-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2ed871e98fc3d9de9654837131a52fef.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=YfZbzFsNyDh5hlNqOkpv9tWtp7-BJ6sqG9-XHbnwySS%7EAlGMMHIFE-9nOkgc8R2W0E6rNmdgB929ZYcPIzo8c5OZnBsCeqXV7yU664mOdGwh0HAWb2TRJdkR6QXouOIekJ-DQm35MT-7zKlahE2gf2uJ%7EfodyqbPj54hmbx0EtkRgzMcD0CtXtMUaD%7EM27g3UqLNBAn4C%7E4aMF2EdDM%7ESGoS6-7ilhPyaUQ6lUTM7LCSBj9yCD9PksscN5TLGMuVOuFwF%7E-2XiruO70-Ic1AMPZqCihQFlFT6hE6rPfHN55OemC4WyIXyo5o9cYMtjxWTRxlUsgMIQrJJ9tDM7c2Zg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0dc29e5dc4d5bac06ded6ae3b5178fbc
PDF Text
Text
CT10?
THE TWO THEISMS.
BY
PROFESSOR F. W. NEWMAN.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCO.TT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
Price Threepence.
��THE TWO THEISMS.
HOSE who are contending for free thought in
a
and
Tarereligion are contending for thatnoble prize,withheld
temporarily united, while
prize is
from the public by a powerful adversary. But the
moment they commence to use their freedom, the same
thing happens, and must happen, now as always here
tofore. Human infirmity clings to all. Each is finite,
and sees but partially ; hence their judgments are often
in opposition. The contrasts of opinion in Greek
philosophy, when there was no organized priesthood
to forbid or to cripple freedom of thought, were as ex
treme as now.
Some imagine that, because the schools of material
science work on in harmony, and the conflicts of
opinion rather assist progress, being but partial and
temporary, so will it be in religion, as soon as we
resolve to cultivate religious thought scientifically.
This might be the case, if materialism were the basis,
or if we had foundations recognized by all. But in
metaphysics, and in mental science generally, the great
discouragement of study has lain in the irreconcilable
and fundamental variance of the professors. Material
ism and Spiritualism fight together for possession of
the schools of morals and of psychology; so also of
necessity will they in religion. Those who wish to be
scientific are not agreed as to the bases and procedure
of the new (religious) science, for which they are hoping
in common. Every science has to work out its own
�4
The Two Theisms.
problems in. its own way. Strong analogies and har
monies are detected between the several sciences after
they arise and live; nevertheless each is born inde
pendently, and acts independently; nor can any endure
dictation from without, though hints and suggestions
may be welcome and profitable. Thus, after we have
agreed that free thought is necessary in religion, and
that a scientific religion is the thing to be desired, we
may easily remain as far apart in religious opinion and
belief as were Stoics and Epicureans ; or if our difference
be less extreme, it may be rather from holding more
negations in common than from agreement in affirma
tion.
Nor, when people profess to believe in God and call
themselves Theists, does this go far to indicate real
agreement. The question recurs, What do we mean
by God 1 If vre may not give a reply, the word is un
meaning to us, and we deceive ourselves in thinking
that we have any belief at all. But as soon as we give
a reply,—not as believing that it can exhaust the whole
reality, but merely that it may explain our thought,—some one arises to reprove us for presumption in sup
posing that we can limit the illimitable, and define the
incomprehensible. Men who by general suffrage are
eminent in some physical science, think forthwith that
their physical attainments justify their laying down the
law in religion; and we who have broken loose from
the dogmatism of the churches find that we have to
encounter a new fight for our freedom against the dog
matism of this or that “ man of science,” who perhaps
graciously allows us the field of “ the Unknowable”
or religion, or not even that; for it is well if the new
dogmatist will let us have any belief in a Superior
Spirit at all. Nothing is commoner than a shriek of
derision against a “ personal God.” Under the ground
less pretence that personality means limitation, or means
Anthropomorphy, we are forbidden to believe in a God
who has purposes and sentiments. A God wzUAowi
�The Two Theisms.
