet to emerge in clear and definite lines and colour from the background of

moderate churchmen – the Liberals and the Catholics.”139 Education in Oxford in the early

nineteenth century was clearly undergoing reform, perhaps indicating the rapid political

changes in England that were still to come. Newman went on to describe what might be

considered a more authentic liberal education in The Idea of a University (1852), and this

increasingly became the education gradually adopted in the various Oxford colleges.

Newman’s own college, Trinity, was no exception. Instead of continuous riotous behaviour

and recreation during term time, a rigorous programme of study introduced a tutorial system

138
Ibid., 136.
139
M. Ward, Young Mr. Newman (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1948), 127.

69
with students being subject to demanding examinations. In this way, Oxford progressed from

being a sort of four-year boarding house for the privileged into something rather more akin to

an intellectual and political melting-pot.

The backbone of Newman’s education at Trinity College at this time were the Greek and

Roman classics. These had long held a place of great importance in academic life in England

and during the century preceding Newman’s arrival at Oxford they had become practically the

sole object of study. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, in line with the general

movement towards reform, this narrowness was recognized as such, and measures were taken

to broaden the curriculum, while retaining the Classics as the basis of the studies. But as

Newman himself tells us:

… hardly had the authorities ... waking from their long neglect to set on foot a plan

for the education of the youth committed them, than the representatives of science

and literature in the city, which has sometimes been called the Northern Athens,

remonstrated with their gravest arguments and their most brilliant satire, against

the direction and the shape which the reform was taking.140

All of these developments, however, were not without their problems; unbeknown to Newman,

the sort of liberalizing reforms increasingly gaining respect in the wider world of Oxford

University also carried with them the germ of unbelief and rationalism from which the

university, until this point, had been protected. These seeds would gradually blossom,

challenging the “high and dry” religious atmosphere which had pervaded Oxford until now:

140
Idea, 154.

70
 Mark Pattison claimed that during the previous one hundred and fifty years reason

has first been offered as the basis of faith before gradually becoming its substitute.

Between 1688 and 1750 men had eliminated religious experience and since 1750

they had also lost the power of using the speculative reason.141

Parallel to these developments in the University, Newman himself was undergoing something

of a metamorphosis in that he was increasingly starting to question the Evangelicalism which

had characterized his teenage years. His election to a fellowship at Oriel brought him into

contact with scholars who were intellectually able and who themselves were moving towards

a scepticism concerning the claims of a system of the revealed religion and belief of which

Oxford had previously been such a stronghold. This gradually increasing contempt for what

had previously been unquestioned was part of a wider movement that was underway, not only

in the universities, but among all the educated classes of Europe.

Oxford, at this time, was itself increasingly being influenced by secular thinkers in continental

Europe. “The first half of the nineteenth century bore the impress, in the words of Dean Stanley,

‘of the deeper seriousness breathed into the minds of men not only in England but in Europe

by the great convulsion of the French Revolution’.”142 The radical secularism of the French

Revolution was gradually becoming more evident in England. These formulations would go

on to inform the political formulations of the Liberal Party, which emerged from the Whigs,

who were considered to be the party of political reform. The movement quickly gathered

momentum, and Tories (who were conservative politically) found themselves increasingly seen

as both reactionary and anti-intellectual. Social pressures, both inside the University, and in

141
J.D. Holmes, Introduction to U.S. (London: SPCK, 1970), xiii.
142
W.W.G. Ward, Ward and the Oxford Movement (London: Macmillan, 1890), 45.

71
society at large, favoured the process by which universities increasingly gave themselves over

to the same sort of essentially liberal ideologies.

2.4 Holy Orders

In Newman’s day, almost all of the tutors in Oxford colleges were ordained to the ministry of

the Church of England, and as a consequence, the University was a powerfully clerical

environment. Several of those who had been Newman’s fellow-students at Oxford, at colleges

like Oriel and Balliol, later themselves achieved prominence in the Church or political life,

promoting latitudinarianism143 through the organs of the British Empire. Having determined

upon taking Holy Orders in the Church of England, Newman attempted a fellowship at Oriel

College, to which he was elected on 12 April 1822, thereby gaining introduction to an elite

group within the college that went by the name of the “Noetics”:

This knot of Oriel men was distinctly the product of the French Revolution, they

called everything into question, they appealed to first principles, and disallowed

authority as a judge in intellectual matters.144

At this point, Newman fell increasingly under the influence of Richard Whately and other

Noetics at Oriel, who embraced what they considered to be an approach to religious faith based

143
Latitudinarians, or latitude men, were initially a group of seventeenth-century English theologians, Cambridge
clerics and academics, who considered themselves to be moderate Anglicans. In particular, they believed that
adhering to very specific doctrines, liturgical practices, and the forms of organized religion, as did the Puritans,
was not necessary and could be harmful. They supported a broad-based Protestantism and were later referred to
as “Broad Church.”
144
W.W.G. Ward, The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman Based on His Private Journals and Correspondence,
Vol. 1 (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1912), 48.

72
on logic. They became Newman’s constant companions during the next several years. In this

way Newman would prepare himself for some of the conflicts which lay ahead, although not

without entirely avoiding the sort of reliance on rationalism that he perceived to be such a

vulnerability of secularism. Fortunately, Newman was of a sufficiently independent turn of

mind to resist some of the formulations that challenged his deep-seated views concerning his

Christian beliefs, as it was clear that the first intimations he had received of the importance of

doctrine at the beginning of the process of his Evangelical conversion, never left him. Newman

cites himself when writes of the dilemma thus:

“In the present day”, “I said, mistiness is the mother of wisdom. A man who never

enunciates a truth without guarding himself against being supposed to exclude its

contradictory, who holds that Scripture is the only authority, yet that the Church is

to be deferred to, that faith only justifies, yet that it does not justify without works,

that grace does not depend on the sacraments, yet it is not given without them, that

Bishops are a divine ordinance, yet those that have them not are in the same

religious condition as those who have, this is your safe man and the hope of the

Church, this is what the Church is said to want, not party men but sensible,

temperate, sober well judging persons to guide it through the channel of no

meaning between the Charybdis of Aye or No”.145

While such liberal ideologies were gaining ground in Britain, few could have imagined the

extent of the effect that such ideas would have on the relationship between Church and State.

By Newman’s time, this relationship had become almost sacramental in the way it was

perceived by some High Anglicans. It was precisely this sensibility that started to decline and

145
Apo., 103.

73
subsequently encouraged Newman, with others, to become what later would be known as the

Oxford Movement, and to publish the first Tracts of the Times. The single event which served

as catalyst was the suppression of Irish Bishoprics brought about as the result of the Reform

Bill (1832). At this time, Newman wrote to Frederick Rogers who was his former student and

friend: “I am against all measures that tend to the separation of Church and State.”146

Newman was ordained to the priesthood in the Church of England in 1824 and named curate

of St. Clement’s Church, Oxford. In 1826, he became a tutor at Oriel, and two years later, vicar

of the University Church of St. Mary’s, Oxford. Upon election to Oriel in 1822, Newman met

two men who were to exert a great influence on him throughout the 1830s: Richard Whately,

future Archbishop of Dublin, and Edward Hawkins who was to become Provost of Oriel

College, Oxford. Newman’s differences of opinion with them resulted in a weakening of their

friendship. in philosophical and theological reasoning became increasingly apparent. He

continued, however, to hold them both in great affection, avoiding any type of attack ad

personam, while enthusiastically opposing them. For their part, Hawkins, and in particular,

Whately, did not hold back in their criticism of Newman and his teachings. While Newman

became ever more conservative, both Whately and Hawkins became increasingly liberal, as

was the growing trend in the Church of England. Newman writes of Hawkins:

There is one principle which I gained from Dr. Hawkins, more directly bearing

upon Catholicism, than any I have mentioned and that is the doctrine of tradition,

viz. that the sacred text was never intended to teach doctrine, we must have

146
L.D., i.225.

74
 recourse to the formularies of the Church, for instance to the Catechism, and the

Creeds.147

Hawkins also pointed out to Newman some of the dangers that were already beginning to

appear on the horizon in relation to biblical interpretation: “It was Dr. Hawkins who taught me

to anticipate that, before many years were over, there would be an attack made upon the books

and canons of Scripture.”148

In this way, Newman had been prepared for the notion that the major areas of contention would

concern the teaching authority of the Church and that of Scripture. Like Newman, Hawkins

was able to foresee that increasingly liberal Protestant scriptural scholarship would ultimately

denigrate any notion of the reliability of Scripture, opening the way for further attacks on the

Church’s credibility. In this, they anticipated the biblical criticism of scholars such as Harnack,

Strauss, and Renan and, rather more significantly, they foresaw the modernist tendencies that

would affect the Roman Catholic Church so powerfully towards the end of the nineteenth

century.

When Newman was ordained in 1824, the process of his intellectual formation was still

underway, yet, even at this stage, there are glimpses of an intellectual prowess that increasingly

opposed the Noetics. Up to this point, Newman had attempted to faithfully live up to the last

words of rather practical advice that his father gave him, before he died in December of 1824:

“Do not show ultraism in anything.”149 It is in this way that he began his long career as an

147
Apo., 21.
148
Ibid., 21.
149
H. Tristram, ed., Autobiographical Writings (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1956), 203.

75
Anglican clergyman, in which he became renowned as much for his intellect and his personal

holiness, and there began that period of Newman’s life which would continue until 1843 when

he resigned as vicar of St. Mary’s. Although he had already largely abandoned the ideas that

had brought about his early Evangelical “conversion,” some elements of his earlier

evangelicalism still remained. Concerning the pastoral ministry, he said that

those who make comfort the great subject of their preaching seem to mistake the

end of their ministry. Holiness is the great end. There must be a struggle and a trial

here. Comfort is a cordial, but no one drinks cordials from morning to night.150

2.5 A State of Flux

After his conversion to Roman Catholicism (1845), Newman would write that it was the

Fathers that had made him a Catholic.151 It seems that his mind had already been definitely

oriented in this direction as early as 1826, by which time, as a result of his own extensive

reading, he had identified an underlying unity in the teachings of the Fathers, sufficiently to be

able to write: “I would advise taking them as a whole, a corpus theologicum et

ecclesiasticus.” 152 Newman soon found that in order understand the Fathers, one must

necessarily first understand the age in whose shifting currents they stood. His interest was soon

to develop from the reading of the Fathers towards a broader historical sense of the Early

Church. This study became so intense that it afforded Newman a complete mastery of the

history of the Church, in such a way that it eventually it became a sort of mirror in which he

increasingly began to see the religious situation of his own age reflected.

150
Ibid., 180.
151
Diff., 24.
152
L.D., i.310, To Samuel Rickards, 26 November 1826.

76
During the long vacation of 1826, Newman wrote to Keble about finally being able to study

Hebrew and to read the whole book of Genesis in the original:

The interest attending it has far surpassed all my anticipations, high as they were,

and though I clearly see I could never be a scholar without understanding Chaldee,

Syriac and Arabic, yet I think I may get insight enough into the language at least to

judge of the soundness of the criticisms of scholars and to detect the superficial

learning of some who only pretend to be scholars.153

Nevertheless, the project remains in his mind and he wonders, in another letter, what the Fathers

of the Church would think of his new position as tutor at Oriel, which threatens to rob him of

some of the time he wanted to give to their study. At this stage, he realized that one very

practical way of facilitating his plan would be to own a set of Patristic texts which he could

consult constantly without reference to a library. Accordingly, in 1827, he asked his friend

Edward Bouverie Pusey (1800–1882), who was at that time in Germany, to purchase as many

volumes of the Fathers as he could obtain. Pusey obliged, and sometime later these Patristic

tomes were delivered to Newman: “My Fathers are arrived all safe—huge fellows they are, but

very cheap—one folio costs a shilling!”154

In 1832 Newman made a tour of the Mediterranean his friend Hurrell Froude,155 returning to

England in July 1833. Keble was to preach his sermon, “National Apostasy,” in opposition to

153
L.D., i.136.
154
Ibid., i.169.
155
During that trip he wrote most of the Lyra Apostolica, including the hymn “Lead, Kindly Light”.

77
the Whigs, who were looking to disestablish the Church of England at Oxford on 14 July that

same year. This sermon is regarded by many to be the start of the Oxford Movement.

Technically, the organization of the movement dates, however, from a meeting Froude, and

others held in the Hadleigh vicarage of H.J. Rose, editor of the British Magazine, at which they

pledged themselves to defend both the doctrine of apostolic succession in the Church of

England, and the integrity of her Book of Common Prayer. Some weeks later, and quite

independently of this fact, Newman began to publish his Tracts for the Times, from which the

Oxford Movement gains its alternative designation of “tractarianism.”

The new movement aimed to address the increasingly baleful effect of the State on the Church

of England and, thereby, to establish a doctrinal foundation for the Church of England in

teaching its demonstrable lineal descent from the Church Christ founded with his Apostles, and

the body of teaching generally referred to as Catholic tradition. Newman reinforced the effect

of the tracts with his Sunday afternoon sermons in the University Church, which immediately

attracted many followers and admirers.

It goes without saying that not everyone was enamoured with Newman’s increasing

dependence upon the Fathers as a source of doctrinal authority. Newman’s mentorship of the

Tractarian movement relied greatly upon the notion that “new leadership was needed among

the High Churchmen to bring about a return to the Fathers.”156 In this, he self-consciously pitted

himself against those who were naturally sceptical of anything which could be remotely

interpreted as strengthening the influence and authority of the Roman Catholic Church. One

such was the Anglican theologian and second principal of King’s College London, Hugh James

156
B.J. King, Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers: Shaping Doctrine in Nineteenth-Century England (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009), 17.

78
Rose (1795–1838), who while having been a great encouragement to Newman to turn to the

Fathers more consistently, came to be concerned about how this increasingly Patristic emphasis

in Newman’s thought was emerging in his teaching and thereby influenced his students.

Two students, Newman’s near contemporaries, offer us a commentary of how this played out

in the latter half of the 1830s. The first was S.F. Wood (b. 1809), who records his thoughts

after meeting Newman in January 1836, at which he clearly accused Newman of being too

bogged down in the tenets of the Fathers. Benjamin King records an interesting aspect to the

exchange that took place:

Ironically, to get him [Newman] out of the mire, Wood proposed doctrinal

development as an alternative, an idea like the one Newman would propound in

the following decade.157

Newman declined to act upon Wood’s suggestion and following their exchange Wood wrote

to his contemporary, a future nemesis of Newman, Henry Manning (b. 1808), who would later

himself become a catholic and go on to become the Archbishop of Westminster and a cardinal:

[Newman] says that before the Reformation the Church never deduced any

doctrine from Scripture, and by inference blames our Reformers for doing so.

Moreover he objects to their doctrine in itself as to Justification by Faith, and

complains of their attempt to prove it from the Fathers …. Generally, his result

is, not merely to refer us to antiquity but to shut us up in it, and to deprive, not

157
Ibid., 16.

79
 only individuals but the Church, of all those doctrines not fully commented on by

the Fathers.158

The second student witness of concern was none other than F.W. Faber (b. 1814), who, at the

time was a student at Balliol, working on a translation of Optatus, Bishop of Milevis, on “The

schism of the Donatists,” as part of the Library of the Fathers project which was the fruit of the

translation work of four future leaders of the Oxford Movement: Pusey, Newman, Marriot and

Keble. Faber would subsequently become a catholic and join Newman’s Oratory, becoming

the superior of the London Oratory. In 1835, he wrote: “I do not wonder that Newman’s mind

has been deeply tinctured by that mystical allegorizing spirit of Origen and the school of

Alexandria.”159

Newman’s influence was reaching a high point by the late 1830s, even though opposition was

clearly emerging to what some perceived to be the Romanizing tendencies of the Oxford

Movement. Newman was initially convinced of the notion of the Anglican Church as a via

media,160 and saw it as keeping a path balanced between the extremes of either Protestantism

or Catholicism, both of which he considered to be erroneous.

158
To Manning, 29 January, 1836, Manning Papers (Bodleian Library), in J. Pereiro, “Ethos” and the Oxford
Movement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 249.
159
J.E. Bowden, The Life and Letters of Frederick William Faber, D.D. (London: Thomas Richardson & Son,
1869), 20.
160
The via media, or middle road, advocates moderation in all things. It has its origins in Aristotle (384–322
BCE), who proposed a middle way between two extreme positions. As such, it was the prevailing precept by
which much of ancient Roman civilization and society was organized. Newman and others in the Oxford
Movement claimed this idea was first enunciated by the Elizabethan theologian Richard Hooker in his Of the
Lawes of Ecclesiastically Polity (1594). Recent scholarship has established that the term via media does not appear
in the English text of Hooker’s writing; cf. M. Bryson, The Evolving Reputation of Richard Hooker: An
Examination of Responses 1600–1714 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); Newman, Tracts 38 and 41.

80
By early 1839, however, Newman had seriously started to doubt the validity of the Anglican

position. He noted a marked resemblance between Anglicanism, and those heresies which arose

in the early Church, and formed the basis of the controversies that were debated at the great

councils. Newman’s Tract 90, (1841), amply demonstrated the changing direction of his

feelings. In putting the tenability of Catholic doctrine within the Church of England to the test,

Newman set out to examine the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Book of Common Prayer, which in

many ways are the founding charter of the Church of England, 161 in order to attempt to

demonstrate that they had originally been directed not against the Roman Catholic position,

but rather against its popular exaggerations and perceived errors. The tract caused a storm of

controversy, and the then Bishop of Oxford ordered that the series be suspended.

2.6 Becoming a Catholic

In 1842, after much soul-searching and prayer, Newman retired to Littlemore, a small village

just outside Oxford, the chapel of which was dependent on the University Church, and there he

began something of a retreat of three years devoted to private prayer and study. There are

indications that this also became a period when Newman’s reading of the Fathers intensified.

In a letter to a friend in March of 1843 he writes: “There are very few of the Ancient Saints

one can get into so much [as St Basil]. St Chrysostom is another.”162 The fruit of his reflection,

published at a later stage (1845), was the Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, in

which he explained how he was able to reconcile himself to what he considered to be the later

accretions of the Roman creed. In 1842, he published translations of Select Treatises of St.

161
The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (commonly abbreviated as the Thirty-Nine Articles or the XXXIX
Articles) are historically defining doctrinal statements outlining the position and practice of the Church of England
with respect to the controversies which arose at the English Reformation.
162
L.D. ix, 291.

81
Athanasius, as well as translating a volume of Claude Fleury’s Ecclesiastical History, which

deals with the Council of Constantinople of 381 and its subsequent developments.

His studies in church history did not support his earlier conviction concerning the via media,

in that he had to recognize that the Semi-Arians who tried to steer a middle way between

Arianism and orthodoxy expounded at Nicaea did not win the day. Neither did the fifth-century

anti-Chalcedonians who attempted to find a compromise to Eutyches’s heretical propositions,

and the position proposed by Pope Leo I, which was eventually accepted at the Council of

Chalcedon. The implication of this realization was devastating and consequently, in 1843,

Newman recanted his previous criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church, and formally resigned

the living as vicar of the University Church of St. Mary. On 9 October 1845, Newman was

received into the Roman Catholic Church at Littlemore by an Italian Passionist priest, Fr.

Dominic Barberi. Obviously, this was a momentous decision for Newman and a decisive act

that would have consequences which he would continue to experience for the remainder of his

long life. Hütter observes that Newman becomes a catholic exactly at the mid-point of his life,

after forty-four years as an Anglican he then lives forty-five years as a catholic.163 Although

Newman’s conversion inevitably meant parting company with so much that had been

significant in his life until that point, Hütter observes that “… there is no renunciation without

a prior affirmation,”164 and in Newman’s case, that affirmation had been in process long before

he decided to leave the University Church and retreat to Littlemore to consider the future. In

1846, Newman travelled to Rome and, following a brief course of study, was ordained a

catholic priest. Suffice to say that Newman found Rome to be something of a disappointment

163
R. Hütter, John Henry Newman on Truth and Its Counterfeits: A Guide for Our Times (Washington, DC:
Catholic University of America Press, 2020), 5.
164
Ibid., 216.

82
academically as far as the study of philosophy went, for Aristotle, as received by Aquinas, was

not in vogue at that time. 165 Neither did he find the study of theology there particularly

impressive, based as it was at the time on dogmatic formulations, without much offered in the

form of supporting scholarship or historical background.166 Nicholls observes that Newman

came to understand that these inadequacies are largely cultural differences, which arise as a

consequence of diverse national sensibilities. They in no way compromise the essential unity

of faith in matters of doctrine upon which the Catholic Church is posited.167 In Rome, however,

he did discover and subsequently joined the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, a community of secular

priests who live in community. He sought papal permission to adapt the rule of the Roman

Oratory so that on his return to England he could establish the Congregation of the Oratory of

St. Philip Neri in Birmingham.

2.7 Newman as an Educator

The years which followed his conversion to Catholicism were a challenge for Newman, as

there was no obvious opening for him, and he felt himself to be viewed with suspicion by both

Protestants and Catholics. He gave a series of lectures entitled, The Idea of a University,

explaining his theory of education. Newman’s inaugural lecture as Rector of the Catholic

University of Ireland, which he delivered to the School of Philosophy and Letters on 9

November 1854, traced the continuous development of a Western educational ideal from its

source in ancient Greece. Similarly, in a series of articles intended to explain the idea of a

university from the perspective of history, both to students, and the general readership of the

165
L.D., xi.279.
166
Ibid., 240.
167
G. Nicholls, Unearthly Beauty: The Aesthetic of St John Henry Newman (Leominster: Gracewing, 2019), 310.

83
Catholic University Gazette, Newman traces the sources of the university from the “Schools of

Athens.”168

It seems that Newman communicated not only a sophisticated historical analysis of the

evolution of education, but he did so with passion and flair:

His remarks in his Inaugural Lecture that Greek civilization, distinctive and

luminous in its character, so impersonal in its extent, so imposing in its duration,

was vigorous enough to vivify and assimilate in succeeding ages even to the

modern era the various social and political forces that threatened to stifle it.169

The Greek idea of education was, in other words, a living idea which, as Newman explains in

the Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, must remain true to its roots, even as it

evolves, if it is to flourish rather than wither and die. The idea of a liberal education, defined

by Newman in The Idea of a University, must be understood essentially in relation to its original

sources in the Greek παιδεία. This word describes a type of humanism that had as its goal the

most ample development of an individual’s personality. The Greek notion of παιδεία, which

Cicero rendered in Latin as humanitas, came to refer not simply to the manner of educating a

child but rather the whole process of the human formation of an individual. This proposes the

fundamental idea of “culture” which in the Greek sense is personal rather than collective.

168
These articles appeared as “Office and Work of Universities” in 1856 and as “Rise and Prowess of Universities”
in H.S., iii (1872).
169
Excerpt from John Henry Newman, “Christianity and Letters: A Lecture in the School of Philosophy and
Letters (November, 1854),” in John Henry Newman: The Idea of a University, ed. M.-J. Svaglic (Notre Dame,
IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1986), 189–90.

84
The Greek ideal of culture, as the perfection of what is virtual in us, is expressed by Newman

in his Grammar of Assent (1870), in which he references our sacred duty as human beings

through our own personal efforts of advancing our own nature, and developing our own

perfection, from the “inchoate and rudimental nature,”170 referred to as most valuable good,

that is, the fullest development of any individual’s potential, realized by means of the

cultivation of their mind in the course of their life. This ideal of personal culture, as a precious

good, had diverse inheritors, including Gregory of Nazianzus, with whom Newman was

becoming increasingly familiar as result of a more systematic reading of the Fathers.

In his study, Newman’s Personal Reasoning: The Inspiration of the Early Church, Gerard

Magill states that Newman’s philosophy of education was influenced by the Fathers, and in

particular by Clement of Alexandria’s integration of Christian and Hellenic cultures produced

by a liberal education.171 Newman himself makes very clear his debt to Aristotle. In Discourse

V of the Idea of a University, he writes:

While we are men, we cannot help, to a great extent, being Aristotileans [sic], for

the great Master does but analyze the thoughts, feelings, views, and opinions of

human ad. He has told us the meaning of our own words and ideas before we were

born. In many subject matters, to think correctly is to think like Aristotle.172In the

Grammar of Ascent, Newman also acknowledges Aristotle as his master 173 “as to

170
See Newman, Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, Chapter 9: The Illative Sense (that faculty by which the
mind apprehends the conditions and determines the correctness of inferences.)
171
G. Magill, “Newman’s Personal Reasoning: The Inspiration of the Early Church,” Irish Theological Quarterly
52 (1992): 305–13.
172
Idea., Discourse V.
173
E. Sillem, ed., John Henry Newman: The Philosophical Notebooks (New York: Humanities Press, 1969), 160.

85
 the intellectual position from which I have contemplated the subject of

revelation.”174

Edward Sillem’s introductory volume to Newman’s The Philosophical Notebook gives an

account of the Aristotelian sources of Newman’s philosophy. Sillem observes that Newman’s

references to Aristotle are cautious in the earlier sermons and eulogistic in the Idea and the

Grammar. Sillem states that the great themes of Newman’s Discourses in the Idea “should lead

us to associate Newman’s name immediately and for ever with that of Aristotle.” 175 Such

themes include “that knowledge is its own end, that the different sciences are interconnected

in a harmonious system in which each has its proper place so that none can be omitted or

suppressed without seriously damaging the whole, that there is a universal science of ‘First

Philosophy’ above all the natural sciences.”176

Newman makes clear in the Preface to the Idea that by the culture of the intellect he does not

refer to “the manners and habits of gentlemen” but to “the force, the steadiness, the

comprehensiveness and the versatility of intellect, the command over our own powers, the

instinctive just estimate of things as they pass before us”.177 This culture of the intellect is the

declared aim of a liberal education and the goal of the “man of philosophic habit”.

Fernande Tardivel writes that in the Idea Newman supposes an Aristotelian Oxford,178 or an

Oxford that is half medieval and half Greek.179 That Newman had something Aristotelian in

174
G.A., 334.
175
Sillem, Philosophical Notebooks, 160.
176
Ibid.
177
G.A., xlii.
178
F. Tardivel, J.H. Newman, éducateur (Paris: Beauchesne, 1937), 91.
179
Idea, 65.

86
mind for his gentleman of philosophic culture is evident both in the latter half of the text,

(Discourses v–ix), when Newman discusses what is meant by a liberally educated gentleman,

and in the succeeding articles and lectures in which he describes the principles of a liberal

education for the students at the Catholic University of Ireland. Newman remonstrates against

narrowness of knowledge in just one area. He observes: “Men, whose minds are possessed with

some one object, take exaggerated views of its importance, are feverish in the pursuit of it,

make it the measure of things which are utterly foreign to it, and are startled and despond if it

happens to fill them.”180

Newman, for his part, maintains that a university should as much as possible take into

consideration all branches of learning. For Newman’s gentleman, as for Aristotle’s man of

general culture, his education gives him

a clear conscious view of his own opinions and judgments, a truth in developing

them, an eloquence in expressing them, and a force in urging them. It teaches him

to see things as they are, to go right to the point, to disentangle a skein of thought,

to detect what is sophistical, and to discard what is irrelevant.181

Newman himself provides an example of the man of general culture conversant in methods and

first principles during his long career spanning the greater part of the nineteenth century. As a

“a man of philosophic habit” engaged in the battle of issues and ideas, Newman constantly

exercised his judgment through an understanding of methods and the controlling principles of

branches of knowledge.

180
Ibid., 104.
181
Ibid., 135.

87
The distinction of methods is also the subject of Newman’s final discourse in the Idea. Here,

Newman observes the increasing bias of his age towards induction, the method more suited to

the physical sciences and exclusive of those objects which are not demonstrable according to

its criterion and do not fall within its range. Newman writes that “Induction is the instrument

of Physics” as “deduction only is the instrument of Theology.”182 He observes how strange the

latter method is to “men whose first principle is the search after truth. And whose starting points

of search are things material and sensible. They scorn any process of inquiry not founded on

experiment”.

2.8 The Influence of the Fathers on Newman

The recent study of Reinhard Hütter introduces Newman by saying that he is “an assiduous

student and an exemplary translator of the Church Fathers.”183 Andrew Meszaros lays great

emphasis on the fact that Newman’s reading of the Fathers, which had begun in earnest in

1828, established the essential tenor of his historical orientation as a theologian,184 attributing

his later enunciation of the process whereby doctrine can authentically be said to develop arises

from the establishment of this “fact” from Newman’s reading of the Fathers.185 Evidence of

the extent of this influence of the Fathers on Newman is to be found in two distinct aspects:

firstly, in his obvious dependence upon Patristic formulations in his doctrinal writings and in

his published sermons—an aspect I hope to comment on in subsequent chapters of this study—

and secondly, in the identification of Patristic thought as the basis of his own understanding of

182
Idea, 169.
183
Hütter, John Henry Newman on Truth, 1.
184
A. Meszaros, The Prophetic Church: History and Doctrinal Development in John Henry Newman and Yves
Congar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 61.
185
Ibid., 13.

88
broader concepts, such as education. Although it was clear to Newman that much of Plato’s

and Aristotle’s language and structure of virtue in the notion of the παιδεία had been inherited

by the Fathers, he also understood that they supplemented what they had received “in that

Christian moral perfection is founded not in the abstract idea of the virtues but in the goodness

and love of God incarnate in Christ.” 186 Furthermore, it is clear that Newman considered

παιδεία to be central to his concept of education and was to evidence it at some stage in all his

written works as

embracing the total development of the human person: body, mind, heart, will,

senses, passions, judgements and instincts, ἀρετή, excellence in living … in the

Fathers Newman found articulated the view he already held about the true value of

education and learning …. It is Newman’s achievement to have combined the

humane tradition of the Ancient Greeks with the religious traditions of the Greek

and Latin Fathers, particularly St. Augustine.187

The progressive influence of the Fathers upon Newman’s theological formulations is evident

in his writings.188 “Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome and Leo”

for Newman are, “authors of powerful, original minds, engaged in the production of original

works.”189 Newman had attempted to defend the notion of the apostolic foundations of the

Church of England from his reading of the Fathers and, in so doing, as the Oxford Movement

was emerging, proposing the via media of Anglicanism as between the two extremes of Rome

186
Arthur and Nicholls, John Henry Newman, 8.
187
Ibid., 90.
188
See I. Ker, ed., Newman the Theologian: A Reader (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1990). In
the introductory essays, Ker analyzes the process of Newman’s theological development and his growing reliance
upon Patristic texts; see also I. Ker, John Henry Newman: A Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).
189
H.S., ii.475.

89
and Protestantism. The Library of the Fathers series of Patristic translations was largely the

fruit of this endeavour which Newman shared with several of his Oxford contemporaries. King

notes that Newman worked almost exclusively on the Greek Fathers, the only exception being

his translation of Leo the Great’s Sermons & Letters, motivated in this particular instance a

desire to address doctrinal questions which arose from those who rejected Leo’s formulation

of the two natures in Christ.190

While Newman continued to hold that the Apostolic foundation of the Church of England was

valid as a theological formulation, he could recover no basis for the idea in reality. The notion

of the via media was definitively discounted by Newman when he encountered Augustine’s

notion of how the Church is governed, based on the maxim securus iudicat orbis terrarium

(“the world’s judgment is secure”).191 In his Apologia, Newman makes reference to his own

reaction at what was to become a decisive moment in the process of his movement towards

Catholicism:

Who can account for the impressions which are made on him? For a mere sentence,

the words of St. Augustine, struck me with a power which I never had felt from

any words before …. they were like the “Tolle, lege, — Tolle, lege”, of the child,

which converted St Augustine himself. “Securus judicat orbis terrarium”! By those

great words of the ancient Father, interpreting and summing up the long and varied

190
B.J. King, “The Church Fathers,” in The Oxford Handbook of John Henry Newman, ed. F.D. Aquino and B.J.
King (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 128.
191
Newman’s translation: “The universal Church is in its judgements secure of truth”; see Ker, Newman the
Theologian, 35.

90
 course of ecclesiastical history, the theology of the Via Media was absolutely

pulverised.192

Subsequently, Newman wrote to someone who, while in the Oxford Movement, unlike

Newman, decided not to become Roman Catholic:

I recollect well what an outcast I seemed to myself, when I took down from the

shelves of my library the volumes of St Athanasius or St Basil, and set myself to

study them; and how, on the contrary, when at length I was brought into the

Catholic Communion, I kissed them with delight, with a feeling that in them I had

more than all I had lost.193

Also, in another place: “I am not ashamed still to take my stand upon the Fathers, and do not

mean to budge …. The Fathers made me a Catholic. He came to understand that subsequent

developments in doctrine after the Patristic era, were still in conformity with their doctrine.

Newman had come to see the Fathers as witnesses to a continual tradition: witnesses who teach,

in the first instance, not matters of opinion, but matters of fact. In this, he believed was manifest

the strength of the claims of the Catholic Church which formed the basis of his comparison with

Protestant communities that emerged in the sixteenth century, when he states:

she professes to be built upon facts not opinions; on objective truths, not on variable

sentiments; on immemorial testimony, not on private judgement; on convictions or

perceptions, not on conclusions.194

192
Apo., 117.
193
Diff., 357.
194
Cf. Ibid.

91
Newman did not look to the Fathers purely for an understanding of ecclesiology; increasingly,

he aligned his approach to scriptural exegesis to what he perceived to be the mind of the

Fathers. In this, he outlines the approach of a Church

which keeps steadily in view that Christ speaks in Scripture and receives His

words as if it heard them, as if some superior and friend spoke them, one whom it

wished to please; not as if it were engaged upon the dead letter of a document,

which admitted of rude handling, of criticism and exception. It looks off from self

to Christ; and, instead of seeking impatiently for some personal assurance, is set

by obedience, saying, “Here I am, send me.”195

Newman also considered the necessity of being able to find a way forward when there seems

to be a clash between the explanations offered by human science and the content of revelation

to be found in Scripture when he states:

This is the feeling I think we ought to have in our minds—not an impatience to do

what is beyond our powers, to weigh evidence, sum up, balance, decide and

reconcile, to arbitrate between the two voices of God—but a sense of the utter

nothingness of worms such as we are; of our plain and absolute incapacity to

contemplate things as they really are; a perception of our emptiness of the great

vision of God.196

195
P.S., ii, Sermon 2.
196
Ibid., 18.

92
As his knowledge and understanding of the Fathers’ contribution increased, so he began to

consider the possibility of the inadequacy and insufficiency of the foundational notion of Sola

Scriptura which had hitherto been his rule of faith as a Protestant, in teaching discipline, in

transmitting the Christianity in its entirety, and in proposing just one credal articulation and

understanding of that belief.197 As a consequence of the depth of his knowledge of Scripture,

Newman understood that Scripture did not come with its own commentary with it but stood in

need of both interpretation and exegesis. Newman found in the Fathers of the Church a reliable

source of such commentary on Scripture as “they do what no examination of the particular

context can do satisfactorily, acquaint us with the things Scripture speaks of.”198 Rather than

expounding the significance of Scriptural passages in their philosophical, etymological or

scholastic sense, the Fathers tell us “what they do mean actually, what they do mean in the

Christian Church and in theology.”199

And so, it was through his reading of the Fathers that Newman had progressively accepted “a

Revelation of the Blessed Spirit in a bodily shape, who was promised to us as a second Teacher

of Truth after Christ’s departure.” 200 Newman consistently proposes the necessity of the

authority of both Scripture and Tradition as communicating revealed truth in its fullest sense.

He came to understand that Scripture, of itself, does not, and indeed cannot, “force on us its

full dogmatic meaning.”201 Scripture does not stand apart, therefore, from Tradition. Having

197
Cf. P. Griffin, Revelation and Scripture in the Writings of John Henry Newman (Pamplona: University of
Navarre, 1985), 280–91.
198
Jfc. (London, 1874), 121.
199
Ibid.
200
U.S. (London, 1870), 17.
201
Ess., i (London, 1901), 115.

93
arrived at this understanding, Newman stood with Athanasius in considering the Scriptures,

interpreted in the light of Tradition, as “a document of final appeal in inquiry.”202

2.9 Newman Opposes Rationalism

Newman’s extensive study of early Christianity revealed to him that it had developed in a

climate of considerable persecution, weathering storms of intellectual attack from pagan

philosophers at large in society, as well as Gnosticism and other heretical variants which

originated from within the Church. He recognized that the Church was fortunate in the second

and third centuries to have teachers of the calibre of Origen, Clement, Irenaeus, and Justin who

were able to make some response to the challenges.

Among Newman’s principal concerns was the need to identify the reasonable basis for faith in

the face of the threat represented by rationalism. In a Tract for the Times in 1835, Newman

explained the dangers thus:

To rationalize in matters of Revelation is to make our reason the standard and

measure of the doctrines revealed; to stipulate that those doctrines should be such

as to carry with them their own justification; to reject them if they come into

collision with our existing opinions or habits of thought, or are with difficulty

harmonised with our existing stock of knowledge.203

By way of contrast, Newman goes to some length to uphold the role played by reason in the

theological process:

202
Ath., ii.51.

94
 As regards Revealed Truth, it is not Rationalism to set about to ascertain, by the

use of reason, what things are ascertainable by reason, and what are not; nor, in the

absence of any express Revelation, to inquire into the truths of Religion, as they

come to us by nature; nor to determine what proofs are necessary for the acceptance

of a Revelation, if it be given; nor to reject a Revelation on the plea of insufficient

proof; nor, after recognizing it as divine, to investigate the meaning of its

declarations, and to interpret its language …. This is not Rationalism; but it is

Rationalism to accept the Revelation, and then to explain it away; to speak of the

Word of God, and to treat it as the word of man; … to put aside what is obscure as

if it had not been said at all; to accept one half of what has been told us, and not the

other half; to frame some gratuitous hypothesis about them, and then to garble,

gloss and colour them, to trim, to clip, pare away, and twist them, in order to bring

them into conformity with the idea to which we have subjected them.204

With eloquence and prophetic insight, Newman here describes what went on to become the

orientation of much contemporary scriptural scholarship.

In the Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, Newman makes a significant rational defence of

faith.205 Newman was becoming increasingly aware of the onslaught of the secularizing of

society and, as a consequence of the urgent need to offer some rigorous intellectual basis for

an assent to supernatural truth. As Flanagan explains: “the Grammar was a defence of moral

certitude, the certitude arising from a convergence of many probabilities, the type of proof on

204
Ibid., 76.
205
See Ker, John Henry Newman, 618–50, for a discussion of its central themes.

95
which our belief in everyday facts depends, and on which our proof of the claims of Christianity

is based.”206

This approach has met with criticism in some quarters, but Newman was first to admit that the

Grammar was not in any way intended to be the last word on anything. He had outlined a

problem, and offered a contribution towards an answer.207 It was Newman’s contribution to the

discussion concerning faith and reason, which had been begun by Origen and Clement, and

which was now the matrix of the intellectual endeavour of the Catholic Church. Newman was

powerfully affected by this aspect of Patristic teaching which caused him to “exult in the folios

of the Fathers.”208

While it is abundantly evident that Newman was nourished intellectually and spiritually by a

vast array of Patristic authors. He clearly states, however, that he has “devout affection”209 for

Chrysostom:

A bright, cheerful, gentle soul; a sensitive heart, a temperament open to emotion

and impulse; and all this elevated, refined, transformed by the touch of heaven,—

such was St John Chrysostom; winning followers, riveting affections, by his

sweetness, frankness, and neglect of self.210

206
P. Flanagan, Newman: Faith and the Believer (London: Sands, 1946), 15.
207
See Ker, John Henry Newman, 650.
208
H.S., ii.221.
209
H.S., ii.218.
210
Ibid., 234.

96
It seems that Newman found in Chrysostom a reflection of his own rather complex personality,

and, consequently, he also found inspiration for his own writing and ministry. It is hardly a

surprise that Chrysostom’s ability both to attract people, and to make friends, made such a deep

impression on Newman. 211

Newman wonders why he is so drawn to Chrysostom when there are many other saints worthy

of his attention, and yet they “exert no personal claim” on him. 212 Offering a comparison

considering other Fathers of the Church, 213 Newman replies that for him Chrysotom’s

greatness is to be found

in his intimate sympathy and compassionateness for the whole world, not only in

its strength, but in its weakness; in the lively regard with which he views everything

that comes before him, taken in the concrete …. I speak of the discriminating

affectionateness with which he accepts every one for what is personal in him and

unlike others. I speak of his versatile recognition of men, one by one, I speak of the

kindly spirit and the genial temper with which he looks around at all things which

this wonderful world contains; of the graphic fidelity with which he notes them

down upon the tablets of his mind, and of the promptitude and propriety with which

he calls them up as arguments or illustrations in the course of his teaching as the

occasion requires.214

211
See Ibid., 237–38.
212
See Ibid., 284.
213
See Ibid., 284–85.
214
Ibid., 285.

97
It may be there that at some unconscious level Newman recognized in Chrysostom

someone who shared some of the personality flaws that he recognized in himself. If this

is so, it may have been an encouragement in his own pursuit of holiness. I can find

nothing in Newman’s writings that address this. What we do know is that it is

Chrysostom’s method of scriptural exegesis which particularly draws Newman’s

attention when he affirms “observant benevolence which gives to his exposition of

Scripture its chief characteristic.”215 Chrysostom approaches exegesis principally based

on the most obvious literal meanings of the text216, together with the ability to be able to

put himself in other people’s shoes, “… imagining with exactness and with sympathy

circumstances or scenes which were not before him, and of bringing out what he has

apprehended in words as direct and vivid as the apprehension.”217 It is this characteristic

that Newman has chiefly in mind when he describes Chrysostom’s style of exegesis thus:

It is this observant benevolence which gives to his exposition of Scripture its chief

characteristic. He is known in ecclesiastical literature as the expounder, above all

others, of its literal sense … there have been many literal expositors, but only one

Chrysostom. It is St. Chrysostom who is the charm of the method, not the method

that is the charm of St. Chrysostom.218

215
Ibid., 288.
216
This was long thought to be a characteristic of exegetes from Antioch, however, more recent scholarship tends
to deconstruct the idea of a dichotomy in the distinctive exegetical approaches of Antioch and Alexandria; cf.
F.M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,
1997), and E.A. Clark, Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1999).
217
H.S., ii.289.
218
Cf., Ibid., 289.

