159
any others to know that which is future, than those who are the lords of futurity." Afterwards you doubt, "whether divinity is so far subservient to men, as not to be averse to some becoming diviners from meal." You do not, however, properly apprehend the abundance of the power of the Gods, their transcendent goodness, and the cause which comprehends all things, when you denominate their providential care and defence of us subserviency. And, besides this, you are ignorant of the mode of divine energy, that it is not drawn down and converted to us, but that it has a separate precedency, and gives itself, indeed, to its participants, yet neither departs from itself, nor becomes diminished, nor is ministrant to those that receive it; but, on the contrary, uses all things as subservient to itself. The present doubt also appears to me to be erroneous in another respect, for supposing the works of the Gods to be like those of men, it inquires how they are effected. For because we are converted to our works, and sometimes adhere to the passions of the things which we providentially attend to, on this account you badly conjecture that the power of the Gods is subservient to the natures which are governed by them. But this power is never drawn down to its participants either in the production of
