STA.TE OF TflE ARGUMENT. U 



by this supposition, nor dispensed with. If the difficulty- 

 were diminished the furtlier we went back, by going back 

 indefinitely we might exhaust it. And this is the only 

 case to which this sort of reasoning applies. Where there 

 is a tendency, or, as we increase the number of terms, a 

 continual approach towards a limit, there, by supposincr the 

 number of terms to be what is called infinite, we may con- 

 ceive the limit to be attained : but where there is no sucli 

 tendency or approach, nothing is affected by lengthening 

 the series. There is no difference as to the point in ques- 

 tion, (whatever there may be as to many points) between 

 one series and another ; between a series which is finite 

 and a series which is infinite. A chain, composed of an 

 infinite number of linKs, can no more support itself, than 

 a chain composed of a finite number of links. And of this 

 we are assured, (though we never can have tried the ex- 

 periment) because, by increasing the number of links, 

 from ten, for instance, to a hundred, from a hundred to a 

 thousand, &c. we make not the smallest approach, we ob- 

 serve not the smallest tendency, 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 infinite. 

 This very much rec^embles the case before us. The ma- 

 chine, which we are insp(5cting, demonstrates, by its 

 construction, contrivance and design. Contrivance must 

 have had a contriver , design, a designer ; whether the 

 machine immediately proceeded from another machine or 

 not. That circu instance alters not the case. That other 

 machine may, in like manner, have proceeded from a for- 

 mer machine ; nor does that alter the case ; contrivance 

 must have had a contriver. That former one from one 

 preceding it ; no alteration still ; a contriver is still neces- 

 sary. No tendency is perceived, no approach towards a 

 diminution of this necessity. It is the same with any and 

 every succession of these machines; a succession of ten, 

 of a hundred, of a thousand ; with one series as with an- 

 other ; a series which is finite, as with a series which is 

 infinite. In whatever other respects they may diiier, in 

 ihis they do not. In all equally, contrivance and design 

 are unaccounted for. 



The question is not simply, How came the first watch 

 into existence ? which question, it may be pretended, is 

 done away by supposing the series of watches thus pro- 



