Arcana microcosmi, or, The hid secrets of man's body discovered in an anatomical duel between Aristotle and Galen concerning the parts thereof : as also, by a discovery of the strange and marveilous diseases, symptomes & accidents of man's body : with a refutation of Doctor Brown's Vulgar errors, the Lord Bacon's natural history, and Doctor Harvy's book, De generatione, Comenius, and others : whereto is annexed a letter from Doctor Pr. to the author, and his answer thereto, touching Doctor Harvy's book De Generatione / by A.R.

The Second BOOK. Of the strange Diseases and Accidents of MANS BODY; Wherein divers of Dr. Browns vulgar errors and assertions are refuted, and the ancient Tenents maintained: (Book 2)

CHAP. I.

1. Divers ways to resist burning. 2. Locust eaters, the lowsie disease, the Baptist fed not on Locusts. 3. Mans flesh most subject to pu∣trifaction, and the causes thereof; How putrifaction is resisted. Mu∣mia. 4. The strength of affection and imagination in dying men. Strange presages of death. 5. Difference of dead mens skuls, and why.

THAT some mens bodies have endured the fire with∣out pain and burning, is not more strange then true; which may be done three manner of ways: 1. By di∣vine power, as the bodies of Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego, received no hurt or detriment in the fiery furnace. 2. By a Diabolick skill; so the Idolatrous Priests among the Gentiles, used in some solemn sacrifices to walk securely upon burning coals, as the Prince of Poets shews. AEn. lib. 11.

—Medium freti pietate per ignem, Cultores multa premimus vestigia pruna.

And as the men in the Sacrifices of Apollo, so women in the Sacrifices of Diana, used to walk upon burning coals, as Strabo witnesseth, lib. 12. Of this custome Horace also speaks, (H••r. 1. Od. 1. Incedis per ignes suppositos cineri doloso. So Propertius

[Pro. El. 5. l. 1.] Et miser ignotos vestigia ferre per ignes. And so it was used as a Proverb, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to walk upon coals when a man undertook any dangerous businesse. The Scri∣pture also sheweth, that the Gentiles used to make their sons and daughters passe through the fire: They used also in swea∣ring, to take a burning Iron in their hands without hurt, as Deliro sheweth in his Magick. Pliny and Sueton write, that Pyrrhus his thumb, and Germanicus his heart, could not be bur∣ned. 3. The body is made sometimes to resist fire by natural means, as by unguents; so those Hirpiae, or Hirpini in Italy, of whom Pliny, Varro, and others make mention, used to anoint the soles of their feet with this unguent, that they might walk on the fire. Bushequius [Epist. 4.] was an eye-witnesse at Con∣stantinople, of what was done in this kind by a Turkish Monk, who after dinner took an hot burning iron out of the fire, held it in his hand, and thrust it in his mouth, so that his spit∣tle did hisse, without any hurt; whereas one of Busbequius his men, thinking this Monk had onely deluded the eye, takes the same iron in his hand, which so burned his palm and fin∣gers, that he could not be healed again in many days. This was done by the Monk, saith Busbequius, after he had put some thing in his mouth when he went ••orth into the Court, preten∣ding it was to seek a stone. The same Authour witnesseth, that he saw at Venice one who washed his hands in scalding lead; and why may not the body be made to resist the fire, as well as that kind of Linum, called therefore Asbetinum, by the Greeks, and Linum vivum by the Latines, [Pancerol. de Lin. vi∣vo.] in which they used to wrap their Emperours bodies when they buried them, that their ashes might not be mingled with the ashes of their fire; this Linum being incombustible. The Salamander also liveth sometime in the fire, though not so long as some have thought. [Pyraus•••• are gendred in the fire; So Aristotle and Scaliger.] Nor must we think it fabulous (as Dr. Brown too magisterially concludes, Of Errors, 7. Book c. 18.) What is written of the Spartan Lad, and of Scaevola, the Ro∣man, who burned their hands without shrinking; he doubts of the truth of this, and yet makes no doubt of that which is more unlikely, to wit, of Saint Iohns being•• in the Chaldron of scalding oyl without any hurt at all. [Book 7. c. 10.] he that will question the truth of Scaevola's burning his hand, and of Gurtius, leaping into the burning gulf, may as well question the broiling of Saint Lawrence on the Grediron, or the sing∣ing and rejoycing of other Martyrs in the midst of their flames.

II. That in Ethiopia there is a people whose sole food are lo∣custs, is witnessed by Diodorus and S••rabo, [l. 4. c. 16.] these from their food are called Acridophagi; they are a lean people, shorter and blacker then others; they are short lived, for the longest life among them exceedeth not 40 years: Their Coun∣trey affordeth neither fish nor flesh, but God provides them lo∣custs every Spring, which in multituds are carried to to them from the Desart by the West and South-west winds: these they take and salt for their use. These wretched people die all of one disease, much like our lousie sicknesse: A little before their death, their bodies grow scabby and itchy, so that with scratch∣ing, bloody matter and ugly lice of divers shapes, with wings, swarm out of their belly first, then from other parts, so that they pine away and die in great pain. This disease doubtlesse proceeds partly from the corruption of the aire, and partly from the unwholesomnesse of their diet, which turns to pu∣trid humours in their bodies, whence the disease is Epidemi∣cal. This vermin breeds most in those who are given to sweat, to nastinesse, and abound with putrified humours, between the flesh and skin, whose constitutions are hot & moist, as children; and according as either of the four humours are predominant, so is the colour of lice, some being red, some white, some brown, some black; sometimes they burst out of all parts of the body, as in Herod, and in that Portugal, of whom Forestus speaks▪ [l. 4. de vitiis capitis] out of whose body they swarmed so fast, that his two men did nothing else but sweep them off, so that they carried out whole baskets full. Sometimes they breed but in some parts onely, as in the head or arm-pits. Zacuta mentioneth one who was troubled nowhere but in his eie-lids, out of which they swarmed in great numbers. Some have voided them by boils and imposthumes. Forestus speaks of one who had them only in his back, whom he advised to hold his naked back so close to the fire, till it blistred, out of which blisters they came, and so he was cured. Salt is an enemy to them, yet they are bred in those AEthiopians by the frequent eating of the salt lo∣custs: But perhaps it is not the eating of the salt meat so much, as the nastinesse, and sweat, unwholesom waters, and corrup∣ted air that breeds them. And it is certain, that wild and sa∣vage people are most given to them, because of their carelesse uncleanlinesse, using no other remedy against them, but shirts died with Saffron, which some wilde Irish doe wear six months together without shifting. But sometimes this disease is infli∣cted by the immediate hand of God, as a punishment of sinne

and tyranny. Examples we have in Sylla, Pherecides, Herod, Phi∣lip the second of Spain, and others who died of this malady. Now because Locusts are such an unwholesome food, I cannot think that Iohn Baptist did feed on them; and therefore it is no vulgar error, to hold, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Matth. 3. doth signifie the tops of hearbs rather then locusts, both because these were an unwholesome food, and unpleasant to the palat and nose, used rather for Physick then diet, as Dioscorides and Galen shew, that Locusts are good against the Cholick and Stone, and may be more safely given then Cantharides to provoke u∣rine. And although the AEthiopians did eat them for food, yet this is no argument to prove, that Iohn did eat them; which is all the reason that Beza and Casaubon bring to prove their asser∣tion: neither can it be proved, that Locusts were a food ever used in Iudaea: For Pelusiota, who lived an Eremite many years in those Desarts, never knew any such food used there. But whereas they alledge, that in Levit. [c. 11. v. 22.] Locusts are set down for clean food: I answer with Munster [on Levit. 11.22. who though an excellent Hebrician, yet confesseth, that neither he, nor the Rabbins themselves, doe know the true meaning or signification of the proper tearms there used. Therefore the Hebrew word Harbe, which we translate Locust, the Septuagints call Bruchus, which is another kind of Insect. And the French in their Bibles have left the Hebrew word untranslated. And so did Luther before, as not knowing what that word meant, nor the other three Hebrew words. Dr. Brown then had done well rather to have reckoned the Baptists eating of Locusts among the Vulgar Errors, then his feeding upon hearbs in the Desart.

III. There is no flesh so much subject to putrefaction, as mans body, because it abounds in heat and moisture, so that of∣tentimes some parts of it doe putrifie before the soul leave it, which cannot so long preserve it from corruption, as salt, spices, the juice of Cedar, and other means by which the AEgyptians used to embalm their dead bodies. For indeed heat and sicci∣ty are enemies to putrefaction; therefore where the ambient air (which is properly moist) is excluded, there the bodies remain unputrified. Hence the bodies which are digged out of the hot and dry sands in Egypt, have there continued many hundreds of years uncorrupted. Alexanders body lay many days unburied and unbalmed, yet stunk not, but smelled odoriferous∣ly, because he had dried up the superfluous moisture of his bo∣dy, by continual drinking of strong and fragrant wines. There

be also some wines that preserve dead bodies uncorruptible, by reason of their cold and exsiccating quality. So we read in the Indian stories, that upon the Mountains of Chily, bodies have been found dead there, which have many years without corruption continued. The first detectors of those Countries found it so by experience; for many of them were killed by the piercing subtil quality of those winds, and preserved from putrefaction by the excessive drinesse thereof. I have read of Horsemen sitting on Horse-back, with their bridles in their hands, yet dead many months before without any corruption. It is also the opinion of som, that bodies thunder-struck do not putrifie. I am apt to believe, that either they putrifie not at all, or not in a long time, because of the exsiccating quality of the sulphurous vapour which comes from the thunder and lightning. But there is nothing more apt to preserve dead bo∣dies from corruption, then the juice of Cedar, therefore much used among the Ancients, both in preserving of their books and bodies; which by reason of their extream bitternesse and dri∣ing quality, gives life to the dead, and death to the living, ex∣tinguishing the temporary life of the body, and in recompence giving it immortality. So then we see that siccity is the main enemy to putrefaction, which is the cause the Peacocks fl••sh is not fo apt to putrifie as of other creatures, because of its drinesse, as Saint Augustine in the City of God sheweth, who speaks of a Peacock which in a whole year did not putrifie. The diet also is a great help to further or retard putrefaction; for they that feed plentifully on flesh, fish, or other humid meats, which breed much blood and humours, are apter to putrifie then those who feed sparingly on hard and dry meats. In the siege of Amida, by Sapor the Persian King, this difference was found; for the European bodies, who lay four days un∣buried, did in that time so putrifie, that they could scarce be known: but the Persian bodies were grown hard and dry, be∣cause of their hard and dry food, having contented themselvs with bread made of Naesturtiu••••, which we call Cresses, or nose∣smart, an hot and dry hearb. Concerning the stone Sarco∣phagus which consumes flesh in forty days, as Pliny witnesseth, l. 36. c. 17. is no fable; for Scaliger writes, (Exerc. 132.) that in Rome, and in the Town where he then was, the dead bo∣dies were consumed in eight days. But the stone Chernites is a preserver of flesh from corruption; therefore the Tomb of Darius was made of it. The like is written of the hearb Clematis, or Vinca pervinea, which resisteth putrifaction; there∣fore

of old they used to binde the heads of young men and maids deceased with garlands of this hearb. And Korrimanus (de mirac. mortuorum) speaks of a dead head so crowned with this hearb, which in the year 1635. being taken out of the grave, was found uncorrupted. And as dead bodies embalmed with spices, are preserved from corruption; so by the fame dead bodies, men are oftentimes preserved alive: for that stuffe which proceeds from them, called by the Arabians Mumia, is an excellent remedy against diseases arising from cold and moi∣sture. Francis the first carried always some of it about him. It was found in the Tombs of those Princes who had been imbal∣med with rich spices; but that which is found in ordinary graves, is not the true Mumia, but false, uselesse, or rather perni∣cious for the body, as not being of the same materials that the true Mumia was.

IV. That the presence of a dear friend standing by a dying man, will prolong his life a while, is a thing very remarkable and true, and which I found by experience: for about tenne years ago, when my aged Father was giving up the ghost, I came towards his beds side, he suddenly cast his eyes upon me, and there fixed them; so that all the while I stood in his sight, he could not die till I went aside, and then he departed. Doubt∣less, the sympathy of affections, and the imagination working upon the vital spirits, kept them moving longer then otherwise they would have done; so that the heart the seat of affection, and the brain the hous of imagination, were loth to give off, and the spirits in them, to rest from their motion, so long as they had an object wherein they delighted. The like I have read of others: And truly the sympathy of affections, and strength of imagination is admirable, when the mind is able to presage the death or danger of a friend though a great way off. This also I found in my self: For once I suddenly fell into a passion of weeping, upon the apprehension I took that my dear friend was dead whom I exceedingly loved for his vertues, and it fell out accordingly as I presaged; for he died about the same hour that I fell into that weeping fit, and we were at that time 60 miles asunder, nor could I tell certainly, that he was dead till two days after. Thus to some the death of friends is presaged by bleeding at the nose, and sudden sadness, by dreams, and di∣vers other ways, which the learned Poet was not ignorant of when he saith,

Agnovit longe gemitum praesaga m••li mens. AEn. l. 10. So by the Greek Poet the soul is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a soothsayer of

evil: The cause of this the Gentiles ascribed to the Sun, which they held to be the Soul, and our souls sparks of that great Lamp▪ A Plato••••cal conceit which thought mens souls to bee m••terial•• we were better ascribe this to the information of that Angel which attends us.

V. That which Herodotus (in Thalia c. 3.) writes of this diffe∣rence between the Persian and the AEgyptian skuls, may be no fable; for in the wars between them such as were killed on ei∣ther side, were buried apart: after their bodies were putrified, it was found that the Persian skuls were soft, but the AEgyptians so hard, that you could scarce break them with a stone. The reason of this might be, because the AEgyptians used from their childhood to cut their hair, and to go bareheaded; so that by the Sun their skuls were hardned. Hence it was, that few among them were found bald; but the Persians who wore long hair, and had their heads always covered, must needs have had soft skuls, by reason the humidity was kept in, and not suffered to evaporate, nor the Sun permitted to harden them.

CHAP. II.

1. The benefits of sleep, and reasons why some sleep not. 2. Why dead bodies after the ninth day swim. Why dead and sleeping men heavier then others; why a blown bladder lighter then an empty. 3. Strange Epidemical diseases and deaths. The force of smels. The Roses smell. 4. Strange shapes, and multitudes of worms in our bodies. 5. The French disease, and its malignity. The diseases of Brasil.

WHereas Sleep is one of Natures chiefest blessings for refreshing of our wearied spirits, repairing of our decay∣ed strength; moistning of our feebled limbs, as the Poet speaks, fessos. sopor irrigat artus, (Virg. AEn 3. & 4.) for easing of our di∣urnal cares, Positi somno sub nocte silenti, lenibant c••r••s & cor∣da oblita laborum. And therefore is, as Euripides cals it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the remedy of our evils. And whereas in sleep the heart is at rest, as Aristotle rightly said, (though Galen who understood him not, checks him for it) from feeling, understanding, and inventing, though not from life and moti∣on; I say, whereas by-sleep we have so many benefits, it is a wonder that any should bee found to live a long time with∣out sleep. Yet I read in Fernelius (Pathalog. l. 5. ca. 2.) of one who lived fourteen moneths without any rest. And it

is more strange what Heurinus (Praxis, l. 2. c. 7. records of Ni∣zolius, that painful Treasurer of Cicero's words and phrases, who lived ten years without sleep. Mecaenas was sleeplesse three years, saith Pliny. Laurentius in his Tract of Melancholy, knew some who could not sleep in three moneths; the rea∣son of this might be, 1. The heat and drinesse of the brain, as is usual in decrepit and melancholy men: 2. The spare∣ness of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, so that no vapours could be sent up to moisten the brain or nerves. 3. The want of exercise and motion; for sedentary men are least given to sleep. 4. Continual cogita∣tion and intention of the phantasie. 5. And adust melancho∣ly humours. 6. Accompanied with continual fears, horrid and distemperate phantas••es, representing to the mind unpleasant objects.

II. Why dead bodies after the ninth day swim upon the water, may seem strange, seeing till then they lie hid under the water. Cardan (de subtil. l. 8.) gives this reason, Because between the Peritoneum and Omentum flatulent matter is ingendred, as appears by the great swelling of the belly. Now this flatulent matter is be∣got of humidity dissolved by heat, which heat is procreated of putrifaction. Besides, we see that putrified bodies, as eggs, fruit, wood, grow light, because their solid parts being consumed, what remains are porous and full of air: for experience teach∣eth us, that the more porous and aereal the body is, the lighter it is, and lesse apt to sink; and perhaps may bee the reason why that body which wants the Spleen swimmeth, not being a po∣rous light substance: And those men who have capacious lungs to hold much air, can dive and live longer in the water then o∣thers. And surely some people whose bodies are active, subtile, and quick, will not sink so soon as men of duller spirits. Such were the Thebii, a people which could not sink; so that it is a vain way to conclude those to be Witches, who do not present∣ly sink. Hence also it is plain, that dead bodies are heavier then living, though Dr. Brown (of Errors, l. 4. c. 7.) contradict this, be∣cause he found no difference between a Mouse and a Chick being dead and alive, in respect of gravity. A weak reason to reckon a received truth among his vulgar errors; for though there were no sensible difference in such little animals, which have but few spirits, yet in men which are of a greater bulk, & in whom do abound vital and animal spirits, to say there is no difference of gravity in their life and death, is to contradict sense and rea∣son; for every woman that attends upon sick men, knows that they are more pondrous when dead, then when alive, being used

to lift and turn them. Reason also grounded on experience, teacheth us, that those bodies are lightest in which air is pre∣dominant; therefore doubtlesse where there is store of such pure and refined air as the spirits are, there must be lesse gra∣vity, then where they are vvanting: his Error is grounded on a false supposition, in thinking there is gravity in the spi∣rits themselves, because they participate of corporeity, as if gravity v••ere an essential property of bodies, vvhereas there is no gravity in the pure fire, nor in the Stars and Heavens, and yet these are bodies. Besides, if the spirits had any gravity in them, it must follow, that living bodies are heavier then dead carcasses, which is absurd to think. Again, I would know, vvhy inebriated Apoplectical and swouning persons are heavier then others; is it not because their spirits fail, and they resemble dead men? And so in sleep the brother of death the body is heavier; every Nurse that carrieth her child in her arms will tell him this. Why doth a man fall down in his sleep, who stood upright when he was awaked, If he be not heavier then he was? The Scripture acknowledgeth, that even the Apostles eyes vvere heavy vvhen they vvere sleepy. And vvhereas he proveth the spirits to add vveight to the body, becaus a man that holds his breath is weightier while his lungs are full, then upon expi∣ration: And a bladder blown is heavier then one empty. I answer, that I could never find this experiment true, though I have made trial. 2. It seems to be false, because the blown bladder vvill swim vvhen the empty one sinks. 3. If I should yeild him this, yet his sequel is nought, except he can prove the animal spirits in a mans body, to be as thick and course as the grosse vapour which is blown into the bladder, which is neither air in name nor purity, much less to bee compared to those subtil spirits, vvhich are so pure and apt to vanish, that nature vvas forced to inclose them vvithin the thick walls of the nerves. So likewise the air retained in the lungs, may perhaps add vveight to the body, because the longer it stays there, the more it degenerates into a thick vapour, by reason of the bodies moisture, and so may become ponderous.

III. God is pleased many times to punish whole Nations by extraordinary epidemical diseases, for the sins of the people. So vvas England visited vvith a sweating sicknesse; so vvas Po∣land with that disease called Plica, of vvhich vve have spoken; so vvas Ethiopia (as is already said) visited vvith the Lousie dis∣ease. Forestus (Observ. medic. part. 3.) records, that in Syra∣cusa,

there vvas an universal disease, called the hungry sick∣nesse, in vvhich people did continually desire to eat, and vvere never satisfied. Of this multitudes died; at last it vvas obser∣ved, that this disease proceeded of Worms, vvhich vvere ex∣pelled by Bolarmenick and Treacle. And Hollerius reports, that at Beneventum many died of intolerable pains in the head, cau∣sed by Worms ingendred there, vvho also mentions one Italian, who by smelling much to the hearb Basil, had a Scorpion which bred in his brain, and killed him; this is not impossible if vvee consider, that according to the disposition of the p••trified mat∣ter, and the preparations made for introduction of the form, divers shapes of creatures are begot; and it seems there is a great sympathy between the Basil and the Scorpion, vvhich did facilitate the generation: neither are vve ignorant vvhat force there is in smells, both to breed and expel diseases; and even to prolong and shorten life; as appears in divers Histories, of some that have died vvith the smell of coals, others of new vvort or ale, as those two Monks recorded by Forestus (Observ. medic. part. 1.) although I suppose it vvas not so much the smell as the smoak of the coals and vapours of the air that suffoca∣ted the spirits; yet such is the force of smells, that som have been purged by passing by or entring into Apothecaries shops, vvhilest they vvere preparing purgative medicaments; And divers with the smell of the purges vvhich they carried in their hands, have been as much purged, as if they had taken the whole substance. But this I ascribe not so much to the smell (vvhich is a meer accident, and cannot passe from one substance to ano∣ther, but is in some subjects wherein it is inherent) as to the subtile vapours vvhich from the physick being smelled, con∣vey the smell to the body. The same reason may be given why some are offended with smells which to others are pleasant; so I have read of Francis the firsts Secretary, who was forced to stop his nosthrils with bread when there were any apples at table: and so offensive was the smell thereof to him, that if one had held an apple neer his nose, he would fall a bleed∣ing. Marcel. Danat. adm. hist. l. 6. c. 4.

And Cardinal Carafa did so abhor the smell of roses, which of all smells is most delightful to man, that during the rose time he durst not go out of his doors, for fear of encountring with that smell; nor did he suffer any to come within his palace that had a rose about him. This I adscribe to the phantasie and na∣turall antiphathy between him and the rose: Such power there is in smells, that the Ancients ascribed a Divinity to

them; and because good smells do so chear the spirits, hence they were used in Temples both amongst Jews, Gentiles, and Christians. Homer describes his Iuno by the sweetnesse of her smell, and so doth Virgil his Venus: Ambrosiaeque comae divinum vertice odorem spiravere; the like doth Plutarch his Isis, and so doth Ovid: Mansit odor, possis scire fuisse Deam. But for the Rose there may be some manifest causes why its smell may bee offensive: for some brains are extraordinary cold, some extraor∣dina••y dry, and whose olfactive passages are wider then usual∣ly; to such the smell of Roses may be hurtful, because the ••ose hath but a weak heat, or rather is refrigerative, as Dioscori∣des thinks which may comfort the hot, but not the cold brain. And if the brain be dry, & the passages wide, the smel doth too suddenly affect it, which may procure an aking. but why Hy∣sterical women, and such as are troubled with the Mother, are apt to swoun at the smell of Roses and Lillies, and other sweet odours, is, because the Matrix delighteth in these smells, and therefore riseth toward them, to the danger of suffocation; whereas it is suppressed by strong and unpleasant odours. There are indeed in the rose different parts, which have different qua∣lities, but the predominant are moistning and coldness; whence to cold and moist brains, the smell is not proper, but to hot brains the rose is comfortable: therefore the Ancients in their drinking matches, used to wear rose garlands, and to lie upon beds of rose-leaves for refrigeration. Mitte sectari rosa quo loco∣rum sera moretur. Horat. l. 1.

IV. It is almost incredible, what is written of the multi∣tudes, divers shapes, and length of worms bred in our bodies, if we had not the testimony of so many grave Physitians to prove this. Forestus out of Hostim (Obs. Med. part. 1. Obs. 2.) shews, that at Beneventum in Italy, there was a great mortality, which much troubled the Physitians, not knowing the cause thereof, till they opened one of the dead bodies, in whose brain they found a red worm yet alive: This they tried to kill by divers medicaments, such as are prescribed against worms, but no••e of them could kill it. At last they boiled some slices of Radish in Malago wine, and with this it was killed. He shews also, that one being cured of the French malady, was notwithstanding still tormented with the head-ach, till his skull by advice was ••p••n••d; under which, upon the Dura mater, was found a black wo••m, which being taken out and killed, he was cured. Brasavola records, (in 16. Aphoris. l. 3. Hippocr.) that an old man of 82 years, by a potion made of Scordium and sea-moss, voided

five hundred worms, which was the more strange in so old a man, whose body must needs have been cold and dry; yet it seems he wanted not putrified matter enough to breed them•• Alexander Benedict speaks of a young maid, who lay speechless eight days with her eyes open, and upon the voiding of forty two worms, recovered her health, (lib. de verit. & rerum.) Car∣da•• records, that Erasmus saw an Italian, who spoke perfect Dutch, which he never learned, so that he was thought to bee possessed; but being rid of his worms, recovered, not knowing that he ever ••pake Dutch. It is not impossible in extasies, phren∣sies, and transes, for men to speak unknown tongues, without witchcraft or inspiration•• if we consider the excellency and subtilty of the soul, bein•••• sequestred from corporeal Remora's, and so much the rather, if with Plato, we hold that all••onr knowledge is but reminiscency. Ambrose▪ Parry (lib. 19. c. 3.) sheweth, that a woman voided out of an imposthume in h••r belly; a multitude of worms about the bigness of ones finger, with sharp heads, which had pierced her intestins. Forestus (l. 7. Obs. 35.) tells us of a woman in Delph, who in 3 several days voided 3 great worms out of her navel; and not long after was delivered of a Boy; and then seven days after that, another: Thad. Dunus, speaks of a Switzer woman, who voided a piece of a worm five ells long, without head and tail, having scales like a Snake. After this she voided another bred in her bow∣ells, which was above twenty ells long. This poor woman was tortured so long as she was fasting; but when she ate, she had some ease. I ••ould set down here many other stories of Worms, voided out of mens bodies, some having the shape of Lizards, some of Frogs, some hairy and full of feet on both sides, some voided by the eyes, some by the ears, some by vo∣miting, some by the stool, some by urine, some by imposthumes, but I will not be tedious; these may suffice to let us know of what materials this body of ours, which we so much pamper, is composed, and how little cause vve have to be sollicitous for the back and belly; and vvithal let us stand in awe of God, vvho vvhen he pleaseth can for our sins, plague us vvith vermin in our bodies vvhiles vve are yet alive.

V. I said before, that divers Countries had their peculiar diseases; the French sickness as vve now call it, vvas peculiar to the Americans, and not known to this part of the vvorld; but Christopher Columbus, brought it from America to Naples. Now it is become common, and yet no disease more pernicious, and vvhich breeds more dangerous symptoms and tortures

in the body. This is that great scourge with which God whips the wantonnesse of this lascivious age: not without cause is this called the Herculean disease, so hard to be overcome, and the many headed Hydra: the poison of it is so subtile, that not on∣ly it doth wast the noble parts, and spoils the skin even to the losse of all the hairs both of head, beard, and eye-brows, besides the many swellings and bunches it causeth, it pierceth also in∣to the very bones, and rots them, as Fernelius fully describes. (De abdit. rer. causis, l. 2.) I have read of some who have been suddenly struck blind with the infection thereof. Zacuta mentions one who was so blinded that he could never recover his sight again. And another who was troubled with an Oph∣thalmy, the poison of which was so vi••lent and subtile, that it infected the Chyrurgion that cured him; (Prax. mira. l. 2.) by which it appears this disease is infectious at a distance. There is another peculiar disease in Brasile, called the Worm, which comes with an itch and inflammation of the fundament: if this be taken in time before the Fever comes, it is easily cured by washing the place affected, with the juice of Lemmons, whereof that Countrey abounds; but if it be neglected till it come to a Carbuncle, it is harder to be cured, and not without the juice of Lemmons and Tobacco. But if this by carelesnesse be omit∣ted, no help will then prevail; and so the party dieth with a thirst or fever, which is strange. Not unlike to this is that dis∣ease which Zacuta speaks, of one who was tortured with a terrible pain in his Hip and Fundament, with a violent Fever: upon this he openeth the outward ancle vein, out of which gushed scalding blood, and with it a living Worm, the breadth of ones palm, and so the party was cured. It seems the poison of this Worm had reached into the Hemorrid veins in the fun∣dament, which caused that pain. Linscho••en (in his voiages) makes mention of another disease familiar to the Brasilians, cal∣led Pians, proceeding from their letchery; it maketh blisters bigger then the joynt of a mans thumb, which run over the whole body and face.

CHAP. III.

1. Centaurs, proved what they were. 2. Why the sight of a Wolfe causeth obmutescency. 3. Pigmies proved. Gammadim, what. 4. Giants proved: they are not monsters. 5. The strange force of Fascination. The sympathies and antipathies of things. The Load∣stones attraction, how hindred. Fascination, how cured. Fasci∣nation by words.

THat there have been Centaurs, that is, Monsters, half Hor∣ses, and half Men in the world, I make no question, though Dr. Brown, (Book 1. c. 4.) reckons this among his Vulgar Errors, who should have made a distinction between. Poetical fictions, and real truths: For Centaurs are Monsters, and aberrations from nature; not the common nature of all things, which in∣tends and effects Monsters, to shew Gods wrath against sin: but from the particular nature of those creatures of which they are ingendred. Therefore S. Ierome in the life of Paul the E∣remite, speaks of a Centaur seen by Paul. Pliny Nat. Hist. l. 7. c. 3. was an eye-witnesse to this truth: For he saw in Thessaly a Centaur, which was brought out of Egypt to Claudius Caesar. Ambrose Parry. (l. 15. de Monstris) speaks of a Centaur which in the year ••254, was brought forth at Verona: there is no doubt then but Centaurs as well as other Monsters, are produced, partly by the influence of the stars, and partly by other cau∣ses, as the ill disposition of the matrix, the bad temperature of the seed, the perverse inclination of the woman, the com∣mixtion of seeds of divers kinds, sudden fear, bad diet, unwhol∣some air, and untimely Venus. But we must not think that these Centaurs were men, or parts of men; for they had not a reasonable soul, and therefore not capable of the resurrection. Neither must we think that these had two natures and essenti∣al forms in one body, to wit, of a Man and a Horse: for as e∣very entity hath but one specifical essence, so it hath but one form which giveth that essence; so that one and the same thing cannot be under divers species in the predicament of substance. And as there cannot be two distinct forms, so neither can there be a mixtion of them in the Centaur: For the form or essence admits neither intention nor admission: Ex duobus entibus per se, non fit unum ens per se; yet I deny that there were ever a generation of people called Centaurs, as they are described by the Poets; for by this fiction they

understood voluptuous and lascivious men, who by Hercules, that is, men of courage, wisdom, and strength, were subdued and brought to civility, as we have shewed elsewhere (in Myst. Poetico) which fiction was occasioned by the first sight of men on Horseback in Thessaly.

II. That some men have become speechlesse at the sight of a Wolf, is no fable, if either we consider the antipathy that is between a Man and a Wolf, or the malignity of that vapour which proceeds from the Wolf, or the violence of a sudden fear which presently bringeth obmutescency, as the Prince of Poets sheweth, (AEn. 2.) Obstupui steterunt{que} comae & vox faucibus haesit. Camerarius the Father (Prob 1. Dec. 7. medit. Histor. part. 2. Cent. 40.) sheweth in his Problems, (which is confirmed by Phi∣lip his son) that one who had caught a Wolf in a Gin, by com∣ming too neer him, was so poisoned by his breath, that his hands and face which were naked, did swell to a monstrous bigness: so that in a long time he could scarce be cured. And what wonder is it, that the sight of a Wolf should make a man speechlesse, when the shadow of the Hyena, will make a Dog dumb; when a Horse, if he smell but the foot-step or the guts of a Wolf, will kick and fling as if he were mad, and a Mare will cast her Colt, as they witness who write the Natures and Histo∣ries of beasts; therefore the Proverb, Lupus in fabula, vvas not grounded upon a fable. Dr. Brown then did unadvisedly reckon this among his vulgar errors▪ (3 Book c. 8.) for I believe he would find this no error, if he were suddenly surprised by a Wolf, ha∣ving no means to escape or save himself; and yet I do not hold that every one who is seen by a Wolf, is dumb, becaus some are of undaunted spirits, and some have the advantage of the Wolf, and some are not apt to be infected by his breath; yet it will not follow, that it is a vulgar error; if I hold a man grows si∣lent at the sight of a Wolf, or that he hath an infectious breath: For it is no vulgar error, to hold the plague an infectious disease, and yet all are not infected by it.