5
either purposes or sentiments is a God in whom we
cannot recognize mind at all, and is therefore a blind
force or a blind fate. A recent writer of great literaryeminence, while fancying that he is about to deliver
religion from sacerdotal metaphysics, emphatically de
nies, not the personality only, but even the unity of
God ; thus presenting us with nothing but a plurality
of either forces or abstractions, and plunging us into
an abyss of metaphysics still deeper—-onp also out of
which no practical religion has ever yet emerged.
Setting aside avowed Atheism and avowed Pantheism
(a very equivocal term), even in the apparently more
limited form of belief denoted as Theism, there are at
least two broadly distinguished schools of thought,
between which, if we remain Theists, it is necessary to
choose; and the more fully the two can be described
and contrasted, the greater will be the aid to students
of Free Religion. Indeed one might mark out a third
school, the Deism of the eighteenth century. This
pourtrayed the Creator as external to his creation,
which they supposed him to have endowed with selfacting forces. Matter, in this theory, was either created
or endowed with gravitation at a definite time, which
may be called the crisis or era of creation; so that the
action of God upon matter was convulsive and momen
tary ", and the great forces of the universe, which he
then bestowed on it, were regarded as no part of the
divine essence, but as the properties of matter. To
every planet he gave an 11 initial impulse,” which pre
vents its falling into the sun; and then left the system
to itself. Thus he may be said to have made a clock,
wound up the spring, and pushed the pendulum into
activity. Such apparently was the belief of the great
Sir Isaac Newton. But in the nineteenth century this
doctrine is almost universally disowned. The smallest
acquaintance with the great science of geology convinces
every one that the idea of creation as limited to a single
crisis of time has no plausibility whatever; that crea-.
�6
The Two Theisms.
tion is undoubtedly the work of continuous ages, enor
mous in duration, whatever its mode and progress;
moreover, that if God is to be recognized at all in the
universe, the great forces which are therein detected
by the mental eye are strictly divine forces, and that
any distinction between initial impulses as divine and
continued forces as not divine is groundless. This is the
incipient reconciliation of Pantheism and Theism.
Nevertheless, our Theism divides itself into two
schools, broadly separated, and for convenience it may
be allowed to entitle them Greek Theism and Hebrew
Theism. Of the former, the great Aristotle was pro
bably a worthy representative ; and it commends itself
to a great majority of those who are forward to
identify their faith with science. The cardinal point of
this is that it supposes God to have nothing, in him
or of him, but general Law. He may be described as
Force acting everywhere according to Law, under the
guidance of Mind. He is supposed to be so absorbed
in general action as to remain quite inobservant of the
detailed results, or at least unconcerned about them.
Thus he intends this earth to have day and night, to
have vegetation and various animals on it, moreover to
have a human population. These generalities he is
not too great to design and devise. But it is said, we
cannot suppose him to pay attention to any particular
man, without supposing him to attend to every
sparrow, to every oyster, to every stalk of sea-weed,
and this (it is thought) would be absurd. He wishes
the human race, as a whole, to attain its own perfec
tion, but it is thought puerile to suppose him to attend
to each individual; and, as favouritism would be a
human weakness, he has no love and no care for any
one of us. Conversely then, it would be gratuitous,
unseemly, perhaps impossible, for any of us to love
him. In accordance with this, Aristotle makes a
passing remark—“ for it would be ridiculous for any
one to say that he loves Jupiter;” not, I apprehend,
�The Two Theisms.
