[I give here the letter sent to the "unknown correspondent" in question, who had called his attention to the fourth of these sermons.] 4 Marlborough Place, September 30, 1887. I have but just returned to England after two months' absence, and in the course of clearing off a vast accumulation of letters, I have come upon yours. The Duke of Argyll has been making capital out of the same circumstances as those referred to by the Bishop. I believe that the interpretation put upon the facts by both is wholly misleading and erroneous. It is quite preposterous to suppose that the men of science of this or any other country have the slightest disposition to support any view which may have been enunciated by one of their colleagues, however distinguished, if good grounds are shown for believing it to be erroneous. When Mr. Murray arrived at his conclusions I have no doubt he was advised to make his ground sure before he attacked a generalisation which appeared so well founded as that of Mr. Darwin respecting coral reefs. If he had consulted me I should have given him that advice myself, for his own sake. And whoever advised him, in that sense, in my opinion did wisely. But the theologians cannot get it out of their heads, that as they have creeds, to which they must stick at all hazards, so have the men of science. There is no more ridiculous delusion. We, at any rate, hold ourselves morally bound to "try all things and hold fast to that which is good"; and among public benefactors, we reckon him who explodes old error, as next in rank to him who discovers new truth. You are at liberty to make any use you please of this letter. [Two letters on kindred subjects may appropriately follow in this place. Thanking M. Henri Gadeau de Kerville for his "Causeries sur le Transformisme," he writes (February 1):--] Dear Sir, Accept my best thanks for your interesting "causeries," which seem to me to give a very clear view of the present state of the evolution doctrine as applied to biology. There is a statement on page 87 "Apres sa mort Lamarck fut completement oublie," which may be true for France but certainly is not so for England. From 1830 onwards for more than forty years Lyell's "Principles of Geology" was one of the most widely read scientific books in this country, and it contains an elaborate criticism of Lamarck's views. Moreover, they were largely debated during the controversies which arose out of the publication of the "Vestiges of Creation" in 1844 or thereabouts. We are certainly not guilty of any neglect of Lamarck on this side of the Channel. If I may make another criticism it is that, to my mind, atheism is, on purely philosophical grounds, untenable. That there is no evidence of the existence of such a being as the God of the theologians is true enough; but strictly scientific reasoning can take us no further. Where we know nothing we can neither affirm nor deny with propriety.