34 APPLICATION OF THE 



CHAP. V. 



APPLICATION OP THE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 



Every observation which was made, in our first chap- 

 ter concerning the watch, may be repeated with strict pro- 

 priety concerning the eye ; concernmg animals ; concern- 

 ing plants ; concerning, indeed, all the organized parts of 

 the works of nature. As, ■> 



I. When we are inquiring simply after the existence of 

 an intelligent Creator, imperfection, inaccuracy, liability 

 to disorder, occasional irregularities, may subsist, in a con- 

 siderable degree, without inducing any doubt into the 

 question : just as a watch may frequently go wrong, seldom 

 perhaps exactly right, may be faulty in some parts, defec- 

 tive in some, without the smallest ground of suspicion from 

 thence arising, that it was not a watch ; not madCj or not 

 made for the purpose ascribed to it. When faults are 

 pointed out, and when a question is started concerning the 

 skill of the artist, or the dexterity with which the work is 

 executed, then, indeed, in order to defend these qualities 

 from accusation, we must be able, either to expose some 

 intractableness and imperfection in the materials, or point 

 out some invincible difficulty in the execution, into which 

 imperfection and difficulty the matter of complaint may be 

 resolved ; or, if we cannot do this, we must adduce such 

 specimens of consummate art and contrivance proceeding 

 from the same hand, as may convince the inquirer of the 

 existence, in the case before him, of impediments like those 

 which we have mentioned, although, what from the nature 

 of the case is very likely to happen, they be unknown and 

 unperceived by him. This we must do in order to vindi- 

 cate the artist's skill, or, at least, the perfection of it ; as 

 we must also judge of his intention, and of the provisions 

 employed in fulhlling that intention, not from an instance 

 in which they fail, but from the great plurality of instances 

 in which they succeed. But, after all, these are diifereiit 

 questions from the question uf the artist s existence ; or, 

 which is the same, whether the thing before us be a work of 

 art or not ; and the question ought always to be kept sepa- 

 rate in the mind. So likewise it is in the works of nature. 

 Irregularities and imperfections are of little or no weight 

 in the consideration, when that consideration relates sim- 

 ply to the existence of a Creator. WHien the argument re- 

 spects his attributes, they are of weight . but are then to 