7
from his investing Jupiter with the colours of Greek
mythology, hut from his supposing no moral relations
to exist between the Supreme God and us. Of course
it will follow from that view that human injustice and
vice, great as are their mischiefs, are offences against
man or ourselves, not against God ; hence the idea
of “ sin against God ” cannot exist. God is not sup
posed to be concerned with the sin of an individual;
to confess it to him would be an impertinence which
Aristotle never seems to imagine possible. Indeed,
the same great philosopher esteems intellectual virtue
as higher than moral virtue, on the express ground
that God cannot possess moral virtue, which belongs
only to the natures which have passions to restrain
and direct wisely ; nor indeed is it intelligible to
ascribe moral virtue to a Being who is wholly solitary,
and has neither temptations to resist, nor duties to
fulfil. But probably the modern Theists of this class
will admit, that, when a Superior Being gives sensitive
life to other objects, he creates for himself relations to
them and duty to them, especially the duty of justice
not to create them for mere misery, or deal inequitably
with them ; and that two lines of imaginable conduct at
once open, according to one of which God would show
himself good, and according to the other evil. Hence
the epithet good attached to God is not idle and un
meaning, but has a real sense. I do not know, but I
hope, that those whom I entitle Greek Theists in the
present day regard it as rightful and becoming to
believe that God is good, even while contemplating
either that violence of the elements which causes
destruction and pain to myriads of his creatures, or the
preying of one class of animals on another. That pain
and death are strictly necessary, I suppose all thought
ful persons to understand.
But here a caution is needed, concerning the de
scription of omnipotence, — a word which is often
gravely misunderstood ; insomuch that one may doubt
�8
The Two Theisms.
whether it is wise to use it at all. If the word be
strictly pressed, omnipotence makes wisdom needless,
and leaves to it no functions. We cannot ascribe wis
dom, without implying difficult problems to be solved ;
but to omnipotence there can be no difficulty at all,
and no problem ; a “ fiat ” suffices. Hence in calling
God Wise, or All-Wise, we virtually assume that there
are limits to his power, even if we know not exactly
what. A second consideration shows that cases of
apparent impotence in God may be mere inventions of
human absurdity. It is a celebrated Greek saying
that “ the only thing which God cannot achieve is, to
undo the past.” This does but assert that divine
power is out of place in solving the absurd problem of
making contradictions simultaneously true ; such as,
“ Alexander conquered Darius,” a past fact, and,
“ Alexander did not conquer Darius,” the past fact
undone. Verbal contradictions belong to the puzzle of
human thought, and are no problem for power. One
who disputes this does not know what he is saying.
Even dull minds will find themselves constrained to
deny that God can create a God like to himself. To
create the uncreated, is a contradiction. This distinc
tion between the uncreated and the created is irrever
sible. We may advance from this to geometrical con
siderations. Archimedes discovered that a sphere is
exactly two-thirds of its circumscribing cylinder. To
bring about, by a divine fiat, that the ratio should be
three-quarters would be to establish a contradiction.
To deny that this falls within the sphere of power can
not shock piety. As well might one be shocked at the
denial that a geometrical shape can be made simul
taneously round and square. Further: mathematicians
easily imagine a force of gravitation which shall obey
a different law from that of Newton, and in following
out the inferences find no self-contradiction. Yet it is
more than possible that the Newtonian law is a rigid
necessity of the physical system, and that to change it
�The Two Theisms.
9
belongs not at all to the sphere of power, any more than
to reverse geometrical or verbal truths. JNevertheless,
it may justly be feared that some minds, who have
credit for “ philosophy,” ill understand thoughts
apparently so simple and obvious ; since the late
eminent John Stuart Mill committed himself to the
declaration that in some other world than this, for aught
he knew, two and two might make five; and that he
knew “ the Whole to be greater than the Part” by expe
rience only :—though it is evidently a verbal truth.
But as soon as we understand that the great geome
trical and physical laws of the universe are a condition
under which Creating Power acts, we find abundant
room for the profoundest wisdom. When we ascribe
Almightiness, it is only a short phrase for saying that
“ we cannot know the limits of God’s power in any of
the problems in which power is applicable ; and in
dealing with them, we assume that there are no limits.”
But this belongs to our ignorance, not to our knowledge.
The Homeric epithet Much-miglity may be preferred by
a rigid philosophy to Almighty, in speaking of that
which transcends knowledge.
The Theism which teaches that there is no definite
moral relation between an individual man and his
Divine Author, but only between the collective human
race and its source; and that the relation is limited to
this, that God by creating bound himself to be just to
the race collectively,—such Theism does not encourage
the individual to any acts of worship, and scarcely to
the sentiment of gratitude. Compare the case of a
land-owner who likes to have pheasants in his copses.