98
As Newman’s own reading of the Fathers was the Greek and Latin they wrote, it gave him an

immediacy of access to subtleties of style and thought sometimes lost in translation. In his

journey towards the Catholic Church, it is clear Chrysostom exerted a powerful mentoring

influence, as is evident when Newman states:

Many holy men have died in exile, many holy men have been successful preachers;

and what more can we write upon St. Chrysostom’s monument than this, that he

was eloquent and that he suffered persecution? He is not an Athanasius,

expounding a sacred dogma with a luminousness which is almost an inspiration …

nor is he Gregory or Basil, rich in the literature and philosophy of Greece, and

embellishing the Church with the spoils of heathenism. Again, he is not an

Augustine, devoting long years to one masterpiece of thought … He has not

trampled upon heresy, nor smitten emperors … nor knit together the portions of

Christendom, nor founded a religious order, nor built up the framework of doctrine,

nor expounded the science of the Saints; yet I love him, as I love David or St.

Paul.219

By the time Newman wrote this statement, he had spent almost half a century preparing himself

to read the Fathers. His very particular education, from his earliest years, had equipped him

with the necessary skills to make this intellectual project possible, shaping and moulding his

sensibilities in such a way that the characteristics he perceived in these great teachers of faith

found a powerful resonance in his own mind and heart. In turning to the Fathers, Newman

progressively found that their preoccupations became his own, and that their reasoning

increasingly informed his own approach to similar theological questions.

219
Ibid.

99
Personal sensibility is as decisive a factor in this as the persuasiveness of theological rhetoric.

In Chrysostom, Newman had found a kindred spirit—a man of immense intellect, who like

himself, was a man who, in many ways, was temperamentally ill-suited to high office in the

Church, and yet, was someone who was nonetheless clearly consumed by a love of the Church

and greatly motivated by an ardent desire to serve others, by teaching them, in such a way as

“to work out (his) own salvation with fear and trembling.”220

Having presented introductory accounts of the lives and work Chrysostom and Newman,

respectively, I wish now to engage in an aspect of comparative study of the theological

characteristics of the Patristic era that they seem to share. In Newman’s case, I shall not be

suggesting that these points of commonality are necessarily conscious on his part, unless there

is good reason to demonstrate that they are. I shall be seeking to establish, however, the content

of some sense of a matrix of theological thought which these two theologians share, even if

their manner of expression and the circumstances which occasion their theological

formulations are distant and, in some senses, disparate. I shall also be aiming to identify in the

unfolding stories of their lives those events, relationships and experiences which may have

favoured the treatment of these themes and the evolution in their thinking.

220
Cf. Phil. 2:12.

100
 CHAPTER 3

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM AS PASTOR AND PREACHER

3.1 Constructing a Biography of Chrysostom

As more recent trends in Chrysostom scholarship over the past decade have demonstrated, there

are innate difficulties in constructing a reliable biography for someone who lived over sixteen

centuries ago, and for whom little new biographical information is forthcoming. Chris de Wet

and Wendy Mayer ponder the on-going effect of this challenge when they write:

If this trend persists, then the next wave of biographical studies on Chrysostom

may perhaps be less concerned (but not wholly unconcerned) with retrieving the

“historical” John, focusing more on the social and political discursivities

represented by the reconstructions of Chrysostom in historical and

hagiographical traditions.1

The difficulty here lies partly in the fact that most modern biographies are based on two texts

considered to be the primary sources: an anonymous funerary speech and Palladius’s Dialogus.

Both are dated soon after the death of Chrysostom but continue to present challenges as to the

contextualization of biographical fact.2 Elsewhere, Chris de Wet sums this up well when he

1
C.L. de Wet and W. Mayer, “Approaching and Appreciating John Chrysostom in New Ways,” in Revisioning
John Chrysostom: New Approaches, New Perspectives, ed. C.L. de Wet and W. Mayer (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 5.
2
The speech is known as the Oratio funebris in laudem Iohannis Chrysostomi, trans. T.D. Barnes and G. Bevan,
The Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2013); Palladius, Dialogus de
vita Joannis Chrysostomi, trans. R.T. Meyer, Palladius: Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom (New York:
Paulist Press, 1985). In addition to these, my principal sources of biographical information are: C. Baur, John
Chrysostom and His Time, 2 vols. (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1929, 1959); D. Attwater, St John Chrysostom:
Pastor and Preacher (London: Harvill, 1959); J.N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—

101
makes the more general observation that “… the current shape of Chrysostom’s works is not

always the best guideline to identify certain cultural and social trends in emerging literary

traditions. What could appear to be a fourth or fifth century ‘trend’ in literary traditions, might

actually be an 11th- or 12th-century trend.” 3 Wendy Mayer offers solid advice when she

suggests: “The earliest sources that provide a window on John’s life are, self-evidently, his

own treatises, homilies, and letters.”4 For this reason, and given that the primary focus of the

present study is Newman rather than Chrysostom, I will be telling Chrysostom’s story in a way

that I hope will enable me to set up a meaningful dialogue between Newman’s life and work

and one of his most significant theological mentors.

3.2 Chrysostom’s Early Life

John Chrysostom was born around 349 CE, in the city of Antioch, in Syria. At that time,

Antioch would have been considered one of the great cities of the Eastern Mediterranean, along

with Constantinople and Alexandria. His father, Secundos, a military official of some

distinction (magister militum) of the imperial army of Syria, worked in administration as a civil

servant; Anthusa, his mother, was widowed, aged just twenty, while he was still an infant.5 As

the brother of an elder sister he was, for the most part, raised by his mother in a single-parent

Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (London: Duckworth, 1995); J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and Bishops: Army,
Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990); W. Mayer and P. Allen,
John Chrysostom (London: Routledge, 2000); Allen, P. and Mayer, W., “John Chrysostom,” in The Early
Christian World, ed. P.F. Esler (New York: Routledge, 2000), 2.1128–150.
3
C.L. de Wet, “‘Le devoir des époux’: Michel Foucault’s Reading of John Chrysostom’s Marital Ethic in Histoire
de la sexualité 4: Les aveux de la chair ([1982–1984] 2018),” Religion & Theology 27.1–2 (2020): 122.
4
W. Mayer, “The Biography of John Chrysostom and the Chronology of His Works,” Unpublished article (2014),
updated from a conference given at the Augustinianum (Rome) in 2007; Online:
https://www.academia.edu/6448810/The_Biography_of_John_Chrysostom_and_the_Chronology_
of_his_Works (Accessed 4 July 2020).
5
Kelly, Golden Mouth, 4–5.

102
household. She was a pious Christian woman and determined not to remarry, she consequently

devoted herself to her son’s education.6

As a young man, Chrysostom studied philosophy with Andragathius,7 but more significantly,

he became a student of pagan rhetorician Libanius (314–394 CE),8 who was considered by

many, beyond Antioch, to be the greatest teacher of rhetoric in the Empire.9 As a student of

Libanius, Chrysostom’s education would have been in conformity with Greek tradition in a

programme that had changed little since the fourth century BCE.10 Chrysostom would have

mastered the fundamentals of language and style which would be such a distinguishing

characteristic of his long life as a preacher. The education that Libanius offered his students

concentrated principally on rhetoric,11 which he held to be the greatest art, and the curriculum

consisted primarily of the works of authors like Homer and Demosthenes, whom he considered

to exemplify the art of rhetoric.12 As such, the curriculum of this programme of education

would have been thoroughly Greek; following the three distinct considerations of the Greek

παιδεία: the study of grammar, of dialectic, and of rhetoric, all of which Chrysostom took very

much in his stride. It was a privileged education, available only to male students, who generally

6
Baur, John Chrysostom, 1.3–4.
7
Soc., H.E., NPNF.
8
This is a disputed detail in Chrysostom’s bibliography. Malosse takes the view that Chrysostom was not a student
of Libanius, while Nesselrath is more positive; cf. P.-L. Malosse, “Jean Chrysostome a-t-il été l’élève de
Libanios?,” Phoenix 62 (2008): 273–80; H.-G. Nesselrath, “Der Heide Libanius und der Christ Johannes
Chrysostomos–Lehrer und Schüler?,” in Bedeutende Lehrerfiguren: Von Platon bis Hasan al-Banna, ed. T.
Georges, J. Scheiner and I. Tanaseanu-Döbler (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 153–77. I favour Nesselrath’s
iew that Chrysostom was probably a student of Libanius.
9
Soz., H.E., 2:213. NPNF.
10
See R. Cribiore, The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
2007).
11
Ibid., 19.
12
Ibid., 32.

103
came from families of a reasonably high socioeconomic status who could afford the tuition and

aspired to acquire this indispensable advantage which would assist them in their future

careers.13 The emphasis was very much on the acquisition of the sort of virtues evidenced in

the great Classical authors, which Libanius considered an essential characteristic of a good

education.14 Demosthenes (384–322 BCE), Homer (ca. eighth century BCE), and Plato (428–

348 BCE) would have been the most principal authors read by students of Libanius.15

It is clear that this type of education was characterized by a certain rigour. In order to succeed,

students were expected to devote time outside of formal lessons, and even during their summer

vacation when school was not in session, to mastering what they had been taught in class and

memorizing texts that had been studied. This programme continued over a period of about two

years, during which students were expected to acquire the skills of logic, language, and oration

essential to the rhetorical art. This goal could not be assured merely by rote repetition of

prepared formulas and students had to be able to respond to complex moral conundrums

without prior preparation.16 This was, in every way, an education in which each student had

been personally “accompanied” through the process by Libanius, 17 whose critique and

encouragement was essential in order for the best students to flourish. John Chrysostom was

certainly among the best, and it is said that Libanius himself considered him to be the worthiest

of his students to be his successor, had he not been “stolen” by the Christians.18

13
Ibid., 30–31.
14
Ibid., 31.
15
Ibid., 150.
16
Ibid., 153–55.
17
Ibid., 121.
18
See Kelly, Golden Mouth, 7.

104
With time, after his baptism, Chrysostom came to reject the neo-pagan philosophy of Libanius

(possibly encouraged by his teacher’s eulogy19 on the death of the Emperor Julian the apostate

in 363 CE). He went on to formally criticize Libanius’s methods, referring to classical rhetoric

as an instrument of self-promotion and vanity of words.20 One of Chrysostom’s biographers,

Palladius of Helenopolis, describes this development thus: “He revolted against the sophists of

word-mongering, for he had arrived at man’s estate and thirsted for living knowledge.”21

Chrysostom probably completed his studies around 367 CE22 with the intention of pursuing a

career in the Sacra Scrinia, a branch of the Roman bureaucracy that was responsible for the

drafting of official edicts. 23 Possibly as a consequence of his friendship with Meletius of

Antioch,24 at the age of twenty, he decided to fully embrace Christianity, receiving baptism in

the course of the Easter Vigil in 368 CE at the hands of Meletius, Bishop of Antioch.25 For

some three years after his baptism, Chrysostom served alongside Meletius, and studied the

Scriptures in a school (the Asceterion)26 that seems to have been the work of a small monastic

19
Lib., Or. 18; in A.F. Norman, trans. Libanius: Selected Works, vol. 1, Loeb Classical Library 451 (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1969), 279–487.
20
De Bab., 98–113; see M.A Schatkin, B. Grillet, eds. Jean Chrysostome: Discours sur Babylas, SC 362 (Paris:
Cerf, 1990), 225. Libanius is not mentioned by name but the mention of ὁ σοφιστής της πόλης (98.3) would seem
to be a reference to him.
21
Pall., Dial. 5; in R.T. Meyer, trans., Palladius: Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom (New York:
Newman, 1985), 35.
22
Kelly, Golden Mouth, 14.
23
For a full treatment of Chrysostom’s supposed aspirations in education, see A.H.M. Jones, “St John
Chrysostom’s Parentage and Education,” Harvard Theological Review 46 (1953): 171–73.
24
Kelly, Golden Mouth, 17; Baur, John Chrysostom, 1.80.
25
Meletius was Bishop of Antioch from 360 to 381 CE. He led one of the two “Nicene” groups in Constantinople
and was subsequently exiled by the Emperors Constantius and Valens, both of whom supported Arius; see R.L.
Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century (Eugene, OR: Wipf and
Stock, 1983), 11.
26
Meyer, Palladius: Dialogue, 171n169.

105
brotherhood which had gathered around the elderly monk Diodorus.27 Socrates observes that

the influence of Diodorus is decisive in encouraging Chrysostom to pursue a life in the

Church.28 In 372 CE, with rumours of his impending ordination, and following his mother’s

death,29 Chrysostom retreated to the mountainous area just outside Antioch, with the intention

of embracing the ascetic life and becoming a disciple of a renowned Syrian spiritual director,

Syrus.30 Since the third century, there had been a tendency for some Christians to withdraw

from the established patterns of education, represented by παιδεία, as a sort of reaction to the

establishment represented by the πόλεις (“cities”): they did so in order to embrace an asceticism

which was essentially a rejection of the new polity.31 Those individuals who adopted this path

gave rise to the eremitic tradition as those who followed ἀναχώρησις.32 As these individual

ascetics gradually sought to live together, with the encouragement of bishops, so the cenobitic

movement of monasticism began. As a consequence of what already appeared to be

extraordinary spiritual insight and maturity, many accounts of the life of Chrysostom

characterize these years as a gradual process of self-mastery, followed by a subsequent retreat

to a cave for a further two years, during which it is said that, in addition to extreme fasting and

self-denial, he committed much of Scriptures to memory, adopting a rigorous ascetic life of

fasting and sleep deprivation. Chrysostom later described this semi-monastic season of his life

27
Diodorus of Tarsus (310–390 CE) was from a wealthy family in Antioch and had an education similar to the
one Chrysostom received under Libanius. There is some disagreement as to whether the Asceterion of Diodorus
was formally a monastery as there is no extant evidence of such a monastery within the city of Antioch at that
time. Clearly, it was a community that had certain monastic features; see Kelly, Golden Mouth, 19.
28
Soc., H.E., VIII, 3, 351; see also W. Mayer, “What Does It Mean To Say That John Chrysostom Was a Monk?”
Studia Patristica 41 (2006): 451–55.
29
P. Schaff, Prolegomena: The Life and Work of St John Chrysostom, vol. 9 (New York: Christian Literature
Publishing Co., 1886), 9.
30
Mayer and Allen, John Chrysostom, 6.
31
See P. Rousseau, Ascetics, Authority and the Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 33–49, 79–84.
32
From ἀναχωρητής, “one who has retired from the world,” the verb ἀναχωρέω signifying “to withdraw,” or “to
retire” or “to opt out.”

106
in which the days were given over to the study of the Scriptures and the nights to prayer.33 As

a result of such extreme asceticism, somewhat unsurprisingly, Chrysostom’s health broke

down, and he consequently had to return to Antioch sometime around the year 378 CE.34

This intense experience of the ascetic life was to leave its influence for the rest of his life,

providing him with a solid basis for both his exegesis and his preaching, and, on a personal

level, giving him a sense of self-mastery, which would never let him down. I shall later consider

some of the ways that aspects of the ascetic experience of these years continued to exert an

influence both on Chrysostom’s preaching (and therefore on his writings), as well as in the

manner he chooses to live his life.35 For this reason, we might say that the inspired content of

his preaching ministry was in a very real sense learned in the monastery, and the persuasive

rhetoric which became characteristically his, was in many ways the product of this early

formation, based, as it was, largely on asceticism, study, and the disciplines of the eremitic

life.36

3.3 Priest and Preacher in Antioch

33
R. Brändle, John Chrysostom: Bishop–Reformer–Martyr, trans. Cawte, J. and Trzcionka, S., with Mayer, W.
(Strathfield: St Pauls Publications, 2004), 17.
34
Palladius sees this development as providential as this abandonment of the ascetic life had the result that he
returned to the active pastoral ministry; Cf. Pall., Dial. 5.2; see Meyer, Palladius: Dialogue, 35. There is some
disagreement as to the precise content of Chrysostom’s aesthetic formation; cf. A.M. Ritter, Studia
Chrysostomica: Aufsätze zu Weg, Werk und Wirkung des Johannes Chrysostomos (ca. 349–407) (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2012), 56–66.
35
See Mayer, “What Does It mean to Say That John Chrysostom Was a Monk?,” 451–55; C.L. de Wet, “The
Preacher’s Diet: Gluttony, Regimen, and Psycho-Somatic Health in the Thought of John Chrysostom” in
Revisioning John Chrysostom: New Approaches, New Perspectives, ed. C.L. de Wet and W. Mayer (Leiden: Brill,
2019), 410ff.
36
De Wet observes that “asceticism, as a discourse, was quite commonly used by the Christian Empire of Late
Antiquity to regulate, structure, and transform non-ascetic individual and collective identities”; De Wet and
Mayer, “Approaching and Appreciating John Chrysostom,” 14.

107
Bishop Meletius died and was succeeded by Flavian as Bishop of Antioch. Flavian ordained

the thirty-one-year-old John Chrysostom a deacon during the first year of his episcopate. He

would spend the next five years serving as a deacon. There is no record that Chrysostom ever

preached as a deacon, but rather he launched himself into the work of writing in a variety of

different forms and on a variety of subjects. In addition, Chrysostom acted as Bishop Flavian’s

personal assistant and, in accordance with the New Testament mandate,37 became his delegate

in administering care to over 3,000 women who were either consecrated virgins or widows,

and who relied directly on the diocese for their welfare. On 26 February 386 CE,38 Chrysostom

was ordained a priest by Bishop Flavian to the priesthood. His first assignment was to serve at

the Cathedral in Antioch as a preacher. Chrysostom was thirty-seven years of age and he was

to serve in this capacity for some twelve years.39

We know little about the eleven years of his priesthood (386–397 CE),40 other than the fact that

Chrysostom now begins his preaching in earnest. The written works of Chrysostom that have

come down to us, have their origin in the homilies he preached. Baur suggests that Chrysostom

produced more in writing than he actually preached in reality, and that most of what we

consider to be homilies were never actually preached in church. He is the only commentator to

hold this view.41

From what we know, Chrysostom’s preaching was recorded by stenographers who then gave

him a written text for his correction or redaction before publication. The greater part of

37
See Acts 6:1–6.
38
Baur, John Chrysostom, 1.180.
39
J. Quasten, Patrology, Vol. 3 (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1960), 425.
40
Cf. Mayer and Allen, John Chrysostom, 6.
41
Baur, John Chrysostom, 1.223.

108
Chrysostom’s published works consist in sermons or homilies of which some nine hundred

have come down to us.42 There remains a lack of scholarly consensus as to which homilies

were preached while he was a priest in Antioch and which were preached at Constantinople

once he was a bishop.43 The full extent of the corpus of homilies is likewise still a matter of

scholarly debate.44 What can be safely stated is that he preached in Antioch from 386 until 398

and then as bishop in Constantinople from 398 until his exile from the city in 404. 45

Liebeschuetz expresses the importance of this well when he states: “No matter how active

Chrysostom was in other fields, his central interest and the source of his fame was preaching.”46

It is rather difficult for us in the twenty-first century to have any grasp of what significance

preaching held for citizens of major cities in Late Antiquity. Jaclyn Maxwell considers the

question from another perspective, seeing in the particular formulations of Chrysostom’s

homilies a wealth of information about the diversity evident among those who first heard him

preach.47 It is important to grasp that, in addition to the more obvious dimension of spiritual

and moral exhortation, preaching had a potent social dimension in that the preacher was

expected to address contemporary issues of importance to the local population. Although it is

not necessarily the case that all preachers drew on the sort of classical approach that is outlined

by Augustine of Hippo,48 it might be fair to presume that all preachers, including Chrysostom,

42
Mayer and Allen, John Chrysostom, 7.
43
Mayer, Homilies of John Chrysostom.
44
S.R. Voicu, “L’immagine di Crisostomo negli spuri,” in Chrysostomosbilder in 1600 Jahre: Facetten der
Wirkungsgeschichte eines Kirchenvaters, ed. M. Wallraff and R. Brändle (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008), 61–96.
45
C. Broc-Schmezer, “Theologie et philosophie en predication: le cas de Jean Chrysostome,” Revue des sciences
philosophiques et théologiques 97.2 (2013): 187–212.
46
Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and Bishops, 171.
47
J.L. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity: John Chrysostom and his Congregation
in Antioch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 65–87.
48
Aug., De doctr. IV,3, ed. and trans. R.P.H. Green, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 197.

109
drew on the means of persuasion taught in the classical schools of rhetoric.49 Carol Harrison is

certainly of the view that Chrysostom is “… drawing on the techniques and figures of classical

rhetoric in order to expound the text of Scripture to his congregation so that it might converse

directly with them, and address them in such that it was impressed upon their minds and hearts

– their thoughts and action.”50

More recent research51 into the complex relationships between the original hearers of a sermon

and the one who preached has certainly helped us to understand the social and institutional

context of preaching at this time, notably demonstrating how specific homilies were

intentionally directed towards to a target audience, or even sub-section of an audience, and how

they could be shown to have contributed to the construction of identity of the same groups.52

Unsurprisingly, there seems to be substantial evidence that those who showed a talent for

preaching with a marked sensitivity to their audience or context, often became bishops.53

49
For a treatment of the sometimes-tenuous relationship between preaching and classical rhetoric, see A.J.
Quiroga Puertas, The Purpose of Rhetoric in Late Antiquity: From Performance to Exegesis (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2013).
50
C. Harrison, “The Typology of Listening: The Transformation of Scripture in Early Christian Preaching,” in
Delivering the Word: Preaching and Exegesis in the Western Christian Tradition, ed. W.J. Lyons and I. Sandwell
(Sheffield: Equinox, 2012) ,72.
51
W. Mayer, “John Chrysostom and His Audiences: Distinguishing Different Congregations at Antioch and
Constantinople,” Studia Patristica 31 (1997) 70–75; “John Chrysostom: Extraordinary Preacher, Ordinary
Audience” in Preacher and the Audience: Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics, ed. M.B.
Cunningham and P. Allen (Leiden: Brill, 1998); see also, in the case of Basil, P. Rousseau, Basil of Caesarea
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998).
52
P. Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire (Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press, 1992), particularly makes a strong case for the omnipresent importance of παιδεία in Late
Antiquity.
53
W. Kinzig, “The Greek Christians,” in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 300 BC–400
AD, ed. S.E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 653, offers evidence of the importance of rhetoric in ecclesiastical power
and preferment.

110
Aideen Hartney observes that Chrysostom’s preaching “shows us a picture of a society

struggling with changing ideals and structures at a key moment in history.”54 Certainly at the

time he rises in prominence, the Church in Constantinople is grappling with the powerful

secularizing influences of Hellenist pagan culture on one hand, while trying to steer a course

between internal politics of a Church still reacting to the Council of Nicea (325 CE), while

attempting to reconcile competing views of the Christological formulations, and their

proponents. A common theme among commentators on Chrysostom’s homilies is the direct

practicality of his formulations, coupled with the persuasiveness of his personal holiness and

his “disinterested concern for the welfare of those whom he addressed.”55

David Rylaarsdam sees Chrysostom’s preaching as essentially rhetorical in character, in the

tradition of Paul and Gregory of Nazianzus, with the continual intention of encouraging his

listeners to make a priority of their spiritual lives by drawing closer to God and living in charity

with one another.56 His exegesis of Scripture in his preaching is essentially the presentation of

exemplars that can be applied in the concrete circumstances of everyday life. Liebeschuetz

notes the innovative aspect of Chrysostom’s preaching in that, despite his own heavily

traditional Greek education, “the Christian preacher did not base his teaching on Greek or Latin

classics, but on a book whose authors were Jews rather than Greeks, and whose language was

popular rather than literary.”57

3.4 Bishop in Constantinople

54
A.M. Hartney, John Chrysostom and the Transformation of the City (London: Duckworth, 2004), 1.
55
Attwater, St John Chrysostom, 53.
56
D. Rylaarsdam, John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy: The Coherence of is Theology and Preaching (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2014), 7.
57
Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and Bishops, 172ff.

111
Towards the end of October 397 CE, Chrysostom was summoned by Asterios, governor of

Antioch and chancellor of the diocese, to go to the Shrine of the Martyrs, beyond the gate to

the city, in order to receive an important message.58 Chrysostom assumed that this summons

was an indication that he had been chosen to bear an important message of the Emperor to the

bishop. On arriving at the shrine, he was seized and bundled into a coach, and driven the seven

hundred and fifty miles to Constantinople. He would never see Antioch again. Nektarios,

bishop of Constantinople, was dead, and Chrysostom had been chosen to succeed him as

bishop. There is some disagreement as to the date of his episcopal consecration.59 Suffice to

say, by early 398 CE, Chrysostom had been consecrated bishop by Theophilos of Alexandria,

in accordance with the express will of the Emperor Arcadios.60 Chrysostom would faithfully

serve Constantinople as bishop for the next ten years.

At that time, Constantine’s city (consecrated 330 CE) would have been a rapidly developing

metropolis,61 with a population of something in the region 200,000 — 300,000 inhabitants

already within six years of the inception of the project, in what had been, up until that point, a

relatively small town in Byzantium. Hartney observes that the rapid expansion of city, and its

marked religious character, ensured that the clergy would easily establish themselves as civic

leaders as well as spiritual commentators.62 It was against this background that Chrysostom

took up his pastoral responsibilities immediately and began a ministry of preaching and written

Scriptural commentary which would continue until his death.63

58
Kelly, Golden Mouth, 104.
59
Suggestions seem to be either mid-December 397 CE or 26 February 398 CE.
60
It is a widely held view that Chrysostom did not welcome his promotion; see A. Moulard, S. Jean Chrysostome,
sa vie, son oeuvre (Paris: Procure générale du clergé, 1949 [1974]), 270.
61
Mayer and Allen, John Chrysostom, 1–11, 34–40.
62
Hartney, Transformation of the City, 11.
63
Kelly, Golden Mouth, 115–44.

112
Alongside the chancery of the diocese, at that time, was a residence for some two hundred and

fifty consecrated virgins, or nuns, led by Olympias, a deaconess: Chrysostom’s spiritual

daughter and in many ways, his closest friend.64 Chrysostom embarked upon his episcopal

ministry with enthusiasm and vigour, he immediately began a visitation of the diocese and

inaugurated the process of its reform.65 He started with the episcopal palace, which in the time

of his predecessor, had become something of a hub of social activity for the emerging ruling

class of Constantinople and a coterie of clergy who were in favour. Chrysostom also undertook

some drastic austerity measures in the running costs of the episcopal palace, selling many

valuable objects which, until then, had been stored at the chancery, and using the profit

generated by the sale to build a much-needed hospital. His own lifestyle was somewhat frugal,

and he generally lived simply and ate alone. He set about a major reform of the clergy, laicizing

deacons, whom he judged unworthy of the clerical state due to their crimes; he furthermore

reprimanded clergy who were supposed to be celibate and yet were living in “spiritual

marriages” with women who were, in reality, consecrated to a life of virginity (the so-called

subintroductae).66 He also deposed several bishops who had come into office as a result of their

simony.67

In an attempt to reform consecrated life in the city, he brought a greater sense of order to the

monastic communities of the city and tried to establish a sense of accountability of those

64
See Malingrey, Lettres à Olympias.
65
Attwater, St John Chrysostom, 79–90.
66
See Leyerle, B., Theatrical Shows and Ascetic Lives: John Chrysostom’s Attack on Spiritual Marriage
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001); Hartney, Transformation of the City, 87–102; C.L. de Wet,
“Revisiting the Subintroductae: Slavery, Asceticism, and ‘Syneisaktism’ in the Exegesis of John Chrysostom,”
Biblical Interpretation 25.1 (2017): 58–80.
67
Kelly, Golden Mouth, 174–78.

113
widows who looked to the diocese for their welfare, ensuring that they either lived a devout

life as befits their state, or remarry. As a principal advisor to the Emperor, he was προϊστάμενος

(rector or senior priest) of the standing synod of Constantinople,68 frequently celebrating and

preaching at the liturgy several times a week. He had oversight of the diocesan charities, while

taking a lively interest in events in the city, and so tried to strengthen the influence of the

Church on the Emperor’s legislation. In addition to all this, he was asked to judge disputes

which arose in neighbouring dioceses, particularly in the case of controversial episcopal

elections. In this way, the influence of Chrysostom as bishop increased noticeably therefore at

a time during which the size and importance of the city was also expanding exponentially.

Chrysostom’s demise as bishop of Constantinople (403 and 404 CE) is generally agreed to be

the direct consequence of a series of personal conflicts, of which those with the Empress

Eudoxia and bishop Theophilus of Alexandria prove to be the most significant.69 It is also

known that he did not shy away from controversial topics that were bound to invite criticism.

At the more sensitive end of the spectrum, this resulted in charges of misogyny.70 Opposition

also emerged from two Syrian bishops: Antiochus of Ptolemais in Phoenicia and Severian of

Gabala, both of whom were men who had a reputation for rhetorical ability in preaching and

who had come to Constantinople to exploit their ability in this respect. Socrates (writing ca.

440 CE), states that Antiochus returned home “after having taught with diligence in the

churches for some time, and having made much profit out of this” (πολλὰ ἐκ τούτων

68
The ἐνδημου̑σα σύνοδος, the standing synod of bishops, in which the activity and business of the patriarchate
of Constantinople was dealt with, came into existence under his predecessor, bishop Nektarios.
69
Cf. Baur, John Chrysostom, 2.165; Kelly, Golden Mouth; C. Tiersch, Johannes Chrysostomus in Konstantinopel
(398–404) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000).
70
See Mayer, “John Chrysostom and Women Revisited,” for a more nuanced account of this issue.

114
χρηματισάμενος).71 A contemporary of Socrates, Sozomen, even goes as far as noting that

Antiochus was also called ὁ Χρυσόστομος (the golden-mouthed one).72

Bearing all of this in mind, it is easy to see how Chrysostom would have had to face opposition.

The wealthy ruling class of Constantinople took offense at his frequent criticism of their way

of life and his continual tendency to suggest they should be held accountable. Although he

came to the city as a direct consequence of the Emperor’s favour, by 401 CE, his relationship

with the wife of the Emperor, the Empress Eudoxia, had become extremely strained.73 It seems

that the origin of the antipathy between them lay in the fact that Chrysostom had criticized

Empress Eudoxia for appropriating the property of a recently widowed woman. It seems that

amicable relations were maintained, however, at least on a temporary basis, given that

Chrysostom did subsequently go on to baptize the son of Emperor Theodosios II, on the Feast

of the Epiphany in 402 CE.

Unsurprisingly, some of the fiercest opposition Chrysostom faced came from his own clergy.

Palladius offers a possible explanation of why this might have been an important factor in

Chrysostom’s demise,74 stating that on arriving in Constantinople, Chrysostom had initiated a

comprehensive review of the lives, ministry and stewardship of the diocesan clergy, thereby

alienating some of them who did not take kindly to this degree of scrutiny. By way of contrast,

Sozomen observes that Chrysostom’s reforms incited the antipathy of certain clergy and monks

because they considered him to be somewhat difficult, highly-strung, passionate, morose, and,

71
Soc., H.E., VI, 11, 368. My own translation.
72
Soz., H.E., VIII, 1, 907. My own translation.
73
See A. Thierry, St. Jean Chrysostome et l’impératrice Eudoxie: la société Chrétienne en Orient
(Paris: Didier et Cie, 1872).
74
Cf. Pall., Dial., 5; Meyer, Palladius: Dialogue, 40; see also Kelly, Golden Mouth, 118–27, 250–51.

115
at times, even arrogant.75 He was described by Socrates as “a rather disagreeable man because

of his zeal for temperance … more given to indignation than to deference.”76

In 403 CE, Chrysostom’s episcopal consecrator, Archbishop Theophilos of Alexandria,

became Chrysostom’s archenemy when he turned up with a group of bishops from Egypt.77

They installed themselves in an imperial residence in a suburb called “The Oak,” where they

convened a synod with the intention of unseating Chrysostom. This synod, which came to be

known as the “Synod of the Oak,”78 indicted Chrysostom under twenty-nine counts, including

the mistreatment of his own clergy.79 The synod went on to depose Chrysostom for refusing to

appear before their illicit assembly. The Emperor was informed of the Synod’s judgment and

subsequent suggestion that Chrysostom was treasonous and should be deposed and exiled from

the city. Consequently, Chrysostom was exiled by the order of the Emperor. His banishment

was immediately followed in Constantinople by a devastating earthquake. Eudoxia tried to get

her husband, the Emperor Arcadios, to bring Chrysostom back, but Chrysostom made the

proclamation of the invalidity of the Synod as a condition for his return to the city. A somewhat

uneasy peace was re-established. It was to be short-lived.

Not long after this, Eudoxia commissioned the production of a statue of herself, made of silver,

to stand directly in front of the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia. The statute was erected (somewhat

75
Soz., H.E. VIII.9; NPNF.
76
Socr., H.E. VI.3.13–4.2; NPNF. However, see J.M. Pigott, “Capital Crimes: Deconstructing John’s
‘Unnecessary Severity’ in Managing the Clergy at Constantinople,” in Revisioning John Chrysostom: New
Approaches, New Perspectives, ed. C.L. de Wet and W. Mayer (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 733–78, for a revision of
this common trope in Chrysostom’s biography.
77
Baur, John Chrysostom, 2.246–47.
78
Mayer and Allen, John Chrysostom, 10.
79
P. Van Nuffelen, “Palladius and the Johannite Schism,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 64.1 (2013): 1–19.

116
noisily) at a time when Chrysostom was celebrating the Liturgy in the Cathedral. Discerning

the provocation this gesture of the Empress implied, and in some sense reacting to the

provocation, Chrysostom compared Eudocia to Jezebel and to Herodias, and is said to have

exclaimed that it is if Herodias dances once again, demanding the head of John the Baptist on

a platter. The fact that Chrysostom preached a homily critical of Eudoxia on the Feast of the

Martyrdom of the Baptist is reported both by Socrates80 and by Sozomen.81 The idea of a

homily comparing Eudoxia and Herodias (see Mark 6:25) was discounted by Tillemont, and

by Savile and Montfaucon. Chrysostom could have uttered a potentially uncomplimentary

reference to Eudoxia sufficient for his enemies to bring a charge of disrespectful speech against

him.

Soldiers were sent to disrupt the Easter baptismal ceremonies due to be celebrated by

Chrysostom on Holy Saturday of 404 CE. During the subsequent fray blood was shed and more

than 3000 catechumens, who were due to be baptized at the Easter Vigil, were dispersed. There

was even an attempt on Chrysostom’s life by a servant of the household of one of his own

priests. On 9 June (which was the Thursday after Pentecost), those who had opposed

Chrysostom succeeded in prevailing with the Emperor with the consequence that on 20 June

404 CE, Chrysostom was exiled from Constantinople for good.82

3.5 Transition into Exile and Death

80
Socr., H.E., VI.18; in NPNF.
81
Soz., H.E., VIII.20; in NPNF.
82
A range of causes for Chrysostom’s deposition after only six years at Constantinople are given in Liebeschuetz,
Barbarians and Bishops, 199–222; Tiersch, Johannes Chrysostomus in Konstantinopel, 398–404.

117
On leaving Constantinople, Chrysostom begins the last three years of his life,83 all of which

would be spent in banishment from Constantinople. Of these years, Newman says that “the

sufferings of exile gradually ripened into a virtual martyrdom.”84 The greater part of this time

was to be spent in the town of Cucusus (Κυκυσός or Κουκουσός, a town and district of

Kahramanmaraş Province in modern-day Göksun, southern-central Turkey, near one of the

sources of the Ceyhan River in Armenia). The same place where, a century earlier, Paul the

Confessor (d. 350 CE) had died in exile. From there, it seems Chrysostom was in

correspondence with a great number of people, for there are in excess of two hundred and forty

letters whose authenticity is established. While in exile, he also penned a number of theological

treatises, clearly with the intention of offering encouragement to his faithful supporters back in

Constantinople, particularly those who had remained faithful to him and whose fidelity to their

bishop was punished by severe persecution from the civil authorities as a consequence of their

implied opposition to the Emperor in their continued allegiance to Chrysostom. He did have

his champions, however, like Emperor Honorios who, with Pope Innocent and a number of

Latin bishops, pleaded with Arcadios for Chrysostom to be restored to his episcopal see.

Newman notes: “The transportation of its saintly Bishop was the signal for a schism which it

took years to heal; and worse still, it was a triumph of the secular party, which has never been

reversed down to this day.”85

By 407 CE, three years after Chrysostom’s banishment, the location of his exile had become

something of a pilgrimage destination for his supporters. He was subsequently moved to Pityus

(now Pitsunda in the Abkhazian region of Georgia), on the outskirts of the Empire, near the

83
Mayer and Allen, John Chrysostom, 14ff.
84
H.S., ii.222.
85
Ibid., ii.290.

118
Black Sea. Chrysostom became extremely ill and, as a consequence of the abuse he received

from soldiers and barbarians, Chrysostom died on 14 September 407 CE (The Feast of the

Triumph of the Cross), at the age of 58. His last recorded words were δόξα τῷ θεῷ πάντων

ἕνεκεν (“glory to God for all things”).

3.6 His Writings

It is hard to adequately express the importance of the corpus of writings that John Chrysostom

has left to us. Johannes Quasten captures something of his significance when he states:

Among the Greek Fathers none has left so extensive a literary legacy as Chrysostom.

Moreover, he is the only one of the older Antiochenes whose writings are almost

entirely preserved …. The tragedy of his life caused by the extraordinary sincerity and

integrity of his character served but to enhance his glory and fame. He remains the

most charming of the Greek Fathers and one of the most congenial personalities

Christian antiquity.86

With similar enthusiasm, Newman observes that Chrysostom’s writings truly reveal to us the

man: “What a vivid idea we have of St Chrysostom! Partly from his style, partly from his

matter; yet we gain it from his formal expositions of Scripture. His expositions are discourses;

his discourses whether he will or no, are manifestations.”87

If Chrysostom’s ecclesial career is thought to have been roughly from 367 CE (which marks

the conclusion of his studies in rhetoric) to 404 CE when he was arrested, it will be principally

86
Quasten, Patrology, 3.429.
87
H.S., ii.224.

119
the years 360–380 CE that are of greatest importance in establishing some sort of a context for

his preaching and writing. By this time, an awareness of the Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας, the

Christological settlement that had been established at the Council of Nicaea (325 CE) and

amended at the First Council of Constantinople (381 CE), is almost certain. This means that

Chrysostom is working in a less polemical environment than that which produced the

apologetics of the Cappadocian Fathers, although everyone writing at this time is, in some

sense, doing so consciously or unconsciously in reaction to Arianism and the issues it raised.

Chrysostom’s own pastoral ministry at Antioch (386–397 CE) coincided with the last years of

a group who were in some ways a splinter-group of the Arian heresy – the Anomoeans . Even

though Anomoean doctrine was condemned as heresy at the Council of Constantinople (381

CE), in Antioch and its surrounding areas, Anomoeans were still to be found in substantial

numbers, functioning and effectively continuing to confuse many Christians. It is clear that

Chrysostom is painfully aware of the pastoral difficulty this presents, and he consequently often

takes the opportunity to emphasize God’s sovereign action in salvation, teaching on the action

of grace in the process of justification, as a consequence of the exercise of faith on the part of

the believer: “For you do not achieve it by toiling and labour, but rather you receive it as a gift

which comes from above, you supply only one thing only from your own resources—

believing.”88

The Anomoeans considered themselves as having privileged access to knowledge of God, and

as such, they represented a movement which easily led to the worst kind of sectarianism. Their

supporters had recourse to Aristotle in defending their views but through clever sophistrymeant

that Anomoeanism became a snare for many. Chrysostom countered their influence with two

88
Chrysostom, In Rom. 2.17; (my own translation).

120
sequences of homilies intended directly to challenge the Anomeans: a series concerning the

Incomprehensibility of God, and a series treating the Equality of the Father and the Son. The

first series of homilies challenged the claim of Eunomius’s to know the divine essence

adequately, presenting apophaticism and the knowledge of God through the via negativa. The

second constituted a catechesis for the faithful on Trinitarian theology. Broc-Schmezer

suggests that Chrysostom had every intention of engaging in theological debate with the

Anomeans, if not directly, then at least indirectly with those who followed their teachings, in

the hope that they might be won back to orthodoxy. It is in every way characteristic of his

pastoral solicitude:

Prenant l’initiative de ces homélies contre les anoméens, Jean Chrysostome a donc

bien l’intention de s’engager dans un débat théologique, sinon directement avec les

protagonistes, du moins par l’intermédiaire des auditeurs qu’il souhaite former; et

dans un même temps, conscient des risques qu’il peut faire courir aux plus faibles

d’entre eux, il semble choisir d’esquiver lui-même le combat qu’il préconisait dans

un premier temps.89

In addition to texts which primarily sought to defend fundamental orthodox doctrine in the face

of heretical understandings, Chrysostom also produced a series of Baptismal Catecheses 90

concerning the rites of baptism and their interpretation as Chrysostom had expounded them in

89
Taking the initiative of these homilies against the Anomeans, John Chrysostom certainly has the intention of
engaging in theological debate, if not directly with the protagonists, then at least through the intermediary of
listeners whom he hoped to form; at the same time, conscious of the risks that he might run with the weakest of
them, he seemed to elect to avoid the combat which he had advocated from the very beginning. Broc-Schmezer,
“Theologie et philosophie,” 97 (my own translation).
90
Chrysostom, De bapt. Christ.; Cat.