III. That there have been Pigmies in the world, that is, people of a cubit or two high, so called from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a cubit, and Troglodits from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an hole, for they dwelt in holes, as Aristo∣tle sheweth; and Spithamei from their small stature, scarce ex∣ceeding 2 foot and a quarter: I say, that there have been such, I make no question, when I consider the multitude of eminent Authours who have vvrit of them, and that no reason vvas e∣ver yet alledged to deny them. Nay, it stands vvith reason there should be such, that Gods wisdome might be seen in all

sorts of magnitudes: For if there have been Giants, why not also Pigmies, Nature being as propense to the least as to the greatest magnitude: Besides, the reasonable soul•• is not exten∣ded in the body of a Giant, nor contracted in the body of a Pigmi••; but can inform the one and the other without aug∣mentation and diminution. Nicephorus (lib. hist. Eccles. c. 37.) affirms, that in the time of Theodosius, was seen in Egypt a Pig∣mie so small of body, that he resembled a Partridg; he exer∣cised all the functions of a man, and could sing tunably. Pliny (lib. 7. c. 16.) speaks of Co••pas, whom Iulia the Neece of Au∣gustus kept still by her; he was not much above two foot long. He also affirms, that under Augustus there lived Pusio and Se∣cundilla, whose bodies were preserved as miraculous in a mo∣nument within the Salustian Garden; they were not much a∣bove half a foot. Card••n relates (de subtil.) that there was in Italy a Pigmie of a cubit long, kept in a Parrets Cage. Many more of these Pigmies I could alledg, but these shall suffice to shew there have been such. And that there have been a Na∣tion of Pigmies, Aristotle, Pliny, Pomponius, Mela, Aulus Gel∣lus, Solinus, Albertus magnus, and many others will witness. It is true that Strabo, Scaliger, and some others have denied them; and therefore Dr. Brown reckons the opinion concer∣ning Pigmies, among his Vulgar Errors: But if the incredulity of two or three Writers be enough to make a Vulgar Err••r, what a multitude of Errors will there be? For what truth is there in the world which by some or other hath not been doubted or denied? But they say, that the Assertors of this opinion, do not agree about the place of the Pigmies abode; some placing them in India, some in Ethiopia, some in Scythia, some in Greenland. I answer, Circumstantial differences can∣not overthrow the substance of a truth. Much difference there is about Ophir, where it stood, some placing it in Sumatra, or Aurea Chersinesus, some in Africa, some in Peru. So men cannot agree about Tharsis, some making it a Town in Cilicia, others Carthage in Africa, some Tartasius in Spain; shall we hence infer that there were never any such places? I am of opinion, that because they differ in the place of the Pigmies, and not in the thing it self, that there were Pigmies in all the forementi∣oned places. Buchanan speaking of the Isles of Scotland, a∣mongst the rest, sets down the Isle of Pigmies, in which there is a Church where are yet digged up divers small skuls and bones, answering to the report of the Pigmies little bodies; so that the inhabitants and neighbours make no question, but

that Pigmies of old dwelt there. Re••. Scot. l. 1. Now Aristotle is so confident of his Pigmies, that he plainly tels us it is no fiction, but a manifest truth, Hist. animal. l. 8. c. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And it is like that these Pigmies were all one with the Nabae or Nubae; a people that dwelt about the Springs of Nilus, and so they are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, both these people are said to dwell about the Springs of Nilus, both were Troglodits, or dwelt in holes. And Nonnesus in Photius is said to have lighted upon these Pigmies in his Navigation about those places where the Nubae dwelt. Neither is it a sufficient reason to denie Pigmies, because some ridiculous things are written of them, as that they fight with Cranes upon the backs of Rams, or Goats, though this be ri∣diculous, yet it may be true; for there are some ridiculous truths, and some serious lies. But if this were a fable, yet that there were Pigmies, may be a truth: there be many ficti∣ons made of Saturn, Iupiter, Ianus, and other Heathens, Like∣wise of S. Christopher, S. George, S. Francis, and many other Christians; shall we therefore conclude there were never a∣ny such men? Neither was Homer the first that makes menti∣on of Pigmies: for Ezechiel long before spake of them (Ezek. 27.11.) for the word Gammadim is translated Pigmies by A∣quila, Vatablus, Lyra, Arias Montanus, the vulgar Latin, and Munster, who affirms that all the Hebrews expound the word thus. Besides, the Italian and Spanish Translations use the word Pigmie, and do not retain the textuary word, as the Doctor thinks, though the French and English Translations do. Now why the Septuagints translated the word Gammadim into Watchmen, I know not, except they meant those three thousand Pigmies which a certain King of India did entertain for his Guard; for though they were small of stature, yet they were good Archers.

IV. That there have been Giants, that is, men of extraor∣dinary strength and stature, is not to be questioned, since they are mentioned in so many Stories often in the Scripture: For what were Og, Sampson, Goliah, and the Anakims, but Gi∣ants? It is written that Pallas, the Son of Evander, whom Turnus killed, was higher by the head then the Walls of Rome: For eight hundred years after Christ, his body was found near the Walls, which being set upon its feet, the shoulders thereof touched the Pinacles of the Wall. S. Augustine (de Civit. Dei, l. 15. c. 9.) saw a mans tooth bigger then his fist. Ios. Acosta (Hist. Ind. l. 7.) shewes there were Giants in new Spain:

For he saw, at Mexico, a tooth as big as a mans fist. About the Straights of Magellan there are Giants ten or eleven foot high. (Acost. l. 1. c. 9.) The bones of Giants found in Peru, are thrice as big as the Indians. Cambden tells us of two teeth sound in Essex, which would make two hundred of ours. And if you will believe Nunesius the Jesuit, (de rebus Iapan) the King of China was guarded with Giants, which are also the Porters of his chief City. I will say nothing of the Giants mentioned by Pliny, Plutarch, Herodotus, and others. Before the Flood there were greater store of them then since, because the vigour of the Sun, the fertility of the earth, the goodnesse of food, and the feed of generation did decay. But we must not think that Giants and Pigmies are Monsters, seeing they are not the errors of nature, which aimeth at their generation, ac∣cording to the proportion of seed, which admits of extensi∣on and remission: But if the quantity be such, that the functi∣ons of man are hindred, such may be called Monsters, as that young Giant at Millan, which Scaliger saw, (Exerc. 263.) which was so tall, that he could not stand, but lie along, extending his body the length of two beds joyned together. What the Greeks have feigned of the Giants, I have spoken elsewhere, Mystag. Poet.

V. That divers diseases are procured by fascination, that is, by a malignant look, or aspect, is manifest by innumerable te∣stimonies of good Authours. Now fascination is twofold, Di∣abolical and Physical, or Natural: Of the former I doe not speak, but of the latter, which causeth diseases, not by the look, or sight it self, which consisteth rather in reception with Aristotle, then in emission with Plato, (although I deny not some kind of emission there is), but I say, fascination causeth diseases three ways: First, when the horrid and truculent look of a malicious deformed Hag affrights children and tender na∣tures; upon which proceeds an agitation and sudden commoti∣on of the spirits and humours, whence ensueth diseases. Se∣condly, by some malignant vapour, breath, or spirit from the eye or mouth. Thirdly, by a secret antipathy: so there are who will swoun and sweat at the sight of certain meats which they abhor: And indeed sympathies and antipathies there are al∣most in every Simple which we receive for physick, as Ferneli∣us (de abdit. rer. caus. l. 2. shews:) hence it is, that some things purge onely the Spleen, some the Liver, some the Breast only. Hence also the Cantharides are offensive to the Bladder, Lepus marinus to the Lungs: But that History is strange which is re∣corded

by Francis Mendosa (lib. 4. de Flor. Philos. Problem. 11.) of the Duke of Brigantia's one-eyed servant, who with his eye could make any Falcon or Sparrow-Hawk in their ••light ••all down to the ground as if they were dead: this could not bee by any malignant vapour that did reach so high: it must bee therefore a strange antipathy, of which we can give no more reason, then why the Load-stone draws Iron, or draws it not when touched with Garlick. Why the stone Selenites, as Fer∣nelius shewes, touching the skin, should stay bleeding in any part of the body: or why the Ring in which it is set, being put on the third finger, stays the Dysentery within an howre: Why Rhubarb and Scamony purgeth choler; Epithemium, Po∣lypodium and Sena, melancholy; Agarick phlegme: and why Quick-silver delights so much in gold: Why the shadow of the Fraxinus or wilde-Ash is so pernicious to Serpents. Why there is such antipathies and sympathies among Hearbs & Trees. I know what I said but now (Book 2. c. 3.) of the Garlick in hindring the Load-stones attraction, is contradicted by Doctor Brown, and before him by Baptista Porta; yet I cannot believe that so many famous Writers who have affirmed this property of the garlick, could be deceived; therefore I think that they had some other kinde of Load-stone, then that which we have now. For Pliny and others make divers sorts of them, the best whereof is the Ethiopian. Though then in some Load-stones the attraction is not hindred by garlick, it follows not that it is hindred in none; and perhaps our garlick is not so vigorous, as that of the Ancients in hotter Countries; yet I finde, that not onely by garlick is this attraction hindred, but also by fire, rust, oyl, and other fat things, also by the presence of another Load-stone; and that as it draws the Steel with one end, so it repels it with the other. But to return to our Fascination, that it is caused by an occult quality, is plain, be∣cause it is cured by another occult quality: For Mendosa (Prob. 11.) sheweth, that it is known by experience how Fascination is cured by the foot of a Mole or Wont laid to the childes forehead, which can be nothing else but a natural antipathy: and that Fascination is caused by a contagious breath infecting the aire, is plain, by the story of the Basilisk killing with his look or breath rather, at a distance. There is also a Fascina∣tion by words, which the Poet mentions, Ecl. 11.

Qui ne ultra placitum laudarit, Bac••••are frontem Cingite, ne vati noceat mala lingua futuro.

We know there is great efficacy in words to move the affecti∣ons, upon which the spirits and humours of the body are di∣sturbed, which causeth oftentimes diseases.

CHAP. IV.

1. Strange stones bred in mens bodies. 2. Children nourished by Wolves and other Beasts. 3. Poison taken without hurt. Poison eaters may infect, how. How Grapes and other Plants may bee poisoned. 4. Of strange Mola's. Bears by lieking, form their Cubs, the Plastick faculty still working.

THERE is nothing more strange in mans body, then the generation of stones, whereof there be so many and di∣versly shaped▪ in the joints stones are bred by the gout, called therefore Lapidosa Chiragra; stones are bred ordinarily in the kidneys and bladder, of slimy matter by the heat of these parts; some are ingendred in the Liver and Spleen; some also in the heart. Hollerius speaks (Com. 1. in lib. 6. Sect. 2. Aphor. 4.) of a woman which died of an imposthume in the heart, where∣in were found two stones; in the heart of Maximilian the se∣cond Emperour, were found three stones, which afflicted him very much, with a trembling of the heart, as Wyerus witnesses, (l. 4. c. 16.) In the intestins also sometimes stones have beene found. Zacutus speaks (lib. 3. de prax. ad obs. 124.) of a young man disordered in his diet, who used to void by the seed di∣vers stones, and at last died of a stone that was found in his Colon, in form like a Chesnut, and as big; this could not bee voided whilest the party lived, neither by Glysters nor Purges, nor any other physick: some have thought that these stones in the intestins are hardned by cold, which cannot be; for though intense cold doth harden as well as heat, which we may see in frosts hardning water and dirt, & in the generation of chry∣stal: and though we should yeild to Galen, that the intestins being membranous and spermatical parts are colder then the sanguineal, yet we cannot yeild that in a living body, there is actual cold; for all parts are hot, yet some more, some lesse; therefore these stones are not ingendred by cold, but by a pre∣••ernatural heat in the body. The same Zacutus (Obs. 135. l. 3.) speaks of a strange stone found in a mans bladder; it was round like a Ball, but had issuing from it divers pyramids, and be∣tween each of them a sharp prickle like a needle, (l. 1. Obs. 96.)

I have read of some who with coughing have voided stone•• out of their Lungs. One (l. ••. Obs. 95.) by coughing voided a stone out of his Lungs, hard and long like a Date stone, so heavy that it weighed almost twenty one grains: But no stone so much to be admired was ever known, as that which was found in the matrix of a dead mother, of which we spake before, to wit, a dead childe that had continued there twenty eight years, and was turned to a stone.

II. That some children have been nourished by wild beasts, many histories do assure us: Plutarch, Cicero, and others tell us of Romulus and Remus, who were nourished by a shee Wolf. Iustin assures us, that Cyrus suckt the duggs of a Bitch. Pau∣sanias in his Corinthiacks, writes, that AEsculapius was educated by a Hinde. AElian in his various Histories, speaks of a Bear which gave suck to Atalanta, being exposed; of a Mare that nursed Pelias; of a she-goat whose duggs AEgystus sucked; and of Telephus that sucked a Hinde. Divers others I could alledg, but these are sufficient to let us see the cruelty of some parents, and the kindnesse of some beasts far more merciful then man. Besides, the special care and providence of God towards tender and impotent infants: Yet I know Livy contradicts the story of the Wolf, that nursed Romulus, and so doth Dr. Brown, ha∣ving no other inducement but that of Livies authority, where∣as the other Historians and Monuments of Rome affirm it. Be∣sides, it is no more incredible for a Wolf to nurse a child, then for a Raven every day to feed Elijah. But besides ancient sto∣ries, there be divers late Records of some children who have been nourished by Wolvs within these few years in our neigh∣bour Countries. In the Lantgrave of Hesse his Countrey, was found a Boy who had been lost by his parents when he was a childe, who was bred among Wolves, and ran up and down with them upon all four for his prey. This Boy was at last in Hunting taken and brought to the Landgrave, who much wondring at the sight, caused him to be bred among his ser∣vants, who in time left his Wolvish conditions, learned to walk upright like a man, and to speak, who confessed, that the Wolves bred him, and taught him to hunt for prey with them. This story is rehearsed by Dresserus in his Book of new and ancient Discipline, Hist. Med. part. 1. c. 75. The like story hath Camerarius of two children, which had been bred among Wolves, and taken in the year 1544. I have read of a man bred among Wolves, and presented to Charls the ninth of France. And a strange story is extant, written by Lewis Guyon

Sieur de la Nauche, (l. 2. Divers. Lection. c. 34.) of a childe that was carried away in the Forest of Ardenne by Wolves, and nou∣rished by them. This child having conversed with them divers years, was at last apprehended, but could neither speak nor walk upright, nor cat any thing except raw flesh, till by a new education among other children, his bestial nature was quite abolished. We see then it is not incredible for children to be nursed by Wolves; of which perhaps the old Irish were not ignorant, when they prayed for Wolves, used them kindly, as if they had been their own sons, as wee may read in Cambden (Hist. Hiber.) out of Goade.

III. That some can take poison without hurt, is plain by the story of Mithridates, who could not be poisoned.

Profecit poto Mithridates saepe veneno, Toxica nè possint saeva nocere sibi.

This story is confirmed by Pliny, Gellius, Caelius, and others. There is a story of the King of Cambaia's son, who by con∣stant eating of poison, he had so invenomed his body, that the Flies which suckt his blood swelled and died. Solinus speaks of a people called Ophyophagi, because they fed on serpents. Avicenna speaks of one in his time, whose body was so veno∣mous, that whatsoever touched it died. I have read also in Aristotle, of a Maid who was nourished with poison. The like story is mentioned by Avicen. Alb. Magnus speaks of a Maid who delighted to eat Spiders. S. Augustine (de morib. Mon. S. 2. c. 8.) speaks of a woman who drank poison without hurt. Many other examples there may be alledged; but these may suffice to let us see, that either by Art or by Nature mens con∣stitutions may be fortified against the malignity of poison, as well as other animals which feed upon poison, as Vipers do upon Scorpions, Stares on Hemplock, Ducks on Toads, Quails on Hellebor, Poultry and Monkies on Spiders. Not to speak of miraculous power, by which many Martyrs have been pre∣served from poison, as was foretold in S. Mark ch. 16. If they drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them. Besides, mens complexions according to their ages doe vary, so that what hath been poisonable at one time, is not at another. Thus some that could not abide cheese in their youth, have eaten it in their age: We see also how custome becomes another na∣ture: for hot Climats to Northern men at first, prove pernici∣ous, but afterward by custome become familiar and natural: Therefore Dr. Brown (Book 7. c. 17) hath no reason to reiect that story of the Indian King, that sent unto Alexander a fair wo∣man

fed with poison, purposely to destroy him by breath or copulation; because saith he, that poisons after carnal conver∣sion, are so refracted, as not to make good their first and de∣structive malignity. I answer, They are not so refracted, but that they leave behind them in the flesh, a venomous impressi∣on and quality: For if the ordinary food we take, is not so mastered by the stomach, but that by way of reaction (••or omne agens naturale in agendo repatitur) it alters the body; much more must poisons, which are more active. Hence hot bodies are cooled by Lettice, Sorrel, and other refrigerating meats; and cool bodies are heated by the frequent use of Spices and Wines, and other heating viands: we see that neither our sto∣mach nor liver, can so master and re••ract garlick, onions, radishes, and divers other things we feed on, but that the u∣rine will retain the smell thereof. The flesh of the Thrush, that feeds on Juniper berries, retains the re••ish thereof: The milk of the beast that feeds on Hellebor or Scammony, will purge the body. If an infectious breath or smell, can de∣stroy another body; why may not the same bee effected by those who are accustomed to eat poison? Galen tells us, (l. II. Simpl.) that by long use the ••lesh may be infected by aliments. And Capivaccius affirms, that they are in danger to be poisoned, who touch the dead bodies of those who have been poisoned. Therefore Plato reports, l. de veneno in Phae∣dra) that their bodies who were condemned to die by poison, were washed before they drank the poison, not after, left the Washers might be infected. Cardan (Se Subtil. l. 9••) tells us, that though all vipers be poisonable, yet those are more veno∣mous which feed on Toads: And which is more strange, Si∣mon Gennensis assures us, that Grapes will become poisonable, if whilest the Vine is inoculating and graffing, poison be put in it; and the Wine will prove laxative, if Scammony be in∣serted in the Vine; which also Reynaldus de villa nova, proves may be effected in other plants. Lastly, that which is poison in one Countrey, is not poison being transported into ano∣ther Climat, as it is known of the Peach, which in Persia is venomous, but being transplanted, loseth the deletorious quality.

IV. Levinus Lemnius tells us, that the Belgick women are much subject to false conceptions, (l. 1. de occultis mir. c. 8.) chiefly that which is called Mola; being as Laurentius writes, (Anato. l. 8.) a [sleshy infirm lump witho••t motion, begot in the matrix of the woman, of imperfect seed.] These are most subject

to those conceptions, who are most addicted to disordered copulation, not regarding the manner, time, or measure there∣of. Nature indeed aiming at the eternity and propagation of the species, begins to elaborate a childe; but being hindred by the abundance, weaknesse, and other vitiosities of the seed, and menstruous blood, besides the ill disposition of the ma∣trix, is forced to leave the work imperfect. Hence this lump remains inarticulate, and sometimes is cast our the ninth moneth, sometimes sooner, and in some it remains three or four years: in some it is bred without the help of man, only by the strength of imagination, and mixture of the female seed with the blood. But this is denied by Laurentius, who al∣so affirms the Mola to be without motion, which Zacuta con∣tradicts (Prax. Mir. l. 2. Obs. 144. & 140. & 147.) For hee speaks of one which being put into a vessel of water, moved it self like an Hedgehog, and lived two days. It was big∣ger then a mans head, and so hard, that scarce could a knife cut it. In the midst of it were three eyes, beset round with long black hairs. He speaks of another which being cut, was like an Onion, full of tunicles or menibrans within one ano∣ther. He writes also of a woman who in the space of fifteen days was delivered of 152 small Mola's, or ••••eshy lumps. Now it is observable, that no creature is subject to this fa••se concep∣tion but women, partly because of sin, partly by reason of their humid constitutions, idlenesse, and moist food: Yet we read that Bears cast forth their cubs unshapen and unformed, which afterward they form by licking them. Dr. Brown (3. Book c. 6) placeth this among his Vulgar Errors: I conf••sse in his Book he shews much reading and learning, yet he might have spared many of those which he calls Errors, and not fa∣sten upon those ancient Sages from whom we have our know∣ledge, more Errors then they were guilty of. For this and many more which he calls Errors, being brought to the Test, will be found Truths: But he is not guilty of this fault a∣lone; some have shewed the way before him. It is then most certain, that the Bears send forth their young ones deformed and unshaped to the sight, by reason of the thick membran in which they are wrapt, which also is covered over with so mucous and flegmatick matter, which the Dam contracts in the Winter time, lying in hollow caves without motion, that to the eye it looks like an unformed lump. This mucosity is licked away by the Dam, and the membran broken, and so that which before seemed to be informed, appears now in its

right shape. This is all that the Ancients meant, as appears by Aristotle (Animal. l. 6. c. 31.) who says, that in some manner, the young Bear is for a while rude, and without shape. Now upon this to infer, that the Ancients meant the young Bears were not at all formed or articulated, till they be licked by their Dams, is ridiculous: For who will say those wise men were so ignorant, as to think the outward action of the tongue could perform that which could not be effected by the plastick and formative power in the matrix? Doubtlesse the Ancients were no lesse curious in searching into the natures of things, then we are at this day; but if I should yeild that the cub is not perfectly articulated or formed, till it be excluded, no Er∣ror will arise hence; for the plastick faculty which hath its original f••om the sperm, ceaseth not to operate after the ge∣neration of the young animal, but continueth working so long as it lives: For what else is nutrition but a continual genera∣tion of the lost substance, though not in whole, yet in part, and consequently it introduceth still a new form by changing the aliment into flesh. As the same Mason can build an house and repair it when decayed: so can the same plastick faculty produce the animal by generation, and repair it by nutrition. I confesse it is not called the Plastick, but Omoiastick, or assi∣milating faculty in nutrition, yet it is the same still, though under different names: nay, it doth not cease to produce those parts after generation out of the matrix, which it could not doe within it; as may be seen in the production of teeth in children, even in the seventh year of their age, which can be nothing else but the effect of the formative faculty. We see also how new flesh is generated in wounds; not to speak of the nails and hairs which are produced by the same faculty, not be∣ing properly parts. Besides, the faculty cannot perish so long as the soul is in the body, being an essential property which cannot be separated from the soul. Moreover, we see in some creatures, that this faculty doth not work at all in the matrix, but without: For the Chick is not formed of the Egg whilest it is within the Hen, but when it is excluded. Hence then it appears, that if the Ancients had held the young Bears to bee ejected without form, which afterward they received by the Plastick faculty, had been no Error: and though some young Bears have been found perfectly formed in the womb of the Dam, it is a question whether all be formed and shaped so.

CHAP. V.

1 Divers priviledges of Eunuchs: The Fibers Testicles. 2. Di∣versities of Aliments and Medicaments, the vertu•• of Peaches, Mandrakes, the nature of our aliments. 3. A strange story of a ••ick Maid discussed, and of strange vomitings, and Monsters, and Imaginations. 4. Men long lived; the Deers long life as∣serted. 5. That old men may become young again, proved.

THE Testicles were made for propagation of the Species, not for conservation of the Individuum: for Eunuchs, or such as are emasculate, have divers priviledges which others want: First, they are longer lived, because they have more radical moisture, which is not wasted by Venery: Secondly, they have taller bodies for the same reason: Thirdly, they are not troubled with so much hair, because they have not much siccity; and consequently not so much heat, which begets sic∣city. Fourthly, they are not subject to baldnesse, because their brain is not dried with Venery as others. Fifthly, they are not afflicted with the Gout, which is the daughter of Ve∣nus, who begets crude humours, weaknesse of joints, and of them the Gout: But Capons are more gouty then Cocks, be∣cause they have lesse heat, and are more voracious, saith Scati∣ger. Sixthly, they are fitter for spiritual exercises; therefore some, saith Christ, have made themselves Eunuchs for the king∣dom of Heaven; which words were mis-construed by Origen, such as emasculated themselves, against whom are both the Ca∣non and Civil Laws. Seventhly, they are fitter to be Coun∣cellors and Chamberlains to Princes; for they are wise, there∣fore Eunuchs is as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Scaliger hath it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; because they had care of the Princes bed-chamber. Eightly, the flesh of castrated animals is more delicate, because there is in them more benigne juice, neither is their flesh infe∣cted with the ungrateful and rankish relish of the Testicles. Ninthly, but the greatest priviledge of all is, that they are not infected with the venomous vapours of that cave neer Alepo or Hierapolis, which as Dio sheweth in the place of Trajan, poi∣sons all creatures except Eunuchs. Scaliger gives no reason of this, nor can I, but that it is a secret in nature, or else because the Eunuchs bodies have very few bad humours, are the lesse apt to be infected with ill vapours. Tenthly, that as among men, so among beasts, there be some which castrate themselvs;

such is the Fib••r, called Castor á castrand••, and the Pontick Dog, for th••re be store of them, who makes himself an Eu∣nuch, saith Iuvenal.

Dr. Brown, (sect. 12.) checks the Ancients for this opinion, but without cause; for all agree, that they bite off the two bags, or bladders, which hang from the groin in the same place where the Testicles of most animals are. If these bee the true Testicles or not, is doubted•• b••cause there is no pas∣sage from them to the yard, and that the true Testicles are less, and l••e inwards towards the back. However, this can bee no Error, because they are a kinde of Testicles, both in form and situation, and so they are called Testicles by Dióscorides, and the best Physitians: if then this be an error, it is nomi∣nal, not real.

II. As our bodies are still decaying, and subject to many infirmities, so God hath provided for us all sorts of remedies, partly, by aliments, partly, by medicaments, some whereof are hot, some cold, some moist, some dry, some restringent, some la••ative, some diuretick, some hypnotick, some sp••rmatick, some increasing or diminishing the ••oure humours of our bodies, blood, choler, flegme, and melancholy.

Now those aliments are called Spermatick, which either in∣crease blood, for of this the Sperm is begot, or which con∣vey the Spermatick matter to the Seminal vessels; or which adde vigour to the languishing Seminall Spirits; such are sharp, biting, salt, aromatick and ••••atulent meats: or lastly, such as cause secundity, by bringing the matrix and Seminall parts to a temperature by their contrary quality: So cooling things correct the heat, and hot things the coldnesse of those parts: among such the Mandrakes are to be rec••••••ed, called by Plutarch, Anthropomorphoi, and Semihomines by Colu••ella, be∣cause the forked root represents the lower parts of man, the upper parts are commonly carved out by circumforaneous Medacasters. These Mandrakes are of a narcotick quality; therefore a dull, heavy, or melancholick man of old was said proverbially to have eaten Mandrakes: These procure secun∣dity by correcting the hot matrix with their frigidity.

Now if we say, that Rachel finding her barrenne••••e to pro∣ceed from excessive heat, did cove•• these Mandrakes to cool 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and make her ••r••itful, this can neither be thought immo∣desty in her, nor an error in us to think so, seeing the best and most Interpreters are of this opinion, and the Text seems to intimate so much.

Dr. Browns reasons are not sufficient to prove this a vulgar er∣ror, (Book 7. c. 7.) For, 1. Though our Mandrakes have not so pleasant a smell as those of Iudea, it will not follow they are not the same; for plants according to the climat alter their qualities; and yet Lemnius saith, they have a pleasant smell in Belgium. 2. Nor will it follow, that Dudaim is not Mandrakes, [because it is by the Chaldee Paraphrast interpreted in the Can∣ticles, Balsam] for all Interpreters upon Genesis, expound the word Mandrakes. Nor 3▪ Is that sequel good [the Man∣drakes did not make Rachel fruitful in three years after, there∣fore they did her no good at all in way of secu••dity] for the best Physick doth not produce the wished effect always in a short space; sometimes the contumacy of the disease, somtimes the mis application, sometimes the difusing of the remedy, somtimes bad diet, besides other things, may hinder the operation. Nor 4. Is this consequence valid [Many Sim∣ples in Scripture are differently interpret••d, Ergo, the word Dudaim may not signifie Mandrakes.] I answer, they may signifie as wel as they may not; nay, they do signifie Mandrakes, as both the Hebrew, Greek, Latine, Italian, Spanish, French, English, and other Texts have it, besides the general consent of Ex∣positors upon that place, except the Genevans, who would seem to be singular in this, and therefore will have the word Dudaim to signifie any lovely or delightful fruit; but then it may signifie Mandrakes, which are every way lovely both in smell and colour; and lovely they are in that they procure love; for they have been used for Philters: And what a weak reason is this, Dudaim signifieth any pleasant fruit, therefore it is a doubt, whether it signifieth Mandrakes? As if wee should say, Pomum signifies any kind of fruits, therefore it may be doubted, whether it signifieth an Apple. To be brief▪ I would know, whether it be a greater error in me to affirm that which is doubted by some, or in him to deny that which is affirmed by all.

But to return to our aliments, there are in them two things strange; first, that they are opposite to our natures, both pri∣vately, in that they have not our form; and positively, in that they have a contrary form; as we see in marrow, which is the aliment of the bones, the one being soft and moist, the other hard and dry; and if it were not so, there could be no action: But this is to be understood before assimilation; for afterward the same becomes both our aliment in repairing what is lost, and a part of our bodies in assuming the form

of our substance, which is no lesse strange then the other.

III. Zacuta (de Prax. mir, l. 3. Obs. 139.) reports a strange story of a Maid which fell into convulsion fits, upon the pricking of her Image by Witches, and their whispering of some magick words to it; the Physitians were sent for; they supposing these fits to proceed from some malignant vapour or humour in the Matrix, gave her physick, which made her worse then before; hereupon they left her, concluding that she was bewitched. Afterward she fell to vomiting of black stuffe mingled with hairs, thorns, and pins, and a lump like an egge, which being cut, was full of Emmets, which stunk horribly: at last, she vomited out a black hairy creature, as big as ones fist, with a long tail, and in shape like a Rat, which ran up and down the room a while, and then died. Upon this a Wizard is called, who by whispering some words in the maids ear, and by shaving of her head, on which she put a piece of white paper, having these two letters written on it, T.M. did withal lay on her head an As••es hoof half burned, and so the Maid recovered.

I observe here, 1. That there might be much ••uggling in this business; for there is no relation or sympathy in nature between a man and his effigies, that upon the pricking of the one, the other should grow sick, no more then there is be∣tween the sword and the wound, that the dressing of the one should be the curing of the other. This is a fancy without ground, and yet believed by som whose faith is too prodigall. I think rather that after the Maid fell sick, these Jugglers made her Image, and then pricked it, so that the wounding of the Image did not make the maid sick, but her sicknesse made both the Image and the wounds therein.

2. This vomiting also might be an illusion; for I have seen in Holland the like forgery: It was given out that a maid in Leyden did vomit buttons, pins, hairs, peblestones, and such stuffe; and I went and saw the materials; but it was found out that the parents had first made her swallow these things in meat, and then presently forced her to vomit all up a∣gain.

3. These convulsions and vomited stuffe might be meerly na∣tural, without any Witchcraft; for we have seen what strange sorts of vermin are bred in mans body, and voided by pur∣ging, vomiting, and boils; what unshapen and monstrous crea∣tures have been produced by some women.

