What do you think?
Rate this book
Apologia Pro Vita Sua
John Henry Newman, one of the towering figures of the early Victorian Church of England, caused shock and outrage in equal measure when he announced his espousal of Roman Catholicism in 1845. His Apologia, written nearly twenty years later in response to a scurrilous public attack by Charles Kingsley, is a superbly crafted response to those who criticized his actions and questioned his motives, and traces his spiritual development since boyhood, his close involvement in the high church Tractarian Movement and his agonizing decision to reject the church he had been born into. Ostensibly an autobiography and a speech for the defence, the Apologia transcends self-justification to explore the very nature of Christianity and its place in the modern age.
608 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1864
About the author
John Henry Newman
2,217 books310 followersSaint John Henry Cardinal Newman was an important figure in the religious history of England in the 19th century. He was known nationally by the mid-1830s.
Originally an evangelical Oxford University academic and priest in the Church of England, Newman then became drawn to the high-church tradition of Anglicanism. He became known as a leader of, and an able polemicist for, the Oxford Movement, an influential and controversial grouping of Anglicans who wished to return to the Church of England many Catholic beliefs and liturgical rituals from before the English Reformation. In this the movement had some success. However, in 1845 Newman, joined by some but not all of his followers, left the Church of England and his teaching post at Oxford University and was received into the Catholic Church. He was quickly ordained as a priest and continued as an influential religious leader, based in Birmingham. In 1879, he was created a cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in recognition of his services to the cause of the Catholic Church in England. He was instrumental in the founding of the Catholic University of Ireland, which evolved into University College Dublin, today the largest university in Ireland.
Newman was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI on 19 September 2010 during his visit to the United Kingdom. He was then canonised by Pope Francis on 13 October 2019.
Newman was also a literary figure of note: his major writings including the Tracts for the Times (1833–1841), his autobiography Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1865–66), the Grammar of Assent (1870), and the poem The Dream of Gerontius (1865),[6] which was set to music in 1900 by Edward Elgar. He wrote the popular hymns "Lead, Kindly Light" and "Praise to the Holiest in the Height" (taken from Gerontius).
Originally an evangelical Oxford University academic and priest in the Church of England, Newman then became drawn to the high-church tradition of Anglicanism. He became known as a leader of, and an able polemicist for, the Oxford Movement, an influential and controversial grouping of Anglicans who wished to return to the Church of England many Catholic beliefs and liturgical rituals from before the English Reformation. In this the movement had some success. However, in 1845 Newman, joined by some but not all of his followers, left the Church of England and his teaching post at Oxford University and was received into the Catholic Church. He was quickly ordained as a priest and continued as an influential religious leader, based in Birmingham. In 1879, he was created a cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in recognition of his services to the cause of the Catholic Church in England. He was instrumental in the founding of the Catholic University of Ireland, which evolved into University College Dublin, today the largest university in Ireland.
Newman was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI on 19 September 2010 during his visit to the United Kingdom. He was then canonised by Pope Francis on 13 October 2019.
Newman was also a literary figure of note: his major writings including the Tracts for the Times (1833–1841), his autobiography Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1865–66), the Grammar of Assent (1870), and the poem The Dream of Gerontius (1865),[6] which was set to music in 1900 by Edward Elgar. He wrote the popular hymns "Lead, Kindly Light" and "Praise to the Holiest in the Height" (taken from Gerontius).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 154 reviews
June 11, 2019
“Away with you, Mr Kingsley, and fly off into space!*
Apologia
NUNQUAM MINUS SOLUS QUAM CUM SOLUS: "You're never less alone than when you're alone!"
Apologia pro Vita Sua
It will soon be Fifty-five Years exactly on the day (1 August) since I first finished this book.
It inspired me to the ultimate zenith of enthusiasm, with its irreproachable integrity!
I was pretty green at nineteen.
Nowadays, I’d slog painfully through a tome of this size, but back then, my sympathetic bond with this obscure Victorian churchman - now, of course, elevated to sainthood - made me think ingenuous honesty was the optimal calling in life.
Sure is, if you don’t want to avoid pain...
I was about to choose the road less travelled.
But the Ontario August Civic Holiday weekend of 1970, exactly 53 years ago today, was highlighted by the Regional Highland Games in East Ontario.
And now free of work in advance of the Fall Semester, I tagged along with my Dad & Sister.
The result was unforgettable...
Cause halfway thru the Games, I slipped away into the surrounding countryside merely to ENJOY the sight of fluffy white clouds scudding through the overhead pure azure, in peace and quiet.
Far from the madding crowd.
And the result was miraculous. It was the First Day itself - a day of Pure Untrammelled Being.
I felt lightened, unharnessed. In Perfect Freedom. Set free by an Absolute Alterity in which there was peace in the midst of flux - it was all so radically Sheer Other!
And, of course, it was all downright incommunicable.
So in the weeks ahead, though I tried nevertheless to relay a sense of its simplicity to a rather cynical group of people, I was placed under lock and key in an Enlightenment Ward.
•••
So it goes. In much the same way, a young ingenue in this book defends his honesty against a charge by the Anglican Establishment of disingenuousness.
He would learn that, in respect of the vision of Truth he had in his heart, it would make him world famous, but no less disingenuous to his Low Church opponents.
For when you couch your vision in borrowed theological terminology, the world will ALWAYS smell a rat. That’s just the way it is.
The world wants honest facts and feelings and not our visions of Being.
***
Nowadays, like Newman tried to do, I keep a low profile.
I keep it simple and above board.
But that day fifty-three years ago, I had a vision that changed my life.
For the worse at first - but, in the end, for infinitely BETTER.
But it’s incommunicable.
And now I leave it at that:
For I have learned to hold my Silence.
Apologia
NUNQUAM MINUS SOLUS QUAM CUM SOLUS: "You're never less alone than when you're alone!"
Apologia pro Vita Sua
It will soon be Fifty-five Years exactly on the day (1 August) since I first finished this book.
It inspired me to the ultimate zenith of enthusiasm, with its irreproachable integrity!
I was pretty green at nineteen.
Nowadays, I’d slog painfully through a tome of this size, but back then, my sympathetic bond with this obscure Victorian churchman - now, of course, elevated to sainthood - made me think ingenuous honesty was the optimal calling in life.
Sure is, if you don’t want to avoid pain...
I was about to choose the road less travelled.
But the Ontario August Civic Holiday weekend of 1970, exactly 53 years ago today, was highlighted by the Regional Highland Games in East Ontario.
And now free of work in advance of the Fall Semester, I tagged along with my Dad & Sister.
The result was unforgettable...
Cause halfway thru the Games, I slipped away into the surrounding countryside merely to ENJOY the sight of fluffy white clouds scudding through the overhead pure azure, in peace and quiet.
Far from the madding crowd.
And the result was miraculous. It was the First Day itself - a day of Pure Untrammelled Being.
I felt lightened, unharnessed. In Perfect Freedom. Set free by an Absolute Alterity in which there was peace in the midst of flux - it was all so radically Sheer Other!
And, of course, it was all downright incommunicable.
So in the weeks ahead, though I tried nevertheless to relay a sense of its simplicity to a rather cynical group of people, I was placed under lock and key in an Enlightenment Ward.
•••
So it goes. In much the same way, a young ingenue in this book defends his honesty against a charge by the Anglican Establishment of disingenuousness.
He would learn that, in respect of the vision of Truth he had in his heart, it would make him world famous, but no less disingenuous to his Low Church opponents.
For when you couch your vision in borrowed theological terminology, the world will ALWAYS smell a rat. That’s just the way it is.
The world wants honest facts and feelings and not our visions of Being.
***
Nowadays, like Newman tried to do, I keep a low profile.
I keep it simple and above board.
But that day fifty-three years ago, I had a vision that changed my life.
For the worse at first - but, in the end, for infinitely BETTER.
But it’s incommunicable.
And now I leave it at that:
For I have learned to hold my Silence.
June 9, 2016
I finished it, sort of. I finished the main text, not all the appendices and I cannot say I understood all I read. But what I understood stretched me. Currently I am rereading The One Thing Is Three: How the Most Holy Trinity Explains Everything (for the 3rd time I think) by Fr. Michael Gaitley and since I was also reading Newman, what Gaitley had to say about him clicked this time. Before I had no frame of reference.
Gaitley says that Newman, is a very personal author. By contrast, Thomas Aquinas hides behind his writing, seeking singular objectivity in what he says. Newman serves the objective truth as well but by, 'throwing himself into everything he writes', not out of any narcissistic need to be recognized, he seeks to bring people to an enrichment of the faith by his personal witness. Newman is present in his words, not only explaining how he came to the truth but also giving witness to it. There is this passion in all of his writing. (Here I am paraphrasing the Newman scholar, John F. Crosby quoted by Gaitley.)
Apologia was written in response to an attack by the popular author, Charles Kingsley. Most people know him as the author of Westward Ho! While Kingley's slanderous statements against Newman's integrity were a most painful period in his life; they proved fortuitous for posterity in that we have been graced with this autobiographical testament of his intellectual, philosophical and theological beliefs—at least those leading up to his conversion to Catholicism in 1845.
Where Newman discusses specific actions and events in the text, I followed the narrative well-enough. Also when Newman was directly answering Kingsley's accusations or when Newman was writing about the various heresies in the early years of the Church which he studied, all was clear.
