Chapter X. That They Who Delight in Animal Sacrifices Cannot Be Gods

But now come, let us compare with this the same person’s contrary utterances, set down by him in the book which he entitled On Abstinence from Animal Food. Here indeed, moved by right reasoning, he first of all confesses that we ought not to offer anything at all, either incense or sacrifice, to the God who is over all, nor yet to the divine and heavenly powers who come next to Him.

Then as he goes on, he refutes the opinions of the multitude, by saying that we ought not to regard as gods those who rejoice in the sacrifices of living creatures. For to offer animals in sacrifice, he says, is of all things most unjust, and unholy, and abominable, and hurtful, and therefore not pleasing to gods. But in speaking thus it is evident that he must convict his own god: for he said just before that the oracle enjoined the sacrifice of animals, not only to the infernal and terrestrial gods, but also to those of the air, the heaven, and the ether.

And whereas such are Apollo’s injunctions, yet he, appealing to Theophrastus as witness, says that the sacrifice of animals is not fit for gods, but for daemons only: so that, according to the argument of himself and Theophrastus, Apollo is a daemon and not a god; and not Apollo only but also all those who have been regarded as gods among all the heathen, those to whom whole peoples, both rulers and ruled, in cities and in country districts, offer animal sacrifices. For these we ought to believe to be nothing else than daemons, according to the philosophers whom we have mentioned.

But if they say that they are good, how then, if indeed bloody sacrifice was unholy and abominable and hurtful, could those who were pleased with such things as these be good? And if they should also be shown to delight not only in such sacrifices as these, but, with an excess of cruelty and inhumanity, in the slaughter of men and in human sacrifices, how can they be other than utterly blood-guilty, and friends of all cruelty and inhumanity, and nothing else than wicked daemons?

Now when these things have been demonstrated by us, I suppose that good reason has been rendered for our withdrawal from the practices mentioned. For even to confer the honour of one who is invested with regal dignity among men upon robbers and housebreakers is not holy nor pious, much less to degrade the adorable name of God and His supreme honour to wicked spirits.

Hence we who have been taught to worship only the God who is over all, and to honour in due degree the divinely favoured and blessed powers which are around Him, bring with us no earthy or dead offering, nor gore and blood, nor anything of corruptible and material substance; but with a mind purified from all wickedness, and with a body clothed with the ornament of purity and temperance which is brighter than any raiment, and with right doctrines worthy of God, and beside all this with sincerity of disposition, we pray that we may guard even unto death the religion delivered unto us by our Saviour.

But now after these previous explanations it is time for us to proceed to the proofs of our assertions. And first of all it is reasonable to go through the arguments by which the aforesaid author, in his book entitled On Abstinence from Animal Food, says that neither to the God who is over all, nor to the divine powers next to Him, ought we to bring anything of earth either as burnt-offering or sacrifice; because such things are alien to seemly worship.