Parry tells us (l. 25. de monstris) of a Monster with an horn

on his head, two wings, a childes face, one foot onely like a birds leg, with one eye on the knee, born at Ravenna 1512. Lemnius speaks of a woman that was his patient, (l. 1. de mir. c. 8.) who first was delivered of an unshapen masse of flesh, having on both sides two hands like a childs arms; and short∣ly after there fell from her a Monster with a crooked snout, a long neck, fiery eyes, a sharp tail, and mans feet, which ran up and down the room, making an horrible schrieching till it was killed by the women.

I could speak of that German childe, in whose head grew a golden tooth, and of many other strange effects of nature; but these may suffice to let us see all is not Witchcraft which is so called.

4. This imaginary cure of the Wizard was effected after the humours were spent, and the malignity of this disease gone; at that time a piece of paper, or a straw, may do•• more then all the sons of AEsculapius; but had the Wizard used this spell in the beginning of the disease, it had done the maid no good at all: when nature hath mastered a disease, that which is last applied, be it but a chip, carrieth away the honour of the remedy.

5. The maids imagination might be a great help towards her recovery, the force whereof is powerful both for curing and procuring of diseases. Montague in his Essays (l. 1. ca. 21.) tells us of one with whom the Clyster pipe applied to the fundament, would work as well as if he had taken the Clyster it self: And he speaks of a woman, who imagining she had swallowed a pin, as she was eating a piece of bread, cried out of a great pain in her throat, and a pricking, when there was no such thing but her own imagination, nor could shee have any rest, till she had vomited up all in her stomach; then sear∣ching the bason, she found a pin, which the Physitian had con∣veyed ••hither; and so the same conceit that brought the pin, removed it.

IV. In some Regions men live longer then in others, because the aire is more temperate, the influence of the stars more be∣nigne, and the food wholesomer, by which the radical moi∣sture and natural heat are longer preserved. In the Torrid and Frigid Zones men are short lived, because the natural heat of the body is drawn out by the ambient heat of the one, and extinguished by the cold of the other: but this is where the heat and cold are in the excesse.

So likewise in the same Region we finde some men longer

lived then others, because they abound more in radical moi∣sture and natural heat then others; besides, temperance in diet, exercise and passions are great helps for prolonging of life.

In Orkney, Sh••tland, Norway, and other Septentrional places, men live till they be six or sevenscore years of age. And Le∣rius (in Navigat. Brasil) shews, that in Brasil, which is a hot countrey, some doe attain six score years without gray hairs. Pliny l. 7. c. 49.) speaks of divers in Vespasians time in Italy, of 120, 130, 140, 150 years old: and it stands with reason, that man should not be shorter lived th••n other animals, being of a more excellent temper then they, having also dominion over them, and being made for a more excellent end, to wit, con∣templation, wisdome, knowledge, for the finding out of Arts, and Sciences: Therefore God permitted the Patriarchs be∣fore the Flood to live so long as they did.

Now we finde, that divers beasts lived beyond an hundred years; AElian, Pliny, and others affirm, that Elephants live two hundred years: Deer exceed an hundred years, as Pliny shews by those Staggs that were found with Brasse collars a∣bout their necks, which Alexander had put on an hundred years before.

This story is rejected by Dr. Brown, (Book 3. ca. 9.) upon w••ak grounds: 1. [Because Deer attain to their full growth at six years, therefore their state and declination which ought to be proportionable to the growth, cannot be of long conti∣nuance. 2. Their immoderate salacity in the Moneth of Sep∣t••mber. And 3. Their losse of teeth between twenty and thir∣ty, which is a•• infalible mark of old age.]

These are feeble reasons to deny an ancient story, or mat∣ter of fact: For, 1. Nature doth not observe that ima∣ginary proportion between the growth and decay of things; for some tame birds which attain•• their full growth in three or four months, have lived twenty years after: and men, who have their full growth at 25 years, have lived two or three hundred years. 2. Salacity for one moneth in the year, cannot argue a short life, as it doth in Sparrows, who are salacious every houre; ••ay, almost every minute: For Sca∣liger observed a Cock-Sparrow tread the Hen ten times in a few minutes. 3. Nor is the losse of teeth an argument of short life; for many after this losse have lived 60 or 70 years. And it is observed by Scaliger, that the drinking of cold wa∣ter, which is an enemy to the nerves, causeth the falling away

of the teeth: therefore I will content my self with the report of Pliny concerning the Deers age, till I have better reasons then these.

V. It may be questioned, whether old men may becom young again▪ and I am of opinion they may: not that the years past can be revoked, or that which is done, undone; for Evanders prayer in the Poet was in vain:

O mihi praeteritos referat si Iupiter annos.

But that the decayed nature may be so renewed and repai∣red, as an old man may perform the functions of a young man, and may say with Tully, Nihil habeo quod accusem senectutem me∣am. This the Poets expr••sse under the fiction of ••acchus his Nurses, and of old AEson made young again by Medea. It stands also with reason: For,

1. Serpents by casting off their old skins, renew their youth and vigour; and Stags do the like by eating Serpents, Langue∣scunt in juventutem, Tertul. de Pa••••••o. Why then may not man be renewed?

2. Every fit of sicknesse is like old a••e: men in a long A∣gue differ nothing from the most d••crepid and aged persons that are: But being recovered, they obtain a youthful vigour and agility.

3. The radical moisture when it is much decayed, either by famine or sicknesse, may be again repaired, and consequently the youthful v••g••ur of the body.

4. Dav••d saith, (Psalm 103.5) that his youth is renewed like the Eagles. Now the Eagl••s, as Saint Austin observes on that place, when with age the upper Bill is so over-grown, that they cann••t feed, they u••e by ••ea••ing their Bill against a rock, to break off the excrescence, and so by feeding recover their strength and youth again.

5. For this end God created the Tree of Life in Paradise, that when mans radical moisture fails, it might be repaired a∣gain, and his youth be renewed by eating thereof.

6. Divers examples we have of this renovation. Del Rio (de Mag. l. 2.) sheweth out of Torquenda, that in the yeare 1511, was an old man at Tarentum of an hundred years old, who having lost his strength, hairs, nails, and colour of his skin, recovered all again, and became so young, and lusty, that he lived fifty years after: Another example he brings of a Castilian, who suffered the same change; and of an old Ab∣batesse in Valentia, who being decrepid, suddenly became yong, her monethly courses returned, her rugged skin grew smooth,

her gray hairs became black, and new teeth in her head.

Massaeus in his Indian History, (lib. 1.) speaks of a certain Indian Prince, who lived 340 years, in which space his youth was three times renewed. Besides Cardan, Langius in his E∣pistles, (Epist. med. 79.) speaks of a Well in an Island cal∣led Bonica, the waters of which being drunk, makes old men become young.

Ambrose Parry, (l. 24, 17.) speaks of a woman who being 80 years old, lost her hair and teeth, which grew again. I have read of divers women whose intermitted courses have flowed when they were 70, 80, 90, 100 years old.

CHAP. VI.

1. Of many new diseases, and causes thereof. 2. Different colours in our bodies: the causes of the Ethiopian blackness. 3. The true Vnicorn with his horn and vertues asserted. 4. Some born blind and dumb, recovered: A strange Vniversal Fever: A strange Fish, and strength of Imagination.

THAT in all Ages some new diseases have invaded mens bodies, may appear by these testimonies: Thycides (l. 2. de Bel. Pelopon.) speaks of a new pestilence in Athens never heard of there before.

Agitharchidas (de mari rubro) writes of the inhabitants about the red Sea, in whose flesh vermin was bred like little dragons, which consumed their flesh; sometimes they would thrust out their heads, and being touched, pull ••hem back again: they made great inflammations in the musculous parts: This mis∣chief was never heard of before; one amongst them being troubled with a Dysury, voided at last a stalk of Barly: At A∣thens a youth with his urine voided a little beast with many feet.

Pliny tells us, that the Mentagra, or Tetter of the Chin and Face, was not known in Rome till the time of Tiberius: The Carbuncle came to Rome in the Censorship of L. Paulus, and I. Marius: The Leprosie called Elephantiasis, appea••ed first in Italy in the time of Pompey; He speaks also of other disea∣ses, which not long before his time sprung up in Italy: A kind of Fever, called Coqueluche, by the French, invaded their

country, anno 1510. England was plagued with a new sweating sicknesse, anno 1529▪ The French malady appeared first at Naples, anno 1492. The Scorbutus is but a new disease in those parts. Many strange kinds of vermin have been bred in mens bodies in this last Age, not known before in this part of the world: Of these and many more new diseases Fernelius, Fra∣costorius, Sebizius, and others do write.

Now it is no wonder, that there are new diseases, seeing there are new sins. 2. New sorts of foods and gluttony de∣vised. 3. New influences of the Stars. 4. New Earthquakes and pestiferous exhalations out of the Earth. 5. New tem∣peraments of mens bodies. 6: Infections of waters, malig∣nant meteors, and divers other causes may be alledged for new diseases; but none more prevalent then the food which is converted into our substance: therefore in eating and drinking, wee should regard the quantity, quality, and sea∣sons.

II. It is strange to consider the diversitie of colours caused in the same Individual body of man by the same heat; the chy∣lus, milk, sperm, and bones, are white; the blood and liver red; the choler yellow; the melancholy green, the spleen blew, a part of the eye black, the hairs of divers colours, and yet none blew or green. And as strange it is, that in some the skin is tauny, in others white, and in others black, all which is effected by one and the same Sun, which as it produ∣ceth all things by its heat, so it giveth colour to all things; for what giveth the essence, giveth also the consequences; yet Dr. Brown (Book 6. c. 10.) will not have the Sun to be the caus of the Negro's blacknesse, 1. [Because the people on the South-side of the River Senaga, are black, on the other only tauny. 2. Other animals retain their own colours in that clime. 3. In Asia and America, men are not so black.] I answer, that it will not follow, that the Sun is not the cause of blacknesse; for he doth work upon each Subject according as it is disposed to receive his impression, and accordingly pro∣duceth diversity of colours. Hence in the same hot climat men are black, Parrets and leaves of trees are green, the Em∣mets as some report, are white, the Gold is yellow▪ and every thing there hath its own peculiar colour, and yet all are pro∣duced by the same Sun; nay, the same man that hath a black skin, hath white teeth; the same Sun at the same time in the same Garden, doth cloath the Lily in white, the Rose and Cherry in red, and divers fruits in black: it is observed, that

the Sun whiteneth those things which are inclined to be hard, and blackneth soft things; so he makes the Ethiopians teeth white, the skin black; he makes the green corn turn white and hard with his heat, and at the same time makes the plumb black and soft; women that blanch or whiten their linnen in the Sun, know that he can ••an their skins, but whiten their cloth.

••gain, the air may be more temperate, and greater store of refreshing windes and exhalations on the one side of the river Niger, then on the other, and so the Suns operation may bee hindred, which is the cause that in America and Asia, under the same parallel, men are not so black as in Africk, where there is more heat and greater drought: For it wants those fresh Winds, and great Lakes and Rivers which are in Asia and America. The Suns heat then is the cause of blacknesse in such as are capable of it, whether the clime be torrid or frigid. Hence in cold countries we finde black crowes, and in hot white Swans. Besides, this narration is suspicious; for on both sides of the River men have been se••n equally black; and there be some in Asia as black as in Affrica. He objects again, [That Nigro's transplanted into cold countries, continue their hue, therefore the Sun is not the sole cause of this blacknesse.] Ans. The question is not if the Sun be the sole cause, but whe∣ther a cause at all; which the Doctor in his former objections seemed to deny. 2. I say, that the Sun is the sole primary cause; if there be any other causes, they are sec••ndary and subordinate to the Suns heat and influence. 3. Hee may as well infer, the Sun is not the cause of greenn••sse in leaves, grasse, or plants in the Torrid Zone, because these being trans∣planted into cold climats, retain their hues, [Book 6. c. 12] And indeed he seems to make the spirit of Salt peter in the Earth the cause of viridity, because [in a glasse these spirits project orient greens.] I should like his reasons well, if the verdure of the plant were not more real then that of Salt-peter in the glasse; but what will he say to that Earth where is no Salt-peter at all, and yet the ••earbs are green? Or is there Salt-peter in a glasse of pure water, where I have seen green leaves bud out of the stem of an hearb. Besides, I finde urine out of which Salt-peter is made, to spoil the greennesse of the hearbs. 4. If the impression of black, which the Sun cau∣seth in a hot clime, must alter in a cold, then may the other qualities also which the Sun by his heat procureth, be lost in a cold countrey; and so what is hard in Ethiopia, must bee

soft in England, and the heat of Indian spices must here grow cold. He objects again, [that there are Negroes under the Southern Tropick, and beyond which are colder countries.] I answer, that these Negroes were colonies out of hotter coun∣tries, and not Aborigines or Natives at first: And he confes∣seth there be Plantations of Negroes in Asia, all which retain their original blacknesse. Lastly, he objecteth, [That in the parts where the Negroes possesse, there be rivers to moisten the air; and in Lybia there are such dry and sandy desarts, as there is no water at all, but what is brought on camels backs; and yet there are no Negroes; therefore drinesse cannot cause blacknesse.] I answer, 1. It cannot be proved, that the Ne•• groes who dwell neere rivers, had their originall there. 2. Though there may be some moist exhalations, yet it seems they are not so abundant as to qualifie the Suns heat. 3. Though the desarts of Lybia be dry, yet they are not so hot as under the Line: It is the excesse of heat and siccity together, that cau∣seth blacknesse, and not one of these alone. 4. We see men grow tauny here by conversing much in the Sun; And further South more tauny, and still as the heat increases, the degrees of blacknesse increase also: to deny this, were to deny our senses; and we see dead bodies hung in the Sun, grow black; the same would befall to living bodies, if they continued still in the Sun, yet not in so short a time, because the continuall generation of moisture, and the supply of the decayed parts would make some resistance; yet Pausanias tells us, that the Lybian vipers are black by the Suns heat; therefore saith Car∣dan, there is no more reason why men should be black there then vipers, l. 10. de subtil.

III. Mens bodies are obnoxious to many dangers, by rea∣son of the many sorts of poisons in the world, some killing by occult, some by manifest qualities; but God out of his goodnesse to mankind, hath ordained as many remedies and antido••es as there be poisons, whereby their malignity is either prevented expelled: Among all these Antidotes, there is none more wonderful then the Un••corns horn, which hath been so much questioned and doubted by divers Writers, some deny∣ing the existence of the Unicorn as it is ordinarily painted & described; Others denying that there is any such horn, and some disallowing the vertues thereof; among whom is Doctor Brown (Book 3. c. 23.) in his Vulgar Errors: But that there are Beasts with one Horn in the Indies, as Bulls, Asses, Horses, &c. I think none will deny. 2. The Vnicorn or Mon••ceros, is not

the same with Rhinoceros or Naricorn: for this is of an Elephan∣tine bignesse, vvith short legs, vvhose bodie is covered vvith shels, the Elephants enemy, which he overcame at Lisbon, in that publick combat exhibited by Emanuel of Portugal, anno 1515. he hath a short Horn on his shoulders, another longer on his nose; but that Rhinoceros, vvhose picture Scaliger saw, (Exerc. 205.) had an head like a Hog, with two horns, one upon his nose, the other upon his forehead, called by Martial, (in Amphit. Epig. 22.) Vrsus gemino cornu gravis. But the true Unicorn hath the proportion and bignesse of a Horse, the head, legs and feet of a Stagge, and the mane of an hors; he hath a horn in his forehead, saith Cardan (de subtil. l. 10.) three cubits long; two of these Unicorns vvere seen at Mecha, of vvhich see Parry in his 21 Book of poisons, Munster and Fernandus de Cordova, [l. 5. didas. c. 9.] 3. The reason why the Vnicorn is differently described, is, because divers Au∣thors confound him with the Naricorn, or else because the••e be divers species of Vnicorns, as there be of Dogs and other Animals, or else because they vary the colour and bignesse of their horn according to their age and climat wherein they live, as other beasts doe: but from variety of descriptions and circumstances, we must not infer a nullity of the sub∣stance, as Parry doth; for so wee may deny the Rhinoceros, which is diversly described; Strabo makes him like a Bear, [li. 16. de sub. l. 10.] Cardan, like a Bull, others like an Elephant. [See Parry, Cardan, Fern. de Cord. Pausanias, Scaliger, Mun∣ster, Pliny, Solinus, Caesar, AElian, Polyhistor.] Some give him but one horn, some two, which with some is crooked, with others straight. I therefore make no question of the true Unicorn, as he is commonly painted, because Vertomanus saw two of them, as Scaliger witnesseth, and so did Lewis Ba••¦thema, who as some say, is the same with Vertomanus, Iustin Martyr, Basil, and other of the Fathers; Yea, the holy scri∣ptures seem to favour this description, Iob 39.9. Will the V∣nicorn be willing to serve thee, &c? The Hebrew word Rem is by Hierom, Montanus, and Aquila, translated Rhinoceros; but by the 70 Monoceros. Yet in another place Hierom and Montanus translate the word Vnicorn: and in this place it cannot sig∣nifie Rhinoceros, because this beast hath been oftentimes sub∣dued by man, and bound, as we read in the Roman stories, but so was never the Unicorn brought into subjection, as God sheweth to Iob: And when David saith, He shall be exalted like the Horn of an Vnicorn, he cannot mean the Rhinoceros, who

of all cornuted Animals, hath the shortest Horn; but the true Unicorn, whose Horn is the highest of all others; for else Davids comparison had been childish. Now for the Horn it self, and vertues thereof, they are rejected by Ron∣deletius, Parry, Brown, and some others. Rondeletius, [l. 21. de venenis, c. 61.] found no more vertue in this Horn then in an Elephants Tooth. Parry found no vertue in the French Kings Horn. Brown rejects the Horn, [because it is diversly described. 2. The Ancients adscribed no vertue to it. 3. It cannot resist Arsenick, and poisons, which kill by second qua∣lities.] To these I answer, 1. If it be sufficient to deny an Horn, for that it is differently described, we may deny the Harts Horns, for there are great differences of them, some bigger and higher then others, some more branchy, some har∣der, some are cloathed with a soft Doun, others are not; and they have not all of them exactly the same colour. Neither do I allow, that all which are called Unicorns horns, are true; for some are fictitious. 2. If the Ancients adscribed no ver∣tue to this horn, why was it of such account among them? Why did the Indian Princes drink out of them, and make Cups and Rings of them, which either they wore on their fingers, or applied to their breasts, but that they knew there was in them an antidotal vertue against poison, as Andreth Baccius [l. de V∣nicor.] sheweth, and the Doctor denieth not [an Antidotall efficacy, and such as the Ancients commended in this Horn] and yet two lines before, [he denies that the Ancients adscri∣bed any vertue to it.] But sure it is apparent, that not only there is an occult quality in it against poison, as in the Elks Hoof against the falling sicknesse, but also by manifest quali∣ties it works; for Baccius proves it to be of an excessive dry∣ing quality, and therefore good against worms and putrefacti∣on. And that Riccius the Physitian did use sometimes the weight of a scruple, sometimes of ten grains thereof in bur∣ning fevers with good successe. 3. That it can resist Arsnick, the same Baccius proves, by the experiment which the Cardi∣nal of Trent made upon two Pigeons, [l. de Vnic.] to which he caused some Arsenick to be given: shortly after he gave som scrapings of his Unicorns horn to one of them, which after some symptomes recovered and lived, the other died two hours af∣ter it had eaten the Arsenick: The same Horn cured divers pe∣stilential Fevers, and such as were poisoned. Hence then it appears, that this Horn was both commended by the Ancients, namely, by AElian, Philostrates, and divers others, as also by mo∣dern

Physitians, as Ficinus, Brasavolus, Matthiolus, Mandella, and many more. It is true, that some might not find the vertue of it, either bec••use it was not the true Horn, or the true dosis was not exhibited, or due time was not observed, or else the malignancy of the disease would not yeild: For Interdum d••cta plus valet arte malum. But from hence to deny the Horn or its vertue, were all one as to deny Rhubarb, Agarick, Sena, or other Simples, because they do not always produce the wished effect, or work upon all bodies at all times alike. The means to discriminate the true Unicorns horn from the false, are two, to wit, if it cause the liquor in which it is put, to bub∣ble; and secondly, if it sweat when the poison is near it, as Baccius tells us.

IV. I have read of some who were born blind and dumb, and yet have been cured, [Seidelus de morb. incur.] but in these there could not be a totall privation of the organ or faculty of sight and speech; for such cannot be cured by Nature nor Art. And so Iohn 6. it was held impossible for one born blind to see. In those then was only a privation of the act, and so the eye-lids only shut up and agglutinated, which by Art might be cut and opened. And so the strings by which the tongue is tied, are often cut. I have also read [in Sei∣delius] of one who lived till he was an old man, and every year from his birth till his dying day, had a fever which took him still upon his birth-day: This anniversary Fever held him still fourteen days, and at last killed him. The seeds of this Fever he got doubtlesse in his mothers womb: and what im∣pressions the seed or Embryo receiveth then, can never be e∣radicated; such is the force of the formative power upon our first materials. S••••liger speaks of a certain Fish in the Island of Zeilam, which if one hold fast in his hands, puts him in a shaking fit of an Ague: This effect I suppose pro∣ceeds from the excessive cold of the Fish, which by the hand being communicated to the muscles and nerves, causeth sha∣king and convulsion fits. And no lesse strange is that which is mentioned by Libavius, of one who hearing his kinsman be∣ing in a remote country, was dead of the plague, fell sick himself of the same disease, though the place where he was then dwelling, was free from any infection. [Libavius de vene∣no, c. 8. Corollarii] This proceeded from a deep apprehension, or sudden fear, a weaknesse in nature, and an aptitude to fall into that disease; and how powerful apprehension, fear and fancies are ••pon our bodies, may be seen in that story men∣tioned

by Libavius [de veneno. c. 8.] of one who ate a snake in stead of an Eel without any hurt, till a good while after he was told it was a Snake; and upon this he fell sick and pined away.

CHAP. VII.

1. The diversities and vertues of Bezar stones. 2. A woman con∣ceived in a Bath, of an Incubus. 3. Strange actions performed by sleepers, and the causes thereof. Lots Incest in his sleep. 4. Some Animals live long without food: The Camelions food is only air; the contrary reasons answered: Air turns to water, and is the pabulous supply of fire.

MOnardes [in historia Bezoaris] speaks of some who were poisoned by drinking out of a puddle where Toads, Snakes, and other virulent vermin had laid their spawn, but were cured by taking Bezar two or three times. Bauhinus, [c. 34.36.] speaks of divers diseases cured by this stone; and it is known by daily experience, that it is used with good successe in pestilential Fevers, as Synertus shews, Syn. l. 4. de Feb. c. 8. It is also good in divers other maladies both to cure and prevent them: Yet Doctor Brown thinks [we are daily gulled in the Be∣zar, whereof many are false, Book 3. c. 23.] I deny not but some adulterat Bezars there are, yet we must not think all fals, or that we are gulled, because we do not see the wished effects: For Synertus (l. 4. de Feb. c. 8.) shews, that the best Bezar fail∣eth, if the just dose be not given. For some out of fearfulness give but a grain or two, whereas he hath given eight or ten grains with good successe. Again, the operation of it is hin∣dred oftentimes by mixing it with other Simples: It proves also ineffectual, if any thing else be given too soon after, or if the stomach be not clear when it is exhibited. For as the spirit of Tartar and Vitriol by themselves will work powerful∣ly; but being mixed, lose their operative qualities and taste: so doth Bezar many times mixed with other things. Now this stone is bred in a bag under the stomach of some beasts, which in form resemble our Goats: In the E••st-Indies they have horns, but in the West none: The Oriental stones are the best, a grain whereof hath been sold for four Ducats. Some of them are as big as a Goose Egg: they have divers forms, and divers co∣lours,

some yellow, some green, some black; the best are bred in those beasts that feed on the hils, and on aromatick hearbs, which are not found in the valleys: they grow like Onions wrapt about with many tunicles or crusts. Acosta (l. 4. c. 42.) sheweth, that in the midst of some of them are sound pins, straws, or sticks, about which matter doth gather, vvhich by de∣grees increaseth and hardneth till it come to a just magnitude. In the midst of those stones are found sometimes odoriferous hearbs. Mathiolus and Renodaeus hold those for the best stones in the midst of which are found dust or gravel. The Indians use the pouder of Bezar, not only against inward diseases, but also with it they cure their wounds and Carbuncles, or Boils. Acosta (l. 4. c. 42.) relates the observation of the Pe∣ruans, vvho say, that the best stone is bred in a beast called Vi∣eugne, vvhich feeds upon a poisonable hearb, by which it pre∣serves it self from the grasse, and vvaters that are poisoned by venomous beasts. He that will see more of this stone, l••t him read those above named, and likewise Boutius, Baccius, Toll, and others.

II. That story is strange of the Woman vvhich conceived in a Bath by attracting the mans sperm who bathed in the same place: This is affirmed by Averroes (Anat. l. 8. quaest. 11.) but denied by Laurentius, del Rio, and some others, vvhom Doctor Brown in this followeth. Hee that denyeth a matter of fact, must bring good witnesses to the contrary, or else shew the impossibility of the fact, which they do not. For we shall find this conception possible, if either we consider the nature of the Matrix, vvhich by a strange instinct and appetite attracteth the sperm to it (for which cause Plato calls it (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) even as the stomach attracteth meat and drink, though in some distance from it: Or if wee consider that the se∣minal spirits in the vvarm vvater might be a vvhile preserved from evaporating; and therefore what they say of the longi∣tude of the organ in which the seed is refrigerated, is not to the purpose, except they could prove it to be so in all: But the contrary is found in the long organ of great breasts, where∣in the sperm is no vvays damaged. Besides, the heat of the bath might have some proportion to that of the Matrix; vvhereas the organ of emission is not so hot, as consisting most of ner∣vous and spermatical parts. Again, vve see that the sperm of Fishes, in vvhich there are seminal spirits, is not prejudiced by the vvater vvhere it is shed; but the male fishes cast their seed upon the spaw•• vvhich the females leave in the vvater, as

Aristotle, Pliny, AElian, Albertus and others, do shew. Last∣ly, vvee must not think all the stories false vvhich are writ∣ten of the Incubi, vvhich vvere evil spirits conveying the mas∣culine seed to the place of generation, of vvhich there have been conceptions. For to deny this, saith Augustine, (lib. 15. de Civit. Dei, cap. 23.) doth argue impudence, considering the many testimonies and examples of the same: yet I deny not but the imagination is sometimes deluded, but not still, as Wi∣erus thinks; and I know also, that Incubus is the same disease with Ephialtes; yet it will not follow, that there are no evill spirits called Incubi and Succubi: For, to deny such, vvere to accuse the ancient Doctors of the Church, and the Ecclesia∣stick Histories of falshood, vvhich affirm that the Catecbu∣meni vvere much troubled vvith these Incubi. This vvere also to contradict the common consent of all Nations, and experi∣ence. There is then a double Incubus, the one natural, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vvhich is caused in sleep by a frigid grosse vapour fil∣ling the ventricles of the brain, and prohibiting the animall spirits to passe through the nerves, vvhereby the imagination is hurt, so that they think they are oppressed vvith a great vveight. This disease is much like the Epilepsia, but somwhat milde. The other Incubus is Diabolical.

III. That some men can in their sleep perform those actions which they neither could nor durst do when awaked, is known by Histories and experience. Marianus (cap. ad audientiam) wit∣nesseth, that he had a Maid, vvho in her sleep could rise and make bread, as if she had been awaked. Francis Mendoza, (l. 6. de Flor.) knew one vvho vvould rise in his sleep, and in the night time vvalked out vvith his naked sword, vvith vvhich hee struck some of the City guard; but at last being vvounded, vvas awaked. Tirannel (in Mendoza) speaks of an English man in Paris, vvho rose in his sleep, vvent down towards the river Sene; vvhere, having met vvith a Boy, he killed him, and so returned (being all this vvhile asleep) to his bed. Horstius (de noctambulis) vvrites of one vvho in his sleep usually vvould arise, go up and down the stairs, lock and unlock his chests. He speaks of another, vvho dreamed he vvas to ride a Journy, riseth, puts on his cloaths, boots and spurs, gets up into the Window, vvhere he sate stradling, beating the vvals vvith his spurs, till hee vvas awaked. And he sheweth, that at Helm∣stad one rose in his sleep, vvent down the stairs into a Court; from thence toward the Kitchin, neer vvhich vvas a deep Wel: into this he went down, holding fast to the stones by his hands

and feet; but when hee touched the vvater, with the cold thereof he vvas awaked; and finding in what danger he was, gave a pitiful out-cry, which awaked those in the house, who having found him, got him out, and brought him to his bed, where he lay many days speechlesse and immoveable, being ex∣treamly weakned with fear, cold, and crying. Another story he hath no lesse strange then this, of a young Gentleman vvho in his sleep arose naked, carrying his shirt in his hand, and by the help of a rope clambers up to a high Turret in the Castle where he then was: Here he findes a nest of Mag-pies, which he robs, and puts the young ones in his shirt; and so by the same rope comes down again, and returns to his bed: The next morning being awaked, tells his brother how he dreamed that he had robb'd a Pies nest; and withal wondring what was be∣come of his shirt, riseth and findes it at his beds feet, with the young birds wrapt up in it. To these examples, wee may add that of Lot, who in his sleep begot his two daughters with childe: This Dr. Brown (Book 7. c. 6) will not admit, though he hath a direct Text of Scripture against him: For there it is said, Gen. 19. That Lot neither knew when his daugh∣ters lay down, nor when they rose up. Which words are expoun∣ded by Irenaeus (c. 51. cont. Haeres.) That Lot had neither pleasure, nor consent, nor sense, nor knowledge of this act: Chrysostome af∣firms the same, expounding these words, Lot (saith he, Hom. 44. in Genes.) was so intoxicated with wine, that he knew not at all what he did, lest he should be guilty of so great a crime; acting in this neither wittingly nor willingly. S. Austin is of the same minde, (Cont. manic. l. 22.) and other Expositors. Now if one ask, how sleeping men can do such things? I answer, it is partly by the strength of Imagination, which is more active in sleep then when we are awake. 2. All sleepers are not apt for such actions; but such whose natures are melancholy or cho∣lerick, whose spirits are more fervent, subtil, and agile then o∣thers, moving the bmuscles, and by them the body, though the outward senses be ound up by sleep. 3. They catch not that hurt in their sleep, which they would do if awaked; because their senses are not avocated by other objects, they have no apprehension of fear, their imagination is more intent in sleep; and withal their Genius or good Angel is carefull of them.