121
Antioch, and a Dialogue on the Priesthood 91 , dealing with the dignity, requirements and

functions of the priesthood.92

The greater body of Chrysostom’s writings, however, consist of homilies on both Old and New

Testament books. In addition to these, there are some fourteen treatises, or more extended

theological discourses, some written as early as 378 CE, two written in 407 CE, the final year

of his life. He shows himself to be a faithful disciple of the exegetical tradition of Antioch,

relying generally on a straightforward exegesis of the literal sense of the text. His style of

exegesis might be described as “pastoral” in that his principal concern is to draw lessons from

the commented text that can be immediately applicable to the daily life of those hearing him

preach. We have from him homilies on Genesis, on fifty-eight psalms, on the prophet Isaiah,

on the Gospels of Matthew and John, on the Epistles of Paul. He seems to show a particular

affinity for the writings of Paul.93 Quasten asserts that: “The thirty-two homilies on Romans

are by far the most outstanding patristic commentary on this Epistle and the finest of all

Chrysostom’s works.”94 Many more recent scholars see clear evidence of emulation of the

Pauline homiletic method in Chrysostom’s homilies.95

The monastic life, in the classic sense, and consecration to a life of virginity, as lived in the

Church in Constantinople, also form frequent themes in Chrysostom’s writings, an emphasis

which is perhaps all the more understandable given his own intense experience of the aesthetic

91
De Sac.
92
See M. Lochbrunner, Über das Priestertum: historische und systematische Untersuchung zum Priesterbild des
Johannes Chrysostomus (Bonn: Borengässer, 1993).
93
The fullest treatment of this aspect of Chrysostom’s writings is found in Mitchell, Heavenly Trumpet.
94
Quasten, Patrology, 1.442.
95
See Hartney, Transformation of the City; C.L. de Wet, Preaching Bondage: John Chrysostom and the Discourse
of Slavery in Early Christianity (Oakland: University of California Press, 2015).

122
life which seems to have made such a lasting impression on him. The treatise, To Theodore,96

is most likely intended for Theodore of Mopsuestia at a time when he was (probably) tempted

to abandon his life as a monk. In this writing, which may date from the time of the diaconate

of Chrysostom, characteristic features of his thought emerge, such as an insistence on divine

philanthropy: “There is no lover of the body, even if he went mad, who burning for her lover

with a desire equal to that of God for the salvation of our souls.”97

On suspicious cohabitations,98 is a diatribe against cohabitation under the same roof by ascetics

and virgins, a custom which existed in Constantinople at that time and which inevitably

presented risks of scandal. The three fascicles, Against the Detractors of the Monastic Life99

are a passionate defence for monasticism addressed to the civil authorities and to parents who

opposed the monastic vocations of their sons.

In his preaching, Chrysostom often exhorts his hearers to emulate the monks who reside in the

desert near Antioch, he does so in order to stimulate his followers to lead a more fervent life;

he recommends that lay people should seek recollection alongside the monks, and he reminds

the monks themselves to pray ardently, both for the Church, and for those who hold

responsibility in it. In this Chrysostom demonstrates his view that pastoral concern for others

is ultimately the highest expression of Christian charity.

As one would expect, there are a number of homilies for the principal liturgical feasts of

Christmas, Epiphany, Good Friday and Easter. Other addresses were occasioned by notable

96
Theod.; see J. Dumortier, ed., Jean Chrysostome: À Théodore, SC 117 (Paris: Cerf, 1966).
97
Cf. Chrysostom, SC 117.163 (my own translation).
98
Subintr.; NPNF.
99
Opp.; NPNF.

123
events in the life of Chrysostom: On the Fall of Eutropius100 and On the Statues101 would be

the best examples of these kind of texts. There are also panegyrics of various martyrs, such as

Paul, Eustatius of Antioch, Meletius and Diodorus of Tarsus.

We have 240 letters from Chrysostom,102 all of which date from the time of his exile. Of these

letters, Newman observes: “Thus the Saint was ever forgetting his enemies in his friends. And

while it was his gift ever to be making new ones, he did not lose the old.”103 In many ways,

among the most remarkable are the letters of comfort he wrote To Olympias,104 the treatise On

Divine Providence,105 and the Letter of Exile.106 In these letters, the themes of the sense of

suffering, of faith in Providence, of patience in times of trial, are often treated. In this

correspondence, Chrysostom often draws inspiration both from the Hellenic, especially Stoic,

tradition and the Scriptures. I intend to explore this correspondence more fully in Chapter 5.

3.7 Early and Enduring Fame and Influence

From the sixth century onwards, the title ὁ Χρυσόστομος (the golden-mouthed one) began to

be bestowed on him, although for his biographer, Palladius, bishop of Aspuna (d. 407), and for

all other commentators of the fifth century, he was simply “John”. Even during his own

lifetime, his writings were being translated, circulated and even studied throughout the Empire.

100
In Eutr.; NPNF.
101
Ad pop. Ant.; NPNF.
102
W. Mayer, “The Ins and Outs of the Chrysostom Letter Collection: New Ways of Looking at a Limited
Corpus,” in Collecting Early Christian Letters: From the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity, ed. B. Neil and P. Allen
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 129.
103
H.S., ii.271.
104
Ep. ad Olymp.; NPNF.
105
Epistula ad episcopo, presbyteros et diaconos in carcere; NPNF. See also Ford, Women & Men in the Early
Church.
106
The careful synthesis of these sources is considered in great detail by Malingrey, Lettres à Olympias, 11–103.

124
Jerome (347–410 CE), who had himself possibly spent some time in Antioch at the time when

Chrysostom was active there, mentioned him in his writings, providing commentary on his

work, On the Priesthood, in his Illustrious Men,107 in CE 392, just a decade after Chrysostom’s

ordination.

As his fame spread, so he attracted more of a following subsequently, with disciples such as

the monastic teacher John Cassian (CE 360–435), the neo-Platonist philosopher Proclus (CE

412–485), the Byzantine abbot Nilus of Ancy (d. CE 430), the fifth century theologian Mark

the Ascetic, the Egyptian eremitic theologian Isidore of Pelusium (died c.CE 349), and

Palladius (his biographer). It is equally clear that it is Chrysostom’s preaching that brought him

the notoriety that resulted in his nomination as a bishop.108 Cook observes that Chrysostom

rapidly becomes an authority cited by other Church Fathers, who refer to him “as a διδάσκαλος

τῆς ’Εκκλησίας (Teacher of the Church); but never is a particular theological stance attributed

to him.”109

Because of the sheer quantity of the writings that have come down to us, and the breadth of the

subjects that Chrysostom treats, it is hard to imagine that there has been a more substantial

contribution than that of Chrysostom to the understanding of Christian marriage, 110 the

ministerial priesthood and the consecrated life, and of the manner in which these vocations

relate to each other in the life of the Church. He was a devoted monastic in his early adult life,

and even as a bishop remained markedly sympathetically monastic both in the ascetic way that

107
Hier., Vir. ill., 129; NPNF.
108
Pall., Dial., 5; Kelly, Golden Mouth, 104–5.
109
Cook, Preaching and Popular Christianity, 30.
110
Ford, Women & Men in the Early Church.

125
he lived his life, and in the abbatial manner in which he ruled his diocese. His later years were

dedicated to the pastoral care of married people and families in his diocese, guiding them in

the ways of those whose vocation was to live not in the cloister but in the world. As such,

Chrysostom demonstrates the essential harmony of these two calls to holiness, not least in the

manner in which they complement one another.

Many of his early works, which date from a time when his attention was more obviously turned

to the ascetic life, and before he was a pastor of souls, were devoted to the exaltation of the life

of consecrated virginity and a high theology of the monastic life. His later works, written once

he had become a pastor, offer practical strategies on how to make marriage work as an authentic

expression of the spiritual life, and how to bring something of the monastic in spirit to family

life.

From time to time the question is raised as to whether Chrysostom changed his thought, in

essential respects, in the course of his ministry. His early works certainly express enthusiasm

for the ascetic life, in On Virginity, Against the Opponents of the Monastic Life, To Theodore,

and A Comparison between a King and a Monk. As his subsequent works present such a high

theology of marriage and family life, it might be suggested that in some way Chrysostom

altered his view in the light of the pastoral experience he had gained. If this is admitted as a

fair criticism, one might go on to imply that less importance should be given to Chrysostom’s

earlier works, as it might be suggested that there is a disparity of thought with later works

which treat marriage and consecration to a life of virginity.

What seems evident from his writings is that Chrysostom never lost his enthusiasm for

promoting the ascetic life. Where he did make an accommodation in his thinking, however,

126
was in his transition from the position of somewhat despising marriage to positively valuing it.

His development of theological thought is evident in the changed emphases and strategies he

tends to employ in his writings, in response to the variety of pastoral circumstances or situations

he encounters. When he was with monks he wrote for ascetics, and when he later found himself

more obviously among families, he placed greater emphasis on married life and teaching about

the duties and responsibilities of parents. In either case, he made use of his very considerable

pastoral sensibility to ensure that his preaching always had the clearly expressed intention of

helping others to get to heaven. The suggestion that it is not possible to praise the ascetic life,

and also value married life, would seem to be unreasonable. In one of Chrysostom’s early

works, On Virginity, he makes the point that exalting something which might be objectively

considered to be a higher good is not the same as denigrating it.111 For Chrysostom, people do

not enter a monastery of embrace the ascetic life because they despise the idea of marriage;

this would be heresy.112 For Chrysostom, those who were married should have their eyes on

the monastery, as that is where, even in this life, men and women are living the angelic life.

That is, living like angels, in the manner in which everyone will live when they come to the

life of heaven.113 Samantha Miller suggests that “Chrysostom tells his congregants to become

like the monks where they are. They are to have the same heavenly orientation as the monks

but do not need to go to the mountains to do it; they need to have that orientation in the

cities.”114

111
See B. Grillet, ed., La virginité, SC 125 (Paris: Cerf, 1966).
112
Inan. glor.; see A.-M. Malingrey, ed., Jean Chrysostome: Sur la vaine gloire et l’éducation des enfants, SC
188 (Paris: Cerf, 1972); M.L.W. Laistner, Christianity and Pagan Culture in the Roman Empire, together with an
English translation of John Chrysostom’s “Address on Vainglory and the Right Way for Parents to Bring Up
Their Children” (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1951).
113
Luke 20:34–36.
114
S.L. Miller, Chrysostom’s Devil: Demons, the Will, and Virtue in Patristic Soteriology (Downer’s Grove, IL:
IVP Academic, 2020),147.

127
As far as I can establish, at no point in his writings does Chrysostom ever alter, or far less

retract, his teaching on what he considers to be the sublime nature of the ascetic life as lived in

monasteries or consecration to a life of virginity. Rather, we see a continual reaffirmation of

his formulations concerning these matters throughout his priestly and episcopal ministry. In

the Homilies on the First Letter to the Corinthians,115 which was delivered while he was still

at Antioch, there is significant mention of his earlier text On Virginity. In commenting on 1

Corinthians 7, which might be considered to be the most extensive New Testament on celibacy,

instead of giving detailed counsel, he refers readers to the treatise On Virginity, as the definitive

summary of his doctrine. Furthermore, the Homilies on Hebrews, 116 a text published

posthumously by a priest named Constantios, offers, in its thirteenth homily, a catechesis on

the nature and significance of the monastic life. This teaching remained something of a

leitmotiv in his preaching. Where we can identify an aspect of authentic development in

Chrysostom’s thought is in his understanding of the relationship between married Christians

and those in the monastic life.117 I hope to give a fuller treatment to the idea of development in

Chrysostom’s thought in the comparative study of Chapter 5.

It has often been said that Chrysostom is more of a moralist than a theologian, and that his

thought is of little speculative interest.118 In reality, it seems that he is, above all, a pastor and

a preacher, whose teaching is inseparably theological, moral and spiritual. He does not seem

particularly bent on identifying new solutions to the speculative theological problems of his

time, but all his teaching proceeds from a full adhesion to the dogmatic tradition of the Church,

115
Chrysostom, In 1 Cor.; NPNF.
116
In Heb. 13.; NPNF.
117
See J.B. Trenham, Marriage and Virginity According to St. John Chrysostom (Platina, CA: St. Herman of
Alaska Brotherhood, 2013).
118
Cook, Preaching and Popular Christianity, 197–99.

128
and equally from a life that is entirely devoted, on a personal level, to both asceticism and

prayer. In this, he is truly a Father of the Church in the fullest sense of the term. He does not

teach his personal opinions, but, in fulfilment of the Pauline injunction,119 attempts to transmit

the deposit of faith in all its integrity in response to the circumstances of his time, making use

the cultural matrix of the time mediated by the very particular genius of his own powerful

intellect.

These characteristics in his thought are particularly evident with regard to his Trinitarian

theology and his Christology. In his pastoral concern, Chrysostom endeavours, above all, to

protect his faithful from the danger of heresy by putting within their reach the common

catechesis of the Church, and by helping them to understand how these doctrinal principles can

be effectively applied in the present circumstances of their Christian lives.

In his defence of orthodox doctrine, it is above all Arianism that Chrysostom opposes, and

consequently there is no evidence of controversy against Apollinarius in his writings. He

clearly professes the existence of a human soul of Christ; but his Christology is more akin to

that of Alexandria than that of Antioch; in this, he is much closer to Athanasius and Hilary of

Poitiers than to Theodore of Mopsuestia, and he subordinates the proper activity of human

nature in Christ to the nature and the person of the Λόγος. This leads to a Christology which

tends to be marked by clearly delineated concepts and definitions, as is seen here:

Humanity whom I have put on, I have never left her deposed from divine virtue,

but, acting in turn as man and as God, sometimes I let see in me human nature

119
1 Cor.15:3: tradidi enim vobis, in primis quod et accepi (“I have handed on to you that which I first received”)
(my own translation).

129
 and sometimes I give proofs of my mission; I thus teach men to attribute the

most humble acts to humanity and to relate the highest to divinity; by this

mixture of unequal works, I make understand the union of my two natures so

dissimilar; I show, by freely submitting to suffering, that my suffering is

voluntary; like God, I tamed nature by extending the fast up to forty days, but

then I was hungry; I soothed, like God, the raging sea and I was overwhelmed

as a man; as a man, I was tempted by the devil, but, like God, I commanded the

demons and I cast them out; I must, in my human nature, suffer for men.120

The Eucharistic doctrine of Chrysostom is no less rich. It clearly shows how the Eucharist

makes the Church121 by incorporating men and women into the Body of Christ. Chrysostom’s

moral and paraenetic applications of the Eucharist arise here from dogmatic formulations:

having become members of Christ by the Eucharist, the poorest and most deprived are thereby

the real altar on which the faithful must offer the spiritual sacrifice of alms and mercy:

This altar is composed of the very members of Christ, and the body of the Lord

is made your altar. Revere this: on it the body of the Lord that you sacrifice the

victim. This altar is more awesome even than that which we use now, and not

only than that used of old. … This altar is admirable not only because of the

sacrifice that is laid upon it: but also because it is even composed of the very

sacrifice which is the source of its admiration. Again, this is but a stone by

120
Chrysostom, Laz., 1 (PG 50:641–44), see John Chrysostom: On Wealth and Poverty, trans. C.P. Roth
(Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984), 181.
121
The maxim sacramenta faciunt ecclesiam, the Church is both caused by and is itself the cause of the
sacraments; see H. De Lubac, Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man (Tunbridge Wells: Burns &
Oates Ltd., 1960), 37.

130
 nature; but it become holy because it receives Christ’s Body: it is holy because

it is itself Christ's Body … You honour indeed this altar, because it receives

Christ's body; but he who is himself the body of Christ you treat with contempt,

and while you perish, you neglect him. May you see such an altar everywhere,

in lanes and in market places, and may you sacrifice upon it every hour; for on

this too is sacrifice performed. As the priest stands to invoke the Spirit, you too

must invoke the Spirit, not by your speech, but by your deeds.122

The teaching of Chrysostom on predestination, grace and freedom is common to him

with the other Eastern Fathers, and agrees substantially with that of Cassian,

condemned by some in the West as semi-Pelagian.123 As such, Chrysostom’s point of

view is pastoral and spiritual, and not metaphysical, like that of Augustine of Hippo.

For Chrysostom, the salvation or damnation of humankind cannot be fixed in advance,

without a full consideration of the implication of free will. God addresses his call to all,

offers his grace to all, but it is up to each to accept it or to reject it: “God does not

impede our wills by his gifts, but when we have made a determined decision to act, he

himself offers us many opportunities for salvation”.124

122
In 2 Cor. 9.10, 20 (my own translation).
123
Semi-Pelagians held the universality of original sin and also taught that this corrupting force could only be
overcome with the help of God’s grace. This perception of Chrysostom’s writings as Semi-Pelagian is largely at
the hands of Protestant commentators from the nineteenth century onwards; see M.M. Mitchell, The Heavenly
Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002),
28–33; A. Merzagora, “Giovanni Crisostomo commentatore di S. Paolo: Osservazioni su l’esegesi filosofica (I),”
in Studi dedicati alla memoria di Paolo Ubaldi, (Milan: Società editrice Vita e Pensiero, 1937), 205–46; R.A.
Krupp, Shepherding the Flock of God: The Pastoral Theology of John Chrysostom (New York: Peter Lang, 1991),
86.
124
In Jn. (PG 59.408) (my own translation).

131
3.8 Characteristics of Chrysostom’s Writing

It is clear that Chrysostom was not just exemplary in his own approach to Scripture study, but

he also laboured to inculcate the practice in the lives of his people, by providing them with

commentaries which expounded the sense of the text. It is important to understand that

Chrysostom not only concentrated on reading and memorizing a large portion of the Scriptures,

he also committed himself to the important task of exegesis with a consistency that few others

have achieved. The homiletic commentaries on the entire Pauline corpus, the Gospels of

Matthew and John, and the Acts of the Apostles, demonstrate that he held the Scriptures to be

the greatest source of teaching and guidance in the Christian life.125 The homilies on the New

Testament books offer a full elucidation of the many typological references from the Old

Testament. There are also commentaries on Genesis, the Book of Psalms, Isaiah, Proverbs,

Ecclesiastes, and Job. He considered the significance of the lives of Saul, David, and the

prophetess Hannah. There is no larger exegetical corpus produced by a single author among

the Greek Fathers than that of Chrysostom.

It is clear Chrysostom shared Jerome’s view that an ignorance of Scriptures among the laity

was the major contributing factor to the Church’s weakness and the ineffectual nature of her

witness.126 He exhorted his people to read the scriptural readings for the liturgy before they

came to church, in order that they might more easily comprehend the text that they heard

proclaimed and understand the homily preached to them more adequately. He was of the view

that it should be perfectly natural for Christians to discuss the Scripture readings of the liturgy

125
Frances Young comments at length on the paraenetic quality of Chrysostom’s homilies; see F.M. Young,
Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1997), 235, 248–
64.
126
Cf. Hier., Comm. Isa. 1:2; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 73.1–3: “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance
of Christ.”

132
and homily they had heard preached around the dinner table on Sunday, and likewise that the

father of a family should fulfil his responsibility in reading the Scriptures daily to his

household.

An area where Chrysostom’s teaching has certainly been of significant influence is that of his

preaching on the Christian attitude to wealth and poverty. A sequence of seven homilies on the

Rich Man and Lazarus probably represent his most classic treatment of the subject.127 The

Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles128 is also valued for its forthright consideration of the same

theme. He seemed to consider wealth as a potential snare for the Christian and never tired of

issuing the warning that attitudes to money are expressive of faith, or the lack of it: “For nothing

is as faithless [ἄπιστον] as wealth, as I have often said, and never tire of repeating, it is a

senseless runaway slave, like a slave with no loyalty to its master [οἰκέτης πίστιν οὐκ ἔχων].”129

Chrysostom never tired of referencing the Christian attitude to wealth and it is evidenced

throughout his writings.

As a young man, it is known that Chrysostom damaged his health in pursuit of ascetic

perfection, spending six years in small monastic community in the mountains outside Antioch.

Long after the breakdown of his health had led to the abandonment of a strict ascetic regime,

as a priest, and subsequently as a bishop, he continued to preach the merits of monastic life,

repeatedly encouraging the faithful to visit the holy men in the mountains and to learn from

them, holding them up as paragons of faithful Christian living to be emulated.130

127
See Chrysostom, Laz.; NPNF.
128
Chrysostom, In Act.; NPNF.
129
Chrysostom, Ad pop. Ant. 2.16 (PG 49.39) (my own translation).
130
Cf. Chrysostom, In Matt.; NPNF; In 1 Tim.; NPNF; Ad pop. Ant. 17; NPNF.

133
Chrysostom was also well known for frequently preaching about the subject of wealth and its

potential dangers for the spiritual life. Some commentators even go as far as calling him the

“prophet of charity.”131 Certainly, by the time he arrives in Constantinople, his concern for

stewardship in financial terms is more than evident. Of this identifiable tendency in his

preaching Frances Young writes: “It is reckoned that in his ninety homilies on Matthew

Chrysostom spoke on almsgiving forty times, poverty thirteen times, avarice more than thirty

times and wealth wrongly acquired or used about twenty times.”132

This characteristic is evident more widely in the corpus of homilies as a whole and it seems

that every homily tends to conclude with an exhortation to almsgiving. It is not only in the

homilies that these themes arise, they are found together in two early treatises.133 The first, A

Comparison Between a King and a Monk, 134 attempts to show how the monk is morally

superior to the monarch. The second is a set of three homilies entitled, Against the Opponents

of the Monastic Life,135 Chrysostom’s only homilies exclusively treating the monastic life. It is

in these two works that the themes of wealth and poverty in relation to asceticism are most

explicit. The sustained enthusiasm that these works suggest that at the time of their writing

Chrysostom was himself living the aesthetic life.136

131
G. Florovsky, “St John Chrysostom: The Prophet of Charity,” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 3 (1955): 37–
42; see also W. Mayer, “John Chrysostom on Poverty,” in Preaching Poverty in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and
Realities, ed. P. Allen, B. Neil and W. Mayer (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt GmbH, 2009), 69–118.
132
F.M. Young, “They Speak to Us Across the Centuries: John Chrysostom,” Expository Times 109 (1997): 40.
133
See D.G. Hunter, trans., A Comparison between a King and a Monk; Against the Opponents of the Monastic
Life: Two Treatises by John Chrysostom (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1988), 36–41; Kelly, Golden Mouth, 20–
21.
134
Comp. reg. et mon.; see Hunter, A Comparison between a King and a Monk.
135
Opp.; see Hunter, A Comparison between a King and a Monk.
136
Kelly, Golden Mouth, 20–21.

134
Chrysostom clearly understood that it fell to him, as a bishop to remind those who were

materially wealthy to have a consideration for those who were in need. He did so by

consistently proposing practical ethical teachings concerning money and financial transactions,

explaining that the truest wealth was in fact the acquisition of the virtues.137 In this way, Cook

considers that in Chrysostom’s preaching, “Sermons have come to be seen as dialogues

between élites and masses.”138 Wealth, as such, is then God’s blessing so that one might help

others. He encouraged everyone to “view each other as mutually beneficial partners in the quest

for spiritual salvation.” 139 He continually encouraged people to be reticent in expressing

possession of anything. As Pope Benedict XVI commented on the sixteenth centenary of the

birth of Chrysostom:

He was tireless in denouncing the contrast that existed in the city between the

wasteful extravagance of the rich and the indigence of the poor, and at the same

time suggesting to the well-off that they gather the homeless in their own homes.

In the poor he saw Christ; and thus, he invited his listeners to do the same, and act

accordingly.140

It seems that Chrysostom continually proposed monastic life as an example of how Christians

live, not least in the manner in which they related to money.141 As Chrysostom himself writes:

137
Comp. reg. et mon.1 (PG 47.387–8); Hunter, A Comparison between a King and a Monk, 69–70.
138
Cook, Preaching and Popular Christianity, 4.
139
Hartney, Transformation of the City, 181.
140
Letter of His Holiness Benedict XVI on the Occasion of the 16th Centenary of the Death of St John Chrysostom,
10 August 2007, 2; online: http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-
xvi_let_20070810_giovanni-crisostomo.html (accessed on 28 May, 2020).
141
A number of scholars have commented on Chrysostom’s use of monastic examples, See J.-M. Leroux,

135
“For we could tell also of men of old, great and to be admired; but since visible examples lead

on more those of grosser souls, therefore do I send you even to the tabernacles of those holy

persons.” 142 Newman, in commenting on the corpus of Chrysostom’s homilies, makes the

observation: “He set the example himself of what he preached; he never thought of dispensing

himself from the ordinary oversight of his church, so far as it was possible, even though he had

been removed, as he says, to the extremity of the Roman world.”143

3.9 Conclusion

For the benefit of this study, however, I would like at this point to consider what I perceive to

be some of the aspects in which Chrysostom’s writings may have been an inspiration to later

theologians, and in particular, the object of this present study, John Henry Newman. I want to

suggest that such an influence could be considered in relation to a number of recurring

theological themes.

The gradual but momentous growth of cities has always carried tremendous sociological,

political and economic consequences. Urbanization was one of the central issues from the

eighteenth century onwards, throughout Europe, but most particularly in England, where cities

grew up and developed exponentially as a consequence of the industrial revolution. Much

attention was paid to the physical demands of city living, but far less consideration was made

of the spiritual consequences. The life of the Church, its clergy, its spiritual and charitable

“Saint Jean Chrysostome et le monachisme,” in Jean Chrysostome et Augustin, ed. C. Kannengiesser (Paris:
Éditions Beauchesne, 1975), 125–45; W. Mayer, “Monasticism at Antioch and Constantinople in the Late Fourth
Century: A Case of Exclusivity or Diversity?” in Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church, ed. P. Allen, R.
Canning, L. Cross and J.B. Caiger (Everton Park: Australian Catholic University, 1998), 275–88; Maxwell,
Christianization and Communication, 73–74, 107.
142
In Matt. 69.3 (PG 58.651); NPNF.
143
H.S., ii.278.

136
works are just as worthy of consideration as other seemingly more pragmatic concerns.

Chrysostom was certainly very alive to this issue and made it a major focus in his pastoral

strategies. 144 He was born and educated in a principal hub of the Roman Empire, namely

Antioch. As a bishop, his life centred on another major city, Constantinople. His was not a life

removed from the city but rather became immersed in it, most particularly because he wanted

to bring salvation to it. Chrysostom was of the view that Christians should consider themselves

to be “saviours” of the city, its guardians, patrons and teachers. 145 In addition to his own

eminently practical experience of urban life, as a consequence of his intellectual patrimony,

Chrysostom had an immense knowledge, appreciation and understanding of the πόλις as the

very centre and building-block of civilization. This is particularly evident in the Homilies on

the Statues, delivered at Antioch in 387 CE, during the civil unrest of a tax riot.146 In these

homilies, Chrysostom makes an appeal to his people’s civic pride in belonging to such an

esteemed πόλις, reminding them of Antioch’s distinguished history, and exhorting his fellow-

citizens to show themselves worthy heirs of Antioch’s greatness by their virtuous behaviour.

Arguably, no one has articulated a clearer vision for the sanctification of city life, by the

liturgical life and mission of the Church, than Chrysostom. In the words of Josiah Trenham:

“The preaching sanctifies. The Holy Eucharist enlivens and flames leap from our mouths, blood

is painted on the doorposts of our bodies and the angel of death passes over us. Nothing is more

precious, more central, more transformative and miraculous, in our human existence than life

in the Church.”147

144
Kelly, Golden Mouth, 141–44.
145
See Hartney, Transformation of the City, 64ff.
146
De stat.; see also Kelly, Golden Mouth, 73–82.
147
Josiah Trenham, “St. John Chrysostom for the 21st Century,” a lecture at the Convocation of the

137
Chrysostom understood that this possibility brings serious responsibilities and obligations for

every Christian, regardless of their state and without exception. He also understood that the

power of the Church, as a community at work in the world, lies in its corporate life, the

κοινωνία, or network of interpersonal relationships that make up its fellowship. In encouraging

the Christians of his own time to accept the challenge, he often exhorted them to follow the

example of life in the Church as it was in Jerusalem at the very beginning:

Let us prefer the time we spend here in church to any occupation or concern. Tell

me this. What profit do you gain which can outweigh the loss you bring on yourself

and your whole household when you stay away from the religious services?

Suppose you find a whole treasure house full of gold, and this discovery is your

reason for staying away. You have lost more than you found, and your loss is as

much greater as things of the spirit are better than things we see. Attendance in the

divine services greatly encourages your brothers and sisters in the faith and spiritual

battle ... the Church went from 11 to 120 to three thousand to five thousand to the

whole world and the reason for this growth was that they never left their gathering.

They were constantly with each other, spending the whole day in the temple, and

turning their attention to prayers and sacred readings. This is why they kindled a

great fire. We too must imitate them.148

Orthodox Inter-Seminary Movement at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, MA,
1 November, 2007 (Accessed at https://pravoslavie.ru/44614.html on July 10, 2020).
148
Chrysostom, De incomp. 11. As translated by Trenham in the previously mentioned address.

138
In this, Chrysostom demonstrated that the responsibility of the community far exceeded being

a faithful or regular participant in the Church’s liturgical worship.149 He exhorted his people to

accept that they had serious responsibility for one other, in a sort of much stewardship in which

they were to function as a real family. He did this by a particular genius in being able to address

people in the great diversity of their circumstances and stations of life. Newman recognized

this quality in Chrysostom’s writings when he observes:

I am speaking not of what St. Chrysostom had in common with others, but what he

had special to himself; and this speciality, I conceive, is the interest which he takes

in all things, not so far as God has made them alike, but as He has made them

different from each other. I speak of the discriminating affectionateness with which

he accepts every one for what is personal in him and unlike others. I speak of his

versatile recognition of men, one by one, for the sake of that portion of good, be it

more or less, of a lower order or a higher, which has severally been lodged in

them.150

150
H.S., ii.286.

139
 CHAPTER 4

NEWMAN’S READING OF CHRYSOSTOM

4.1 How Chrysostom Came to be Read in England

Chrysostom has certainly been read in England since the sixteenth century, initially as a

consequence of the work of Sir Henry Savile, who had been Greek tutor to a young Queen

Elisabeth I, Provost of Eton College, and Warden of Merton College, Oxford. Savile’s eight-

volume critical edition of Chrysostom was published at Eton in 1612. In its preparation, Savile

had searched throughout Europe for copies of manuscripts, and his evident skill in dealing with

the complexities of variant and difficult readings, soon established this translation as a work of

outstanding scholarship for the time. In his own preface to his edition, Savile states: “There are

none of the Greek Fathers so devout, none better, none of superior judgement.” He goes on to

say that there is “… nothing he need say concerning the splendour of John’s oratory, from

which golden stream comes his name.”1

In addition to Savile’s scholarly edition of the Greek text, others followed by the Jesuit, Fronton

du Duc (Paris, 1636) and the Benedictine, Bernard de Montfaucon (Paris, 1718–1738). There

were also numerous English translations of Chrysostom being made from the mid-sixteenth

century onwards. By the eighteenth-century, Henry Hollier’s 1728 translation of the six books

περὶ ἱεροσύνης (On the Priesthood), possibly prepared in reaction to the rhetoric of the

Protestant Reformation, assumed a somewhat polemical tone. Hollier’s prologue begins by

stating that it was “the unanimous suffrage of the learned, that as (Chrysostom) was the most

eloquent of all the Fathers of the Greek Church, so his treatise of the priesthood is the most

1
Cited in M. Plested, “St John Chrysostom in the West,” in Studies in Honor of Alexander Golitzin, ed. A. Orlov
(Leiden: Brill, 2020), 153.

140
eloquent of all his numerous works.”2 Hollier then goes on to explain that the guiding purpose

of his translation work is to defend “the excellency of the episcopal commission” against those

commentators who would deny it. The background to this is the continual tensions within the

Church of England, from its inception, regarding the desirability, or not, of an episcopal

hierarchy, along the lines of the ancient churches both East and West. It is this and other similar

considerations that prompted Newman and his associates to embark on their own translation

project of Patristic texts, with the view of establishing the apostolicity of the Church of

England. In this endeavour, Chrysostom soon becomes an important element in Newman’s

attempt to demonstrate the antiquity of the episcopacy as it has continued in the Church of

England. Hollier maintains that the “primitive church” is second only to the Bible as a source

of order and life and structure for the Church. He opines that “the more the members of this

church are made acquainted with the writings of the Ancients, the higher value they must place

on their happiness in their communion … I am persuaded that if, at the first, the most valuable

monuments of antiquity had been set forth in the vulgar tongue, it [would] had been an ample

defence of the Reformation.”3 In this way, Chrysostom becomes, for Newman, and others, a

potential authority in the process of vindicating the position of Anglicanism as situating itself

as a via media between the excesses of the Roman Church, and the abandonment of ancient

patterns of Church governance by the Protestants of Geneva. Marcus Plested explains this well

when he writes:

It is indeed noteworthy just how far the Church of England adopted Chrysostom as

a kind of unofficial patron. The Second Book of Homilies, appointed to be read in

2
Ibid.
3
From Hollier’s “Translators Preface to the Reader” in his translation of Chrysostom, His Six Books concerning
the Priesthood (London, 1728). The pages of the preface are unnumbered.

141
 churches from the sixteenth century, refers to John as “the great Clerk and godly

Preacher” – an unusually warm description of a Church Father in that very sober

collection of sermons. For many Anglicans, Chrysostom represented a perfect

counterweight to both Rome and the radical reformers, a vindication of the via

media (middle way) pursued by the Church of England. This was also the case for

John Wesley who much valued Chrysostom for his teaching on holiness and

perfection and thus as a support against Calvinism.4

Wesley immediately understood what was at stake here and was eager to help others understand

both the dilemma, and how in Chrysostom there was a sure guide. For this reason, in 1756,

Wesley wrote the following advice to his clergy:

Can any who spend several years in those seats of learning (Oxford and

Cambridge), be excused if they do not add to that reading of the Fathers? The most

authentic commentators on Scripture, as being both nearest the fountain, eminently

endued with that Spirit by whom all Scripture was given. It will be easily perceived,

I speak chiefly of those who wrote before the council of Nicea. But who could not

likewise desire to have some acquaintance with those that followed them? with St.

Chrysostom, Basil, Austin, and above all, the man of a broken heart, Ephraim

Syrus.5

4
Ibid., 154.
5
Ibid.

142
4.2 How Newman Came to Read Chrysostom

Wesley’s advice seems perfectly directed to someone of Newman’s background and

sensibility, and it helps us to understand how he later located himself in this discussion. For

many years he had upheld the notion of the via media, of which he saw the Church of England

to be a prime example. He defended this notion strenuously in his two-volume study, The Via

Media of the Anglican Church (1837), just eight years before he became a Roman Catholic.

His own subsequent reading of Church History and the Fathers, however, led him to the view

that historically the via media was not the strategy the Catholic Church adopted in resolving

difficulties. In the manner of so many Anglicans who had preceded him, Newman turned to

the Fathers to find support for his emerging position in relation to the nature of the Church, and

its increasingly obvious implications. He leaves us in no doubt as to this when he states the

matter so explicitly:

Whence is this devotion to St. John Chrysostom, which leads me to dwell upon the

thought of him, and makes me kindle at his name, when so many other great Saints

… command indeed my veneration, but exert no personal claim upon my heart?

Many holy men have died in exile, many holy men have been successful preachers;

and what more can we write upon St. Chrysostom’s monument than this, that he

was eloquent and that he suffered persecution? He is not an Athanasius, expounding

a sacred dogma with a luminousness which is almost an inspiration … Nor is he

Gregory or Basil, rich in the literature and philosophy of Greece, and embellishing

the Church with the spoils of heathenism. Again, he is not an Augustine, devoting

long years to one masterpiece of thought … He has not trampled upon heresy, nor

smitten emperors, … nor knit together the portions of Christendom, nor founded a

religious order, nor built up the framework of doctrine, nor expounded the science

143
 of the Saints; yet I love him, as I love David or St. Paul. How am I to account for

it? … It is not force of words, nor cogency of argument, nor harmony of

composition, nor depth or richness of thought, which constitutes his power,—

whence, then, has he this influence, so mysterious, yet so strong?

I consider St. Chrysostom’s charm to lie in his intimate sympathy and

compassionateness for the whole world, not only in its strength, but in its weakness;

in the lively regard with which he views every thing that comes before him, taken

in the concrete … Possessed though he be by the fire of divine charity, he has not

lost one fibre, he does not miss one vibration, of the complicated whole of human

sentiment and affection … It is this observant benevolence which gives to his

exposition of Scripture its chief characteristic. He is known in ecclesiastical

literature as the expounder, above all others, of its literal sense … there have been

many literal expositors, but only one Chrysostom. It is St. Chrysostom who is the

charm of the method, not the method that is the charm of St. Chrysostom.6

While it is reasonable to assume that Newman would have been familiar with the work of

Savile and Hollier from the time he went up to Oxford, it is Newman’s Letters & Diaries that

provide us with an account of how he gradually came to immerse himself in the reading of

Chrysostom. Having asked his friend, Edward Bouverie Pusey,7 to procure for him copies of

the Patristic texts, the first volumes he acquired in November 1826 were of Chrysostom and

Theodoret,8 which then went on to become the nucleus of a collection that continued to grow

6
H.S., ii, v.284–85.
7
Pusey was studying Oriental Languages and German (1825–1827) at the University of Göttingen.
8
H.S., ii, i.309.

144
until a gift of thirty-six volumes from his pupils in 1831 completed the set.9 These volumes are

still to be seen in Newman’s extensive personal library at the Birmingham Oratory.10

4.3 How was Newman Guided in his Reading of Chrysostom?

As to mentorship in Newman’s reading of the Fathers, Benjamin King notes: “Two older High

Churchmen 11 became Newman’s teacher in the Greek Fathers: first, in the 1820s, Charles

Lloyd (b. 1784) and then, in the 1830s, Martin Routh (b. 1755).”12 It was not until the long

vacation of 1828, however, that Newman finally got down to the considerable task he had set

himself, and began to systematically read the Fathers, taking them in chronological order, as

Bishop Lloyd had advised his students. 13 As Newman gradually moved away from the

influence of Whately and his evangelicalism, so he gravitated more towards Lloyd and the

influence of the Greek Fathers.14 From his own admission in the Apologia, we see that it was

not only impediments of time management which delayed Newman’s reading of the Fathers.

He was honest enough to admit that was not entirely enthusiastic about the prospect:

9
All these volumes can still be seen in the library of the Oratory at Birmingham where Newman placed them after
the foundation of the Oratory (1847).
10
A collection I was fortunate enough to be able to consult in the preparation of this study (see Appendix 1, Figure
1).
11
At this stage, this connotes a churchman who looks to the doctrinal formulations of historic Christianity and the
Erastian principles that describe the relationship of Church and State, without necessarily implying the
sacramental and liturgical views which would emerge later as a consequence of the Oxford movement.
12
B.J. King, Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers: Shaping Doctrine in Nineteenth-Century England (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009), 9.
13
Letter of Newman to Mr. T.W. Allies, 30 September 1842, Birmingham Oratory archive manuscripts.
14
In an Autobiographical Memoir, 1874, Newman wrote to Ambrose St John comparing Lloyd to Whately. Lloyd
laid great emphasis on theology based on an authoritative doctrinal standard, traditional teaching and Church
history. Whately referred to the Fathers in his teaching as “certain old divines.”

145
 A certain disdain for Antiquity … had been growing on me now for several years.

It showed itself in some flippant language against the Fathers in the Encyclopedia

Metropolitana, about whom I knew little at the time. The truth is, I was beginning

to prefer intellectual excellence to moral: I was drifting in the direction of the

Liberalism of the day. I was rudely awakened from my dream at the end of 1827 by

two great blows illness and bereavement …. In proportion as I moved out of the

shadow of that Liberalism which had hung over my course, my early devotion to

the Fathers returned; and in the Long Vacation of 1828 I set about to read them

chronologically, beginning with St. Ignatius and St. Justin.15

Following the death of Lloyd in 1829, Newman looked increasingly towards Martin Routh, the

President of Magdalen College, as a patristic mentor. Routh had been responsible for a

florilegium of Patristic sources, Reliquiae Sacrae (1814–1818), a reference work to which

Newman frequently had recourse. It was Routh who encouraged Newman to adopt the

ecclesiology of the Fathers, which was largely ignored by theologians at the time.16 By 1831,

Newman had gained sufficient knowledge of the Fathers himself to begin writing his study,

Arians of the Fourth Century.17 By this time, Newman had come under the influence of yet

another scholar, Hugh James Rose, who, from 1834, had been professor at Durham, and then

subsequently principal of King’s College London. It was Rose who commissioned Arians of

the Fourth Century, and his correspondence with Newman reveals that he exerted something

of a restraining influence on him throughout the 1830s. During this period, Newman

15
Apo., 12–13, 23, 35.
16
Newman acknowledges this debt to Routh when he describes him as a scholar “who had been reserved to report
to a forgetful generation what was the Theology of their Fathers”; V.M., i.i.
17
L.D., ii.340.

146
enthusiastically continued reading philosophy and theology at this stage by becoming more

familiar with the eighteenth century Anglican divines. He had, by now, distanced himself from

the doctrinal position held by the Noetics, veering more towards the position of Anglo-

Catholics such as Hurrell Froude and John Keble. He had also begun a far more intense

personal reading of early Church history and doctrine. Benjamin King notes that “Newman

shared with Rose a belief that scholarship was useless if it did not lead to action; its purpose

was to make readers grow in holiness not just in knowledge.”18 Newman increasingly found

his paradigms for such action in the teachings of the Fathers, and began to realize that, unlike

his teachers at Oxford, he would not be able to continue to uphold the assumptions of the

religious establishment of his day and perpetuate the system that they had created.

4.4 Newman Writes about Chrysostom

The year 1832 marked something of a hiatus for Newman with his resignation from office.