I was on much shakier ground when it came to the Tracts, British politics, the separation of church and state in the United Kingdom, Liberalism as Newman used the term and Anglicanism in general. When Newman would be making a point in one of those areas, his efforts were usually wasted on me, much as I wanted to understand. There was usually too much I didn't know about the individuals, situation, politics or other intricacies to be able to discern what he was getting at. More's the pity.
Still I plan to read An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, supposedly the hardest and best as well as get his Parochial and Plain Sermons Complete . His mind – when I understand him – is worth the effort.
Gaitley says that Newman, is a very personal author. By contrast, Thomas Aquinas hides behind his writing, seeking singular objectivity in what he says. Newman serves the objective truth as well but by, 'throwing himself into everything he writes', not out of any narcissistic need to be recognized, he seeks to bring people to an enrichment of the faith by his personal witness. Newman is present in his words, not only explaining how he came to the truth but also giving witness to it. There is this passion in all of his writing. (Here I am paraphrasing the Newman scholar, John F. Crosby quoted by Gaitley.)
Apologia was written in response to an attack by the popular author, Charles Kingsley. Most people know him as the author of Westward Ho! While Kingley's slanderous statements against Newman's integrity were a most painful period in his life; they proved fortuitous for posterity in that we have been graced with this autobiographical testament of his intellectual, philosophical and theological beliefs—at least those leading up to his conversion to Catholicism in 1845.
Where Newman discusses specific actions and events in the text, I followed the narrative well-enough. Also when Newman was directly answering Kingsley's accusations or when Newman was writing about the various heresies in the early years of the Church which he studied, all was clear.
I was on much shakier ground when it came to the Tracts, British politics, the separation of church and state in the United Kingdom, Liberalism as Newman used the term and Anglicanism in general. When Newman would be making a point in one of those areas, his efforts were usually wasted on me, much as I wanted to understand. There was usually too much I didn't know about the individuals, situation, politics or other intricacies to be able to discern what he was getting at. More's the pity.
Still I plan to read An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent, supposedly the hardest and best as well as get his Parochial and Plain Sermons Complete . His mind – when I understand him – is worth the effort.
August 12, 2025
A rigorous exposition of theology and personal history, in which Cardinal Newman accounts for his departure from the Anglican priesthood for Rome, written in response to an accusation that he failed to value the principle of truth. Although he is careful and thorough, Newman does not address all possible theological variations between the Anglican and Catholic traditions. He focuses primarily on answering his critic’s charges and articulating the instrumental points that brought him to Catholicism, which had less to do with a defense of particulars than a development of what it meant to submit to conscience, tradition, and authority.
Throughout his published work and his correspondence with both friends and critics, Newman emphasizes that his conversion resulted from a desire to be obedient to his conscience and to his convictions, these governed by the rightness of God’s timing and providence. Past the point of conversion, he no longer had any need of searching or substantiation; having gone to Rome, he was satisfied to “come into harbor” there, without further construction of proof. Definition, doubt, and difficulty all submit alike to belief. This confirms the sense I had come to already: For a Protestant to turn to Catholicism requires not a precise theological accounting that leads to total intellectual clarity and accord (however much a Protestant temperament is tuned to this approach), but rather a set of dispositional changes that make conversion the only end.
Newman writes with great charity and humility, and continually assures his critics and his friends that he has only ever aimed at “obedience to my own sense of right.” Trust and obedience summarize briefly much of the operation of the Christian life—and this is a reminder worth receiving, for those who remain in the via media as well as those who go to Rome.
Throughout his published work and his correspondence with both friends and critics, Newman emphasizes that his conversion resulted from a desire to be obedient to his conscience and to his convictions, these governed by the rightness of God’s timing and providence. Past the point of conversion, he no longer had any need of searching or substantiation; having gone to Rome, he was satisfied to “come into harbor” there, without further construction of proof. Definition, doubt, and difficulty all submit alike to belief. This confirms the sense I had come to already: For a Protestant to turn to Catholicism requires not a precise theological accounting that leads to total intellectual clarity and accord (however much a Protestant temperament is tuned to this approach), but rather a set of dispositional changes that make conversion the only end.
Newman writes with great charity and humility, and continually assures his critics and his friends that he has only ever aimed at “obedience to my own sense of right.” Trust and obedience summarize briefly much of the operation of the Christian life—and this is a reminder worth receiving, for those who remain in the via media as well as those who go to Rome.
November 25, 2014
My parents were devout Catholics, but they were always wary of the Pope. For one thing, they disagreed with Pope Paul VI on birth control.
They liked to quote Newman: "I will toast my conscience before I toast the Pope."
They liked to quote Newman: "I will toast my conscience before I toast the Pope."
June 14, 2015
Impressive description of John Newman's way to Rome and his answers to an impertinent critic.
July 12, 2008
The word that came to mind while reading Apologia was: plodding. And that's okay. Newman's account of the seismic shift in his thinking that led eventually to reception into the Roman Catholic Church is not a fast read, nor a particularly enjoyable read. It is Newman as a Catholic, re-tracing the steps that brought him into the Catholic fold from the embrace of his mother English church. It is also a defense so he is addressing specific questions and concerns that might not at first be evident to the reader. This is not confession; this is a constructive and sometimes polemical tale that is designed to woo the reader into considering one's own commitments. Are you sure you can be an Anglican? Newman seems to ask of this reader, because I tried and it led me to the true church catholic.
By the time we reach the important year of 1845, Newman has had countless conversations, arguments, correspondences and scholarly inquiries that you think he'll just keel over if some Bishop doesn't lay their hands on his head. And regrets? He has none. All the evidence pointed him to Rome and now he is (finally) home.
I don't think such a tale set in the contemporary world of religious practice would garner the interest that Newman experienced from scholars, newspapermen and ordinary folk. In our own day, the marketplace determines church alliance more than doctrinal commitments or appeals to comparison with the Primitive church. The enlightened modern Christian attends churches that 'meet their needs' or provide the best programs in town. I don't think Newman would have fared well if 'choice' was the determiner of conversion. And in any case, given the modern decline in matters of church attendance and practice, the movement of Newman from one church to another would hardly be news in need of an apologia.
By the time we reach the important year of 1845, Newman has had countless conversations, arguments, correspondences and scholarly inquiries that you think he'll just keel over if some Bishop doesn't lay their hands on his head. And regrets? He has none. All the evidence pointed him to Rome and now he is (finally) home.
I don't think such a tale set in the contemporary world of religious practice would garner the interest that Newman experienced from scholars, newspapermen and ordinary folk. In our own day, the marketplace determines church alliance more than doctrinal commitments or appeals to comparison with the Primitive church. The enlightened modern Christian attends churches that 'meet their needs' or provide the best programs in town. I don't think Newman would have fared well if 'choice' was the determiner of conversion. And in any case, given the modern decline in matters of church attendance and practice, the movement of Newman from one church to another would hardly be news in need of an apologia.
May 17, 2020
Given that Vergil's Aeneid and Augustine's Confessions are two of my favourite books, when I heard that Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua was yet another account of a journey to Rome in the same tradition, I had to read it, just to see how this was so. Newman is a man with a penetrating intellect and a gift for writing beautiful sentences (even when handling the mundane) in that periodic (some would say long-winded) style of the Victorians of his day. It is beautiful English, and everyone in this account maintains proper gentlemanly conduct even while trashing his adversaries. Newman shows us the arrogance of Mr. Kingsley by putting these words into the mouth of his opponent, uttered in epic fashion as Kingsley deals the blow of death to Newman: “Go to the shades, old man, and boast that Achilles sent you thither.” (p. 8) From time to time Newman regales the reader with the perfect Latin words and classical allusions; these rare moments are a delight for the reader steeped in such things as the oasis is a delight to the apparent barren expanse of words that stretch across the landscape of long chapters.
This is not a book for the impatient reader who wants to come straight to the point. No, it is for the reader who wishes to experience that desert of words, perhaps resting within the book for 40 days, and fed from time to time by scattered manna revealed therein. The reader shall have to make the whole journey with Newman, however long Newman should wish to take in recounting it.
It is not all bad, however. There are unexpected joys. Newman brings us into his life and into his milieu, preserving many of the quaint and forgotten quotidian rites of life in his day, which brought me delightful moments of nostalgia for his times, for ivy growing upon stone walls and the twittering of birds who love their nests therein, of hot and humid summers with open windows and the smell of wooden desks, of Newman writing there, his hands stained in ink, of the sound of carriages and horses on the drive, or of "a vessel, which first gets under weigh, and then clears out the deck, and stores away luggage and live stock into their proper receptacles.”
From among this ambience there emerge stunning philosophical ideas, sparkling radiantly, when one takes the time to pause and ponder them more deeply. “In a pamphlet which I published in the summer of 1838,” writes Newman, “is an attempt at placing the doctrine of the Real Presence on an intellectual basis. The fundamental idea is consonant to that which I had been so long attached; it is the denial of the existence of space except as a subjective idea of our minds.” (p. 96) Augustine had spoken long before of time as a distension of the mind, but if Newman is right, here, then the only journey that exists is internal, and literary spaces are just as real as the room in which I believe that I am sitting. In fact, they may be more real.
