1.
All these charges, then, which might truly be better termed abuse, have been long answered with sufficient fulness and accuracy by men of distinction in this respect, and worthy to have learned the truth; and not one point of any inquiry has been passed over, without being determined in a thousand ways, and on the strongest grounds. We need not, therefore, linger further on this part of the case. For neither is the Christian religion unable to stand though it found no advocates, nor will it be therefore proved true if it found many to agree with it, and gained weight through its adherents. 1 Its own strength is sufficient for it, and it rests on the foundations of its own truth, without losing its power, though there were none to defend it, nay, though all voices assailed and opposed it, and united with common rancour to destroy all faith 2 in it.
-
The ms., followed by Oehler, reads neque enim res stare...non potest, Christiana religio aut--"for neither can a thing not stand,...nor will the Christian religion," etc., while L.B. merely changes aut into et--"for neither can a thing, i.e., the Christian religion,...nor will it," etc. All other edd. read as above, omitting et. ↩
-
According to Crusius and others, the ms. reads finem; but, according to Hild., fidem, as above. ↩
