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.

[The other is in answer to the Bishop of Ripon, enclosing a few lines
on the principal representatives of modern science, which he had asked
for.]

4 Marlborough Place, June 16, 1887.

My dear Bishop of Ripon,

I shall be very glad if I can be of any use to you now and always. But
it is not an easy task to put into half-a-dozen sentences, up to the
level of your vigorous English, a statement that shall be unassailable
from the point of view of a scientific fault-finder--which shall be
intelligible to the general public and yet accurate.

I have made several attempts and enclose the final result. I think the
substance is all right, and though the form might certainly be
improved, I leave that to you. When I get to a certain point of
tinkering my phrases I have to put them aside for a day or two.

Will you allow me to suggest that it might be better not to name any
living man? The temple of modern science has been the work of many
labourers not only in our own but in other countries. Some have been
more busy in shaping and laying the stones, some in keeping off the
Sanballats, some prophetwise in indicating the course of the science of
the future. It would be hard to say who has done best service. As