In antiquity Newman already discovers the “true exponent of the doctrines of Christianity.” Recalling the books of his former studies, he reveals the following:
“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 the various Economies or Dispensations of the Eternal. I understood them to mean that the exterior world, physical and historical, was but the outward manifestation 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." (p. 55)
The world is organized, and declares that God is, but the evidence for Him that Newman finds in human society neither warms nor enlightens him. He writes: "They do not take away the winter of my desolation, or make the buds unfold and the leaves grow within me, and my moral being rejoice. The sight of the world is nothing else than the prophet’s scroll, full of ‘lamentations, and mourning, and woe.’” Hegel too, has perceived that the world is not the place for happiness, and that history is a slaughter-bench. Fortunately, the Firmament still has its lights to guide us through this world of desolation. (I am recalling, of course, the XIIIth book of Augustine’s Confessions, and reflecting upon the rôle of the stars in Dante’s Divine Comedy.)
This book taught me more about the Anglican church than I had ever known, for the homeward journey of Newman's soul to Rome begins in what is (for me) the foreign land of the Anglican church, and in the morass of a polemic between Anglican and Catholic dogma. Unlike Aeneas, whose voyage from Troy can be plotted on a map, or Augustine who, like Aeneas, travels to Carthage and then to Rome, Newman’s journey is almost purely an intellectual internal analogue of the homeward voyage of the others. (Remember, however, that this is real terrain, if physical space is merely a “subjective idea of the mind.”) His reflective journey unfolds as Newman reviews in memory the waymarks of his escape from the tangled confusion of opposing ecclesiastical dogmas and his arrival finally to a conversion that he must embrace in order to maintain his integrity, for he is certain that he has found Truth, and this has brought him to Catholic Rome.
To be sure, as others have remarked, the reading was often a dry, barren, dusty, wearying journey, and in no way beautiful in the ways that The Aeneid or The Confessions can be said to be beautiful. Yet what can a journey through this world be? As Pater Edmund has described in his review, Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua is the sort of book which will require many subsequent readings in order for one to discover its hidden beauty and mystery, its consonances and its harmonies, and to withdraw yet hidden gold from the depth of its unseen mines.
"Could Newman explain away all of those Protestant accusations against Catholicism and help me, disturbed and confused by all of this division to find my way back home?” you may be wondering as you hold his book in your hands. Maybe. Maybe he can. He who is and wants to remain a Catholic may find buttresses herein that support his convictions to sustain the walls of his faith. He who wishes to become a Catholic may find the reasons here to dispel the most common attacks of Protestantism, and follow Newman in his steps, but in the case of the curious and stout-hearted Protestant who wishes to remain where he is entrenched, the solutions, the way out of the dogmatic snares and briars are complex, or only slightly to be discerned, and the decisive proof may appear wanting. Stronger proof will be demanded before Newman's conclusions will find easy acceptance.
Newman has written much more elsewhwere about Mary, the saints, transsubstantiation, infallibility, the theory of the development of doctrine, and more; and it is to those other books where we may turn for a more developed explanation of these concerns.
This is not a book for the impatient reader who wants to come straight to the point. No, it is for the reader who wishes to experience that desert of words, perhaps resting within the book for 40 days, and fed from time to time by scattered manna revealed therein. The reader shall have to make the whole journey with Newman, however long Newman should wish to take in recounting it.
It is not all bad, however. There are unexpected joys. Newman brings us into his life and into his milieu, preserving many of the quaint and forgotten quotidian rites of life in his day, which brought me delightful moments of nostalgia for his times, for ivy growing upon stone walls and the twittering of birds who love their nests therein, of hot and humid summers with open windows and the smell of wooden desks, of Newman writing there, his hands stained in ink, of the sound of carriages and horses on the drive, or of "a vessel, which first gets under weigh, and then clears out the deck, and stores away luggage and live stock into their proper receptacles.”
From among this ambience there emerge stunning philosophical ideas, sparkling radiantly, when one takes the time to pause and ponder them more deeply. “In a pamphlet which I published in the summer of 1838,” writes Newman, “is an attempt at placing the doctrine of the Real Presence on an intellectual basis. The fundamental idea is consonant to that which I had been so long attached; it is the denial of the existence of space except as a subjective idea of our minds.” (p. 96) Augustine had spoken long before of time as a distension of the mind, but if Newman is right, here, then the only journey that exists is internal, and literary spaces are just as real as the room in which I believe that I am sitting. In fact, they may be more real.
In antiquity Newman already discovers the “true exponent of the doctrines of Christianity.” Recalling the books of his former studies, he reveals the following:
“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 the various Economies or Dispensations of the Eternal. I understood them to mean that the exterior world, physical and historical, was but the outward manifestation 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." (p. 55)
The world is organized, and declares that God is, but the evidence for Him that Newman finds in human society neither warms nor enlightens him. He writes: "They do not take away the winter of my desolation, or make the buds unfold and the leaves grow within me, and my moral being rejoice. The sight of the world is nothing else than the prophet’s scroll, full of ‘lamentations, and mourning, and woe.’” Hegel too, has perceived that the world is not the place for happiness, and that history is a slaughter-bench. Fortunately, the Firmament still has its lights to guide us through this world of desolation. (I am recalling, of course, the XIIIth book of Augustine’s Confessions, and reflecting upon the rôle of the stars in Dante’s Divine Comedy.)
This book taught me more about the Anglican church than I had ever known, for the homeward journey of Newman's soul to Rome begins in what is (for me) the foreign land of the Anglican church, and in the morass of a polemic between Anglican and Catholic dogma. Unlike Aeneas, whose voyage from Troy can be plotted on a map, or Augustine who, like Aeneas, travels to Carthage and then to Rome, Newman’s journey is almost purely an intellectual internal analogue of the homeward voyage of the others. (Remember, however, that this is real terrain, if physical space is merely a “subjective idea of the mind.”) His reflective journey unfolds as Newman reviews in memory the waymarks of his escape from the tangled confusion of opposing ecclesiastical dogmas and his arrival finally to a conversion that he must embrace in order to maintain his integrity, for he is certain that he has found Truth, and this has brought him to Catholic Rome.
To be sure, as others have remarked, the reading was often a dry, barren, dusty, wearying journey, and in no way beautiful in the ways that The Aeneid or The Confessions can be said to be beautiful. Yet what can a journey through this world be? As Pater Edmund has described in his review, Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua is the sort of book which will require many subsequent readings in order for one to discover its hidden beauty and mystery, its consonances and its harmonies, and to withdraw yet hidden gold from the depth of its unseen mines.
"Could Newman explain away all of those Protestant accusations against Catholicism and help me, disturbed and confused by all of this division to find my way back home?” you may be wondering as you hold his book in your hands. Maybe. Maybe he can. He who is and wants to remain a Catholic may find buttresses herein that support his convictions to sustain the walls of his faith. He who wishes to become a Catholic may find the reasons here to dispel the most common attacks of Protestantism, and follow Newman in his steps, but in the case of the curious and stout-hearted Protestant who wishes to remain where he is entrenched, the solutions, the way out of the dogmatic snares and briars are complex, or only slightly to be discerned, and the decisive proof may appear wanting. Stronger proof will be demanded before Newman's conclusions will find easy acceptance.
Newman has written much more elsewhwere about Mary, the saints, transsubstantiation, infallibility, the theory of the development of doctrine, and more; and it is to those other books where we may turn for a more developed explanation of these concerns.
August 14, 2022
This is one of the great conversion stories in the history of literature, and a wonderful defense of the Catholic faith. Perhaps it is not as stirring as St. Augustine’s Confessions, but it is written by an equally great theologian, an equally great writer of prose, and an acknowledged saint in the Catholic Church. Of course Newman would not know in his lifetime, but he would be canonized in 2019 and should now be referred to as St. John Henry Newman.
I gave this work five stars, but that is not to say all readers will enjoy this work. It is a difficult read. There are several difficulties. First, it was written in the 19th century, so there's a style gap between Newman and us. Second, he's very intellectual, so there is a lot of knowledge that is assumed the reader knows. Third he's dealing with finer points of apologetics. Fourth, there's a historical time and place context. The history of the Anglican Church is not something we are generally taught. These definitely make reading this book difficult.
Still it is worth it. John Henry Newman has the reputation of being one of the great prose stylist of the English language. There are numerous passages that are so eloquently written that a students of prose can map out paragraphs and sentences for their edification. Lovers of fine prose can just bask in the pleasure of his artistry. Here’s a short example of a description of a friend and colleague.
I should write about how the Apologia was inspired. His Apologia was published nineteen years after being received into the Catholic Church. It seems that just before 1864 Newman had been wanting to write about his conversion, and was scribbling notes in preparation but an occasion came upon him that focused the memoirs. A certain Charles Kingsley, a novelist, historian, and ardent anti-Catholic, in a review of a recently published History of England written by James Anthony Froude, which strongly defended the English Reformation, insulted the Catholic clergy by twisting words of Newman’s written prior to his conversion.
