Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Arnobius/Adversus Gentes/Book IV/Chapter XI

by Arnobius

11. What say you, O fathers of new religions, and powers?^[1] Do you cry out, and complain that these gods are dishonoured by us, and neglected with profane contempt, viz., Lateranus, the genius of hearths; Limentinus, who presides over thresholds; Pertunda,^[2] Perfica, Noduterensis:^[3] and do you say that things have sunk into ruin, and that the world itself has changed its laws and constitution, because we do not bow humbly in supplication to Mutunus^[4] and Tutunus? But now look and see, lest while you imagine such monstrous things, and form such conceptions, you may have offended the gods who most assuredly exist, if only there are any who are worthy to bear and hold that most exalted title; and it be for no other reason that those evils, of which you speak, rage, and increase by accessions every day.^[5] Why, then, some one of you will perhaps say, do you maintain^[6] that it is not true that these gods exist? And, when invoked by the diviners, do they obey the call, and come when summoned by their own names, and give answers which may be relied on, to those who consult them? We can show that what is said is false, either because in the whole matter there is the greatest room for distrust, or because we, every day, see many of their predictions either prove untrue or wrested with baffled expectation to suit the opposite issues.

Footnotes

1. i.e., deities. So LB. and Orelli, reading quid potestatum?—“what, O fathers of powers.” The ms. gives qui—“what say you, O fathers of new religions, who cry out, and complain that gods of powers are indecently dishonoured by us, and neglected with impious contempt,” etc. Heraldus emends thus: “…fathers of great religions and powers? Do you, then, cry out,” etc. “Fathers,” i.e., those who discovered, and introduced, unknown deities and forms of worship.
2. The ms. reads pertus quæ- (marked as spurious) dam; and, according to Hild., naeniam is written over the latter word.
3. So the ms. Cf. ch. 7 [note 10, p. 478, supra].
4. The ms. is here very corrupt and imperfect,—supplices hoc est uno procumbimus atque est utuno (Orelli omits ut-), emended by Gelenius, with most edd., supp. Mut-uno proc. atque Tutuno, as above; Elm. and LB. merely insert humi—“on the ground,” after supp. [See p. 478, note 6, supra.]
5. Meursius is of opinion that some words have slipped out of the text here, and that some arguments had been introduced about augury and divination.
6. Contendis, not found in the ms.