Did it strike anyone else that Newman completely omits to do what no modern spiritual autobiography would dream of leaving out, i.e., providing a justification for his belief in God? These days, no-one leaves this step out. Do they?
How different the modern mind from the Victorian, even though those fellows often seem very modern in the sense of being scientific and materialist.
I also find the first chapters hard going. So much special knowledge required! I'd heard of Pusey et al, but have no intimate knowledge of what they were about.
Lastly, when I read the Thirty-Nine Articles (a long time ago) they struck me as completely Protestant in nature. It surprises me that Newman can see them as interpretable in any other sense. In any case this has interesting parallels to debates about how the American Constitution should be interpreted!
According to wiki, Newman's original conversion to Christianity from a nominally practising family was to a Calvinist persuasion. I'd very much like to know what dissuaded him from this position, since I am myself of a Calvinist bent.
Life in Lent
1 day ago