But not content with assailing _analogy_ as incapable of leading to any _certain_ conclusion, he changes his tactics, and seems at least to do homage to it, while he insists only on its _extension_. "The argument of _design_," he says, "is unquestionably the most popular ever developed, and the most seductive ever displayed. It has the rare merit of making the existence of God, which is the most subtle of all problems, appear a mere truism,--and the proofs of such existence, which have puzzled the wisest of human heads, seem self-evident." This tribute, however, must be read in the light of his chosen motto,--"The existence of a watch proves the existence of a watch-maker; a picture indicates a painter; a house announces an architect. See here are arguments of terrible force for children."[278] "I took up," he says, "Dr. Paley's book, ... and I agreed with myself to admit, as I read, whatever appeared plausible. I did so, and my objection to my author was this: Upon the grounds of analogy and experience I found Paley insisted that design implies a designer, that this designer must be a person, and that this person is God: but the analogy which had been the guide to his feet, and the experience which had been a lamp to his path, were suddenly abandoned, and at the very moment when their assistance seemed to promise curious revelations."--"Two modes of refutation are open; to attack the _principle_, or pursue the _analogy_. Geoffroy St. Hilaire has taken one course. I take the other. If, in the investigation of this question, it be legitimate to employ analogy in one part, it must be legitimate to employ it in like respects in another.... Analogy was Paley's alpha, it must be made also his omega."[279] In pursuing this course, he makes large concessions, such as might seem at first sight to involve the very principles on which the Theistic proof depends. "That design implies a designer, I am disposed to allow; and that this designer must be a person, I am quite inclined to admit. Thus far goes Paley, and 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, to see where it will lead, and what it will prove."--"Paley tells us that God is a person. He insists upon it as a legitimate inference from his premises, nor _would it be easy to disturb his conclusion_.... From Paley's premises, it is the clearest of all inferences. Design must have a designer, because whatever we know of designers has taught us that a designer is a person. All analogy is in favor of this inference. This is Paley's reasoning upon the subject, and it is too _natural_, too _rigid_, and too _cogent_ to be escaped from."[280] Here we have an _apparent_ admission of the principle on which the argument of _design_ is based, but it is _apparent_ only, and is afterwards withdrawn. It was used to serve a temporary purpose, and