So the dispute was not over some deep theological issue but over a crass statement by what today might be called a bigot. Newman found the opportunity to expose Kingsley and defend the burgeoning Catholic Church in England. This came at a critical moment in the Catholic Renaissance in England. Catholics thanked Newman, Protestants read the Apologia and started to if not accept Catholics at least drop some of their erroneous notions, and a number of prominent Englishmen converted to Catholicism. Without Newman’s Apologia we might never have had the conversions of Gerard Manly Hopkins, Robert Hugh Benson, and G.K. Chesterton. Newman’s autobiography was one of those rare books that had a lasting societal impact.
The book takes us from Newman’s youth, where from a religious experience brought him to Evangelical Protestantism, then in his collegiate education, fixed into the Church of England, becoming an Anglican theologian at Oxford and a parish rector. Newman takes us through some twenty years as an Anglican apologist, combatting the Liberal Protestantism that was infecting England—one might argue that Liberal Protestantism has completely won the day in today’s Anglican Church, which might not surprise Newman at all—and the Catholic Church, which to Newman felt had deviated from Apostolic tradition through her many accoutrements. In Newman’s mind it was the Anglican Church that had maintained Apostolic tradition, and to what Newman called “primitive Christianity,” and he tried to show how the Anglican Church was the via media, the middle way between the traditional Protestantism of the Reformers and Catholicism. And then he suddenly realized he was wrong.
So what converted him to Catholicism? I’m going to put this under spoiler in case you want to let the book unfold the story for you.
Finally Newman leaves it completely unambiguous that he has converted to Catholicism with his whole heart and that he accepts all the doctrines and dogmas the Church has declared.
It is interesting Newman uses the form of the word “submit” three times in that short paragraph. It is a conscious effort to contrast himself from Martin Luther, who refused to submit himself to Church authority, and, if I may, contrast himself to Lucifer who refused to serve God. What a fine book by a future saint.
I gave this work five stars, but that is not to say all readers will enjoy this work. It is a difficult read. There are several difficulties. First, it was written in the 19th century, so there's a style gap between Newman and us. Second, he's very intellectual, so there is a lot of knowledge that is assumed the reader knows. Third he's dealing with finer points of apologetics. Fourth, there's a historical time and place context. The history of the Anglican Church is not something we are generally taught. These definitely make reading this book difficult.
Still it is worth it. John Henry Newman has the reputation of being one of the great prose stylist of the English language. There are numerous passages that are so eloquently written that a students of prose can map out paragraphs and sentences for their edification. Lovers of fine prose can just bask in the pleasure of his artistry. Here’s a short example of a description of a friend and colleague.
To mention Mr. Hugh Rose's name is to kindle in the minds of those who knew him a host of pleasant and affectionate remembrances. He was the man above all others fitted by his cast of mind and literary powers to make a stand, if a stand could be made, against the calamity of the times. He was gifted with a high and large mind, and a true sensibility of what was great and beautiful; he wrote with warmth and energy; and he had a cool head and cautious judgment. He spent his strength and shortened his life, Pro Ecclesia Dei, as he understood that sovereign idea. Some years earlier he had been the first to give warning, I think from the University Pulpit at Cambridge, of the perils to England which lay in the biblical and theological speculations of Germany. The Reform agitation followed, and the Whig Government came into power; and he anticipated in their distribution of Church patronage the authoritative introduction of liberal opinions into the country. He feared that by the Whig party a door would be opened in England to the most grievous of heresies, which never could be closed again.
I should write about how the Apologia was inspired. His Apologia was published nineteen years after being received into the Catholic Church. It seems that just before 1864 Newman had been wanting to write about his conversion, and was scribbling notes in preparation but an occasion came upon him that focused the memoirs. A certain Charles Kingsley, a novelist, historian, and ardent anti-Catholic, in a review of a recently published History of England written by James Anthony Froude, which strongly defended the English Reformation, insulted the Catholic clergy by twisting words of Newman’s written prior to his conversion.
So the dispute was not over some deep theological issue but over a crass statement by what today might be called a bigot. Newman found the opportunity to expose Kingsley and defend the burgeoning Catholic Church in England. This came at a critical moment in the Catholic Renaissance in England. Catholics thanked Newman, Protestants read the Apologia and started to if not accept Catholics at least drop some of their erroneous notions, and a number of prominent Englishmen converted to Catholicism. Without Newman’s Apologia we might never have had the conversions of Gerard Manly Hopkins, Robert Hugh Benson, and G.K. Chesterton. Newman’s autobiography was one of those rare books that had a lasting societal impact.
The book takes us from Newman’s youth, where from a religious experience brought him to Evangelical Protestantism, then in his collegiate education, fixed into the Church of England, becoming an Anglican theologian at Oxford and a parish rector. Newman takes us through some twenty years as an Anglican apologist, combatting the Liberal Protestantism that was infecting England—one might argue that Liberal Protestantism has completely won the day in today’s Anglican Church, which might not surprise Newman at all—and the Catholic Church, which to Newman felt had deviated from Apostolic tradition through her many accoutrements. In Newman’s mind it was the Anglican Church that had maintained Apostolic tradition, and to what Newman called “primitive Christianity,” and he tried to show how the Anglican Church was the via media, the middle way between the traditional Protestantism of the Reformers and Catholicism. And then he suddenly realized he was wrong.
So what converted him to Catholicism? I’m going to put this under spoiler in case you want to let the book unfold the story for you.
Finally Newman leaves it completely unambiguous that he has converted to Catholicism with his whole heart and that he accepts all the doctrines and dogmas the Church has declared.
And now, having thus described it, I profess my own absolute submission to its claim. I believe the whole revealed dogma as taught by the Apostles, as committed by the Apostles to the Church, and as declared by the Church to me. I receive it, as it is infallibly interpreted by the authority to whom it is thus committed, and (implicitly) as it shall be, in like manner, further interpreted by that same authority till the end of time. I submit, moreover, to the universally received traditions of the Church, in which lies the matter of those new dogmatic definitions which are from time to time made, and which in all times are the clothing and the illustration of the Catholic dogma as already defined. And I submit myself to those other decisions of the Holy See, theological or not, through the organs which it has itself appointed, which, waiving the question of their infallibility, on the lowest ground come to me with a claim to be accepted and obeyed.
It is interesting Newman uses the form of the word “submit” three times in that short paragraph. It is a conscious effort to contrast himself from Martin Luther, who refused to submit himself to Church authority, and, if I may, contrast himself to Lucifer who refused to serve God. What a fine book by a future saint.
March 19, 2021
This inflates my page numbers a lot because a lot of the content in this volume is supplementary haha
Very based book, like all Newman.
Very based book, like all Newman.
April 2, 2024
This is a tough book to rate. I am really glad to have read it with a group, but I don't think I was ever excited to sit down to read it. There were entire chapters that were incredibly boring, but then he'd go on a roll spitting truth for five straight pages. The humility with which Newman evaluated his own religious history was really neat to see and we can all learn something from his honest pursuit of Truth.
One of my favorite quotes: “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate."
One of my favorite quotes: “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate."
October 12, 2018
I suspect I would have been better served reading about Newman than reading him, though his prose is quite lovely (by eighteenth century standards, at least, which are rather low). This is an excellent edition, though.
July 15, 2014
Take a long, slow walk through this masterpiece.
Newman's autobiography is "the only one that bears mentioning in the same sentence with Augustine's Confessions". In this opinion of Father Oakes SJ I do concur. To enter into the Apologia (hereafter APVS) is to draw near to the heart of one of the greatest figures in literature and Christianity. One can share this opinion without necessarily sharing his religious convictions; much of what is in dispute during Newman's conversion from Anglicanism to Catholicism in 1845 may not be shared by his readers. Nonetheless one cannot help but be drawn into the precision and earnest searching of a gifted mind and heart. To follow his reasoning is not only to receive a lesson in Victorian history but to receive a dramatic lesson in how to go about thinking about what is of greatest relevance to one's own life.
Newman composed APVS in response to a provocation by Charles Kingsley, a former adherent of the High Anglican Tractarianism of which Newman was a highly notable figure. The public accusations leveled against Newman escalated from a passing shot over the truthfulness of Roman Catholic clergy into the wholehearted dismissal of him as in any way honest or trustworthy as a religious figure. In order to understand what Newman is doing in this work, one needs to be acquainted with the dispute that engendered it; thus, I would strongly recommend obtaining an edition that contains the correspondence between Kingsley and Newman. It is an exchange worth digesting in itself: the powers of argument marshaled by both parties is a stirring instance of the use of English at its most rhetorically urgent. It is all the more remarkable that it was a correspondence carried out in print: during their controversy, Kingsley and Newman had not met each other (I'm not sure if they ever did).
Newman was not entirely unprepared to give an account of himself; in fact, in a certain sense he was in search of an opportunity to address what he regarded as the suspicion placed upon him ever since his conversion. Twenty years later, the animus against him (and by extension, towards the Catholic Church and its clergy) seemed not to have abated in the least. Kingsley merely provided the opportunity to justify such a project in a way that was not self-seeking. Far from implying that Newman twisted the situation to suit the needs of his own bruised ego, it seems to me that he recognized there was far more at stake than his own personal reputation. He was quite willing to persevere in the relative disrepute that he had endured for nearly two decades already: Newman was, as he put it, "one who has given up much that he loved and prized and could have retained, but that he loved honesty better than name, and Truth better than dear friends...". That the accusation of dishonesty and crafty dealing should then be leveled against him as a result is an irony of his personal history that must have certainly frustrated him to no end.
