Nec recuso, quod Caecilius adserere inter praecipua conisus est, hominem nosse se et circumspicere debere, quid sit, unde sit, quare sit . . . . Quod ipsum explorare et eruere sine universitatis inquisitione non possumus, cum ita cohaerentia, conexa, concatenata sint, ut nisi divinitatis rationem diligenter excusseris, nescias humanitatis . . . .

Unde autem vel quis ille aut ubi deus unicus, solitarius, destitutus, quem non gens libera, non regna, non saltem Romana superstitio noverunt?

. . . latebrosa et lucifuga natio [Christiana] . . . .

Nor do I object to what Caecilius has striven to advance among his chief points—that man ought to come to know himself, and to look around to see what he is, whence he is, why he is . . . . Which very thing we cannot examine and bring to light without an inquiry into all things, since they are so coherent, so connected, so chained together that, unless you carefully investigate the nature of divinity, you will not know that of mankind . . . .

But whence, who or where is this one and only god, solitary, alone, of whom no free peoples, no kingdoms, nor even any superstitions known to Rome have knowledge?

. . . the lying-hid and light-fleeing [Christian] tribe . . . .