"It is by _analogy_ with the exercise of intellect, and the volition, or power of moral causation, of which we are conscious within ourselves, that we speak of the _Supreme Mind_ and _Moral Cause_ of the Universe, of whose operation, order, arrangement and adaptation, are the external manifestations. _Order_ implies what by _analogy_ we call _intelligence_; subserviency to an observed end implies intelligence _foreseeing_ which by analogy, we call _Design_." The last sentence of the paragraph now quoted is very remarkable. The eminent writer directs attention to a distinction between two several inferences which can be drawn from the observed manifestations of Order, and of Foresight. From the first, he says, we infer Intelligence, from the latter we infer Design. It seems singular that Powell should have defined this distinction so clearly, and made no further use of it. He might naturally have insisted upon the separate and diverse evidences thus afforded by the physical world. Amid the variety of human minds, some may feel impressed by the contemplation of Nature in one of these ways, some in the other. To many persons the magnificent spectacle of a law-governed Universe, infinitely manifold yet everywhere harmonious, appears to justify the belief in one supreme Reason and sovereign Will. Separate parts of this same Universe--or the whole in its entirety of vastness--when considered as manifesting purpose--that is, intentional adaptation to separate ends or to one end--are to other minds a more convincing line of thought. With many writers on Natural Theology the different shades of meaning implied in the word Design[25] may prevent clearness of conception in this respect. But our author (like Paley) appears to use this word in its strongest signification.