from the conduct and character of the apostles. The treatment was no more original than the theme. Three years afterwards, however, a book appeared from his pen, to which, though not in itself of extraordinary merit, the epithet ‘epoch-making’ might be applied with perfect propriety. It is his ‘History of the Jews’ (1830), written for Murray's ‘Family Library.’ In this unpretending book for the first time ‘an English clergyman treated the Jews as an oriental tribe, recognised sheiks and emirs in the Old Testament, shifted and classified documentary evidence, and evaded or minimised the miraculous.’ Consternation, which the author had not anticipated, spread among the orthodox; the sale of the book was not only stopped, but the publication of the series in which it appeared ceased. Bishop Mant and Dr. Faussett were among the more conspicuous of his assailants, and a greater man, John Henry Newman, who reviewed it in the ‘British Critic’ so late as January 1841, has recorded in his ‘Apologia’ the unfavourable impression it produced upon him at the time. It was, however, well reviewed in the ‘Gentleman's Magazine’ (1830, i. 134-7) as an ‘excellent work,’ ‘written upon those enlightened principles which alone will be regarded in modern times,’ while some representative Jews presented Milman with a piece of plate in recognition of his liberal treatment of their history. The book was republished in 1863 and again in 1867, with great improvements, and an able introduction, in which Milman clearly defined his own position. This he further illustrated in his university sermon on Hebrew prophecy, preached in 1865.
Milman's preferment seemed likely to be long impeded, but in 1835 Sir Robert Peel took advantage of his brief tenure of office to make him canon of Westminster and rector of St. Margaret's, Westminster, dignities invariably conferred on men of special eminence. He was still, nevertheless, regarded with distrust and dislike, and when his ‘History of Christianity under the Empire’ appeared in 1840, it was, said Lord Melbourne, as completely ignored as if the clergy had taken a universal oath never to mention it to any one. In 1849, however, Lord John Russell advanced Milman to the deanery of St. Paul's. No position in the church could have better become him than the charge of a great historical cathedral, and he speedily obtained the general recognition which his talents and accomplishments had always merited.
The historical character of Milman's mind was shown by the principal literary labours of his later years. In 1838 he had edited Gibbon, a task which hardly admits of satisfactory performance. So vast is the theme so enormous the amount of illustration supplied by recent research, that either the editor's labours must appear inadequate, or the text must disappear beneath the commentary. Milman chose the former alternative, but his edition, with the reinforcement of Guizot's notes, is still, perhaps, the standard one, though this is not a position which it can ultimately retain. In 1839 he published the ‘Life of E. Gibbon, Esq., with Selections from his Correspondence and Illustrations.’ There followed in 1855 his own great historical work, ‘The History of Latin Christianity down to the Death of Pope Nicholas V.’ Milman here selected a subject on which libraries might be written, but the necessity for a comparatively brief general survey will always exist, and Milman's book, while meeting this want, is at the same time executed on a scale and in a style answerable to the dignity of history. Macaulay deemed the substance ‘excellent,’ although the style was, in his opinion, ‘very much otherwise.’ The call for a second edition in 1856 was described by Macaulay as ‘creditable to the age’ (Life, p. 626). The task was one for which the cast of Milman's mind and the tenor of his studies fully qualified him. The shortcomings and minor inaccuracies are amply compensated by qualities till then rare in ecclesiastical historians—liberality, candour, sympathy, and catholic appreciation of every estimable quality in every person or party—which not only contributed an especial charm to the work, but may be said to have permanently raised the standard of ecclesiastical history. Milman also possessed the fine sense of historical continuity, and the power of endowing institutions with personality, so necessary to the historian of an august corporation like the Latin church. The fundamental distinctions between Latin and Greek or oriental Christianity and the parallelisms between Latin and Teutonic Christianity are admirably worked out. His great defect is the one visible in his dramas the lack of creative imagination, which prevented him from drawing striking portraits of the great company of illustrious men who passed under his review.
The remainder of Milman's life was principally occupied in the discharge of the duties of his office, where his intellectual superiority acquired for him the designation of ‘the great dean.’ To him were due several innovations calculated to make the services at St. Paul's popular and accessible. On Advent Sunday, 28 Nov. 1858, he inaugurated evening services under the dome. He be-
