Mimamsasutra 42.2.28-2

He formulates the twentieth topical section:
In the fore-offering, are samidh and so forth deities or offerings?
Deityhood [is proposed] like Viṣṇu and others; not so, due to the absence of the dative and such.

In the New- and Full-Moon sacrifices, the pentad of fore-offerings is recorded: “He sacrifices the samidhs,” and so forth. In that regard, if it is argued: Just as Viṣṇu and others mentioned in the accusative in “He sacrifices to Viṣṇu,” “He sacrifices to Varuṇa,” and so forth are deities, so also is deityhood of samidh and the others. Therefore, the deities are consecrated by sacrifices, so an observable purpose is gained—

Not so. Everywhere deities are designated by the dative case or by a secondary derivative suffix, as in: “If one should offer to Agni in the evening,” “The eight-potsherd cake sacred to Agni.” And here in samidh and the others, neither the dative nor a secondary derivative suffix is found. A deity arises when there is cognition of [the entity] being that for the sake of which [the sacrifice is made]. And that being the purpose is not apprehended through the accusative; rather, it denotes the most desired object. And that is tenable if it is a name of an action, because that is seen in “He offers the Agnihotra” and the like.