(1) Your next inquiry is of greater consequence, and is concerning things of a greater nature. How, therefore, shall I be able, briefly and sufficiently, to give you an answer to a question which is extremely difficult, and requires a long explanation? Nevertheless I will answer it, and without failing in alacrity. I will also endeavour to follow what you have concisely indicated and tacitly signified. But I will unfold to you my dogma concerning sacrifices [which is as follows]. It is by no means requisite that sacrifices should be offered for the sake of honour alone, in the same manner as we honour benefactors; nor for the sake of returning thanks for the goods imparted to us by the Gods; nor yet for the sake of first fruits, or as a remuneration by certain gifts of more venerable goods bestowed on us by the Gods. For these things are also common to men, and are assumed from the common polity of mankind, but by no means preserve the transcendency of the Gods and the order of them as exempt causes.

(1) Subverting, therefore, in this manner the common absurd opinions concerning sacrifices, we shall introduce in their place true conceptions about them; omitting the particular discussion of each species of sacrifice, which the peculiar and distinct consideration of sacrifices requires, because this pertains to another inquiry, and because, at the same time, every one who is intelligent may be able to accomplish this from what has been already said, and from one thing may extend his reasoning power to many, and may easily know what is omitted from what has been discussed. And I, indeed, think that these things have been sufficiently explained, both in other respects and because the explanation pays attention in a becoming manner to the purity of the Gods. Because, however, it may perhaps appear to others to be incredible, and not sufficiently manifest, and the veracity of it may be suspected, as not exciting the discursive energy of reason, I wish to consider these things a little more fully; and, if possible, to add arguments more evident than those which have been adduced.

(1) But the greatest thing in sacrifices, viz. their efficacious power, and why especially they are so very beneficial that without them we are neither liberated from pestilence, nor famine, nor sterility of fruits, nor obtain seasonable showers of rain, nor things of much greater consequence than these, I mean such as contribute to the purification of the soul, or an emancipation from generation; these are not at all indicated by such modes of sacrifices as you adduce. Hence no one can justly approve of them, because they assign a cause of the works performed in sacrifices unadapted to their dignity. And if some one should approve of them it will be only in a secondary way, and as suspended from primary, more ancient, and venerable causes.

(13) For the sacrifices of the Law express figura tively the piety which we practise, as the turtle-dove and the pigeon offered for sins point out that the cleansing of the irrational part of the soul is acceptable to God. But if any one of the righteous does not burden his soul by the eating of flesh, he has the advantage of a rational reason, not as Pythagoras and his followers dream of the transmigration of the soul.

(21) And eat no blood at all of animals or cattle, or of any bird which flieth in the heaven. y. And if thou dost slay a victim as an acceptable peace-offering, slay ye it, and pour out its blood upon the altar, and all the fat of the offering offer on the altar with fine flour (and the meat-offering) mingled with oil, with its drink- offering — offer them all together on the altar of burnt-offering ; it is a sweet savour before the Lord.

(3) It was this, consequently, which the Law intimated, by ordering the sinner to be cut off, and translated from death to life, to the impossibility that is the result of faith; which the teachers of the Law, not comprehending, inasmuch as they regarded the law as contentions, they have given a handle to those who attempt idly to calumniate the Law. And for this reason we rightly do not sacrifice to God, who, needing nothing, supplies all men with all things; but we glorify Him who gave Himself in sacrifice for us, we also sacrificing ourselves; from that which needs nothing to that which needs nothing, and to that which is impassible from that which is impassible. For in our salvation alone God delights. We do not therefore, and with reason too, offer sacrifice to Him who is not overcome by pleasures, inasmuch as the fumes of the smoke stop far beneath, and do not even reach the thickest clouds; but those they reach are far from them. The Deity neither is, then, in want of aught, nor loves pleasure, or gain, or money, being full, and supplying all things to everything that has received being and has wants. And neither by sacrifices nor offerings, nor on the other hand by glory and honour, is the Deity won over; nor is He influenced by any such things; but He appears only to excellent and good men, who will never betray justice for threatened fear, nor by the promise of considerable gifts.

