STATE OF THE ARGUMENT. 
7 
counted for the irregularity of the movement, or whether 
we could account for it or not. It is not necessary that a 
machine be perfect, in order to show with what design it 
was made: still less necessary, where the only question is, 
whether it were made with any design at all. 
III. Nor, thirdly, would it bring any uncertainty into the 
argument, if there were a few parts of the watch, concern¬ 
ing which we could not discover, or had not yet discovered, 
in what manner they conduced to the general effect; or 
even some parts, concerning which we could not ascer-* 
tain whether they conduced to that effect in any manner 
whatever. For, as to the first branch of the case; if by 
the loss, or disorder, or decay of the parts in question, the 
movement of the watch were found in fact to be stopped, 
or disturbed, or retarded, no doubt would remain in our 
minds as to the utility or intention of these parts, although 
we should be unable to investigate the manner according 
to which, or the connexion by which, the ultimate effect 
depended upon their action or assistance; and the more 
complex is the machine, the more likely is this obscurity to 
arise. Then, as to the second thing supposed, namely, 
that there were parts which might be spared, without pre¬ 
judice to the movement of the watch, and that we had prov¬ 
ed this by experiment—these superfluous parts, even if we 
were completely assured that they were such, would not 
vacate the reasoning which we had instituted concerning 
other parts. The indication of contrivance remained, with 
respect to them, nearly as it was before. 
IV. Nor, fourthly, would any man in his senses think 
the existence of the watch, with its various machinery, ac¬ 
counted for, by being told that it was one out of possible 
combinations of material forms; that whatever he had 
found in the place where he found the watch, must have 
contained some internal configuration or other; and that 
this configuration might be the structure now exhibited, 
viz. of the works of a watch, as well as a different structure. 
V. Nor, fifthly, would it yield his inquiry more satisfac¬ 
tion to be answered, that there existed in things a principle 
of order, which had disposed the parts of the watch into 
their present form and situation. He never knew a watch 
made by the principle of order; nor can he even form to 
himself an idea of what is meant by a principle of order 
distinct from the intelligence of the watchmaker. 
VI. Sixthly, lie would be surprised to hear that the 
mechanism of the watch was no proof of contrivance, only 
a motive to induce the mind to think so. 
