4. But all these things will be more clearly and distinctly noticed when we have proceeded further. For we shall show that Christ did not teach the nations impiety, but delivered ignorant and wretched men from those who most wickedly wronged them.175    Lit. “the ignorance of wretched men from the worst robbers,” i.e., the false prophets and teachers, who made a prey of the ignorant and credulous. John viii. 46.    So all edd., reading populares, except Hild. and Oehler, who receive the conj. of Rigaltius, populatim—“among all nations;” the ms. reading popularem. We do not believe, you say, that what He says is true. What, then? Have you no doubt as to the things which176    Lit., “Are the things clear with you which,” etc.    Censeri, i.e., “written in the list of gods.” you say are not true, while, as they are only at hand, and not yet disclosed177    So the ms., followed by both Roman edd., Hildebrand and Oehler, reading passa, which Cujacius (referring it to patior, as the editors seem to have done generally) would explain as meaning “past,” while in all other editions cassa, “vain,” is read.    Otherwise, “how many make up the list of this name.” they can by no means be disproved? But He, too, does not prove what He promises. It is so; for, as I said, there can be no proof of things still in the future. Since, then, the nature of the future is such that it cannot be grasped and comprehended by any anticipation,178    Lit., “the touching of no anticipation.”    So Orelli, receiving the emendation of Barth, incogniti nomine, for the ms. in cognitione, -one being an abbreviation for nomine. Examples of such deities are the Novensiles, Consentes, etc., cc. 38–41. is it not more rational,179    Lit., “purer reasoning.”    Lit., “who, except a few gods, do not engage in the services of the rest.” of two things uncertain and hanging in doubtful suspense, rather to believe that which carries with it some hopes, than that which brings none at all? For in the one case there is no danger, if that which is said to be at hand should prove vain and groundless; in the other there is the greatest loss, even180    Lit., “that is.” This clause Meursius rejects as a gloss.    Orelli would explain pro parte consimili as equivalent to pro uno vero Deo—“for the one true God.” the loss of salvation, if, when the time has come, it be shown that there was nothing false in what was declared.181    i.e., If you believe Christ’s promises, your belief makes you lose nothing should it prove groundless; but if you disbelieve them, then the consequences to you will be terrible if they are sure. This would seem too clear to need remark, were it not for the confusion of Orelli in particular as to the meaning of the passage.

IV. Verum haec omnia illustrius commemorabuntur et planius, cum ulterius prorsus fuerimus evecti. Monstrabimus enim Christum non impietatem docuisse nationes, sed ab latronibus pessimis miserorum hominum imprudentiam vindicasse. Non credimus, inquitis, vera esse quae dicit. Quid enim, quae vos negatis vera esse, apud vos liquent, cum imminentia, et nondum cassa, nullis possint rationibus refutari? Sed et ipse quae pollicetur, non probat. Ita est. Nulla enim, ut dixi, futurorum potest existere comprobatio. Cum ergo haec sit conditio 0816A futurorum, ut teneri et comprehendi nullius possint anticipationis attactu: nonne purior ratio est, ex duabus incertis et in ambigua expectatione pendentibus, id potius credere, quod aliquas spes ferat, quam omnino quod nullas? In illo enim periculi nihil est, si quod dicitur imminere, cassum fiat et vacuum: in hoc damnum est maximum, id est salutis amissio, si cum tempus advenerit, aperiatur non fuisse mendacium.