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 [supra 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 "unjaded appetite" for
the sort of controversy in which it needed not Mr. Gladstone's
express declaration to tell us he is far better practised than I
am (though probably, without another express declaration, no one
would have suspected that his controversial fires are burning
low) is already satiated.

In "Elysium" we conduct scientific discussions in a different
medium, and we are liable to threatenings of asphyxia in that
"atmosphere of contention" in which Mr. Gladstone has been able
to live, alert and vigorous beyond the common race of men, as if
it were purest mountain air. I trust that he may long continue
to seek truth, under the difficult conditions he has chosen for
the search, with unabated energy--I had almost said fire--


May age not wither him, nor custom stale
His infinite variety.


But Elysium suits my less robust constitution better, and I beg