295 
torian to subject the historical books of the Bible to the severest 
principles of criticism, for they belong to history, and as I 
have said, it is the function of this science to discriminate 
fact from fiction. I have no immediate concern with that 
portion of this work which denies the Mosaic authorship of 
the Pentateuch, but with some of its reconstructive principles. 
We will assume, therefore, for the purposes of argument, that the 
Pentateuch was not written by Moses, and that it is a com- 
posite w r ork, which a late writer has reduced into its pre- 
sent form, out of several original authorities. Ewald, by the 
aid of conjectural criticism, not only asserts his ability to 
determine the exact number of these authorities, but to assign 
each passage to its respective author. But his boldness does 
not stop here. After a lapse of over three thousand years, 
he attempts to reconstruct the history, which he considers 
these authorities to have misunderstood. The audacity with 
which he uses the principle of historical conjecture is almost 
sublime, and it seems never to have occurred to him that its 
validity is questionable. As far as I have read this work, I 
have failed to discover any rational principles by which the 
greater portion of the enormous mass of ingenious conjecture 
which it contains can be verified, or any proof given that they are 
veritable facts, except the author’s own opinion that he possesses 
a deep power of vision by which he is capable of seeing into the 
obscurities of the past. I cannot conceive that a person can be 
convinced by its perusal that the positions taken by its author 
are proved, unless he has come to it with a predisposition to 
accept them. Similar attempts are made frbm time to time to 
reconstruct the life of our Lord, and are widely applied to 
subjects most closely connected with revelation. Do they rest 
on a rational foundation? Let the plain truth be boldly spoken. 
These and similar reconstructions are novels, and not histories. 
Let me guard myself from the danger of being misunderstood. 
The foregoing observations are meant only to apply to the prin- 
ciple of historical conjecture. I by no means wish to imply 
that there is not a legitimate use of reason on this subject, or 
that we cannot by its aid infer the presence of a fact for which 
we are not in possession of direct evidence. We constantly do 
so in the daily affairs of life ; and what is legitimate in these is 
legitimate in history. 
I will conclude this portion of my subject in the words of 
Sir G. C. Lewis, — “The main cause of the great multiplicity 
and wide divergency of opinion is, the defective methods which 
have been adopted. Instead of applying those tests of credi- 
bility, which are constantly applied to modern history, they 
attempt to guide their judgment by the indications of internal 