(26) that a candidate, when first entering the precincts of sanctuary, must offer upon the brazen altar not a poor unoffending bull or ram but its correspondence within his own nature. The bull, being symbolic of earthiness, represented his own gross constitution which must be burned up by the fire of his Divinity. (The sacrificing of beasts, and in some cases human beings, upon the altars of the pagans was the result of their ignorance concerning the fundamental principle underlying sacrifice. They did not realize that their offerings must come from within their own natures in order to be acceptable.)

(2) For such of the sacrifices as part the hoof, and ruminate, the Scripture represents as clean and acceptable to God; since the just obtain access to the Father and to the Son by faith. For this is the stability of those who part the hoof, those who study the oracles of God night and day, and ruminate them in the soul's receptacle for instructions; which gnostic exercise the Law expresses under the figure of the rumination of the clean animal. But such as have neither the one nor the other of those qualities it separates as unclean.

(21) Wherefore we ought to offer to God sacrifices not costly, but such as He loves. And that compounded incense which is mentioned in the Law, is that which consists of many tongues and voices in prayer, or rather of different nations and natures, prepared by the gift vouchsafed in the dispensation for "the unity of the faith," and brought together in praises, with a pure mind, and just and right conduct, from holy works and righteous prayer. For in the elegant language of poetry,- "Who is so great a fool, and among men So very easy of belief, as thinks The gods, with fraud of fleshless bones and bile All burnt, not fit for hungry dogs to eat, Delighted are, and take this as their prize, And favour show to those who treat them thus," though they happen to be tyrants and robbers?

(2) Where then is the world of the sacrificer? He who does not know this, how can he perform the sacrifice? He only who knows, should perform it .

(1) I think, therefore, that all who are lovers of the contemplation of theurgic truth will acknowledge this, that the piety which pertains to divine natures ought not to be exercised towards them partially or imperfectly. Hence, since prior to the appearance of the Gods, all such powers as are presubjacent to them are moved, and when the Gods are about to descend to the earth, precede them as in a solemn procession; he who does not distribute to all these powers that which is adapted to them, and does not honour each in an appropriate manner, will depart imperfect, and destitute of the participation of the Gods. But he who propitiates all of them, and offers to each acceptable gifts, and such as are to the utmost of his power adapted to them, will always remain secure and irreprehensible, giving completion in a proper manner to the perfect and entire receptacle of the divine choir. Since this, therefore, is the case, whether is it necessary that the mode of sanctity should be simple, and consist of a certain few things, or that it should be multiform and all-harmonic, and mingled, as I may say, from every thing contained in the world? If, indeed, the power which is invoked, and is excited in the performance of sacred rites, was simple, the mode of sacrifice should necessarily be simple.

(3) "When to the gods you sacrifice, Selecting what our portion is, 'Tis shame to tell, do ye not take, And both the thighs, clean to the groins, The loins quite bare, the backbone, too, Clean scrape as with a file, Them swallow, and the remnant give To us as if to dogs? And then, As if of one another 'shamed, With heaps of salted barley hide."

(2) What people call sacrifice (sattrâyana), that is really abstinence, for by abstinence he obtains from the Sat (the true), the safety (trâna) of the Self. What people call the vow of silence (mauna), that is really abstinence, for he who by abstinence has found out the Self, meditates (manute).

(1) The discussion therefore requires that we should show what it is through which sacrifices are effective of things, and are suspended from the Gods, the precedaneous causes of effects. If then we say that the communion of similar powers, or the dissension of contraries, or a certain aptitude of the agent to the patient in the universe, as in one animal, every where possessing one and the same life, coexcites adapted similars, pervading with invariable sameness according to one sympathy, and existing most near in things most remote: if we should say this, we should thus assert something of what is true, and which necessarily accompanies sacrifices, yet we should not demonstrate the true mode of their subsistence. For the essence of the Gods is not placed in nature and in physical necessities, so as to be coexcited by physical passions, or by the powers which extend through all nature; but independently of these, it is defined by itself, having nothing in common with them, neither according to essence, nor according to power, nor any thing else.

