936 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1S05. 



vre observe not the smallest ten- 

 dency towards self support. There 

 is no difference in this respect, (yet 

 there may be a great difference in 

 several respects,) between a chain 

 of a greater or less length, between 

 one chain and another, between one 

 that is finite, and one that is indc- 

 finite. This very much resembles 

 the case before us. The machine, 

 •which we are inspecting demon- 

 strates, by its construction, contri- 

 vance and design. Contrivance 

 must have had a contriver, design a 

 designer ; whether the machine im- 

 mediately proceeded from another 

 machine or not. That circumstance 

 alters not the case. That other 

 machine may, in lika manner, have 

 proceeded from a former machine : 

 nor does that alter the case : con- 

 trivance must have had a contriver. 

 That former one from one preceding 

 it: no alteration still: a contriver 

 is still necessary. No tendency is 

 perceived, no approach towards a 

 diminution of this necessity. It is 

 the same with any and every succes. 

 sion of these machines ; a succession 

 of ten, of a hundred, of a thousand ; 

 with one series as with another ; a 

 series which is finite, as with a series 

 which is infinite. In whatever other 

 respects they may differ, in this they 

 do not. In all, equally, contrivance 

 and design are unaccounted for. 



The question is not simply, 

 How came the first watch into exis- 

 tence ? which question, it maybe 

 pretended, is done away, by sup- 

 posing the series of watches, thus 

 produced from one another, to have 

 been infinite, and consequently to 

 have had no such first, for which it 

 was necessary to provide a cause. 

 This, perhaps, would have bee« 

 nearly the state of the question, if 

 aothing had been before us but an 



unorganized, unmechanized sub- 

 stance, without mark or indication 

 of contrivance. It might be diifi- 

 cult to shew that such substance 

 could not have existed from eternity, 

 either in succession (if it were pos- 

 sible, which I think it is not, for 

 unorganized bodies to spring from 

 one another,) or by individual per- 

 petuity. But that is not the ques- 

 tion now. To suppose it to be so, 

 is to suppose that it made no dif- 

 ference whether we had found a 

 watch or a stone. As it is, the 

 metaphysics of that question Jiave 

 no place ; for in the watch which 

 we are examining are seen contri- 

 vance, design.; an end, a purpose; 

 means for the end, adaptation to the 

 purpose. And the question which 

 irrisistibly pi esses upon our thoughts 

 is, whence this contrivance and de- 

 sign ? The thing required is the in- 

 tending mind, the adapting hand, 

 the intelligence by which that hand 

 was directed. This question, this 

 demand, is not shaken oft" by in- 

 creasing a number or succession of 

 substances, destitute of these pro- 

 perties ; nor the more, by increasing 

 that number to infinity. If it be 

 said, that, upon the supposition of 

 one watch being produced from 

 another, in the course of that other's 

 movements, and by that means of 

 the mechanism within it, we have a 

 cause for the watch in my hand, 

 viz. the watch from which it pro- 

 ceeded, I deny that, for the design, 

 the contrivance, the suitableness of 

 means to an end, the adaptation of 

 instruments to an use, (all which we 

 discover in the watch,) we have any 

 cause whatever. It is in vain, there- 

 fore, to assign a series of such causes, 

 or to al ledge, that a series may be 

 carried back to infinity ; for I do 

 not admit that we have yet any 



cause 



