he wrote that in his opinion "the
doctrine of evolution does not even come into contact with theism,
considered as a philosophical doctrine." The reason of his general
attitude to the Bible was simply that his application to it of the
agnostic method led him to the view that there was not sufficient
evidence for the pretensions assigned to it; the reason of his coming
forward as a public and active champion of his views in this matter
was partly to make a counter attack on the enemies of science, and
partly his innate respect for the propagation of truth. He had the
inevitable respect of an Englishman for the English Bible as one of
the greatest books in our language, and we have seen how he had
advocated its adoption in schools. He had the veneration for its
ethical contents common to the best thinkers of all ages since it came
into existence, and few writers have ever employed loftier or more
direct language to express their respect and admiration. As a
venerator of freedom and of liberty he regarded the Bible as the
greatest text-book of freedom.

"Throughout the history of the Western world," he wrote, "the
Scriptures, Jewish and Christian, have been the great instigators
of revolt against the worse forms of clerical and political
despotism. The Bible has been the _Magna Charta_ of the poor and
of the oppressed; down to modern times no State has had a
constitution in which the interests of the people are so largely
taken into account, in which the duties, so much more than the
privileges, of rulers are insisted upon, as that drawn up for
Israel in Deuteronomy and in Leviticus; nowhere is the
fundamental truth that the welfare of the State, in the long
run, depends on the uprightness of the citizen so strongly laid
down. Assuredly the Bible talks no trash about the rights of man;
but it insists on the equality of duties, on the liberty to bring
about that righteousness which is somewhat different from
struggling for 'rights'; on the fraternity of taking thought for
one's neighbour as for oneself."

It was not against the Bible but against the applications made of it
and implications read into it that he strove.

"In this nineteenth century, as at the dawn of modern physical
science, the cosmogony of the semi-barbarous Hebrew is the
incubus of the philosopher and the opprobrium of the orthodox.
Who shall number the