nation to something that is agreeable to their
several natures, what is it that the Deity affects, and to what purpose
does he exert the motion of his mind and reason? In short, how is he
happy? how eternal? Whichever of these points you touch upon, I am
afraid you will come lamely off. For there is never a proper end to
reasoning which proceeds on a false foundation; for you asserted
likewise that the form of the Deity is perceptible by the mind, but not
by sense; that it is neither solid, nor invariable in number; that it
is to be discerned by similitude and transition, and that a constant
supply of images is perpetually flowing on from innumerable atoms, on
which our minds are intent; so that we from that conclude that divine
nature to be happy and everlasting.

XXXVIII. What, in the name of those Deities concerning whom we are now
disputing, is the meaning of all this? For if they exist only in
thought, and have no solidity nor substance, what difference can there
be between thinking of a Hippocentaur and thinking of a Deity? Other
philosophers call every such conformation of the mind a vain motion;
but you term it "the approach and entrance of images into the mind."
Thus, when I imagine that I behold T. Gracchus haranguing the people in
the Capitol, and collecting their suffrages concerning M. Octavius, I
call that a vain motion of the mind: but you affirm that the images of
Gracchus and Octavius are present, which are only conveyed to my mind
when they have arrived at the Capitol. The case is the same, you say,
in regard to the Deity, with the frequent representation of which the
mind is so affected that from thence it may be clearly understood that
the Gods[98] are happy and eternal.

Let it be granted that there are images by which the mind is affected,
yet it is only a certain form that occurs; and why must that form be
pronounced happy? why eternal? But what are those images you talk of,
or whence do they proceed? This loose manner of arguing is taken from
Democritus; but he is reproved by many people for it; nor can you
derive any conclusions from it: the whole system is weak and imperfect.
For what can be more improbable than that the images of Homer,
Archilochus, Romulus, Numa, Pythagoras, and Plato should come into my
mind, and yet not in the form in which they existed? How, therefore,
can they be those persons? And whose images are they? Aristotle tells
us that there never was such a person as Orpheus th