And in the eternity of matter, we are assured _of the self-existence_ of matter, and self-existence is the most majestic of all attributes, and includes all others;" it is "the power of being _independent of the law of other beings_." Now, what is there in the proposed extension of the analogy that should exclude the idea of a self-existent First Cause, or shut us up to the admission of an endless series of designing causes? And still further, what is there in the proposed extension of the analogy which should invalidate the argument from design, or induce Mr. Holyoake to _give it up_, and to withdraw the concessions which he had previously made in regard to it? These concessions must be supposed to have been honestly made in deference to the claims of truth, and they are not in the least affected by the extension of the analogy. It is still true, if it ever was, _that order prevails in Nature_; and this is admitted: "If by Atheism is meant the belief that all that we see in Nature is the result _of chance_, of a fortuitous concourse of atoms, nothing would be so absurd as Atheism. Nothing can be more evident than that _law and order_ prevail in Nature, that every species of matter, organic or inorganic, is impressed with certain laws, according to which all its properties and movements are regulated.... In denying, therefore, the existence of a personal, intelligent Deity, we do not admit that there is any chance, contingency, or disorder in Nature: we do not deny, but absolutely affirm, the constant and universal operation of _law and order_. This we do, because it is a matter of fact of obvious and daily experience."[290] Again, it is still true, if it ever was, that _design implies a designer_; and this, says Mr. Holyoake, "I am disposed to allow; and that this designer must be a person, I am quite inclined to admit. 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