There are indications at this stage, however, that some of Newman’s friends were also now

falling under the spell of the Fathers in general, and Chrysostom in particular. A letter from

Isaac Williams (25 August 1832) records: “I am reading a little Chrysostom, which I find a

great comfort and a delight.”19 Newman’s own reading would eventually bear fruit in a series

of articles which appeared in The Rambler (1859-1860), in a series entitled, The Ancient

Saints. 20 He later published them as part of a three-volume work, Historical Sketches, the

second volume of which contains his most extensive writings on Chrysostom, organized in five

brief chapters:

18
King, Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers, 13–14.
19
L.D., iii.85.
20
The Rambler, a periodical founded by “liberal-minded” converts to Catholicism who opposed the increasingly
Ultramontanist views of the like of Cardinal Henry Manning, Archbishop of Westminster (1865–1892). The
Ancient Saints articles of Newman appeared in the following editions of the magazine: May 1859 (90–98);
November 1859 (41–62); July 1860 (189–203) and September 1860 (338–45).

147
 1. Introductory

2. The Separation

3. The Journey

4. The Exile

5. The Death

The fact that these essays appeared in three different formats, during Newman’s own lifetime,

would suggest that he very much wanted them to be published. It is in this work that Newman

made his most extensive citation of Chrysostom. Joseph Rickaby offers some insight into this

in his Index to the Works of John Henry Cardinal Newman. 21 Rickaby lists the following

references to Chrysostom in the Historical Sketches:

In Historical Sketches II “many-gifted Saint, most H.S., ii:283.

natural. And human of the

creations of supernatural

grace.”

“character of his mind and Ibid., 284–89.

of his teaching, secret of his

influence, his intimate

sympathy and

compassionateness for the

whole world, his versatile

21
J. Rickaby, Index to the Works of John Henry Cardinal Newman (Aberdeen: The University Press, 1914 [1977]),
29.

148
 recognition of men for the

sake of the portion of good

lodged in them.”

“a literal expositor of Ibid., 288–89.

Scripture.”

“No one could live in his Ibid., 273–75.

friends more intimately.”

Why he is called the Mouth Ibid., 234.

of God.

The four Greek Doctors are Ibid., 237.

compared to the four

seasons: Chrysostom as

Spring.

Early austerities. Ibid., 235.

From Antioch to Ibid., 236.

Constantinople.

Banishment. Ibid., 239, 240, 290.

Letters from Exile. Ibid., 241–83; 292–96.

Death. Ibid., 298–302.

Back to Constantinople. Ibid., 302.

Newman’s devotion to Ibid., 284–87.

Chrysostom.

In his treatment of the life of Chrysostom, Newman draws extensively on Palladius’s Dialogue

on the Life of Chrysostom, and Chrysostom’s letters written during his exile to Olympias,

149
Theodore, Carterius, Paenius, Diogenes and Briso, 22 noting that we have the letters “in a

marvellous profusion.”23 The cumulative effect of this account is that Newman ascribes a very

particular authority to Chrysostom that he does not afford any other of the Fathers. In

attempting to bestow on each of the Fathers an accolade which summarizes his contribution;

he writes “Chrysostom is the unrivalled preacher.”24 This is a trope Newman returns to with a

certain regularity. In his presentation of the process of the evangelization of Europe as a

consequence of the establishment of the matrix of monasticism, Newman immediately

underlines the importance of the Fathers:

The conversion of the heathen is ascribed, after the Apostles, to champions of the

truth so few that we can almost count them, such as Martin, Patrick, Augustine,

Boniface. Then there is St. Antony, the father of monachism; St. Jerome, the

interpreter of Scripture; St. Chrysostom, the great preacher.25

Given the foundational principle that “faith comes by hearing” 26 and the fundamental

significance of preaching in the endeavour of evangelization, to single out Chrysostom with

the designation “the great preacher” would seem to be a unique accolade. This is bolstered

further in the same text when Newman acknowledges the role of monasticism in this process,

he acknowledges that of the greatest authors of Eastern Christendom “many of them figure at

first sight as monks;—Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Ephrem,

Amphilochius, Isidore of Pelusium, Theodore, Theodoret, perhaps Athanasius.”27 Chrysostom

22
I shall discuss the correspondence with Olympias at length in Chapter 6.
23
H.S., ii, i.221.
24
Ibid., ii, iv.
25
H.S., ii, 4, 1: The Mission of St Benedict, 365.
26
Cf. Rom. 10:17.
27
H.S., ii, 4, 380.

150
heads up the list. Newman even begins his treatment of Theodoret by commenting on his

likeness to Chrysostom, who, for Newman, is clearly the ultimate measure of the greatness of

a theologian. 28 He further mentions Chrysostom as source for the idea that, “The Syrian

solitaries, employed themselves in making copies of the Holy Scriptures.”29 Here, as is so often

the case, what seems to be evident in Newman, even if it tends to be more implicit than explicit,

is that characteristic of Chrysostom that Newman defines as: “that power of throwing himself

into the minds of others, of imagining with exactness and with sympathy circumstances or

scenes which were not before him, and of bringing out what he has apprehended in words as

direct and vivid as the apprehension.”30

Rickaby goes on to identify a number of significant citations of Chrysostom in Newman’s

writing, as indicated here:

In Difficulties with Anglicans “[Chrysostom] is par Diff., ii:144, 145.

excellence, the

Commentator of the

Church”;

“yet no one carries with him

so little of the science,

precision, consistency,

28
H.S., ii, 2; 307, 308.
29
H.S. ii, 10, 412.
30
H.S., ii, v, 2, 289.

151
 gravity of a Doctor of the

Church.”

[Chrysostom] ascribes Ibid., 130–32.

vainglorious and danger of

sin to the Blessed Virgin.

An “extraordinary passage, Ibid., 134.

solitary and singular in the

writings of Antiquity.”

Semi-Arian and Nestorian Ibid., 135, 136, 147, 148.

tendencies in the Antiochene

School.

No evidence that he Ibid., 151–52.

[Chrysostom] would have

denied the Immaculate

Conception.31

Obviously, Rickaby’s analysis does not include all the instances of citations of Chrysostom by

Newman in his preaching, or in support of his theological reasoning, or any references that

appear in the Letters & Diaries which were not edited until some long time later. For

information in this regard, scholars are now able to have recourse to the search engines in the

digital Newman Reader at the National Institute for Newman Studies in Pittsburgh.32 While it

is not possible within the context of the present study to examine all such instances listed, I

31
Newman’s view here is in contrast to more recent scholarship. See C.L. de Wet, “Human Birth and
Spiritual Rebirth in the Theological Thought of John Chrysostom,” In Luce Verbi / In die Skriflig 51.3 (2017):
1–9.
32
See www.newmanreader.org.

152
would like to present here some of the more compelling evidence for the explicit influence of

Chrysostom on Newman’s theological formulations.

4.5 Newman’s use of Chrysostom

In Newman’s Letter to Pusey on the Occasion of His Eirenicon33 (1866), he makes his great

assertion that, “The Fathers made me a Catholic, and I am not going to kick down the ladder

by which I ascended into the Church.”34 Not all scholars have been equally convinced of the

basis of this assertion. W.R. Inge, Dean of Westminster Abbey, considered Newman’s

approach to reading the Fathers somewhat “autobiographical,”35 which one might understand,

given the affinity Newman must have felt for certain of these men, whose experience of strife

in the Church so mirrored his own. King concedes, however, that Newman “is a more serious

historical scholar than Inge allowed.”36 While most contemporary commentators would not

endorse Newman’s notion that the teaching of the Fathers is representative of a single

metaphysical system, there can be little doubt that Newman looked consistently for champions

of orthodoxy, such as Chrysostom, and found in them the magisterial authority he sought. In

commenting on the importance of Scripture in confirming the authority of the prophetic office

in the early Church, Newman cites Chrysostom:

He [Christ] suitably calls the Scriptures the door; for they bring us to God, and

open upon us the knowledge of Him. They make the sheep, guard them, and fence

off the wolves. As a trusty door, Scripture shuts out heretics, securing us from

33
This is Pusey’s attempt to find a basis for the reconciliation of the Church of England with the Roman Catholic
Church.
34
Diff. ii.24.
35
W.R. Inge, Outspoken Essays, First series (London: Longmans, 1921), 182.
36
King, Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers, 224.

153
 error, in whatsoever we desire; sand, unless we damage it, we are unassailable by

our enemies. By means of it we shall know who are pastors and who are not.37

In his letter in response to Pusey’s Eirenicon, Newman cited Chrysostom at length in his

treatment of the anomalous statements of some of the Fathers concerning the Blessed Virgin

Mary. 38 Newman even suggests that it is Chrysostom himself who seems to offer a path

forward in these anomalies when he states:

It is manifest”, says Chrysostom, “that not all things have [the Apostles] delivered

down by letter, but many things without writing. Both the one and the other have

a claim on faith. So we consider the tradition also of the Church to have a claim

on faith. It is a tradition, seek nothing more.”39

Mindful that it had been Pusey who obtained Montfaucon’s edition of Chrysostom for him, he

does not hesitate to turn to Chrysostom, in two distinct texts, to clarify for Pusey the belief of

Catholics in relation to the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary:

“‘Wherefore, a man may say, ‘did not the Angel do in the case of the Virgin [what

he did to Joseph?” viz., appear to her after, not before, the Incarnation], “why did

he not bring her the good tidings after her conception?’”Lest she should be in great

disturbance and trouble. For the probability was, that, had she not known the clear

fact, she would have resolved something strange [atopon] about herself, and had

37
Chrysostom, In Jn. 58, cited in V.M., i, 318 (Newman’s own translation).
38
Cf. Letter to Pusey on the Occasion of His Eirenicon, Note iii:50; Chrysostom, In Matt. 4.44.
39
V.M., i, Notes on Lecture 12, In 2 Thess. 2.15, cited by Newman (italics as in his text), 330.

154
 recourse to rope or sword, not bearing the disgrace. For the Virgin was admirable,

and Luke shows her virtue when he says that, when she heard the salutation, she

did not at once become extravagant, nor appropriated the words, but was troubled,

searching what was the nature of the salutation. One then of so refined a mind

[diekribomene] would be made beside herself with despondency, considering the

disgrace, and not expecting, whatever she may say, to persuade any one who hears

her, that adultery had not been the fact. Lest then these things should occur, the

Angel came before the conception; for it beseemed that that womb should be

without disorder, which the Creator of all entered, and that that soul should be rid

of all perturbation, which was counted worthy to become the minister of such

mysteries.40

Today we learn something else even further, viz., that not even to bear Christ in the

womb, and to have that wonderful childbirth, has any gain without virtue. And this

is especially true from this passage, “As He was yet speaking to the multitude,

behold His Mother and His brethren stood without, seeking to speak to Him,” & c.

This He said, not as ashamed of His Mother, nor as denying her who bore Him; for,

had He been ashamed, He had not passed through that womb; but as showing that

there was no profit to her thence, unless she did all that was necessary. For what

she attempted, came of overmuch love of honour; for she wished to show to the

people that she had power and authority over her Son, in nothing ever as yet having

given herself airs ([phantazomene]) about Him. Therefore she came thus

unseasonably. Observe then her and their rashness ([aponoian]) …. Had He wished

to deny His Mother, then He would have denied, when the Jews taunted Him with

40
Citing In Matt. 4, Letter to Pusey, Note iii, 50. The transliteration of the Greek is in the original.

155
 her. But no: He shows such care of her as to commit her as a legacy on the Cross

itself to the disciple whom He loved best of all, and to take anxious oversight of

her. But does He not do the same now, by caring for her and His brethren? … And

consider, not only the words which convey the considerate rebuke, but also … who

He is who utters it … and what He aims at in uttering it; not, that is, as wishing to

cast her into perplexity, but to release her from a most tyrannical affection, and to

bring her gradually to the fitting thought concerning Him, and to persuade her that

He is not only her Son, but also her Master.41

It seems to be Chrysostom’s literal interpretation of Scripture, however, that seems to

continually draw Newman to him. He appears to find in it an authoritative endorsement of the

Christological formulations of the early centuries. Although many scholars nowadays would

not consider such literal interpretation of Scripture to be a hallmark of a supposed “School of

Antioch,” at the time of Newman, this would have been the majority opinion. And so, he is

able to state that

in the instance of St. Chrysostom, it so happens that literal exposition is the

historical characteristic of the school in which he was brought up; so that if he

commented on Scripture at all, he any how would have adopted that method; still,

there have been many literal expositors, but only one Chrysostom. It is St.

Chrysostom who is the charm of the method,

In his Lectures on Justification (1838), Newman frequency cites Chrysostom in support of his

own reading, not only of the doctrinal formulations of the sixteenth-century Protestant

41
Citing In Matt. 44 (see also In Jn. 21).

156
Reformers, but also of Catholic doctrine as taught at the Council of Trent. In his attempt to

identify a via media between justification by faith and justification by works, Newman looks

to the Patristic emphasis on the notion of divinization. Newman turns to Chrysostom to support

this teaching, and cites his commentary Galatians 5:542 in the original Greek, (unusually, in the

first edition of 1838, without either transliteration or translation): “We need none of those legal

observances, he says; faith suffices to obtain for us the Spirit, and by him righteousness, and

many and great benefits.”43

In quite a different vein, Newman looks to Chrysostom in defence of miracles:

“Argue not,” says Chrysostom, “because miracles do not happen now, that they did

not happen then …. In those times they were profitable and now they are not.” He

proceeds to say that, in spite of this difference, the mode of conviction was

substantially the same. “We persuade not philosophical reasonings, but from Divine

Scripture, and we recommend what we say by miracles then done. And then, too,

they persuaded not by miracles only, but by discussion.” And he presently adds,

“The more evident and constraining are the things which happen, the less room

there is for faith.”44

… And again in another passage, “Why are there not those now who raise the dead

and perform cures? I will not say why not; rather, why are there not those now who

42
“For we through the Spirit by Faith wait for the hope of righteousness.” (KJV).
43
Lectures on Justification: 1838 edition reprinted (London: Aeterna Press, 2015). Here in the Schaffer translation
of NPNF.
44
Chrysostom, In 1 Cor. 6.2, 3; In Col. 8.5, in “Essay on Miracles,” 3, 36; online:
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/miracles/essay2/chapter3.html (accessed 7 December, 2020).

157
 despise the present life? Why serve we God for hire? When, however, nature was

weak, when faith had to be planted, then there were many such; but now He wills

not that we should hang on these miracles, but be ready for death.”45

It is not only as a doctrinal author that Newman has an appreciation of Chrysostom. In his

preface to the publication of the translation of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians

and Homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians (1840), Newman enters into the discussion about

the location of authorship of these texts, issues which would occupy scholars at the end of the

twentieth century:46

The Homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians have been by some critics assigned to

his Episcopate at Constantinople, in consequence of certain imperfections in their

composition, which seemed to argue absence of the comparative leisure which he

enjoyed at Antioch. There is a passage too in Homily xi. … which certainly is very

apposite to the Author’s circumstances in the court of Eudoxia. Yet there are strong

reasons for deciding that they too were delivered at Antioch. S. Babylas and S.

Julian, both Saints of Antioch, are mentioned familiarly, the former in Homily ix.

… , the latter in Homily xxi. …. Monastic establishments in mountains in the

neighbourhood are spoken of in Homily vi. …, and .xiii …; and those near Antioch

are famous in St. Chrysostom’s history. A schism too is alluded to in Homily xi.

…, as existing in the community he was addressing, and that not about a question

of doctrine; circumstances which are accurately fulfilled in the contemporary

45
In Col. 8.5.
46
See also W. Mayer, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom—Provenance: Reshaping the Foundations (Rome:
Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2005).

158
 history of Antioch, and which are more or less noticed in the Homilies on 1 Cor.

which were certainly delivered at Antioch …. Moreover, he makes mention of the

prevalence of superstitions, Gentile and Jewish, among the people whom he was

addressing, in Homily vi. …. Hom. xii. … which is a frequent ground of complaint

in his other writings against the Christians of Antioch; vid. in Gal. …; in 1 Cor.

Hom. xii. §. 13, 14; in Col. Hom. viii.; contr. Jud. i. Since Evagrius, the last Bishop

of the Latin succession in the schism, died in A.D. 392, those Homilies must have

been composed before that date.47

What is often the case in Newman’s reading and use of Chrysostom is that he was very much

a child of the times and, whether consciously or not, he functioned as one crystallization point

for the theological discourse in the nineteenth-century sense. As such, Newman stood in a

trajectory that led to the historicization of credal and theological works from the initial

centuries of Christian history, the outcome of which was the contribution of later scholars like

Henri de Lubac, Jean Danielou, Pieter Schoonenberg, and Edward Schillebeeckx made to the

renewal of theology from the mid-twentieth century onwards, at the Second Vatican Council

and beyond.48

Having presented both Chrysostom and Newman, and having considered how Newman was

prepared to read Chrysostom, I now wish to engage in an aspect of comparative study of the

theological characteristics that they share. In Newman’s case, I shall not be suggesting that

47
Newman, Commentary on the Epistles to the Galatians and Homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians of John
Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (Oxford: Parker and Rivington, 1840); online:
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/fathers/chrysostom.html (accessed 7 December 2020).
48
I am grateful to Prof. Gerhard van den Heever for this insight which he kindly communicated to me following
the presentation of my research at a doctoral seminar, 9 September, 2020.

159
these points of commonality are necessarily conscious on his part, unless there is good reason

to demonstrate that they are. I shall be seeking to establish, however, the content of some sense

of a matrix of theological thought which these two theologians share, even if their manner of

expression and the circumstances which occasion their theological formulations are distant and,

in some senses, disparate. I shall also be aiming to identify in the unfolding stories of their lives

those events, relationships and experiences which may have favoured the treatment of these

themes and the evolution in their thinking.

160
 CHAPTER 5

COMMON PRINCIPLES OF THE PATRISTIC ERA SHARED BY NEWMAN AND

CHRYSOSTOM

5.1 Setting Up the Comparison

Having considered both Newman and Chrysostom from a biographical point of view and

having introduced their writings by way of a general preparation for the dialogue which I hope

to establish between them, I embark now on the comparative element of this study, in which I

shall attempt to highlight formulations in their writings where there seems to be a similarity in

the treatment of a particular theological point, or sometimes, a divergence. In the case of

Newman, it may be that these similarities were conscious on his part, either because he clearly

states so, or because there is good reason to believe that a particular text of Chrysostom may

have influenced his thinking at the time of writing; at other times, the similarities will be of a

presumed subconscious nature. I will try and note this distinction, wherever it is possible to do

so.

Although a comparison could be made based on a great number of criteria, and in recognition

of the fact that both Chrysostom and Newman are preaching and writing in response to

theological controversies, I have chosen four distinct considerations, common to both writers,

making my selection based on a desire to explore not only the systematic aspects of their

writings but also taking into consideration autobiographical references, aspects of their

ministry as pastors of souls, and their respective roles and places in theological discourse during

the fifteen hundred years that separate them. I therefore offer a consideration of Newman and

161
Chrysostom in relation to dogmatic, sacramental, providential, and developmental principles.49

Although I will necessarily need to consider these characteristics in a linear way, it should be

clear as I do so that, in Newman’s mind, all four principles are mutually implicative and

simultaneously present.

5.2 The Dogmatic Principle50

Newman’s instinct for the importance of doctrine as the necessary explanation of salvation

sprung from his deep-seated view that Christianity was essentially a religion founded on divine

revelation, and that revelation needs to find a vehicle of expression. He explains this realization

when he writes in the Apologia: “From the age of fifteen, dogma has been the fundamental

principle of my religion …. What I held in 1816, I held in 1833, and I hold in 1864. Please

God, I shall hold it to the end.” 51 A little further on, he adds: “I am now as clear in my

acceptance of the principle of dogma, as I was in 1833 and 1816.”52

It seems that this was the nub of the intellectual enquiry which led to his conversion to Roman

Catholicism in 1845, during the same period he continued to review material which had been

the significant object of his study when he was working on The Arians of the Fourth Century

(1833), in which he considered Patristic teaching in resolution of the Christological

controversies and the necessity for the statement of clear doctrinal formulas: “The principle of

dogma, that is, supernatural truths irrevocably committed to human language, imperfect

49
See F.M. Cavaller, Los principios del cristianismo: Una teología fundamental según Newman (Buenos Aires:
Agape Libros, 2017); “Los principios teológicos en las obras de J. H. Newman,” Newmaniana 29.75 (2019): 30–
45.
50
See Apo., 49.
51
Ibid., 54.
52
Ibid., 57.

162
because it is human, but definitive and necessary because given from above.”53 Here we see a

seeming contrast with what might be perceived in the formulations of Chrysostom by a

commentator such as Wolf Liebeschuetz, who makes the interesting observation that

“Chrysostom seems to have been more concerned to occupy people with orthodox activities

than to persuade them of the truth of particular doctrines.”54 It would be a mistake to presume

from this, however, that Chrysostom’s preaching was therefore devoid of dogmatic content,

although Liebeschuetz would want to say that “dogma occupies a small place in his huge output

of pulpit oratory.” 55 I doubt that one can endorse this rather confident assertion by

Liebeschuetz, as it is only reasonable to expect that in addition to the strictly dogmatic content

in Chrysostom’s homilies, the paraenesis which is so evident there, and which one might

presume showed the obvious Pauline influence in his formulations, is also necessarily based

on clear statements of doctrine.56 In order to grasp this essential characteristic of his preaching

and writing, we can consider his approach to those who are in the process of entering the

Church through baptism—their catechesis and doctrinal instruction represents the initial

process of their integration into the Christian community.

We have, in Chrysostom, an example of a particular genre of theological writing, in this

particular aspect of the Church’s life, that was already well established by the time he turns his

hand to it. It is generally referred to as “mystagogical catechesis.” 57 Mystagogy is to be

understood as that process whereby the μυστήρια (secret realities) are effectively

53
Dev., 325
54
Liebeschuetz, Barbarians, 167.
55
Ibid.
56
See P.-W. Lai, “Exemplar Portraits and the Interpretation of John Chrysostom’s Doctrine of Recapitulation,”
in Revisioning John Chrysostom: New Approaches, New Perspectives, ed. C.L. de Wet and W. Mayer (Leiden:
Brill, 2019), 587–91, who argues for a similar valuation of Chrysostom’s unique approach to dogma.
57
As in the Mystagogical Catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem; NPNF.

163
communicated, and it belongs to Christian culture from earliest times. The form of

μυσταγωγικαί (mystagogical catecheses), as a literary or textual form, emerges gradually in the

second half of the fourth century as an already well-established liturgical praxis, marking a

development in the understanding of the experience of mystagogy. The various baptismal

catecheses of Chrysostom were probably written sometime between 388 CE and 391CE.

Chrysostom here describes the inner content of these instructions to be known only by those

disciples who have been specifically initiated into its mysteries. The process of initiation

implied is somewhat similar to that which was known in some pagan religions, as it is

understood as imparting and effecting immediate access to the divinity. In his Sermon to the

Neophytes, Chrysostom suggests to those who have just been baptized that they are like stars

shining during the daytime, implying from this the sacramental role the neophytes will play in

the world:

Blessed be God! Behold, there are stars here on earth too, and they shine forth more

brilliantly than those of heaven! There are stars on earth because of Him who came

from heaven and was seen on earth. Not only are these stars on earth, but — a second

marvel — they are stars in the full light of day. And the daytime stars shine more

brilliantly than those which shine at night. For the night stars hide themselves away

before the rising sun, but when the Sun of Justice shines, these stars of day gleam forth

still more brightly. Did you ever see stars which shine in the light of the sun? Yes, the

night stars disappear with the end of time; these daytime stars shine forth brightly with

the coming of the consummation.58

58
Chrysostom, Sermon to the Neophytes, l, in Baptism, Ancient Liturgies and Patristic Texts, ed. A.G. Hamman,
(Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1967), 165.

164
It is clear that for Chrysostom, authentic Christian initiation implies a full communication of

the disciplina arcana,59 the μυστήρια, or secret realities which the Christian faith discloses;

and it thereby incorporates the one being initiated into the very mystery which is the suffering,

death and resurrection of Christ. The homilist, in his role of μυσταγωγός, therefore insists on

the mystery as something operating in history, applying the notion of μυστήριον to religious

truths, presented as being secret to human beings until such a time as they were revealed by

God.60 Their manifestation is, as it were, inserted into a historical process, whose meaning is

only gradually going to be fully revealed. Chrysostom cites the exile of Israel in Egypt as an

example which prefigures Christian baptism. Some passages indicate however more than a

mere condemnation of pagan mysteries, pointing out the moral attitude of the believers.

Chrysostom cites the lamentations of the initiates, that beat their breasts because of the urging

of their newly enlightened consciences:

Have you heard how those who were initiated, in old time, groaned, and beat their

breasts, their conscience thereupon exciting them? Beware then, beloved, that you

do not at any time suffer like this. But how will you not suffer, if you do not cast

off the wicked habit of evil men? For this reason, I said before, and speak now and

59
The so-called “discipline of the secret” that emerged during the third century CE, whereby the full knowledge
of the doctrines of Christianity were only gradually communicated to catechumens in the course of their
preparation for baptism in order to attempt to minimize the danger of them falling into heresy.
60
See T.M. Finn, The Liturgy of Baptism in the Baptismal Instructions of St John Chrysostom (Washington,
DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1967); H.M. Riley, Christian Initiation: A Comparative Study of the
Baptismal Liturgy in the Writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Ambrose
of Milan, (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1874). Also, T.L. Regule, “The
Mystagogical Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem: Forming the Identity of a Christian,” Liturgy 35.2 (2020): 4–47.

165
 will not cease speaking, if any has not rectified the defects in his morals, nor

furnished himself with easily acquired virtue, let him not be baptized.61

The catechesis which serves as an introduction to baptism gradually became longer and more

complex after the time of Constantine. The whole liturgical praxis changes considerably, and

the explanatory task of the homilies takes on a far greater significance. In the age of

Chrysostom, the explanation of inaccessible beings takes the distinctive form of mystagogical

catechesis: the transmission of the faith taking on the character of a pedagogical explanation.

The task of the catecheses is primarily to offer a doctrinal explanation of the Christian faith to

a particular group of neophytes; subsequently, in their published form, these catecheses then

take on a more universal application in establishing and effectively promulgating a dogmatic

understanding of the content of Christianity. As a consequence, this form of communication,

which in the modern era becomes “apologetics,” requires the particular ability to be able to

speak equally both to a large audience and to individuals, bringing them eventually to the point,

over an extended period of time, where they were ready to receive the sacraments, and so enter

fully into the life of the Church. This was an aspect of the Church’s life of which both

Chrysostom and Newman were profoundly convinced and in which they both made a very

considerable contribution. Both in their own time were preaching or writing at a stage when

different understandings of quite fundamental Christian doctrines were competing for

recognition. Newman’s own understanding of doctrine was based primarily on what he

identified as the dogmatic principle, which was opposed by the anti-dogmatic principle of the

theological liberalism of his day. He upheld the necessity of a theological system in which

“supernatural truths [are] irrevocably committed to human language, imperfect because it is

61
Cat., 2., NPNF (slightly adapted).

166
human, but definitive and necessary because given from above.”62 For Chrysostom, it was

Arians, in their various disguises, that provided the threat. For Newman, it was the

latitudinarians and modernists, of various stripes, that represented the strongest challenge to

the notion of the dogmatic principle.63 While Chrysostom was concerned to be able to give a

cogent account of orthodox doctrine to those entering the Church, Newman was fighting

similar battles with those already baptized and within the Church and yet were raising similar

questions compared to Chrysostom’s initiates.

The ways in which these two theological minds addressed the challenges to their respective

dogmatic orthodoxy are necessarily rooted in the circumstances in which these “battles” were

waged. For Chrysostom, his concern found a natural expression in two different locations. On

the macro-level, in his public theological discourse, which in turn contributed to the evolving

understanding and reception of certain doctrines in the Church. On the more pastoral level,

however, his regular preaching, which was the content of his catechesis, had a powerful

influence both on those who were entering the Church, through the sacraments of Christian

initiation, and those who were already members of the Church but remained continually

vulnerable to heresy. Chrysostom acknowledges the burden of this responsibility and declares

that in his homilies he has to represent unseen realities on the basis of visible ones; he points

out, furthermore, that this necessity tends to emphasize the interior attitude of neophytes rather

than the actual act of their sacramental initiation. Initially, the purpose of mystagogical

discourse is to dispose catechumens to the things of God. Consequently, they are exhorted not

to undervalue the mystery, as Chrysostom says, on the basis of a partial explanation by a

62
Dev., 325.
63
A. Meszaros, The Prophetic Church: History and Doctrinal Development in John Henry Newman and Yves
Congar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 3–7.

167
mystagogue or preacher, who is subject to human limitations. The preacher addresses everyone

present, and it seems likely that Chrysostom’s audience included those drawn from all strata of

society and backgrounds—in some senses a rather disparate group, possibly even lacking a

common culture to which he could appeal in his preaching. As a consequence, the

persuasiveness of any explanation of initiation offered must necessarily draw both on basic

human experience as well as the immediate (liturgical) context in which the catechesis is

received. This accounts for the diverse ways in which the mystery can be approached or

evoked.

Once a person has been initiated into the Christian life by baptism, they are in a position to be

able to address a range of subsequent issues touching on the manner in which the Christian life

is to be lived. The dogmatic content of the faith induced by the baptismal catecheses is

presented in absolute terms. The concept of the synkatabasis of God, so often cited in

Chrysostom’s works, 64 is applied to baptismal rites as an appeal to those who hear his

preaching, enabling in them the disposition necessary to overcome any residual opposition they

may have, on an intellectual level, to the doctrine which has been preached to them.

According to Chrysostom, it is only in the liturgy that the mystery can be entirely manifested

and fully explained. As Dalmais writes: “... Chrysostom had sketched out and prepared the way

for this “mystery” conception of the liturgy in the Antiochene [sic] tradition”. 65 In the

mystagogical catecheses, the liturgical action is deeply connected to sacramental doctrine. It is

dogma, presented in a context which includes a gradual explanation in its unfolding. In a time

64
D. Rylaarsdam, John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy: The Coherence of His Theology and Preaching (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2014), 13–99.
65
See A.G. Martimort, ed., The Church at Prayer (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1987), 37, also 27–44.

168
during which a large group of people entered into contact with the mysteries, a growing number

of believers could be provided with an explanation of them. The catecheses of Chrysostom

mark a turning point in the development of Christian mystagogy. They adapt Christian

communication of the faith, as expressed in the liturgy, to a broader public of catechumens and

believers. Mystagogy is conceived as a form of communication, addressed to a privileged

audience, for a full understanding of the mysteries. This is not however—as in the “pagan”

mysteries—a single and isolated moment in the human experience. Instead, the baptismal

discourses assume a value of enhancement that leads to a true comprehension beyond the actual

individual limits. For Newman, his own experience of this dogmatic principle was also linked

to conversion and a highly personal sense of a deeper incorporation into the life of the Church.

In the Apologia, he describes his evangelical conversion thus:

When I was fifteen (in the autumn of 1816) a great change of thought took place in

me. I fell under the influences of a definite Creed, and received into my intellect

impressions of dogma, which, through God’s mercy, have never been effaced or

obscured.66

Here Newman uses the word “dogma” according to its Greek etymological sense of δόγμα, that

is, something which is affirmed or decreed. Here the content of revelation is implied, a revealed

truth, and so a creed. It is in this sense that we understand Newman speaking of a dogmatic

principle in his account of the Oxford Movement in 1833, and the considerable challenge of

that very particular time for the Church in England:

66
Apo., 4.

169
 First was the principle of dogma: my battle was with liberalism; by liberalism I

mean the anti-dogmatic principle and its developments. This was the first point on

which I was certain …. The main principle of the movement is as dear to me now,

as it ever was. I have changed in many things: in this I have not. From the age of

fifteen, dogma has been the fundamental principle of my religion: I know no other

religion; I cannot enter into the idea of any other sort of religion; religion, as a mere

sentiment, is to me a dream and a mockery. As well can there be filial love without

the fact of a father, as devotion without the fact of a Supreme Being. What I held

in 1816, I held in 1833, and I hold in 1864. Please God, I shall hold it to the end.67

He offers this definition: the “principle of dogma, that is, supernatural truths irrevocably

committed to human language, imperfect because it is human, but definitive and necessary

because given from above.”68 So he would hold that the dogmatic principle refers, in the first

instance, to the Word of God, revealed in human language, and then to theological language.

Both are, in a very real sense, to be understood as sacramental: “Faith, being an act of the

intellect, opens a way for inquiry, comparison and inference, that is, for science in religion, in

subservience to itself; this is the principle of theology.”69

There was, in Newman’s time, an objection among some that dogmatic language was not

appropriate for expressing the divine mysteries, as it was so naturally done in Chrysostom’s

time, and that it was, in some way, an abuse of reason, and nothing more than the multiplication

of words without meaning.70 Newman answers this charge by saying:

67
Ibid., 48–49.
68
Dev., 325.
69
Ibid.
70
U.S., xv.8.

170
 Nothing would indicate a more shallow philosophy than to say that Faith ought

carefully to be disjoined from dogmatic and argumentative statements. To assert

the latter is to discard the science of theology from the service of Religion … Faith

cannot exist without grounds or without an object.71

Making an analysis, from an epistemological point of view, Newman explains:

Theological dogmas are propositions expressive of the judgments which the mind

forms, or the impressions which it receives, of Revealed Truth. Revelation sets

before it certain supernatural facts and actions, beings and principles; these make a

certain impression or image upon it; and this impression spontaneously, or even

necessarily, becomes the subject of reflection on the part of the mind itself, which

proceeds to investigate it, and to draw it forth in successive and distinct sentences.72

Furthermore, Newman holds that:

Religious impressions differ from those of material objects, in the mode in which

they are made. The senses are direct, immediate, and ordinary informants … but

no such faculties have been given us, as far as we know, for realizing the Objects

of Faith … we form creeds as a chief mode of perpetuating the impression.73

71
Ibid., xiii.4.
72
Ibid., xv 10.
73
Ibid., xv.25.

171
Of course, Newman would also assert that this does not therefore mean that dogmatic formulas

exhaust the mystery of the revealed truth:

Creeds and dogmas live in the one idea which they are designed to express, and

which alone is substantive … The Catholic dogmas are, after all, but symbols of a

Divine fact, which, far from being compassed by those very propositions, would

not be exhausted, nor fathomed, by a thousand.74

The main objection to this notion seems to have been an innate opposition between the notion

of dogma, on the one hand, and the religious experience of life on the other. Newman attempts

to resolve this dichotomy by establishing the relationship that exists between theology and

religion:

Here we have the solution of the common mistake of supposing that there is a

contrariety and antagonism between a dogmatic creed and vital religion ….

Devotion must have its objects; those objects, as being supernatural, when not

represented to our senses by material symbols, must be set before the mind in

propositions. The formula, which embodies a dogma for the theologian, readily

suggests an object for the worshipper. It seems a truism to say … that in religion

the imagination and affections should always be under the control of reason.

Theology may stand as a substantive science, though it be without the life of

religion; but religion cannot maintain its ground at all without theology. Sentiment,

whether imaginative or emotional, falls back upon the intellect for its stay, when

74
Ibid., xv.23.

172
 sense cannot be called into exercise; and it is in this way that devotion falls back

upon dogma.75

He goes on to bolster his argument with a fact which is deduced from the history of the Church:

Creeds have a place in the Ritual; they are devotional acts, and of the nature of

prayers, addressed to God …. It is not a mere collection of notions, however

momentous. It is a psalm or hymn of praise, of confession, and of profound, self-

prostrating homage, parallel to the canticles of the elect in the Apocalypse …. The

Creeds are enough to show that the dogma may be taught in its fullness for the

purposes of popular faith and devotion …. The Creed then remains now what it was

in the beginning, a popular form of faith, suited to every age, class, and condition.

Its declarations are categorical, brief, clear, elementary, of the first importance,

expressive of the concrete, the objects of real apprehension, and the basis and rule

of devotion.76

In 1879, at the age of seventy-eight, Newman delivered his famous “Biglietto” speech in Rome,

on the occasion of the concistory at which he was made a cardinal. It had something of the

character of a personal theological testament, as he once more expressed his deeply held

conviction concerning the dogmatic principle, which he considered to be an essential

expression of the primacy of truth:

75
G.A., 120–21.
76
Ibid., 132–35, 144.

173
 For thirty, forty, fifty years I have resisted to the best of my powers the spirit of

liberalism in religion. Never did Holy Church need champions against it more

sorely than now, when, alas! it is an error overspreading, as a snare, the whole earth

…. Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion,

but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining

substance and force daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as

true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed

religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact …. Men may

go to Protestant Churches and to Catholic, may get good from both and belong to

neither. They may fraternize together in spiritual thoughts and feelings, without

having any views at all of doctrine in common, or seeing the need of them …. The

general character of this great apostasy is one and the same everywhere …. There

never was a device of the Enemy so cleverly framed and with such promise of

success.77

5.3 The Sacramental Principle

Newman described his own initial religious upbringing as “a conventional, non-sacramental

middle-class one.” 78 That definition was first put to the test when, at the age of fifteen,

Newman, as we have established, underwent an evangelical conversion. Later, as he gradually

began to read the Fathers in a more consistent way, he adopted what he considered to be a via

media79 (a middle way) in which his earlier sense of a conversion was necessarily expressed

77
W.W.G. Ward, The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman Based on His Private Journals and Correspondence,
2 vols. (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1912), ii.460–62.
78
Apo., 3.
79
Cf. V.M., i and ii.

174
more obviously in terms of sacramental initiation into a visible Church through baptism. More

recent consideration of the process whereby Newman arrived at this formulation necessarily

considers the influence of Evangelical thought on his emerging Tractarianism, and the way in

which he increasingly attempted to appraise the situation of the Church in his own day with

what we read of the doctrinal controversies which characterized responses to heresy in the early

centuries.80 For Newman, this discussion emerged as the struggle against what he identified as

theological liberalism,81 and yet it was to play out largely as a discussion about what constituted

a sacramental understanding of Christianity. Consequently, Newman came to increasingly hold

the view that it was Evangelicalism’s lack of sacramental understanding ultimately made it

vulnerable to theological liberalism. 82 Sheridan makes this connection in Newman and

expresses it when he recognizes that “Newman could not help but compare in his own mind

the Church of which he was reading in the writings of the fourth century Fathers and the Church

as he knew it in the England of his day.”83

Newman came to see that an essentially sacramental character of Christianity was the necessary

way in which the limits of human intellect could be overcome, effecting a true mystical union

of each individual believer with Christ. 84 He expresses this idea when he states that “true

religion is in part altogether above reason, as in its Mysteries.” 85 When Newman uses

80
See R. Hütter, John Henry Newman on Truth and Its Counterfeits: A Guide for Our Times (Washington, DC:
Catholic University of America Press, 2020), 96–129.
81
See F.M. Turner, John Henry Newman: The Challenge to Evangelical Religion (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2002), 9.
82
See I. Ker, John Henry Newman: A Biography (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989), 122.
83
T.L. Sheridan, Newman on Justification (Staten Island, NY: Society of St. Paul, 1967), 206.
84
See C.S. Dessain, “Cardinal Newman and the Eastern Tradition,” The Downside Review 94.315 (1976): 95.
85
P.S., ii.368. See also Jfc., 187: “The Presence of Christ is … first conveyed to us in Baptism, then more sacredly
and mysteriously in the Eucharist”; and L.D., vi, 80: “[ The Holy Spirit] communicates Himself … in an other
way in Confirmation”.

175
“mysteries” in this sense, he is consciously referencing the Patristic doctrine of divinization, so

central to the Fathers’ understanding of both the motive and the consequence of the Incarnation

and so powerfully present in Chrysostom’s writings.86 He expresses his thought in this manner

when he writes, “the Sacramental system; that is, the doctrine that material phenomena are both

the types and the instruments of real things unseen.”87 Newman considers the Incarnation to

be God’s sacrament which “establishes in the very idea of Christianity the sacramental

principle as its characteristic”.88

This same emphasis is often evident in Chrysostom’s teachings, as it is clear that a

consideration of the doctrine of the Incarnation occupies a central and omnipresent position in

his theological thinking, in that the Incarnation has as its principal purpose, the salvation of the

human race, brought about by the condescension of the second person of the Trinity in

assuming human flesh, with the express purpose of the θέωσις (divinization) of human

beings.89 As Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) wrote: “He was incarnate that we might

be made God” (Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐνηνθρώπησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς θεοποιηθῶμεν).90 We can say that, for

Chrysostom, God cannot be known by means of the normal notions of interpersonal

understanding by human beings and, as such, in terms of human experience, he remains totally

“other”. As Rylaarsdam comments: “For Chrysostom, God’s incomprehensibility and

transcendence is a basic theological presumption which must never be compromised.” 91

86
See Chrysostom, In 1 Cor. 24.8; In Eph. 3.8–11; In 2 Tim. 2.11–14; In Jn. 1.9; see NPNF for all translations.
87
Apo., 29.
88
Dev., 36.
89
For a fuller survey of this idea in Patristic thought, see N. Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek
Patristic Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); A. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian
Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020).
90
Athanasius, De Incarnatione Dei verbi 54.3, ed. A. Robertson (London: David Nutt, 1901), 82.
91
Rylaarsdam, John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy, 16.

176
Despite this, Chrysostom maintains an acute sense of the very real possibility of knowing God

as a consequence of his condescension in the Incarnation, 92 and in the fact that God has

accommodated a revelation of himself to the considerable limitations of human recipients. The

communication of this revelation is both through Scripture and the Church’s magisterium, of

which the teachings of Chrysostom form a significant part. As Liebeschuetz opines, in his

characteristically forthright way, speaking of this “educational” aspect of Chrysostom’s

preaching: “Compared with Gregory he [Chrysostom] was much less of a poet and theologian,

and more of a teacher, in fact a born teacher.” 93 François Dreyfus explains the essence of

Chrysostom’s teaching when he writes that: “God has placed Himself within man’s reach by

using human language in Scripture, as well as in becoming Man for him through the

Incarnation.”94 The Incarnation continues, as it were through the instrumentality of privileged

teachers: first in the Scriptures, and then in the Church, who is able to “unpack” or explain the

significance and application of this fundamental doctrine. For Newman, this thought is never

far from his mind, as he is very much himself “a born teacher.”

