Buy This Book
Essay in Aid of A Grammar of Assent, An
406 pages, 5.00 x 8.00
Paperback | 9780268010003 | October 1992
Hardcover | 9780268009991 | August 2022
eBook (Web PDF) | 9780268087692 | October 1992
eBook (EPUB) | 9780268087661 | October 1992
Buy This Book
- Press Kit
- Author Bio
This classic of Christian apologetics seeks to persuade the skeptic that there are good reasons to believe in God even though it is impossible to understand the deity fully. First written over a century ago, the Grammar of Assent speaks as powerfully to us today as it did to its first readers. Because of the informal, non-technical character of Newman's work, it still retains its immediacy as an invaluable guide to the nature of religious belief. A new introduction by Nicholas Lash reviews the background of the Grammar, highlights its principal themes, and evaluates its philosophical originality.
John Henry Newman, Cong. Orat., was an Anglican priest, poet and theologian and later a Catholic cardinal, who was an important and controversial figure in the religious history of England in the 19th century.
Nicholas Lash is Emeritus Norris-Hulse Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge and author of Believing Three Ways in One God and Easter in Ordinary, also published by the University of Notre Dame Press.
“Lash’s introduction to this recent reissue of Newman’s Grammar makes that work accessible to contemporary students of philosophy and theology alike. If one wishes a fresh perspective on the shape of the ‘critical questions’ facing philosophical theology, as well as an object lesson in the norms implicit in ordinary discourse properly employed, that person would be well advised to take up this century-old volume.” —Theological Studies
“The combination of Newman’s original genius, complemented by Nicholas Lash’s ability to focus his concerns onto ours, makes this edition a useful tool for teachers.” —America
“Here is presented one of the most famous 19th century statements of Christian apologetics, including a most influential analysis of the faith-reason controversy.” —Reprint Bulletin Book Reviews