Along with his own personal experiences, Newman traces the process by which his mind was changed. I won't go into the details here, as many of them deal in theological technicalities, but others certainly are accessible to the non-specialist. One of them is his persistent diatribe against religious liberalism, which he defines quite precisely in the first endnote. Newman's case against liberalism is something that should be more widely studied and understood, because he saw in liberalism a threat to the very heart of Christianity. Newman's arguments were as fierce as they were ineffective; religious liberalism is running rampant in the popular culture, as documented by the Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith in his study "Soul Searching". Today, those who are dedicated to resisting the trends of liberalism aren't dealing with an airy philosophy advocated by dons in their ivory towers; it's the air we breathe, and it would be most helpful if those engaged in an accurate diagnosis of our contemporary cultural milieu were more familiar with Newman's analysis.
Yet the most stirring portion of the APVS is not its critique, but its positive proclamation of the truth. Newman's final chapter on "The Position of my Mind Since 1845" is perhaps one of the finest articulations of what lies at the core of Catholic belief that I have ever encountered in my years of study. It is a deliverance of his mind and heart that I will need to return to soon in order to fully process, but the resonance with my own counsels will ensure that it will not be long before I do so. Cor ad cor locutus est.
I would recommend the Norton Critical edition for its very helpful and insightful essays. Their rather drab titles belie the attentive and sympathetic exposition of themes within and behind the APVS that contributed to my appreciation immensely. Start with "The Basic Texts of the Newman-Kingsley Controversy". If that doesn't light your fire, don't bother with the rest––but if it does, you will hardly emerge from this encounter without being transformed on some level, even if it is a certainty that you need to read more Newman!
Newman's autobiography is "the only one that bears mentioning in the same sentence with Augustine's Confessions". In this opinion of Father Oakes SJ I do concur. To enter into the Apologia (hereafter APVS) is to draw near to the heart of one of the greatest figures in literature and Christianity. One can share this opinion without necessarily sharing his religious convictions; much of what is in dispute during Newman's conversion from Anglicanism to Catholicism in 1845 may not be shared by his readers. Nonetheless one cannot help but be drawn into the precision and earnest searching of a gifted mind and heart. To follow his reasoning is not only to receive a lesson in Victorian history but to receive a dramatic lesson in how to go about thinking about what is of greatest relevance to one's own life.
Newman composed APVS in response to a provocation by Charles Kingsley, a former adherent of the High Anglican Tractarianism of which Newman was a highly notable figure. The public accusations leveled against Newman escalated from a passing shot over the truthfulness of Roman Catholic clergy into the wholehearted dismissal of him as in any way honest or trustworthy as a religious figure. In order to understand what Newman is doing in this work, one needs to be acquainted with the dispute that engendered it; thus, I would strongly recommend obtaining an edition that contains the correspondence between Kingsley and Newman. It is an exchange worth digesting in itself: the powers of argument marshaled by both parties is a stirring instance of the use of English at its most rhetorically urgent. It is all the more remarkable that it was a correspondence carried out in print: during their controversy, Kingsley and Newman had not met each other (I'm not sure if they ever did).
Newman was not entirely unprepared to give an account of himself; in fact, in a certain sense he was in search of an opportunity to address what he regarded as the suspicion placed upon him ever since his conversion. Twenty years later, the animus against him (and by extension, towards the Catholic Church and its clergy) seemed not to have abated in the least. Kingsley merely provided the opportunity to justify such a project in a way that was not self-seeking. Far from implying that Newman twisted the situation to suit the needs of his own bruised ego, it seems to me that he recognized there was far more at stake than his own personal reputation. He was quite willing to persevere in the relative disrepute that he had endured for nearly two decades already: Newman was, as he put it, "one who has given up much that he loved and prized and could have retained, but that he loved honesty better than name, and Truth better than dear friends...". That the accusation of dishonesty and crafty dealing should then be leveled against him as a result is an irony of his personal history that must have certainly frustrated him to no end.
Along with his own personal experiences, Newman traces the process by which his mind was changed. I won't go into the details here, as many of them deal in theological technicalities, but others certainly are accessible to the non-specialist. One of them is his persistent diatribe against religious liberalism, which he defines quite precisely in the first endnote. Newman's case against liberalism is something that should be more widely studied and understood, because he saw in liberalism a threat to the very heart of Christianity. Newman's arguments were as fierce as they were ineffective; religious liberalism is running rampant in the popular culture, as documented by the Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith in his study "Soul Searching". Today, those who are dedicated to resisting the trends of liberalism aren't dealing with an airy philosophy advocated by dons in their ivory towers; it's the air we breathe, and it would be most helpful if those engaged in an accurate diagnosis of our contemporary cultural milieu were more familiar with Newman's analysis.
Yet the most stirring portion of the APVS is not its critique, but its positive proclamation of the truth. Newman's final chapter on "The Position of my Mind Since 1845" is perhaps one of the finest articulations of what lies at the core of Catholic belief that I have ever encountered in my years of study. It is a deliverance of his mind and heart that I will need to return to soon in order to fully process, but the resonance with my own counsels will ensure that it will not be long before I do so. Cor ad cor locutus est.
I would recommend the Norton Critical edition for its very helpful and insightful essays. Their rather drab titles belie the attentive and sympathetic exposition of themes within and behind the APVS that contributed to my appreciation immensely. Start with "The Basic Texts of the Newman-Kingsley Controversy". If that doesn't light your fire, don't bother with the rest––but if it does, you will hardly emerge from this encounter without being transformed on some level, even if it is a certainty that you need to read more Newman!
May 5, 2020
This book is an example of a situation where I do not agree with the position of the author, given that he is detailing a departure from Anglican thinking to Catholicism that occurred over the course of many years of study into the church fathers and their thinking first as part of a high Anglican tradition that sought to minimize the gulf between Anglicans and Roman Catholics and then as a leader, eventually a Cardinal, within the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Yet despite this disagreement with the religious positions of the author, I understand on a visceral and personal level why he wrote this book and I can wholeheartedly endorse that and would have taken the same sort of approach that he did had I been in his spot. Indeed, this book has had an influence on me in terms of the way I go about defending my own reputation and speaking out about those attitudes and libels of others that would make it impossible to be a public person of honor, and that is essentially what this book is, a self-defense in rhetorical terms of an author's change in thinking over time that led him to move, without any sort of dishonesty or dishonorable intent from one position to a very different one.
Why is it that Newman felt it necessary to defend himself? This whole book, taking up more than 150 pages in the version I read, was written in response to a single accusation from a person who has (unlike the author) been forgotten to history. Instead of merely responding angrily to the comment, although the author certainly writes with a high degree of passion, the author lays out the course of his religious journey from the Anglican church to Catholicism and states that his acceptance of the Catholic system of belief and authority resolved the author's doubts concerning issues of authority as well as the relationship between himself and the various paths that he had studied as a student of the church fathers given his previous efforts at praising a via media between Calvinism and Catholicism that marked the High Church path within the Anglican church. And by revealing that whole path of the author's thinking, this book is a wonderful example of how someone can change over time and reflect on how this process of change occurs in a way that demonstrates moral consistency and allows one to retain his own sense of honor and integrity. And though I would disagree with the author about the right way to belief, I feel content that he was a man of great integrity.
This book begins with an introduction that sets the context of the book and of the life of the author, noting that the book has its genesis in the controversy that he had with Charles Kingsley. After this introduction, the author begins with a discussion of Kingley's (defective) means of disputing various matters of Newman's life and reputation. After that the author resolves to meet him in a fashion that answers only the charge of untruthfulness, avoiding responding to the rancor and hostility of Kinglsey's generally forgotten attack by defending his reputation to the extent that it was necessary to be a public figure trusted and well-regarded by others. This leads to the main content of the book, which is a lengthy discussion of the author's beliefs and religious practices and behavior over the course of decades, from his time as a student in Oxford, to his work in seeking to encourage a less hostile relationship between Anglicans and Catholics, and finally to a gradual process of conversion from the Anglican faith to the Roman Catholic faith. The end of the book then consists of citations from various thinkers, especially from the Church Fathers, relating to issues of truthfulness and deception that demonstrate his own position on integrity and equivocation.
Why is it that Newman felt it necessary to defend himself? This whole book, taking up more than 150 pages in the version I read, was written in response to a single accusation from a person who has (unlike the author) been forgotten to history. Instead of merely responding angrily to the comment, although the author certainly writes with a high degree of passion, the author lays out the course of his religious journey from the Anglican church to Catholicism and states that his acceptance of the Catholic system of belief and authority resolved the author's doubts concerning issues of authority as well as the relationship between himself and the various paths that he had studied as a student of the church fathers given his previous efforts at praising a via media between Calvinism and Catholicism that marked the High Church path within the Anglican church. And by revealing that whole path of the author's thinking, this book is a wonderful example of how someone can change over time and reflect on how this process of change occurs in a way that demonstrates moral consistency and allows one to retain his own sense of honor and integrity. And though I would disagree with the author about the right way to belief, I feel content that he was a man of great integrity.
