Lactantius — Divine Institutes 5.20
But these, because they do not know either what or how something should be worshiped, blind and imprudent, fall into the contrary. They therefore adore their enemies, placate their robbers and killers with victims, and place their souls to be burned with the very incense on detestable altars. The wretches are even angry that others do not perish at the same time, with incredible blindness of minds. For what would they see who do not see the sun? As if indeed if they were gods they would need humans' help against their scorners. Why then are they angry at us, if those can do nothing? Unless that they themselves destroy their own gods, whose power they distrust, more irreligious than those who do not worship at all. Cicero in his Laws, when he taught to approach sacrifices chastely, says: let them apply piety, let them remove wealth. Who does otherwise, the god himself will be avenger. This indeed rightly: for it is not lawful to despair of the god whom you worship because you think him powerful. For how can he avenge the worshiper's injury if he cannot avenge his own?
I would like therefore to ask them for whom especially they think they are doing a service by compelling the unwilling to sacrifice. For those themselves whom they compel? But it is not a benefit that is forced on one who refuses. But even the unwilling must be looked after when they do not know what is good. Why then do they so cruelly harass, torture, disable, if they want them safe? Or whence is piety so impious that by wretched means they either destroy or make useless those for whom they wish to have consulted? Or do they rather serve the gods? But it is not a sacrifice that is squeezed from the unwilling. For unless it is done freely and from the mind, it is a curse, when humans driven by proscription, injuries, prison, torments do it. If those who are worshiped thus are gods, for this alone they ought not to be worshiped, that they want to be worshiped thus — worthy indeed of humans' hatred, for whom libation is made with tears, with groaning, with blood flowing from all the limbs. But we on the contrary do not seek that anyone unwilling worship our God, who is of all whether they will or not, nor if he has not worshiped are we angry. For we trust in his majesty, who can avenge contempt of himself as much as also his servants' labors and injuries. And therefore when we endure unspeakable things, we do not even resist with a word, but remit vengeance to God, not as those do who want to seem defenders of their gods and rage fiercely against non-worshipers. From which it is given to be understood how it is not good to worship the gods, since humans ought rather to have been led to the good by good, not by evil: but because that is evil, its service also lacks good.
But they say those who destroy religions must be punished. Do we destroy worse than the nation of the Egyptians, who worship the foulest shapes of beasts and cattle, and adore even some things shameful to say as gods? Do we destroy worse than those same people who, though they say they worship gods, still mock them publicly and basely, and allow mimes to be acted about them with laughter and pleasure? What sort of religion or how great a majesty must be thought, which is adored in temples, mocked in theaters? And those who have done these things do not pay penalties of violated divinity, but leave even honored and praised. Do we destroy worse than certain philosophers, who say there are no gods at all, but all things born of their own accord, all things that are done happen by chance? Do we destroy worse than the Epicureans, who grant there are gods indeed, but deny they care for anything, and that they are neither angry nor moved by favor? By which words they certainly persuade that they ought not to be worshiped at all, since they neither look after worshipers nor are angry at non-worshipers. Besides when they argue against fears, they try to effect nothing else than that no one fear the gods. And yet these things are both heard gladly from humans and discussed with impunity.
Latin
Isti autem quia nesciunt uel quid uel quomodo sit colendum, caeci et inprudentes in contrarium cadunt. adorant itaque hostes suos, latrones et interfectores suos uictimis placant et animas suas cum ture ipso cremandas aris detestabilibus inponunt. irascuntur etiam miseri quod non simul et alii pereant, incredibili mentium caecitate. quid enim uideant qui solem non uident? quasi uero si dii essent, indigerent hominum auxilio aduersus contemptores suos. quid ergo nobis irascuntur, si illi nihil possunt? nisi quod ipsi deos suos destruunt, quorum potestate diffidunt, magis inreligiosi quam qui omnino non colunt. Cicero in suis Legibus cum caste ad sacrificia praeciperet accedere, pietatem inquit adhibento, opes amouento. qui secus faxit, deus ipse uindex erit. recte hoc quidem: neque enim fas est desperare de deo, quem ideo colas, quia potentem putes. nam quomodo uindicare iniuriam colentis potest, si suam non potest?
libet igitur ex iis quaerere cui potissimum praestare se putent cogendo inuitos ad sacrificium. ipsisne quos cogunt? at non est beneficium quod ingeritur recusanti. sed consulendum est etiam nolentibus, quando quid sit bonum nesciunt. cur ergo tam crudeliter uexant cruciant debilitant, si saluos uolunt? aut unde pietas tam impia, ut eos miseris modis aut perdant aut inutiles faciant quibus uelint esse consultum? an uero diis praestant? at non est sacrificium quod exprimitur inuito. nisi enim sponte atque ex animo fiat, execratio est, cum homines proscriptione iniuriis carcere tormentis adacti faciunt. si dii sunt isti qui sic coluntur, uel propter hoc solum colendi non sunt, quod sic coli uolunt, digni scilicet detestatione hominum, quibus cum lacrimis, cum gemitu, cum sanguine de membris omnibus fluente libatur. at nos contra non expetimus ut deum nostrum, qui est omnium uelint nolint, colat aliquis inuitus, nec si non coluerit, irascimur. confidimus enim maiestate eius, qui tam contemptum sui possit ulcisci quam etiam seruorum suorum labores et iniurias. et ideo cum nefanda perpetimur, ne uerbo quidem reluctamur, sed deo remittimus ultionem, non ut ii faciunt qui defensores se deorum suorum uideri uolunt et saeuiunt efferate aduersus non colentes. ei quo intellegi datur quam non sit bonum deos colere, quoniam bono potius adducendi homines ad bonum fuerant, non malo: sed quia illut malum est, etiam officium eius bono caret.
at enim puniendi sunt qui destruunt religiones. num peius nos destruimus quam natio Aegyptiorum, qui turpissimas bestiarum ac pecudum figuras colunt, quaedam etiam pudenda dictu tamquam deos adorant? num peius quam idem ipsi, qui cum deos colere se dicant, tamen eos publice turpiterque derident, de quibus etiam mimos agi cum risu et uoluptate patiuntur? qualis haec religio aut quanta maiestas putanda est quae adoratur in templis, inluditur in theatris? et qui haec fecerint, non poenas uiolati numinis pendunt, sed honorati etiam laudatique discedunt. num peius nos destruimus quam quidam philosophi, qui omnino nullos esse deos aiunt, sed omnia sua sponte nata, omnia fortuito fieri quae geruntur? num peius quam Epicurei, qui esse quidem deos, sed curare quicquam negant, neque irasci eos neque gratia commoueri? quibus dictis utique persuadent colendos omnino non esse, siquidem nec colentes respiciunt neque non colentibus irascuntur. praeterea cum contra metus disserunt, nihil aliut efficere conantur quam ut nemo deos timeat. et haec tamen ab hominibus et audiuntur libenter et disseruntur inpune.