MK. GLADSTONE AND fJKXKSTS v 



geology of my youth, although these, in their day, 

 claimed and, to my mind, rightly claimed tli> 

 name of science. If nothing is to be called science 

 but that which is exactly true from beginning to 

 end, I am afraid there is very little science in tin 

 world outside mathematics. Among the physical 

 nces, I do not know that any could claim m<iv 

 than that it is true within certain limits, so narrow 

 that, for the present at any rate, they may bo 

 neglected. If such is the case, I do not see where 

 the line is to be drawn between exactly true, 

 partially true, and mainly untrue forms of science. 

 And what I have said about the current theology 

 at the end of my paper [supivl pp. 160-163] leaves, 

 I think, no doubt as to the category in which I 

 rank it. For all that, I think it would be not only 

 unjust, but almost impertinent, to refuse the name 

 of science to the " Summa " of St. Thomas or to 

 the " Institutes " of Calvin. 



In conclusion, I confess that my supposed " un- 

 jaded appetite " for the sort of controversy in which 

 it needed not Mr. Gladstone's express declaration 

 11 us he is far better practised than I am 

 (though probably, without another express de- 

 claration, no one would have suspected that his 

 controversial firos are burning low) is already 

 satiated. 



In " Elysium " we conduct scientific discussions 

 different medium, and we are liable to threat- 