Perhaps he takes some pains to keeps away the animals
which are destructive to them, and in so far causes the
pheasants to increase and enjoy life. But if he does
not care for any one of them, neither does he wish any
of them to care for him. A Greek Theist was beset
by uncertainty whether, if he paid thanks and worship
to Jupiter, the god listened to him, or in any sense
�IO
The Two Theisms.
accepted his addresses ; hence, with but few exceptions,
we find no mark of moral contact between the Greek
soul and the soul of the universe.
The prevalent tendency of Greek philosophy to that
which Christians esteem to be pride and self-right
eousness, is perhaps to be ascribed to this cause.
Man stood erect in the presence of man, with whom
alone he recognised moral relations, and was not awed
and abashed by contrasting his own moral imperfection
with the essential holiness of God. Mr F. E. Abbot
probably extols this position of the Greek mind as
manliness ; for in his Impeachment of Christianity, he
has attacked the modern religion vehemently on this
ground. He says: “ It strikes a deadly blow at the
dignity of human nature, and smites men with the
leprosy of self-contempt.” But the phenomenon was
older than Christianity.
I turn to the Hebrew Theism. It recognises all in
God which I have described as Greek Theism, but adds
something more, and that of prime importance. It
does not suppose that he is absorbed, and as it were
exhausted, in general action, but believes that he takes
cognizance of individuals also. When Euripides denies
that Jupiter attends to the sins of individual men, he
argues, as Epicurus after him, that it would give the
god too much trouble. [Melanippe Desmotis.] “ If
Jupiter were to write down the sins of mortals, the
whole heaven would not suffice, nor would he
himself suffice, to look into each case and send its
penalty.” Thus the reluctance of the opposite school
to admit that the Most High attends to details,
really turns upon an ascription of feebleness to him.
The Hebrew Theist maintains that the universal agency
of the Divine Spirit is a fact j and that the division
of his innumerable acts into two classes, those which
we can refer to a definable law and those in which no
general law is discernible by us, is a division made to
aid our finite minds. Again, no one regards it as
�The Two Theisms.
11
partiality and “ favoritism ” in the rays of the sun,
that they act differently on chemical material differently
prepared ; nor does it imply “ mutability ” in God (as
objectors tell us), if he act differently on different
human souls, according to their state. Hence there is
no just a priori objection to hinder and reprove that
instinct of the heart which casts itself on God in
spiritual prayer ; nor is it superstitious to believe that
he will strengthen our virtue when we flee to him
for aid.
To the Hebrew Theist, God is emphatically “ a God
who searches the heart.” He is regarded as dwelling
in its recesses, and having (what can only be called) a
joint-consciousness with the individual man. The wor
ship is prevalently internal and unspoken, however
pleasant the sympathetic enthusiasm of common wor
ship when hearts are in unison. In creatures so im
perfect as we, and especially in the noviciate of heart
religion, no small part oi secret prayer will be, either
petition for more strength to fulfil duty, or expression
of grief for failures. An axiom of the religion is that
God desires from us inward and outward goodness,
holiness, and righteousness ; hence any wilful neglect,
any choice of the baser part instead of the better, is
accounted not merely to be unjust or vicious, but also
to be sin against God. I am aware that in the present
day men calling themselves Christians have pronounced
“ sin against God ” to be an absurd idea, and allege
that one who asks “ forgiveness ” supposes God to
nourish 11 unseemly resentment.” Such objectors
think themselves Christians and are not; nor is the
objection just. The longer any one has cultivated
religion as an inward life,-—the more frequent and
more solemn has been his self-dedication before the
Divine Spirit to all that is holiest and best,—so much
the more certain is he to feel that any wilful deviation
is an offence, not only against his own soul or (it may
be) against a fellow mortal, but also against God. If
�12
The Two Theisms.
the worshipper on any day have a bad conscience, a
cloud seems to hide the serene and glorious presence.