One of the first recorded times we see Newman address the doctrine of the Incarnation in this

manner, head on, as it were, is in the second of the University Sermons, “The Influence of

Natural and Revealed Religion Respectively.”95 Here, he speaks of the union of the mystery of

the Incarnation with the paschal mystery of the death and resurrection of Christ, his ascension,

and the participation of Christians in these mysteries by grace. Newman had made a very

thorough study of the early Christological controversies in preparation for his work, The Arians

92
Chrysostom, In Tit. 3.2; In Gen. hom. 18.3; In Matt. 26.39; NPNF.
93
Liebeschuetz, Barbarians, 166.
94
F. Dreyfus, trans. L. Dempsey, “Divine Condescension (Synkatabasis) as a Hermeneutic Principle of the Old
Testament in Jewish and Christian Tradition,” Immanuel 19 (1984–1985): 77; see Chrysostom, Adv. Jud. 4.3; In.
Col. 4.3; In Tit. 3.2; In Heb. 18.1; NPNF.
95
U.S, ii, “The Influence of Natural and Revealed Religion Respectively,” 16–17.

177
of the Fourth Century, and so he was consequently plunged into the world of the Ante-Nicene

Fathers, and the notion of the mystery of Christ as expressed in these early formulas of faith

and their subsequent development. The divine filiation of Jesus is the first dogma that the

Church defines in the context of controversies of the fourth century, and it is obviously linked

to any consideration of the Trinitarian mystery and the slow process of the statement of

orthodox trinitarian doctrine. Newman was acutely aware of the need to study and understand

the different schools of theological thought and their positions, in order to be able to establish

clearly the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, and in considering the formation of

the creeds, analysing both biblical and ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity, particularly

considering the significance of stating that Jesus, as the Word of God, is also Son of God. The

Arians of the Fourth Century proposes a theology which is essentially incarnationalist, more

ontological (of the very being of Christ) than soteriological (of the manner of salvation), and

in a way that might be considered to be more typically characteristic of the Alexandrian Fathers,

who insisted on the unity of the Incarnate Word, in the transfiguration of his humanity, and in

the necessarily close relationship between the doctrine of the Incarnation and the salvation of

the world.96 For Chrysostom this would be understood in terms of the divine condescension or

synkatabasis. Hans Boersma explains:

The historical incarnation therefore is viewed as a paradigm for the nature of the

Scriptures: God’s message is inextricably fused in the human message of the text.

God accommodates himself to the reader in the interpretive encounter, thus

providing a divine pedagogy for the reader’s edification and spiritual life. Divine

synkatabasis characterizes all of God’s dealings with humanity, according to

96
B.J. King, Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers: Shaping Doctrine in Nineteenth-Century England (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009), 98–126.

178
 Chrysostom. The result is a profound sense that the human form matters, whenever

and wherever God meets up with human beings.97

We could say that Newman is closely following Chrysostom’s explanation of the nature of

συγκατάβασις, when Chrysostom writes: “What is this synkatabasis? It is when God appears

and makes himself known, not as he is, but in the way one incapable of beholding him is able

to look upon him. In this way, God reveals himself proportionally to the weakness of those

who behold him.”98 In the Apologia, Newman takes up this notion of accommodation to human

comprehension, in precisely this way in which it so often evident in Chrysostom’s

formulations, when he speaks about “what may be called, in a large sense of the word, the

sacramental system;99 that is, the doctrine that material phenomena are both the types and the

instruments of real things unseen.”100 Here, in speaking of a “system”, Newman expresses the

notion that the whole of reality is not limited to just what we see, but can potentially contain

an element, and possibly even an essential element, which is, and which remains, invisible. In

this, all material reality simultaneously reveals, and yet veils its truth which is ultimately

contained in a spiritual and invisible world, which is nonetheless present. Newman describes

it thus:

There are two worlds, “the visible, and the invisible,” as the Creed speaks,— the

world we see, and the world we do not see; and the world we do not see as really

exists as the world we do see. It really exists, though we see it not … another world,

quite as far-spreading, quite as close to us, and more wonderful …. The world of

97
H. Boersma, Scripture as Real Presence: Sacramental Exegesis in the Early Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2017), 68.
98
Chrysostom, De incomp. 3.15 (my own translation).
99
My emphasis.
100
Apo., 18.

179
 spirits then, though unseen, is present; present, not future, not distant. It is not above

the sky, it is not beyond the grave; it is now and here … Eternity was not distant

because it reached to the future; nor the unseen state without its influence on us,

because it was impalpable.101

There is a deep-seated connection and relationship between these two worlds. It is not a case

of a kind of dualism pulling apart two dimensions which are in continual competition with one

another, or the separating of a union of accidents; but rather, there is a genuine coincidentia

oppositorum (a coincidence of opposites) in the reality of things, a polarity which Newman

perceives as being visible and yet invisible, material and yet spiritual, manifest and yet hidden,

temporal and yet eternal. For Newman, the continuity between these two poles is the

characteristic of their sacramentality. Chrysostom would express it in this way: “It is called

mystery, because what we believe is not the same as what we see; one thing we see, and another

we believe. For such is the nature of mysteries.”102

Newman would hold that it is part of our intuitive capacity as humans to be able to apprehend

the deepest meaning of the world we observe. This might be understood as a somewhat

“platonic” vision of things: a material and visible world which hides a spiritual and invisible

world which is ideal and immutable, and of which the visible is just a pale reflection. In fact,

Newman, in his own day, was known by some people as the “Plato of Oxford”, particularly

after he wrote the intensely autobiographical novel, Loss and Gain (1848), which self-

consciously adopts a dialogical structure somewhat reminiscent of Plato’s dialogues.103 For

101
P.S., iv.13, “The Invisible World,” (1837).
102
Chrysostom, In 1 Cor. 7.2; NPNF.
103
E. Block, “Venture and Response: The Dialogical Strategy of Newman’s Loss and Gain,” in Critical Essays
on John Henry Newman, ed. E. Block (Victoria: University of Victoria, 1992), 23–38.

180
Plato, the invisible world is a world of ideas. Newman would hold that for the Christian, the

world is a place of real and free persons who are created and guided by the Providence of God.

For Newman, the invisible world is spiritual not only because it is not material, but very

particularly because it is personal:

This is the law of Providence here below; it works beneath a veil, and what is visible

in its course does but shadow out at most, and sometimes obscures and disguises

what is invisible …. It is not too much to say that this is the one great rule on which

the Divine Dispensations with mankind have been and are conducted, that the

visible world is the instrument, yet the veil, of the world invisible, the veil, yet still

partially the symbol and index: so that all that exists or happens visibly, conceals

and yet suggest, and above all subserves, a system of persons, facts, and events

beyond itself.104

The notion of the veil, and the sense of what lies behind the veil, are obviously allusions which

Newman draws from descriptions of the Temple in Scripture. He expands his sacramental

treatment of this idea by his use of expressions like shadow out, obscure, disguise, symbol,

index, concealment, suggestion, in order to make distinctions, without separating the visible

from the invisible; furthermore, he uses expressions like instrument, and subserve, to illustrate

the manner in which the concrete action of the invisible world is made manifest in the visible

world. Moreover, he shows that the invisible world is not just made up of “things” but of

persons, of facts, and of events. For Chrysostom, these person, facts and events, are first

evidenced in the Genesis creation account, and it is there that he sees God’s initial revelation

of himself in the very act of creation:

104
Ess., ii, “Milman’s View of Christianity (1841),” 190–92.

181
 So recognizing our limitations, and the fact that what is said refers to God, let us

accept the words as equivalent to speaking about God; let us not reduce the divine

to the shape of bodies and the structure of limbs, but understand the whole narrative

in a manner appropriate to God.105

For Newman, there is more of a sense of God gradually, but sometimes suddenly, revealing

himself in the dynamic unfolding of history:

When the Angels appeared to the shepherds, it was a sudden appearance…. How

wonderful a sight …. Such are the power and virtue hidden in things which are seen,

and at God’s will they are manifested.106

Newman considers that these invisible realities are continually exercising an influence over the

visible world, and sooner or later they will invade it totally as a result of an irresistible process

which is continually under way by which the Deus absconditus (the God who is hidden)

progressively makes himself known:

We are reminded of the noiseless course of God's providence,—His tranquil

accomplishment, in the course of nature, of great events long designed; and again,

of the suddenness and stillness of His visitations…. In every age the world is

profane and blind, and God hides His providence, yet carries it forward…. Lay up

105
Chrysostom, In Gen. hom. 13.9, trans. R.C. Hill (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2010),
173.
106
P.S., iv.13.

182
 deep in our hearts the recollection, how mysteriously little things are in this world

connected with great; how single moments, improved or wasted, are the salvation

or ruin of all-important interests.107

According to the Scriptures, and Christian tradition, the physical world in its materiality is but

the outer clothing of a world which is in its essence totally spiritual, and without which the

existence of matter would be incomprehensible, and the essence of the cosmos would fall into

oblivion. 108Newman expresses it thus:

I do not pretend to say, that we are told in Scripture what Matter is; but I affirm,

that as our souls move our bodies, be our bodies what they may, so there are

Spiritual Intelligences which move those wonderful and vast portions of the

natural world which seem to be inanimate…. Every breath of air and ray of light

and heat, every beautiful prospect, is, as it were, the skirts of their garments, the

waving of the robes of those whose faces see God in heaven.109

Chrysostom adopts similar formulations to this110 when he considers how God uses beauty in

the world, to which we are all susceptible, and to which we are all instinctively attracted, to

107
P.S., ii.10, “Secrecy and Suddenness of Divine Visitations.”
108
See Peter Abelard, Theologia ‘Scholarium’ 123–156 (PL 178.1012C–1021C); William of Conches,
Philosophia mundi I (PL 30.1130 C–D). See also, J. Zachhuber, “The World Soul in Early Christian
Thought,” (accessed at https://www.academia.edu/5977922/The_world_soul_in_early_Christian_thought).
109
P.S., ii, 29, “The Powers of Nature.”
110
Chrysostom, In Gen. hom. 2.6.

183
make us aware of an aspect of his truth,111 but he is also at pains to exhort us not to try and

explain all those things in creation which God has clearly shrouded in mystery:

Let us accept what is said with much gratitude, not overstepping the proper limit

nor busying ourselves with matters beyond us; this is the besetting weakness of

enemies of the truth, wishing as they do to assign every matter to their own

reasoning, and lacking the realization that it is beyond the capacity of human nature

to plumb God’s creation.112

This basically literalist reading of the Genesis narrative does not necessarily highlight a

sacramental understanding of creation, in the first instance, although Chrysostom’s warning of

the danger of over-interpretation is surely an indication that he is aware of that hermeneutic. In

assessing Chrysostom’s catechesis on creation, as represented by the Homilies on Genesis,

some commentators have consequently taken a negative view of their effectiveness.113

Newman, on the other hand, lived in a very different age, at a time of rationalist scientism

which saw a strict separation between reason and faith, both isolating them and potentially

setting them in opposition to one another: positing the idea that the visible world, and that

which may be deduced from it, belongs to reason, while the invisible world and that which may

be believed of it belongs to faith:

111
This concept is explored at length in relation to Newman in the study by G. Nicholls, Unearthly Beauty: The
Aesthetic of St. John Henry Newman (Leominster: Gracewing, 2019).
112
Chrysostom, In Gen. hom. 2.5, 4, 28c, trans. Hill, Homilies on Genesis 1–17, 32; cf. In Gen. hom. 3.5–6, 4.6,
5.9.
113
I. Sandwell, “How to Teach Genesis 1.1–19: John Chrysostom and Basil of Caesarea on the Creation of the
World,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 19.4 (2011): 539–64.

184
 This is the danger of many philosophical pursuits, now in fashion, and

recommended zealously to the notice of large portions of the community, hitherto

strangers to them,—chemistry, geology, and the like; the danger, that is, of resting

in things seen, and forgetting unseen things, and our ignorance about them.114

In Newman’s theological view of the cosmos, the notion of that which is “sacramental” is

synonymous with that which is “analogical”, because he sees an analogy between visible and

invisible realities, which he would go on to posit is God’s “economic plan” for Revelation:

Origen writes:

The very idea of an analogy between the separate works of God leads to the

conclusion that the system which is of less importance is economically or

sacramentally connected with the more momentous system.115

Thus, Newman establishes his sacramental view as a principle which is applicable to all reality.

He identifies a principal source for this view in the Fathers of the Church, and most especially

the Alexandrian Greek Fathers,116 when he writes:

The broad philosophy of Clement and Origen carried me away…Some portions of

their teaching, magnificent in themselves, came like music to my inward ear, as if

the response to ideas, which, with little external to encourage them, I had cherished

so long. These were based on the mystical or sacramental principle, and spoke of

114
P.S., 29, 359.
115
Newman citing Origen, Cels. 4.14 in Apo., 9.
116
King, Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers.

185
 the various Economies or Dispensations of the Eternal. I understood these passages

to mean that the exterior world, physical and historical, was but the manifestation

to our senses of realities greater than itself. Nature was a parable: Scripture was an

allegory: pagan literature, philosophy, and mythology, properly understood, were

but a preparation for the Gospel…. There had been a directly divine dispensation

granted to the Jews; but there had been in some sense a dispensation carried on in

favour of the Gentiles.117

Firstly, he speaks of the mystical or sacramental principle using words which evoke the Greek

concept of μυστήριον, and the Latin notion of sacramentum (the latter being a translation of

the former) to express a reality which is both visible and invisible. The Greek Fathers, in

general, considered a Christian believer to be a mystic, that is, someone who can see beyond

this visible world. For this reason, the Greek Fathers are often described as dioreticus

(discerning), as they look beyond the physical appearance of things in an attempt to discern the

heart of the matter.118 In pursuing this train of thought, Newman cites Origen and Clement of

Alexandria in support of his own position. For Origen, all visible things are “sacraments” of

invisible things, and the visible world is in itself a mystery.119 Henri De Lubac goes as far as to

say that for a correct interpretation of Origen, we have to turn to Newman’s Apologia. 120

Following Origen, Newman says that

nature is a parable and that we must interpret Scripture as an allegory, that is, in the

mystical sense. Concerning Clement, Newman says that: Christianity, not

117
Apo., 26–27.
118
From διοράω, “to see inside”, “to see clearly”, “to distinguish”, “to discern”, “to know thoroughly”.
119
Origen, Philokalia 23.
120
Apo., 343.

186
 Christianity only, but all God’s dealings with His creatures, have two aspects, one

external, one internal. What one of the earliest Fathers says of its highest ordinance,

is true of it altogether, and of all other divine dispensations: they are twofold,

“having one part heavenly, and one part earthly” (II Clem 14).121

Newman holds that the Fathers, in general, spoke about the exterior world, as not only physical,

but also as a world which is historical, in that it bears history. From this, it is reasonable to

suppose that sacramentality is to be found both in nature and also in history, for God has

revealed himself in both of them. In fact, the Fathers treat the notion of history not only in

considering God’s nature, but also his immutability. They distinguished between sεολογία,

which is immutable, and οἰκονομία, which is historical. Origen explains that “God is

unchangeable in his essence and descends to human affairs by the economy of his Providence

( τῆ προνοίᾳ καὶ τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ).”122 Newman adds: “Almighty God did not all at once introduce

the Gospel to the world, and thereby gradually prepared men for its profitable reception….

This cautious dispensation of the truth, after the manner of a discreet and vigilant steward, is

denoted by the word ‘economy.’”123

Following the Fathers, Newman considers such things as “pagan” literature, philosophy, and

mythology as a very real preparation for the Gospel, opening people up to receive revealed

truth whenever and however they encounter it. In this way, he speaks of a revelation which

favours the Gentiles, that is all those who are not the first recipients of God’s revelation, in the

way that the people of Israel were. This is a stark contrast to what would have been the common

121
Ess., ii.190, citing 2 Clem.14.
122
Origen, Cels. 4.14; ANF.
123
Apo., 343.

187
view of his time which held that because these things are to be found in religions considered

heathen, they cannot be Christian. Newman asserts the absolute contrary, holding it far more

preferable to state because these things are to be found in Christianity, they cannot be

considered to be from the heathen.124

From this historical preparatio evangelica (preparation for the gospel), Newman goes on to

consider the relationship between natural and revealed religion as one of the most important

effects of what might be called “natural religion” on the mind, in preparation for revelation,

and as part of the anticipation that “a revelation will be given.”125 The result is that those who

lived under natural religion “come, not so much to lose what they have, as to gain what they

have not.”126

One of the predispositions Newman identifies as being necessary in order to receive the

Christian revelation is precisely: “a conviction of the reality and momentousness of the unseen

world.”127 Ultimately, this conviction, which can be perceived in natural religion, prepares for

the sacramentality of the historical revelation which reaches its fullness in the revelation of

Christ.128

This is Newman’s way of presenting the historic fact of the Incarnation of the God-Man, who

is “image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15). In this way, Christ is the high point in God’s

sacramental revelation of himself, and as such, the high point of all sacramentality. In this,

124
G.A., 110.
125
G.A., 429–30.
126
Ibid., 245–49.
127
Ibid., 417.
128
Dev., 325.

188
Newman is very much in the line of Athanasius and the other Alexandrians in stating: “The

doctrine of the Incarnation is the announcement of a divine gift conveyed in a material and

visible medium, it being thus that heaven and earth are in the Incarnation united. That is, it

establishes in the very idea of Christianity the sacramental principle as its characteristic.”129

Once more, we see that this sacramentality is not only physical but historical for “it tells us

what its Author is, by telling us what He has done.”130

Chrysostom sees the λόγος as the manner of God’s great act of condescension to humankind,

and the supreme favour which he describes as “ineffable”, by which humankind are enabled to

join the angels in praising God in the language of heaven. In many places where Chrysostom

speaks of Christ in this way as condescension, the text also admits the possibility that he could

also have in mind the act of divine condescension that is the Incarnation. The first of

Chrysostom’s Homilies on Isaiah begins:

How wonderful the gifts of Christ! On high hosts of angels sing praise, on earth in

serried ranks in churches human beings in imitation of them sing the same

praises.on high the seraphim raise the threefold hymn, here-below the multitude of

human beings offer up the same hymn, a joint celebration performed by heavenly

and earthly beings — one thanksgiving, one exultation, one chorus of joy. The

Lord’s ineffable considerate ness, you see, achieved this combination, the Holy

Spirit fused it together, its harmony of voices was woven by the Father’s

benevolence; from on high comes the rhythm of its melodies, and plucked by the

129
Ibid., 325.
130
G.A., 96.

189
 Trinity like a kind of plectrum it gives off a sweet and blessed air, the angelic strain,

the unending symphony.131

One of these fruits “of the Father’s kindly patterning” is the implication of this understanding

of the Incarnation for a Christological sacramentality which goes on to inform Newman’s

ecclesiology when he considers the Church chiefly as “mystery”, that is, in its sacramental

identity:

The unseen world through God’s secret power and mercy encroaches upon this

world; and the Church that is seen is just that portion of it by which it

encroaches132. No harm can come of the distinction of the Church into Visible

and Invisible … as Visible, because consisting (for instance) of clergy and laity—

as Invisible, because resting for its life and strength upon unseen influences and

gifts from Heaven. This is not really to divide into two, any more than to

discriminate (as they say) between concave and convex is to divide a curve line;

which looked at outwardly is convex, but looked at inwardly, concave.133

Newman dwells on the Church as the Communion of Saints, her visible and invisible beings,

and says “He loves the unseen company of believers, who loves those who are seen.”134 These

same notions also find an echo in his comments about the Church’s liturgy:

131
Chrysostom, In Is.1, trans. R.C. Hill, Homilies on Isaiah and Jeremiah, (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox
Press, 2003), 47.
132
P.S., iv.11, “The Communion of Saints.”
133
Ibid., iii.16, “The Church Visible and Invisible.”
134
Ibid., iv.11, “The Communion of Saints.”

190
 The usages and ordinances of the Church do not exist for their own sake; they do

not stand of themselves; they are not sufficient for themselves; …they are not

appointed as ultimate ends; but they are dependent on an inward substance; they

protect a mystery; they defend a dogma; they represent an idea; … they are the

channels of grace. They are the outward shape of an inward reality or fact.135

This sacramental vision is ultimately referred to the human being as a composite reality of body

and soul, matter and spirit, the visible and the invisible, that is, an anthropology which is both

metaphysical and theological: “Also by the fact of an Incarnation we are taught that matter is

an essential part of us, and, as well as mind, is capable of sanctification.”136 Such a sacramental

vision, for Newman, is ultimately what is implied in the vision of faith, that is, a human

response to God’s revelation, the acceptance of the invisible:

This is that other world, which the eyes reach not unto, but faith only.137 Whereas the

gifts of the Gospel are invisible, Faith is their proper recipient … the peculiarity of

our condition in this life, as Sight will be in the world to come …. Whatever be the

particular faculty or frame of mind denoted by the word, certainly Faith is regarded

in Scripture as the chosen instrument connecting heaven and earth.138

Rylaarsdam observes that: “Unlike Origen, Chrysostom assumed that every believer is capable

of using ‘the eyes of the soul’ … which he also refers as ‘spiritual eyes’ … or ‘eyes of faith.’”139

135
Diff., i.215–16.
136
Dev., 326.
137
P.S., iv.13.
138
U.S., x.1.3.4.
139
Rylaarsdam, John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy, 244.

191
Newman speaks of “the eyes of faith” and “the light of faith” in this way when he cites Aquinas:

“This is likewise the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas: ‘The light of Faith makes things seen

that are believed.’”140 And he explains:

You ask what it is you need, besides eyes, in order to see the truths of revelation: I

will tell you at once; you need light. Not the keenest eyes can see in the dark. Now,

though your mind be the eye, the grace of God is the light; and you will as easily

exercise your eyes in this sensible world without the sun, as you will be able to

exercise your mind in the spiritual world without a parallel gift from without.141

Newman’s thought is clearly summarized when he says that: “All that is seen—the world, the

Bible, the Church, the civil polity, and man himself—are types, and, in their degree and place,

representatives and organs of an unseen world, truer and higher than themselves.” 142 In

reflecting on the sacramentality of the Incarnation, Newman does go on to identify a dogmatic

principle when he writes that:

Another principle involved in the doctrine of the Incarnation, viewed as taught or

as dogmatic, is the necessary use of language, e.g. of the text of Scripture, in a

second or mystical sense. Words must be made to express new ideas, and are

invested with a sacramental office.143

140
Dev., 336 (see Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II.q1, a4, ad3; a5, ad1; III.q.55.2.1).
141
Mix., ix, “Illuminating Grace.”
142
Ess., ii.193.
143
Dev., 325.

192
Once again, there are considerable resonances with Chrysostom’s thought in this idea of God’s

Word as condescension, for Chrysostom sees the Word more particularly as God’s

conversation with humanity. Clearly, the Scriptures upon which Chrysostom drew for his

homilies are likewise the Word of God, divinely inspired, 144 that it is written by the Holy

Spirit,145 and as such is a communication of the Heavenly Father with humanity.146 Chrysostom

locates the first moment of inspiration at the very opening of the person-to-person relationship

which indicates divine revelation for him. In this, his vision of inspiration is two-directional:

Instructing his flock on the sacred text he not only looks back from it to this first moment, but

he also recognizes an on-going effect on the recipient (and medium) of the initial revelation

whenever it is subsequently propounded by word of mouth, such as in his own preaching.

Chrysostom identified the two places in the life of the Christians where this convergence is

most obviously located as being persevering in professing the Christian faith, and social action

in the everyday-ness of our lives. Authentic Christian witness expressed in moral action is seen

as the consequence of believer’s life in Christ and a way in which the life of faith is made

“sacramentally” evident through social action. Chrysostom frequently emphasizes the principle

of sacramentality by which charity ensures that communion may be the sort of sharing in which

every care is taken to see that the poor have what they need. In considering the sacramental

principal in Newman’s thought, Gerard Magill identifies a pointer to a further principle: “The

sacramental principle encapsulated two complementary concepts: the mystery of God’s grace

144
Chrysostom, In illud: Salutate Priscillam et Aquilam.
145
See R.C. Hill, St John Chrysostom’s Teaching on Inspiration in his Old Testament Homilies, Dissertatio ad
Lauream in Facultate S. Theologia, Pontificia Studioruim Universitas a S. Thoma Aquinate in Urbe, 1981, 84ff;
also, “St John Chrysostom’s Teaching on Inspiration in 'Six Homilies On Isaiah,” Vigiliae Christianae 21.1
(1967): 19–37.

146
Ibid., 1.1.

193
working through the limitations of human reality; and the gradual dispensing of divine

providence in the human condition.”147 In Newman’s own words: “The sacramental principle

sheds light on his concern with salvation during his the manifestation to our senses of realities

greater than itself.”148

5.4. The Principle of Divine Providence

As a synthesis of the theological principles we have considered thus far, Newman identified

the rock on which these principles all stand: the Providence of God. The Dominican theologian

Jan Walgrave considers Providence, as such, to be the main principle in Newman’s theology.149

It is certainly evident in the manner in which he faces the changing fortunes of the Church in

the course of her history:

Christianity has been too often in what seemed deadly peril, that we should fear

for it any new trial now. So far is certain; on the other hand, what is uncertain, and

in these great contests commonly is uncertain, and what is commonly a great

surprise, when it is witnessed, is the particular mode by which, in the event,

Providence rescues and saves His elect inheritance…. Commonly the Church has

nothing more to do than to go on in her own proper duties, in confidence and

peace; to stand still and to see the salvation of God.150

147
G. Magill, Religious Morality in John Henry Newman: Hermeneutics of the Imagination (Cham: Springer,
2014), 23.
148
Apo., 36.
149
J.H. Walgrave and A.V. Littledale, Newman The Theologian: The Nature of Belief and Doctrine as Exemplified
in His Life and Works (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1960), 221–25.
150
Ward, Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman, ii.462.

194
And elsewhere, in the Letters & Diaries:

The Catholic Roman Church presents a continuous history of fearful falls and as

strange and successful recoveries. We have a series of catastrophes each unlike the

others and that diversity is the pledge that the present ordeal, though different from

any of the preceding, will be overcome, in God’s good time.151

Newman was progressively able to explain, at least to his own satisfaction, that the loss and

gain which God permits both in the corporate life of the Church, and in an individual life of

each person, is itself an indication of God’s providential plan for that person, given that it seems

to be the rule of God’s Providence that we should succeed by failure:152

The Church has ever seemed dying … but triumphed, against all human calculation

…. It is impossible to forecast the future, when you have no precedents, and the

history of Christianity is a succession of fresh and fresh trials, never the same twice.

We can only say [as David] “The Lord that delivered me from the lion and the bear,

He will deliver me from the Philistine” (1 Samuel 17:37).153

This same disposition towards deliverance from danger and adversity seems also to be very

evident in Chrysostom’s formulations concerning God’s Providence. During the last three

years of his life, while Chrysostom was in exile in the Armenian mountain village of Cucusus,

he not only suffered the privations of any physical comfort, but he lived under the almost

151
L.D., xxviii.91 (1876).
152
Ibid., xxx.142 (1882).
153
Ibid., xxviii.196 (1877).

195
continual threat of incursions from the Isaurians.154 Writing to his close friend, the deaconess

Olympias,155 he describes the circumstances thus:

For the winter, which has become more than commonly severe, brought on a storm

of internal disorder even more distressing, and during the last two months I have

been no better than one dead, rather worse … in spite of endless contrivances I

could not shake off the pernicious effects of the cold … I underwent extreme

sufferings, perpetual vomiting following headache, loss of appetite, and constant

sleeplessness.156

The bleakness of this description belies the fact that these very circumstances produced from

Chrysostom a major theological treatise On Divine Providence, the last of his major writings,

addressed “to those troubled (literally “scandalized”) by the iniquities committed.”157 He sums

it up when he writes: “the providence of God everywhere directs all things according to its own

wisdom.”158 And elsewhere: “all things are ordered by the providence of God, who, for reasons

known to himself, permits some things and actively works others.”159 Here the idea of God

permitting things to happen is a common-place theological idea that although God has endowed

human beings with free-will, he is able to intervene to prevent such free agents from acting in

a particular way, but instead he, by virtue of his sovereign will, chooses to permit their freedom.

154
See Diehl, C., “Leo III and the Isaurian Dynasty (717–802)”, in The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. IV,
Bury, J.B., eds. Tanner, J.R, Previte-Orton, C.W., Brooke, Z.N., (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923),
1–26.
155
I shall consider Chrysostom’s correspondence with Olympias in Chapter 6.
156
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp. 9*; NPNF (I use the numbering of the Maurist edition Newman consulted—I explain
this in Chapter 6).
157
Chrysostom, De prov. Dei, opening formula (my own translation).
158
Chrysostom, De stat. 6.4 (my own translation).
159
Chrysostom, In Act. 23 (my own translation).

196
In this way, everything ultimately remains under God’s control as “all things are ordered by

the providence of God.” Chrysostom would consider that our decisions, and our actions are in

fact permeated by this sense of God’s provident will: “it is clear that it is not our diligence, but

rather the providence of God which effects all, even in those things where we seem to be

active.”160

Chrysostom explains that God’s providence is evident as much in small things as in great: “His

providence is not only over all things in common, but also over each thing in particular,”161

right down to the smallest detail: “in discoursing about his providence, and signifying how

even in little things he is the most excellent of artists, He said that he clothes the grass of the

field.”162 In this way, Divine Providence is, for Chrysostom, a guiding principle in the universe.

Philosophically, he considers this the most acceptable explanation, in the light of other possible

explanations, such as: the idea that things are governed purely by chance; the notion that

demons control everything, possibly through the planets, and the Gnostic belief that the creative

power at work in the world is not God but the demiurge. Chrysostom rejects all three

suggestions: “For some say that all things are borne along by chance, while others commit the

providence of the universe to devils. Others invent another God besides Him, and some

blasphemously assert that His is an opposing power, and think that His laws are the laws of a

wicked demon.”163 Chrysostom seems to be following Paul in acknowledging God’s sovereign

rule: “‘According to the purpose,’ Paul says, ‘of him who works all things after the counsel of

his will.’ That is to say, he had no after-workings; having modelled all things from the very

160
Chrysostom, In Matt. 21.5 (my own translation).
161
Ibid., 28.4 (my own translation).
162
Ibid., 22.2 (my own translation).
163
Chrysostom, In Jn. 8.20; NPNF.

197
first, thus he leads forward all things ‘according to the counsel of his will.’”164 Chrysostom

accepts the challenge of incorporating bad things into his understanding of Divine Providence.

The first homily On the Power of the Devil strenuously affirms that in those events which we

might call “disasters,” God is still in control:

Hold fast this argument then with me, and let it ever be fixed and immovable in

your minds, that not only when He confers benefits, but even when He chastises,

God is good and loving. For even His chastisements and His punishments are the

greatest part of His beneficence, the greatest form of his providence. Whenever

therefore you see that famines have taken place, and pestilences, and drought and

immoderate rains, and irregularities in the atmosphere, or any other of the things

which chasten human nature, be not distressed, nor be despondent, but worship Him

who caused them, marvel at Him for His tender care. For He who does these things

is such that He even chastens the body that the soul may become sound. Then does

God do these things, says one? God does these things, and even if the whole city,

no, even if the whole universe were here, I will not shrink from saying this. Would

that my voice were clearer than a trumpet, and that it were possible to stand in a

lofty place, and to cry aloud to all men, and to testify that God does these things. I

do not say these things in arrogance, but I have the prophet standing at my side,

crying and saying, “There is no evil in the city which the Lord hath not done” (Amos

3:6).165

164
Chrysostom, In Eph. 2, 1.11–14; NPNF.
165
Chrysostom, Diab. tent. 1.4; NPNF [slightly adapted].

198
His concept of theodicy, and therefore, the challenges it presents for a belief in Providence,

embraces the idea that when God incorporates seemingly bad or even hurtful things into his

providential plan, he is doing so in a manner which is analogous to the doctor who sometimes

has to employ painful means to bring about a desired improvement. We accept, in such a

situation, that such suffering is necessarily ordered towards the good: “How is it not then

preposterous to call him a ‘physician’ who does so many ‘evil’ things, but to blaspheme God,

if at any time He does one of these things, if He bring on either famine or death, and to reject

His providence over all?” 166 In this way, he speaks of Divine Providence in terms of a

“medicine” which at times can be hard to take, but is ultimately effective in restoring health:

It is more nourishing than bread, it restores to health better than medicine, and it

cauterizes more vigorously than fire without causing any pain at all. It restrains

the foul-smelling streams of wicked thoughts; sharper than iron, it cuts out without

pain away that which is rotten. And it does this without causing any money to be

spent and without increasing poverty. Thus, having prepared this medicine, we

are sending it on to everyone, and I know that everyone will benefit from the

treatment, provided they pay heed with exactitude and right-mindedness to what

is said.167

In the treatise, On Divine Providence, Chrysostom identifies a number of key concepts which

demonstrate his particular understanding of the relationship between God’s providence and

nature. He begins by acknowledging that the sensibility of an individual person determines, to

166
Ibid., 1.5, 250, [slightly adapted].
167
Chrysostom, De prov. Dei, prologue, trans. Monk Moses, John Chrysostom: On the Providence of God
(Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2015), 31–32.

199
a large extent, how that person comprehends God’s providential action in their own life. To the

extent that a person is able to enter into this interpretive exercise, they will have a sense of

God’s providential plan for their lives. Furthermore, this fundamental sensibility can be guided

and formed by the teachings of Christianity to maximize a person’s grasp of this aspect of their

own lives. In this regard, he encourages people to learn to think and live like a Christian,

interpreting life’s experience through the prism of the gospel, in such a way that God’s

benevolence is the presumed motivation behind those things that happen to us. Chrysostom

adds that if this approach is adopted, as the default setting of a person’s sensibilities, they will

consequently reap great benefits.168

In this way, the person has come to reason as a Christian whose every perception has been

shaped and guided by the central tenets of their faith. They will no longer judge simply on the

basis of sensory data, but they will genuinely perceive the reality which these external accidents

convey. For this reason, those who are wise will be prudent about avoiding a premature

judgement concerning God’s action in an individual life, even in their own life. They will

cultivate a certain indifference towards whatever God allows to transpire, convinced that such

events are perceived to be good or bad as a consequence of the response that we make to them.

He also counsels that any curiosity on our part to get to the heart of the meaning of particular

events or circumstance must be tempered by patience as things unfold: “If you are so curious

and inquisitive [about God’s reasonings], wait for the final outcome and see how things turn

out. And do not be thrown into confusion, do not be troubled at the start.”169 In her introduction

to the critical edition of the text, Anne-Marie Malingrey suggests that the concept of Divine

Providence is an identifiable element in much of Chrysostom’s theological thought but that it

168
Ibid.
169
Ibid., ix, 77—79.

200
is one of two poles by which he reasons theologically, the other being the limits of human

intellect which is continually being faced with that which it cannot comprehend.170

In Newman’s theological formulations, the doctrines of the Incarnation and Divine Providence

are intimately linked. He expounds this in his sermon, “A Particular Providence as Revealed

in the Gospel,” in which he explains how before the Incarnation, humankind would only have

been able to perceive God’s providential action in a generic way, whereas following the

Incarnation, God’s providential plan for each person is made manifest:

Indeed such was the condition of man before Christ came, favoured with some

occasional notices of God’s regard for individuals, but, for the most part,

instructed merely in His general Providence, as seen in the course of human

affairs…. But, under the New Covenant, this distinct regard, vouchsafed by

Almighty God to every one of us, is clearly revealed.171

Newman would say that God revealed himself “no longer through the mere powers of nature,

or the maze of human affairs,” but “in a sensible form, as a really existing individual being.

And, at the same time, He forthwith began to speak to us as individuals.”172 Newman would

have been the first to recognize how difficult this can be, particularly when circumstances are

not encouraging or we suffer real hardship, or everything and everyone around us seems to be

unravelling:

170
A.-M. Malingrey, ed., Jean Chrysostome: Sur la providence de Dieu, SC 79 (Paris: Cerf, 1961), 15.
171
P.S., iii.115.
172
Ibid.

201
 If we allow ourselves to float down the current of the world, living as other men,

gathering up our notions of religion here and there, as it may be, we have little or

no true comprehension of a particular providence. We conceive that Almighty God

works on a large plan; but we cannot realize the wonderful truth that He sees and

thinks of individuals. We cannot believe He is really present everywhere, that He

is wherever we are, though unseen.173

Somehow, the challenge, the question, is, in itself, a first step towards the realization of God’s

providential plan which finds its highest expression in the Incarnation, by which God “has

taken upon Him the thoughts and feelings of our own nature.”174 Newman, who personally,

like Chrysostom, had an immense opportunity to put this into action, writes often of the hidden

and silent nature of God’s Providence, and therefore the need for faith if we are going to be

able to see it. “This is the law of providence here below,” he explains, “it works beneath a veil,

and what is visible in its course does but shadow out at most, and sometimes obscures and

disguises what is invisible.”175

Newman observes how so often the Scriptures record that God’s Providence is communicated

“silently and secretly; so that we do not discern them at the time, except by faith…” 176

Rylaarsdam comments on this exercise of sacramental vision when he observes that

“[a]ccording to Chrysostom’s biblical interpretation, one of God’s methods of adapting to

people is to lead them from things perceptible to the senses to the invisible realities and spiritual

173
Ibid., 116.
174
Ibid., 120.
175
Ess., ii.190.
176
P.S., iv.257.

202
truth which they signify.”177 Newman concurs with this when he writes, “what takes place in

the providences of daily life. Events happen to us pleasant or painful; we do not know at the

time the meaning of them, we do not see God’s hand in them. If indeed we have faith, we

confess what we do not see, and take all that happens as His…”178

Newman was aware “that God’s presence is not discerned at the time when it is upon us, but

afterwards, when we look back upon what is gone and over.” 179 As a consequence, he

developed, as an aspect of his own reflexive understanding of himself and the experience he

had lived, an ability to look back over what has happened, reflecting in such a way that God’s

providential action is recognized with gratitude. He proposed this to anybody who was open

enough to receive this teaching: “Let a person who trusts he is on the whole serving God

acceptably, look back upon his past life, and he will find how critical were moments and acts,

which at the time seemed the most indifferent.” 180 In this way, it is evident that Newman

cultivated, as a matter of personal discipline the “careful memory of all He has done for us.”181

He goes as far to record this manner of marking past events when he writes in his diary on

notes in his diary on 22 January 1822, that he had made a mental note to remember certain

events as “days or seasons of mercy, and to commemorate them in succeeding years.”182 This

is very striking when one considers not only the joyful events of Newman’s life, but also the

considerable loss that he suffered in his life, and most particularly following his decision to

become a catholic. He lost the respect and affection of many family and friends and yet, in a

177
Rylaarsdam, John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy, 243.
178
P.S., iv.258.
179
Ibid., 256.
180
Ibid., 261.
181
Ibid., v.82.
182
A.W., 179.

203
life whose every thought and action seem to have been recorded, there never seems to have

been a moment when he lost faith in the supreme and unfailing providence of God in his life.

This explains why, as a theological leitmotiv, God’s Providence is a thread that runs through

much of Newman’s thought, and is just as evident in early sermons as it is in his later devotional

texts. I do not think it is an exaggeration to speak of it as the cornerstone of his theological

thought, well expressed in this moment of his preaching:

God beholds thee individually whosoever thou art. He “calls thee by thy name.” He

sees thee and understands thee as He made thee. He knows what is in thee, all thy

own peculiar feelings and thoughts, thy dispositions and likings, thy strength and

thy weakness. He views thee in thy day of rejoicing and thy day of sorrow. He

sympathizes in thy hopes and thy temptations. He interests Himself in all thy

anxieties and remembrances, all the risings and fallings of thy spirit. …. He notes

thy very countenance, whether smiling or in tears …. Thou canst not shrink from

pain more than He dislikes thee bearing it; and if He puts it on thee, it is as thou

would put it on thyself if thou art wise, for a greater good afterwards …. Thou art

chosen to be His.183

Newman never speaks of Divine Providence in terms which would suggest passivity or a purely

doctrinal grasp of the notion. He rather acknowledges the dynamic quality of this manner in

which God is continually engaging and interacting mercifully with humankind, both

collectively, and individually. Due to this, Newman understood that the only rational response

183
P.S., iii.124–25.

204
to the evidence of God’s providential actions in one’s life is obedience to God’s will which is

thereby being revealed. He develops this theme in the sermon, “Divine Calls,” when he writes:

It were well if we understood this; but we are slow to master the great truth, that

Christ is, as it were, walking among us, and by His hand, or eye, or voice, bidding

us follow Him. We do not understand that His call is a thing which takes place now.

