Credible/Honest Apologetics?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I know I'm following up on my own topic here, but I'm hoping others will opine and make sure I'm being honest and fair.

I recently picked up "The Testimony of the Evangelists" by Simon Greenleaf, as it was recommended as a great classic work worthy of my attention.  I started reading, but almost immediately set it aside as not worth my time.  The reason: the first chapter, just a few paragraphs in says the following (don't worry, this appears to be public domain):

"The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries.  This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true."

Why would I read one sentence further than that?  Basically he seems to be saying that other people have written things showing that Christianity is true, so we'll assume it's true.  So he will now continue the book and show that it's true.  Am I missing something here?  Why bother to write the book if you're stating in chapter one that what you're going to prove is true has been proven true, which will be accepted by default as evidence of its truth?

This is my continuing frustration.  I'm not frustrated with the lack of convincing arguments, as I'm not optimistic that any exist.  I'm frustrated that the recommendations of great thought and evidence being brought to me are consistently so blatantly dishonest and/or circular.

Wow, you really read a lot more meaning into that passage than I did. I just took it to be an elaborate way of saying that rehashing those demonstrations are beyond the scope of his book, which to me, isn't all that different from starting some demstration with a given that is widely accepted by the audience. Maybe, since you do not share his given, maybe you are not his audience.