{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn83.htm","path":"chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn83.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn83.htm","text":"13 Lit., \"in that in which he is a god.\"\n14 Lit., \"uniformity of quality being preserved.\"\n15 The ms. and edd. read ut in operibus feratur cassis-\"so as to be borne among,\" emended by Hild. and Oehler teratur-\"worn away among.\"\n16 Lit., \"in vain errors of inanity.\"\n17 The ms. and edd. have here forte-\"perchance.'\"\n19 [It must have taken much tine to overcome this distaste for the use of incense in Christian minds. Let us wait for the testimony of Lactantius.]\n20 Or perhaps, simply, \"the sacrifice is a living one,\" animalis est hostia. Macrobius, however (Sat., iii. 5), quotes Trebatius as saying that there were two kinds of sacrifices, in one of which the entrails were examined that they might disclose the divine will, while in the other the life only was consecrated to the deity. This is more precisely stated by Servius (Aen., iii. 231), who says that the hostia animalis was only slain, that in other cases the blood was poured on the altars, that in others part of the victim, and in others the whole animal, was burned. It is probable, therefore that Arnobius uses the words here in their technical meaning, as the next clause shows that none of the flesh was offered, while the blood was allowed to fall to the ground. [I am convinced that classical antiquities must be more largely studied in the Fathers of the first five centuries.]\n21 i.e., the juices which formerly flowed through the living body.\n22 The heathen opponent is supposed to give up his first reason, that the sacrifices provided food for the gods, and to advance this new suggestion, that they were intended for their gratification merely.\n24 Lit., \"with the fleeting tickling of.\"\n25 Lit., \"with the levities of gladnesses.'\"\n27 Naturalis initii consortia.\n28 So the ms. and first ed., according to Oehler, reading cred-e~t, the others -i--\"does.\"\n30 Arnobius says that the sacrifices give no pleasure to any being, or at least, if that is not strictly true, that they give none to the gods. [See Elucidation VI., infra.]\n31 So the ms., LB., Oberth\u00fcr, Orelli, Hild., and Oehler, reading consec-, for which the rest read consen-taneum est credere-\"it is fitting to believe.\"\n32 Lit., \"motion of anything.\"\n34 Lit., \"set in indignations.\"\n35 Lit., \"if this satisfaction of sacrifices is offered to.\"\n36 So the ms. and most edd., reading laeta, for which Ursinus suggested lauta-\"splendid,\" and Heraldus elata- \"exalted.\"\n37 It is perhaps possible so to translate the ms. neque si sunt ulli apertissima potuit cognitione dignosci, retained by Orelli, Hild., and Oehler, in which case si sunt ui?li must be taken as the subject of the clause. The other edd., from regard to the construction, read visi-\"nor, if they have been seen, has it been possible.\"\n38 Lit., \"kept with inviolable observance.\"\n41 So Panes seems to be generally understood, i.e., images of Pan used as playthings by boys, and very much the same thing as the puppets-pupuli-already mentioned.\n42 So Panes seems to be generally understood, i.e., images of Pan used as playthings by boys, and very much the same thing as the puppets-pupuli-already mentioned.\n43 Lit., \"to have liberal pardons and free concessions.\"\n46 Lit., \"to varieties of manifold.\"\n48 [This very striking passage should lead us to compare the widely different purpose of Judaic sacrifices. See Elucidation VI., infra.]\n49 Lit., \"from the hands to us,\" nobis, the reading of the ms., both Roman edd., Gelenius, LB., and Oehler; for which the rest give vobis-\"out of your hands.\"\n50 i.e., the learned men referred to above.\n54 So Canterus suggests conf-iunt for the ms. confic--\"bring about,\"\n55 Lit., \"it is a thing of long and much speech.\"\n56 Lit., \"the fortunes of perils.