Though there might have been drawn from the Old and New Testaments, many additional arguments corroborative of what has been said, yet, at present, I shall add no more; as I think that what has been brought forward has just claims to be considered by the impartial as quite sufficient to prove these two points--that the New Testament can neither subsist with the Old Testament, nor without it; and that the New Testament system was built first upon a mistake, and afterwards buttressed up with forged and apocryphal documents.
Let the candid now judge, whether the author, knowing these things, or, at least persuaded of their truth, could have persisted in affirming, (in a place where sincerity is expected), in the name of the Almighty, that the claims of the New Testament were valid, without being a hypocrite, and an impostor.
Let them also consider, whether, after being unable to obtain a satisfactory refutation of the objections contained in this volume, his resigning a profession whose duties obliged him to say what he was convinced was false, was conduct to be reprehended.

And lastly, he appeals to the good sense of the public, for a decision, whether, with such objections and difficulties weighing upon his mind, as he has now exposed, his conduct in that respect can reasonably be attributed to the unmanly influence of caprice and fickle-ness, (as has been circulated by some who had an interest in making it believed;) or to the just influence of motives deserving a better name.
With regard to the unfortunate people whose arguments have been brought forward in this volume, we have, reader, now gone over, and distinctly felt, the whole ground of the controversy between them and their persecutors, mentioned in the Preface.

And as they make use of the Old Testament as a foundation, admitted, and necessarily admitted by Christians, to be of divine authority, and are surrounded by the bulwarks they have raised out of the demolished entrenchments of their adversaries, I do not see but that "their castle's strength may laugh a siege to scorn." And after reviewing, and revolving, over and over in my own mind the arguments on both sides, I am obliged to believe, that the stoutest Polemical Goliath who may venture to attack it, especially their strong hold--their arguments about the Messiahship, will find to his cost, that when his weak point is but known, the mightiest Achilles must fall before the feeblest Paris, whose arrow is--aimed at his heel.
The author hopes, and thinks he has a right to expect, that whoever may attempt to answer his book, will do it fairly, like a man of candour; without trying to evade the main question--that of the Messiahship of Jesus.

He fears, that he shall see an answer precisely resembling the many others he has seen upon that subject.

Except two--those of Sukes, and Jeffries.