If then a keen grief seize him, what matters it whether
he use this phrase or that phrase, in seeking to recover
his lost ground ? A child conscious of wrong asks
“pardon” of his father, and does not hereby impute “un
seemly resentment; but he knows he is disapproved, and
he desires to remove disapprobation, which is to happen
through a change in himself, of course, but he is not
just then at leisure to study words accurately, and, it
may be, he blames himself extravagantly. “ We know
not what we should ask for as we ought, but he that
searcheth hearts knoweth what is the mind of the
spirit,” says Paul excellently. Such strivings are not
ineffectual, but eminently conduce to moral culture and
vital power, however much they may be reproved or
disdained by the unsympathising logician, who perhaps
has no personal experience in the matter. Alike
pointless is the sarcasm that it is hoped by prayer to
“ alter the purposes and modify the action ” of God ;
and that prayer “ asks him to work a miracle.” What
ever the weight of this against prayer for things
external, it has no application at all to that prayer
which concerns the heart of the worshipper only.
There is no reason why we should not hope that God will
act differently on souls that pray and on souls that do
not pray ; and wide experience reports that he does so.
Thus also a definite moral relation is recognized between
the Divine Spirit and the soul which seeks his intimate
influence; and (however it may be regretted or reproved
as sectarianism) the sense inevitably springs up that
there is in the human race an interior circle of saints
or “ people of God
insomuch that without being able
strictly to justify every phrase, still this ancient out
pouring of desire sounds as melody to the heart:
“ Blessed are they that keep judgment, and he that
doeth righteousness at all times. Remember me, 0
Lord with the favour that thou bearest unto thy
�The Two Theisms.
*3
people. 0 visit me with thy salvation ; that I may
see the good of thy chosen, and rejoice with thine
inheritance."
As two seeds, in aspect alike, grow up into different
trees, so the fundamental difference of Hebrew from
Greek Theism, on a superficial view small, entails vast
moral results. With the Hebrew Theist religion is a
signal aid to morality; with the Greek Theist it is no
aid at all. Duty is everywhere easier to know than to
practise. It is an old complaint, “I see and approve
the better, but I follow the worse.” A Greek Theist
may be an eminently good man, but no thanks to his
religion; for when he encounters temptation, it adds
no strength to him. He does not believe that God
looks on and approves or disapproves his conduct.
But the Hebrew Theist, if he live in the spirit of his
religion, lives under the thought, “Thou, God, seest
me;” and it is harder to go wrong under the eye of a
virtuous friend, though it were but a man. His religion
is emotional, and adds a vital force to morality.
Again: if anyone believe God to love his creatures,
no impediment exists in the inequality of natures to
loving him in return. I know that modern “Greek
Theists” echo Aristotle’s incredulity, and call “love
for Jupiter” a delusion. Yet undoubtedly we love,
for their essential goodness, persons whom we have
never seen, though they may not know of our exist
ence; certainly then, if we believe that God knows
us, and loves us, and every way deserves love, it ought
not to be treated as beyond nature to love him. A
prominent and applicable test of love is pleasure in
anyone’s company-—that is, pleasure in a sense of his
presence. Though we judge God to be alway with us,
yet human society or needful absorption of mind in
business and duty very largely pre-occupies us; but if
at every vacant interval the heart springs back with
delight to the remembrance that God is present, such
a heart may surely be said to love God. Joy in a sense
�14
The Two Theisms.
of his nearness is attested by a long series of votaries
in the Hebrew school, which has propagated itself into
Christendom and Islam. Well-known Hebrew Psalms,
to which countless hearts have thrilled and echoed, pro
claim the blessedness of “ seeing God’s face ” (a strong
metaphor) and living under the light of his countenance.
