ut in others, which are equally essential, he was deficient. In
the first place, his work laboured under the fatal defect of dulness. Of
all writers, perhaps the ecclesiastical historian has most need of a
lively, racy style, of the art of selecting really prominent facts and
representing them with vividness and picturesqueness. The nature of his
subject is drier than that of the civil historian. He _must_ write much
which to the majority of readers will be heavy reading, unless they are
carried along by the grace and attractiveness of the composition. Milner
has not the art of setting _off_ his characters in the most effective
manner. There is a want of spring and dash about his style which has
prevented many from doing justice to his real merits.

Then again, he was rather too much of a partisan, to make a good
historian. With every wish to give honour where honour was due, his mind
was not evenly balanced enough for his task. Holding, as Milner did, the
very strongest and most uncompromising views of the utter depravity of
mankind, he can allow no good at all to what are termed 'mere moral
virtues.' Indeed, he will hardly allow such virtues to be 'splendid
sins.' He is far too honest to suppress facts, but his comments upon
facts are often tinged with a quite unconscious unfairness. Thus, he
admits the estimable qualities which Antoninus Pius possessed, but
'doubtless,' he adds, 'a more distinct and explicit detail of his life
would lessen our admiration: something of the supercilious pride of the
Grecian or of the ridiculous vain-glory of the Roman might appear.'[823]

A kindred but graver defect is Milner's incessant depreciation of all
schools of philosophy. Instead of seeing in these great thinkers of
antiquity a yearning after that light which Christianity gives, he can
see in them nothing but the deadliest enmity to Christianity. 'The
Church of Christ is abhorrent in its plan and spirit from the systems of
proud philosophers.' 'Moral philosophy and metaphysics have ever been
dangerous to religion. They have been found to militate against the
vital truths of Christianity and corrupt the gospel in our times, as
much as the cultivation of the more ancient philosophy corrupted it in
early ages.' The minister of Christ is warned against 'deep researches
into philosophy of any kind,' and much more to the same effect. It was
this foolish manner of talking and writing which gave the impression
that the religion which t