\"\n57 The ms. reading is hoc est unus, corrected honestus-\"honourable\" (which makes the comparison pointless, because there is no reason why a rich man, if good, should not be succored as well as a poor), in all edd., except Oehler, who reads seclestus, which departs too far from the ms. Perhaps we should read, as above, inhonestus.\n58 So the ms., LB., Hild., and Oehler, and the other edd., adding et auxilium-\"and help.\"\n59 Lit., \"whom not his mind, but the necessity of his property, made restricted.\"\n60 Lit., \"inclines thither whence.\"\n63 Lit., \"the favours of good work,\" boni operis favor-es et, the reading of Hild. and Oehler (other edd. -em-\"the favour of its service\") for ms. fabore sed.\n64 Lit., \"of most powerful name.\"\n65 Lit., \"imitating a slave's servility\"-ancillatum, the emendation of Hemsterhuis, adopted by Orelli, Hild., and Oehler for the unintelligible ms. ancillarum.\n68 Lit., \"what eminences is it found to be added,\" addier. So Hild. and Oehler for the reading of ms., first four edd., and Oberth\u00fcr addere-\"to add,\" emended in rest from margin of Ursinus accedere, much as above.\n69 So the ms., reading conjectionibus, which is retained in no edd., although its primary meaning is exactly what the sense here requires.\n70 The last clause was omitted in first four edd. and Elmh., and was inserted from the ms. by Meursius.\n72 Lit., \"say in the proclamation of.\"\n73 Lit., \"more powerful commands,\" i.e., by Christ's injunctions. It seems hardly possible that any one should suppose that there is here any reference to Christ's command to His disciples not to exercise lordship over each other, yet Orelli thinks that there is perhaps a reference to Mark x. 42, 43. If a particular reference were intended, we might with more reason find it in 1 Pet. ii. 17, \"Honour all men.\"\n75 Lit., \"weighed by their own force,\" vi.\n76 i.e., altariaque haec pulchra.\n77 Lit., \"you show yourselves,\" praestatis.\n78 Lit., \"most.\" So Tibullus (Eleg., ii. 1, 13): \"Pure things please the gods. Come (i.e., to the sacrifice) with clean garments, and with clean hands take water from the fountain,\"-perfect cleanliness being scrupulously insisted on.\n79 This Heraldus explains as \"of worse omen,\" and Oehler as \"more unclean.\"\n80 Ingenuae, i.e., such as any respectable person has.\n81 To this the commentators have replied, that mules, asses, and dogs were sacrificed to certain deities. We must either admit that Arnobius has here fallen into error, or suppose that he refers merely to the animals which were usually slain, or find a reason for his neglecting it in the circumstances of each sacrifice.\n82 [The wit of Arnobius must be acknowledged in this scorching satire. Compare the divine ordinances, Exod. xxix. 13, 14.]\n83 Lit., \"by slaughters of,\" caedibus.\n84 Lit., \"under,\" i.e., under the sacrifices on your altars.\n85 So all edd., reading cerne-, except both Roman edd., Hild., and Oehler, who retain the ms. cerni-tis-\"you see.\"\n86 In translating thus, it has been attempted to adhere as closely as possible to the ms. reading (according to Crusius) qua si-corrected, as above, quae in LB.; but it is by no means certain that further changes should not he made.\n87 Lit., \"prepare luncheons and dinners thence,\" i.e., from the putrefying carcasses.\n88 The ms. and first four edd. read ingentibus scrofis-\"with huge breeding swine,\" changed by rest, as above, incient-, from the margin of Ursinus.\n89 Or \"gloomy,\" tetris, the reading of ms. and all edd. since LB., for which earlier edd. give atris-\"black.\"\n91 [The law of clean and unclean reflects the instincts of man, as here appealed to; but compare and patiently study these texts: Lev. x. 10 and Ezek. xxii. 26; Lev. xi. and Acts x. 15; Rom. xiv. 14 and Luke xi. 41.]\n93 So the ms., Elm., LB., Orelli, Hild., and Oehler, reading vicerit, for which the others read jusserit-\"has bidden.\"","title":"chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn83.htm","type":"page"}