We think it took place in the Apostles’ days; but we do not believe in it, we do not

look out for it in our own case.184

However, he is at pains to stress that “[w]hether we obey His voice or not, He graciously calls

us still.”185 In this, Newman understands that God’s voice is most often heard in the events of

our everyday lives as they unfold before us: “There is nothing miraculous or extraordinary in

His dealings with us. He works through our natural faculties and circumstances of life” This

manner of calling people seems to have been evident throughout the Scriptures and most

particularly in the calling of those who first followed Jesus. Newman recognizes that in this

there is a pattern, if we can see it, for our own lives as well: “What happens to us in providence

is in all essential respects what His voice was to those whom He addressed when on earth…”186

There is, however, a warning that if we are not careful, we can miss the call through

inattentiveness: “let us fear to miss the Saviour, while Simeon and Anna find Him …. Let us

carry this thought into our daily conduct.”187

184
Ibid., viii.24.
185
Ibid., 23.
186
Ibid., 24.
187
Ibid., ii.115.

205
Like Chrysostom, Newman had cause, especially later in his life, to look back over the thread

of God’s providential action in his life. Those mature thoughts, somewhat akin to Chrysostom’s

treatise, On Divine Providence, are to be found in the Meditations and Devotions (1893), a

collection of Newman’s unpublished devotional texts, edited and published posthumously by

the Fathers of the Birmingham Oratory. Among the prayers, we find:

O my God, my whole life has been a course of mercies and blessings shewn to one

who has been most unworthy of them. I require no faith, for I have had long

experience, as to Thy providence towards me. Year after year Thou has carried me

on – removed dangers from my path – recovered me, recruited me, refreshed me,

borne with me, directed me, sustained me. O forsake me not when my strength

faileth me. And Thou never wilt forsake me. I may securely repose upon Thee.188

Casimiro Jiménez Mejía, a recent commentator on the importance of Divine Providence for

Newman, identifies him above all, as a “theologian of experience,” someone who is able to

theologize on the basis of history, as he comes to understand it, as well as the lived experience

of his own life. Jiménez Mejía explains it in these terms:

Lo específico de Newman es que ese Dios personal que le habla al corazón se le

presenta también y sobre todo como Providencia. Newman consideró a Dios-

188
M.D., 421.

206
 Providencia como un personale decisivo en el drama de su agitata existencia

terrena…189

As solid as the certainty of God’s Providence seems to be for Newman, he equally understood

that “the exterior world, physical and historical, was but as gradually unveiling God’s

providence.”190 Newman recognized that this gradual “unveiling” had an obvious implication

for doctrine, as it strove to faithfully continue to express the content of revelation. He

understood this in terms of the next principle for our consideration, the development of

doctrine.

5.5 The Principle of Development

The notion of the development of doctrine has been synonymous with Newman’s name from

the time of his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845/1878). In Newman’s

own words, he understood it to be

the increase and expansion of the Christian Creed and Ritual, and the variations

which have attended the process in the case of individual writers and Churches, are

the necessary attendants on any philosophy or polity which takes possession of the

intellect and heart, and has had any wide or extended dominion; that, from the

nature of the human mind, time is necessary for the full comprehension and

perfection of great ideas; and that the highest and most wonderful truths, though

communicated to the world once for all by inspired teachers, could not be

189
“What is specific to Newman is that this personal God, who speaks to his heart, appears to him also,
and above all, as Providence. Newman considered the God-Providence as a decisive person in the drama
of his hectic earthly existence…”; C. Jiménez Mejía, John Henry Newman: Conversión y Providencia
(Madrid: Digital Reasons, 2019), 126–27 (my own translation).
190
Apo., 36.

207
 comprehended all at once by the recipients, but, as being received and transmitted

by minds not inspired and through media which were human, have required only

the longer time and deeper thought for their full elucidation.191

He was writing at a time before theological modernists such as George Tyrell (1861–1909) and

Alfred Loisy (1857–1940) had “cast the history of dogma in an evolutionist framework.”192

Newman was aware that this hermeneutic was potentially very dangerous in favouring an

unravelling of the doctrinal formulations that are the foundation of Christianity. He equally

acknowledges that history records that doctrinal consensus has not always been easily

achieved, or at least, not without great cost, and he addresses himself to the perennial Protestant

observation that arises from such a reading of history: “There are popes against popes, councils

against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of

fathers against the consent of another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another

age.” 193 Gerard Magill observes that: “Newman presented an original argument in the

Development of Doctrine. His argument reflected upon the complexity of theological history

and was not based on a prior philosophical or theological trend.”194 Daniel Lattier defines

Newman’s understanding of development thus:

Newman’s theory of doctrinal development proposes that divine revelation has

been given once and for all, but that the Church is still growing in its understanding

of this revelation. This growth sometimes results in new doctrinal definitions, which

191
Dev., 29–30.
192
S.L. Jaki, Newman’s Challenge (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 283.
193
Dev., 4, citing W. Chillingworth, The Religion of Protestants: A Safe Way to Salvation (London: Leonard
Lichfield, 1638), 6.
194
Magill, Religious Morality, 100.

208
 require confirmation of their truth by an infallible authority. The essence

of Newman’s theory has been received as compatible with Roman Catholic

theology, and constitutes a hermeneutical lens through which Roman Catholics

view the categories of revelation, Tradition, and authority.195

Newman engages with this potential quandary by enunciating a principle of authentic

development, which arises logically from the two previous sacramental and dogmatic

principles. To be clear, for Newman, development is understood in sacramental terms as the

temporal dimension of the world created by God for human beings, in which each person is a

homo viator (the one who travels), the one to whom God is continually adapting the

communication of his revelation, which is for this reason both historical and progressive.

Development is also dogmatic in that it is the doctrinal dimension of God’s revelation,

delivered through human language, which in its turn the Church receives and makes explicit in

the Creed and dogmas in the course of her own history: “The whole Bible, not its prophetical

portions only, is written on the principle of development. As the Revelation proceeds, it is ever

new, yet ever old.”196 And elsewhere: “From the analogy and example of Scripture, we may

fairly conclude that Christian doctrine admits of formal, legitimate, and true developments, that

is, of developments contemplated by its Divine Author.”197

Thus, we clearly see in this notion of development the action of Divine Providence:

195
D. Lattier, John Henry Newman and Georges Florovsky: An Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue on the
Development of Doctrine, PhD thesis, Duquesne University (Pittsburgh, PA, 2012); cf. P. Misner, “Newman‘s
Concept of Revelation and the Development of Doctrine,” Heythrop Journal 11.1 (1971): 32–47.
196
Dev., 65.
197
Ibid., 74. See also Stern, Jean, Bible et Tradition chez Newman: Aux Origines De La Théorie Du
Développement, (Paris: Aubier, 1967).

209
 Revelation itself has provided in Scripture the main outlines and also large details

of the dogmatic system …. The question, indeed, at first sight occurs, why such

inspired statements are not enough without further developments; but in truth, when

Reason has once been put on the investigation, it cannot stop till it has finished it;

one dogma creates another, by the same right by which it was itself created; the

Scripture statements are sanctions as well as informants in the inquiry; they begin

and they do not exhaust.198

Newman goes on to present a critique to the generally protestant view held at his time, in

contrast to what he believes to be the orthodox notion of a living tradition in the Church:

Scripture, I say, begins a series of developments which it does not finish; that is to

say, in other words, it is a mistake to look for every separate proposition of the

Catholic doctrine in Scripture… Realizing is the very life of true developments; it

is peculiar to the Church, and the justification of her definitions.199

In the Apologia, he identifies two instances of true development of doctrine:

The idea of the Blessed Virgin was as it were magnified in the Church of Rome as

time went on,—but so were all the Christian ideas; as that of the Blessed Eucharist.

The whole scene of pale, faint, distant Apostolic Christianity is seen in Rome, as

198
U.S., xv.335.
199
Ibid., 335–37.

210
 through a telescope or magnifier. The harmony of the whole, however, is of course

what it was.200

As he continues this train of thought, he arrives at the conclusion which eventually becomes

the grounds for his conversion to the Roman Catholic Church:

I saw that the principle of development not only accounted for certain facts, but was

in itself a remarkable philosophical phenomenon, giving a character to the whole

course of Christian thought. It was discernible from the first years of the Catholic

teaching up to the present day, and gave to that teaching a unity and individuality.

It served as a sort of test, which the Anglican could not exhibit, that modern Rome

was in truth ancient Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, just as a

mathematical curve has its own law and expression.201

Newman was of the view that Anglicanism could not pass this test. He was a strong defender

of the importance of history (in his guise as an historian), and he conceived history in terms of

theological method, which we can see when he writes on the concept of Protestantism:

Some writers have gone on to give reasons from history for their refusing to appeal

to history … they are forced, whether they will or not, to fall back upon the Bible

as the sole source of Revelation, and upon their own personal private judgment as

the sole expounder of its doctrine …. This one thing at least is certain; whatever

history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever

200
Apo., 196.
201
Ibid., 198.

211
 it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever

there were a safe truth, it is this …. It is shown by the long neglect of ecclesiastical

history in England, which prevails even in the English Church …. To be deep in

history is to cease to be a Protestant.202

In this, a sense of the history of the Church was decisive for Newman’s conversion.203 After

long period of doubts, which became stronger from 1839 onwards, he made the decision in

1844 to write about the question, with the main purpose of answering the Anglican objection:

Rome has corrupted the purity of faith with new doctrines. The result was the Essay on the

Development of Christian Doctrine, whose central thesis posits the idea that authentic

development is demonstrably faithful to the original idea. He offers the historical “fact” as an

evidence of such development, which differs on the one hand of pure immutability, and of

corruption on the other. He gives a series of seven “notes” which legitimize a development in

terms of guaranteeing its authenticity: 1) Preservation of its Type; 2) Continuity of its

Principles; 3) Its Assimilative Power; 4) Its Logical Sequence; 5) Anticipation of its Future; 6)

Conservative Action of its Past; and, 7) Its Chronic Vigour.

Here, there is an echo of Chrysostom who used the metaphor of a person’s integral

development. The different seasons of growth are compared to the waters of an immense ocean:

202
Dev., 6–8.
203
Cf. O. Chadwick, From Bossuet to Newman: The Idea of Doctrinal Development (London: Cambridge
University Press, 1957); N. Lash, Newman on Development: The Search for an Explanation in History
(Shepherdstown, WV: Patmos,1975); and T. Merrigan, Clear Heads and Holy Hearts: The Religious and
Theological Ideal of John Henry Newman (Louvain: Peeters, 1992).

212
“The first of these seas is childhood.” 204 Certainly, “it is precisely at this early age that

inclinations to vice or virtue are manifest.” In this way the Divine law must be impressed upon

the soul from the beginning “as on a wax tablet.”205 For this reason, the formative years are of

immense importance as they prepare the way for all that follows. For this reason, Chrysostom

recommends: “From the tenderest age, arm children with spiritual weapons and teach them to

make the Sign of the Cross on their forehead with their hand.” 206 Then come the years of

adolescence and youth: “Following childhood is the sea of adolescence, where violent winds

blow … for concupiscence ... grows within us.”207 Then comes the years that bring engagement

and marriage: “Youth is succeeded by the age of the mature person who assumes family

commitments: this is the time to seek a wife.”208 In all of these stages, it is the same person

who grows and develops and although they change in the way that they are externally

perceived, they remain, in essence, the same person.

Newman applies this principle to his consideration of two distinct historical pictures he has in

his mind: firstly, the Catholic Church (of his day), alongside the primitive Catholic Church (of

the Fathers), and then he asks himself if these are portraits of one and the same and Church.

He comes to understand the injunction of Chrysostom, who wrote: “Do not hold aloof from the

Church; for nothing is stronger than the Church. The Church is your hope, your salvation, your

refuge.”209

204
Chrysostom, In Matt. 81.5; NPNF; see also C.L. de Wet, Preaching Bondage: John Chrysostom and the
Discourse of Slavery in Early Christianity (Oakland: University of California Press, 2015), 148–49, for a detailed
discussion of Chrysostom’s view of the ages of humankind.
205
Chrysostom, In Jn. 3.1, cited by Pope Benedict XVI, Great Christian Thinkers: From the Early Church
through the Middle Ages (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 65.
206
Chrysostom, In 1 Cor. 12.7, NPNF.
207
Chrysostom, In Matt. 81.5, NPNF.
208
Ibid.
209
Chrysostom, In Eutr. 2.6; NPNF (slightly adapted).

213
In order to consider this question, he gives instances of several doctrines, especially those

which were refuted by Anglicanism. After his conversion he wrote in 1850: “I do not know

how to convey this to others in one or two paragraphs; it is the living picture which history

presents to us, which is the evidence of the fact.”210

Here, there was no addition but, rather, an unfolding—that which was implicitly believed, came

gradually to be explicitly professed. For Newman, there was a real continuity between

revelation and later dogmatic definitions:

As time goes on, fresh and fresh articles of faith are necessary to secure the

Church’s purity, according to the rise of successive heresies and errors. These

articles were all hidden, as it were, in the Church’s bosom from the first, and

brought out into form according to the occasion. Such was the Nicene explanation

against Arius.211

The Essay consciously coexisted with Newman’s personal history, that is, with his own

development of doctrine. It was the last intellectual effort before his conversion:

I came to the resolution of writing an Essay on Doctrinal Development; and then,

if, at the end of it, my convictions in favour of the Roman Church were not weaker,

of taking the necessary steps for admission into her fold.212

210
Diff., i.379.
211
T.T., I.41, V.M., ii.5 (1834).
212
Apo., 228.

214
He did so in Littlemore, just outside Oxford, on 9 October 1845.

As with the previous sacramental and dogmatic principles, Newman’s thoughts were largely

nurtured by Patristic theology. He found in the Fathers the first sense of a doctrinal

development. Quoting his own Essay, he writes after his conversion that he joined the Catholic

Church simply because he believed it, and it only, to be the Church of the Fathers; because:

Did St. Athanasius or St. Ambrose come suddenly to life, it cannot be doubted what

communion they would mistake, that is, would recognize, “for their own”;—because:

all will agree that these Fathers, with whatever differences of opinion, whatever

protests if you will, would find themselves more at home with such men as St. Bernard

or St. Ignatius Loyola, or with the lonely priest in his lodgings, or the holy sisterhood

of charity, or the unlettered crowd before the altar, than with the rulers or the members

of any other religious community.213

Elsewhere he explains this more fully:

This is the great, manifest, historical phenomenon which converted me,—to which

all particular inquiries converged. Christianity is not a matter of opinion, but an

external fact, entering into, carried out in, indivisible from, the history of the world.

It has a bodily occupation of the world; it is one continuous fact or thing, the same

from first to last, distinct from everything else: to be a Christian is to partake of, to

submit to, this thing; and the simple question was, where, what is this thing in this

age, which in the first age was the Catholic Church? The answer was undeniable;

213
Ess., ii, “Note X Catholicity of Anglican Church.”

215
 the Church called Catholic now, is that very same thing in hereditary descent, in

organization, in principles, in position, in external relations, which was called the

Catholic Church then; name and thing have ever gone together, by an uninterrupted

connection and succession, from then till now.214

He briefly confesses two things of immense importance: “The Fathers made me a Catholic”;215

“And I never should have been a Catholic, had I not received the doctrine of the development

of dogmas.”216 Newman experienced, as a catholic, two events which corroborated all this in a

providential way: the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and the

dogmatic definition of papal infallibility in 1870. The reaction of Anglicans in both cases

provided Newman with an opportunity for apologetic writing in the Essay, which went on to

have a great influence on the theology of twentieth century and beyond. Doctrinal rupture is

not marked as development but as corruption, which Newman identifies as a characteristic of

all heresies. The core of the Essay is this: development is change in continuity. There are no

definitive stagnations or dissolvent changes. Newman says of the Church:

In time it enters upon strange territory; points of controversy alter their bearing;

parties rise and around it; dangers and hopes appear in new relations; and old

principles reappear under new forms. It changes with them in order to remain the

same.217

214
Diff., i.367–68.
215
Diff., ii.24.
216
L.D., xxv.308. See also C.M. Stang, “Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers: Shaping Doctrine in Nineteenth-
Century England,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 18.2 (2010): 339–41.
217
Dev., 40.

216
Newman held that just as the sacramental principle illuminates and distinguishes itself from a

materialistic or dualistic view of reality, and the dogmatic principle is the answer to doctrinal

relativism, so the principle of development explains how orthodox belief negotiates a culture

of change for the sake of change, the mentality of rupture with the past, and even of the refusal

or indifference about the facts of history. Chrysostom recognizes a principle not radically

different from this in his basis assumption that Christ himself brings a development of the

revelation contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, thereby introducing a principle of development

as foundational to the Christian revelation. In the Essay, Newman even cites Chrysostom’s own

recognition of authentic development in the practice of infant baptism as the prime example of

how the Church develops in her understanding of the application of even something as

fundamental as baptism:

One of the passages of St. Chrysostom to which I might refer is this, “We baptize

infants, though they are not defiled with sin, that they may receive sanctity,

righteousness, adoption, heirship, brotherhood with Christ, and may become His

members.” (Aug. contr. Jul. i. 21.) This at least shows that he had a clear view of

the importance and duty of infant baptism, but such was not the case even with

saints in the generation immediately before him. As is well known, it was not

unusual in that age of the Church for those, who might be considered catechumens,

to delay their baptism, as Protestants now delay reception of the Holy Eucharist. It

is difficult for us at this day to enter into the assemblage of motives which led to

this postponement; to a keen sense and awe of the special privileges of baptism

which could only once be received, other reasons would be added,—reluctance to

being committed to a strict rule of life, and to making a public profession of religion,

and to joining in a specially intimate fellowship or solidarity with strangers. But so

217
 it was in matter of fact, for reasons good or bad, that infant baptism, which is a

fundamental rule of Christian duty with us, was less earnestly insisted on in early

times.218

Despite the fact that Yves Congar judged Newman’s Essay to be “the locus classicus for the

question [of doctrinal development],”219 the notion of the development of doctrine with relation

to the Fathers has been contended more recently by theologians of the Orthodox Churches.220

Andrew Louth grapples with the question directly in his published lecture: “Is Development of

Doctrine a Valid Category for Orthodox Theology?”221 In this, Louth quite firmly takes issue

with Newman’s theory of the development of doctrine, which posits that the Church develops

in its understanding of the content of revelation gradually. Although Louth would recognize

that Orthodox commentary on doctrinal development is sparse, he does answer the question

posed in his lecture title in the negative, concluding that the notion of development, as

expressed by Newman, is not consonant with Orthodox theology.

Louth is not alone among more recent Orthodox theologians to offer commentary on this

question. Vladimir Lossky sets himself against those who oppose all the evidence of a

collective progress in the knowledge of the Christian mystery, a progress which Newman

would clearly state to be due to dogmatic development.222 More recently, John Behr expresses

218
Dev., 127.
219
Y. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and Theological Essay, trans. M. Naseby and T.
Rainborough (London: Burns & Oates, 1966), 211.
220
See D.J. Lattier,“The Orthodox Rejection of Doctrinal Development,” Pro Ecclesia 20.4 (2011): 389–410.
221
A. Louth, “Is Development of Doctrine a Valid Category for Orthodox Theology?” in Orthodoxy and Western
Culture: A Collection of Essays Honoring Jaroslav Pelikan on His Eightieth Birthday, ed. V. Hotchkiss and P.
Henry (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2005), 45–63.
222
V. Lossky, “Tradition and Traditions,” in In the Image and Likeness of God, ed. J. Erickson and T. Bird
(Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974), 162.

218
the view, however, that from an Orthodox perspective there is no such thing as dogmatic

development. 223 Although there are certainly commentators who enter into dialogue with

Newman’s concept of development, the Dominican theologian Aidan Nichols sums up the

situation well when he writes that “a majority, it may be, of Orthodox writers register serious

reservations about what they take to be the Catholic theory of doctrinal development.”224

Vladimir Soloviev tackles the question in the context of an extended discussion of ecclesiology

in his essay, “Dogmaticheskoe razvitie tserkvi v sviazi s voprosom o soedinenii tserkvei” 225

(“Development of Dogma in the Church in Connection with the Question of Church Union”),

which probably represents the lengthiest advocacy of the idea of doctrinal development from

an Orthodox theologian. Sergei Bulgakov, in his essay, “Dogmat i dogmatika” (“Dogma and

Dogmatic Theology”), also supports the notion of development as the task of theology.

Dumitru Staniloae also entered the fray with an essay published in the periodical, Sobornost,

in 1969, “The Orthodox Conception of Tradition and the Development of Doctrine,” which

brings to light some distinctive contributions Orthodox theology could potentially make to an

understanding of doctrinal development, but Staniloae does not specifically reference Newman

in the essay.226 Jaroslav Pelikan also wrote of “Newman’s Essay of development [being] the

almost inevitable starting point for an investigation of development of doctrine.”227

223
J. Behr, “Scripture, the Gospel, and Orthodoxy,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 43 (1999): 248.
224
A. Nichols, From Newman to Congar: The Idea of Doctrinal Development from the Victorians to the Second
Vatican Council (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990), 282.
225
This essay, originally published in Russian in 1937, appears in English translation by Peter Bouteneff in
Tradition Alive: On the Church and the Christian Life in Our Time, ed. M. Plekon (Latham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2003), 67–80.
226
D. Staniloae, “The Orthodox Conception of Tradition and the Development of Doctrine,” Sobornost 5 (1969):
652–62.
227
J. Pelikan, Development of Christian Doctrine: Some Historical Prolegomena (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1969), 3.

219
5.6 The Comparison Continues

It is my aim that the present study serves to establish that these four fundamental principles,

which are powerfully present in Newman’s theological thought, also find a resonance in

Chrysostom’s own formulations and, furthermore, that Newman resources his thought,

sometimes even explicitly, but mostly implicitly, in what he has learned from his extensive

study of Chrysostom. Hitherto, I have largely conceived this theological “conversation” in

terms of considering the explicitly theological writings of both authors. In the next stage of this

study, however, I intend to take the modality of comparison and compare Newman and

Chrysostom’s approach to spiritual direction as evidenced in what we have of their

correspondence, with careful attention to correspondence with two women: Newman’s

correspondence with his life-long family friend, Maria Giberne, and Chrysostom’s

correspondence with his close and faithful friend, the deaconess Olympias

220
 CHAPTER 6

LETTERS OF DIRECTION FROM NEWMAN AND CHRYSOSTOM

6.1 Working with Presumptions

One of the enduring criticisms of which both Chrysostom and Newman have been perennial victims,

despite their distance from each other in both time and place, has been the charge of misogynism.

In Chrysostom’s case, it is part of a broader criticism made of the Fathers of the Church which, in

more recent times, has become much more insistent, as a consequence of the increasing impact of

feminism in the second half of the twentieth century. In some quarters, this criticism is taken for

granted as a direct consequence of the fact that the Fathers, by definition, are all male; in others, it

is seen as the more obvious suggestion that Christianity is a woman-hating and sex-negative religion.

The theologian, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, seems to identify herself with this range of

suppositions when she references “the so-called [early Christian] Fathers, whose misogynism is

widely acknowledged.”1 This was already the assumption on the part of a wider group of theological

commentators, even a decade before Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza expressed her view, and is

illustrated by the following statement offered in the context of an encyclopedia article treating the

role of women in the unfolding of Christian tradition: “Living in areas where women were

denigrated, the Fathers of the Church, too, are frequently misogynist.”2 In relation specifically to

Chrysostom, it is fair to say he attracts some of the more extreme comments, exemplified by the

following assertion by Elizabeth Clark, whose work has addressed the treatment of women by

Chrysostom:

1
E. Schüssler Fiorenza, Women, Invisible in Theology and Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1985), 106.
2
M.F.R. Carton and J. Morgan, “Women in Christian Tradition,” in Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion, ed.
Meagher, P.K., vol. 3 (Washington, DC: Corpus Christi, 1979), 3769.

221
 Even taking Paul at his most conservative, we find nothing in the genuinely Pauline

epistles to rival the deprecating comments Chrysostom makes about Eve and her

descendants … his views on Eve and other women are far more biting than anything in

Paul’s letters.3

Newman, on the other hand, presents a rather different set of sensibilities, in that it has been said of

him that he “recoiled from marriage” and that he rejected “half the human race,”4 holding an early

conviction that he himself was destined for celibacy. It has also been suggested that Newman was

guilty of misogyny on the grand scale, linked to frequent incursions into the suggestion that Newman

was by orientation homosexual.5 Ker takes the view that Newman’s homosexuality cannot be

substantiated from documentary evidence. 6 Geoffrey Faber was the first to suggest that

homosexuality was a feature of the ambience from which the Oxford Movement emerged,7 and

since that time, this has been something of a common trope with regard to Newman’s biographers.

Ronald Chapman, in his biography of Father Frederick Faber (1814–1863), makes an insightful

comment about Faber and Newman, their affective life, and their sexuality:

There are born bachelors incapable of love either through a deficiency of their natures

or because of an unconscious egotism. Faber was not such a person. He was intensely

preoccupied by the people around him, men or women. He had a great difficulty in

3
E.A. Clark, “Introduction,” in John Chrysostom: On Virginity and Against Remarriage, trans. S. Rieger
(Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon, 1983), xviii.
4
A review of Newsome 1993 by Paul Johnson in the Sunday Telegraph, 26 September 1993, cited in J. Sugg,
Ever Yours Affly: John Henry Newman and His Female Circle (Leominster: Gracewing, 1996), 3.
5
See Cornwell, Newman’s Unquiet Grave: The Reluctant Saint (London: Continuum, 2010).
6
See I. Ker., “John Henry Newman and the Sacrifice of Celibacy,” L’Osservatore Romano, 3
September, 2008, 3 (Accessed 4 February 2021 at http://communio.stblogs.org/john-henry-newman/2008/09).
7
See G. Faber, Oxford Apostles: A Character Study of the Oxford Movement (London: Faber & Faber, 1933),
216–18.

222
 mastering his sexual feelings. But is seems that he could not, just as Newman could not,

have ever given himself wholly to another being. The most intimate recesses of the souls

of such men are reserved for God.8

As with the assertions concerning Chrysostom, Newman’s misogyny would also seem to be an

exaggeration, or at least without serious basis in fact, given that in both cases, we have an extensive

record of their writings. In order to examine this charge in any serious way, one needs to look beyond

both Chrysostom’s and Newman’s published homiletic and catechetical works to that aspect of their

writing which most reasonably expresses the inner complexity of their relationship to women—their

correspondence. In Chrysostom’s case, some 240 letters9 (the authenticity of which meets with

scholarly consensus) have come down to us,10 among them are fifty-three letters11 addressed to a

total of nineteen women12 during the three years of his exile.13 Of his correspondence, in general,

Chrysostom says: “[Y]ou may hear my living voice through my letters.”14 Newman echoes this

thought when he writes:

8
R. Chapman, Father Faber (London: Burns & Oates, 1961), 55.
9
W. Mayer, “The Ins and Outs of the Chrysostom Letter Collection: New Ways of Looking at a Limited Corpus,”
in Collecting Early Christian Letters: From the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity, ed. B. Neil and P. Allen
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 129–53.
10
P.R. Coleman-Norton, “The Correspondence of S. John Chrysostom (with Special Reference to His Epistles to
Pope S. Innocent I),” Classical Philology 24.3 (1929): 279–84.
11
C. Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time, 2 vols. (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1929, 1959), ii.79.
12
Elizabeth Clark reports that 23% of Chrysostom’s letters were written to women, in comparison to only 7% of
Augustine’s letters; E.A. Clark, “Theory and Practice in Late Ancient Asceticism: Jerome, Chrysostom and
Augustine,” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 5.2 (1989): 32.
13
D.C. Ford, Women & Men in the Early Church: The Vision of St. John Chrysostom (South Canaan, PA: St
Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 2017), 110.
14
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp. 8.11.b; in D.C. Ford, trans., John Chrysostom: Letters to Saint Olympia (Crestwood,
NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2016), 78.

223
 A Saint’s writings are to me his real “Life;” and what is called his “Life” is not the

outline of an individual, but either of the auto-saint or of a myth. Perhaps I shall be asked

what I mean by “Life.” I mean a narrative which impresses the reader with the idea of

moral unity, identity, growth, continuity, personality. When a saint converse with me, I

am conscious of the presence of one active principle of thought, one individual

character, flowing on and into the various matters which he discusses, and the different

transactions in which he mixes. It is what no memorials can reach, however skilfully

elaborated, however free form effort or study, however conscientiously faithful,

however guaranteed by the veracity of the writers.15

Newman, in contrast to Chrysostom, was a prolific correspondent and we have some 20,000 letters

of his in thirty-two published volumes of the Letters & Diaries, edited at the Birmingham Oratory.

One of the things that makes Newman’s correspondence so significant is that he kept copies of his

own letters, so that often, and unusually, both halves of the correspondence have been conserved.

Newman seemed to put very great store by his letter writing, and even once remarked that “a

man’s life lies in his letters,” and wanted his own biography written from his correspondence.16

Presumably, a correspondence-based biography would provide insight not only into Newman’s

life in general, but also into some very specific aspects of his life, and most especially, into his

friendship with and attitude towards women. In introducing a study of Newman’s

correspondence with women by Joyce Sugg, another of Newman’s female biographers, Meriol

15
H.S., ii.227.
16
Newman to Mrs. John Mozley (The Oratory, Birmingham, 18 May 1863), L.D., 20.443; Ian Ker used this
remark as the key to compose his study, John Henry Newman: A Biography (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).

224
Trevor, asserts: “Newman has recently been called a misogynist, by academics who can’t have

read his letters written over many years to women friends, and theirs to him.”17

For the sake of the present study, I would like to make a comparison between Chrysostom and

Newman based, in each case, on their correspondence with one particular woman. I shall

examine Chrysostom’s seventeen letters addressed to the deaconess Olympias (361–408 CE),18

17
M. Trevor, “Preface,” in J. Sugg, Ever Yours Affly: John Henry Newman and His Female Circle (Leominster:
Gracewing, 2006), unnumbered page before the Introduction.
18
Mayer, “Ins and Outs of the Chrysostom Letter Collection,” 129–53. The correspondence with Olympia is found
in the Greek original (with parallel Latin translation) in J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca cursus completus, Vol.
52 (Paris: Migne, 1857–1866), col. 549–623, although Newman’s Greek text was Volume 3 of Chrysostom’s
writings in the earlier Maurist edition edited by Bernard De Montfaucon (Paris, 1721). Migne adopted the Maurist
text of Chrysostom in Montfaucon’s second edition without alteration. The critical edition of the text appears the
Sources Chrétiennes series (vol. 13), by A.-M. Malingrey (ed.), Jean Chrysostome: Lettres à Olympias (Paris:
Cerf, 1968). I am presuming that Newman uses his own translation of these letters as he is writing before the
publication of the translations by W.R.W. Stephens, “John Chrysostom: Letters to Olympias,” in Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers, ed. P. Schaff, vol. 9 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Publishing Co., 1889), 289–304. Modern
translations, such as that of Ford, trans., Letters to Saint Olympia (sic), follow the order as established by
Malingrey. In his citation of the correspondence, Newman uses the numbering of the Letters found in the
Maurist/Migne editions. In this study, I will use the same numbering system as Newman uses. The following table
explains the differing number system in relation to historical editions of the correspondence:

Date (As proposed by Delmaire, Montfaucon/Migne (Newman) Sources Chrétiennes (Malingrey)

1991)
End September/October 404 CE 1 7
October 404 CE 2 8
End 404 CE 3 10
Start 405 CE 4 17
Spring 405 CE 5 11
Summer 405 CE 6 12
Mid-August 404 CE 7 13
Start August 404 CE 8 5
3 July 404 CE 9 3
End June 404 CE 10 2

225
concerning her spiritual life as a woman consecrated to the service of the Church and her

depression resulting from opposition to her mentor (Chrysostom) and his consequent exile, and

Newman’s lifelong correspondence with Maria Rosina Giberne (1802–1885), but most

particularly his letters of spiritual direction concerning her many setbacks in entering

consecrated life as a nun. I intend to treat the commonality of themes in these correspondences,

and the pastoral approach they imply in providing a word of consolation in times of adversity.

In both cases, I hope to identify aspects of these letters which shed light both on the

development of theological thought of their writers, together with some of the biographical

background that occasions their writing. The idea of the comparison came to me as a

consequence of reading Newman’s biographical note on Chrysostom’s later years in his

Historical Sketches. Newman there observes:

I am so specially attached to the Saints of the third and fourth century, because we

know so much about them. This is why I feel a devout affection for St Chrysostom.

He and the rest of them have written autobiography on a large scale; they have given

us their own histories, their thoughts, words, and actions.…19

This biographical quality that Newman identified in Chrysostom made him more attentive to

what Chrysostom tells us about himself. In this, Newman reveals something of his style in

Mid-August 404 CE 11 1
Mid-September 404 CE 12 4
End November 404 CE 13 6
Spring 406 CE 14 9
405 CE 15 15
Spring 407 CE 16 14
End 406 CE 17 16

19
H.S. ii.218.

226
search of authentic biography: “[W]hat I want to trace and study is the real, hidden but human

life, or the interior, as it is called, of such glorious creations of God; and this I gain with

difficulty from mere biographies.” 20 Newman identifies the difficulty in the fact that

biographers tend to record actions, without going a stage further in identifying motives, which

the biographer supplies, often without any reliable evidence. At this point, Newman recognizes

that “[t]he biographer in that case is no longer a mere witness and reporter; he has become a

commentator. He gives me no insight into the Saint’s interior…. On the other hand, when a

Saint is himself the speaker, he interprets his own action…”21 He goes on to identify where one

should look in order to encounter such insights: “Now the Ancient Saints have left behind them

just that kind of literature which more than any other represents the abundance of the heart,

which more than any others approaches to conversation: I mean correspondence.”22 Later, in

the same text, he writes: “One of his most devoted of friends, and most zealous of

correspondents, was St. Olympias.”23

After reading the correspondence with Olympias, as a corpus of texts, it occurred to me that

there were many resonances with aspects of Newman’s correspondence, particularly with

women. I then tried to establish whether there was any evidence of Newman’s study of the

Olympias corpus. I visited the Birmingham Oratory to consult their archivist, David Joyce,

who informed me that there was no extant manuscript for the Historical Sketches, or notes in

preparation for the original articles which appeared in The Rambler (1859–1860). Purely based

on a hunch, I consulted Newman’s copy of the Olympias texts,24 conserved in the library of the

20
Ibid., 219.
21
Ibid., 220.
22
Ibid., 221.
23
Ibid., 241.
24
I visited the Birmingham Oratory on 27 February 2019.

227
Birmingham Oratory and, to my amazement, discovered that there was a small paper bookmark

placed at the beginning of the Chrysostom–Olympias correspondence. The archivist, who

seemed equally surprised, informed me that the bookmark had been placed there by Newman,

and it was quite possible that no one else had ever opened the Chrysostom text to that page

since the day Newman left his bookmark there.25

6.2 Chrysostom and Olympias

Chrysostom left Constantinople on 20 June 404 CE, never to return. His journey into exile

would take him to Cucusus, a small town in the mountainous region of Armenia. Poor

conditions, a terrible climate, and the trauma of separation from his friends and faithful took

its toll on his health, as we learn when he writes:

I spent these past two months I no better than dead — yea, even worse than dead….

I suffered the most extreme torments—, continual vomiting, headaches, lack of

appetite, and constant sleeplessness.26

Despite all this, he remained a tower of strength to those he left behind, seeking every means

to encourage them to persevere in the spiritual life and to use their present difficulties to bring

about their sanctification. He most particularly encouraged those who had been his supporters,

even in the face of grave opposition, speaking out on his behalf and trying to bring about an

improvement in his circumstances, even after his banishment. Chief among this group was his

friend, the deaconess Olympias (361–408 CE), who subsequently suffered exile herself as a

25
See a photograph of the text and bookmark in the Appendix, Figure 2.
26
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp. 6; Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 131.

228
consequence of her continued support of her mentor.27 Clark is of the view that Chrysostom’s

friendship with Olympias was highly significant, particularly during these three years of his

exile. She goes as far as to state that “Olympias was without doubt his true soul-mate.”28

In his final letter to Olympias (17), Chrysostom states that he had already sent a text directed

to Olympias and her community,29 and he promises to send her a further treatise.30 These texts,

and these letters, show us how he was able to face the immense challenge and suffering of both

exile and declining health with someone who had been immensely supportive of him and

somewhat significant in the years of his ministry as Archbishop of Constantinople (398–404

CE).

The seventeen letters to Olympias represent just a small portion of the letters he wrote to about

150 different people during these years of exile. Sadly, Olympias’s own letters have not

survived; we only have Chrysostom’s replies to her. From what can be gleaned from the

biographical sources,31 Olympias was probably the most significant of Chrysostom’s friends

who were women.32 She came from a high-ranking non-Christian family and was probably

born around the year 368 CE. Seleucus, her father, had been a prominent official in the imperial

court until he died while Olympias was still a child. She was subsequently brought up by an

27
“One of his most devoted friends, and most zealous correspondents, was St. Olympias”; see H.S., ii.241.
28
E.A. Clark, “John Chrysostom and the Subintroductae,” Church History 46 (1977): 183.
29
See Malingrey, Olympias, 1968, 418-19.
30
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp. 4; see Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 167.
31
The major source of her life is the Life of Olympias, an anonymous work probably written around 440 CE and
which appears translated into English by E.A. Clark, ed., Jerome, Chrysostom & Friends (Lewiston, NY: Edwin
Mellen, 1979), 127–44.
32
See W. Mayer, “John Chrysostom and Women Revisited,” in Reading Men and Women in Early Christianity,
eds. W. Mayer and I. Elmer (Strathfield: St. Pauls, 2014), 215–30.

229
uncle named Procopius, who counted among his friends Gregory of Nazianzus (330–389 CE).33

It seems that Gregory came to know and like Olympias, writing to her on the occasion of her

wedding as “his own Olympias,” he also refers to her as “a mirror of a Christian woman.”34

Gregory encouraged Olympias to model herself on her governess Theodosia, who was the sister

of Amphilochius of Iconium (ca. 339/340–403 CE). It seems Olympias was also a friend of

Gregory of Nyssa and, as such, the dedicatée of his Commentary on the Song of Songs,35 all

before she met Chrysostom.

At the time Olympias was orphaned, she was heiress to a large fortune and consequently was

overwhelmed with potential proposals of marriage. In 384 CE, aged only sixteen, she entered

rather hastily into a marriage with a young man from a good family. She was not happily

married and was somewhat relieved two years later when her young husband died. She

immediately saw in this development a sign from God that she was not suited to marriage and

should avoid remarriage. The Emperor however, wanted to see Olympias marry his relative,

Elpidius, and was greatly irritated by her refusal to agree to the marriage and consequently

ordered her property to be confiscated, until she reached the age of thirty, unless she agreed to

the proposed marriage. Olympias was resolute on the matter and made her views known in a

somewhat sarcastic letter to Theodosius in which she thanked him from relieving her of the

burden of a further marriage.36

33
Newman says of her: “She had been left an orphan and a pagan; and she did not change her single state for
marriage before she had relieved her worse desolateness by entering into the family of Saints and Angels. In St.
Chrysostom’s words, she ‘deserted to Christian truth from the ranks of an impious family’”; H.S., ii.241.
34
See PG 37.1542—50 (my own translation).
35
Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on the Song of Songs, trans. C. McCambley (Brookline, MA: Hellenic
College Press, 1987), 35.
36
Palladius, Dial., 114.

230
Theodosius, realizing the hopelessness of his plan, decided to cancel his decree, leaving

Olympias without further disturbance. At this point, she decided to devote herself

wholeheartedly to a life in the Church. Sometime after her thirtieth birthday, Chrysostom’s

predecessor as Archbishop of Constantinople, Nectarius, ordained her a deaconess.

From this point onward, she dedicated herself to ministering to the poor and sick, putting her

very considerable largesse to assist the work of the Church, not only in Constantinople but also

in Greece, as well as in Asia Minor and also in Syria. She was so generous that Chrysostom

warned her of the serious duty of stewardship she had in relation to her wealth, as well the

danger of avaricious clergy who would be all too keen to benefit from her wealth and her

patronage.

Olympias attempted to reward Chrysostom for his spiritual counsel by becoming especially

attentive, in small ways, to his practical needs, ensuring that he always had enough to eat and

did not exhaust himself with penitential practices and fasting. She was deeply austere in her

own way of life, however, wearing only clothes made of coarse cloth, and depriving herself

both of food and of sleep.

Following Chrysostom’s exile in 404 CE, as a consequence of constant intriguing on the part

of those who continued to oppose him, Olympias was victim to harsh treatment as someone

who continued to uphold his innocence. She was accused, along with others, of being

responsible for the fire which consumed the city in the wake of Chrysostom’s departure,

destroying both the Cathedral and the Senate. Her bravery when she had to face the prefect,

who sought to intimidate her, won general the admiration of all; and consoling accounts of her

witness even reached Chrysostom in his exile. It is uncertain whether Olympias was formally

231
exiled from Constantinople or whether she left it of her own free will. We do not have any

reliable information concerning the remainder of her life.

As a result of her patrician background,37 it seems that Olympias had succeeded in establishing

herself as the leading spiritual mother of Constantinople by the time Chrysostom arrived in 398

CE. She had freed her servants, given much of her property and possessions to the poor and

needy and established a community of consecrated women in Constantinople (that became a

home and haven for many women). It was predictable, therefore, that when Chrysostom arrived

in Constantinople, he and Olympias (given their leadership abilities and ascetic lifestyles)

would work closely together to deepen and enrich the witness of Christianity in what was

becoming a major see in Christendom.

The six years in which Chrysostom and Olympias worked so closely together (398–404 CE)

seem to have knitted them together in a way that is somewhat rare, if not unique. When

Chrysostom was, as anticipated, sent into exile in 404 CE, it was natural that Olympias would

feel as if part of herself had been severed. It was natural also that she would feel deserted, alone

and opposed (for she greatly identified with Chrysostom and his followers against those who

supported the Emperor and his wife). Consequently, Olympias often felt discouraged,

despondent and abandoned. She bore the responsibility of the leadership of a large community

of women, she faced great opposition from Chrysostom’s opponents who remained in authority

in Constantinople and there were few people who could, on a deeper level, offer her direction

and support. Kelly summarized the relationship between Olympias and Chrysostom thus:

“There was no one in Constantinople with whom he was to have a deeper or more sympathetic

37
“This celebrated lady was the daughter of Seleucid, and the grand-child of Ablavius, the powerful minister in
the reign of Constantine”; H.S., ii.241.

232
understanding, no one with whom he was to feel more at ease or to whom he was to pour out

his heart more unreservedly.”38

6.3 Newman and Maria Giberne

Obviously, we know of Newman’s awareness of Chrysostom’s correspondence with Olympia,

as he quotes directly from nine of the seventeen letters in the Historical Sketches portrait of

Chrysostom, together with many other citations from other letters of Chrysostom. Although

Newman’s correspondence with Maria Giberne narrates their friendship rather more

completely than is the case of the correspondence between Chrysostom and Olympias, (in that

we have letters covering the entire period of their nearly fifty-year acquaintance), and despite

the fact that one must assume that in Newman’s mind this correlation was not explicitly

acknowledged by Newman, we can immediately see that these two correspondences share

some remarkable points of similarity.

