________________
EPISTLE I, CHAPTER IX, 8-15.
315
of the teaching of high-priests of the religion in a dissimilar case, they shall then wholly accept, and they are to perform the operation authorisedly and preservatively thereby.
12. This, too, I so consider, that even if each separate teaching should be as it were proper, it would then not be determined by them as to the impropriety of the purifying cup, for Mêdyôk-mah has stated, only as it was apparent to him, that every single customary part is to be washed for three times, and has not specifically determined that when all shall be so once it is not proper. 13. By the special teaching of Medyok-mâh and the washing which is in the law that says-concerning those interpreting revelation--that whoever becomes quite polluted shall thoroughly wash by that law, so that his being washed is to be considered as being washed, it (the rite) is not performed by me if, also, that other high-priest has said, that every one who becomes quite polluted, and washes not by the law of the primitive faith, is not to be considered as washed. 14. Then, too, in the special teaching of Medyok-mâh it is not said, of that washing which is washed by the law of those of a portion of the religion (pârak-dinôân), that it is not proper.
15. He who washes by the law of those of the primitive faith, which many high-priests maintain as excellent, because it is suitable, and imagines that regarding the threefold washing it should be said that it is not proper, even he—when he also
That is, when the dissimilar case arises, or when it is manifestly more efficient.
. See Chap. VI, 7.
Digitized by Google