IV. I read of divers both beasts and men; which have lived a long time without meat or drink: We know that Swallows, Cuckows, Dormice, & diuers other animals, sast all the Winter:

The like is recorded of Lizards, Serpents, Water-Crocodiles, Bears, and other ravenous beasts, whose bodies by reason of their humidity and rapacity, are full of crudi••les, by which they are fed in the Winter. Mendosa (d•• Flor. Philos. Probl. 24.) speaks of a Hen in his time, which lived eighty dayes without food and vvater. Cardan (de subtil. l. 10.) writes, that the Indian bird called Manucodiata, lives only in the aire upon dew as Grashoppers do. Rond••letius (l. 1. de Piscib. c. 12.) shews, that his wife kept a fish three years in a glasse, without any other food but water; and yet the fish grew so big, that the glasse could not at last contain it. And I have kept Spiders my self in a glasse, which I dismissed after they had fasted nine months. The Camelion also liveth upon the air, Oscitans vescitur, follicans ruminat, de vento cibus, saith Tertullian (in Pallio.) I have seen a Camelion which was brought hi∣ther from Africa by sea, and kept in a box, which all the while was never seen to feed on any thing else but air. Yet D. Brown (Book 3, c. 21.) will not have air to be his food for these rea∣sons: 1. Because Aristotle and AElian speak nothing of this. Ans. Neither do they speak any thing against it, which likely they would have done, if they had thought their feeding on aire had been fabulous. They do not speak of what food each ani∣mal is sustained: and though they doe not speak of this airy food, yet Pliny, and others do. 2. Scaliger writes, that Clau∣dius saw a Camelion lick up a fly from his breast. And Bello∣nius upon exenteration found flies in the Camelions belly. Answ. So I have seen Dogs and Cats eat Flies; Monkies and Turkies eat Spiders, and Dogs eat grasse; yet it will not follow, that they feed on these, but rather eat them out of wantonnesse, or for physick; so doth the Camelion sometimes eat flies; and so doth the Ostridge eat Iron, and divers birds swallow stones. 3. There are found in this animal the gu••s, the stomach, and other parts for nutrition, which had been superfluous if it feed on aire only. Answ. These parts are not superfluous, though they feed on air, but necessary; because the air on which they feed, is not pure, but mixed, and therefore nutritive. Again, they vvere to eat sometimes flies, for pleasure or physick, therefore the stomach was necessary. Moreover, we must not think every thing in nature superfluous, whereof vvee can give no reason; for so wee may accuse her for giving eyes to Wonts, tears to Men, Goats, and Dogs, whereof they make no use. And why she is so bountiful to the Fox, and so niggardly to the Ape, in giving the one too great a tail, the other none at

all. 4. He reasons From the bignesse of the Camelions tongue, and the slimy matter in it, that air cannot be its nutriment. Answ. Its tongue vvas made to catch flies, but not for nutriment, as is said: and that slimy matter is given as well for its prey, as for the destruction of Serpents its enemies: for it useth upon the sight of a Serpent, to let fall that slimy matter on his head, vvith which he is presently killed. 5. The air cannot nourish, be∣cause it hath no taste. Ans. Tast belongs not to nourishment; for they who have lost their tast, are not therefore the lesse nouri∣shed. Again, though the pure air be tastlesse, yet air thickned and moistned, is not so as we may perceive by the divers tasts in waters. Besides, though the air be tastlesse to us, it may be otherwise to the Camelion. 6. There can be no transmutation of air into the body nourished, because there is no familiarity of matter between air and a living body. Ans. This may be true of pure air, but not of mixed, and of our bodies, not of the Camelions. Be∣sides, divers creatures live on dew, which is but watrish air; and how many in Arabia are fed with Manna, vvhich is both begot of and in the air. 7. Nutriment is condensated by the natural heat, but air by the bodies heat is rarified. Ans. The contrary of this is seen continually by the air vve breath out, which is still thicker then that we take in: For though the heat doth rarifie the air, yet by the moisture of our bodies it is thickned. 8. All aliment must remain some time in the body; but air is presently expelled. Answ. The air which is attracted by the Lungs, and serves for refrige∣ration of the heart, is quickly again expelled, because it is to stay no longer then it performs its office, vvhich is to refrige∣rate; but that air on which the Camelion and other creatures feed, must and doth stay longer. 9. Air in regard of our natural heat, is cold, and so contrary; but aliment is potentially the same. Ans. All aliment is contrary at first, or else there could bee no action, and so no nutrition. Again, vvhat is cold, is potentially the same vvith our bodies, in respect of the substance, not of the quality. Besides, how many sorts of cold meats, fish, fruits, hearbs, sallets, do men eat in Summer, vvhich notwithstanding are the same potentially with their bodies. 10. Some deny air to be an aliment, or that it entreth into mixt bodies, and its not easie to demonstrate, that it is convertible into water; and we doubt that air is the pabulous supply of fire, much lesse that flame is properly air kindled. Ans. Some have denyed Snow to be white, or fire hot, therefore no wonder if some fantastical heads deny air to be an element, or that it entreth into mixt bodies. Danaeus in∣deed thinks air and water to be all one, because water is quick∣ly

turned into air, and because they have great affinity: but this is against himself; for what can be turned into another sub∣stance is not the same, nothing is convertible into it self: and if air be vvater, because this can be turned into that, then vva∣ter is earth; for in many caves vvater drops turn to stones, and so we shall make but one element. Again, if air enter not into mixt bodies, what is that unctuous humidity or oyl which we finde in all perfect mixt bodies? It cannot be fire nor earth; for these are neither unctuous nor humid: nor can it be water; for though that be humid, it is not unctuous, it must needs then be air. Again, when the Doctor saith, It is not easie to demonstrate the conversion of air into water; he denieth both sense and rea∣son: for this conversion is as demonstrable as our respiration in winter, when the air which a man attracteth, is turned into water drops on his beard, sheets, rugs, and blankets: reason also shews this; for if water can be turned into air, why cannot air be turned into water, both communicating in the symboli∣cal quality of humidity. Lastly, his doubting, and the Lord Verulams denying air to be the pabulous supply of fire, is causless: For I ask, what is it that substantially maintains the fire? They answer, It is combustible matter in the kindled body. But in this they trisle: for I ask what this combustible matter is? Earth it cannot be; for earth, 1. as earth, is not combustible; and we see that after the fire is spent, earth remains in ashes. Nor can it be water; for that maintains not the fire, but extinguisheth it. It must then necessarily be air: for we see by daily expe∣rience, that the more of this unctuous or aereal humidity is in the fewel, the more apt it is to burn. And when this is spent, the fire dieth, as we see in candles, lamps, torches, links, and whatso∣ever hath pinguedinous matter in it. Fernelius indeed gives a threefold food to the fire; to wit, combustible stuffe, smoak, and air; but all this may be reduced to air: For nothing is com∣bustible, which hath not in it aereal humidity: and smoak is nothing else but air cloathed with the fiery quality of siccity and calidity, wanting nothing but light to make it fire. There∣fore we see how quickly smoak is turned into flame, and this into smoak again. To conclude, air is the very life of fire, which would quickly die, if it received not animation by ventilation. This we see in cupping-glasses, how nimbly the fire, when al∣most extinguished, will upon a little vent suck the air to it.

CHAP. VIII.

1. Divers animals long-lived without food. The Camelion live, on air only. 2. Divers creatures fed only by water. 3. Chilifica∣tion not absolutely necessary. Strange operations of some stomachs. The Ostrich eats and digests Iron. 4. How Bees, Gnats, &c. make a sound. Of Glow-worms: and Grains bit by Pismires: the ve∣gitable Lamb, and other strange plants. 5. The Tygers swift∣nesse. The Remora stays ships.

THAT divers animals, even men and women. can subsist without food, is plain by these examples: A certain maid in the Diocesse of Spire, anno 1542. lived three years with∣out meat or drink. In the year 1582. in the Palatinat there lived a maid nine years together without food, who afterward married, and had children. Rondeletius (l. 1. de pis. c. 13.) writes of a maid in France, and of another in Germany, who lived divers years without food: and of another whom hee saw that had no other food but air ten years together. Fici∣nus saw a man who had no other food but what the air and Sun afforded him. In the year 1595. a maid lived at Colen three years without food; another at Bern lived eighteen years on the air alone, anno 1604. Other examples I could alledge out of Citesius Physitian of Padua, Lentulus of Bern, Ioubertus, and others; but these may suffice to let us see, that nutrition doth not consist meerly in meat and drink. I will not here al∣ledge examples of miraculous fasts, or of Diabolical and Ma∣gical; but such as are meerly natural, as these which I have named: for in them the natural heat was weak, and not able to master the humidity with which they abounded: So then, where there is a weak heat, and much sweet phlegm, which is imperfect blood, as Physitians call it, there the life may bee prolonged without food.

I have read (Mendoza in Flor. phil.) of a Venetian who fa∣sted forty six years, being of a cold constitution, and abound∣ing with thick phlegme; we see this in the hearb Semper-vi∣vum, which many years together liveth, and is green with∣out earth or water, having much natural humidity within it. So the Camelion is onely fed by air, as is said, which appears to be true (however Dr. Brown (Book 3. c. 21.) writes to the contrary) by these reasons, 1. The testimonies both of anci∣ent and modern Writers, except a few▪ and the witnesses of

some yet living, who have kept Camelions a long time, and ne∣ver saw them feed but on air. 2. To what end hath Nature given it such large Lungs beyond its proportion? Sure not for refrigeration; lesse Lungs would serve for this use, seeing their heat is weak; it must be then for nutrition. 3. There is so little blood in it, that we may easily see it doth not feed on solid meat.

The Doctor saith, That Frogs and divers Fishes have little blood, and yet their nutriment is solid. But he doth not prove the nutriment to be solid. Besides, they have more blood then is in the Camelion. 4. To what end should it contnually gape more then other animals, but that it stands more in need of air then they, towit, for nutrition as well as refrigeration. The Doctor imputeth this gaping to the largenesse of his Lungs: This is but a shift; for other animals whose Lungs doe exceed both the Lungs and whole bodies of many Camelions, do not gape as this doth, and yet they stand more in need of refrigeration, as having more blood and heat, then ten thousand Camelions. 5. He that kept the Camelion which I saw, never perceived it to void excrements backwards; an argument it had no solid food: and what wonder is it for the Camelion to live on air, when Hay a beast of Brasil, as big as a Dog, was never seen to feed on any thing else, as Lerius witnesseth? The Doctor concludes, That the Camelion is abstenious a long time, but not still, because divers other animals are so. He may as well infer, that the Camelion is cornuted, because divers other animals are so. Each species hath its property, which is not communicable to other species▪ otherwise it were no property.

II. That water is the aliment of divers creatures, is plain; 1. By the vegetables; for hearbs, trees, and plants are nou∣rished by it. 2. By animals; for it is the food of many fish∣es, as was shewed by that fish which Rondeletius his wife kept three years in a glasse. Grashoppers feed upon dew, which is water.

I have read (Mendoza, Prob. 23.) of Worms in Armenia, which feed only on Snow; and of some birds whose aliment is only water. 3. By men; for Albertus Magnus speaks of one who lived seven weeks together only upon water. I know Aristotle, (l. 7. de anim.) Galen, and Averroes are against this opinion. But we must understand they speak of the pure element of water, which is not nutritive; not of that which is impure, mixed, or compounded▪ for such may nourish.

Doctor Brown will not have water an aliment, 1. Because

some creatures drink not at all. Answ. To such, water indeed can be no aliment, and so indeed his argument is good; but to say, that water is no creatures aliment, because some crea∣tures do not drink at all, is as much as if he should infer, that no man eats bread, because some men never ate any. 2. He saith, That water serves for refrigeration and dilution; therefore it is no aliment. Answ. Why may not the same thing serve both? Doe we not many times eat cooling hearbs, which both refri∣gerate and feed us. 3. If the ancients (saith he) had thought water nutritive, they would not have commended the Limpid water for the best, but rather turbid streams, where there may be some nu∣triment. Answ. If the Ancients had spoken of Waters fittest to feed Eels, Frogs, and such as live on mud, they would have commended the turbid streams; but they spake of such Waters as are fittest for our bodies, and therefore they com∣mended the Limpid for the best; and yet he confesseth in the purest water there is much terreous residence, and consequent∣ly some nutriment.

III. Chilification is an action of the stomach, but not ab∣solutely necessary, because many creatures in the Winter live without it: And this act is not to be ascribed to the heat of the stomach; for though heat as heat doth concoct; yet it doth not chilifie; for neither fiery, nor feverish, nor any other heat of the body can perform this, but that of the stomach; there∣fore this action must proceed from the specifical form and pro∣per quality of the stomach, which turns all it receives into a white creamy substance, but cannot produce several substances, as the Liver doth; because it is not so hot as the Liver, or ra∣ther it hath not that specifical form which the Liver hath. Be∣sides, that the stomachs work is to master the aliment, to con∣coct it, and to prepare it for the Liver. But besides this qua∣lity of the stomach, there is another more strange, when som can eat and digest coals, sand, lime, pitch, ashes, and such like trash. This is called by Physitians a disease, under the name of Pica, Citta, Malacia; but I think it proceeds not only from a distemper in the stomach, and malignant acide humors impacted in the membrans thereof, but also, and that chiefly, from some occult quality. Forestus (lib. 18. Obs. 7.) knew one who swallowed down live Eeels, another who ate a piece of Lime as big as his fist, and all without hurt. Fonseca (Con∣sult. part. 1. cons. 94.) knew a woman who daily did eat earthen ware or pot-sheards so long as she lived; and she lived till she was old; even when she fell sick of a fever, she could not ab∣stain

from eating of this stuffe: therefore I do not much won∣der that the Ostridge can eat and digest iron, which it doth not by its heat, as Cardan thinks; (though I deny not but the great heat of that bird, and the thicknesse of his Gizzard may be some help) but rather by an occult quality, or the na∣ture of its whole essence, as Fernelius writes: For the truth of this, we have not only the testimonies of the Ancients, but the experiments also of late Writers: For Langius in his E∣pistles, writes that he saw some of those Ostriches in the Duke of Ferrara's Garden, who swallowed and digested pieces of gold, and other metal. Leo Africanus saith, that they swal∣low whatsoever they finde, even iron. And what wonder is it if the Ostrich eat Iron, when Rats do the same. But Doctor Brown denies this for these reasons, (book 3. c. 22.) Because Aristotle and Oppian are silent in this singularity. 2. Pliny speaketh of its wonderful digestion. 3. AElian mentions not Iron. 4. Leo Africanus speaks diminutively. 5. Ferne∣lius extenuates it, and Riolanus denies it. 6. Albertus Magnus refutes it. 7. Aldrovandus saw an Ostrich swallow Iron, which excluded it again undigested. Answ. Aristotles, Oppians, and AElians silence, are of no force; for arguments taken from a negative authority, were never held of any va∣lidity. Many things are omitted by them, which yet are true; It is sufficient that we have eye-witnesses to confirm this truth. As for Pliny, he saith plainly, that it concocteth whatsoever it eateth. Now the Doctor acknowledgeth it eats Iron: Ergo, according to Pliny, it concocts Iron, Africanus tells us, that it devours Iron. And Fernelius is so far from extenuating the matter, that he plainly affirms it, and shews, that this conco∣ction is performed by the nature of its whole essence. As for Riolanus, his denial without ground, we regard not. Alber∣tus Magnus speaks not of iron, but of stones which it swallows, and excludes again without nutriment. As for Aldrovandus, I deny not but he might see one Ostrich which excluded his iron undigested; but one Swallow makes no Summer. All in∣dividuals have not the same temperament: Among men, some will digest that which others cannot: there might be some weaknesse or distemper in the stomach of that Ostrich. Again, digestion or concoction (if we speak of the first which is the work of the stomach) is nothing else but the altering of the aliment, not into a new substance, (for that is done by the Liver) but into a new quality, in which the natural heat sepa∣rates the excrements from that which is fit for nutrition: If so,

then the Iron which this Ostrich excluded, was digested; for the stomach suckt something out of it, and altered that which was fit for nutriment, sending away the superfluous part: Thus the Iron was not undigested, because egested: For of every thing we eat, there is some part excluded. Now the Doctor cannot deny, but that the Iron receiveth an alteration in the stomach; and what I pray is this but chilification? Yet hee will not have this alteration to proceed from the power of natural heat; but from an acide and vitriolous humidity (if there were such a manifest quality, or a vitriolous humidity to corrode the Iron, it would doubtlesse corrode the stomach it self; therefore the safest way is to acknowledge an occult quality.

Again, if the Doctor will speak Philosophically, the prin∣cipal agent in digestion is heat, not moisture; for humidity compared to calidity, is a passive quality; so then the vitrioll corrodes by its heat, not by its moisture.

IV. When I fell upon this piece, I thought not to meddle with Doctor Browns Enquiries: but finding some of his Asser∣tions contradictory to what I was to write, I thought good to bring some of them to the Test, and to remove all rubbish out of my way; wherein I hope I shall doe him no wrong, seeing as he saith in his Epistle, Opinions are free, and open it is for any to think or declare the contrary. Having therefore examined some of his Assertions, I will be bold to enquire into some more of his Enquiries, having no intent to traduce or extenuate his excelle•• pains, but to elucidate what may seem to be obscure, and to deliver my opinion wherein I think he is mistaken. Whereas then he saith out of Aristotle, That Flies, Bees, &c. make a sound by the allision of an inward spirit, upon a little membrane of the body. I will not deny but this may be in some, but not in all: for I have observed the con∣trary in Gnats, whose sound is made by their wings only; when I pluckt off one wing, they sounded with the other; but when they lost both, they made no sound at all. Again, when he saith, That the sight of the Glow-worm depends upon a li∣ving spirit, he expresseth but a remote cause: for the proxi∣mat and immediat cause is the natural heat in a clear luminous water or humour: For I have observed in those I kept some days in grasse, that as this heat decreased, the humour thick∣ned, and as it were congealed, & so the light grew dimmer; be∣ing quite dead, there remained the congealed humour, white like a piece of chalk. Those I took were for three or four

nights, so shining, that holding the book neer, I could see to read by them. Again he saith, That grains whose ends are cut off, will suddenly sprout; which thwarts their opinion, who say, that the Pismires bite off the end of the corn, which they store up to prevent the growth thereof. Both these Assertions may bee true: For corn cut at the ends, may grow, and yet that may faile which the Pismire bites; because of some malignant qua∣lity contrary to the grain, impressed upon it by the Pismires bite, which is not in the knife. Again, he saith, (Book 3. c. 27.) That the plant animal, or vegitable Lamb of Tartaria, is not much to be wondred at, if it be no more then the shape of a lamb in the flower or seed. Sure it must be more then this, if those that write the story thereof deceive us not. For Scaliger (Ex∣erc. 182.29.) describes it out of them to be like a Lamb in all the parts of it: in stead of horns, it hath long hairs like horns, it is covered with a thin skin, it bleeds when it is wounded, and lives so long as it hath grass to feed on; when that is spent, it dieth. And they write also, that it is a prey to Wolves. All these circumstances may be true: For 1. the shape, why may not this plan•• resemble a Lamb, as well as that Indian fruit de∣scribed by Nic. Monardes, resembles a Dragon so artificially painted by nature, as if it were done by a painter. 2. Why may it not have a Downy, or Woolly skin, as well as Peaches▪ Quinces, Chesnuts, and other fruits which are covered with a Down, called Lanugo by the Poet? 3. Why may it not bleed as well as that Tree we mentioned but now, called Draco, from the shape of the Dragon which its fruit hath; the juice of this Tree from the resemblance is called the blood of the Dragon, well known in Physick for its astringent and corroborating quality. 4. Why may it not have some animal motions, as well as that plant called Pudica, which contracts it leaves when you touch or come neer it, and dilates them again when you depart? Or that Tree in the Isle of Cimbub on, whose leaves falling on the ground, crawl up and down like Worms: they have (saith Scaliger, Exerc. 112.) two little feet on each side: if they be touched, they run away. One of these leaves was kept alive eight days in a platter, which still moved it selfe when it was touched.

V. That Tigers are swift creatures, is affirmed by all the An∣cients; but denyed by Bontius, Because (as the Doctor cites him) those in Iava are slow and tardigradous. By the same rea∣son he may infer, that our sheep are as big as Asses, and doe carry burthens, because the sheep of America are such; or that

the African Lions are not fierce, big, and red, as they are de∣scribed; because the American are nor so; for the Indian ani∣mals differ much from ours, although they be the same spe∣cies. Though then the Indian Tygers be slow, the African or European may be swift. Again, the Doctor doubts, that the story of the Remora may be unreasonably amplified. The story is, that it stays ships under sail: This, saith Scaliger, is as possible as for the Loadstone to draw Iron: for neither the resting of the one, nor moving of the other, proceeds from an appa∣rent, but from an occult vertue: for as in the one there is an hid principle of motion, so there is in the other a secret prin∣ciple of quiescence.

CHAP. IX.

1. Lions afraid of Cocks: Antipathies cause fear and horror in di∣vers animals. 2. Spiders kill Toads; the diversities of Spiders. 3. The Cocks Egge and Basilisk: Divers sorts of Basilisks, 4. Amphisbana proved, and the contrary objections answered. 5. The Vipers generation by the death of the mother proved, and objections to the contrary refuted.

THat the Lion is afraid of the Cock, is doubted by the Do∣ctor, (book 3. c. 24.) because Camerarius speaks of one lion that leapt down into a yard where were Cocks and Hens, which he ate up. But the same Camerarius (Medit. part. 1. c. 12.) in the same alledged place, sheweth, that this fear of the Lion is justified both by experience, and many eye-witnesses. And surely this is no more improbable then for a Lion to be afraid at the fight of a fire, or for an Elephant to be afraid at the sight of a Hog; which the Romans knew, when they drove an Herd of Swine among the Enemies Elephants, by which means they got the Victory of Pyrrhus. So much afraid is the Ele∣phant of an Hog, that if he hear him gruntle, he will run a∣way. And who would think that a Monky should be afraid and shake at the sight of a Snail, that Erasmus (in amicitia) tels us, he saw one which at the sight of a Snail was so affrighted, that he fell to vomiting so, as the owner could scarce keep him alive. Who can give a reason, why the scratching upon brasse, or other hard metals, should distemper the teeth; and

in some men force urine? Why are some men whom I know, affrighted at the sight of a Toad; nay, of a Frog? There is a∣mong Horses in the same stable, among oxen in the same stall, a∣mong children in the same school, an antipathy: It is no won∣der then, that so magnanimous a creature as the Lion should be afraid at the sight of a Cock, when the couragious horse startles at the sight of a block; and the Elephant will not touch the straw which the mouse hath touched. Now for that Lion which killed the Cock and his Hens, I deny not but it may be true▪ yet hence we cannot conclude that the Lion is not afraid of the Cock: For a speciall antipathy may by accident faile in some individuals. A particular exception must not overthrow an universall Rule or Maxime. Sheep are generally afraid of Dogs; yet I have seen a Sheep beat a Dog. Men generally hate Ser∣pents, yet some will keep them in their bosomes; yea, ••an them: And it may be that this Lion was mad, and so the phan∣tasie distempered: for they are subject to be mad because of their heat; or else he was a hungred, and hunger we know makes even men transgresse the common lawes of Nature, and eat those things which otherwise they hate.

II. That Spiders will kill Toads, is recorded in Story; yet the Doctor (3. Book c. 26:). in his Glasse found that the Toad swallowed down the Spiders which he included. This may be true, and the other untrue: For all Spiders are not venemous; and those that are, have their degrees of venome, and so wee may say of Toads. That Spiders have a more active poyson then the Toad, is confessed by those who write of these insects: For I read both in Ancient and Modern Writers, that Spiders have poysoned Toads with their touch; but never that any Toad poysoned a Spider: for the Doctors Toad did not poy∣son but swallow the Spiders, being impatient of hunger, which it cannot endure so long as the Spider; some whereof I have kept nine moneths without food in a glasse, and then they were as nimble at the end of this time, as when I put them first in. Now that some of our Spiders are venemous, I have observed; for by chance one of my acquaintance bruised a Spider which had lighted on his face when he was in his bed, and presently the place blistred and grew scabbed. I have likewise found, that the small bodied Spiders with long legs (which as I think some call Spinners) are more venemous then the big ones: for I inclosed in a glasse some great black bodied Spiders with short legs, with some of those small b••died long shanks, which fell upon the big bodied Spiders and killed them. Such is the

venome of some spiders that they will crack a Venice glass, as I have seen; and Scaliger doth witness the same, however the Doctor denies it.

III. That the Basilisk should proceed from a cock's egg, is a con∣ceit as monstrous as the brood it self, saith the Doctor; and yet presently after he grauts, there may ensue some imperfect or mon∣strous production. That cocks growing old and decrepid, lay eggs, or something like eggs, on which they sit, as hens do on theirs, is not to be denied: for many will witness this; among the rest, Lev. Lemnius tels us (de mirac. l. 5. c. 12.) of two old cocks, which in the City of Ciricaea, could be scarce driven away from incubation on their eggs, till they were bea∣ten off by slaves•• And because the Townesmen had conceived a perswasion that of this egg the Basilisk might proceed, they caused the cocks to be strangled, and the eggs to be bruised. It is granted then that cocks lay eggs, or some seminall matter which they exclude and sit upon. 2. That of these eggs en∣sue strange productions. 3. This may be without a commix∣ture of the seed of both sexes, (though the Doctor denieth it) for we see what strange shapes of Insects are produced of putri∣faction even in mans body without any seed. 4. it is granted also that there have been and are Basilisks, though the descri∣ptions of them do in some circumstances differ: For there may be divers sorts of them; those which Lemnius describes, seen sometimes in Germany, have acuminated heads, and somewhat yellow, three palmes long, having a belly with white spots, a blew back, a crooked tail, and a wide gaping mouth. This description differs but little from that of Albertus Magnus (de anim. 25.) Scaliger speaks of one that was seen in Rome; and Lemnius tels us that Germany is not free from them; but that they are not so venemous as those of Africa. Now whether this Serpent is begot of the cocks'egg, is the question; we have tradition and witnesses for it, besides probability: for why may not this serpent be ingendred of a cocks putrified se∣minal materials, being animated by his heat and incubation, as well as other kinds of Serpents are bred of putrified matter.

IV. The Doctors reasons against the two-headed Amphisbae∣na, are not satisfactory. 1. (saith he) The principal parts, the Liver, Heart, and especially the brain, regularly they are but one in any kinde whatsoever. Answ. This is not so: For God to shew his wisdome and greatness, hath made variety of shapes among the creatures; some fishes and Insects have no heads at all, some but one, the Amphisbaena two, as Nicander, Galen, AElian,

Pliny, and others witness. I have read of birds in Paphlagonia with two hearts, of the Serpent Chersydros that hath two tongues; of a worm in Taprobona vvith four heads. I say no∣thing of the Hydra, because doubtfull: vvhy then may not the Amphisbaena have tvvo heads? 2. He saith, That it was ill con∣trived to place one head at both extreams; for it will follow that there is no posterior or lower part in this animal. Answ. This vvill not follovv: for though the head be at both extreams, yet they do not both at the same time perform the office of the head; but vvhen the one moveth, the other suffers it self to be moved, and is in stead of the tall; so that head vvhich moveth East∣vvard, dravveth the other after it; the former then is anterior, the other posterior; and this when it moves Westward, draws the other: and so what before was posterior, becomes now an∣terior. This was so ordained by nature for the more conve∣niency of this creature, which cannot turn it self about so nim∣bly as other serpents do. And of this minde is AElian (de anim.) 3. He saith, That if this animal have two heads, it is not to be called one, but two, because Aristotle saith, that animal is not one but two, which hath two hearts: and therefore geminous births are christned with two names, as having distinct souls. Answ. There may be some reason why two hearts should give demonstration to two animals: because the heart is the originall of life, and all vital actions, which need but one fountain and original: but the rea∣son is not alike in the Amphisbaena's two heads: for though it harh but one life, and consequently but one heart, yet it hath two several motions backward and forward: and therefore needed two principles or prime movers by reason it cannot turn so readily it self about as other animals, which though they have but one head, yet have divers instruments of motion sub∣servient to that head, which are defective in the Amphisbaena: and yet the head is not the originall of all motions in our own bodies: for the hearts motion of Systole and Diastole depends not upon it. Besides, the Doctor denies not but there are bicipitous serpents, and yet are not called two from their two heads: Why then should the Amphisbaena be denied this priviledge? But he saith, these other are monstrous productions, and besides the intenti∣on of Nature. He saith, but he proves it not: I acknowledge no monsters in Insects, especially in such as are begot of the Suns heat and putrifaction: nor is there any shape in them besides the intention of Nature. For if by nature he means the mat∣ter, it is not besides its intention to receive any form: if he understand the Suns influence, or formative power, or

God himselfe, it is not against their intention to produce all kind of shapes for the ornament of the world. But if these bi∣cipitous productions were against their intentions, yet this will not serve his turn, because such a production is but one, although it hath two heads. Lastly, geminous births receive two names in Baptisme, not because they have two heads, but because they have two distinct souls, and individuall properties flowing thence; so that they are indeed two individuals, though their body be but one from the Navell downward, as that Monster was of which Buchanan speaks. Now the Amphis∣baena having but one sensitive soule, cannot be called two not∣withstanding its two heads. 4. Many animals (saith he) with one head perform contrary motions. Answ. It will not follow that therefore the Amphisbaena hath but one head, or that these one∣headed animals can as easily perform contrary motions with one head, as that which hath two. Neither are these contrary motions performed immediatly by one head, but by inferior or∣gans which are not in this animall. Besides, I observe that in many worms there is as much life and activity in the faile as in the head; and therefore may be said to have two heads effe∣ctively, if not formally. For in Damask-Rose leaves which I kept by me, not being throughly dried, worms were procrea∣ted, whose heads when I cut off, their bodies were moved by their tails, as if those had been other heads.

V. Concerning the Viper, which all Antiquity affirms, pro∣duceth her young ones to her own destruction; we finde some Neotericks doubt, nay deny this truth. Doctor Brown reasoneth against this production, 1. It's injurious to Natures providence to ordain a way of production which should destroy the pro∣ducer. Ans. Natures providence is no more injured in the cor∣ruption then in the generation of the Creatures: seeing the cor∣ruption of one is the generation of another; and not onely in Vipers, but in Silk-worms also, and divers other creatures, in production the producer is destroyed. And this also we may observe in men and women oftentimes: Nature is wiser in her productions then we are in our conceits and imaginations. 2. It overthrowes (saith he) Gods benediction, Be fruitfull and mul∣tiply. Answ. Gods benediction of multiplication was not pro∣nounced to the beasts and creeping things, but the birds and fishes. 2. It's a question whether Vipers and some other poyso∣nous creatures were created before the fall. 3. The viper mul∣tiplieth fast enough when at one birth she bringeth forth twen∣ty young ones, as Aristotle and others affirm; there is then no

cause to complain, when twenty are produced by the losse of one; neither is it a greater curse in the Viper to die, then in all othe•• living creatures; for all are morrall in their individuals, though immortal in their species. 4. If the viper had been crea∣ted before the Fall, yet this punishment was not inflicted on her till after: for all creatures doe fare the worse by reason of Adams sin, who hath made them all subject to vanity, Rom. 8.3. To bring forth in sorrow (saith he) is proper to the woman, therefore not to be translated on the Viper. Answ. I deny that painfull births are proper to the woman: for all animals have some pain more or lesse in their productions. I have seen a Hen, which with the pain of excluding her Egge, fell down gasping for breath, as if the pangs of death had bin on her, and so she continued till the Egge was excluded. Many Bitches and other females have di∣ed with pain at the time of their littering. Painfull producti∣ons then is a punishment of the woman, and yet no translation to the Viper; for her pain is not thereby eased, because the Vi∣per in such a case is killed: nor are all women alike tortured, some are lesse pained then many other creatures. 4. This over∣throwes (saith he) Natures parentall provision: for the Dam being destroyed, the youngling•• are left to their own protection. Answ. No, they are left to the protection of him who is by David called the Saviour both of man and beast: and by the same is said to seed the young Ravens when they call upon him. And God in Iob, long before David, sheweth, That he fills the appetite of the young Lions, and provideth food for the young Ravens when they cry unto God. For the Naturalists tell us, the old Ravens quite forsake their young ones; but God feeds them with Flies and Wormes he sends into their nests. The like improvidence and cruelty we find in Ostridges, who exclude their Eggs in the sand, and so leave them without further care, to his providence, in whom all things live, and move, and have their being: Therefore God complains in Iob, (Chap. 39.14, 15, 16.) of the Ostridges astorgie and cruelty, in leaving her Eggs in the earth, forget∣ting that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them: shee is hardned (saith he) against her young ones, as though they were none of hers. The C••••kow also wanteth parentall provision: for she layeth her Egge in another birds nest, and so leaves it to the mercy of a stranger. And no lesse cruelty is there in this young nursling, then in the viper: for he both destroyeth his Foster-brothers, and the mother that brought forth and fed him. I read also in AElian of Scorpions begot sometimes in Crocodiles Egges, which sting to death the

Dam that gave them life. The young Scorpions doe use to de∣vour the old. I have also read of women who have brought forth monsters to the destruction both of the mother and of the child in her womb: therefore what the Ancients have written of the vipers cruelty, is not a matter so incredible as the Doctor makes it As for the experiments of some Neotericks who have observed the young vipers excluded without hurt to the parent; I answer, 1. There is great odds between the Vi∣pers of Africk or other hot Countries, and those in cold Cli∣mats; and so there is in poysonable herbs and Serpents, which lose their venome upon transplantation: in cold Countries the most fierce, cruell, and poysonable animals lose these hurtfull qualities. 2. The works of Nature in sublunary things, are not universally the same; but, as the ••Philosopher saith••, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for the most part there is no Ruleso generall, but hath some exceptions; ordinarily the child comes out with the head forward, yet sometimes otherwise; ordinarily the child is born at the end of the ninth moneth, yet sometimes sooner, sometimes later: Therefore though ordinarily the young Vi∣pers burst the belly of the Dam, yet sometimes they may be excluded without that rupture. 3. Education and food doe much alter the nature of creatures; these vipers mentioned by Scaliger and others, which excluded their young ones, or vipe∣rels by the passage of generation, were kept in bran within boxes, or glasses, and fed with milk, bran, and cheese, which is not the food of those wild vipers in hot Countries. It is no wonder then if the younglings staied out their time in the womb, being well sed, and tamed by the coldnesse of the climat. 4. All the Ancients doe not write that the vipers burst the belly, but only the membrans and matrix of the Dam, which oftentimes causes the••losse of her life; and they wanted not reason, besides experience, for this assertion, to wit, the fierce∣nesse of their nature, the heat of the countrey, and the nume∣rousnesse of their young ones, being twenty at a time; besides the goodnesse of God, who by this means doth not suffer so dangerous a creature to multiply too fast; for which cause al∣so he pinches them so in the Winter, that they lie hid and be∣numbed within the earth; besides, he will let us see his justice, in suffering the murther of the Sire to be revenged by his young ones upon the Dam. As for the Doctors exception against Ni∣canders word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is not material; for it is a Poeticall expression, and what is it to the purpose, whether the head be bit, or cut off, if so be the bite be mortall?

