the pilgrims, with several routes by which he might approach. If a detachment is stationed on each route to seize him, it is clear that only one detachment will encounter him. Yet these detachments are sent to show that the feared danger has been averted in every eventuality: some people fear that he might approach by a particular route, so a detachment is sent to dispel their fear and ensure their safety.

[The second approach]

The reply may also be presented in another way, as follows:

Either this objection is supposed to be unsound in reality, or it is supposed to be sound; one of these must be the case.

That is, either it invalidates the aforementioned proof against an infinite regress of causes, or it does not undermine or invalidate it. If it does not invalidate the proof because it is itself unsound, the validity of the proof is established, which is the intended conclusion. If it does invalidate the proof, it can do so only if it is relevant and sound; otherwise, an unsound objection cannot invalidate a proof. If it is relevant and sound, the existence of the Necessary Existent necessarily follows, for the objection cannot be valid unless the totality of existing things includes a necessary existent. If it is true that they include a necessary existent, the intended conclusion is established. Thus, the existence of the Necessary Existent follows whether the objection is supposed to be sound or unsound.

[The third approach]

The reply may be presented in a third form, as follows:

Either it is supposed that among existing things there is something necessary in itself, or that there is not. If among them there is