Newman had been in correspondence with Maria since 1828, when he became her spiritual

director. Following his lead, she too was received into the Roman Catholic Church in 1845,

and through his kindness and persevering counsel, after many false starts, she eventually

entered the religious life as a nun in 1863. Newman did not only offer counsel and support, but

he was also fortunate himself to receive similar help from his many friends in time of difficulty.

Their letters spurred him on, in turn, to offer consolation to others, encouraging them to draw

spiritual profit from the most challenging and vexing experiences.

One of the most striking characteristics of Newman’s own correspondence is his perseverance

in counselling those men and women who sought to serve God in a form of consecrated life.

38
J.N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (London: Duckworth,
1995), 113.

233
Although Newman often offered counsel in his letters, he makes it clear that he is not taking

on the role of spiritual director: “Direction is a science, and I am not up to it. Any use I can be

to you, short of this religious use, I will most gladly.”39 Despite this, it was not unusual for him

to frequently correspond with those who sought his counsel, accompanying them, as they

followed the somewhat arduous path in attempting to discern God’s will for their lives. Such

was the case with the correspondence between Newman and Maria Giberne between 18 April

1859 and 29 January 1864, in which Newman wrote to her twenty-two times, often concerning

her vocation. His commitment to this correspondence was nothing short of heroic, as Miss

Giberne had attempted to enter five different communities during this period, finally entering

the Visitation convent in Autun, France, where she remained for the rest of her life.

Maria Giberne was linked to Newman’s family by a marriage, as her elder sister was married

to Walter Mayers, the Anglican clergyman and schoolmaster at Ealing School, who was

responsible for Newman’s evangelical conversion and, equally importantly, had been

responsible for teaching him Latin and Greek. Maria Rosina was part of the Newman’s circle

and was staying with the family in January 1828, when Newman’s youngest sister, Mary,

became ill and died. Newman was to recall that connection some fifty years later writing to

Sister Maria Pia.40 Francis Newman (1805–1897), brother of John Henry, proposed on at least

two occasions to Maria, but it was her friendship with John Henry that was to endure.

39
L.D., xvi.533. For a full account of Newman as a spiritual director, see P.C. Wilcox, John Henry Newman:
Spiritual Director 1845–1890 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013), and G. Skinner, Newman the Priest: A Father of
Souls (Leominster: Gracewing, 2010).
40
L.D., xxx.48. As a nun of the Visitation Order, Maria Giberne took the name in religion “Sister Maria Pia” after
Pope Pius IX (1835–1914) whom she had met, in Newman’s company, in the autumn of 1846.

234
Maria Giberne was a talented artist and made a number of drawings of various members of

Newman’s circle. She also painted three portraits of Newman himself: one in which he wears

his Oratorian collar and cassock, (c. 1846‒47); one in which he is seated, in Rome, with

Ambrose St. John (c. 1846‒1847); and Newman Lecturing … in Birmingham (c. 1851). All are

owned by the Birmingham Oratory, as is her watercolour self-portrait in a nun’s habit (c. 1863),

which continues to hang in Newman’s room.”41 Sugg, a scholar who has written extensively

about the women in Newman’s circle, provides the following description of Maria Giberne:

“She was handsome, striking brunette, with a tall figure, a fine bust. She was a young Juno,

calculated to turn the heads of the men; she knew her power and expected flattery.”42

Maria Rosina Giberne was no intellectual but she was clearly talented and had a very lively

personality. She played the harp, drew and painted and with some skill; she was certainly able

to catch a likeness when she did a portrait. Her outstanding characteristic, however, was her

enduring tendency to strong romantic feelings (which might be for a man, or for a woman).43

Newman’s younger brother, Francis, also knew Mayers and visited him with some frequency.

While assisting Mayers with his pupils, Francis had met Maria Giberne, who was visiting her

sister, and he was immediately greatly attracted to her. To Maria, Francis confided his anxiety

over the spiritual state of his sisters; however, it seems possible that other motives intensified

his eagerness for Maria to meet his family. Maria wrote an account of this day:

41
See L. Higgins, “The Mysterious Search for the Cardinal’s Girlfriend,” OUP Blog (1 June 2016). Online:
https://blog.oup.com/2016/06/maria-rosina-giberne-cardinal-newman (Accessed 8 July 2020).
42
Sugg, Ever Yours Affly, 27.
43
Ibid., 28. See also V.F. Blehl, Pilgrim Journey: John Henry Newman 1801–1845 (London: Burns & Oates,
2001), 77, who gives a comparable description of Maria: “Maria played the harp and could sketch and paint. Not
intellectual but rather romantic in her feelings, she was none the less intelligent, with common sense, and later did
Newman a great service in collecting the witnesses for the Achilli libel trial (1851). She was [an evangelical and
so] prepared to dislike him [John Henry Newman] having heard that he was a ‘stiff Churchman.’”

235
 An important era in my life was now about to commence …. November (dear

month) the 6th 1826 after repeated solicitations the Newmans first set their foot in

this house, and thus began a friendship which is dearer to me than life and which

on my part shall last for ever I trust. When at Worton I had sent a message to Harriet

[Newman] about coming, and she said she would and they came altogether at dusk

…. I shall never forget the day.44

The following year, Maria met the eldest Newman brother, John Henry, at Brighton. In January

1828, she visited the Newman family in Brighton and again saw John Henry. Shortly

afterwards, Francis Newman proposed to Maria, who turned down his offer of marriage

because she was already committed to Robert Murcott, a young officer who had gone to India

in hope of making his fortune and then returning to marry her. Subsequently, Francis

abandoned Evangelicalism in favour of the Plymouth Brethren,45 and went as a missionary to

Persia. On his return to England in 1833, five years after his initial proposal, Francis, learning

of Murcott’s death, again proposed to Maria, only to be rejected a second time. Rather

ironically, Maria Giberne’s initial contact with the Newman family seems largely the result of

Francis’s insistence. Maria had met the Newman sisters because Francis insisted that they stay

at the Giberne’s home in Wanstead. Although Maria and Mary, the youngest Newman sister,

were seven years apart in age, they struck up a close friendship. In early January 1828, while

Maria was visiting the Newman family at Brighton, Mary said she felt ill and excused herself

44
M. Ward, Young Mr. Newman (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1948), 124. John Henry Newman, the eldest in his
family, had two brothers, Charles (1802–1884) and Francis (1805–1897), and three sisters, Harriett (1803–1852),
Jemima (1808–1879), and Mary (1809–1828).
45
The Plymouth Brethren were a nineteenth-century independent, strictly evangelical group in England that
sprung up as a result of dissatisfaction within the Church of England.

236
from supper; her mother followed her and then returned quietly to say it was necessary to call

a doctor. Death came quickly; as John Henry wrote in his diary on Wednesday 5 January 1828:

“We lost my sister Mary suddenly.”46

Maria Giberne, learning of Mary’s illness, came to stay with her, only to be told that she was

already dead. Maria, unable to help Mary during her brief and final illness, decided to do one

last service: a drawing of the deceased Mary.47 A month and a half later, on 22 February 1828,

Newman noted in his diary: “Mr. Mayers dies suddenly.”48 This loss of Mayers was painful

both for Maria, his sister-in-law, and for Newman, his former disciple. Seemingly by

coincidence, or the action of Providence, Maria Giberne had been present at two immensely

sad events in the life of John Henry Newman and his family.

She became more involved in following Newman’s life as his career at Oxford developed, and

particularly in the momentous year of 1833, which saw the publication of the first of the Tracts

for the Times on 9 September; then on 17 October, Newman was elected Dean of Oriel College

and on 5 November, The Arians of the Fourth Century was published. During December that

same year, Newman wrote to Maria Giberne to thank her for all her support:

I was much pleased and encouraged by your letter, being in the midst of worry and

fidget, if such uncomfortable words bear to be written down. It really is a great

encouragement to know there are any persons who at all value what one tries to do

in the cause of the Gospel. A person like myself hears of nothing but his failures or

46
L.D., ii.47 (italics in the original).
47
Sugg, Ever Yours Affly, 28.
48
L.D., ii.57 (italics in the original).

237
 what others consider such—men do not flatter each other—and one’s best friends

act as one’s best friends ought, tell one of all one’s mistakes and absurdities ….

Nevertheless it is very pleasant to have accidentally such letters as yours to

encourage one, though I know well that it goes far beyond the occasion, owing to

your great kindness.49

Eight months later, in January 1835, Newman saw Maria while she was visiting at Rose Hill;50

however, his next letter to her—a brief letter at that—was not written until the following June,

in which he again expressed his appreciation for her encouragement: “I need scarcely say, I

should hope, how very much your very kind letter encouraged me.” 51 Maria wrote at the

beginning of September and followed her letter a few days later with a visit.52 That same day,

Newman wrote to her:

Though I say very little and very awkwardly, yet I really do feel very much the

kind words which you use about my Sermons. I am quite sensible I often do not

say things, in themselves good, in the best way—yet people may gain hints from

them. At this moment certainly, we cannot stand as we are.53

This letter, surprisingly theological in content, sketched out alternatives that would later loom

large in the Oxford Movement:

49
Ibid., iv.147.
50
Ibid., v.17, 20.
51
LD., v.82.
52
Ibid., v.134; 5.97; v.110.
53
Ibid., v.134.

238
 If Protestants do not make up their minds to be more consistent one way or other,

to become rationalists or true Catholics, I foresee they will not be able to keep those

committed to them whether flocks, children, or servants, in their own way of

thinking. A rationalist is intelligible though very offensive—so is a Roman

Catholic—so is a Catholic—but the piebald system, which at present is thought so

delightful and promising is “neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring,” and cannot

stand the sifting of controversy.54

Having followed Newman into the Catholic Church, Maria Giberne wanted to be a nun,

although her age and health seemed to present something of a difficulty in this regard. She

claimed to have received an interior call to the religious life while praying at the shrine at

Galloro, near Rome. Following advice she received from Pope Pius IX, she turned her attention

towards the Visitation Order55 who, by the mid-nineteenth century, had several convents in

European countries. Newman writes to Maria very encouragingly of her pursuit of this idea: “I

congratulate you with all my heart on having been guided to a decision, so important to you —

and I am sure that the glorious Saints who you have made the confidants and helpers of your

anxious deliberations have done their part in it.”56

Buoyed up by Newman’s encouragement, Maria consistently pursued the possibility of the

religious life as a nun and made approaches to a number of convents, none of which resulted

54
Ibid., 134–35; v.135.
55
Founded by François de Sales (1567–1622), who had been in an Oratorian community in Savoy at Thonon-les-
bains, and Jeanne-Françoise Frémiot, Baronne de Chantal (1572–1641) in 1610 in Annecy, Haute-Savoie, France.
They had the idea of founding a new form of consecrated life for women which, like the Oratory, did not have
vows, and where the enclosure of the cloister was only observed during the year of the novitiate, after which the
sisters were free to go out visiting the poor and the sick—hence the name of the order.
56
L.D., xix.109.

239
in the possibility of her joining them.57 She attempted to join the Benedictines in Rugeley,58 in

Staffordshire, within striking distance of Newman at Birmingham. She then approached

another similar community in Atherstone, to no avail. 59 She tried the Franciscans next in

Taunton, but she had no success there either.60 Newman wrote to her and stated that he thought

she would find the obedience necessary for the cloistered life a challenge but despite this, she

should not give up the idea: “Should it be God’s will that you are not received in a Convent of

Perpetual Adoration, your trial will increase. I think you will have great difficulty in obedience,

in any active order …. However, I think it is your duty to go on—and not give up by any

means.”61 Newman, at this stage, suggested that having tried a number of communities, all

without success, Maria should now try and find another woman who shared her spiritual

sensibilities and then live near a church, following a rule of life, earning a living by painting.62

Maria did not follow Newman’s advice, and applied to the Visitation convent at Westbury, and

was accepted.63 She saw Newman before she entered the convent on 13 January 1860. Newman

became aware that his suspicion that she would find the obedience of the religious life difficult

was roused when Maria seemed to suggest that upon arrival at Westbury she sought to “floor”

her superior by some sort of confrontation. Newman was unwell and so unable to tell her

personally what he thought of this prospect, and so committed his counsel to writing in a letter

that left Maria in no doubt of the course of action she should pursue upon entering the convent.

It is a masterpiece of instruction with the intention of averting almost certain disaster:

57
See Sugg, Ever Yours Affly, 215.
58
L.D., xix.186.
59
Ibid., 188.
60
Ibid., 214.
61
Ibid., 203.
62
Ibid., 220.
63
Sugg, Ever Yours Affly, 216.

240
 I should speak, instead of writing, did it not hurt me to use my voice. Written words

are harsher than spoken, so you must make allowances as you read on. Please to

bear, what will give you pain; and invoke the Blessed Virgin. The truth is your

conversation the other day about Westbury quite frightens me. Your dispositions

towards the place are not the right ones. Change them, or do not attempt what will

infallibly be a failure, entailing pain on yourself or others. St Philip tells us that the

razionale is the source of all evil. Now, that you should fancy yourself interrogating

and flooring your Mother Superior, is portentous. I think you must wipe out from

your heart, as a sin, any intention to allow yourself even in inward criticism, or you

had better not go. I think deliberately, that, as a Catholic represses thoughts against

faith, so a novice represses all criticism, if she be a good and true novice. As you

would not allow yourself to tax our Lord with inconsistency, after the manner of

unbelievers, so neither must you consent to any mental questioning of the acts of

those, under whom you are voluntarily placing yourself. You must put down every

such thought, every such imagination, by an act of the will …. You are making a

sacrifice: — who obliges you to make it? Don’t promise all, and give but half.64

Clearly Maria did not find it easy to adapt to the rigours of the religious life, already having hit

middle-age. She revealed to Newman that she often felt despondent, after the excitement of her

initial fervour had worn off, and the realization of the implications of the decision she had taken

64
L.D., xix.263–64. Razionale (my italics) is the word St Philip Neri (1515–1595), founder of the Oratorians,
used to speak of “the understanding”, or even “the will”; see G. Crispino, The School of Saint Philip Neri, trans.
F.W. Faber (London: N.p., 1850), new edition by Timothy Ashurst (London: [privately published], 2011), 67–68.

241
started to dawn on her. Newman was characteristically encouraging in suggesting that this was

only to be expected:

I rejoice to hear your account of yourself – but you must expect reverses, change of

feeling, desolation, and temptation. The lions, which hid themselves when you

entered, will come out of their dens, and make faces at you. You will go on being

pleased and delighted, and you will go on, mounting up to the third heaven, and

then you will in your great ecstasy take some liberty, show some disrespect, break

some rule, take upon yourself somewhat, speak when you should not speak, lead

when you should follow, and then you will get a most awful snub, which will

suddenly dislodge you from your high place, and you will drop down suddenly on

the ground.65

Newman seemed to have grasped that the greatest arena of conflict Maria identified was within

herself—the daily struggle with her own emotions which sought to so easily unravel her resolve

to persevere. Newman reminded her that “[w]hat you need more than any thing else is to rule

your feelings.” 66 He reminded her that if she stuck at it, she should expect to change, to

gradually feel different about herself as a consequence of subjecting her emotions to her will.

He also reminded her that heaven was on her side:

If you persevere, as you are in the way to do, I shall think it a most wonderful

instance of divine grace—and a heroic act in you. For how great a thing it is to

change yourself, when you have lived so many years in one way! But the power of

65
L.D., xix.294.
66
Ibid., 302.

242
 God is able to do all things, and he takes pleasure in doing His most wonderful

works at the intercession of the humble-hearted Mother of God, whom the world

despises, and in the hearts of weak women, of whom the world never heard. What

an awful revelation will it be at the last day, when the first become last and the last

first!67

Newman was under no illusion that what Maria had taken on was an immense challenge, and

that the likelihood of failing was a very real possibility. It is striking how he often tried to

prepare her for unseen developments, potential setbacks, seeming failure, setting everything

within the context of God’s providential will for her life, gradually revealed: “You have offered

yourself absolutely to do God’s will—and you must not be surprised that you could not

prophesy what God’s will would be.”68 He also recognized that just like any strong-willed and

determined person, Maria Giberne was very much in the driving seat in this whole enterprise,

and although she readily sought his counsel, it was of limited value unless she decided to act

upon his advice:

No one can advise you what you ought to do in your anxious matter—because you

are the ultimate judge of your own feelings. A director indeed has not regard to

feelings, but guided to declare the will of God to the soul whom he directs—but as

an adviser must look to how the person advised will take his advice.69

67
Ibid., xx.37–38.
68
Ibid., xix.341.
69
Ibid., xx.420.

243
When things did not work out at the Visitation Convent, in Paray-le-Monial, Maria Giberne

left, despite already being professed. After something of a hiatus in England, she would

eventually resume her religious life in a convent of the same order at Autun, also in France.

Her decision to leave Paray-le-Monial had been prompted by the fact that her superiors had

questioned her ability to persevere as a nun, given that she was entering the convent at a

relatively advanced age. In the face of this potentially crushing development, Newman offered

her his characteristic consolation and wisdom:

As we get on in life, we are (naturally) more and more unchangeable. You find it

asked whether a man ever changes his opinion after 50… ‘Yes, they can make

sudden efforts—but old men have not sustained energy.’ I feel it in myself—to go

about any thing for a long while, is to me, like holding an arm straight out; possible

for a while, but after a long while very painful, nay agonising. Now I know grace

can conquer nature—but still consider what and how much grace you are asking

for. You are asking to be able to do that in matters of religion …. Your [sic] are

asking for a second order of grace—not only that by which we embrace things

invisible and live for the, kingdom of heaven, but that also by which we do that in

the supernatural life which great human intellects cannot do in the natural…. Since

you are attempting a very great thing, you must be patient in submitting to a

searching process.70

When Maria managed to get her religious life back on track, and was once again in the convent,

nobody was happier than Newman: “I rejoice to hear that you are going on so well. Don’t be

cast down—God has done for you great things already—for which you have cause to rejoice

70
Ibid., 300–1 (italics in original).

244
and be thankful.”71 He recognized that she was following her heart and made it clear that he

prayed that God would grant her heart’s desire: “It is to me quite wonderful that you are carried

on as you are—and I pray earnestly that our dear Lord may perform ‘petitiones cordis tui’ [the

requests of your heart] ….”72 He did also promise to pray for her perseverance, in the hope that

this attempt would see her definitively settled: “I pray for you continually, and trust that soon

I shall have to return thanks, that your most harassing warfare is at an end.”73

Newman’s prayers were answered, and things progressed satisfactorily at Autun sufficiently

for Maria to take her vows. When she informed Newman of this development, he wrote: “You

have won your prize by the grace of perseverance”; 74 she was professed as a nun at the

Visitation Convent in Autun on 29 January 1864, the Feast of St Francis de Sales, founder of

the Visitation order. He wrote to her: “So now you really are our Lord’s own possession ….

May our dear Lord who has so wonderfully brought you to this, and His Blessed Mother who

has brought it about, guide you on safely through all trials till you see them in heaven.”75

6.4 Common Themes of Spiritual Direction

It is evident, at this point, that there is a general correlation between the approach Newman

adopted in directing Maria Giberne and the counsel Chrysostom offered Olympias. In both

cases, there is a woman intent on living a consecrated life in the Church who takes a keen

interest in the welfare of a pastor or mentor who finds himself in difficulty, and yet, out of a

sense of pastoral solicitude is still able to offer support, direction, encouragement and

71
Ibid., 371.
72
Ibid., 457.
73
Ibid., 506.
74
Ibid., 565.
75
Ibid., xxi.31.

245
consolation to his friend. I would now like to attempt to elucidate, however, a more obvious

point of connection between these two relationships in their mutual treatment of a number of

common themes that emerge in the correspondence which has come down to us.

i. Dealing with Despondency

By the end of 404 CE, Chrysostom had been in exile for seven months but, despite the hardship

he had suffered, he criticized Olympias for allowing herself to become despondent.76 He asks

her whether she is aware of the great evil of despondency, telling her that she is doing the will

of the devil if she is still so upset about the way that he has been treated.77 He is conscious,

however, “how heavy and oppressive a burden it is.”78 He reminds her that despondency “is a

continual executioner that not only tears in pieces one’s torso but also mutilates the strength of

one’s soul. It is a continuous night, darkness with no light.”79 Chrysostom was obviously aware

of how his exile had impacted his supporters back in Constantinople but, clearly, he himself,

was very much at peace. Despite his many hardships, largely at the hands of others, he was still

able to write to Olympias: “If you are grieving because of the aftermath of the evils I’ve

experienced, know for certain that I have shaken them off completely.”80

Newman acknowledges this same fact when he cites Chrysostom’s eleventh letter to Olympias

in the Historical Sketches: “My consolation increases with my trial. I am sanguine about the

future. Every thing is going on prosperously, and I am sailing with a fair wind.”81 Newman

observes: “Perhaps he [Chrysostom] exaggerated his own hopefulness, in order to increase

76
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp. 14; in Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 85ff.
77
Ibid.
78
Ibid., 3; in Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 99.
79
Ibid.
80
Ibid., 14; in Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 91.
81
H.S., ii.241.

246
hers.” And later: “This, as so many of his other letters, shows us how little his personal troubles

had damped his evangelical zeal or his pastoral solicitude.”82 At the height of his difficulties in

trying to establish a Catholic university in Ireland, he is still sensitive to Maria Giberne’s

challenges in pursuing her goal of the religious life:

I should have written to you from Ireland, where you have been continually in my

thoughts, had I not been quite worn down with anxiety and over work …. It grieves

me indeed to think that you have so long a trial—for it bears upon you most heavily.

It can’t help coming on in June—i.e. they cannot now put it off—I am getting all

the prayers I can—for prayer alone can do it.83

In all his letters to Olympias, Chrysostom writes that he never seems to tire of offering her

encouragement in difficulties, as if her situation was markedly worse than his own.84 The letters

are full of direct personal communication, full of compassion and practical advice: “[D]o not

give yourself over to the tyranny of despair, but conquer the storm with reason.”85 She is able

to persevere, he reminds her, because she has long been used to putting up with hardship in a

variety of circumstances since she was young. He suggests that reflecting on Scripture will

strengthen her resolve and help her understand why and how she should persevere. Olympias

suffers from what nowadays we would more commonly call depression. Such depression,

Chrysostom recognizes, has the potential to wound a person’s relationship with God. Newman

82
H.S., ii.243.
83
L.D., xv.91.
84
For an account of Chrysostom’s practical strategies in this regard, see B. Leyerle, The Narrative Shape of
Emotion in the Preaching of John Chrysostom (Oakland: University of California Press, 2020), 87–90.
85
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp. 9; in Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 35–36.

247
likewise acknowledges that although he faces great challenges, Maria Giberne, like Olympias,

is in a situation where she does not have easy recourse to someone in whom she can confide:

Great as our trial is, yours in some respects is greater. You indeed have not lost as

we have a face and a voice always present—but they you have no partner nor

confidant in your sorrow, and have no relief as having no outlet for it.86

Chrysostom could have so easily written these words to Olympias, who initially had to

persevere in Constantinople, surrounded by those who had opposed her mentor, and then had

to undergo a similar fate to Chrysostom in being exiled. Olympias also suffers because she is

scandalized and upset about the way Chrysostom has been treated by his persecutors, and

furthermore, she is annoyed that those responsible for his suffering went unpunished.

Chrysostom suggests that, like Job, Olympias will need to learn how God can seemingly bring

good out of the least promising circumstances and situations:

[L]et us learn from Job, who shone forth with great brilliance; and from Timothy,

was so excellent and who fulfilled such a noteworthy ministry, who went with Paul

across the whole world—and who, not for just two or three days, or ten or twenty

or a hundred, but for many days, lived continually in sickness, with a body greatly

weakened.87

86
L.D., xxvi.311.
87
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp. 4; in Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 165.

248
There is a parallel moment for Maria Giberne as she supports Newman through the dreadful

ordeal of the Achilli trial,88 and in which she assembled the witnesses for his defence. In both

cases, the defeat of the mentor had dire consequences for the mental health of the disciple.

Their despondency is a direct consequence of the brutality they have witnessed. Chrysostom

writes in his fourteenth letter to Olympias: “But you, torturing yourself with despondency, are

demanding a punishment for yourself, being thrown into disorder, being shaken, being filled

with much chagrin. This is just what they should be doing—if they should ever desire to

recognize their own evil-doing.”89 He says, in his seventeenth letter, she must drive away her

despondency and stop punishing herself, reminding her that this is the subject of the treatise he

wrote not long before this letter. The subject, he says, can be summarized as “no one can harm

the one who does not injure himself.” 90 Newman recognizes that Maria Giberne is often

troubled in a similar way, and for prolonged periods of time. She herself is able to recognize

this, and it is the cause of considerable anxiety to her. Newman reassures her when he writes:

I don’t think any thing of your special mental trouble, for it does not argue any want

of faith, but is merely that now you realize more exactly what lies before you, and

your enemy takes advantage of what is really a meritorious state of mind to frighten

you.91

88
Giovanni Giacinto Achilli (1803–1860) was an Italian Dominican friar who was unfrocked and imprisoned by
the Roman Inquisition for child sexual abuse and repeated rape. He escaped and relaunched himself as an
enthusiastic apologist for Protestantism. On arriving in England, Newman revealed Achilli’s scandalous past, and
Achilli bought a successful prosecution of Newman for libel (1851–1853). Maria Giberne worked tirelessly to
assemble an impressive group of witnesses for Newman’s defence. Newman was fined 100 pounds and his legal
costs of 12,000 pounds were met by public subscription. In many ways, it was Newman’s darkest hour, and Maria
Giberne led those who sought to defend him.
89
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp. 7; in Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 145.
90
See Chrysostom, De prov. Dei., 16, Monk Moses (Worcester), 120.
91
L.D., xxx.444.

249
Perhaps here Newman is thinking of Chrysostom’s definition of despondency in writing

to Olympias, replete with typically graphic and dramatic imagery:

…despondency [αθυμία] is for souls a grievous torture chamber, unspeakably

painful, more fierce and bitter than every ferocity and torment. It imitates the

poisonous worm that attacks not only the body but also the soul, and not only the

bones but also the mind. It is the continual executioner who not only tears in

pieces one’s torso but also mutilates the strength of one’s soul.92

Newman did eventually acknowledge what a support Maria had been during the dark

days of the Achilli trial, and he was eager to record his gratitude:

How much you did for me in the Achilli terminal, (and at other times), and I have

never thanked you, as I ought to have done. This sometimes oppresses me, as if I

was very ungrateful. You truly say that you have been [seen?] my beginning,

middle, and end… I have above mentioned the Achilli matter, but that is only one

specimen of the devotion, which by word and deed and prayer, you have been

continually showing towards me most unworthy.93

Like Chrysostom, Newman was on the receiving end of a continual stream of consciousness

from Maria about her woes, and like Chrysostom, he always tried to help her to understand that

her difficulties were a sign of God’s predilection, not his displeasure:

92
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp. 3; in Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 99.
93
L.D., xxvii.311.

250
 I don’t think seriously of what you tell me except as it is a trial to you. It is no proof

that you are less pleasing to God; perhaps you are more so. One may fairly argue

that it is indeed that it is a special honour to you that you are thus tried. It is easy to

serve God, when consolations abound. Think of the lives of the Saints; consider

what desolations weighed upon them for years. Do you think that noise of them,

though it is not mentioned in their history, had the very same cause of unsettlement

of mind and desolation which you have? … Who says that it is easy to love those

who ill treat us? I should never be surprised if your trial was long, but it would be,

long or short, a sign of God’s special love towards you.94

Newman even makes a somewhat humorous reference to Chrysostom in trying to gauge what

his own reaction is in the face of hardship: “If, like St John Chrysostom, I was called to suffer,

perhaps I might have something to say about my visit; but an oriental is not a silent Englishman,

nor a Saint any earnest token of what a humdrum mortal is in the reign of Queen Victoria.”95

ii. Solicitude for Health and Welfare

Both Newman and Chrysostom lace their correspondence with observations about their own

physical health, and make discreet, if somewhat persistent, enquiries about the health of their

disciple.96 It is such a feature of these correspondences as to merit some comment. It seems to

be the case, in either correspondence, that this is a well calculated strategy to put the disciple

at their ease, and to encourage them to be more responsive in their replies (which seems to be

94
Ibid., xxix.324.
95
Ibid., xxvii.331.
96
See L. Neureiter, “Health and Healing as Recurrent Topics in John Chrysostom's Correspondence with
Olympias,” in Studia Patristica 47 (2007): 267–72.

251
something of a challenge in both cases). Chrysostom cheerfully states: “As for you, give us

news of your health and those whom we love. Be without a care for us, for we are in good

health and joy, and we are enjoying great respite even until this day”;97 and, elsewhere: “I have

one drawback; my anxiety for your health. Inform me on this point.”98 While showing immense

concern for Olympias’s health, Chrysostom often goes to great lengths to reassure her that he

is well: “[A]s I have already written you word, I am improved in health and strength.”99 He

also clearly finds Olympias’s letters a great encouragement in the midst of his own difficulties:

“And send me a letter to tell me this; that, though I live in a strange land, I may enjoy much

cheerfulness from the assurance that you bear your trials with the understanding and wisdom

which becomes.” 100 Newman always seemed happy to have news of Maria’s health and

wellbeing: “It is a great thing to have got through the winter, and to know the worst of the

climate and place for your own health, which of course is a serious consideration.”101 He is

also somewhat more effusive than Chrysostom in putting on record his gratitude to his disciple

for the very considerable benefit to himself from her letters:

I was much pleased and encouraged by your letter, being in the midst of worry and

fidget, if such uncomfortable words bear to be written down. It really is a great

encouragement to know there are any persons who at all value what one tries to do

in the cause of the Gospel. A person like myself hears of nothing but his failures or

what others consider such—men do not flatter each other—and one’s best friends

act as one’s best friends ought, tell one of all one’s mistakes and absurdities. I know

97
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp., 8, in Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 38.
98
Ibid. 11.
99
Ibid.
100
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp., 9, in H.S., ii.252. Newman’s own translation.
101
L.D., xix.475.

252
 it is a good thing thus to be dealt with—nor do I wish it otherwise—All things one

tries to do, must be mixed with great imperfection—and it is part of one’s trial to

be obliged to attempt things which involve incidental error, and give cause for

blame. This is all very humbling, particularly when a person has foretold to himself

his own difficulties and scrapes, and then is treated as if he was quite unconscious

of them and thought himself a very fine fellow. But it is good discipline and I will

gladly accept it. Nevertheless it is very pleasant to have accidentally such letters as

yours to encourage one, though I know well that it goes far beyond the occasion,

owing to your great kindness.102

Both Newman and Chrysostom do not shrink from descending into particulars, both in relation

to reporting their own health, and in commenting on the reported health issues of their disciples.

Newman is characteristically forthright in commenting on Maria Giberne’s dental problems:

I do not like what you say of yourself. If you have not teeth, you cannot eat hard

substances without danger. Unchewed meat is as dangerous to the stomach as brick

and stone, or a bunch of keys. You are not an ostrich. I am very serious. As to myself

I have for years lived mainly on soup and milk. Any doctor would recommend you

such a diet—and peas pudding very well boiled, and eggs in the shape of omelet—

but not with the white in lumps. I dare say, you think of all this, but perhaps you

don’t …. I grieve about your tooth ache, having experience of it, and I wish I was

sure that you were attending properly to that more serious complaint.103

102
Ibid., iv.147.
103
Ibid., xxx.49.

253
Chrysostom is at his most tender in writing to Olympias in the wake of a potentially fatal

(undisclosed) illness:

It was not just by chance that it was brought to our attention, and that we learned

fully, that Your Moderation was brought nearly to your last breath. And because

we cherish you greatly, being concerned and anxious about your affairs, we were

overjoyed to be delivered from these cares even before your letters arrived; for

many people came from there [i.e. Constantinople] announcing everything

concerning your health.104

Newman writes, no less sensitively, on hearing that Maria had been seriously ill as the

consequence of having suffered a rupture:

What I am anxious about is your state of health. You have never, as I think, have

realized that the misfortune you have had is very serious. You do not now, I fear,

protect yourself against what may happen as you ought …. You are, I know, in our

Lord’s loving hands. You have given yourself to a life of great penance for His

sake, and He will not, does not forget it “when thou shalt pass through the waters,

he will be with thee, and when thou shalt walk in the fire, thou shalt not be burnt”

for you are one of those who have taken your purgatory in this life, and I rejoice to

think that, when God takes you hence, I shall have one to plead for me in heaven.105

104
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp. 6; in Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 132.
105
L.D., xxx.444–45.

254
The closing thought here seems to echo Chrysostom’s similar reassurance of Olympia and

acknowledgement of the benefit to himself, by way of consolation and encouragement, when

he writes:

I rejoice greatly and am glad, not only from your deliverance from illness, but

more than everything, for the way you nobly bore everything that befell you ….

Therefore I rejoice and leap for joy, I flutter with delight, not even noticing my

present isolation or its difficult conditions, but being happy and radiant, and

greatly glorying in the grandeur of your soul and your repeated victories…106

Both Chrysostom and Newman identify the importance of the psycho-somatic link between

physical health with spiritual, emotional and mental wellbeing. 107 They also immediately

identify, that for someone living the ascetic life, penitential practices, while being potentially

beneficial from a spiritual point of view, have to be very carefully calibrated and controlled in

such a way that they do not have a negative impact on a person’s physical health. For this

reason, Newman writes to Maria: “I am a little frightened at your fasting – for the effects come

out afterwards, as we find in this house.”108 Chrysostom likewise reminds Olympias of the

necessary balance that a person leading an ascetic life has to find in these things:

After having succeeded in self-control, now you are succeeding in detachment

(ἀπάθεια). For the desire for luxury doers not trouble you, and you do not have to

106
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp. 6; in Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 132.
107
See C.L. de Wet, “The Preacher’s Diet: Gluttony, Regimen, and Psycho-Somatic Health in the Thought of
John Chrysostom,” in Revisioning John Chrysostom: New Approaches, New Perspectives, ed. C.L. de Wet and
W. Mayer (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 410–63.
108
L.D., xix.493.

255
 work to control it. But having once and for all suppressed this desire, and having

rendered your flesh impervious to it, you have taught your stomach to be content

with only as much food and drink as you need not to die, and not to suffer [bodily]

affliction.109

iii. Consecration to a Life of Virginity

Newman and Chrysostom both show a sensitivity and awareness that they are writing to women

who have embraced “celibacy for the kingdom,”110 as those consecrated to a life of virginity.

In the case of Olympias, she was a young widow who, after a not particularly happy marriage,

seems to have actively sought to avoid remarriage, even to the point of resisting the Emperor’s

wishes. Maria Giberne turned down at least two marriage proposals from Newman’s brother,

Francis, and seems to have been equally intent on becoming a nun. An aspect of the sensibility

of their mentors in acknowledging the implications of such a choice is the recognition of the

sacrifice that a life of voluntary virginity implies. Newman writes to Maria:

Your great sacrifice has been the cutting yourself off from all those whom you

love and all things you are interested in. It has been a heroic act, which few people

can understand—but your dear Lord and Saviour, who inspired it, knows what it

is—and He will give you full measure for it.111

Chrysostom equally recognizes the challenge which this freely chosen life brings when he

writes to Olympias eulogizing the vocation to the consecrated life:

109
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp. 2; in Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 64.
110
See Matt.19:12.
111
L.D., xxiii.286.

256
 Virginity is something so great, and demands so much effort, that Christ came down

from heaven in order to make men like angels and to implant the angelic way of life

here below—not, however, daring to make this way of life mandatory, or to raise it

to the level of a law, but instead, instead instituting the law of self-mortification. Is

there anything that exists more burdensome than this? He has made it a

commandment to bear one’s cross continually, and to do good to one’s enemies;

but he has not made it a law to remain a virgin. He has left this to the choice of

those hearing Jesus’ words: “The one who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”112

Newman is no less clear in his understanding of the value and implication of a life a virginity.

In his unpublished papers, edited by Placid Murray OSB, there is the text of an address

Newman delivered at the religious profession on 12 January 1854 of Mary Anne Bowden

(1831–1867), who like Maria Giberne, was a Visitation nun but in the convent in Westbury:

… the Virginity of the Gospel—it is not a state of independence or isolation, or

dreary pride, or barren indolence, or crushed affections; man is made for

sympathy, for the interchange of love, for self-denial for the sake of another dearer

to him than himself. The Virginity of the Christian soul is a marriage with

Christ.113

Newman recognizes that such a choice can present something of a snare in that there is always

the unsettling thought that this might have been a mistake:

112
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp. 2; in Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 68.
113
P. Murray, Newman the Oratorian: Oratory Papers 1846–1878 (Leominster: Gracewing, 1968 [2004]), 277.

257
 I can easily understand the temptation which may come upon even the most holy

souls, or rather especially upon holy souls, to think they have made a mistake in

taking vows of perfection. But the thought must not distress you. Only consider

what trouble of mind would have come upon you, had you not become a nun. Ah,

you would have said, I was called, and I did not respond ...114

We can see that in the case of Maria Giberne, as with Olympias, there seems to have been a

great sense that they were well suited to this life, even if certain aspects of the life, at times,

presented them with a great challenge. Chrysostom seems to suggest to Olympias that the

hardships of this particular form of life, in addition to other physical and emotional challenges,

form the substance not only of the Imitatio Christi (the Imitation of Christ) and the Sequela

Christi (the Following of Christ), but also the recovery of the innocence of Eden and the life

of terrestrial angels that is such a feature of the life of consecrated virgins:115 “[R]ejoice and be

glad, since from your youth you have trod a path full of a myriad of crowns [στεφάνων] making

profit through your continual and multitudinous sufferings … each one of these trials is

sufficient by itself to procure great advantage to those who endure such things.” 116 It is

interesting here that Chrysostom references “crowns”, a frequent figure of speech in the

correspondence with Olympias, which in the Christian East figure so prominently in the

marriage ceremony, and in the West figure, in an equally iconic way, in the rite for the

consecration to a life of virginity. Chrysostom also speaks to Olympias of a “crown of

virginity” when he extols the superior nature of almsgiving: “Christ himself has shown how

114
L.D., xxvi.231.
115
For a fuller treatment, see J. Trenham, Marriage and Virginity according to St. John Chrysostom (Platina, CA:
St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood Press, 2013), 83–114; Ford, Women & Men in the Early Church, 47–57.
116
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp. 3; in Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 113.

258
much greater than virginity is almsgiving [ἐλεημοσύνη] in which you hold the scepter, for

which you have repeatedly earned a crown.” 117 Newman is no less encouraging when he

assures Maria: “I do trust those sad trials of mind, which you spoke of, are not what they were;

and that, in place of such desolation, you have begun to reap the fruits of your generous and

singular Sacrifice of yourself to our dear Lord.”118

iv. The Importance of Prayer

Newman never seems to be in any doubt that prayer is essential for the success of any

endeavour. His view, simply put, is to be found in this moment from one of the Parochial and

Plain Sermons: “… a habit of prayer, the practice of turning to God and the unseen world, in

every season, in every place, in every emergency (let alone its supernatural effect of prevailing

with God),—prayer, I say, has what may be called a natural effect, in spiritualizing and

elevating the soul.”119 He equally recognizes how easy it is to become discouraged when Maria

does not see direct and immediate answers to prayer: “Your prayers most surely are not thrown

away, no opt one of them is lost or fails—but how they are answered is a question to be solved

in the world to come.”120 Maria was already in the convent when she lost her brother in late

1879. Newman did not lose the opportunity to encourage her to persevere in her prayer: “You

can never have an idea of the worth and power of prayer, or of the great efficacy of your own

prayers for him and others, till you are in the unseen world.”121 Newman clearly conceived of

a life in the Church as essentially being a life of prayer, for he wrote to Maria as soon as she

117
Ibid., 2; in Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 63.
118
L.D., xxi.356.
119
P.S., iv.230.
120
L.D., xxvii.94.
121
Ibid., 121.

259
became a catholic on 19 December 1845: “And now, My dear Miss G. that you have the power,

pray begin your intercession …”122

Obviously, the life of a nun implies a greater dedication to prayer than is possible for a person

in the world, and daily mediation on the Scriptures, the Life of Christ, and the Mysteries of the

Christian faith forms part of the of any religious community. Many, maybe even most people,

find this something of a challenge, and it can be a significant cause of anxiety and

discouragement. Maria Giberne was not unusual in revealing the difficulties she encountered

in this aspect of prayer. Newman writes encouragingly, helping her to locate her prayer in the

broader picture of her spiritual life:

What you say of your own difficulty in meditation, is quite what I should say of

myself, if that is any comfort to you. I think the mind is weakened as one gets old,

and cannot hold an idea any more than the muscles can hold a heavy weight. And

then again, as the eyes get dim and then hearing dull, so in like manner the affections

do not act in sensible emotions as they do when people are young. All this is very

painful, and unsatisfactory—but I trust it is not a sign of falling back. What I try to

do is to live more in the sight of God, and try to be acting to His glory. But you

must pray for me that I may not get into a bad way—and that I may not do any thing

that may mislead you.123

Chrysostom also frequently encouraged Olympias to bring the hardships which was suffering

to her meditation when he writes: “Meditating upon the things within yourself, and similar

122
Ibid., xi.74.
123
Ibid., xxi.480 (italics in original).

260
things – for we have not stopped chanting such things continually to you – my lady most

beloved by God, throw off this heavy burden of despondency.”124 Direct injunctions to pray

are noticeable by their absence in Chrysostom’s letters, and he seems to concentrate far more

on Olympias’s “thought life” [λογισμός] out of concern for her general state of mind in bearing

hardship. It could be that he just assumed that she would quite naturally bring all of this to her

prayer, when he lists it among a whole catalogue of her activities:

We are not going to set forth an encomium for you in speaking of your holy soul;

rather we are going to prepare a remedy to encourage you. … think about your

continual struggles, borne through your endurance, your patience, your fasting,

your prayers, your sacred all-night vigils, your self-control, your almsgiving, your

hospitality, your manifold trials, grievous and frequent.125

As a general approach to his direction of Maria, Newman tended always to acknowledge the

gravity of her challenge, but then he immediately encouraged her to persevere, and most

particularly, not to give up on her prayers.

v. The Consolation of Friendship

Both Newman and Chrysostom gave central importance to friendship as a demonstration of

God’s Providence and, in particular, one of the privileged ways that celibates continue to

express and experience intimacy, once they have moved beyond the network of relationships

that characterize their early life in the family home. When Newman made his momentous

decision to leave the Church of England, his life in the University of Oxford, and the matrix of

124
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp. 12; in Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 40.
125
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp. 2; in Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 75.