CHAP. X.

1. Moles see not, and the contrary objections answered. 2. The opi∣nions of the Ancients concerning divers animals maintained. 3. The right and left side defended. 4. The true cause of the erection of mans body, and the benefit we have thereby. 5. Mice and other vermin bred of putrefaction, even in mens bodies. 6. How men swim naturally; the Indian swimmers.

COncerning Moles, the Doctor proves they are not blind, (Book 3. cap. 8.) because they have eyes: for we must not assigne the Organ and deny the Office. Answ. Scaliger tells us they have not eyes, but the form of eyes. Pliny (lib. 11. cap. 37.) saith, They have the effigies of eyes under the membrane, but no sight, being condemned to perpetuall darknesse. Aristotle (lib. 3. de Animal.) saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it seems they have eyes under a thin skin, and a place for eyes. The Prince of Poets calls them, Oculis captos, (Geor. 1.) Scali∣ger (Exer. 243.) saith, They are deprived of the noblest sense, and gives the reason, because living still under ground, they had no use of sight. If then by eyes are meant the perfect or∣gans of sight, with all things requisite thereto, I deny they have eyes, and consequently sight: they have neither the organ nor the office, except we say, that like is the same. Now these forms of eyes Nature gave to the Moles rather for ornament the use; so wings are given to the Ostrich, which never flies; and so a long tail to the Rat, which serves for no other use but to be catched sometimes by it. And to what end hath Nature given tears to men, and other males? Again, Nature in all her works aims at perfection; but is oftentimes hindred by some obstacle, which is the reason why the Mole wants eyes, and the Manucodiata feet: but what is defective in the Moles eye, is re∣compensed by the quickness of his hearing. 2 He saith, That they are not exactly blind; for they can discern the light, which is one object of vision. Ans. I do not believe they can discern the light at all. 2. If they could discern the light, yet they are blind: for I have known men stark blind, who yet have discerned light from darknesse when a candle came into the room. 3. Light is not the object of vision; for we see not light, but lucid and co∣loured; we see not light, but by it: Light is Objectum quo, non quod. 3. He saith, A Mole cannot be properly blind, if it want the or∣gans or capacity of seeing: for privations presuppose habits.

Answ. A Moal is as properly blind as he in the ninth of Iohn, who was born so; for he had no capacity of seeing naturally, no more then the Moal; yet he is said to be blind from his na∣tivity, and that properly, because he was a subject capable of sight, quatenus an animall or sensitive creature, which is capable of sight, because of senses, whereof the sight is one. Moals there∣fore are capable of sight, in the genius of animals, though not in the species as a Moal, and so an Oyster is capable of sight.

2. The Doctor prying too narrowly into the sayings of the Ancients, reckoneth them amongst his Vulgar Errors, which be∣ing rightly understood, are no errors at all; as when they say the Elephant hath no joynts, they mean▪ their joynts were stiffe, and not so easily flexible as those of other animals. When they write that the Swan sings, they meant that with their wings they made a kind of harmonious noyse, as the learned Poet expresseth in that Verse:

Cantantes sublime fernnt ad sidera Cygni;

Which he explains in another place,

Vt reduces ludunt illi stridentibus alis.

When they say the Lampery hath nine eyes, they mean so many spots resembling eyes. When they write, that a Horse and Dove have no gall, they mean, that these have not baggs of gall annexed to the Liver, as other animals. When they speak of Griffins, that they were animals like Eagles in their fore∣parts, and behind like Lions; they spake mystically, shewing by this hieroglyphick, the valour, magnanimity, courage, and au∣dacity that ought to be in Princes and Governours. And when they write, that Toads doe pisse, they did not speak properly, but onely meant, that they squirted out some liquid matter be∣hind. When they spoke of the Toads stone, they do not mean a true and proper stone, but a concretion or induration of their crany. When they write that Hares are double Sexes, they write no more then what hath been observed in other animals which are Hermophroditicall, and in whom sometimes females have been changed into males. Hares also make a shew of a double Sex, because of the two Tumors representing Testicles, and their holes or cavities near the siege in the males, by which they seem also to be females. And what they write of their su∣perfaetation, is true: for the like is incident to some other ani∣mals, even to women. When they say that Snails have eyes at

the ends of their horns, their meaning is, that these are like eyes. So when they hold, that all animals of the land, are in their kind in the sea, they mean that there was a great resem∣blance between the sea and land-animals. So when they write, that the Peacock is ashamed when he looks on his black feet, they write symbolically, intimating that pride ends in shame, when men look upon their deformities and infirmities. When they say, whelps are blind nine dayes, they mean that they are so for the most part, though some be blind three or foure dayes longer. When they write that Worms have no blood, they write properly; for how can those have blood which have no liver, or other sanguifying organs? that red humour in them is not blood properly, but analogically.

II. That there is in man a right and a left side, is manifest by Scripture, generall consent, Experince and Reason, which also prove the dignity, agility, and strength of the right side above the left; because on the right side is the Liver, the cistern of blood, in which consisteth our life, vigor & strength, therefore this side is not so often as the left subject to palsies, because it is stronger to resist and repell the matter of that dis∣ease into the weaker side. Yet Doctor Brown (Book 4. c. 5.) de∣nies any prepotency in the right side, and such as ariseth from the constant root of Nature, because he finds not Horses, Bulls, and Mules, are generally stronger on this side. Ans. There is great diversity between the conformity, situation, and parts of mans body and beasts, and therefore to reason from the one to the other, is absurd: We find not that variety of colours in the eyes of Horses, Bulls, and Mules, that are in Mans eyes; nor doe we find the Horses gall annexed to his liver; shall we hence in∣ferre a deficiency of things in man? The weight of the Bodies of Four-footed Beasts, lieth equally upon all foure, and all foure equally are used in motion; and therefore there was no reason why any side or legge should be more preporent then a∣nother; but it is otherwise in man, to whom Nature hath gi∣ven one side stronger and nimbler then another for uniformity of action. Hence the right hand and foot are stronger then the left. Neither is it Custome but Nature that hath given this dex∣terity to the right side: For I have known some who have en∣deavoured by custome to bring their left hand to perform the offices of the right, but could never doe it with that ease and dexterity. Scaliger and Cardan speak of one who had never a hand, yet with his right foot could perform all the offices of the right hand, write, sew, eat, drink, & fling darts. 2. He saith,

that children indifferently use either hand. Answ. That is because as yet in the tender infant the heat and strength of the body is equally diffused, and not setled in one part more then in ano∣ther; but as he begins to gather strength, and the body to be more solid, so doth the right hand begin to be more agill; though I deny not but in some the left hand is more agill, but these are few, and aberrations from the common course of Na∣ture: for we see that in all her works there are some acciden∣tall deviations. His other objections are coincident with these two, and his discourse of the right and left side of heaven, is impertinent to this purpose: therefore I will spend no time in refelling it: for some make the East, some the South the right part of heaven; but I will conclude with Aristotle, (hist. ani∣mal. 1. c. 15) the right side and left in man consist of the same parts; but the left side is every where weaker.

IV. The end why mans body was made erected, was to look up toward heaven, whence the soul hath its originall, where our hopes should be, and our happiness shall be; by the contem∣plation of which, we are brought to the knowledge of Gods goodness and wisdom: For the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament his handy work, Psal. 19. Yet the Do∣ctor (book 4. c. 1.) will not have this the end of mans erection, but out of Galen the exercise of Arts, which could not be performed in a∣ny other figure. Again (saith he) the eyes of divers fishes regard the heavens•• birds who have no upper eye-lid, have in this the advantage of man: So the position of the frog with his eyes above the water, serves to behold a great part of the heavens. Answ. All these are weak Assertions; for the God of Nature created man to enjoy happiness, and to glorifie him; this is the chief end of his crea∣tion. Now this happiness is heaven, by beholding which, our knowledge of God is confirmed, our hopes established, and our joy and affections to heavenly things are enlarged: The invention of Arts then was but a secondary end, which it seems Galen, that meer naturall man, thought to be the chief end. And whereas the Doctor saith, (that by sursum aspicere, was not meant to look upward with the eye, but to have his thoughts sublime;) I would know what means so forcible to sublimate the thoughts as the eye? All knowledge and affection of and to the object, comes by the senses. How should Abraham have known the glory and multitude of his posterity, had he not looked up (as God commanded him) to the stars? The wise men found Christ in Bethlehem by looking upward to heaven, where they saw his star. Christ in blessing the bread, and in

Praying, looked up towards heaven: should not our eyes be fixed there where our treasure is? Our Saviour went up to heaven, and we exspect him again to return with the clouds of heaven. Our eyes then should be directed thither as well as our thoughts. The Philosophers by the knowledge of the first Mobile, came to the knowledge of the first mover. And though birds, some fishes and frogs, may have an advantage in looking upward, yet this advantage was not given them to look on heaven, of which they have neither knowledge, hope, affe∣ction or interest: they look upward then not to contemplate heaven, but to watch either flies to feed on, or kites, hawkes, and other ravenous fowle to avoid them.

V. He doubts whether mice can be procreated of putrifaction. So he may doubt whether in cheese and timber worms are gene∣rated; Or if Betels and wasps in cowes dung; Or if butterflies, locusts, grashoppers, shel-fish, snails, eeles, and such like, be procreated of putrified matter, which is apt to receive the form of that creature to which it is by the formative power dispo∣sed. To question this, is to question Reason, Sense, and Ex∣perience: If he doubts of this, let him go to AEgypt, and there he will finde the fields swarming with mice begot of the mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the Inhabitants. What will he say to those rats and mice, or little beasts resembling mice, found generated in the belly of a woman dissected after her death, of which Lemnius is a witness, who thinks this gene∣ration might proceed of some sordid excrement or seminal pol∣lution of those animals with which the womans meat or drink had been infected. I have seen one whose belly by drinking of puddle water, was swelled to a vast capacity, being full of small toads, frogs, evets, and such vermin usually bred in pu∣trified water. A toad hath been found in a sound piece of Timber.

VI. That men swim naturally he cannot assent to, because other a∣nimals swim as they go; but man alters his natural posture as he swims, (4. Book c. 6.) Answ. This is no reason; for man alters his natu∣ral posture when he crawls; will it follow therefore, that this motion is no natural to man. But to speak properly, swim∣ming is no natural motion, neither in man nor beast: For if we take natural as it is opposite to animal, swimming is an ani∣mal motion; and if we take natural as it is opposite to artificial, then swimming is an artifical motion; for there is some Art in it. But if we take nature for a propensity, facility, in∣clination, or disposition; then, I say, these are as well in

men as in beasts. Therefore Pliny tells us of the Troglodites, that they swim like Fishes. Lerius, Acosta, and other Indian Histori∣ans write, that the American children begin to swim as soon as they begin to walk; and that for eight dayes together they can live in the Sea, and longer if it were not for feare of the great Fishes: so swift and skillfull they are in swimming, that they out-swim the Fishes and catch them; and so farre they exceed other animals in this motion, that they can swim with the left hand onely, holding hooks and darts in the right, which no other creature can doe. If it be objected, That swimming is not naturall to man, because he learns it; I answer, That walking and talking are naturall actions to man, and yet he learns both when he is a child. So I have seen old birds teach their young ones to flye. Lastly, if it be naturall for beasts to swim because of their posture, then it must needs be as natu∣rall to those wilde men, who from their infancy were brought up among wild beasts, to walk upon all foure, having no o∣ther posture.

CHAP. XI.

1. The Pictures of the Pelican, Dolphin, Serpent, Adam and Eve, Christ, Moses, Abraham, and of the Sybils defended. 2. The Pi∣ctures of Cleopatra, of Alexander, of Hector, of Caesar, with Saddle and Stirrops maintained.

THe Doctor [Book 5. c. 1.] quarrels with some pictures, as 1. With that of the Pelican opening her breast with her Bill, and feeding her young ones with her blood. But for this he hath no great reason: for Franzius (de animalib.) to whom he is behol∣ding for much of his matter, tels him that this and divers o∣ther pictures are rather Hieroglyphical and Emblematical, then truly Historicall: for the Pelican was used as an Emblem of pa∣ternall affection among the Gentiles; and of Christs love to his Church among the Christians. 2. With that of the Dolphin, because he is painted crooked, whereas his naturall figure is straight. This is true, yet he is crooked sometimes, as when he leaps and jumps, and in this posture the painters expresse him. 3. With the Serpent tempting Eve, because it is painted with a virgins head, which might afford suspition to Eve in beholding a third humanity beside herselfe and Adam. But this could not so much trouble Eve, to speak with one like her selfe, as to hear a

reasonable discourse proceed from a Serpents mouth; for she could not be so grosly ignorant in that happy state, where there could be no deception of mind, as to think a serpent could speak and discourse rationally; therefore Sathan cunningly as∣sumes a womans face, whereby there might be the lesse suspiti∣on. neither could Eve be amazed to see a Serpent with a wo∣mans face: for divers other creatures have the form of humane faces, such as Baboons, Apes, Monkies, Satyrs, and that Ameri∣can beast mentioned by Andrew Thevet, called Haijt by the In∣habitants, and Guedon by the French; the picture whereof may be seen in Gesner. 4. He quarrels with the pictures of Adam and Eve with Navels, accounting those parts in them uselesse super∣fluities; because the use of the Navell is to continue the infant unto the mother, and by the vessels thereof to convey its aliment. The Na∣vell, which is the center of the body, was not uselesse or super∣fluous in Adam or Eve; because they were ornaments, with∣out which the belly had been deformed: Therefore Solomon a∣mongst other beautifull ornaments of the Church, puts in the Navel for one, Thy Navel, saith he, is like a round Goblet, Cant. 7.2. He might as well quarrell with the picture for giving haire to Adam and Eve; for the sole use of haire both for head and chin, is for ornament and distinction. 5. He questions Christs pi∣cture with long hair, seeing he was no Nazarite by vow. I answer, 'Tis true, he was no Nazarite by vow; for he drank Wine, and approached the dead, yet he was a true Nazarite, because he was as the Apostle saith, separated from sinners: Therefore it was fit he should in this respect weare long haire, as Sampson the Nazarite and Type of Christ had done before. Besides, haire being an ornament, and signe of ingenuity (for slaves durst not weare long haire;) and being also the custome of those tines and Countries, it is most probable he wore long haire; and therefore his picture is causlesly quarreld with; especially seeing he was so painted in that picture sent by Lentulus, President of Iudea, to Tiberius. And in the same length of hair he was found in some old brasse coins at Rome, which Theleus Ambrosius did see; in his Introduction to the Chaldee Tongue, he speakes of this. 6. He rejects Abrahams picture sacrificing Isaac, because he is described as a little boy. Answ. Iosephus makes Isaac at that time 25 years of age; some Rabbins make him above thirty. But Aben Ezra the Rabbin makes him onely twelve years old: And sure at this age he might be able, by his Fathers help, to carry a bundle of wood up the hill, being men were stronger at that time then now; howbeit he was but a Boy in comparison

of his fathers age, who was now 125 years old, if Isaac was 25. for he was born in the hundredth yeare of his Fathers life. 7. He reproves the picture of Moses, because painted with horns. It was not the Painter but the Scripture which gave him horns. For the Hebrew word Keren is so translated by Aquila 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and by Ierom, Cornuta: So it is in the vulgar Editions of Sixtus and Clemens. So it is translated by divers Protestants, by Munster, by Rivet, and some others, and therefore Munster doubts whether that relation of Steuchus be true, that the Jewes are offended when they see Moses painted with horns, seeing R. Solomon and Kimchi doe use the word Horn, saying, That the beams of Moses face did resemble horns; and there∣fore R. Solomon calls those Rayes the horns of Magnificence. It is true, there is a difference between Keren and Karon, that signifying a horn, this to shine, but who could put this distin∣ction truly, before the invention of the Hebrew pricks; neither is it materiall which way it be translated, seeing clear horns do cast rayes of light, and luminous bodies cast abroad their rayes like horns, as we see in the Sun and Moon. Neither is there any danger of conformity with Iupiter Ammon, (as the Doctor thinks) if Moses be painted with horns: for Iupiter was painted and worshipped not with Rams horns alone, but with the Rams head and skin, with which his Image was year∣ly adorned; because in the shape of a Ram he shewed a Well of water to Bacchus, when he was dry in the Desarts of Libya; and because he turned himselfe into a Ram when he sled from the Giant into AEgypt. And lastly, he shewed himselfe to Her∣cules in the shape of a Ram. As for cornuted Pan and Bacchus, they were the same with Iupiter, one Sun under divers names and shapes, as Macrobius shewes. 8. He reproves the pi∣ctures of the Sybils, because there be ten or twelve of them, and all with youthfull faces. For the number of ten, he must reprove Varro (de Divinat) not the Painter, for so many he delivers to us; others have added two more. And that there were so ma∣ny, Boisardus makes it appeare by what he hath collected out of ancient Authors, concerning the difference, originals, times, and numbers of the Sibyls, where he shewes, that Sibylla Cumaea whom AEneas consulted, and Cumana, who sold the Bookes to Tarquin, were different, between whom were six hundred years distance. As for their youthfull faces, he hath more reason to quarrell with the Poets then with the Painters; but indeed neither are to be blamed; For the Sibyls may be aged, and yet look young, as many aged people doe; some I have already

mentioned who looked young after they have been an hun∣dred and fifty yeares old. 'Tis true, that Sibyl is called Lon∣gaeva by the Poet, (AEn. 6.) but by that was signified her long life, not a withered or wrinkled face. The same word is by the same Poet ascribed to AEnaeas, whom not withstand∣ing he makes immortall; and Romulus in Ennius is said, Dege∣re aevum in heaven; so in AEschylus the gods are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Longaevi, who I think have not old faces. As in Cha∣ron, so in the Sybils, there was Cruda viridisque, senectus. It is true also that Sybil is termed Anus in Livii. But I deny the Doctors Etymology out of Festus; for anus is ab a••nis, and not from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as if she had doted; for she could not be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Sibylla is so called, as being the mind and counsel of God, therefore could not be a dotard.

II. There are some other pictures which offend the Doctors eyes; as, 1. That of Cleopatra with two Asps. Suetonius speakes of one, Florus of tvvo, so doth Virgil,

Nec dum etiam geminos à tergo respicit angues.

So doth Propertius,

Brachia spectavi sacris admorsa colubris.

He should therefore have reproved these rather then the Painter; he should also have quarrelled with Augustus, who from the prickes he found in her arms, concluded she was bit by Asps, and therefore imployed the Phylli to suck out the poyson. But whether she was bit by one, or two, or none, the picture is harmlesse, and consonant both to Roman Histo∣rians and Poets. 2. The pictures of the nine Worthies dis∣please him; because Alexander is described sitting upon an Elephant, Hector on Horseback, and Caesar with Saddle and Styrrups. But he should remember that Painters and Poets have a priviledge above others,

Pictoribus at{que} Poetis quid libet audendi semper fuit aequa potestas.

Horat.

And yet these pictures are partly historicall, partly hiero∣glyphical. Alexander sits on an Elephant, to shew his con∣quest over the Indians which most abound in Elephants. Besides, this picture hath reference to that story of the Elephant in Philostrates, (Lib. 2. Cap. 61.) which from Alexander to Tiberius lived three hundred and fifty yeares:

This huge Elep••hant Alexander after he had overcome Porus, dedicated to the Sun in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; for he gave to this Elephant the name of Ajax, and the inhabitants so honored this beast, that they beset him round with Garlands and Ribbons; they used also to anoynt him, and adorned him with a golden chain, It was not then without cause he is painted sitting on an Elephant, rather then Iudas Macchabaeus, or any others who have overcom•• bat∣tels wherein were Elephants; or Caesar, whose triumph was ho∣nored with captive Elephants; for he was not the first, long before him Curius Dentatus was thus honored, and so was Me∣••••llus, who had an hundred and twenty captive Elephants in his triumph. Again, the Doctor asks, Why Hector is painted upon an horse? I answer, because he was a brave Cavalier, and kept excellent Horses; such, as if we will believe Homer, had understanding: for Hector makes an eloquent speech to them, and his wife Andromache fed them with good bread and wine, (Ili••d. lib. 8.) Their names were Zanthus, Podargus, Aithon and Lampus: Is it likely that he would keep such horses and never ride them? whereas Horsmanship was in use long before. And we read in Pindarus, (in Olympiad) that the Grecian Princes took delight in keeping and riding of good Horses. And al∣though the Ancients used to fight in Chariots, yet sometimes they fought on Horseback too, being as Pliny saith, taught so to fight by the Theban Centaurs. As for Caesars Saddle and Stir∣rops, they are neither dishonour to his picture, nor repugnant to story; for though we find some of the ancient equestral Sta∣tues without Saddle or Stirrops, it will not thence follow these were not in use; for we find the ancient Roman Statues bare-headed; will it therefore follow there were no use of Hel∣mets, or that they fought or rid bare-headed? But we doe not find (saith the Doctor out of Salmuth upon Pancerol) the word Stapida in ancient Authors. I answer, We find words e∣quivalent; for what is Suppedaneum, Pedamentum, Subex, Peda∣neus, and Sta••iculum, but the same that Stapida which we call Stirrup? So we find Ephippium in Horace [Optat Ephippia bos piger] and Equorum strata found out by Pelethronius in Pliny, and what were these but Saddles? For to take stratum there for an Horse-cloth, is ridiculous, as if that had been such a piece of invention to be recorded, to cover the Horse back with a piece of Cloth. Appian writes of the Numidians, that they used to ride without Saddles; but nothing of the Romans. The two verses which the Doctor citeth out of Salmuth to prove his

Assertion, are needlesse; for in the one is left out the prin∣cipall word, Saltus superbus emittat in currum: So that Turnus did not leap on Horseback; but into his Chariot, [AEn. 12.] The other, Corpora saltu subjiciunt in equos, shews, that they jumped on Horseback; but whether by stirrups or not, is not there set down.

CHAP. XII.

1. The Picture of Iephtha sacrificing his daughter maintained. 2. The Baptist wore a Camels skin. 3. Other pictures, as of S. Christopher, S. George, &c. defended. 4. The antiquity, distin∣ction and continuance of the Hebrew tongue, of the Samaritans, and their Letters.

THe picture of Iephtha sacrificing his daughter, is questio∣ned by the Doctor (5 Book c. 14, 15, 16, &c.) because (saith he) she died not a natural but a civil kind of death. Answ. In∣deed her death was neither natural nor civil, but violent, being sacrificed by her father. This he denieth; because she bewailed her virginity, not her death. Answ. She had no reason to bewaile her death, to which she freely offered herself; but to die childlesse deserved lamentation, because that was a curse among the Israe∣lites. 2. Because the women went yearly to talk with Iephtha's daugh∣ter, which had she been sacrificed they could not have done. Answ. The word Letannoth from Tanan, signifieth to lament, and so it is rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the Seventy; and Leallaah by the Chaldee Paraphrast; so it is interpreted by Munster, by the old Latin E∣dition, by the French and English translation. But suppose the word were derived from Tanah, to declare or speak, yet this will not prove Iephtha's daughter was alive: For in mournfull com∣plaints and lamentations over the dead, words and Elegies were oftentimes expressed, and Prosopopeia's are used to them as if they were alive; as we see Davids Lamentation for Iona∣than, and in other places both of sacred and profane writ. So did that sorrowful mother speak to her dead son Eurialus, and AEnaeas to dead Pallas in the Poet. 3. Because it is said in the Text, And she knew no man, he inferres, that vir∣ginity was her onely death. Answer. These words, she knew no man, are added to shew the cause why the women so much lamented her death, in that she died childlesse. 4. The offering (saith he) of mankind, was against the Law of God. Answ. True: But will it therefore follow, that Iephtha did not sacrifice

his daughter. He may as well infer, that David committed not adultery and murther, because these were against the Law of God. How often are Gods Laws violated by the best of his servants? 5. He thinks the Priests and people would have hindred this sacrifice; and that Jephtha was no Priest; and that he had eva∣sion for his vow by redeeming his daughter; and that his vow of Sa∣crifice was to be understood only of that which was sacrificeable and lawfull. Answ. These are but the conjectures of those who would defend Iephtha: for it is more likely neither Priest nor people durst oppose his resolution, being now strong and crowned with victory; and though he was no priest, yet it was no unusual thing for Princes and great Commanders some∣times to perform the Priests office; and though he might have evaded his vow, yet it seems he knew not so much, for super∣stition had blinded him: therefore he saith, I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot go back. And doubtless he thought that the sacrificing of his daughter was lawfull; grounding this his conceit upon Gods command to Abraham, and commenda∣tion of him for his readiness to sacrifice his son. Lastly, he saith, the 31 verse may be thus rendred, It shall be the Lords; or I will offer. Answ. Most Translations have it, and I will offer; although the Hebrew Ve, sometimes signifies Or; but this is sel∣dom. Hence then we see, the Painter is not to be blamed, who in representing Iephtha's sacrifice, is waranted by the Scri∣pture, by Austin, Ambrose, and Hierom, by the ancient Rabbins, and Iosephus, besides reas••ns. For what needed Iephtha so to vex himself, and tear his cloathes, if he meant only to sequester his daughter from marriage and humane society? Again, there was neither Law nor President for him to vow his daughters virginity; nor could such a vow be effectuall without her con∣sent. It was a curse also in Israel to be childless, and it had been ridiculous in him or her, to vow virginity and then to lament it.

II. He excepts against the picture of Iohn Baptists, because he is painted in a Camels skin, whereas the text saith his garment was of Camels hair. Answ. It was fit the Baptist, who came to preach repentance for sin, should wear a garment of skins, which was the first clothes that Adam wore after he had sinned; for his fig-••••aves were not proper, and this garment also shewed both his ••overty and humility. For as great men wear rich skins, and costly furs, he was contented with a Camels skin. By this garment also he shewes himself to be another Elijah, (2. Kings 1.) who did wear such a garment, and to be one of those of

whom the Apostle speaks, who went about in skins, of whom the world was not worthy. Neither was it unusefull in Iohns time, and before, to wear skins; for the prophets among the Iews, the Philosophers among the Indians, and generally the Scythians did wear skins; hence by Claudian they are called Pellita juventus. Great Commanders also used to wear them; as Hercules the Lyons skin, Acestes the Bears, Camilla the Ti∣gers. Iohns garment then of Camels hair, was not as some fondly conceit, a Sack-cloth, or Chamblet•• but a skin with the hair on it. So in Exodus (chap. 25.) the peoples are comman∣ded among other skins, to bring to the Tabernacle Goats hair: not as if they were to pluck off the hair for Aaron, and keep the skins to themselves, but to offer both: therefore in the o∣riginall Hairs is not expressed, but the word Goats.

III. In some subsequent Chapters the Doctor questions the pictures of S. Christopher carrying Christ over the river, of Saint George on Horse-back killing the Dragon, of S. Ierom with a clock hanging by, of Mermaids, Unicorns, and some others, with some Hieroglyphick pictures of the AEgyptians. In this he doth luctari cum larvis, and with AEneas in the Poet,

Irruit & frustra ferro diverberat umbras.

He wrastles with shadows: for he may as well question all the Poetical fictions, all the sacred Parables, all tropicall speeches; also Scutchions, or Coats of Armes, signes hanging out a•• dores, where he will finde blew Boars, white Lions, black Swans, double-headed Eagles, and such like, devised onely for distinction. The like devices are in military Ensignes. Fe∣lix Prince of Salernum had for his device, a Tortoyse with wings flying, with this Motto, Amor addidit; intimating, that love gives wings to the slowest spirits. Lewis of Anjou, King of Naples, gave for his device, a hand out of the clouds, holding a pair of scales, with this Motto, AEqua durant semper. Henry the first of Portugal, had a flying Horse for his Device. A thousand such conceits I could alledge, which are symbolical, and there∣fore it were ridiculous to question them, as if they were histo∣ricall As for the Cherubims, I find four different opinions: 1. Some write they were Angels in the form of birds. 2. Aben Ezra thinks the word Cherub signifieth any shape or form. 3. Io∣sephus will have them to be winged animals; but never seen by any 4. The most received opinion is, that they had the shape of children: for Rub in Hebrew, and Rabe in Chaldee, signi∣fieth a child; and Che, as: So then, Cherub signifieth, as a child, and it's most likely they were painted in this form.