As the hart pants for the water-brooks, so pants the
“saint” for a sense of his presence, whose loving kind
ness is better than life, whose approval brings fulness
°f j°yThus while Greek Theism is to the individual a
mere theory of the intellect, and possibly a science,
Hebrew Theism must be something else beside science,
namely, a life, dwelling in head and heart alike. It
attributes to God perfect goodness, perfect holiness—
words varying in sense with different minds, yet in all
suggesting something high above what the individual
has attained. Hence, in spite of dull imagination,
low morals, and a necessarily mutilated appreciation
of what God really is, the votary in this religion holds
up to his heart for worship an object far nobler and
purer than himself. If I refer to the poetical tale of
Job, who, on getting a mental sigh! of God, cried out:
“Behold, I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes,”
I may justly be told that this is mythological. How
ever, the prophet called Isaiah in our Bibles said in his
own name, “ We are all as an unclean thing, and all
our righteousness is but filthy rags ”—words strangely
treated as a doctrine special to Christians, and tending
to undervalue practical righteousness ! On the con
trary, they are the vehement aspiration of the heart for
a higher goodness than its own—a heart utterly dis
paraging its own attainment in comparison to that
which it sees above it, and longs for. But I suppose
it will be added, “If such self-contempt is real, it is
debasing; it saps the dignity of man.” Yet it is not
visible that Luther, or John Knox, or Oliver Crom
well were deficient in manliness, if even they “ crawled
�The Two theisms.
x5
on the ground” under a sense of their own vileness,
contrasted to God’s purity. I fully admit to objectors
that the inward religion common to Jew and Christian
may become morbid, namely, by assuming an intensity
of grief which (in a weak nature) endangers moral
despair. The ups and downs of a much-tempted,
much-sinning man, often bitterly repenting, often
jubilant with delight—whose sins perhaps (like those
of the poet Cowper) are unknown to all but himself
and hardly believed by others—may entail a mental
malady like Cowper’s; or, in a more robust and carnal
nature, may drive a man into hardened courses. I
wish objectors to understand that I see this danger.
Nevertheless, as fire may burn us, and could not be
the great aid to us that it is if this were impossible, so
judge I of that mental contact between the impure soul
and its far purer object of worship. The humiliation
thus induced forbids a man to despise even the most
sinful and polluted of his race, makes him tender
hearted and forgiving, preparing him to believe that
there is a fertile seed of goodness in those who have
plenty of visible imperfection. I strongly deny that
such humiliation tends to unmanliness, or lessens
human dignity. The vehemence of passion uses
strong language—as in love, so in devotion. The
“self-abhorrence,” which is reproved as debasing, is
felt only in the contrast of our darkness to God’s
purity, and has nothing to do with the comparison of
man with man. To “crawl” before man is a loss of
dignity, but before God we have no dignity to claim.
Surely humility towards God must make us more
amiable to man. “To do justly and love mercy” are
in sweet concord with “ walking humbly with God.”’
If there is any truth in what I have here laid out, a
not unimportant inference seems to follow. A Hebrew
Theist (such as I have described), though he believe
neither in Moses nor in Jesus, finds true co-religionists
in pious Jews and pious Christians; and not in those
�16
The Two Theisms.
only who recognize him as “one of their invisible
church,” but in many who shun him and shudder at
him— many whose religion is disfigured by puerile or
pernicious error. On the other hand, he may regard a
Greek Theist as a good man, a noble man, a man to be
esteemed; but he does not find in him a co-religionist;
nay, rather regards him as “unregenerate” and needing
“conversion.”
So too the Greek Theist evidently
finds nothing in a respectable Atheist, however hard
and scornful, to repel him. The difference between
the two is one of intellectual speculation, and does not
at all touch the heart. Thus, I incline to believe, the
chasm which separates Theists who do not pray and
Theists who pray is the broadest of all dividing lines.
Those on this side are co-religionists with Jews,
Brahmoes, Christians, and Mussulmans; those on the
other side, are co-religionists with Pantheists (?) and
Atheists. When those nurtured in the old national
religions unlearn dogmatic authority, all human nature
may be united in a common belief of Hebrew Theism,
as conscious children of One God. But if we disbelieve
our personal relation to God, Religion has lost alike its
restraining and its uniting power. A Theism which is
a mere speculation of the intellect may indifferently be
asserted or denied. Atheism is morally on a par with
such Theism. Of course this is not adduced as any
disproof, but only as indicating the practical importance
of the controversy.
TURNBULL AND SPEAKS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The two theisms
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway and part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 4. Date of publication from British Library catalogue. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. Publisher's list on numbered pages at the end.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1874]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT108
G4852
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The two theisms), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Morris Tracts
Theism
Theology