This book begins with an introduction that sets the context of the book and of the life of the author, noting that the book has its genesis in the controversy that he had with Charles Kingsley. After this introduction, the author begins with a discussion of Kingley's (defective) means of disputing various matters of Newman's life and reputation. After that the author resolves to meet him in a fashion that answers only the charge of untruthfulness, avoiding responding to the rancor and hostility of Kinglsey's generally forgotten attack by defending his reputation to the extent that it was necessary to be a public figure trusted and well-regarded by others. This leads to the main content of the book, which is a lengthy discussion of the author's beliefs and religious practices and behavior over the course of decades, from his time as a student in Oxford, to his work in seeking to encourage a less hostile relationship between Anglicans and Catholics, and finally to a gradual process of conversion from the Anglican faith to the Roman Catholic faith. The end of the book then consists of citations from various thinkers, especially from the Church Fathers, relating to issues of truthfulness and deception that demonstrate his own position on integrity and equivocation.
January 30, 2019
The hasty mspaint meme above is a rough approximation of the perception Cardinal Newman was trying to disabuse the British population of, indeed if you wanted an accurate but dull modern title for the work it would be "Why I am totally not a Catholic shill"[SPOILER ALERT - he wasn't]. A bit of context here even if it can be hard to believe given its contemporary place in British society, the Anglican-Catholic divide was still fairly serious at the time of Newman's life. Indeed for about the first third of his life it was still legal to ban Catholics from graduating at universities and public sector employment and even after that there was still lingering anti-Catholic sentiment. So not only is he operating in an environment that is suspicious at best and hostile at worst to Catholics he is also being targeted with accusations that delegitimize and erase the decades of research and struggles with his beliefs.
Newman's work shows just how painfully difficult it is to rebut such a simple yet false claim of insincerity as he essentially as the title states defend his most of his life and actions. He does this through the very time consuming task of providing context and explanations to cherry picked quotes from his sermons as well as providing vast amounts of letters and correspondences to show just how Anglican and cautious he really was. Accordingly if you are expecting to read a defence of Catholicism as the true denomination over Anglicanism you will be fairly disappointed as this information is only there sparingly and in an indirect way. Additionally whilst Newman has some beautiful and often fun prose these tend to be most present in the excerpts of his sermons and letters rather than his actual commentary. So even though this book might only be 3 stars overall in my estimation it has made me interested in reading his other works and has shown exhaustively the sincerity of his life.
June 8, 2018
2.5/5.
This was my "boss level" before walking the Canterbury Trail and hitching my wagon to the Anglican Communion.
It's my duty, no doubt, to write at length on the Apologia in the near future, but for now suffice it to say I was hugely underwhelmed. What has been hailed as one of the great confessional documents of Christian history, has even been compared with Augustine's Confessions, reads more as a tedious remembrance of things past, with long citations of correspondence and a whole lot of name-dropping. Newman writes quite beautifully about his experience of Catholicism, though, in the final section of the book. What it's rather missing is an account of the actual issues and arguments which led his Reason to reject the Anglican Church. He (very) occasionally gestures at them, but never actually demonstrates or explain them! But perhaps I'm expecting from this book what he did in others. I guess I should've taken the title at face value.
This was my "boss level" before walking the Canterbury Trail and hitching my wagon to the Anglican Communion.
It's my duty, no doubt, to write at length on the Apologia in the near future, but for now suffice it to say I was hugely underwhelmed. What has been hailed as one of the great confessional documents of Christian history, has even been compared with Augustine's Confessions, reads more as a tedious remembrance of things past, with long citations of correspondence and a whole lot of name-dropping. Newman writes quite beautifully about his experience of Catholicism, though, in the final section of the book. What it's rather missing is an account of the actual issues and arguments which led his Reason to reject the Anglican Church. He (very) occasionally gestures at them, but never actually demonstrates or explain them! But perhaps I'm expecting from this book what he did in others. I guess I should've taken the title at face value.
October 14, 2015
“A Defense of One's Life” is not a great work and I would not suggest it to anyone as a ‘must read’. However I don’t think the book is lacking because Newman is at fault, but because the book is misconstrued to be a classic when that isn’t what the author intended. Newman was obviously writing to specific people who thought the way he converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism was improper. He was wringing a defense (as stated in the title) to address specific accusations and not a true autobiography. There is little of his spiritual state or emotional being at the time of his conversion; instead the book is entirely focused on the intellectual development and rational explanations for his choices. He refers constantly to his work any reader is not likely to have read and the rational can be quite dry.
What the book does well is sow glimpses of his conversion, like his interaction with the Church Fathers, and he demonstrates the complete reasonability of the Catholic faith historically and logically. He likens the faith to a proof where we can know the answer in advance but working the problem reveals the beauty and function of the Church. Also I like how he says that even if the faith does not radically change someone’s life choices it can at least give them the tools for repentance at the end of their life.
Quote:
“Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.”
What the book does well is sow glimpses of his conversion, like his interaction with the Church Fathers, and he demonstrates the complete reasonability of the Catholic faith historically and logically. He likens the faith to a proof where we can know the answer in advance but working the problem reveals the beauty and function of the Church. Also I like how he says that even if the faith does not radically change someone’s life choices it can at least give them the tools for repentance at the end of their life.
Quote:
“Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.”
September 13, 2014
I hate myself for saying this because I love Newman but this book was so caught up in minutiae and self-defense (think modern-day Nehemiah) that it was *very* difficult to get through. That said, Newman remains eminently quotable and he's got some real gems in here.
January 9, 2026
I took way too long of a pause from finishing the last chapter of this book. But surely Newman’s articulation of his faith journey has been and will continue to be invaluable to me.
“And then I felt altogether the force of maxim of St Ambrose, ‘Non in dialecticâ complacent Deo salvum facere populum suum’ [‘It is not the will of God to save his people through dialectics’]; - I had a great dislike of paper logic. For myself, it was not logic that carried me on; as well might one say that the quicksilver in the barometer changes the weather. It is the concrete being that reasons; pass a number of years, and I find my mind in a new place: how? the whole man moves; paper logic is but the record of it. All the logic in the world would not have made me move faster to Rome than I did; as well might you say that I have arrived at the end of my journey, because I see the village church before me, as venture to assert that the miles, over which my soul had to pass before it got to Rome, could be annihilated, even though I had been in possession of some far clearer view than I then had, that Rome was my ultimate destination. Great acts take time.”
“And then I felt altogether the force of maxim of St Ambrose, ‘Non in dialecticâ complacent Deo salvum facere populum suum’ [‘It is not the will of God to save his people through dialectics’]; - I had a great dislike of paper logic. For myself, it was not logic that carried me on; as well might one say that the quicksilver in the barometer changes the weather. It is the concrete being that reasons; pass a number of years, and I find my mind in a new place: how? the whole man moves; paper logic is but the record of it. All the logic in the world would not have made me move faster to Rome than I did; as well might you say that I have arrived at the end of my journey, because I see the village church before me, as venture to assert that the miles, over which my soul had to pass before it got to Rome, could be annihilated, even though I had been in possession of some far clearer view than I then had, that Rome was my ultimate destination. Great acts take time.”
September 14, 2026
I avoided this book for years because I thought it would be a lengthy critique of everything I loved about the Anglican tradition. Turns out no one in history loves Anglicanism more than John Henry Newman. A beautiful book about the best of English Christian patrimony.
April 21, 2026
The apologia is a page turner.
September 8, 2026
There are many reasons to read this book. It is a stunning example from one of the best English prose stylists of the nineteenth century as well as being a compelling piece of theology. If one happens to be interested in both theology and the English language, this is a must read. There is an amusing article by Carl Trueman entitled ‘Newman for Protestants’ in which he describes how he wanted to hate Newman, and found himself quite liking him. I had the opposite experience. As a Protestant with Catholic tendencies, I naively assumed I would like Newman, so much so I didn’t feel the need to read him because I thought I knew what was there. How wrong I was. The first book of his I read was the Essay on doctrinal development, and I was mildly repulsed. In that book he seems to play a kind of spiritualised ‘victor writes history’ kind of card, describing in detail the stunning variety of early Christian sects, pointing out that only Roman Catholicism survived, and concluding that therefore it is the only true form of Christianity. I found this repulsive.
It’s taken some time to recover from this and begin to appreciate Newman. Having read some other things in the meantime - a bit of Ker’s biography, some sermons, Tract 90 - I finally read his most famous work, the Apologia, and I must say, I appreciate Newman’s intellectual stature. This book was written to meet the charge levelled against him of insincerity in converting to Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism, a charge levelled by the author Charles Kingsley. And it really is a defence. It is not a normal autobiography. Everything in it is there to prove the continuity and sincerity of his religious convictions over his entire life. The work is compelling inasmuch of one thing I am convinced: Newman was sincere about converting to Rome.
Of course, that doesn’t actually make his arguments any good. The things which drew him to Rome are in many ways very different to things which might draw me. In a strange comparison with the fifth century church, and the debate between the Eutychians, Monophysites and Catholics, he has somehow got it into his head that the Eutychians represent the Protestants, the Monophysites the Anglicans and the Catholics are ‘the same.’ He does the same with the fourth century: the Arians are the Protestants, the semi-Arians are the Anglicans and the Catholics are ‘the same.’ To make this clear this is nothing to do with actual Christology. It is an analogy of positioning, related to the fact that Newman had for years defended Anglicanism on the grounds of its being a ‘via media.’ The discovery that there was no such ‘via media’ in church history threw him.
