‘The immortal “Analogy” has probably done more to silence the objections of infidelity than any other ever written from the earliest “apologies” downwards. It not only most critically met the spirit of unbelief in the author’s own day, but is equally adapted to meet that which _chiefly_ prevails in all time. In every age, some of the principal, perhaps _the_ principal, objections to the Christian Revelation have been those which men’s _preconceptions_ of the Divine character and administration—of what God _must_ be, and of what God _must_ do—have suggested against certain facts in the sacred history, or certain doctrines it reveals. To show the objector, then (supposing him to be a theist, as nine-tenths of all such objectors have been), that the very same or similar difficulties are found in the structure of the universe and the divine administration of it, is to wrest every _such_ weapon completely from his hands, if he be a fair reasoner and remain a theist at all. He is bound, by strict logical obligation, either to show that the parallel difficulties do _not_ exist, or to show how he can solve them, while he _cannot_ solve those of the Bible. In default of doing either of these things, he ought either to renounce all _such_ objections to Christianity, or abandon theism altogether. It is true, therefore, that though Butler leaves the alternative of atheism open, he hardly leaves any other alternative to nine-tenths of the theists who have objected to Christianity.’