And then when we pass to the compounds of organic chemistry, we find this general law still further exemplified:  we find much greater complexity and much less stability.  An atom of albumen, for instance, consists of 482 ultimate atoms of five different kinds.  Fibrine, still more intricate in constitution, contains in each atom, 298 atoms of carbon, 40 of nitrogen, 2 of sulphur, 228 of hydrogen, and 92 of oxygen—­in all, 660 atoms; or, more strictly speaking—­equivalents.  And these two substances are so unstable as to decompose at quite ordinary temperatures; as that to which the outside of a joint of roast meat is exposed.  Thus it is manifest that the present chemical heterogeneity of the Earth’s surface has arisen by degrees, as the decrease of heat has permitted; and that it has shown itself in three forms—­first, in the multiplication of chemical compounds; second, in the greater number of different elements contained in the more modern of these compounds:  and third, in the higher and more varied multiples in which these more numerous elements combine.

To say that this advance in chemical heterogeneity is due to the one cause, diminution of the Earth’s temperature, would be to say too much; for it is clear that aqueous and atmospheric agencies have been concerned; and, further, that the affinities of the elements themselves are implied.  The cause has all along been a composite one:  the cooling of the Earth having been simply the most general of the concurrent causes, or assemblage of conditions.  And here, indeed, it may be remarked that in the several classes of facts already dealt with (excepting, perhaps, the first), and still more in those with which we shall presently deal, the causes are more or less compound; as indeed are nearly all causes with which we are acquainted.  Scarcely any change can with logical accuracy be wholly ascribed to one agency, to the neglect of the permanent or temporary conditions under which only this agency produces the change.  But as it does not materially affect our argument, we prefer, for simplicity’s sake, to use throughout the popular mode of expression.

Perhaps it will be further objected, that to assign loss of heat as the cause of any changes, is to attribute these changes not to a force, but to the absence of a force.  And this is true.  Strictly speaking, the changes should be attributed to those forces which come into action when the antagonist force is withdrawn.  But though there is an inaccuracy in saying that the freezing of water is due to the loss of its heat, no practical error arises from it; nor will a parallel laxity of expression vitiate our statements respecting the multiplication of effects.  Indeed, the objection serves but to draw attention to the fact, that not only does the exertion of a force produce more than one change, but the withdrawal of a force produces more than one change.  And this suggests that perhaps the most correct statement of our general principle would be its most abstract statement—­every change is followed by more than one other change.