IV. For the Doctors questioning divers superstitious obser∣vations, (5. book, c▪ 22.) as the crossing of a Hare, the falling of salt, the breaking of Eggshels, and such like: I have nothing to say, but to conclude with him, that they are superstitious, yet ancient. But when he asks, whether the present Hebrew be the unconfounded language of Babel. I answer, That if by the present Hebrew he mean the language which they now speak, it is not: for as the greatest part of the world lost that tongue (except Hebers family) at the confusion of Babel, so Hebers family) the Jewes) lost it themselves in the captivity of Babel; for being mingled with the Chaldeans, they made a mixt language of Hebrew and Chaldee, which for distinction sake was called Sy∣riac; and sometimes Hebrew, because the Jewes, Hebers poste∣rity, spake it. Hence S. Hierom is to be understood when he writes, that Matthew penned the Gospel in Hebrew, and Euse∣bius when he calls it his native language, they mean the Siriac, which was now the native language of the Hebrewes; and S. Paul in the Acts is said to have made a speech to the people in Hebrew, the meaning is, he spake in Syriac; for they understood not the ancient Hebrew, onely the Priests and Lawyers kept the knowledge of it. Therefore it had been vain for Matthew to write his Gospel, or for Paul to speak in pure Hebrew to those that understood it not; yet there is an Hebrew Gospel of S. Mat∣thew extant, which some think was written by S. Bartholomew and by Pantaenus, coetaneal with Origen brought from the Indies, this imperfect and torn Copie, Munster saith he extorted fromthe Jewes. But if his question be whether that Hebrew text now ex∣tant, be the ancient Hebrew tongue before the confusion; I an∣swer It is: For though the Jewes lost their ancient language in respect of speaking and use, yet the Bible was carefully retained in the true Hebrew without any alteration, save onely, in the Characters or Letters, which about the captivity were changed by Esdras, as Hierom (de emend••t. temp. p. 621.) Ioseph Scaliger, Ioh. Drusius Casper Waserus, lib. 2. of his old Hebrew coin, and Sethus Calvitius in his Chronological Isagoge witnesseth, that this was done by Esdras to debar all commerce with the Samaritans, not the Israelites, which were long before carried away by Salmanas∣ser; who also were called samaritans from their chiefe Ci∣tie Samaria, but I understand that table of Nations which Salmanasser brought in to possesse the Israelites lands. These with so many of the ancient Samaritans or Israelites as re∣mained in the land, retained the ancient Hebrew charac∣ters in which the Law was given by Moses; and these letters

for distinctions sake were named Samaritan; and those of Es∣dras called Hebrew, and square from their form. Some ancient coins, as Sicles, have been found with Samaritan characters on them, which shew this difference. The form of these letters may be seen in the Samaritan Alphabets. As these Samaritan re∣tained the ancient characters, so they did the ancient Penta∣teuch of Moses, and no more. Now that Hebers posterity re∣tained their language without mixture after the Flood, is pro∣ved by Austin and Ierome out of the Hebrew Names given to the creatures before the Flood. It stood also with reason that Hebers family should not be partakers of the worlds punish∣ment in this confusion of tongues, seeing they were not guilty of their sins.

CHAP. XIII.

1. There is not heat in the body of the Sun. 2. Islands before the Flood proved. 3. The seven Ostiaries of Nilus, and its greatness. The greatness of old Rome divers ways proved. Nilus over-flow∣ing, how proper to it: the Crocodiles of Nilus; its inundation regular.

THe Doctor in his subsequent discourses (6 Book c. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) hath many learned Cosmographicall passages col∣lected dextrously out of many approved Authours, against which I have nothing to say; onely he must give me leave to dissentfrom him in his opinion concerning the Suns heat,when he sayes, that if the Sunne had been placed in the lowest spheare where the Moon is, by this vicinity to the earth its heat had been in∣tollerable. What will he say then to that world lately discove∣red in the Moon by glasses as fallacious as the opinion is erro∣neous. Surely these people must live uncomfortably where the heat is so intollerable; or else they must have the bodies of Salamanders, or else of those Pyrus••ae in the Furnaces of Sicily: but indeed though the Sunne work by the Moon upon sublu∣nary bodies, yet the Moon is not hot, nor capable of it, no more then the line is capable of that stupidity which from the Tor∣pedo is conveyed by the line to the Fishers hands. No celes∣tiall body is capable of heat, because not passive; except we will deny that quintessence, and put no difference between Celestial and Elementary bodies. The Sun then is not the sub∣ject but the efficient cause of heat; the prime subject of heat is the element of fire, the prime efficient cause is the Sun, which can produce heat, though he be not hot himself. And this is no more strange then for him to produce, life, sense, vegetation, co∣lours,

odors, and other qualities in sublunary bodies, which not∣withstanding are not in him, though from him. Again, if the Sun be the subject of heat, because he is the original and effector of it; then Saturn is the subject of cold, the Moon of moisture, and Mars of drinesse, and so we shall place action and passion, and all elementary qualities in the heavens, making a Chaos and confusion of celestial and sublunary bodies. Moreover, if the Suns vicinity causeth the greatest heat, why are the tops of the highest mountains perpetually cold and snowy? Why doe there blow such cold windes under the Line, as Acosta shew∣eth? We conclude then, that the Sun is the cause of heat, though he be not hot; as he is the cause of generation and cor∣ruption, though he be neither generable nor corruptible. Ovid then played the Poet not the Philosopher, when he causeth the Suns vicinity to melt Icarus his waxen wings.

II. He sayes, That Islands before the Flood are with probability denied by very learned authors. Answ. He doth not alledge any one probable reason out of these Authors in maintenance of this o∣pinion. I can give more then probable reasons that there were Islands before the Flood, First, the whole earth it selfe was made an Island; therefore the Sea is rightly called Amphitrite, from encompassing the earth; For this cause David saith, That God hath founded the Earth upon the Waters. And though Earth and Sea make but one Globe, yet the Earth onely is the Cen∣ter of the world, as Clavius demonstrates. 2. The world was in its perfect beauty before the Flood; but Islands in the Sea tend no lesse to the beauty and perfection of the world, then Lakes upon the Land. 3. All the causes of Islands were as well before the Flood as since; for there were great Rivers running into the Sea, carrying with them mud, gravell, and weeds, which in time become Islands. There were also Earth∣quakes, by which divers Islands have been made, the vapour or spirit under the bottome of the Sea thrusting up the ground above the superficies of the water; and who will say, that in the space of 16. hundred years before the Flood there should be no Earth-quakes? Again, in that time the Sea had the same power over the neighbouring lands which it hath since the Flood. But we find that Islands were made by the Sea wash∣ing away the soft and lower ground in peninsules at this day; there doubtless the Sea wanted not the same force and quality before the Flood: for there were as forcible winds, and as im∣petuous waves. Lastly, Islands are made when the Sea for∣sakes some Land which it useth to over-flow; and this proper∣ty

also we cannot deny to have been in the Sea before the Flood; for there were windes to beat off the Sea, & to drive to∣gether heaps of sand into some altitude, whereby the water is forced to forsake the land, whence hath proceeded divers Isles.

III. He saith (Book 6. c. 4.) there were more then seven Ostia∣ries of Nilus. Answ. There were but seven of note, the other four were of no account, but passed by as inconsiderable: Hence they were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; therfore the stream of all waters run upon seven; so Virgil, septem discurrit in ora. And AEn. 6. septem gemini turbant trepida ostia Nili. Ovid calls the Ri••er Sep∣temfluus; by others it is named Septemplex; by Valerius, septem amnes; Claudius gives it, septem cornu; Manilius, septem fauces; Ovid, septem portus; Statius septem hiemes; Dionysius Afer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. These seven mouthes have their particular names given them by Mela and other Geographers, and so the Scripture gives it seven streams, Isaiah 11.15. at this day there are but foure left, two of which are of little use; therefore the Doctor needed not to have troubled himselfe so much as he doth, be∣cause so frequenely this is called the seven-mouthed river; for it is usuall to give denominations not from the exact number, but from the most eminent and major part of the number, He may as wel except against Moses, who indivers places reckons but seventy souls which went down into AEgypt; and yet Saint Steven in the Acts mentions 75 souls. Again, he dislikes the Title given by Ortelius to Nilus when he calls it the greatest river of the world. But Ortelius was not mistaken in calling it so; for it is the greatest, though not perhaps in length, because it may be some are longer, the which are not certainly known; yet in breadth when it overflowes the whole Countrey, in which re∣spect it may be called rather a Sea then a River; and so it was called by the Ancients, as Pior Valerius sheweth. Nile, saith Ba∣sil, is liker a Sea then a River, and some esteem the length of it a thousand German miles, or 35. degrees, having Summer at the springs thereof, and Winter at the other end the same time. It is also the greatest in regard of use and benefit; for no River doth so much enrich a Countrey as Nilus doth Egipt. It is the greatest also in same; for no River is so renowned in Writers. By the world also is meant so much as is known to us; for the Rivers of America are known rather by hearsay then otherwise. The greatness of this River was of old Hieroglyphically expres∣sed by the vast body of a Giant. There is a Statue of Nilus in the Vatican, the picture whereof is in Sands his Travels, the

greatest of Poets, by way of excellency calls this the Great Ri∣ver, In magno maerentem corpore Nilum. Again the Doctor will have Rome (magnified by the Latines for the greatest of the earth) to be lesser then Cairo; and Quinsay to exceed both. But he is much mistaken; for Cairo, as Sands tells us who was there, is not a∣bove 5. Italian miles in length with the suburbs, and in bredth scarce one and a halfe; whereas Rome was almost fifty miles in compasse within the walls, and the circuit of the suburbs much more, as Lipsius (de mag. Rom. l. 3. c. 2.) hath collected out of divers Authors: He shewes the greatnesse of it also by the number of the people therein▪ for there were three and twen∣ty thousand poor which was maintained upon the publick charge; then if we reckon the multitude of rich men, and their train, which was not small: (for divers of the great persons; maintained families of foure hundred persons;) if we look upon the multitude of Artificers, of Souldiers, of Courtiers, of stran∣gers from all parts flocking thither, as to the great Metropolis and shop of the World, we shall find there were no lesse then four millions, or fourty hundred thousand people, which is more then can be found in many large provinces. Heliogabolus collected the greatness of this City by the Cobwebs found in it, which being gathered together, did weigh ten thousand pound. Another argument of its greatness may be collected out of Eusebius his Chronicle, who reckons that for many dayes together there were buried of the plague ten thousand daily. Not without cause then was Rome called the Epitome of the world; by Aristides 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Earths workhouse, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the worlds Citadel, or Castle; by Saint Iohn, the great Citie, and the great Babylon▪ by Virgil, Maximum rerum. And it stood with reason that Rome should be the greatest of Cities, being the Queen and Mistress of the greatest Empire, of such large Territories, and full of people, Cities and Nations. Rome then was every way the greatest Citie, both in extent, in power, in people, in glory, in magnificence. What Citie ever had that multitude of stately Palaces, Temples, Theaters, Olisks, triumphant Arches, Baths, and other publick buildings, as Laurus sheweth? As for Quinsay in China, we have a fabulous narration in M. Paulus Venetus, that is was an hundred miles in compasse; but his narrations have been found erroneous, and if the Kingdome of China comes far short of the greatnesse of the Roman Empire, surely Quinsay must fall short of Rome, which as the Poet saith,

Inter alias tantum caput extulit urbes, Quantum lenta solent inter viburna cupress••.

As for Quinsay now it is not thirty miles in compasse, as Nicolas de Contu sheweth who was there. Again he saith, That this anu∣all overflowing is not proper unto Nile, being common to many currents in Africa. I answer, It is so proper to Nile, that no other River doth so orderly, so frequently, so fully, overflow their banks as this doth. Crocodiles (saith he) are not proper to Nile. Answ. They are so proper, that no river either in Africk, Asia, or America, hath such Crocodiles as Nilus, if either we consider the magni∣tude, multitude, or fiercenesse of them; Other Crocodiles, chiefly the American, are gentle, the AEgyptian fierce and cruel, which is the cause that Dogges are so afraid to drink out of Nilus, whence arose that proverb, Canis ad Nilum, The greatest Indian Crocodiles exceed not twenty foot in length, as Scaliger shewes; but those of Nile are three hundred foot long, whose jawes are so wide, that one of them can contain a whole heifer at a time: some have been found there of 25, and above 26. cubits in bigness, as AElian reports. The Romans to shew how proper this beast was to Nile, repre∣sented AEgypt by a Crocodile in that Coin on which Augustus stampt a Crocodile tied to a palm-tree, with this Inscription, Primus relegavit; for he subdued AEgypt, and restored peace to them. Again he saith, That the Causes of Niles inundation are va∣riable, unstable, and irregular, because some yeares there hath been no increase at all. Answ. He may as well say, that the causes of all natural effects are variable, because sometimes they faile: But all naturall causes operate for an end; therefore are con∣stant, regular, and stable, so are not Chance and Fortune, which Aristotle excludes from naturall causes: Are the causes of rain, and storms irregular, variable, and unstable; because sometimes it rains more in Summer then in Winter? Or is generation ir∣regular, because sometimes women miscarry? Naturall causes alwayes produce their effects, or for the most part so, that they faile but seldome, and that upon the interposition of some im∣pediment, whereas fortuitall causes produce their effects sel∣dome: The causes then of Niles overflowing, are not contin∣gent, but certain, constant, regular, and stable; because they never faile, or but seldom upon some impediment in the produ∣cing of that effect. As for the AEgyptian raines I have spoken elsewhere, (animad. on Sir Walt. Raleigh,) Now because of this regular, constant, and beneficial inundation of Nilus, it was called Iupiter AEgiptius, and divine honours were given to it, its annual festival was kept about the Summer Solstitial, when it overflows the land. This was called by the Greeks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

the Priests used to carry the water of Nile on their shoulders with great solemnity to their temples, falling down on their knees, and lifting up their hands, gave solemne thanks to Iu∣piter Nilius, to whose honour they dedicated a certain piece of coin with this Inser••ption, Deo Sancto Nilo.

CHAP. XIV.

1. The cause of Niles inundation. 2. Lots wife truly transformed into a salt Pillar. 3. Hels fire truly black: brimstone causeth blackness. 4. Philoxenus a glutton, and his wish not absurd: How long necks conduce to modulation.

THe Inundation of Nilus (saith the Doctor) proceeds from the rains in AEthiopia. This I deny not, because averred by Diodorus, Seneca, Strab••, Herodotus, Pliny, Solinus, and others both ancient and modern Writers: and it stands with reason; for the Springs of Nilus are neere the Tropick of Capricorn, where it is winter when the Sun is with us in Cancer: then doth it rain abundantly in that Southern climat; for though within the Tropicks the Suns vicinity causeth rains, yet without his distance is the occasion thereof: His melting of snow upon the Hils of AEthopia is a cause of this inundation. But Scaliger de∣nies that there is any snow at all; yet I doe not think the high mountains there should be lesse subject to snow then in Peru under the line, although the people in the low Countries thereof be black, and the windes in the vallies warm. The third cause of Nilus overflowing, are the Etesiae, or northerly windes, which blow there every yeare when the Sunne is in Cancer. This winde blowing into the mouth of Nile, keeps it from running into the Mediterranean sea. Scaliger refutes this reason, because at the same time the river Nigir which runs into the Western Ocean, overflows his banks; but to this I can ea∣sily answer, That at the same time there be different Etesi••, or constant windes in different regions of the world; so that whilst the North wind blows against Nilus, the West or South∣west, which also as Acosta saith, is predominant upon the coast of Peru, blowes against Nigir. As for the original of Nilus, it hath been still held uncertain; Pliny writes that King Iubia found out the springs thereof in the Mauritanian Mountains; but since, this river hath been found as far as the lake Zaire, which is in ten degrees of Southerly latitude. The AEgyptian Sultan did spare neither for men nor cost to search out these springs,

but could not find them; therefore Virgil calls these streams of Nilus, Latebrosa flumina. Herodotus witnesseth, that neither AE∣gyptian, Grecian, nor African could resolve him any thing of Nilus springs. Hence in Homer Nilus is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, falling or descending from Iupiter, because God onely knew the original of this river.

The Doctor (book 7. c. 11.) will not question the metamorphosis of Lots wife, whether she were transformed into a reall statue of salt, though some conceive that expression metaphoricall. That the ex∣pression is not metaphorical, but the transformation real, is manifest by the testimonies of the Rabbins, by the Thargum of Jerusalem, by the best expositers, by Iosephus and Borchardus, in whose times that statue of Salt was yet extant; besides divers reasons doe evince the same: For it was as easie for God to turn her body into a salt Pillar, as to turn Moses rod into a Ser∣pent, Nilus into blood, Nebuchadnezzar into a beast. 2. We see daily transformations in generation, and in our own nutrition. 3. Nature can transform mens flesh into Worms, Calves flesh in∣to Bees, Horses and Asses flesh into Wasps and Hornets. We read also of Birds procreation out of old Timber, of Iaponian dogges transformed into fishes, of water turned into stones, and of an Oyster metamorphosed into a Bird, which was presented to Francis the first of France. 4. The Magicians of Egypt trans▪ formed divers substances, and the Devil by Gods permission hath often done the like; examples of which may be seen in Spuedanus, Camerarius, Peucerus, and others. 5. The Gen∣tiles who laugh at this transformation are convinced by their own stories or Fables, of Ulysses and his fellowes transformed into beasts; and of Diomedes his companions metamorphosed in∣to birds; if they can believe these changes, why should they doubt of Lots wifes transmutation?

III. To conceive a general blacknesse in hell, and yet therein the material flames of sulphur, is no Philosophical conception, nor will it consist with the real effects of its nature. Answ. What though this were no Philosophical conceptions, nor consisting with the ef∣fects of Nature, is it therefore untrue? God is not subject to Philosophical conceptions, nor to the lawes of nature who could make fire to burn, but not consume the bush, and make the fiery furnace burn the Chaldeans, and yet not sindge a haire of the three childrens cloathes; the same power can make blacknesse and the flames of sulphur dwel together in hell; and which is more, he can make fire, which naturally is accompa∣nied with light, to be the subject of darkness in Hell. But the

Doctor is deceived by his experiments, who thinks that sulphur affords no blacking smoak; for I know the contrary by blacking paper with the smoak thereof. Besides, both Philosophers and experience tell us, that the sulphurous vapours which in thun∣dring and lightning break through the clouds, do make black the things touched with them; so saith Aristotle, Pliny, and o∣thers: And though Brimstone make red Roses and Tiffany white, it wil not therfore follow that it will make any thing white; the Sun beams which whiteneth the Linnen, tawns the skin; and if the whitning of things by sulphur, proceeds as he saith from its drying and penetrating quality, much more would all things be whitened by the Sun and fire, whose heat is more penetrating and drying; but we see how many things by them are blackned; and the very heat of the fire will induce black∣nesse upon paper, though there come no smoke at all to it. He therefore who long since destroyed Sodom with fire and brim∣stone, will with the same materials punish the wicked in hell, where shall be in stead of light, blackness and darkness.

IV. Philoxenus the Musician desired a Crains neck, not for any pleasure at meat, but fancying thereby an advantage in singing, (Book 7. c. 14.) Answ. That this Philoxenus was a glutton, ancient Historians do affirme, and that he wished a Cranes neck to en∣joy the longer pleasure of meat and drink, is asserted by Aristo∣tle, Athenaeus, Machon the Comick, AElian and others: Machon sayes, that he wished a neck of three cubits long. He was a great Fish eater, therefore was nick-named Phylichthys, and Solenista from Solenes, a kind of Oysters which he delighted in. Being one day at Table with Dionysius the tyrant, he had a small mullet set before him, which he takes up in his hand, and holds to his eare; Dionysius asks what he meant by that? He answers, that he had asked advice of Galataea, but she sayd that she was too young to advise him; and that he were best to consult with the old Galataea in Dionysius his dish: At which the Tyrant laughing, gave him the great Mullet that he had before him, which was very pleasing to the glutton. This story is recor∣ded by Caelius Rhodiginus, and doubtless that proverb, Collaria cadavera, that is long necked carcasses, which Erasmus borrowes from Aristophanes, hath relation to this wish of Philoxenus; for by it are meant Gluttons and Drunkards, who being buried in sleep and wine, are little better then dead carcasses with long necks, as this Philoxenus was, whose belly was his God; of whom it is recorded, that when he saw a dish of good meat, he would spit upon it, that he might enjoy it all alone: Yet

the Doctor denies this wish upon no other ground, but because it was absurd. Sure this is no ground at all; for it is no unusall thing with Gluttons and Drunkards, both to wish and doe absurdly. His wish was not so ausurd as that of Midas, vvho vvished all he touched might become gold; or that of Helioga∣balus, vvho vvished and longed that he might eat the Phoenix, being the onely single bird in the World. Again, this vvish of Philoxenus was not so absurd as the Doctor thinks: for though the Tongue be the organ of tast, yet the Oesophagus cannot be altogether tastlesse, seeing there is one common membrane which is nervous to it and the Tongue. Now the membrane of the Tongue is the medium of tast: vvill any man say then, There is no tast or pleasure in deglutition? We find by expe∣rience, how unpleasant to the throat is the discent of bitter pills, or potions; so that I could never yet swallow a bitter pill, be it never so small. That there is much pleasure in de∣glutition of sweet meats and drinks, is plain by the practice of those vvho to supply the vvant of long necks, use to suck their drink out of long small Canes, or Quils, or glasses with long narrow snouts: And others for vvant of these vvill tipple lea∣surely, and let their liquor glide down the throat gently and by degrees: therefore doubtlesse Philoxenus knew that a long neck conduced much to the pleasure of eating and drinking, which made him vvish for a Cranes neck, that he might en∣joy for some longer time the relish of his delicate viands, which gave the name afterwards to dainties and sweet meats; for they vvere termed Placontae Philo••eniae. Again, when he saith, That it had been more reasonable if Philoxenus had wished himselfe a Horse; because in this animall the appetite is more vehement; he is deceived, for the vehemency of the appetite is no pleasure, but pain; there is no pleasure in hunger and thirst, but in eating and drinking. And indeed there is no reason that he who lo∣ved fish and sweet meats so well, should with himselfe a Horse, vvho must content himselfe vvith Oats and Hay, and somtimes vvith dry straw, without any sawce; he should rather have vvished himself to have been Apuleius his Asse, who sometimes filled his belly with good pies, and other dainties. Lastly, when he saith, That canorous birds have short necks, and that long necked birds are not musicall. I answer, It is not the length of the neck that hinders medulation, but the widenesse thereof: For which cause youth before puberty, women, & Eunuchs, have more melodious voyces then men, whose a••pera arteria, vvith other vessels, are dilated by the heat of the Testicles: For

therwise we find that the length of the neck is ahelp to singing: Hence birds thrust out their necks when they chant, which the Poet intimates when he saith,

Longa canoros dant per colla modos.

Therefore the proportionable length of wind-instruments doth conduce to modulation.

CHAP. XV.

1. Heavy bodies swim in the dead sea: and the Ancients in this point defended. 2. Crassus had reason to laugh at the Ass eating Thi∣s••tles: Laughter defined: in laughter there is sorrow; in weep∣ing, joy. 3. That Christ never laughed, proved. 4. Fluctus De∣cumans, what?

THat heavie bodies will not sink in the Lake Asphaltites, or dead sea of Sodome, is affirmed by Aristotle, Solinus, Diodorus, Iustin, Strabo, Plutarch, Iosephus, and others, and confirmed by the practice of Vespasian, casting into that lake captives bound, vvho sloated and sunk not: Besides that, it stands with reason; for salt vvater will support heavie burthens, much more will that vvater which is thickned with a forcible ebullition of Sul∣phur and Bi••umen; yet the Doctor (Book 7. c. 15.) will not be∣lieve but that heavy bodies doe sink there, though not so easily as in o∣ther waters. Therefore rejects Pliny's swimming of Bricks, Man∣devils Iron, and Munsters burning Candle, which sinks not there, as fabulous; yet all this may be true: for the ebullition may be so forcible, the water so thickned with the Bitumen, the sul∣phurous vapours and spirits ••o violently tending upward, that they may waft up Bricks and Iron, and not suffer them to sink. A greater wonder then this may be seen in those that write of AEtna, Vesuvius, the burning hills of Island and America, whence are belched out and elevated into the air, great stones by those fiery vapours which issue out of those Vulcans. Within these twenty years Vesuvius cast out great stones above twenty miles distance. And therefore it is no such wonder for a burn∣ing Candle to swim, which being extinguished, sinketh; for the flame adds levity to it. But let us see the Doctors reasons, 1. Iosephus (saith he) affirms that onely living bodies float, not per∣emptorily averring they cannot sink, but that they doe not easily de∣scend.

Answ. The words of Iosephus are these (de bel. Iud. l. 5. c. 5.) The most heavy bodies that are being cast into this Lake, float upon it, neither can any man be ••asily drowned there, though he would. Here Iosephus speaks both of living bodies, that though they vvould, they cannot sink easily; they may force themselves per∣haps to dive under the water, but not vvithout difficulty, and he speaks also of the heaviest things in generall. Aristotle (saith he) speaks lightly thereof,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and esteemeth thereof as a Fable. Answ. Aristotle speaks not lightly but se∣riously of this Lake; for from the quality of supporting heavy bodies, he deduceth one of his prime Arguments to prove the salsedinous quality of the Sea. But the Doctor deceiveth himselfe in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as if this did still signifie a fabulous relation; whereas in that place, and elsewhere, it signifieth a serious narration. So confabulari in Latin doth sig∣nifie conference of serious matters for the most part: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to speak, not to tell Fables, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a word or speech. In Homer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifieth a grave and serious speech made by Agamemnon. So in the same Poet, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to speak and discourse. The like in Phocylides, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to be moderat in eating, drinking, & speaking. Andrew Thevet (saith he) saw an Asse cast therein and drowned. Answ. So saith Camerarius indeed, and I will not question the truth of Thevets narration; there may be diuers reasons of this, the violent hurling of the Asse with his burden under the vvater. 2. His sudden suffocation by the sulphurous exhalations. 3. The Lake in all places thereof, and at all times, hath not the same violent ebullitions, but sometimes there is remission. The Asse then might sink in such a place, and at such a time when and where the boiling was remiss, the vapours weak, and the water thinner then in other parts of the same Lake. But hence it will not follow, that in other parts, and at o∣her times, the heaviest bodies may not swim there.

II. That Crassus never laughed but once, and that was at an Asse eating Thistles, seems strange to the Doctor, yet he gives no reason for this, but only that the object was unridiculous, & that laughter is not meerly voluntary. But these are no reasons: For a more ridiculous ••bject there cannot ••e, then to see such a med∣ley o•• pleasure and pain in the Asses eating of Thistles; for whilst he bites them, they prick him, so that his tongue must needs be pricked, though perhaps his lips may be hard, and not so easily pen••trable; whence arose the Proverb, Like lips, like ••••tice. But there was somthing else in this that moved Crassus to

laugh: For he saw here the vanity both of most men taking pleasure in those things which are accompanied vvith much pain and sorrow: Besides, he saw here the folly of the Roman rich men, who held Thistles such a dainty dish, that they would not suffer poor men to eat thereof, engrossing them vvith great summes of money to themselves, vvhich notwithstanding the Asses did eat on free cost. Was it not then a ridiculous thing to see rich men pay so dear for Asses food, and to debarre poore men from that meat which they permitted to Asses? Pliny could not but laugh at the consideration of this folly. 2. When he saith, that Laughter is not meerly voluntary, he can inferre no∣thing from hence, except this, That it was as naturall for Crassus to laugh, as for others; which I deny: For some are more naturally inclined to it then others; all have not the like temper and constitution of body, some have hard and so∣lid hearts, heavie and pensive spirits, which no ridiculous ob∣ject can move to laugh; these are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. There be others again who can never be moved to weep. But he gives us here a lame definition of laughter, when he sayes, It is a sweet contraction of the Muscles of the face, and a pleasant agitation of the vocall organs. These are but the effects of laughter, the cause is the softnesse and agility of the heart, the cheerfulnesse and levity of the spirits, moving first the Diaphragma, and by them the Muscles. Again, there is a laughter called Sardonius, which is accompanied vvith a contraction of the Muscles, but this is not sweet, yet it is laughter; and in finging, vvhich is not laugh∣ter, there is an agitation of the vocall organs, accompanied vvith pleasure. Lastly, whereas he condemneth Heraclitus, who by his weeping made a hell on earth; he is deceived: For often∣times there is hell in laughing, and a heaven in weeping; in tears there is often delight, and in laughing pain, and as Solo∣mon saith, Madnesse. Aristotle saith (1. Rhet.) That there is in sorrow and tears a certain sense of pleasure; and as Prudentius saith,

Gaudia concipiunt lachrymas, dant gaudia fletum.

This is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Teares (saith St. Ambrose) feed the mind, and ease the heart, vvhich David found vvhen he said, My tears have been my meat day and night. Good men therefore found not the uncomfortable attendments of hell in weeping, but rather the comfortable enjoyments of heaven.

III. The Scripture witnesseth, that Christ wept thrice, but never that he laughed. The Doctor thinks there is no danger

to affirm the act and performance of that, whereof we acknowledge the power and essentiall property, and whereby he convinced the doubt of his humanity. Answ. We deny not but there was in Christ, by reason of his humanity, the faculty of risibility; yet it will not follow that therefore he did actually laugh: For this act is rather a property of levity and folly, then of reason and humanity; therefore we see women more inclined to laughing then men, childhood then old age, and fools then wise men. Neither needed Christ to prove his humanity by laughing, he proved it sufficiently by weeping, which is the first demon∣strative act of our humanity as soon as we are born; onely Zo∣roastres the author of Magick, came like a fool laughing into the World. Again, he saith, We need not fear to adscribe that to the in∣carnat Sun, which is sometimes attributed to the uncarnat Father. Answ. From a metaphoricall laughing which is adscribed to the Father, to a naturall and reall laughing in the Son, can be no consequence. God laughs figuratively, therefore Christ laughs really, is as good a consequence, as if I should infer, that man flieth naturally, because God is said to flie tropically. Last∣ly, he saith, It is not reasonable to conclude from Scripture negatively, in points which are not matters of Faith. Answ. It is true, vvhere the Scripture speaks superficially, and by the way of any thing, divers circumstances are omitted, in which regard we may not conclude negatively; but where the Scripture speaks exactly, as it doth of our Saviour, vve may reason from the negative. For no lesse then four Evangelists write the story of Christ so fully, that they mention all his passions and affections, as his anger, joy, sorrow, pity, hunger, thirst, feare, wearisomnesse, &c. They speak that he mourned three severall times. So when the Prophets describe him, they set him out as a man of sorrowes, acquainted with griefes, smitten of God, and afflicted, woun∣ded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, and stric∣ken for our sins. It is strange then, that neither Prophet, Hi∣storian, Apostle, nor Evangelist, should speak a word of his laughing, and yet so punctually mention to us his griefs, sor∣rows, and weeping: therefore not without cause did Chryso∣stome, Austin, Basil, Bernard, and others, conclude negatively, That Christ never laughed, and yet he did not for this cease to be a Man. For the like is recorded of Crassus, Grand-father to that Crassus who was killed in the Parthian war; who (as is said) never laughed but once. It is also recorded of Anaxago∣ras, Aristoxenes, Socrates, Cato, Nerva the Emperour, and others, that they were never seen to laugh. Besides, seldome or never

is laughing in Scripture taken in a good sense; it is called mad∣nesse, and like the cracking of thorns: laughing is threatned to end in sorrow, and woe is denounced to those that laugh; but a blessing to the mourners. As for the priority of the heart above the brain, whereof the Doctor speaks here, I have already proved out of Aristotle, and it is plain that in the Scripture it is of greater account then the brain, because this is never men∣tioned, but still the heart, let Physitians say what they wil for the brains principality.

IV. That Fluctus decumanus, or the tenth wave, is greater or more dangerous then any other, &c. is evidently false. Here the Doctor troubles himself to no purpose, in refuting the great∣nesse of the tenth wave, and tenth egge: For the tenth of any thing was not counted the greatest, but the greatest of any things was called by the name of Tenth; because that is the first perfect number, as consisting of 1, 2, 3 and 4. It was also held a sacred number; therefore the tenth of spoils was dedicated to Hercules, and from him called Herculan, the tenth of fruits was paid by the Corinthians to Cyphelus their King, by Cyrus to Iupiter, by the Arabians to Sabis, and long before by Abra∣ham and Iacob to the true God. When there was yet no po∣sitive law, but the law of Nature. In the number then of Ten, the Ancients conceived there was perfection and excellencie: For Nature perfects man, and brings him into the world the tenth moneth; she hath parted his hands into ten fingers, his feet into ten toes: she hath given him ten passages for evacua∣tion, in three ten dayes the male child is formed in the womb, in foure ten dayes the female: there be ten Heavens; they made up their musick of ten strings, their year of ten moneths, Apol∣lo with the nine Muses made up the full consort, they used to drink but ten times in their Feasts, the womans Dowry anci∣ently was ten Sestertia at least; and the greatest ordinarily de∣cies Sestertium, that is ten hundred thousand pounds, of our money 7812. l. 10. s. Many other observations may be made of this number; therefore any thing that was greater then ano∣ther, was called Decumanum. Porta decumana was the great gate of the Camp. Limes decumanus in grounds, was from East to West; decumana pyra in Pliny, are great Pears; Decumatio was the calling forth of every tenth delinquent in an Army for pu∣nishment: And Lipsius thinks that from them the great gate of the Camp out of which they went, was called Decumana. This number also of Ten is musical in Scripture, as may be seen in divers passages thereof. Now whereas he saith, That the Greeks

expresse the greatest wave by the number of three, as their word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 shewes. This he hath from Erasm us in his Adagies: but I think the word is not from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, three, but from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I fear; so this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not the third wave, but the most terrible & greatest wave. Hence the Latin Decumanus should be rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

CHAP. XVI.

