Thus far goes Paley, and, therefore, thus far I go with him.

His general position, that design proves a personal designer, is so _natural_, so _easy_, and so _plausible_, that it invites one to admit it....

Paley insists upon it as a legitimate inference from his premises, nor would it be easy to disturb his conclusion....

This is Paley's reasoning upon the subject, and it is too _natural_, too _rigid_, and too _cogent_ to be escaped from." Now, what is there in the proposed extension of the analogy that can invalidate either of these admissions, or that should induce us to set aside both?
Extend the analogy ever so far, it is still true that _law and order_ prevail in Nature, that design implies a _designer_, and that a designer must be a _person_.

And how does Mr.Holyoake save his consistency?
Simply by stretching the analogy till it snaps asunder; he begins by extending, and ends in destroying it; he admits it at first, merely "to see where it will lead and what it will prove," and finding that it must imply an organized designer, and an endless series of such beings, "he gives it up," and denies the existence of _design_ altogether.