294 



truth or falsehood of his assertions. We must take his i;pse 

 diooit. 



On such a principle he attempted to reconstruct considerable 

 portions of early Roman history. These reconstructions, although 

 they were assented to when they were first propounded by a 

 large number of eminent men — among others by Dr. Arnold — 

 have since fallen into considerable discredit. Others thought 

 that they had an equal right to propound theories as facts, and 

 very discordant ones were the result, for which probable evidence 

 could be adduced. The great work of Sir G. C. Lewis may be 

 considered to have given them their death-blow. He has proved 

 that a large portion of early Roman story is destitute of an 

 adequate attestation, and that where facts are wanting the 

 attempt to supply them by analogies and conjectures is an utter 

 failure. 



The reason of this is plain. The number of possible events 

 by which they may be united together is indefinite. It is 

 impossible to reason out by analogy what must have been 

 the course of events, unless human actions are due to neces- 

 sary causes. At least, in our present state of knowledge, 

 human passions and human actions do not follow so necessary 

 a law as that of gravitation ; and until they do, to reconstruct 

 lost events can only be a matter of probable guess-work, except 

 in a limited number of cases. Niebuhr thought that he could 

 divine the changes through which the Roman constitution 

 must have passed, and the influences at work which actuated 

 the agents in them. Let us test his position, and suppose 

 that certain portions of English history have perished in a 

 similar manner ; how hopeless would be the work of reconstruc- 

 tion. Would it be possible to reconstruct the events or causes 

 by which the Parliaments of Edward I. were connected with 

 the Witenagemote ; or if the memory of the events of the 

 reign of Henry VIIL had been obliterated from history, to 

 reconstruct the immediate causes which produced the Reforma- 

 tion ; or if those of the reign of Elizabeth had undergone the 

 same fate, those which have given its peculiar aspect to the 

 Church of England. 



But the principle is still active in various other branches of 

 historical inquiry, especially in those which have even a remote 

 connection with Revelation. Of this numerous works which 

 you well know, and which I therefore need not name, are 

 striking instances. I will offer a few observations on one which 

 is rarely referred to in this room, — Eivald's History of Israel. 

 This work is a most singular instance of learning and ingenuity, 

 united with audacity, of which its respected author seems 

 supremely unconscious. I fully concede the right of the his- 