1. Epicurus, a wicked and wanton man, impious in his opinions. Seneca's judgement of him. 2. Twelve of his impious and ab∣surd opinions rehearsed.

THe Doctor is very prodigall of his pitie, when he cries out, Who can but pitie the vertuous Epicurus, who is commonly conceived to place his chiefe felicity in pleasure and sensual delights, &c. But these pleasures were of the mind, not of the body. Gassendus indeed hath taken much needlesse pains to vindicate Epicurus from his errors and impiety; but in this he washeth a Brick, or Blackmore: his chiefe supporter is Diogenes Laertius, an obscure Authour in former times: for no ancient Writer speaks of him; and he cites more Philosophers then (it's thought) he ever read. This Laertius lived 450. years after Epicurus, that is, in the time of Antonius pius, about 150. years after Christ; where∣as Epicurus lived almost 300. years before our Saviour. Now how he should come to know more of Epicurus then those Phi∣losophers who were contemporary with him, even his own dis∣ciples, who writ the life and doctrine of that wanton garden Philosopher; is a thing to be questioned, and to indifferent men improbable: For whatsoever Gassendus out of this Laertius, writes of his commendations, yet we find in the writings of ancient Philosophers among the Gentiles, and primitive Doc∣tors among the Christians, that he was a man lewd in his con∣versation, and monstrous in his opinions; so that ever since he opened his Schoole till this day, a wanton Atheist is called an Epicure. Sine vano publica fama. Sure there could not be so much smoke without some fire; and to say that his contempo∣rary Philosophers, chiefly the Stoicks, should out of malice write untruths of him, is very improbable: For to what end should they doe so? And why more against him then any other? Besides, if he was innocent, why did he not vindicate his own reputation by writing? Why did not his Scholars stand up in

his defence, how came it that in almost five hundred years he was branded by the tongues and pens of all men, and no man all that while stood up to cleare his reputation, till Diogines Laertius produced three of his Epistles, which wise men may think to be fictitious; and the rather because they contradict what his own Scholars, and ancient Philosophers have recor∣ded of him. For Timecrates his beloved Disciple, and one whom he made one of the Executors of his last will, writes, that with excesse of eating and drinking he used to vomit twice a day. And Laertius himself is forced to confesse, that he killed himselfe in the Bath with drinking too much sweet wine, and so he shewed himselfe to be Epicurus indeed. He was so decre∣pid the later part of his life, that for many yeares together he could not rise out of his chaire, he had so enervated his body with pleasures, wherein he placed his felicity. Is this the Do∣ctors vertuous Epicurus, who spent every day a Mina, vvhich was an hundred Drachma's, that is, 3. l. 2. s. 6. d. every Drachma being 7. d. ob. I confesse onely Seneca among the Stoicks speaks favourably of Epicurus his opinion concerning pleasure, as if he meant of mentall delights (lib. 1. de vit. beat.) yet withall checks him, shewing that his commending of pleasure was per∣nitious, because voluptuous men upon this took occasion to hide their luxury in the bosome of Philosophy, and to cover their wantonnesse with the patrociny and mantle of pleasure: Therefore elsewhere he calls him, The Master of pleasure, and one who too much yeelded to the delights of the body. Seneca therefore by speaking favourably of Epicurus, would keep off voluptuous men from making him their patron of sensual plea∣sures; and was loath that the sacred name of Philosophy should be bespattered by such an impious professor: His inten∣tion in this was good, but yet truth should take place. Neither doth the honour of a holy profession depend upon the quality of the professor; though wicked Iudas vvas an execrable Apo∣stle, yet the Apostolicall function is sacred. But perhaps it may be objected, That Epicurus did oftentimes use to fast, and content himself with bread and water. I answer, That there is a pleasure sometimes in fasting, as well as in feasting: the na∣ture of man delights in change; if it were not for abstinence sometimes, we should not know the delight of fulnesse; dark∣nesse commends the pleasure of light, and Winter adds to the delights of Summer. There is a vvearisomnesse in continu∣all feasting, which takes away pleasure. therefore Epicurus to maintain an alternate vicissitude of delights, would inter∣changeably

fast and feast. But his abstinence was to increase the pleasure of his intemperance; and his intemperance was to add delight to his abstinence. Beside that, he was necessitated som∣times to fast for his healths sake, and enjoyment of a long life, vvhich could not consist in continuall surfeiting. Seneca (in E∣pistol.) also reproves Epicurus for his inconstancy in saying, That vertue is never without pleasure; and yet affirms that it is not the vertue but the pleasure that makes a man happy. A foolish distinction saith he: For if Vertue be never vvithout that vvhich makes a man blessed, then vertue it selfe is suffici∣ent to beatitude, and that perfectly; for otherwise an imperfect felicity is infelicity. Again, in his Book of Benefits he tells Epicurus, That vertue is to be desired for its selfe, not for its pleasure, vvhich he proves out of his own Doctrine of God: though he hath disarmed him of all power, excluded him from all commerce and care of Man, yet he worships him for his greatnesse and goodnesse, though he have no benefit by him, nor is afraid of any hurt from him. Again, he commends many of Epicurus his sayings, not because they were his, but because they were common Principles and Tenents used by him, Non quia Epicuri voces, sed quia publicae. Another reason he gives, because some sayings are rare and unexpected out of his mouth, whose doctrine and practice was so lascivious: and therefore he commends his sayings more then his actions: he says he was fortis, sed manuleatus, a brave man, but vvithal debau∣ched and effeminate; brave in his sayings, but debauched in practice. Ignava opera Philosopha sententia. As there be too ma∣ny like him, Stoicks in opinion, and Epicureall in conversati∣on; by nature saith the Comick, we are all prone to pleasure & lasciviousness, d labore proclives ad libidinem. Arcesilaus being asked why so many of other Sects revolted to Epicurus, but none fell from him to them, answered, That Cocks can be easily made Capons, but Capons could never become Cocks again. It is easie to become and turn a Priest of Cybele, but not so easie to return. Facilis discensus Averni, sed revocare gradum, superasque evadere ad auras, hoc opus hic labor. Broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, but the gate to salvation is narrow, and sew en∣ter thereat. Seneca also checks that Master of the Revels for saying, In contented poverty there is much honesty: For how can he be poore that is content? It is content that maketh rich, discontent poore. He plainly bids defiance to Epicurus his opinion of pleasure, in his fourth book of Benefits, calling his Sect effeminate, umbratick, trencher Philosophers, making ver∣tue

the hand-maid to pleasures, which ought to be the Mi∣stresse, enslaving her to her Vassals, which she ought to lead, to command, to keep under; he calls it a manifest blindnesse in them to set the Cart before the Horse, to prefer pleasure before Vertue, to set that first which should be last: And not onely is he angry for advancing pleasure, but for joyning it with Ver∣tue at all, which scorns pleasures, and accounts them her ene∣mies, desiring rather the acquaintance and familiarity of pains and labour, then of such an effeminate happinesse as pleasure. Now that these pleasures of Epicurus are not mental, but cor∣poral, the same Seneca (whom the Doctor cities for his defence) makes it appeare in the 13. Chapter of the same book; Your pleasure, O Epicurus, saith he, is to accustome your tender bo∣dies to dull idlenesse, to a sleepy security, in the heat to delight your selves in cold shades, to solace your drooping souls with wanton thoughts, and to cram your lasie karkasses with good meats & drinkes in your shady gardens. Any man therefore may see that Epicurus his God was his belly, and gormandising his chiefe happinesse. Wherefore Athanaeus, lib. 7. shewes, that he flattered Idomeneus and Metrodorus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for his bellies sake. The same Seneca also rejects Epicurus his impious opinion of God, whom he makes as idle as himselfe, sitting in another world secure and careless of humane affaires, acting nothing at all, which is Epicurus his chiefe happinesse, and tak∣ing no notice of our injuries and benefits. If this were so (saith he) the world had been made to solicite such deafe and im∣potent Deities with vowes, supplications, and lifting up of hands: Thou O Epicurus (saith he) hast disarmed God, and taken from him all his darts and power, so that he is not to be feared of any; thou hast secluded him from this world by a wal or rampire, so that he can neither see nor feel what is acted here. Hence then it is plain, that Seneca was no supporter of Epicurus, though he commends some of his moral sentences, not because they were his, but because they were common; and what greater commendation is it for him to speak some good sentences, then for the Devil to utter Scripture phrases. Lastly, Seneca's commendations, (if any such be) of Epicurus, are of no great moment, seeing with him he doubts of the souls immor∣tality; when he saith, Illa quae nobis inferos faciunt terribiles fabula est, &c. Cons. ad Marcian.

II. But that we may have a more full view of this swinish Philosopher, whom the Doctor commends for his vertue, long life, and many books, we wil poynt at some of his absurd and

impious tenents, that Gassendus, and other phantastical heads of this wanton age, may see what a goodly School of Philosophy they would open here in Christendome. 1. He rejects Logick, calling it, as Laertius tells us 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, superfluous, or prepos∣terous, whereas it is the most usefull of all human Arts or Scien∣ces; for without Logick we can neither define, nor divide, nor distinguish, we can neither tel the essential nor accidental dif∣ferences, nor identities of things; we can neither discourse or reason, speak or write methodically, we can inferre no conclu∣sion from any premises, nor find out probable and demonstra∣tive arguments for proof of any thing, nor detect the fallacies and captions that are in mens discourses. But it is no wonder he denys the Art of Reasoning, who knew not what ••eason was; for he confounds it with the senses, as if it had its essence and being in and from them. And in his Epistle to Phythocles, he would not have his happy men to meddle with any know∣ledge or discipline at all. 2. He makes a difference between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Universe and the World; affirming that there is but one Universe, but innumerable Worlds subject to conti∣nual generation and corruption; a position repugnant to Divi∣nity, Philosophy, sense and reason. 3. He makes a certain space between his worlds, which he cals 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Tully translates it intermundium, there he places his idle and carelesse Gods sleeping securely, as not being troubled with noyse, tumblings and clamours of this tumultuous world. 4. He saith that the Sun, Moon and Starres were made a part by themselves, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and afterward were palces in this. 5. He will have the just magnitude of the Sun and Starres to depend upon our sen∣ses, and to be no bigger then they seem to our eye; so that the bignesse of the Sun cannot exceed a foot. 6. He tels us that the Sun every night perisheth, and every day is generated. 7. He acknowledgeth no other happinesse then what consists in the pleasure of tasting, smelling, seeing, hearing, feeling, or venery, as may be seen in Laertius. 8. He makes all things to have their existence not by providence, but by hap-hazard of Atoms, and not the bodies of things onely, but the reasonable souls of men also, which he makes subject to uncertainty. 9. He makes all the Gods 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with humane shapes. 10. He reach∣eth, as Plutarch tels us, that there is no qualities in things, but what the senses apprehend; so that the same wine may be both sweet and source, according to the palat that tasts it; and hot water is not hot but coole, if a man conceit it to be so. 11. He makes his doctrine fit for all mens humours; he commends

wealth to the covetous, discommends it to the prodigall and riotous; he praiseth gormondising to the Glutton, dispraiseth it to the abstenious: he tells the continent venery is hurtful, but to the wanton that it is delightful and pleasant. 12. He she∣weth himself to be a prophane Atheist in despising Religion, making it a tyrant to keep men in aw, a pernitious device and a scar-crow to terrifie and enslave the vvorld. And now lest any might think that Epicurus is wronged, and that these dam∣nable opinions are fathered upon him causlesly, I will not al∣ledge Cicero, Plutarch, Lactantius, and others that have pro∣fessedly written against him, but his prime Scholar Lucretius, who highly commends him, as being the first that freed the World from the bondage and slavery of Religion: His words are these:

Humana ante oculos faede quum vita jaceret In terris oppressa gravi sub relligione, Quae caput •• coeli regionibus ostendeba•• Horribili super adspectu mortalibus instans: Primum Graius homo mortales tendere contra, Est oculos ausus, primus{que} obsistere contra: Quem ne{que} fama Deûm, nec fulmina nec minitanti Murmure compressit coelum, &c.

And so he goes on, glorying in the conquest and victory that Epicurus had got over religion, Quare relligio pedibus subjecta vi∣cissim obteritur, nos exaequat victoria coelo. His other wicked and absurd opinions, you may see mentioned and commen∣ded by the same Poet through all his Poem; so that the Do∣ctor hath no reason to complain that Epicurus is wronged, and much lesse cause hath he to commend and pity so prophane and absurd a Writer, & to call him vertuous who was the greatest enemy that ever vertue had. Neither are his many Writings, or long life, arguments sufficient to prove him an honest man. I shall not need spend time and paper in refuting the senslesse and wicked Dictates of Epicurus, being fully refuted already by divers eminent Writers, both Christians and Gentiles.

CHAP. XVII.

Epicurus his Atomes rejected by nineteen reasons.

BEcause the Doctor speaks oftentimes in his Book of Epi∣curean Atomes, which first were hatched in the brains of Leucippus, then entertained by Democritus, and by him recom∣mended to his Scholar Epicurus; and because some giddy heads of this age loathing wholsome doctrine, desire to embrace any trash, like women troubled with the Pica, who preferre ashes, chalk, coals, tarre, and such like stuffe, to nourishing meats. I will propose to the Readers view, the absurdities of this whim∣sical opinion concerning Atomes, that they may see how little reason there is to fil young brains with such empty phantosms, and to reject Aristotles wholsome and approved Doctrine of Principles. The inventers of these Atomes at first, out of a vain-glory that they might seem singular, rejected the common received principles of naturall Bodies, obtruding on the World their idle dreams; which are greedily embraced by the vain-glorious wits of this age, but upon what grounds let us see: 1. Either many bodies are made up of one atome, or one body of many atomes. But neither are true; not the first, be∣cause an atome is indivisible; not the second, because they cannot unite together in respect of vacuity in which they are distant from each other. 2. It is a maxime among them (saith Aristotle) That there is no passibility but by the means of vacuity. Now atomes have no vacuity in them, because they make them solid, therefore they are not subject to passibi∣lity; it will follow then, that where there is no passion, there can be no action; for passion is the reception of action, and therefore where no patient is, there no agent can be, because that is wanting on which the agent should act. Hence it will follow, that where there is no action and passion, there can be no generation. 3. There can be no action where there is no contrariety; but contrary qualities are not in atomes: for Leucippus (as Aristotle saith) placed heat in them, but not cold; hardnesse, but not softnesse; gravity, but not levity. 4. These Atomists contradict themselves: for they hold their atomes impassible, and yet place in them degrees of qualities, making some heavier then others; by which it will follow, that some atomes are hotter then others, and consequently they cannot act one upon another: For the greater heat acts upon the

lesser, as the stronger upon the weaker. 5. If compounded bodies are made up of atomes, then the qualities which are in these bodies, were first in the atomes, or were not; if not, whence have compounded bodies their qualities, being they are not in their principles? If they are in atomes, either they are singly, so that in each atome there is but one quality, as frigidity in one, hardnesse in another; or else there be di∣vers qualities in one atome. If the first be granted, then it will follow, that each atome hath a different nature from the other, and so no possibility for reception of the quality of another, and consequently no action; if the second be gran∣ted, then it will follow that atomes are divisible: for there must be one part for reception of one quality, and another part for the other quality. There must be also besides, integrall parts, matter and form, act and passibility, which we call essen∣tiall parts; so will it follow, that atomes are compounded bo∣dies, which cannot be principles. 6. The uniting of these a∣tomes must be either by themselves, or by another; if by ano∣ther, then they are passible, which is repugnant to Democritus; if by themselves, then they are divisible into parts, to wit, into the parts moving, and the parts moved: For nothing can move itselfe; because contrarieties cannot be in the same thing se∣cundum idem. 7. They make some of the atomes to be soft; it will follow then, that some of them are passive: for soft things are apt to receive impressions, and so to suffer. 8. If these a∣tomes be smooth and round, as some will have them, they can no more unite to make up a mixt body, then so many small seeds or grains, which onely make up a body aggregate, as a heap of stones; but if they be rough, cornerd, or hooked, as o∣thers say, then they are divisible, and so not atomes. 9. If there be innumerable worlds, as Epicurus holds, and innume∣rable atomes must concurre to make up any one of these Worlds, how many innumerable atomes are there to make up innumerable Worlds? There must needs be more atomes then Worlds, and consequently degrees of more and lesse in innu∣merability and infinity, then which nothing can be more ab∣surd. 10. If all things are made of atomes, to what end was seed given to vegitables and animals for procreation? What needs the Husbandman sow corn, or the Gardiner cast his seeds into the ground? What needs he dig or plow, plant, & water, whereas all fruits, herbs and plants, can be produced by atomes? Birds, saith Lactantius, need not lay eggs, nor sit upon them for procreation, seeing of atomes both eggs and bird

can be produced. 11. The souls and their faculties are made of finer and smaller atomes then the bodies which are com∣pounded of a grosser sort. It must then follow they have de∣grees of magnitude, and consequently divisibility. 12. Those atomes have neither knowledge, reason, wisdome, nor coun∣sell, and yet can produce by hap-hazard, worlds and all things in them, which neither Men nor Angels can effect by their wis∣dom. 13. If the statue or picture of a man cannot be effected, but by art, reason, & wisdom, what impudency is it, saith Lactan∣tius, to affirm man himselfe by chance to be made, or by a ••e∣merarious and fortuitall conglobation of atomes. 14. We see the World and the creatures therein governed, not temerari∣ously, but by an admirable providence and wisdome, how then can any imagine these should be made by chance, and not by wisdome. ▪ 15. I would know whether Towns, Castles, Tem∣ples, Ships, & other buildings, are made up of atomes? If these are not, how shall we believe that celestiall or sublunary bo∣dies, or the whole World should be made of them. 16. When Epicurus gives to his atomes magnitude, figure and weight, hee makes them perfect bodies, and consequently unapt for Physi∣call mixtion: For the uniting of perfect bodies makes up an aggregative body; so that in the generation of bodies there is no mixtion but aggregation, which is ridiculous. 17. Hee gives figures to his atomes, and yet makes them invisible, which is a plain Bull and contradiction: For an invisible figure is like an invisible colour, an inaudible sound, an inodorable smell, an ungustible sapor, an untangible hardnesse. To make the senses proper objects insensible, is a senslesse toy. 18. He makes his atomes move downward in a straight line, by reason of their gravity; but fearing lest by this motion there would never be any concurring of them for generation, he assignes them in another motion, which he calls declination, and so to one simple invisible indivisible body, he gives two motions, but tells us not the cause of this motion of declination, which as Tully saith, argues his grosse ignorance in Natural Philosophy: For I would know whether this motion be from an internal or external cause; not from an internall, for there is no other internal cause of the atomes motion downward, but gravity, which cannot produce two motions; the cause cannot be ex∣ternal, because Epicurus his Gods doe not move or work at all: Beside that, his Gods are also made of atomes, as Cicero shews. 19. Most ridiculously did he invent this motion of Declina∣tion, lest he should seem to deprive man of his liberty of will:

For he thought mans will must needs be necessitated, if those atomes of which the soul is made, should have no other motion but downward, which is a naturall and necessary motion. And by the same means also he took away Fate or providence. Thus have I briefly touched the absurdities of this opinion, which is so hugged, and greedily swallowed without chew∣ing, by some unsetled and vain-glorious men, not regarding the dangerous consequences arising thence, nor the impiety of the Authour, being both an Atheist and a prophane wan∣ton, and unsetled in his opinions, saying and unsaying at his pleasure: For when he saw the envie and danger he had brought upon himselfe by his impious Dictates, he swee∣tens them a little in effect, as Tully saith, denying all Divini∣ty, and yet in words allowing Divine Worship, which is most ridiculous: to pray and praise, to feare and love, to serve and worship such Gods as neither love nor hate us, such as take no notice of our good and evill, such as have no relation to us, nor we to them. So he palliates sometimes his swinish pleasures with the delights of the mind, clothing a foul Strumpet with the habit of a modest Matron; whereas by the delight of the minde, he meant nothing else but men∣tall thoughts, or the delightfull remembrance of his fleshly pleasures, which we leave to him and his Disciples, Epicuri de grege porcis.

CHAP. XVIII.

1. That Chrystal is of water, proved, and the contrary objections an∣swered: how it differs from Ice. 2. The Loadstone moves not; its Antipathy with Garlick. Of the Adamant, Versoria, Amber, &c.

THat Crystall was at first Water, then Ice, and at last by extream cold hardned into a stone, was the opinion of the ancient Philosophers, and of Scaliger the best of the Modern; but Mathiolus, Cardan, B••ētius de Boöte, and Agricola, with some others, will have it to be a Minerall body, hardned not by cold, but by heat, or a Minerall spirit. Of this opinion is the Doctor (Book 1. Cap. .) but his reasons are not satisfa∣ctory: For first (saith he) Minerall spirits resist congelation, but Ice is water congealed by cold. Answ. He takes this for

granted which is not: For he is to prove Crystal a mineral, and that 'tis hardned by a mineral spirit, which he doth not. Again, all Minerals resist not congelation, but further it some∣times as he sheweth himselfe of Snow and Salt by the fire side turned into Ice, and of water converted into Ice, by Salt-pe∣ter. Besides, all minerals are not hard; for Quicksilver is not, nor can mineral spirits harden their own bodies or keep them from dissolving into liquor, it is the external heat or cold that doth it, not the internal spirit, as we see in Salt, which dis∣solves into water if it be not hardned by the heat of Sun or fire, and so will Ice dissolve into water, if the cold grow remiss or the heat prevaile. If then a Mineral spirit cannot harden its own body, how can it harden the body of water? What mine∣ral spirits are there in cold water to harden it into Ice? Spirits are hot, therfore apter to dissolve water then harden it; but we see manifestly that it is cold and not spirits which causeth Ice: the same cold in some Caves where the Sun never comes, nor heat, converteth water-drops into stones, and the cold of some waters metamorphise stickes, leaves and trees, pieces of lether, nut-shels, and such like stuffe into stones; why then may not cold convert Ice into a higher degree of hardnesse, and prepare it for reception of a new forme, which gives it the essence and name of Crystall. 2. [A li∣quation in Crystal may be effected, but not without some dif∣ficulty; but Ice may dissolve in any way of heat.] Answ. The difficult melting of the one, and easie liquation of the other, wil not prove that Crystal was not Ice, but that it is notice. For as Scaliger saith, Valde à seipso differt quod fit, dum sit, & cum est, Ice before it attains the hardnesse of a stone, or Crystall, is yet water formally, and Crystal onely materially, or in the way of preparation. But when it ceaseth to be ice, it assumes the form of crystal, and wil not deny its original, that it was once Ice, which now is a stone. The matter then of cry∣stal, is water, and it is made of Ice, because it was water, by which ••••e it hath stept up to the forme of a stone. 3. They are differenced by supernatation, or floating upon water, for cry∣stal will sink, but ice will swim in water. Answ. Its no wonder to see a stone sink, and ice swim; for crystal when it was ice, swimmed, being now a stone, sinks; as being a body more compact, hard, solid, and ponderous: so a stick will swim, but when it is converted to a stone, it sinks. The argument there∣fore is good thus: Crystal sinks, Ice swims, therefore crystal is not ice; but it will not follow, therfore crystal was not ice. 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

4. They are distinguished in substance of parts, and the accidents thereof, that is, in colour and figure, for ice is a fimilary body, but the body of crystal is mixed, and containeth in it sulphure, for being struck with steel, it sends forth sparks, which are not caused by collision of two hard bodies, but they are inflamable effluences discharged from the bodies collided; for a steel and flint being both met, will not readily strike fire. Answ. Crystal is not so much distin∣guished either in substance or accidents, from ice, as a chick is from an egge, and yet the chick was an egg.

What wonder is it, if crystal having received a new form, be distinguished from ice, whereas we see greater distinctions daily in our own nutrition, our bloud, flesh, and bones, have neither the colour, figure, or substance of corn, fruits, hearbs, roots, and other meats we feed upon. In the same rose-leaf there be distinct qualities and operations, one part being re∣stringent, the other laxative; the same Rhubarb as it is diffe∣rently prepared, differently worketh, one way by loosning, a∣nother way by binding the belly. Let us not deny that distinction to a natural, which we give to an artificial pre∣paration; there are distinct colours in one and the same leaf of a gillyflower, or tulip. Again, when he saith, That Ice is a similary body, but Crystal is mixed; Here is no opposition, for similary and dissimilary, are opposite▪ not similary and mixed, for a similary body may be mixed; so is flesh, so is bloud, so is ice, except he will make it a pure element. And when he saith, Crystal containeth sulphure in it; This is very unlikely, for sulphure is hot and inflamable, it is also viscous and fat, it is of a piercing quality and of an un∣grateful smel, none of which qualities we finde in cry∣stal. In fiery mountains there is most sulphure, in snowy mountains, most crystal; but his reason to prove there is sulphure in crystal, is invalid, because saith he, being struck with steel, it sends forth sparks; by this reason he may prove there is sulphure in every hard thing, even in wood and sticks, for by attrition, or any other violent motion, they are in∣slamable, as the Americans know, who use no other way to kindle their fires, but the attrition of sticks. Arrows will burn in the air, their Lead will melt, bels, mil-stones, and cart-wheels, will grow extream hot with motion, and so wil water; is there sulphure in all these? And here he contra∣dicts himself, when he saith, That the sparks are not sent forth by collision of two hard bodies, but they are inflamable effluences dischar∣ged from the bodies collided. I would know how these effluences

can be discharged, if the bodies be not collided, and how they can bee collided without collision. These sparks then are doubtlesse the accension of the aire, and aerial parts of these hard bodies, by motion and collision, being no way hindered by wetting the Steele and Flint, for I have tried the contrary by wetting both, and yet the Sparks fly out as readily, as if both had been dried; so they will out of Flints taken out of Rivers, where they have been perpetu∣ally moist, so that the sparks are not quenched at their erupti∣on, because the air is not wet, though the Steel and Flint be. 5. They are (saith he) differenced in the places of their generation▪ For Crystall is found in Regions where Ice is seldom seen Answ. It is sufficient that in those Regions where Crystall is found, Ice is sometimes seen; and as Ice is there but seldome seen, so Crystal is there but seldome found: The best and greatest quan∣tities are found in cold and snowy Countries. Again, though in those hotter Countries the air above is warm, yet in the bo∣wels of the earth it is as cold, or rather colder, then elsewhere by antiperistasis; and that is sufficient to prove Crystal may be there generated. 6. They have contrary qualities elementall; and uses medicinall. Answ. It is true, Ice is moist, and Crystall dry: so water is moist, and salt is dry; will it therefore follow, that salt is not generated of water? Allum, Salt-peter, Vitriol, are all hard and dry, so are the bones in our flesh, the teeth in our gums, the stones in fruits, yet all are begot of soft and moist materials. As for their contrary medicinall uses, I question not, whereas there are in one and the same simple (as I shewed but now) contrary effects.

II. In the 2, 3, and 4 Chapters of the second book, the Do∣ctor hath divers pretty and pleasant Discourses of the Load∣stone and Amber, yet to some passages I cannot assent; as 1. when he saith, There is coition, syndrome, and concourse of the Load-stone and Iron to each other; For I doe not think that the stone is moved at all to the Iron, for every naturall motion hath its reason and end; the end of attraction in animals and vegitables is for aliment: the motion o•• stones and other hea∣vy bodies downward, is to enjoy their Matrix, or Center: but no end can be assigned why the Loadstone should draw or move towards the Iron ▪ the motion therefore is in the Iron, and other metals, which are moved to the Loadstone, as to their Matrix, saith Scaliger; therefore it is no more wonder for Iron to move to the Loadstone, then to move downwards, the end and efficient cause being the same in both motions, to

wit, the enjoyment of their proper place or matrix. 2. Where∣as the ancients held that garlick hindred the attaction of the Loadstone, he contradicts this by experience; but I cannot think the ancient Sages would write so confidently of that which they had no ▪ experience of, being a thing so ob∣vious and easie to try; therefore I suppose they had a stron∣ger kind of garlick, then is with us, which made Horace write so invectively against it, calling it poison and worse then hemlock. 3. He denies the vertue of the Adamant in hindring the Loadstones attraction, which the Ancients affirm. It seems our diamonds have not this vertue, but this is no sufficient reason to deny the vertue of the Ada∣mant, for though our diamond be a kind of Adamant, yet it is not that kind which the Ancients speak of; for Pli∣ny reckoneth six kinds of Adamants. 4. He takes Versoria in Plautus, with Turnebus, for the rope that turns about the ship; but if versoria there signifies a rope, it must be false La∣tine, for funis must be understood, therefore Plautus would rather have said versorius; but I rather take it with Io∣seph Scaliger, upon Manilius, and with Pineda, for a turning back and taking the contrary way: so that it is an adjective, and via is to be understood; the same phrase Plautus useth in Trinummi, when Stasimus bids Charmides return to his master, cape versoriam recipe te ad herum; or else versoria is taken for the helm by which the ship is turned about. 5. He will not have amber a vegitable, but a mineral concretion, as is delivered by Boe∣tius. Answ. Boetius delivers, that there are three sorts of Am∣ber, to wit, minerals, animals, and vegitables, the first is begot of a bituminous exhalation or oil; the second of the fat of a∣nimals, the third of the gum of trees; he tels us also that be∣cause oftentimes in Amber are found spiders, flies, and other insects, with pieces of sticks and straws, which the gum fal∣ling from the trees, might lick up, or involve. That all Amber is vegitable, and the juice of trees, even that which is gathe∣red in the sea, because saith he, much land hath been drowned by the sea, and gained from the sea again, as he shews of the Netherlands. Cardan denies not but all Amber is the juice of trees, yet made bituminous by the heat of the sea; and Sal∣muth upon Pancerol, tels us, that the Ancients called that only Amber, which distilled from the trees, whence Saint Ambrose cals it the tears of the shrub; therefore though it be th••ckned by heat or cold, or the sea-water, it is not therefore to be cal∣led

a Minerall, but a Vegitable, as having its originall and es∣sence from Vegitables. Scaliger writes, That there is a kind of black Amber gathered in those Seas where there is greatest store of Whales; and therefore Amber is called Whale by the inhabitants of Morocco and Fez, as believing that it is a sub∣stance proceeding from the Whale: But whether it be true Amber, may be doubted, and I do not find that among the An∣cients Succinum signified any thing else, but the Gum of Trees, concrete into a solid substance, and of this mind is Petrus Bello∣nius, in his Observations.

CHAP. XIX.

1. The Navigation of the Ancients by the stars: they knew not the compass. 2. Goats bloud softneth the Adamant. Gold loseth its vertue and gravity with its substance. Iron may grow hot with motion. Coral is soft under water, and hardned by the air. Vis∣cum or Missletoe, how it grows. The shade of the Ash-tree, per∣nicious to Serpents.

