cation,
is of that sect in philosophy which makes doubt its creed--resumes his
objections. He is no better satisfied with the tenets of the Stoics than
with those of the Epicureans. He believes that there are gods; but, coming
to the discussion as a dispassionate and philosophical observer, he finds
such proofs as are offered of their existence insufficient. But this third
book is fragmentary, and the continuity of Cotta's argument is broken by
considerable gaps in all the manuscripts. There is a curious tradition,
that these portions were carefully torn out by the early Christians,
because they might prove too formidable weapons in the hands of
unbelievers. Cotta professes throughout only to raise his objections in
the hope that they may be refuted; but his whole reasoning is destructive
of any belief in an overruling Providence. He confesses himself puzzled by
that insoluble mystery--the existence of Evil in a world created and ruled
by a beneficent Power. The gods have given man reason, it is said; but man
abuses the gift to evil ends. "This is the fault", you say, "of men, not
of the gods. As though the physician should complain of the virulence of
the disease, or the pilot of the fury of the tempest! Though these are but
mortal men, even in them it would seem ridiculous. Who would have asked
your help, we should answer, if these difficulties had not arisen? May we
not argue still more strongly in the case of the gods? The fault, you say,
lies in the vices of men. But you should have given men such a rational
faculty as would exclude the possibility of such crimes". He sees, as
David did, "the ungodly in prosperity". The laws of Heaven are mocked,
crimes are committed, and "the thunders of Olympian Jove are silent". He
quotes, as it would always be easy to quote, examples of this from
all history: the most telling and original, perhaps, is the retort of
Diagoras, who was called the Atheist, when they showed him in the temple
at Samothrace the votive tablets (as they may be seen in some foreign
churches now) offered by those shipwrecked seamen who had been saved from
drowning. "Lo, thou that deniest a Providence, behold here how many have
been saved by prayer to the gods!" "Yea", was his reply; "but where are
those commemorated who were drowned?"

The Dialogue ends with no resolution of the difficulties, and no
conclusion as to the points in question. Cicero, who is the narrator of
the imaginary conference, gives it a