261
social and ecclesial connections which had characterized his life until that point, it was as “The

Parting of Friends” that he saw it. It was also the title of his final sermon as an Anglican,

preached on 25 September 1843, in the small church at Littlemore which he had built himself.

That sermon ends with one of the greatest elegies to friendship, in a moment of parting:

And, O my brethren, O kind and affectionate hearts, O loving friends, should you

know any one whose lot it has been, by writing or by word of mouth, in some degree

to help you thus to act; if he has ever told you what you knew about yourselves, or

what you did not know; has read to you your wants or feelings, and comforted you

by the very reading; has made you feel that there was a higher life than this daily

one, and a brighter world than that you see; or encouraged you, or sobered you, or

opened a way to the inquiring, or soothed the perplexed; if what he has said or done

has ever made you take interest in him and feel well inclined towards him;

remember such a one in time to come, though you hear him not, and pray for him,

that in all things he may know God's will, and at all times he may be ready to fulfil

it.126

Newman identifies a kindred spirit in Chrysostom when he writes of him:

No one could live in his friends more intimately than St. John Chrysostom; he had

not a monk’s spirit of detachment in such severity as to be indifferent to the

presence, the hand-writing, the doings, the welfare, soul and body, of those who

were children of the same grace with him, and heirs of the same promise. He writes

as if he considered that the more religious a man is, the more sensitive he will be of

126
S.D., 409.

262
 a separation from his friends in religion; and by the very topics which he uses in

handling the subject of bereavement, in one of his letters to Olympias, he betrays

his own acute suffering under the trial. The passage is too long to quote, but I may

attempt an abstract of it. “It is not a light effort,” (Ep.2), “but it demands an

energetic soul and a great mind to bear separation from the one we love in the

charity of Christ.127

Anne-Marie Malingrey, who was responsible for the critical edition of Chrysostom’s

correspondence with Olympias, alludes to the devastating brutality of the separation of friends

in the particular case of Olympias and Chrysostom when she writes:

Deux amis se trouvent brutalement sépares. Il s’agit de sauvegarder l’essentiel, de

lutter contre l’action dissolvante de l’éloignement, de prolonger la joie et le

bienfait des échanges. Les lettres seules sont capables d'opérer ce prodige : une

absence qui reste une présence encore.128

Chrysostom’s friendship with Olympias was certainly evidenced as “an absence which remains

a presence” in their correspondence. Malingrey sees it as an essential indicator of the depth of

friendship that existed between them and found expression, as previously stated, in the desire

to be mutually reassured that the other was well:

127
H.S., 273.
128
“Two friends find themselves brutally separated. It is a matter of safeguarding the essential, of fighting against
the effect of unravelling and banishment, of prolonging the joy and the benefit of exchanges. Letters alone are
capable of bringing about this wonder: an absence which still remains a presence;” Malingrey, Lettres à Olympias,
40 (my own translation).

263
 L’amitié de Jean pour Olympias est d’une belle qualité. Elle fait l’honneur à l’un

comme à l’autre. Lorsqu’on en recherche les composantes, on trouve, de la part de

Jean, l’affection, l’admiration, la confiance. Cette affection se trahit à chaque

instant par le besoin qu’il éprouve d’avoir des nouvelles d’Olympias et surtout de

sa santé.129

Although, for Newman, some friendships, close friendships, were interrupted, many continued,

particularly through his prolific correspondence. Even before she became a catholic and started

to consider the possibility of the religious life, Maria Giberne was well established in

Newman’s inner circle. Sugg pays tribute to Newman’s fidelity to his friends as evidenced in

his correspondence. She also takes the opportunity to suggest that his patience, forbearance and

gentleness reaches its highest point in his dealings with Maria Giberne, whom she paints in a

less than favourable light:

Even distant and passing acquaintances were rarely forgotten and to the nearer

friends he was very loyal …. Of no one was this more true than of his friend Maria

Rosina Giberne … she herself was loyal, devoted and devout, but she was a

singularly tiresome woman, exuberant, tactless and insensitive. She was

emotionally immature and given to extremes and, though I have said that these

women revered Newman so that they were not in danger of offending against

propriety, it must be said that she was an exception. She could be embarrassingly

silly and Newman needed to show much forbearance over the years. However, a

129
“John’s friendship for Olympias is of a good quality. It does honour to them both. When we look for its
components, we find affection, admiration and confidence on John’s part. This affection is betrayed at every
moment by the need he feels for news of Olympias, and especially news of her health” (my own translation).

264
 friend she was and a friend she remained and he did not forget that she did him one

great service, at cost to herself. She was a vivid character and in her way a joy.130

It seems that Newman felt a periodic need to reassure sure himself that whatever losses had

been incurred, there were also compensatory graces. Newman was intensely aware of this at

the time of the sudden death of Fr Ambrose St. John (1815–1875), his closest friend. He wrote

to Maria Giberne three times in the days immediately following Ambrose’s death, and left her

in no doubt of the great importance to him of her own friendship, particularly in the hour of his

grief:

What a faithful friend he [Ambrose St John] has been to me for 32 years! Yet there

are others as faithful. What a wonderful mercy it is to me that God has given me so

many faithful friends! He has never left me without support at trying times. How

much you did for me in the Achilli trial, (and at other times), and I have never

thanked you, as I ought to have done. This sometimes oppresses me, as if I was very

ungrateful. You truly say that you have been [seen?] my beginning, middle, and

end. Since his death, I have been reproaching myself for not expressing to him how

much I felt his love—and I write this lest I should feel the same about you, should

it be God’s will that I should outlive you. I have above mentioned the Achilli matter,

but that is only one specimen of the devotion, which by word and deed and prayer,

you have been continually showing towards me most unworthy.131

130
Sugg, Ever Yours Affly, 5–6.
131
L.D., xxvii.311.

265
An incremental sense of loss of intimacy through either death or parting increased for Newman

as he got older, and it is no coincidence that his autobiographical novel is entitled, Loss and

Gain (1848), in many ways it would be a worthy epithet for his life. As one of his oldest friends,

and one of the few with whom he chose to put his sense of loss into words, Maria Giberne was

often the recipient of his most cogent thoughts in this regard, as early as 1846, when he offers

this stream of consciousness intended to offer her assistance in dealing with loss in her own

life:

You speak as if I were not in your case, for, though I left Littlemore, I carried my

friends with me, but alas! can you point to any one who has lost more in the way of

friendship, whether by death or alienation, than I have? … So many dead, so many

separated. My mother gone; my sisters nothing to me, or rather foreign to me; of

my greatest friends Froude, Wood, Bowden taken away, all of whom would now

be, or be coming, on my side. Other dear friends who are preserved in life not

moving with me; Pusey strongly bent on an opposite course, Williams protesting

against my conduct as rationalistic, and, dying—Rogers and J. Mozley viewing it

with utter repugnance. Of my friends of a dozen years ago whom have I now? and

what did I know of my present friends a dozen years ago? … And yet I am very

happy with them, and can truly say with St Paul “I have all and abound—” and

moreover, I have with them, what I never can have had with others, Catholic hopes

and beliefs—Catholic objects. And so in your own case, depend on it, God’s Mercy

will make up to you all you lose, and you will be blessed, not indeed in the same

way, but in a higher.132

132
L.D., xi.102.

266
Chrysostom gave Olympias very specific and highly practical advice on how to deal with

potentially overwhelming loss and guard against its long-term effects when he wrote to her:

“… grieve, but set a limit to your grief.”133 Newman is philosophical about the passage of time

bringing healing when he writes to Maria: “The world is getting very old as far as we are

concerned—but ‘Christ is risen’ is as new and young as ever it was. And as year passes after

year, or rather month after month, it is getting more and more to be to us the only truth and the

only consolation.” 134 He recognizes that over and above the losses we sustain, it is the

uncertainty of the future that often weighs down upon us. In this respect, he tries to help Maria

to look confidently to the future:

It is natural that you should look with anxiety to the future. The better you are, the

more will the prospect before you be solemn. Again, the older you are, the more

you realize what is to come. To younger people the unseen state is a matter of

words—but, as to people of our age they say to themselves, “For what I know I

shall be in that unknown state tomorrow,” and that is very awful. So you must not

allow yourself to be disturbed—but the more you feel that your have to give an

account, you must look in faith, hope, and love, towards our Lord Jesus, the

Supreme Lover of souls, and your abiding Strength, towards the Blessed Virgin,

and to St Francis. They won’t forsake you in your extremity—and your Guardian

angel will be faithful to the end.135

133
Chrysostom, Ep. Olymp. 2; in Ford, Letters to Saint Olympia, 58 (italics in the original).
134
L.D., xxvii.51.
135
Ibid., 306.

267
He equally recognizes that Maria has an irrepressible and joyful optimism which points her

forward, not only in moments of trial, but towards the life which is to come: “You have a great

gift in the perennial ever fresh sensible joy you have in the great Festivals of the year—and it

is a proof that our Lord loves you in a special way, and is an earnest of those better things

which are to follow after this life.”136

Newman was necessarily guarded in his expressions of affection in correspondence generally

but there are moments when we glimpse the depth of affection he has for a family member or

friend. In the case of Maria Giberne, this is particularly event in what he writes to the Mother

Superior of the Visitation Convent at Autun following Maria’s death from a stroke in December

1885:

I write to you, Reverend Mother, to condole with you and your Community on the

loss you have sustained in the death of your dear Sister Mary Pia This at the moment

is an extreme trial, especially when we consider the shock which was caused and

its suddenness and other circumstance …. You have for 25 years given her a shelter

and a home, while she was on earth, and she will not be ungrateful to you for your

[care], but will do her part in securing you an eternal habitation and home for you

in heaven …. I cannot close this letter without thanking you for the great care you

have taken to inform me without delay of the death of one in whom I was so much

interested, and for whom I had so true and deep an interest. I send you and all the

inmates of your Monastery my fullest blessing…137

136
Ibid., 438.
137
Ibid., xxxi.102.

268
With the death of Maria Giberne, Newman is not bereft, but he is genuinely grateful for

a friendship with someone who has been his companion for almost fifty years. Above

all, this correspondence is evidence of Newman’s capacity for deep enduring friendship

with a woman who, with the best will in the world, could certainly be difficult. Sugg

sums it up well when she comments:

Even distant and passing acquaintances were rarely forgotten and to the nearer friends he

was very loyal. It would sometimes have been more comfortable to shed them, to retire

into some priestly fastness where he did not have to concern himself with them. Of no

one was this more true than of his friend, Maria Rosina Giberne. I tend to think that

Newman looked rather more compassionately on Maria Giberne than Joyce Sugg’s

comments would suggest, much in the same way that his mentor, Chrysostom, showed

continual and exemplary pastoral solicitude, and real affection for Olympias. As this

present study draws to a close, I would like to attempt to demonstrate how Newman

looked to Chrysostom, not only as a pastoral example and a theological resource, but as

an obvious inspiration in the very process of identifying an epithet that would sum up his

own life and work: ex umbris et imaginibus in veritatem.138

CLOSING REMARKS

This present study began with my reading of Newman but soon led to a far greater engagement

with Chrysostom than I would have imagined possible from the initial leads that prompted my

research. Comparative studies can so easily degenerate into lists of the thoughts, achievements,

and experiences of the subjects under examination. My aim, however, has been to demonstrate

138
“From shadows and images into the truth.”

269
some evidence of the intense personal engagement which Newman and Chrysostom share in

their response to often dramatic experiences of crisis and transformation. The cumulative effect

of this, in Newman, is expressive of a significant debt to the theological formulations and

pastoral practice of Chrysostom. In Newman’s writings this is both explicit and implicit.

Benjamin King concludes his monumental study on Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers by

challenging the statement of F.L. Cross that, “[t]here was perhaps no one in any country who,

in the first half of the nineteenth century, had a greater knowledge of Athanasius than

Newman”139 and by demonstrating in his study that Newman probably had a greater knowledge

of the pre-Nicenes than he had of Athanasius. The final sentence of King’s study provided me

with a starting point for my own study: “To take Newman at his word, however, falsely limits

his contribution to the way that the Greek and Latin Fathers have been understood in the

Anglophone world.”140

While certain aspects of Patristic thought are easily identified in Newman’s writings, and

indeed he helps us by pointing the way, I firmly believe that there is much more of the Fathers

in Newman than has generally been acknowledged up to this point. I have taken one Father,

John Chrysostom, whose reception, by Newman, I would suggest is a discrete guiding and

shaping force, and I have attempted to demonstrate why I believe that to be the case. As the

epithet that began my study suggests, Newman learned from his Patristic study that this world

of shadows and images does indeed participate in the truth of an unseen heavenly realm.

139
B.J. King, Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers: Shaping Doctrine in Nineteenth-Century England (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009), 264.
140
Ibid.

270
Chrysostom was certainly an important element in the process of Newman coming to that

realization.

I end this study with a heightened desire to continue my quest in reading Newman, so that “his

contribution to the way that the Greek and Latin Fathers have been understood in the

Anglophone world” can continue to grow and develop, as we identify more clearly the complex

and diverse sources evident in the writings of someone many believe to be the greatest

theologian ever to have written in the English language.

271
 APPENDIX
Figure 1: Newman’s Library at the Birmingham Oratory

272
Figure 2: Newman’s bookmark at the correspondence between Chrysostom and Olympia

273
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources (Ancient)

Barnes, T.D. and Bevan, G., trans. The Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom (Liverpool:

Liverpool University Press, 2012).

Buytaert, E.M. and Mews, C., eds. Peter Abelard: Theologia ‘scholarium’ Corpus

Christianorum (continuatio mediaevalis), Vol. 13 (Turnout: Brepols,1987).

Crombie, F., trans. Origen: Contra Celsum, 4.14, ANF 4, (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature

Publishing Co., 1885).

Dumortier, J., ed. Jean Chrysostome: À Théodore, SC 117 (Paris: Cerf, 1966).

Ford, D.C., trans. Saint John Chrysostom: Letters to Saint Olympia (Crestwood, NY: St

Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2016).

Gifford, E.M., trans. The Catechetical lectures of S. Cyril of Jerusalem, NPNF 2, VII,

(Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893).

Green, R.P.H., Augustine: De Doctrina Christiana, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996).

Grillet, B., ed., La virginité, SC 125 (Paris: Cerf, 1966).

Hartranft, C.D., trans. Sozomen: Historia Ecclesiastica, NPNF 2, II, (Buffalo, NY: Christian

Literature Publishing Co., 1890).

Hill, R., trans., St. John Chrysostom: Homilies on Genesis (Washington, DC: Catholic

University of America Press, 1986).

———. ed., St. John Chrysostom: Homilies on Isaiah and Jeremiah (Brookline, MA: Holy

Cross Orthodox Press, 2003).

Hunter, D.G., trans. A Comparison between a King and a Monk; Against the Opponents of

the Monastic Life: Two Treatises by John Chrysostom (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen,

1988).

274
Malingrey, A.-M., ed. Jean Chrysostome: Sur la providence de Dieu. SC 79 (Paris: Cerf,

1961).

———. ed. Jean Chrysostome: Lettres à Olympias. SC 13 (Paris: Cerf, 1968).

———. ed. Jean Chrysostome: Sur la vaine gloire et l’éducation des enfants. SC 188 (Paris:

Cerf, 1972).

———. ed. Jean Chrysostome: Sur le sacerdoce. SC 272 (Paris: Cerf, 1980).

Mayer, W., trans. St John Chrysostom: The Cult of the Saints (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s

Seminary Press, 2005).

Meyer, R.T., trans. Palladius: Dialogue on the Life of St. John Chrysostom (New York:

Paulist Press, 1985).

Newman, J.H., edit., Commentary on the Epistles to the Galatians and Homilies on the

Epistle to the Ephesians of John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (Oxford:

Parker and Rivington, 1840).

Norman, A.F., trans., Libanius: Selected Works. Vol.1. Loeb Classical Library 451

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969).

Neville, G., trans. St. John. Chrysostom: Six Books on The Priesthood (Crestwood, NY: St.

Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1964).

Richardson, E. C., Jerome: De Viris Illustribus, NPNF 2, II (Buffalo, NY: Christian

Literature Publishing Co., 1892).

Schaff, P. et al, eds. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (series). 28 vols. (Buffalo, NY:

Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886–1900).

Schatkin, M.A, Grillet, B. and Guinot, J.-N., eds. Jean Chrysostome: Discours sur Babylas.

SC 362 (Paris: Cerf, 1990).

Worcester, Moses, trans. St. John Chrsysostom: On the Providence of God (Platina, CA: St.

Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2015).

275
Zenos, A.C., Socrates: Historia Ecclesiastica, NPNF 2, II (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature

Publishing Co., 1892).

Primary Sources (Newman)

Blehl, V.F., ed. Realizations: Newman’s Own Selection of His Sermons (Collegeville, MN:

Liturgical Press, 2009).

Bouyer, L., ed. John Henry Newman: Parochial and Plain Sermons (San Francisco: Ignatius

Press, 1997).

Earnest, J.D. and Tracey, G., eds. John Henry Newman: Fifteen Sermons Preached before the

University of Oxford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Gaffney, J., trans. with commentary. John Henry Newman: Roman Catholic Writings on

Development (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1997).

Ker, I. and Gornall, T., eds. The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman. 32 vols.

(Oxford: Clarendon, 1978–2009).

Lash, N., John Henry Newman: An Essay in aid of A Grammar of Assent (Notre Dame, IN:

University of Notre Dame Press, 1979).

Sillem, E. ed. John Henry Newman: The Philosophical Notebooks (New York: Humanities

Press, 1969).

Svaglic, M.-J., ed. John Henry Newman: The Idea of a University (Notre Dame, IN:

University of Notre Dame Press, 1986).

Tristram, H., ed. John Henry Newman: Autobiographical Writings (New York: Sheed &

Ward, 1956).

276
Secondary Sources

Allen, P. and Mayer, W., “John Chrysostom.” Pages 1128–150 in The Early Christian World.

Ed. P.F. Esler, vol. 2 (New York: Routledge, 2000).

Allen, P. and Neil, B., eds. Crisis Management in Late Antiquity (410–590 CE): A Survey of

the Evidence from Episcopal Letters (Leiden: Brill, 2013).

Arthur, J. and Nicholls, G. John Henry Newman (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014).

Attwater, D. St John Chrysostom: Pastor and Preacher (London: Harvill, 1959).

Baur, C. John Chrysostom and His Time. 2 Vols. (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1929, 1959).

Behr, J. “Scripture, the Gospel, and Orthodoxy.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 43

(1999): 223–48.

Bellasis, E. Coram Cardinali (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1916).

Blehl, V.F. Pilgrim Journey: John Henry Newman 1801–1845 (London: Burns & Oates,

2001).

Block, E. “Venture and Response: The Dialogical Strategy of Newman’s Loss and Gain.”

Pages 23–38 in Critical Essays on John Henry Newman. Ed. Block, E. (Victoria:

University of Victoria, 1992).

Boersma, H. Scripture as Real Presence: Sacramental Exegesis in the Early Church (Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017).

Bouyer, L. Newman: His Life and Spirituality (London: Burns & Oates, 1958).

Bowden, J.E. The Life and Letters of Frederick William Faber, D.D. (London: Thomas

Richardson & Son, 1869).

Brändle, R. John Chrysostom: Bishop, Reformer, Martyr, trans. Cawte, J. and Trzcionka, S.,

with Mayer, W. (Strathfield: St Pauls Publications, 2004).

Broc-Schmezer, C. “Theologie et philosophie en predication: le cas de Jean Chrysostome.”

Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 97.2 (2013): 187–212.

277
Brown, P. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire (Madison:

University of Wisconsin Press, 1992).

Bryson, M. The Evolving Reputation of Richard Hooker: An Examination of Responses

1600–1714 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Cavaller, F.M. Los principios del cristianismo: Una teología fundamental según Newman

(Buenos Aires: Agape Libros, 2017).

———. “Los principios teológicos en las obras de J. H. Newman.” Newmaniana 29.75

(2019): 30–45.

Chadwick, O. From Bossuet to Newman: The Idea of Doctrinal Development (London:

Cambridge University Press, 1957).

Chapman, R. Father Faber (London: Burns & Oates, 1961).

Chillingworth, W. The Religion of Protestants: A Safe Way to Salvation (London: Leonard

Lichfield, 1638), 6.

Christo, G.G. The Church’s Identity Established through Images according to Chrysostom

(Rollingsford, NH: Orthodox Research Institute, 2006).

Clark, E.A. “John Chrysostom and the Subintroductae.” Church History 46 (1977): 171–85.

———. ed. Jerome, Chrysostom & Friends (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1979).

———. “Introduction.” Pages vii–xlii in John Chrysostom: On Virginity and Against

Remarriage. Trans. S. Rieger (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1983).

———. “Theory and Practice in Late Ancient Asceticism: Jerome, Chrysostom and

Augustine.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 5.2 (1989): 25–46.

———. Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity (Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997).

———. Founding the Fathers: Early Church History and Protestant Professors in

Nineteenth-Century America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011).

278
———. The Fathers Refounded: Protestant Liberalism, Roman Catholic Modernism, and the

Teaching of Ancient Christianity in Early Twentieth-Century America (Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press, 2019).

Coleman-Norton, P.R. “The Correspondence of S. John Chrysostom (with Special Reference

to His Epistles to Pope S. Innocent I).” Classical Philology 24.3 (1929): 279–84.

Congar, Y. Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and Theological Essay. Trans. Naseby,

M. and Rainborough, T. (London: Burns & Oates, 1966)

Cook, J.D. Preaching and Popular Christianity: Reading the Sermons of John Chrysostom

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).

Cornwell, J. Newman’s Unquiet Grave: The Reluctant Saint (London: Continuum, 2010).

Cribiore, R. The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch (Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press, 2007).

Crispino, G. The School of Saint Philip Neri. Trans. Faber, F.W. (London: N.p., 1850

[2011]).

Dalmais, L.H., “The Eastern Liturgical Families.” Pages 27–44 in The Church at

Prayer. Ed. A. G. Martimort (Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 1987).

De Lubac, H. Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man (Tunbridge Wells: Burns

& Oates Ltd., 1950).

Dessain, C.S. “Cardinal Newman and the Eastern Tradition.” The Downside Review 94.315

(1976): 83–98.

De Wet, C.L. Preaching Bondage: John Chrysostom and the Discourse of Slavery in Early

Christianity (Oakland: University of California Press, 2015).

———. “Revisiting the Subintroductae: Slavery, Asceticism, and ‘Syneisaktism’ in the

Exegesis of John Chrysostom.” Biblical Interpretation 25.1 (2017): 58–80.

———. “Human Birth and Spiritual Rebirth in the Theological Thought of John

279
 Chrysostom,” In Luce Verbi / In die Skriflig 51.3 (2017): 1–9.

———. “The Preacher’s Diet: Gluttony, Regimen, and Psycho-Somatic Health in the

Thought of John Chrysostom.” Pages 410–63 in Revisioning John Chrysostom: New

Approaches, New Perspectives. Ed. De Wet, C.L. and Mayer, W. (Leiden: Brill, 2019).

———. “‘Le devoir des époux’: Michel Foucault’s Reading of John Chrysostom’s Marital

Ethic” in Histoire de la sexualité 4: Les aveux de la chair ([1982–1984] 2018),”

Religion & Theology 27.1–2 (2020): 114–51.

De Wet, C.L. and Mayer, W. “Approaching and Appreciating John Chrysostom in New

Ways.” Pages 1–31 in Revisioning John Chrysostom: New Approaches, New

Perspectives. Ed. De Wet, C.L. and Mayer, W. (Leiden: Brill, 2019).

———. eds. Revisioning John Chrysostom: New Approaches, New Perspectives (Leiden:

Brill, 2019).

———. “Approaching and Appreciating John Chrysostom in New Ways.” Pages 1–31 in

Revisioning John Chrysostom: New Approaches, New Perspectives. Ed. De Wet, C.L.

and Mayer, W. (Leiden: Brill, 2019).

Diehl, C. “Leo III and the Isaurian Dynasty (717–802).” Pages 1–26 in The Cambridge

Medieval History. Ed. Bury, J.B., Tanner, J.R, Previte-Orton, C.W., Brooke, Z.N., vol.

4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923).

Dreyfus, F., trans. Dempsey, L. “Divine Condescension (Synkatabasis) as a Hermeneutic

Principle of the Old Testament in Jewish and Christian Tradition.” Immanuel 19 (1984–

1985): 74–86.

Dulles, A. “From Images to Truth: Newman on Revelation and Faith.” Theological Studies

51 (1990): 252–67.

———. John Henry Newman (London: Continuum, 2002).

280
Faber, G. Oxford Apostles: A Character Study of the Oxford Movement (London: Faber &

Faber, 1933).

Finn, T.M., The Liturgy of Baptism in the Baptismal Instructions of St. John Chrysostom

(Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1967).

Flanagan, P. Newman: Faith and Believer (London: Sands, 1946).

Florovsky, G. “St John Chrysostom: The Prophet of Charity.” St. Vladimir’s Seminary

Quarterly 3 (1955): 37–42.

Ford, D.C. Women & Men in the Early Church: The Vision of St. John Chrysostom (South

Canaan, PA: St Tikhon’s Monastery Press, 2017).

Gallagher, C. and Greenblatt, S. Practicing New Historicism (Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 2000).

Griffin, P. Revelation and Scripture in the Writings of John Henry Newman (Pamplona:

University of Navarre, 1985).

Harrison, C. “The Typology of Listening: The Transformation of Scripture in Early Christian

Preaching.” Pages 62–79 in Delivering the Word: Preaching and Exegesis in the

Western Christian Tradition. Ed. Lyons, W.J. and Sandwell, I. (Sheffield: Equinox,

2012).

Hartney, A. John Chrysostom and the Transformation of the City (London: Duckworth,

2004).

Higgins, L. “The Mysterious Search for the Cardinal’s Girlfriend.” OUP Blog (1 June 2016).

Online: https://blog.oup.com/2016/06/maria-rosina-giberne-cardinal-newman.

Hill, R., “St John Chrysostom’s Teaching on Inspiration in ‘Six Homilies on Isaiah.’”

Vigiliae Christianae 21.1 (1967): 19–37.

Holmes, J.D. Introduction to U.S. (London: SPCK, 1970).

281
Hütter, R. John Henry Newman on Truth and Its Counterfeits: A Guide for Our Times

(Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2020).

Inge, W.R. Outspoken Essays, First series (London: Longmans, 1921).

Jaki, S.L. Newman’s Challenge (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000).

Jiménez Mejía, C. John Henry Newman: Conversión y Providencia (Madrid: Digital

Reasons, 2019).

Jones, A.H.M. “St John Chrysostom’s Parentage and Education.” Harvard Theological

Review 46 (1953): 171–73.

Kelly, J.N.D. Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop

(London: Duckworth, 1995).

Ker, I. John Henry Newman: A Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).

———. ed. Newman the Theologian: A Reader (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University

Press, 1990).

Ker, I. and Merrigan, K., eds. The Cambridge Companion to John Henry Newman

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

King, B.J. Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers: Shaping Doctrine in Nineteenth-

Century England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).

———. “The Church Fathers.” Pages 113–34 in The Oxford Handbook of John Henry

Newman. Ed. Aquino, F.D. and King, B.J. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018)

Kinzig, W. “The Greek Christians.” Pages 633–70 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the

Hellenistic Period, 300 B.C–A.D. 400. Ed. Porter, S.E. (Leiden: Brill, 2001).

Krupp, R.A. Shepherding the flock of God: The Pastoral Theology of John Chrysostom (New

York: Peter Lang, 1991).

Kwasniewski, P.A. Newman on Worship, Reverence, and Ritual (N.p.: Os Justi, 2019).

282
Lai, P.-W. “Exemplar Portraits and the Interpretation of John Chrysostom’s Doctrine of

Recapitulation.” Pages 587–91 in Revisioning John Chrysostom: New Approaches, New

Perspectives. Ed. De Wet, C.L. and Mayer, W. (Leiden: Brill, 2019).

Lang, U.M. “Newman and the Fathers of the Church.” New Blackfriars 92.1038 (2011): 144–

56.

Lash, N. Newman on Development: The Search for an Explanation in History

(Shepherdstown, WV: Patmos Press, 1975).

Lattier, D.J. John Henry Newman and Georges Florovsky: An Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue

on the Development of Doctrine. PhD thesis. Duquesne University (Pittsburgh, PA,

2012). Online: https://academia.edu/resource/work/5365793.

———. “The Orthodox Rejection of Doctrinal Development.” Pro Ecclesia 20.4 (2011):

389–410.

Leroux, J.-M. “Saint Jean Chrysostome et le monachisme.” Pages 125–45 in Jean

Chrysostome et Augustin, Théologie Historique. Ed. Kannengiesser, C. (Paris: Éditions

Beauchesne, 1975).

Letter of His Holiness Benedict XVI on the Occasion of the 16th Centenary of the Death of St

John Chrysostom. 10 August 2007. Online: http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-

xvi/en/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070810_giovanni-crisostomo.html.

Leyerle, B. Theatrical Shows and Ascetic Lives: John Chrysostom’s Attack on Spiritual

Marriage (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001).

———. The Narrative Shape of Emotion in the Preaching of John Chrysostom (Oakland:

University of California Press, 2020).

Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. Barbarians and Bishops: Army, Church, and State in the Age of

Arcadius and Chrysostom (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990).

283
Lochbrunner, M. Über das Priestertum: historische und systematische Untersuchung zum

Priesterbild des Johannes Chrysostomus (Bonn: Borengässer, 1993).

Lossky, V. “Tradition and Traditions.” Pages 141–68 in In the Image and Likeness of God.

Ed. Erickson, J. and Bird, T. (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974).

Louth, A. “Is Development of Doctrine a Valid Category for Orthodox Theology?” Pages

45–63 in Orthodoxy and Western Culture: A Collection of Essays Honoring Jaroslav

Pelikan on His Eightieth Birthday. Ed. Hotchkiss, V. and Henry, P. (Crestwood, NY: St

Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2005).

Magill, G. “Newman’s Personal Reasoning: The Inspiration of the Early Church.” Irish

Theological Quarterly 52 (1992): 305–13.

———. Religious Morality in John Henry Newman: Hermeneutics of the Imagination

(Cham: Springer, 2014).

Mallet, C.E. A History of the University of Oxford. Vol. 3 (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.,

1927).

Malosse, P.-L. “Jean Chrysostome a-t-il été l’élève de Libanios?” Phoenix 62 (2008): 273–

80.

Maxwell, J.L. Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity: John Chrysostom and

his Congregation in Antioch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

Mayer, W. “John Chrysostom and His Audiences: Distinguishing Different Congregations at

Antioch and Constantinople.” Studia Patristica 31 (1997): 70–75.

———. “John Chrysostom: Extraordinary Preacher, Ordinary Audience.” Pages 105–137 in

Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics. Ed.

Cunningham, M.B. and Allen, P. (Leiden: Brill, 1998).

———. “Monasticism at Antioch and Constantinople in the Late Fourth Century: A Case of

Exclusivity or Diversity?” Pages 275–88 in Prayer and Spirituality in the Early

284
 Church. Ed. Allen, P., Canning, R., Cross, L. and Caiger, J.B. (Everton Park:

Australian Catholic University, 1998).

———. “Female Participation and the Late Fourth-Century Preacher’s Audience.”

Augustinianum 39 (1999): 139–47.

———. The Homilies of St John Chrysostom—Provenance: Reshaping the Foundations

(Rome: Istituto Pontificio Orientale, 2005).

———. “What Does It mean to Say That John Chrysostom Was a Monk?” Studia Patristica

41 (2006): 451–55.

———. “John Chrysostom on Poverty.” Pages 69–118 in Preaching Poverty in Late

Antiquity: Perceptions and Realities. Ed. Allen, P., Neil, B. and Mayer, W. (Leipzig:

Evangelische Verlagsanstalt GmbH, 2009).

———. “The Biography of John Chrysostom and the Chronology of His Works.”

Unpublished article (2014). Updated from a conference given at the Augustinianum

(Rome, 2007). Online:

https://www.academia.edu/6448810/The_Biography_of_John_Chrysostom_and_the_C

hronology_of_his_Works. Accessed on July 4, 2020.

———. “John Chrysostom and Women Revisited.” Pages 215–30 in Reading Men and

Women in Early Christianity. Ed. Mayer, W. and Elmer, I. (Strathfield: St Pauls, 2014).

———. “The Ins and Outs of the Chrysostom Letter Collection: New Ways of Looking at a

Limited Corpus.” Pages 129–53 in Collecting Early Christian Letters: From the

Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity. Ed. Neil, B. and Allen, P. (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2015).

———. “John Chrysostom.” Pages 141–54 in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Patristics.

Ed. Parry, K. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2015).

Mayer, W. and Allen, P. John Chrysostom (London: Routledge, 2000).

285
———. The Churches of Syrian Antioch (300–638 CE) (Leuven: Peeters, 2012).

Mayer, W. and Neil, B., eds. Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to the Rise of Islam

(Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013).

McGrath, A.E. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2020).

Merrigan, T. Clear Heads and Holy Hearts: The Religious and Theological Ideal of John

Henry Newman (Louvain: Peeters, 1992).

Merzagora, A. “Giovanni Cristomo commentatore di S. Paolo: Osservazioni su l’esegesi

filosofica(I).” Pages 205–46 in Studi dedicati alla memoria di Paolo Ubaldi, (Milan:

Società editrice Vita e Pensiero, 1937).

Meszaros, A. The Prophetic Church: History and Doctrinal Development in John Henry

Newman and Yves Congar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).

Migne, J.-P. Patrologia Graeca cursus completus, 162 vols. (Paris: Migne, 1857–1866).

Miller S.L. Chrysostom’s Devil: Demons, the Will, and Virtue in Patristic Soteriology

(Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2020).

Misner, P. “Newman‘s Concept of Revelation and the Development of Doctrine.”

Heythrop Journal 11.1 (1971): 32–47.

Mitchell, M.M. The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline

Interpretation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002).

Morris, W. Towards a New Historicism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972).

Moulard, A. S. Jean Chrysostome, sa vie, son oeuvre (Paris: Procure générale du clergé, 1949

[1974]).

Murray, P. Newman the Oratorian: Oratory Papers 1846–1878 (Leominster: Gracewing,

1968 [2004]).

Neureiter, L. “Health and Healing as Recurrent Topics in John Chrysostom’s

286
 Correspondence with Olympias.” Studia Patristica 47 (2007): 267–72.

Nesselrath, H.-G. “Der Heide Libanius und der Christ Johannes Chrysostomos–Lehrer und

Schüler?” Pages 153–77 in Bedeutende Lehrerfiguren: Von Platon bis Hasan al-Banna.

Ed. Georges, T., Scheiner J. and Tanaseanu-Döbler, I. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,

2015).

Newsome, D. The Convert Cardinals: John Henry Newman and Henry Edward Manning

(London: John Murray, 1993).

Nichols, A. From Newman to Congar: The Idea of Doctrinal Development from the

Victorians to the Second Vatican Council (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990).

Nicholls, G. Unearthly Beauty: The Aesthetic of St John Henry Newman (Leominster:

Gracewing, 2019).

Page, J.R. What Will Dr. Newman Do? John Henry Newman and Papal Infallibility, 1865–

1875 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994).

Pelikan, J. Development of Christian Doctrine: Some Historical Prolegomena (New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press, 1969).

Pereiro, J. “Ethos” and the Oxford Movement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).

Pigott, J.M. “Capital Crimes: Deconstructing John’s ‘Unnecessary Severity’ in Managing the

Clergy at Constantinople.” Pages 733–78 in Revisioning John Chrysostom: New

Approaches, New Perspectives. Ed. De Wet, C.L. and Mayer, W. (Leiden: Brill, 2019).

Plested, M. “St John Chrysostom in the West.” Pages 144–55 in Jewish Roots of Eastern

Christian Mysticism: Studies in Honor of Alexander Golitzin. Ed. Orlov, A. (Leiden:

Brill, 2020).

Quasten, J. Patrology. 3vols. (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1960).

Quiroga Puertas, A.J. The Purpose of Rhetoric in Late Antiquity: From Performance to

Exegesis (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013).

287
Rickaby, J. Index to the Works of John Henry Cardinal Newman (Aberdeen: The University

Press, 1914 [1977]).

Ritter, A.M. Studia Chrysostomica: Aufsätze zu Weg, Werk und Wirkung des Johannes

Chrysostomos (ca. 349–407) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).

Roth, C.P., trans. John Chrysostom: On Wealth and Poverty (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s

Seminary Press, 1984).

Roth, M.S. “Foucault’s ‘History of the Present.’” History and Theory 20.1 (1981): 32–46.

Rousseau, P. Ascetics, Authority and the Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978).

———. Basil of Caesarea (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998).

Russell, N. The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2004).

Rylaarsdam, D. John Chrysostom on Divine Pedagogy: The Coherence of His Theology and

Preaching (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).

Sandwell, I, Religious Identity in Late Antiquity: Greeks, Jews and Christians in Antioch,

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

———. “How to Teach Genesis 1.1–19: John Chrysostom and Basil of Caesarea on the

Creation of the World.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 19.4 (2011): 539–64.

Schaff, P. Prolegomena: The Life and Work of St John Chrysostom. Vol. 9 (New York:

Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886).

Schüssler Fiorenza, E. Women, Invisible in Theology and Church (Edinburgh: T&T

Clark, 1985).

Sheridan, T.L. Newman on Justification (Staten Island: Society of St. Paul, 1967).

Skinner, G. Newman the Priest: A Father of Souls (Leominster: Gracewing, 2010).

Soloviev, V., trans. Bouteneff, P. “Development of Dogma in the Church in Connection with

the Question of Church Union.” Pages 67–80 in Tradition Alive: On the Church and the

288
 Christian Life in Our Time. Ed. Plekon, M. (Latham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield,

2003).

Stang, CM., “Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers: Shaping Doctrine in Nineteenth-Century

England.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 18.2 (2010): 339–41.

Staniloae, D. “The Orthodox Conception of Tradition and the Development of Doctrine.”

Sobornost 5 (1969): 652–62.

Stephens, W.R.W. “John Chrysostom: Letters to Olympias.” Pages 289–304 in Nicene and

Post-Nicene Fathers. Ed. Schaff, P. Vol. 9 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Publishing Co.,

1889).

Strange, R. John Henry Newman: A Portrait in Letters (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2015).

Stern, J. Bible et Tradition chez Newman: Aux origines de la théorie du développement

(Paris: Aubier, 1967).

Sugg, J. Ever Yours Affly: John Henry Newman and His Female Circle (Leominster:

Gracewing, 1996).

Svaglic, M.-J., ed. John Henry Newman, The Idea of a University (Notre Dame, IN: Notre

Dame University Press, 1986).

Tardivel, F. J.H. Newman, éducateur (Paris: Beauchesne, 1937).

Thierry, A. St. Jean Chrysostome et l’impératrice Eudoxie: la société Chrétienne en Orient,

(Paris: Didier et Cie, 1872).

Tiersch, C. Johannes Chrysostomus in Konstantinopel (398–404) (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,

2000).

Tonias, D. Abraham in the works of John Chrysostom (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2014).

Trenham, J. Marriage and Virginity according to St. John Chrysostom (Platina, CA: St.

Herman of Alaska Brotherhood Press, 2013).

289
Trevor, M. Newman: The Pillar and the Cloud (London: Macmillan & Co., 1962).

———. Newman: Light in Winter (London: Macmillan & Co., 1962).

———. “Preface.” (Unnumbered page before the Introduction) in Sugg, J. Ever Yours Affly:

John Henry Newman and His Female Circle (Leominster: Gracewing, 1996).

Turner, F.M. John Henry Newman: The Challenge to Evangelical Religion (New Haven, CT:

Yale University Press, 2002).

Van Nuffelen, P. “Palladius and the Johannite Schism.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History

64.1 (2013): 1–19.

Vélez, J.R. Passion for Truth: The Life of John Henry Newman (Charlotte, NC: TAN, 2012).

———. Holiness in a Secular Age: The Witness of Cardinal Newman (New York: Scepter,

2017).

Voicu, S.R. “L’immagine di Crisostomo negli spuri.” Pages 61–98 in Chrysostomosbilder in

1600 Jahre. Ed. Wallraff, M and Brändle, R. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008).

Walgrave, J.H. and Littledale, A.V. Newman The Theologian: The Nature of Belief and

Doctrine as Exemplified in His Life and Works (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1960).

Ward, M. Young Mr. Newman (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1948).

Ward, W.W.G. Ward and the Oxford Movement (London, Macmillan, 1890).

———. The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman Based on His Private Journals and

Correspondence. 2 vols. (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1912).

Wilcox, P.C. John Henry Newman: Spiritual Director 1845–1890 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick,

2013).

Wilken, R.L. John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century

(Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1983).

Young, F.M. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Grand Rapids, MI:

Baker Academic, 1997).

290
Young, F.M. “They Speak to Us Across the Centuries: John Chrysostom.” The Expository

Times 109 (1997): 404–12.

Young, F.M. From Nicaea to Chalcedon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010).

Zachhuber, J., “The World Soul in Early Christian Thought”, unpublished paper (Accessed

on February 15:

https://www.academia.edu/5977922/The_world_soul_in_early_Christian_thought.

Zeno, C. John Henry Newman: His Inner Life (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1986).

291