48 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



priori considerations. The question is a question of fact, historical 

 fact. The universe has come into existence somehow or other, and the 

 question is, whether it came into existence in one fashion, or whether 

 it came into existence in another ; and, as an essential preliminary to 

 our further discussion, permit me to say two or three words as to the 

 nature of historical evidence, and the kinds of historical evidence. 

 The evidence as to the occurrence of any fact in past time is of one or 

 two kinds, which, for convenience' sake, I will speak of on the one hand 

 as testimonial evidence, and on the other as circumstantial evidence. 

 By testimonial evidence I mean human testimony ; and by circum- 

 stantial evidence I mean evidence which is not human testimony. Let 

 ine illustrate by a familiar figure what I mean by these two kinds of 

 evidence, and what is to be said respecting their value: 



Suppose that a man tells you that he saw a person strike another 

 and kill him ; that is testimonial evidence of the fact of murder. But 

 it is possible to have circumstantial evidence of the fact of murder; 

 that is to say, you may find a man dying with a wound upon his head 

 having exactly the form and character of the wound which is made by 

 an axe, and, with due care to take surrounding circumstances into ac- 

 count, you may conclude with the utmost certainty that the man has 

 been murdered is dying in consequence of the violence inflicted by 

 that implement. We are very much in the habit of considering cir- 

 cumstantial evidence as of less value than testimonial evidence, and 

 it may be in many cases, where the circumstances are not perfectly 

 clear and perfectly intelligible, that it is a dangerous and uncertain 

 kind of evidence ; but it must not be forgotten that in many cases it 

 is quite as good as testimonial evidence, and that not unfrequently it 

 is a great deal better than testimonial evidence. For example, take 

 the case to which I referred just now. The circumstantial evidence 

 is better and more convincing than the testimonial evidence, for it is 

 impossible, under the circumstances that I have mentioned, to suppose 

 that the man had met his death from any cause but the violent blow 

 of an axe wielded by another man. The circumstantial evidence in 

 favor of a murder having been committed, in that case, is as complete 

 and as convincing as evidence can be. It is evidence which is open 

 to no doubt and no falsification. But the testimony of the witness is 

 open to multitudinous doubts. He may have been mistaken. He may 

 have been actuated by malice. It has constantly happened that even 

 an accurate man has declared a thing has happened in this, that, or the 

 other way, when a careful analysis of the circumstantial evidence has 

 shown that it did not happen in that way, but in some other way. 



Now we must turn to our three hypotheses. Let me first direct 

 your attention to what is to be said about the hypothesis of the eter- 

 nity of this state of things in which we now are. What will first 

 strike you is, that that is an hypothesis which, whether true or false, is 

 not capable of verification by evidence ; for, in order to secure testi- 