(1) It is better, therefore, to assign as the cause of the efficacy of sacrifices friendship and familiarity, and a habitude which binds fabricators to the things fabricated, and generators to the things generated. Hence when, this common principle preceding, we take a certain animal, or any thing which germinates in the earth, and which genuinely and purely preserves the will of its maker; then, through a thing of this kind, we appropriately move the demiurgic cause, which presides over it in an undefiled manner. But these causes being many, and some, as the dæmoniacal causes, having a proximate arrangement; but others, as divine causes, being arranged above these; and farther still, one most ancient and venerable cause being the leader of these; all the causes are moved in conjunction by a perfect sacrifice. Each thing, likewise, is in a kindred manner adapted to the sacrifice, according to the order which it is allotted. But if any sacrifice is imperfect, it proceeds to a certain extent, but is not capable of proceeding any further. Hence many are of opinion that sacrifices are to be offered to good dæmons, many to the last powers of the Gods, and many to the mundane or terrestrial powers of dæmons or Gods. These things, therefore, as being a part of sacrifices, are not falsely asserted; but they do not comprehend the whole of the power of sacrifice, and all the goods it contains, which extend to every thing divine.

(12) Now breathing together (sumpnoia) is properly said of the Church. For the sacrifice of the Church is the word breathing as incense from holy souls, the sacrifice and the whole mind being at the same time unveiled to God. Now the very ancient altar in Delos they celebrated as holy; which alone, being undefiled by slaughter and death, they say Pythagoras approached. And will they not believe us when we say that the righteous soul is the truly sacred altar, and that incense arising from it is holy prayer? But I believe sacrifices were invented by men to be a pretext for eating flesh. But without such idolatry he who wished might have partaken of flesh.

(1) When a man (who is the sacrificer) hungers, thirsts, and abstains from pleasures, that is the Dîkshâ (initiatory rite).

(1) What people call sacrifice (yagña), that is really abstinence (brahmakarya). For he who knows, obtains that (world of Brahman, which others obtain by sacrifice), by means of abstinence. What people call sacrifice (ishta), that is really abstinence, for by abstinence, having searched (ishtvâ), he obtains the Self.

(2) But if the multitude of powers which are excited when the Gods descend and are moved, is not to be comprehended by any one, except theurgists alone, who accurately know this through experience in sacred operations; if this be the case, they alone are capable of knowing what the perfection is of the sacrific art; and they also know that the omission, though of a few things, subverts the whole work of religion; just as in harmony, from the bursting of one chord, the whole becomes dissonant and incommensurate. As, therefore, in the visible descents of the Gods, a manifest injury is sustained by those who leave some one of the more excellent genera unhonoured, thus also in the invisible appearances of the Gods in sacrifices, it is not proper to honour one of them, and not honour another, but it is entirely requisite to honour each of them according to the order which he is allotted. But he who leaves some one of them unhonoured, confounds the whole work of piety, and divulses the one and whole orderly distribution of it; not, in so doing, as some one may think, imperfectly receiving the Gods, but entirely subverting all the ceremonies of religion.

(1) Let us then, in the next place, direct our attention to that which accords with what has been before said, and with our twofold condition of being. For there is a time when we become wholly soul, are out of the body, and sublimely revolve on high, in conjunction with all the immaterial Gods. And there is also a time when we are bound in the testaceous body, are detained by matter, and are of a corporeal-formed nature. Again, therefore, there will be a twofold mode of worship. For one mode, indeed, will be simple, incorporeal, and pure from all generation, and this mode pertains to undefiled souls. But the other is filled with bodies, and every thing of a material nature, and is adapted to souls which are neither pure nor liberated from all generation. We must admit, therefore, that there are twofold species of sacrifices; one kind, indeed, pertaining to men who are entirely purified, which, as Heraclitus says, rarely happens to one man, or to a certain easily to be numbered few of mankind; but the other kind, being material and corporeal-formed, and consisting in mutation, is adapted to souls that are still detained by the body.