254 THE NATURE OF THE GODS.the Gods in words, and destroys them in fact ; and if the Deity is truly such a being that he shows no favor, no be nevolence to mankind, away with him ! For why should I entreat him to be propitious? He can be propitiovs to none, since, as you say, all his favor and benevolence are the effects of imbecility. BOOK II. I. WHEN Cotta had thus concluded, Velleius replied : I certainly was inconsiderate to engage in argument with an Academician who is likewise a rhetorician. I should not have feared an Academician without eloquence, nor a rhetorician without that philosophy, however eloquent he might be; for I am never puzzled by an empty flow of words, nor by the most subtle reasonings delivered with out any grace of oratory. But you, Cotta, have excelled in both. You only wanted the assembly and the judges. However, enough of this at present. Now, let us hear what Lucilius has to say, if it is agreeable to him. I had much rather, says Balbus, hear Cotta resume his discourse, and demonstrate the true Gods with the same eloquence which he made use of to explode the false ; for, on such a subject, the loose, unsettled doctrine of the Academy does not become a philosopher, a priest, a Cot ta, whose opinions should be, like those we hold, firm and certain. Epicurus has been more than sufficiently refuted ; but I would willingly hear your own sentiments, Cotta. Do you forget, replies Cotta, what I at first said that it is easier for me, especially on this point, to explain what opinions those are which I do not hold, rather than what those are which I do? Nay, even if I did feel some cer tainty on any particular point, yet, after having been so diffuse myself already, I would prefer now hearing you speak in your turn. I submit, says Balbus, and will be as brief as I possibly can; for as you have confuted the er

rors of Epicurus, my part in the dispute will be the short-