so far as material and results go, the part seems in this case ever so much larger than the whole ! The paradox is attributable to the sociologists.

But in the loose and incorrect use of the words science and art, history stands on the verge of both. It is studied by strictly scientific and logical methods, yet it has human interests. It has, as we have already seen, always been closely allied with literature. But literature too, if studied at all, must, we have said, be studied scientifically. The dangers of representing history as science and science only are, in the first place, to make it seem more definite in principles and results than it can ever be; in the second place, to narrow its sphere to the comprehension of political relations only; and in the third place, to deter from the study of it a good many seriously minded people whose interest in it is mainly of the human and imaginative kind. On the other hand, to put history with the arts is to make it seem a less serious study than it should be, and to give it more or less a character of dilettantism.

But, after all, names are not everything, and I wish to end these remarks with something more encouraging than a dispute about nomenclature. I consider that, after all, the great advantage of the study of history is to give students the historical point of view: to enable them to regard every period of past history as a link in a chain, reaching back to the farther and on to a nearer past, and to look on their present life as

the result of forces which have worked through the past and which will continue to work in the future. It is not, of course, only the special students of history who are able, more or less, to reach this standpoint, but if there were no special students of history, fewer still would be likely to catch the historical spirit. Thus specialization in study, if combined with comradeship in studies, so far from tending to narrowness, may help to widen the intellectual horizon of us all, if only we retain enthusiasm for our chosen line of thought and work along with genuine respect for those of our fellow students.

X

A FIFTH-CENTURY PRECURSOR OF

MATTHEW ARNOLD

(Reprinted from "The Modern Churchman")

"IF Christ were God only, and took the beginning of His existence from the Virgin, from that fact the Virgin alone might be named and called God-bearer' as one who had by nature given birth to God. But if Christ is God and Man, the former from everlasting (for He never began to be, since He is co-eternal with the Father), the latter since these last days, in which He has been produced from human nature, it behoves whosoever would hold to a doctrinal accuracy, in weaving titles for the Virgin, to make a clear distinction between that which results from the union [of God and Man] and that which pertains to nature [or human birth]. But if any one wishes to speak after the manner of panegyrists, and to compose hymns, and to set forth praises, and if he desires to make forcible use of the most dignified appellations, not by way, as I have said, of stating doctrine, but in order to set forth with the highest glorification the greatness of the mystery, let him glorify his desire, and use the high-sounding titles;

let him express his wonder and adoration. For we find many instances of this tendency in orthodox teachers; only let the principle of moderation be observed."

1

These are the words of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, a combatant in the Nestorian Controversy, and to the modern student of that dreary conflict they may appear as an oasis in the desert. For, unlike most of the writings to which they belong, they seem to pierce to the root of the matter, and to point to a distinction which, if observed, would allow scope for clearness of thought combined with toleration of variety in expression. The question, of course, was as to the one or the twofold nature in Christ, and the term EOTÓKOS (which I prefer to translate by God-bearer rather than by the more blatant Mother of God) was the catchword in the controversy. May one use that term of the Virgin Mary? "Yes," say Cyril

and the Alexandrians, "for Christ is one and is God." "No," say the most decided Nestorians, for it is Christ as man, not as God, that was born of a woman." woman." "No," says Theodoret, "if you want to be theologically accurate, but yes if you speak poetically and with emotion." He, being at once a theologian and a man of letters, discerned the distinction between the language of literature and the language of dogma. For this reason I have called him a precursor of Matthew Arnold.

1 Theodoret of Cyrrhus to the Monks of Syria, Cilicia, and Phoenicia. Ep. 151. M.P.G. 83.

The analogy must not be pressed too far, especially as the attitude taken up towards dogma by Theodoret was very unlike that of Matthew Arnold, in that he believed, as Matthew Arnold did not, that dogma can serve as a definite and scientific statement of divine truth. Nor did Theodoret entirely grasp the possible extension and manifold applications of the rules here laid down. Neither does he, in religious controversy, always rise above the reckless scurrility which marks the discussions of that time. But good men ought to be judged with some regard to their high-water mark, and the high-water mark of Theodoret was far above the average.

To understand him and his principles, we must bear in mind that not only was he, as just now said, theologian and man of letters: there were two more characters he had to presentthe ascetic, and the ecclesiastical statesman. As he was born about 390 and died about 460 A.D., his life fills the first half of the stormy fifth century, with a margin on either side. His parents, who belonged to the Syrian Antioch, were pious folk, and from his childhood he frequented the society of solitary recluses, to one of whom, moved by pity to pray that a virtuous lady's longing for a child might be gratified, Theodoret owed, he thought, his own birth. After he had lost his parents, he lived for a time in monastic seclusion. Meantime he received a good Greek education, and even became acquainted with some oriental languages. He acquired the style of