nearer, in point of time, to the events which have to be investigated. This, 
then, is the province of the historian, to trace causes and feelings and motives; 
and if he be man of genius, he may be able to do so correctly. It is not because 
it is difficult to do it correctly, that therefore he must abandon the attempt 
altogether. This question of the province of the historian seems to me to be 
very important with regard to our understanding the nature of past events. In 
the present day some people are too apt to reduce history to a mere string of 
dates, which would make it a very barren study of little importance. After 
all, the person who is able to form a great hypothesis, and to show a great 
principle running through the history which he presents to us, not only in- 
terests us much more than one who does not proceed in this way, but he 
probably does us much more good. There may be a good deal of error 
mixed up with his hypothesis, but at the same time he seizes great facts 
and principles, and feelings, and these principles and feelings recur 
over and over again. It has often been said that history repeats itself. 
No doubt it is difficult to compare the acts and laws of nations ; but still 
they are capable of comparison, and when compared, there is to be found a 
certain amount of uniformity among them, which gives room for analogy. 
It is by the use of analogy that the great historian is enabled to seize, and, as 
Niebuhr has said, to divine and see through actions and details which, to the 
less endowed mind, might appear dry and barren. Let me now say a word 
with regard to a great work which has been treated somewhat summarily 
by Mr. Row— I mean Ewald’s History of Israel. I allow that the term 
“ audacity ” is not by any means too strong to apply to Ewald, a man who 
is most reckless in his conjectures, and who is constantly setting aside the 
miraculous, and reducing everything to natural causes. All this is perfectly 
true ; but when we look into that work, and pass over to other parts of it, 
where we have more in common with the author, we see how great a contribution 
it is, not only to the literary world, but also to the man who studies Scripture, 
and wishes to understand its meaning. Why is this ? Because Ewald has 
seized upon certain events, and has connected them together by hypotheses. 
In some cases the hypothesis is rash and unsustained, but in many it appears 
to be true ; and it is the existence of such hypotheses, where they are true, 
which gives interest to the work, and throws a new light on different facts 
which otherwise might appear to be unconnected. We know very well that 
Ewald dealt with the question of the authorship of Deuteronomy in a very 
reckless manner ; but if we pass from that, and look at those portions of his 
book in which he comes to that period of history about which we really have 
a better understanding, and more to guide us, — I mean the latter part of the 
history of the Kings of Israel and Judah, — any one who reads this portion 
of Ewald’s work will allow that he has thrown a marvellous light on the 
Scripture history, not only in reference to the political circumstances of the 
people, but also to the progress of religious feeling ; especially has he shown 
the growth of the longing for the Messiah, which became stronger and 
stronger among the Jews at the time when they -were about to be separated 
from their native land, and when, on a foreign soil, they looked back with 