Another thing that persuades him: Augustine’s treatment of the Donatists. I find this completely stupefying. The younger Newman was appalled at how the Anglican state church treated Catholics in Ireland - a matter relating to this kicked off the Oxford Movement. The fact that Augustine calling down imperial troops against the African church has suddenly become for him a reason that Rome is the one true Church, is evidence of an astonishing blindness. I believe Newman must not have known this because I believe he was sincere. I think he read Augustine’s famous phrase, ‘securus judicat orbem terris’ and it turned his head without his knowing what was actually going on. There is no other explanation.
So these are the reasons. Not very good ones. He admits he was never fully on board with Marian veneration. And he can only imbibe transubstantiation as a consequence of the Roman church being the vehicle of revelation. Hell is important for him - he goes out of his way to tell us very early on - and he makes a point of how much he loves doctrine.
This is the oddest thing at all, for the book contains none of it. Despite his interest in Christological controversies, he never actually dives into the question, nor ever consider the Lutheran- Calvinist debate, in which the Catholics sided with the Reformed, the Lutherans being somewhat more like the Greek fathers. The doctrine of God gets passing mention, but never detailed reflection. For a man who supposedly loves doctrine, he is not thinking about it. He is worried about history, about “liberalism,” and basically about being on the winning team when the referee blows the whistle. That’s it.
Is Newman a great thinker? Undoubtedly. He has a highly original approach to things. He is in many ways the opposite of CS Lewis. There is no mere Christianity here, only maximal. The zeal, the intensity and the rigour is infectious and it is inspiring. His ruthless act of self reflection gives much to think about. His solidity and conviction too (he is hardly blown about). His prose, moreover is phenomenally good (he outdoes Lewis here).
The genius of his contribution to theology, that its history is a key of part of how we understand theology cannot be overstated. Newman provides for Christian theology a historical consciousness of a kind which it did not have previously. This is an immense achievement and one which rightly earns him the title of ‘doctor of the church,’ to both Protestant and Catholic alike.
Nevertheless, his sphere of engagement is so narrow it feels stifling. He only seems to texts from antiquity and anglophone writers. He never engages with German thought, (he lived after Kant, Hegel, Schleiermacher) and those thinkers who had given far more creative and generous responses to the problems he faced. He never engages with the medievals (Thomas, Anselm etc.) And more to the point, he never really engages with Protestantism. Having made Anglicanism in his own image, he dismisses it for Catholicism in his own image, managing in the process to change both churches forever in the process.
My theory? He needed out of Oxford. After having lived there from the age of 17 to 44, and with Tract 90 blowing up in his face, he needed out. University towns can be suffocating places. Converting was the only way. Inasmuch as I have suggested this, I admit that the book has not totally persuaded me. But alas. It was worth it for the burnished prose.
It’s taken some time to recover from this and begin to appreciate Newman. Having read some other things in the meantime - a bit of Ker’s biography, some sermons, Tract 90 - I finally read his most famous work, the Apologia, and I must say, I appreciate Newman’s intellectual stature. This book was written to meet the charge levelled against him of insincerity in converting to Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism, a charge levelled by the author Charles Kingsley. And it really is a defence. It is not a normal autobiography. Everything in it is there to prove the continuity and sincerity of his religious convictions over his entire life. The work is compelling inasmuch of one thing I am convinced: Newman was sincere about converting to Rome.
Of course, that doesn’t actually make his arguments any good. The things which drew him to Rome are in many ways very different to things which might draw me. In a strange comparison with the fifth century church, and the debate between the Eutychians, Monophysites and Catholics, he has somehow got it into his head that the Eutychians represent the Protestants, the Monophysites the Anglicans and the Catholics are ‘the same.’ He does the same with the fourth century: the Arians are the Protestants, the semi-Arians are the Anglicans and the Catholics are ‘the same.’ To make this clear this is nothing to do with actual Christology. It is an analogy of positioning, related to the fact that Newman had for years defended Anglicanism on the grounds of its being a ‘via media.’ The discovery that there was no such ‘via media’ in church history threw him.
Another thing that persuades him: Augustine’s treatment of the Donatists. I find this completely stupefying. The younger Newman was appalled at how the Anglican state church treated Catholics in Ireland - a matter relating to this kicked off the Oxford Movement. The fact that Augustine calling down imperial troops against the African church has suddenly become for him a reason that Rome is the one true Church, is evidence of an astonishing blindness. I believe Newman must not have known this because I believe he was sincere. I think he read Augustine’s famous phrase, ‘securus judicat orbem terris’ and it turned his head without his knowing what was actually going on. There is no other explanation.
So these are the reasons. Not very good ones. He admits he was never fully on board with Marian veneration. And he can only imbibe transubstantiation as a consequence of the Roman church being the vehicle of revelation. Hell is important for him - he goes out of his way to tell us very early on - and he makes a point of how much he loves doctrine.
This is the oddest thing at all, for the book contains none of it. Despite his interest in Christological controversies, he never actually dives into the question, nor ever consider the Lutheran- Calvinist debate, in which the Catholics sided with the Reformed, the Lutherans being somewhat more like the Greek fathers. The doctrine of God gets passing mention, but never detailed reflection. For a man who supposedly loves doctrine, he is not thinking about it. He is worried about history, about “liberalism,” and basically about being on the winning team when the referee blows the whistle. That’s it.
Is Newman a great thinker? Undoubtedly. He has a highly original approach to things. He is in many ways the opposite of CS Lewis. There is no mere Christianity here, only maximal. The zeal, the intensity and the rigour is infectious and it is inspiring. His ruthless act of self reflection gives much to think about. His solidity and conviction too (he is hardly blown about). His prose, moreover is phenomenally good (he outdoes Lewis here).
The genius of his contribution to theology, that its history is a key of part of how we understand theology cannot be overstated. Newman provides for Christian theology a historical consciousness of a kind which it did not have previously. This is an immense achievement and one which rightly earns him the title of ‘doctor of the church,’ to both Protestant and Catholic alike.
Nevertheless, his sphere of engagement is so narrow it feels stifling. He only seems to texts from antiquity and anglophone writers. He never engages with German thought, (he lived after Kant, Hegel, Schleiermacher) and those thinkers who had given far more creative and generous responses to the problems he faced. He never engages with the medievals (Thomas, Anselm etc.) And more to the point, he never really engages with Protestantism. Having made Anglicanism in his own image, he dismisses it for Catholicism in his own image, managing in the process to change both churches forever in the process.
My theory? He needed out of Oxford. After having lived there from the age of 17 to 44, and with Tract 90 blowing up in his face, he needed out. University towns can be suffocating places. Converting was the only way. Inasmuch as I have suggested this, I admit that the book has not totally persuaded me. But alas. It was worth it for the burnished prose.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 15, 2017
I finished the actual Apologia, but have not read all of the appendices which shed light on aspects of the main work. Newman's sensitivity, his awareness and his insight is astonishing: things which to the ordinary soul would appear as mere trifles to his mind loom large. Not for him just sweeping things under the carpet.
I can't say I followed every twist and turn of the narrative - issues which, as suggested, are to my mind opaque, remain so - and his style is of that wordy Victorian kind which is not easily digested. But Newman's genius shines through in some scintillating moments. No wonder he was such a great orator!
For me, the most rewarding chapter was the final one, The Position of My Mind Since 1845, in which he unfolds his worldview and faith with the greatest power.
I can't say I followed every twist and turn of the narrative - issues which, as suggested, are to my mind opaque, remain so - and his style is of that wordy Victorian kind which is not easily digested. But Newman's genius shines through in some scintillating moments. No wonder he was such a great orator!
For me, the most rewarding chapter was the final one, The Position of My Mind Since 1845, in which he unfolds his worldview and faith with the greatest power.
January 5, 2013
Unless you get really titillated by ecclesiastical life-writing or you're absolutely desperate for yet another possible venue for helping you recover your lost faith in a Christian God, there really is no reason to subject yourself to this 400-page homily.
Most of the book consists of Newman defending himself and his conversion from Anglicanism to Catholicism (which I guess was totally radical at the time, but now seems like practically a baby step between religious identifications). His defense is basically comprised of a palimpsest of his own letters, editorials, and sermons. It's pretty narcisstic, and I cried with boredom.
Most of the book consists of Newman defending himself and his conversion from Anglicanism to Catholicism (which I guess was totally radical at the time, but now seems like practically a baby step between religious identifications). His defense is basically comprised of a palimpsest of his own letters, editorials, and sermons. It's pretty narcisstic, and I cried with boredom.
Read
November 26, 2016"Acometer la redacción de una obra en defensa de la propia vida es una tarea compleja; en el caso de Newman, no se trataba de una autobiografía al uso, sino del relato de una crisis profunda que sacudió los cimientos de su conciencia y le condujo, finalmente, a abandonar sus creencias anglicanas y ser recibido en la Iglesia católica". Más en https://capitulocuarto.wordpress.com/...
October 5, 2010
Dense but rewarding and elegantly written. I almost filed this on my "Religion" shelf, but although John Henry Newman was a famously religious man, to understand his spiritual odyssey, you have to look at his whole life.
March 21, 2010
One of the most influential books I've ever read. Greatly affected me for years to come. An amazing man.
