 For this reason, and for no other, namely, that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive - what we could not discover in the stone - that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose...  Annual Register - Seite 903herausgegeben von - 1807Vollansicht - Über dieses Buch
 | 1802 - 764 Seiten
...Attributes of the Deity, collected from Lh: Appearances oj Nature. the watch, as well as for the stooe' why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first ? For tn.> reason, and for no other, vi/. n-1 when we come to-inspect the *iW' we perceive (what we could... | |
 | 1803 - 572 Seiten
...had before giten, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch, as well as for...when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what wt could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose,... | |
 | 1803 - 818 Seiten
...stone? Why is it not as adoiitóiblu in the second rase, as in the in . t ? For this reason, and tor no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we <чшЦ not discover in the stone) that its seveiu parU are framed and put together fur purpose, cg... | |
 | 1807 - 1012 Seiten
...had before given, that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch, as well as for...come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could oot discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed ami put together for a purpose, eg that... | |
 | Edmund Burke - 1807 - 1014 Seiten
...before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might пате always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch, as well as for the stone Î Why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first ? For this reason, and for no other,... | |
 | William Paley, William Hamilton Reid - 1810 - 350 Seiten
...answer "which I'hftd before 'given. Y:et Svhy should not this answer serve for the watch Ss well as' the stone ? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first ? For this rra'ron^ and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could... | |
 | William Paley - 1811 - 574 Seiten
...had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for...the second case, as in the first ? For this reason, B and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover... | |
 | Thomas Ridgley - 1814 - 554 Seiten
...why should not this answer serve for the watch, as well asforthc stone? Why is it not as admis. *ble in the second case, as in the first? For this reason,...perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) Uut its several parts are fi-arm-d, and put together for a purpose, eg that they are so formed and... | |
 | Thomas Ridgley - 1814 - 558 Seiten
...before given, that, fnr aj>y thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Vet, why shouid not this answer serve for the watch, as well as for...as admissible in the second case, as in the first? 1'or this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what... | |
 | Elegant extracts - 1816 - 1082 Seiten
...I knew, the wtch might hare always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the **<i M well as for the stone ? why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in ttf first? For this reason, and for no "tier, viz. that, when we come to inspect *e watch, we perceive... | |
| |
