ave survived the dispute
that called them forth, and may be fairly regarded as [Greek: ktemata
es aei] of English theology. To attempt even to enumerate the works of
all the anti-Deistical writers would fill many pages. Those who are
curious in such matters must be referred to the popular work of Leland,
where they will find an account of the principal writers on both sides.
All that can be attempted here is to notice one or two of those which
are of permanent interest.

First among such is the immortal work of Bishop Butler. Wherever the
English language is spoken, Butler's 'Analogy' holds a distinguished
place among English classics. Published in the year 1736, when the
excitement raised by 'Christianity as old as the Creation' was at its
height, it was, as has been well remarked, 'the result of twenty years'
study, the very twenty years during which the Deistical notions formed
the atmosphere which educated people breathed.'[162] For those twenty
years and longer still, the absolute certainty of God's revelation of
Himself in nature, and the absolute perfection of the religion founded
on that revelation, in contradistinction to the uncertainty and
imperfection of all traditional religions, had been the incessant cry of
the new school of thought, a cry which had lately found its strongest
and ablest expression in Tindal's famous work. It was to those who
raised this cry, and to those who were likely to be influenced by it,
that Butler's famous argument was primarily addressed. 'You assert,' he
says in effect, 'that the law of nature is absolutely perfect and
absolutely certain; I will show you that precisely the same kind of
difficulties are found in nature as you find in revelation.' Butler
uttered no abuse, descended to no personalities such as spoiled too many
of the anti-Deistical writings; but his book shows that his mind was
positively steeped in Deistical literature. Hardly an argument which the
Deists had used is unnoticed; hardly an objection which they could raise
is not anticipated. But the very circumstance which constitutes one of
the chief excellences of the 'Analogy,' its freedom from polemical
bitterness, has been the principal cause of its being misunderstood. To
do any kind of justice to the book, it must be read in the light of
Deism. Had this obvious caution been always observed, such objections as
those of Pitt, that 'it was a dangerous book, raising more doubts than
it solves,' would never have b