294 
truth or falsehood of his assertions. We must take his ipse 
dixit. 
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 VIII. 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, — Ewald’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- 