IT is not probable (saith the Doctor) That the long and sundry voyages of elder times, were performed by the help of Starres. It is so farre from being improbable, that there was a necessity they should be directed by the Starres, wanting the use of the Compasse; therefore Palinurus in the Prince of Poets, is still described observing the starres in his Navigation, Sydera cuncta notat tacito labentia coelo, AEneid. 3. And, Oc••∣losque sub astra tenebat, AEneid. 5. And in his Georgicks, he sheweth, That the Sea-men were the first that made use of the starres, and gave them names, Novita tum stellis nume∣ros & nomina fecit, Pleiades, Hiados, clarumque Lycaonis Ar∣cton. So Seneca sheweth, That before Navigation, there was no use of Astronomy, Nondum quisquam sidera norat. And Flaccus tells us, That Typhis directed his course alto∣gether by the starres. Pervigil Arcadeo Typhis pendebat ab a∣stro: Agniades Foelix stellis qui segnibus usus. So Hora••e wish∣eth, That Venus, Castor, and Pollux, those cleare starres, might direct the ship in which Virgil was, Sic te diva po∣tens Cypri, &c. The lesser Beare, called Arctophylax by the Grecians, and Cynosura, or dogs tail; and by some Phoenice, was altogether observed by the Sidonians, or Phoenicians, the first

and ••lliefest Navigators we read of, the greater hare called Helice, directed the Graecians in their Navigation. The grounds and rudiments of this art was first laid by Noah, af∣terward his posterity perfected it by industry and observation, marking how ••ishes did swim, and birds ••lie, ruling their motion with their rails, and furthering it with their wings and finns, whence we have the use of Helms and Oars, or sails; therefore in Hebrew triim signifieth both a bird and ship, and in Latin n put to avis, makes navis. The perfection of this art is now in this last age attained to by means of the compass unknown to the Ancients whose Navigation was along the Coast, as we know by the voiages of AEnaeas and Paul, who for want of the compass durst not venture into the Ocean, as we do. In the voiage of Ionas, and others, we find they u∣sed Oars most commonly; by the Navigation of Paul, we ••earn that sounding the coast was much used; yet we read that the Ancients sailed in the Ocean: but by this word we must understand the Mediteranean sea, called by the Psalmist the great and wide sea, and by Virgil, mare magnum, AEn. 5. or else the skirts and brim of the Ocean; for they knew no other Na∣vigation, then along the coast, as we see by the voiage of Han∣no, from Calez to Arabia, and of Eudoxus from the bay of Ara∣bia to Calez, and the Fleet of Augustus which sailed North∣ward; for they neither durst, nor could with safety venture too far into the Ocean, without the compasse, the want of which, made Sol••mons ships spend three years in their voiage, which might have been effected in three moneths; they entred also into most Creeks and Harbors by the way, to finde out ••arities for Solomon: This admirable sea-guide was found out by one Flavius at Melphis, in the kingdome of Naples, above three hundred years ago, as Blondus, Pancer••l, and o∣thers affirm. Pli••y speaketh of the Magnes, or loadstone, but makes no mention of this vertue to turn the iron touched therewith to the pole, nor in reciting the instruments of Navi∣gation, doth he speak a word of this. In no ancient Writer do we find this vertue mentioned, nor so much as a name for it in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, neither do they mention the touch∣ing of their sun-dials with it; besides, Pliny saith, the Islanders of Tapro••an or Sumatra, because they cannot see the North, carry with them in their ships certain small birds, which being let loose, by naturall instinct fly to the Land, whether the Mariners direct their course after these guides; this shew∣eth they were ignorant of the compa••s, as Acosta, Gomara,

Pancerol, Salmuth, and others do prove. The Phoenicians and Sidonians were anciently the expertest Navigators of the world, yet we find not that they had any knowledge of the compass: the Carthagineans indeed by sea viewed all the coast of Mauritania, yet they kept close by the shore; and though ingenious men did live in old times, and were inventors of ma∣ny rarities, yet some things they have left for posterity to finde, whereof they were ignorant, as Clocks, Gun••, Printing, &c. therefore the reasons of Lemnius are weak, who thinks the Ancients knew the compass, and no less infirm is ••he argu∣ment of Pineda, taken from Solomons knowledge of all things; for this word (all) in Scripture, is taken for many, and many is taken for all: So Christ cured all diseases, in S. Matthew, that is, many; so all of those that sleep in the dust of the earth, saith Da∣niel, shall arise, that is, many. Solomon then knew all things, that is, most things and more then other men; but I do not think he knew the compasse or all the species of animals, vegitables, minerals, people and places, that are found at this day in Ame∣rica, nor all the arts invented since, nor all the supernaturall works of God. His chief knowledge was politicall, for govern∣ment; he knew not the future contingencies, nor all the se∣crets in the earth and seas; if he knew the polar verticity of the Loadstone, then Adam also knew it, for his knowledge far exceeded Solomons, he gave names to all the creatures accor∣ding to their natures; he lived 930. years, a fair time to get ex∣perience;yet though Adam knew this, it will not follow that the compass was used in his time, or in Sol••mons either, who knew that Copper and Brass did sound well, yet Bels of Copper were not used in his time; and whereas Pineda saith, that God would not have so useful a thing as the compass, hid from man so long. I answer, that Printing is no less useful, which was not known till of late. What was more usefull then the Preach∣ing of the Gospel, and Incarnation of Christ, and yet hid many thousand years from the world? God hath his own times to bestow his gifts on men; ••or that fable of ships built with∣out ir••n, for fear they should be staied in the failing by the great store of Loadstones neer Calicut, is ridiculous; for our Europaean ships are continually tratficking that way, and they perceive no such things. To conclude then, ships of old were guided, being out of sight of Land, not by the compasse, but partly by the Tides, partly by the Windes, and partly by the Stars, and Sea-birds; and when all these failed, they wandred

up and down, not knowing where they were, as we see in AE∣naeas his Navigation, caecis erramus in undis, nec meminisse viae me∣dia Palinurus in unda; the like we may read in Saint Paules vojage.

II. The Ancients held that Goats bloud could soften the Adamant, and yet resist the hardest hammers; this is denied by the Doctor (2 Book c. 5, 6, 7.) and his Lapidaries: but their argument is not Logical; our Diamonds are not softned by Goats bloud, but are mastered by hammers; therefore the Ancients Adamants were such. All Adamants are not of the same kind, for Pliny as we have already said, reckoneth six sorts of them; and I think it is no greater wonder for bloud to soften a stone, then for water to harden a piece of Leather, or a stick into a stone. 2. He saith, [that though the substance of Gold be not sensibly immuted, or its gravity at all decreased, yet from thence vertue may proceed; for a body may emit ver∣tue without abatement of weight, as is evident in the Load∣stone.] Answ. An accident without a miracle, if it be the same numerically, cannot pass without the substance in which it is inherent, nor can the substance be diminished but the gravity must also be abated. Therefore if Gold in the Patients body loseth nothing of its substance and gravity, it loseth no part of its vertue: if the loss be insensible, the vertue communicated to the patient i•• insensible also; and so he that swallows gold receives no good by it: For where there is a cure, there must be a sense and feeling of the cure. As for the Loadstone, if it imparts its vertue, it parts also with its substance, but in so small a quantity that its scarce perceptible; but the gold ought to impart much vertue to cure the disease, and consequently much of its substance, which would be seen by the weight and the cure; but neither is sensible, and therefore no deperdition, but imaginary. 3. He cannot apprehend how an iron should grow red hot by motion, since in swinging a red hot iron, it wil grow cold. Answ. That violent motions will excite heat and fire in hard bodies, we have already shewed in divers ex∣amples; Aristotle proves it by. the example of Arrows, whose Lead will melt with the heat and motion thereof, in that part of the air, which is near the fire (de coelo, l. 2. c. 7.) Vir∣gil confirms the same, speaking of that Arrow which Acestes shot, that it took fire in the motion. Namque volans liquidis in nu••ibus arsit arundo, signavitque viam flammis, AEn. 5. but when he saith that hot iron will grow cold by swinging, I grant it, because that heat in the iron is meerly accidental, and from

an external principle, it wants pabulous aliment in the iron to maintain it; therefore no wonder, if encountring with the cold air, it extinguish: but take a bran or stick of fire, and swing it about, it will grow redder, hotter, and more fi∣ery, because there is not the bare accident of heat; but th•• substance of fire, which is anima••ed and quickned by the mo∣tion of the air; neither is it strange if the violent motion of an Arrow in hot weather, and in that part of the aire which is neer the fiery element, take fire, where we see so many fiery Me∣teors ingendred. But he saith, that a bullet shot at paper or linen, will not set them on fire; it may be so, because the bullet is not hot enough, having moved but a little way, and a smal time; you cannot in a long time make paper or linen burn, be the fi••e never so hot, except they touch the flame. 4. He will not be∣lieve that Coral is soft under water, and hard in the air, because one who went down a hundred fathom into the sea, returned with Co∣ral in each hand, affirming it was as hard at the bottom, as in the air. Answ. Boetius in his second Book of stones and gems, c. 153. tels us, that Coral doth not harden or grow stony till it be dead; it seems then, whilst it is alive, its soft under water, and therefore this Diver lighted upon a dead Coral; but be∣cause that was hard, it will not follow that all Coral under water is hard, except all under water be dead. There is al∣so a difference between old and young plants, the older the plant grows, the harder it is; perhaps this was not only dead but also an old plant: Its no wonder then if Coral petrifie when taken out of the sea, for then it dieth being separated from its matrix and element, in which it had life and veg••ta∣tion; and it seems by the same Boetius, that the substance of Coral at first is wood, for he saw some which was partly wood and partly stone, not being throughly petrified, which might proceed from some internal impediment: it is therefore no more wonder for a sea-plant to petrifie in the air, then for a land∣plant to petrifie in the sea, or other waters. This is called in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as you would say ston-tree, or stone-plant, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quasi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because it petrifieth when it is touched by the hands, and because the Gorgons were turned into stones, therefore in Pliny, Coral is called Gorgonia. 5. He likes not the opinion of the Ancients, concerning the generation of Viscum or Misseltoe, to wit, that it is bred upon trees from seeds let fall there by thrushes, and ring-doves; his reasons are, because it grows only upon some trees, and not in Ferrara, where these birds are found, and because the seed thereof being sown, it

will not grow again, and in some trees it groweth downwards under the boughs, where seed cannot remain. Answ. That Viscum is be∣got of seeds let fall by birds, as the Ancients thought, may be true, and that it is an excre••cence of viscous or superflous sap, as Scaliger writes, may be true also. Many things are procreated both with and without seeds; there is an equivocall generation both in vegitables and animals, which the learned Poet knew when he writ of this Viscum, saying, Soletfronde vivere nova quod non sua seminat arbos. Now the reason why it groweth not upon all trees, and in all Countries, is, because as the same Poet saith, Non omnia fert omnia tellus, there is not a disposition in the mat∣ter of all trees to receive this form, nor in the climate or soile to animate this seed. Yet Mathiolus observes, that in Hetruria, where is greatest store of Thrushes, there is greatest pleny of Misseltoe, which shews, that this plant hath its originall from the seeds mixed with the excrements of those birds; and there∣fore the old proverb was not untrue, Turdus sibi malum cacat, even in the literall sense; and so where this Viscum is meerly an excrescence, it may grow downwards under boughes, where no seeds can come or remain. 6. He can deny that a Snake will not endure the shade of an Ash; Pliny and other ancients affirm it, perhaps upon surer grounds then the Doctor denies it; for though here in these cold Countries our Snakes may accord with our Ashes, yet it may be otherwise in hot Regions, where the Serpents are more venemous, and the Ash-leaves more pow∣erfull: why may there not be somewhat in the shade of an Ash repugnant to the Serpent, whereas the leaves and juice thereof are such Antidotes against poyson, as Dioscorides and Mathiolus shew? Cardan tels us, That in Sardinia the shadow of the Rodo∣daphne is pernitious to those that sleep under it, making them mad. He instanceth the dangerous qualities proceeding from the shadowes of some other trees; and Lucretius affirms. That the shade of some other trees procure pains in the head, and o∣ther dangerous effects.

Arboribus primum certus gravis umbra tributa est Vsque adeo capitis faciant ut saepe dolores, Si quis eas subter jacuit prostratus in herbis.

CHAP. XX.

What the Ancients have written of Griffins may be true. Griffins men¦tioned in Scripture. Grypi and Gryphes, Perez and Ossi••rage, ••ha••?

THe Doctor [denies there be Griffins, that is, dubious a∣nimals in the fore part resembling an Eagle, and behind a Lion, with erected ears, foure feet, and a long tail, being aver∣red by AElian, Solinus, Mela, and Herodotus,] Answ. AElian tells us, That Griffins are like Lions in their pawes and feet, and like Eagles in their wings and head. Solinus saith onely, that they are very fierce fowls; Mela, that they are cruell and stubbo••n animals; Herodotus onely mentions their names, when hee shewes, the Arimaspi takes away their gold from them: S•• Philostrates shewes, That in strength and bignesse they are like Lions; So Pausanius speaks of them; but neither he, nor the others named, tell us in plain terms, that they are like Lions behind, and Eagles in the fore-part: For Pliny and som•• others doubt of this as fabulous. 2. Suppose they had thus described Griffins, as mixt and dubious animals, yet this is not sufficient to prove them fabulous: for divers such ani∣mals there are in the World. Acosta tells us of the Indian Pa∣cos, which in some parts thereof resemble the Asse, in o∣thers the Sheep. Lerius speakes of the Tapiroussou in ••rasill, which resembles both an Asse and an Heifer. Many other sorts of mixt animals we read of, as flying Cats, and flying Fishes; and some kind of Apes with Dogges heads, therefore called Cynocephali. Our Bats are partly birds and partly beasts: They flye like a bird with two feet, they walk like a beast with four: They flye with their feet and walk with their wings, saith Sca∣liger. And which is a greater wonder, there are Plant-animals, or Zoophits, partly plants, and partly animals. But he saith, In Bats and such mixed animals, there is a commixtion of both in the whole, rather then an adaptation of the one l••to the other. Here he is deceived; for in Bats and such like Animals, it is easi∣ly ••een what parts are of the bird, what of the beast, which we could not discern if there were a commixtion: it is ra∣ther an adaptation then. This is most apparant in that Indian beast which hath the forepart of a Fox, the hinder part of an Ape, the eares of an Owl, and a bag or purse under its belly, wherein its young ones hide themselves in time of danger. Neither is it fabulous that these Griffins are greedy of gold,

which they preserve & hide in the earth: for I ••••ve seen Mag∣pies doe the like: I have observed one which stole money, and hid it in a hole; and perhaps it may be from this that Plau∣tus calls Griffins Mag-pies; Picos divitiis qui colunt aureos mon∣tes supero. In Aulul. And yet I am of AElians opinion, That it is not so much for the gold they fight, as for their young ones, which men use to carry away vvhen they search the Countrey for gold. Neither was Aristaeus the first that affirmed these Griffins, as the Doctor saith; for we read of them in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which though Tremellius and wee use not, but the word Ossifrage, yet the Hebrew word Peres is translated Griffi by the Septuagints, by the old Latin, by Ie∣rom and Pagmin, by Arias Montanus, and by the Italian version: And if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to break, then may the word Ossi∣frage be meant of the Griffin: for no bird so sit to break bones, as this fierce and strong animall. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 then signifieth pro∣perly a Griffin, and not a kind of Eagle with a hooked Bill; for both birds with hooked Bills, and men with Aquilan no∣ses, are called Gryphi, not Gryphes. Hence then it appeares, that the negative testimony of Michovius is not sufficient to overthrow the received opinion of the Ancients concerning Griffins, especially seeing there is a possibility in nature for such a compounded animall. For the Gyraffa, or Camelopardalis, is of a stranger composition, being made of the Libbard, Buffe, Hart, and Camell. Besides, though some fabulous narrations may be added to the story of the Griffins, as of the one-ey'd A∣rimaspi with whom they fight, yet it follows not that there∣fore there are no Griffins. If any man say, That now such a∣nimals are not to be seen; I answer, It may be so, and yet not perished: for they may be removed to places of more remote∣nesse and security, and inaccessible to men: for many such places there are in the great and vast Countries of Scythia, and Tartaria, or Cathaia, vvhither our Europeans durst never, nor could venture.

CHAP. XXI.

1. The existence of the Phoenix proved by divers reasons: and the contrary objections refelled: the strange generation of some birds. 2. The Ancients cleared concerning the Phoenix, and whether the Phoenix be mentioned in Scripture. Divers sorts of generation in divers creatures. The Conclusion, with an Admonition not to sleight the Ancients opinion and Doctrine.

BEcause the Doctor following the opinion of Pererius, Fer∣nandus de Cordova, Francius, and some others, absolutely denies the existence of the Phoenix, I will in some few positions set down my opinion concerning this bird. 1. I grant that some passages concerning this bird are fabulous,; as that he is seen but once in 500 years, that there is but one onely in the World; or if there be two, that the old Phoenix is buried by the younger at Heliopolis. 2. These fabulous narrations doe not prove there is no such bird, no more then the fables that are written of Saint Francis, prove that there was never any such man. 3. Nor doth it follow, that there is no such bird, because some write, they never read of any who had seen a Phoenix; for though these few vvho vvrite of this bird, did never see him in a picture, yet the AEgyptians, from whom they had the knowledge of the Phoenix, did see him. Tacitus writes, That no man doubts but that this bird is sometime seen in AEgypt, Aspi∣ci aliquando in AEgypto hanc volucrem non ambiguitur, Ann. l. 6. There are some creatures in Africa and the Indies, that were ne∣ver seen by any of those who writ their histories, the know∣ledge whereof they have onely by relation from the inhabi∣tants. 4. Though AEgypt vvas the mother of many fictions, as Pererius sheweth, yet it vvill not follow that the Phoenix is a fiction, or that AEgypt vvas not also the School of many truths; for the Graecians from thence had the their knowledge and vvisdom, Orpheus, Homer, Musaeus, the Poets; Lycu••gus, and Solon, their Law-givers; Plato & Pythagoras, their Philosophers; Eudoxus and other Mathematicians, were all Scholars in AEgypt. 5. That there is but one Phoenix, is not against Philosophy and Logick, which teacheth us, That the species can be preserved in one individuall, Pererius sheweth, That this is only true in things incorruptible, as in the Sun and Moon; but I say, That this is true also in things subject to corruption; for in these, though the individuals be corruptible, yet the species are e∣ternal;

and it skils not how few the particulars be, so long as the species can be preserved in one; and though there be no individuall actually existent, yet the species can be preserved; for in Winter the species of Roses is not perished, though there be no individuall Roses actually existent; for even then they have their being and essence, though their existence be but po∣tentially in the ashes, as the forms of the elements are in the mi∣xed bodies, or as the form of a cock is in the egg, which by the heat of: the hen or Sun, is actually educed. 6. Whereas P••rerius holdeth it inconvenient, that so noble a species as the Phoenix is, should have but one individual, subject to so many dangers; I answer, That in all beasts and birds, the nobler the spe∣cies is, the fewer are the individuals; there are not so many Eagles as Doves, nor Elephants as Rabbets, and Nature is so provident in the conservation of the species, that vvhere there be few of the kind, they live long, and have their a∣bode in some remote rocks, mountains, Islands and Desarts, from the dangers they are subject to by men, as Eagles, and the Phoenix, which is seen but seldom. Now multitude of indivi∣duals doth not argue the nobility of the species, but rather im∣perfection; for it proceeds from the division of the matter, whereas unity noteth perfection, as issuing from the act and form of things. 7. Whereas Fernander sheweth, it's a miracle that the Phoenix can never be taken dead or alive; I answer, It is a miracle in nature, and we know there be many naturall se∣crets and miracles: is it not a miracle that the Manucodiata, or bird of Paradise, is found dead somet••mes, but was never seen a∣live, neither was there ever any meat or excrement found in his b••lly? how he should be fed, where his abode is, from whence he cometh (for his body is found somtime on the sea, somtime on the land) no man knows: the Phoenix is somtime seen alive, but seldome, because provident Nature hath given him that in∣stinct for the preservation of his kind, that he appears to man, the great tyrant over the creatures, but seldome; for had He∣liogabalus, that Roman Glutton, met with him, hee had de∣voured him, though there were no more in the world. Na∣ture hath given to each creature so much policie, as to pre∣serve th••mselves ••rom danger; and the fewer there be of that kind, the more wary and cautelous they are; and if it be true that Pliny and others write of the Ravens, that their nests can never be found, it is a great miracle, which perhaps may be so in Italy; yet in the rocks of Norway, Shetland, and other Nor∣thern places, their Nests ••re found. But it is more to bee

admired, that Ravens use to flye to the places where dead bodies are, and by a strange instinct have knowledge of the bodies dying two dayes before they be dead; and I think there is as great a miracle in the Loadstone, as there is in the Phoenix. 8. It is as possible for a Phoenix to arise out of the ashes of the dead parent, as for a silk-worm to proceed out of the Egge of the dead Worm. If any reply, That the one is perfect, the other imperfect; I answer, That every thing is perfect in its own kind, and in generation; Nature looks not at the perfection or imperfection of the creature, but to the aptitude and disposition of the mat∣ter to receive such a form, Again, a Cock, which is a per∣fect creature, is excluded out of the Egge by the heat of the Sun, or Fire; and Scaliger speaks of a bird that was found in a shell, the learned men of that time concluded, That the Oyster was turned into a bird. I take it to be as great a wonder for a Mule, which is a perfecter creature then a bird, to be generated of the seed of another kind, the•• that the Phoenix should arise out of the putrified ashes; That the Clakgeese are generated of trees in the North∣seas, beyond Scotland, is not altogether fabulous; the inha∣bit••nts thereabout at this day constantly believe it. They are observed every year to flye from the North to Shetland and Crkney, where I have been; in the beginning of Winter they come thither, in the Spring they flye away North∣ward in flocks, which must be to Norway or Gree••land, for I know no other land they can repair to Northward. Island is Northwest, but neither in these places, nor any where else, could their nests ••e ever yet found. Besides, bodies of old trees that have been driven upon these Islands by the winds, have had upon them the full proportion and shape of those birds. And why should this be more incredible then that which Scaliger writes of a certain tree in the river Iuverna, whose leaves falling into the water, receive the form & shape of fishes, and life with∣all; and of that tree in the Isle Cimbulon, whose leaves falling on the ground, move themselves backward & forward; being touch∣ed, they go back: one of these was kept 8 dayes alive in a plat∣ter. 9. Whereas Fernandus asketh, whether every parcell of the dead Phoenix his ashes hath an•• aptitude to become a new Phoenix; if it hath, then (saith hee) there is more then one Phoenix; if it have not, what is the reason that one part of these ashes should have this aptitude, and not the other; I answer, All that heap of ashes is but one bo∣dy, of which is produced one Phoenix, as one bird out

of one egge, and not many out of the severall parts thereof. 10. Though Aristotle and some others make no mention of the Phoenix, it will not f••llow that therefore there is no such bird extant; for there are many kinds of creatures of which they write not. 11. It is likely that the bird Semenda in the Indies, vvhich burneth her self to ashes, out of which springs another bird of the same kind, is the very same with the old Phoenix. 12. The testimony of so many Writers, especially of the Fa∣thers, proving by the Phoenix the Incarnation of Christ, and his Resurrection, and withall our resuscitation in the last day; doe induce me to believe there is such a bird, else their Argu∣ments had been of small validity among the Gentiles, if they had not believed there was such as bird. What wonder is it, saith Tertullian, for a virgin to conceive, when the Eastern bird is generated without copulation, Peribunt h••mines, avibus Ara∣biae de resurrectione sua securis. Shall men utterly perish (saith he) and the birds of Arabia be sure of their resurrection? The existence of this bird is asserted by Herodotus, Seneca, Mela, Ta∣citus, Pliny, Solinus, AElian, Lampridius, Aur. Victor, Laertius, Sui∣das, and others of the Gentile-Writers. The Christian Doctors who affirm the same, are, Clemens, Romanus, Tertullian, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Nazianzenus, Ambrose, Augustine, Hierom, Lactantius, and many others.

Now out of what we have spoken, we can easily answer the Doctors objections whic he hath collected out of Pererius, Fe∣riundes, Franzius, and others, as first, when he saith, That none of those who have written of the Phoenix, are oculary describers thereof. Ans. Neither vvas Aristotle, Gesner, Aldrovandus, and others, vvho have vvritten largely of beasts, birds, and Fishes ocular vvitnesses of all they vvrote: they are forced to deliver much upon hear-say and tradition: So those that vvrite the later stories of American and Indian animals, never saw all they vvrite of. Secondly when he saith, [That Herodotus, Taci∣tus, and Pliny, speak so dubiously, that they overthrow the whole relation of the Phoenix.] Answ. Herodotus doubteth not of the existency of the Phoenix, but onely of some circumstan∣ces delivered by the Heliopolitans, to wit, that the younger Phoenix should carry his Father wrapt up in Myrrh, to the Temple of the Sun, and there bury him; so Tacitus denieth not the true Phoenix, but onely saith, That some hold the Phoenix there described, which was seen in the dayes of Ptolomy in AE∣gypt, not the right Phoenix spoken of by the Ancients. The words of Pliny are falsified by the Doctor, who cites them thus:

Sed quae falsa esse nemò dubitabit: whereas the words are, Sed quem falsum esse nemo dubitabit: So that he doth not say, That what is written of the Phoenix is false; but onely that this Phoenix which was brought to Rome in the Consulship of Claudius, was false, and not the right one. 3. He saith, That they who discourse of the Phoenix, deliver themselves diversly, contrarily, or contradictorily. Answ. There is no contradiction except it be (ad idem) most of them agree in the substance, that there is a Phoenix, they onely differ in the accidents and circumstan∣ces of age, colour, ann place. We must not deny all simply that is controverted by Writers: for so we might deny most points both in Divinity and Philosophy. 4. He saith the word Phoe∣nix in Iob 29.48. can have no animall fignification, because there is expressed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the trunk of the Palm-tree; and the Hebrew word is by Tremellius rendred Sand. Answ. The same which properly signifieth the trunk of the Palm, may me∣taphorically be meant of the body of the Phoenix. For the same word in Greek is given both to the Palm and Phoenix; for as the one is long green, so the other is long-lived: but the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hhol in that place, though expounded Sand by Tremellius. yet signifieth a Phoenix, as both Pagnin, Monta∣nus, Buxtorsius, and other Hebricians affirm; and so doth R. Sa∣lomon with other ancient Hebrewes expound this Text of the Phoenix, consonant to which is the Tygurin Version, so Ter∣tullian; Philippus Presbyter, and Cajetan expound this place of the Phoenix, being the symbole of our resurrection, & of a long life. And it seems that the word Phoenix is more consonant to the Text then Sand, because Iob speaks of his nest: I shall die in my nest (saith he) and shall multiply my dayes as the Phoenix. 5. He saith, [That the existence of the Phoenix is repugnant to the Scripture, which affirms, there went of every sort two at the least into the Ark. It infringeth also the benediction of multi∣plication, Gen. 1. For they cannot be said to multiply who do not transcend an unity.] Answ. When the Scripture speakes of two that entred into the Ark of every sort, it means of those that were distinguished into male and female▪ for the end why these went in by couples, was for procreation, now the Phoe∣nix hath no distinction of Sex, and therefore continueth not his species by copulation, as other creatures do. Hence though he enters into the Ark, it was not needfull he should be na∣med among those that went in by couples and sevens. For how could hee that was but one, be said to goe in two and two, or male and female. As for the benediction of multipli∣cation,

it was not pronounced or enjoyned to the Phoenix, which was not capable of it, God having supplied the want of that with another benediction equivalent, which was a longer life then other animals, and a peculiar way to continue the species without multiplication of the Individuum. 6. He saith, That to animal generation is required the concurrence of two Sexes, and therefore such as have no distinction of Sex, engender not at all, as Aristotle conceives of Eeles, and testatious animals. Ans. Aristotle de gen.animal. l. 3. c. 10. shewes that there no distinction of sex in divers Fishes, and Bees, which notwithstanding generate. But when he speaks of Eels in historia animal, he shews they do not generate at all, not because they want distinction of sex, as the Doctor saith; for he speaks of divers creatures that gene∣rate without that distinction; but because there is not in them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a production or generation of egges or spawn; for all those kind of Fishes, saith he, which generate, have spawn or egges in them, which Eels want. Again, he shews in his first book de gener. animal. c. 1. That sanguine creatures are distin∣guished into male and female except a few, saith he: If then there be some sanguine animals without sex, what wonder is it if the Phoenix have none? As for testacious animals, they want distinction of sex, because they are, as he saith, Immoveable alone, and stick to rocks, having as it were the life of plants, and therefore are no other wise distinguished into male and female then plants are, which is not properly but analogically. 7. He argueth, That if the worm into which the Phoenix is corrup∣ted, becommeth a Phoenix, this would confound the generation of per∣fect and imperfect animals, and the lawes of Nature. Again, the ge∣neration of venerous animals is not from a corruption of themselves, but rather a seminal and specifical diffusion. Answ. The generation of the Phoenix is no confusion or disturbance of Natures laws, which delights in variety of productins. Therefore in plants we see some produced by their seed, some by their roots with∣out seed; some by their stems onely without root or seeds; some without any of these, imm••diatly of the earth: So in ani∣mals some are generated by coition of male and female in the same kind, as Men, Lions, Horses, &c. Some by coition of diffe∣rent kinds, as Mules; some without coition, by affriction one∣ly, as divers Fishes; some are produced by the female without the male, as the fish Erythi••us, which some think to be the Ro∣chet; some by reception of the females organ within the male, as flies; some by a salivious froth, as the shell fishes called the Purple; some are progenerated of slime without coition, out∣wardly

in the mud, as Eels; some without coition, but within the body of the parents, as Bees: And lastly, the Phoenix is be∣got without coition, of its own putrified body, at which the Doctor wonders how it should be, [seeing the generation of Insects is not by corruption of themselves, but rather a seminall effusion.] To which I answer with Aristotle, speaking of Bees, that as they have a proper and peculiar kind of Nature diffe∣ring from all other creatures, so it was fit they should have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a peculiar and proper kind of production. The like I may of the Phoenix, which is a miracle in nature, both in his his longevity, numericall unity, and way of generation. And in this wonderfull variety the Creator manifests his wisdome, power and glory.

Thus have I briefly an cursorily run over the Doctors elabo∣rate book, tanquam canis ad Nilum, having stoln some hours from my universall History, partly to satisfie my self and desires of my friends, and partly to vindicate the ancient Sages from wrong and misconstruction, thing it a part of my duty to ho∣nor and defend their reputation, whence originally I have my knowledge, and not with too many in this loose and vvanton age, slight all ancient Doctrines and Principles, hunting after new concerts and whimzies, vvhich though specious to the eye at the first view, yet upon neer inspection and touch, dissolve like the apples of Sodom into dust. I pitie to see so many young heads still gaping like Camelions for knowledge, and are never filled, because they feed upon airy and empty phansies, loath∣ing the sound, solid and vvholsome viands of Peripatetick wis∣dome, they reject Aristotles pure fountains, and digge to them∣selves cisternes that will hold no water; whereas they should stick close and adhere as it were by a matrimoniall conjunction to sound doctrine, they go a whoring as the Scripture speaketh) after their own inventions. Let us not wander then any lon∣ger with Hagar in the wild desart vvhere there is no vvater; for the little which is in our pitcher, wil be quickly spent; but let us return to our Masters house, there we shal find pure foun∣tains of ancient University learning. Let Prodigals forsake their husks, and leave them to swine, they will find bread e∣nough at home: And as dutifull children let us cover the na∣kednesse of our Fathers with the Cloke of a favourable Inter∣pretation.

FINIS.