certain and more philosophical method to compass the great defign

I had in view.

I have endeavoured to link my propofitions fo clofely to each other, as to leave no chafm between them; and herein, perhaps, the nature of my plan has been of greater affiftance to me than all my efforts I eafily forefaw that my ideas would naturally, and of themselves, be connected with each other, and that the thread of my meditations would lead me on.

I must be allowed this remark: Moft authors whom I have read (and they are not few), feem to me to have fallen into two effential mistakes-They are continually fpeaking of demonftration, and unceafingly

unceafingly apostrophizing those whom they call Deifts and Unbelievers. It were better to promise lefs; this method creates, and merits more confidence. It were better not to apoftrophize unbelievers : the object is to enlighten, and to perfuade them, not to indispose them at first setting out.

If unbelievers adopt an offenfive and unbecoming ftyle towards Christians, it is no reason why these fhould employ the fame offenfive language.

In almost every author whose works have engaged my studies and meditation, I have obferved another mistake, which is, that they are over-fond of differtation; they do not apply themselves fufficiently

to

to close reasoning; they are, in fhort, too diffufe.

By enlarging, they weaken their arguments, and thus give objections a ftronger hold. Sometimes, to the most folid arguments, they join trivial heterogeneous reflections, which weaken the former. In the conftruction of a stately marble temple erected to Truth, base materials ought not to be employed.

The earnest defire of proving too much, has induced several very eftimable apologifts to advance, with too much confidence, certain confiderations inadmiffible in found logic.

I have taken the utmost pains to avoid thefe miftakes. I do not flatter myself so far, as to imagine that

I have always fucceeded: my abilities are not great, but I have exerted them to their utmost extent; I have concentrated on this fublime fubject all the powers of my foul. I have not numbered the ar

guments; I have weighed them in the scale of found logic. My defire was to render this important inquiry as interefting as poffible. I have adapted my ftyle to the various objects which I had to describe; or, to speak properly, the tints of these objects have imperceptibly given a colouring to my style.

The subject raised all the affections of my foul; and I was defirous of exciting the fame fenfations in my readers.

I aimed at an ex

treme

treme precifion, cautious, at the fame time, that it should not render my ftyle obfcure. I have not affected an erudition to which I am no ways entitled. It is eafier to appear learned, than to be really fo. I have pointed out the true fources of information, they are in general well known.

True philofophers will be my judges; if I obtain their approbation, I fhall confider it as an honourable reward of my labours. But, there exifts a reward of a still higher value, to which I afpire, and this reward is independant of the judgment of man.

CON