132 
forming two distinct acts of creation, let us now try to 
prove, in the second place, the impossibility of making two 
creations out of what we possess ; for if death must have 
attacked both, we must either suppose that there were two 
different causes for death, or else we must suppose that the 
same cause affected both. Now, if we analyze this, we find 
that we shall get no nearer to the point at issue, by multiply- 
ing creations. By the inductive method, it will be at once 
seen that we cannot prove what was the cause of death any 
better by multiplying or separating the six days* creation, and 
so trying to show that they were separate acts. 
If we look into the earth, we shall at once see we have no 
connecting point to lead us to suppose that death proceeded 
from the sin of Adam, any more because we suppose that 
there were more creations than one. It was not making the 
arguments of geologists stronger, or nearer the inductive 
proof (which is the only proof they have any right to handle), 
to say there were successive creations. 
When we know that natural philosophers have not hesitated 
to place somewhere in the present classification of animals, 
as far as our present knowledge goes, a variety or an indivi- 
dual, which we find in a fossil state, and which has not been 
found alive, we have a sufficient proof that naturalists do not 
discover in those animals that are extinct, such signs of 
separation as to justify the idea that therefore they are a 
different creation ; although we cannot, with all the additions 
which geology makes to the creation now in existence, put 
together any other than a disjointed and imperfect creation. 
Why we should be required under such circumstances to 
make two or three separate creations, when we cannot perfect 
the one that has been broken, seems to me, not only to be a 
gratuitous, but a marvellous act. For though we have so 
many animals in a fossil state, yet we could not possibly affirm 
that they give us any good reason for believing that they 
formed a different creation. As far as they go, they all 
lock into the creation now in existence. And we say this 
very advisedly, for most of us know how very little beyond 
the mere outside of the creation now in existence we are 
able to reach. Even those who make investigations of 
comparative anatomy their daily study, know little, compara- 
tively speaking, of by far the larger part of the inhabitants of 
the ocean. Until Professor Owen showed up the anatomy 
of the Nautilus Pompilius , no one seems to have had an 
opportunity of examining this animal since the time of 
Aristotle. 
To show that there were more creations than one, geologists 