June 9, 2013
Autobiographical and selfjustification. I'm afraid it couldn't captivate me. Perhaps a reread?
September 23, 2022
I decided to take a look at this book after reading about Newman in Christoper Pramuk’s study of Thomas Merton. He wrote if I understood him correctly, that Newman had a poetic, metaphorical mind , a forerunner of the kind of thinking can still be found in Merton, and leads to creative scrutiny of theological formulations. The book was slow going at times but I saw some indications of this thinking, and in the end decided it had been worthwhile reading.
The book breaks down into two parts. The first is an explanation of why Newman, who was originally an Anglican clergyman writing tracts justifying IAnglican differences with Roman Catholicism, changed his mind and became a Catholic convert, one of the founders of the “Oxford Movement.”
The second part expresses his subsequent views, and is titled “Position of My Mind since 1845.” It’s more interesting than the first part which talks about long past and often obscure religious arguments. At one point, he expresses some doubts, refreshing as it make him seem a fallible human being. He writes, “My difficulty was this: I had been deceived greatly once: how could I be sure that I was not deceived a second time: how was I to be certain that I was right now?” The answer is that he obviously prayed and left it to a higher power to guide him.
He defends his views on such matters as the “infallibility” of the church, not a simple matter, as he points out that in the end the truth will prevail. “Catholic Christendom is no simple exhibition of religious absolutism, but presents a continuous picture of Authority and Private Judgment alternately advancing and retreating as the ebb and flow of the tide; - it is a vast assemblage of human beings with willful intellects and wild passions. . .”
Newman always tries to be fair, as when he writes, “I am far from denying that every article of the Christian Creed, whether as held by Catholics or Protestants, is beset with intellectual difficulties and it is simple fact that for myself, I cannot answer [all] those difficulties.”
About any church doctrine, he takes a long view, “Holy Church in her sacraments and her hierarchical appointments, will remain, even to the end of the world, after all but a symbol of those heavenly facts which fill eternity. Her mysteries are but the expressions in human language of truths to which the human mind is unequal.”
On any dogmas, or theological opinions, such as the Trinity, for example, he opines that there is always room for improvement in how those doctrines are expressed and articulated.
About miracles, he draws some subtle distinctions such as pointing out that they make sense to a “religiously disposed” mind. He doesn’t elaborate too much on this, but his thinking, again, tends toward metaphorical notions as to what miracles actually consist of.
These brief comments and excerpts hardly do justice to Newman, but they give some indication of a complex mind which tried to see multiple perspectives on religious matters before reaching carefully qualified conclusions.
The book breaks down into two parts. The first is an explanation of why Newman, who was originally an Anglican clergyman writing tracts justifying IAnglican differences with Roman Catholicism, changed his mind and became a Catholic convert, one of the founders of the “Oxford Movement.”
The second part expresses his subsequent views, and is titled “Position of My Mind since 1845.” It’s more interesting than the first part which talks about long past and often obscure religious arguments. At one point, he expresses some doubts, refreshing as it make him seem a fallible human being. He writes, “My difficulty was this: I had been deceived greatly once: how could I be sure that I was not deceived a second time: how was I to be certain that I was right now?” The answer is that he obviously prayed and left it to a higher power to guide him.
He defends his views on such matters as the “infallibility” of the church, not a simple matter, as he points out that in the end the truth will prevail. “Catholic Christendom is no simple exhibition of religious absolutism, but presents a continuous picture of Authority and Private Judgment alternately advancing and retreating as the ebb and flow of the tide; - it is a vast assemblage of human beings with willful intellects and wild passions. . .”
Newman always tries to be fair, as when he writes, “I am far from denying that every article of the Christian Creed, whether as held by Catholics or Protestants, is beset with intellectual difficulties and it is simple fact that for myself, I cannot answer [all] those difficulties.”
About any church doctrine, he takes a long view, “Holy Church in her sacraments and her hierarchical appointments, will remain, even to the end of the world, after all but a symbol of those heavenly facts which fill eternity. Her mysteries are but the expressions in human language of truths to which the human mind is unequal.”
On any dogmas, or theological opinions, such as the Trinity, for example, he opines that there is always room for improvement in how those doctrines are expressed and articulated.
About miracles, he draws some subtle distinctions such as pointing out that they make sense to a “religiously disposed” mind. He doesn’t elaborate too much on this, but his thinking, again, tends toward metaphorical notions as to what miracles actually consist of.
These brief comments and excerpts hardly do justice to Newman, but they give some indication of a complex mind which tried to see multiple perspectives on religious matters before reaching carefully qualified conclusions.
February 22, 2021
Boy, this guy was a master rhetorician. Woe to anybody who stood in his way. And woe to Charles Kingsley who felt the brunt of Newman's force of reasoning. Henry Newman wrote this book in response to Kingsley's accusations of him being a two-faced, dishonorable liar when Newman converted to the Catholic faith. There was not a single dry thread left on Kingsley's body by the end of this book. He was left soaked with shame while Newman's public life was vinidicated.
Having said all this, the book itself (that also contains Newman's initial pamphlet responses to Kingsley's accusations) will be very dry to those unacquainted with theology, the Anglican-Catholic story, and the saga of Newman's life. Most of the book is Newman laying out his intellectual progression in theology from Anglicanism towards the teachings of the Catholic Church. This progression spanned a good few decades. But those familiar with the topics discussed in this book will find the read riveting and more so as a result of Newman's sublime writing style. He truly was a master of rhetoric and literary style.
I must also add that this work has the best explanation and defence of the need for an (divinely inspired) infallible Church. The Church, with its infallible edicts, does not stifle intellectual freedom but guides it. It doesn't cut off people from the source of creativity but nudges them in the direction where their creativity can be most fruitful. Why waste time in thought that is not in adherence to reality? It's wasted time and energy. Reality itself is an untapped infinite horizon that cannot be exhausted by thought. Plenty of space there for every mind! Why go anywhere else? Newman shows this exceptionally well.
Having said all this, the book itself (that also contains Newman's initial pamphlet responses to Kingsley's accusations) will be very dry to those unacquainted with theology, the Anglican-Catholic story, and the saga of Newman's life. Most of the book is Newman laying out his intellectual progression in theology from Anglicanism towards the teachings of the Catholic Church. This progression spanned a good few decades. But those familiar with the topics discussed in this book will find the read riveting and more so as a result of Newman's sublime writing style. He truly was a master of rhetoric and literary style.
I must also add that this work has the best explanation and defence of the need for an (divinely inspired) infallible Church. The Church, with its infallible edicts, does not stifle intellectual freedom but guides it. It doesn't cut off people from the source of creativity but nudges them in the direction where their creativity can be most fruitful. Why waste time in thought that is not in adherence to reality? It's wasted time and energy. Reality itself is an untapped infinite horizon that cannot be exhausted by thought. Plenty of space there for every mind! Why go anywhere else? Newman shows this exceptionally well.
Read
June 6, 2023A lesson in being a gentleman.
“We should ever conduct ourselves towards our enemy as if here were one day to be our friend”
“God has created me to do Him some definite service. He has committed some work to me which He has not committed to another. I have my mission. I may never know it in this life, but I shall be told it in the next. I am a link in a chain, a bond of connection between persons.
He has not created me for naught. I shall do good; I shall do His work. I shall be an angel of peace, a preacher of truth in my own place, while not intending it if I do but keep His commandments.
Therefore, I will trust Him, whatever I am, I can never be thrown away. If I am in sickness, my sickness may serve Him, in perplexity, my perplexity may serve Him. If I am in sorrow, my sorrow may serve Him. He does nothing in vain. He knows what He is about. He may take away my friends. He may throw me among strangers. He may make me feel desolate, make my spirits sink, hide my future from me. Still, He knows what He is about.”
And the best for last:
“Lead me on kindly Light of Truth
amid the encircling gloom;
The night is dark, and
I am far from home;
Lead Thou me on!
I do not ask to see the distant scene;
One step is enough for me!
I loved to choose and see
my path, but now
Lead Thou me on!
O’er moor and fen, o’er crag and
torrent, till the night is gone;
Lead Thou me on!”
“We should ever conduct ourselves towards our enemy as if here were one day to be our friend”
“God has created me to do Him some definite service. He has committed some work to me which He has not committed to another. I have my mission. I may never know it in this life, but I shall be told it in the next. I am a link in a chain, a bond of connection between persons.
He has not created me for naught. I shall do good; I shall do His work. I shall be an angel of peace, a preacher of truth in my own place, while not intending it if I do but keep His commandments.
Therefore, I will trust Him, whatever I am, I can never be thrown away. If I am in sickness, my sickness may serve Him, in perplexity, my perplexity may serve Him. If I am in sorrow, my sorrow may serve Him. He does nothing in vain. He knows what He is about. He may take away my friends. He may throw me among strangers. He may make me feel desolate, make my spirits sink, hide my future from me. Still, He knows what He is about.”
And the best for last:
“Lead me on kindly Light of Truth
amid the encircling gloom;
The night is dark, and
I am far from home;
Lead Thou me on!
I do not ask to see the distant scene;
One step is enough for me!
I loved to choose and see
my path, but now
Lead Thou me on!
O’er moor and fen, o’er crag and
torrent, till the night is gone;
Lead Thou me on!”
Displaying 1 - 30 of 154 reviews