CHAP. XVII.
Of Fish generally, and the difference thereof.
AS amongst Poets there is some called the Co∣ryphaeus, or Captain-poet, so fareth it likewise amongst meats. Some prefering fruit as being most an∣cient, cleanly, naturall, and needing either none or very little preparation. Others extoll flesh, as most sutable to fleshy creatures, and giving most and best nourishment. But the finest feeders and dainty bellies did not delight in flesh with Hercules, or in fruit with Plato and Arce∣silaus, but with Numa and Philocrates in variety of fish; which Numa made a law, that no fish without scales nor without finns should be eaten of the people, whereupon I may justly collect and gather, that he was not igno∣rant of Moses law. Also (according to the vain dream of Gregory the great Bishop of Rome, and the author of the Carthusian order) he put more holines in fish then in flesh, falsly imagining flesh to be a greater motive to lust and lasciviousness, then the use of fish; which frivolous con∣ceit is before sufficiently confuted in the seventh Chap∣ter, and needeth not to be shaken again in this place. Now I will not deny, that fish is a wholesome meat, if such fish could be alwaies gotten as may sufficiently nourish the body; but now a daies it so falleth out through iniquity of times, or want of providence, or that our Sea-coast and Rivers are more barren of fish then heretofore;