CHAPTER IX

Of the food of _John Baptist_, Locusts and Wild-honey.

Concerning the food of _John Baptist_ in the wilderness, Locusts and Wild-honey, lest popular opiniatrity should arise, we will deliver the chief opinions. The first conceiveth the Locusts here mentioned to be that fruit which the Greeks name +keration+ mentioned by _Luke_ in the diet of the Prodigal son, the Latins _Siliqua_, and some _Panis Sancti Johannis_; included in a broad Cod, and indeed a taste almost as pleasant as Honey. But this opinion doth not so truly impugn that of the Locusts: and might rather call into controversie the meaning of Wild-honey.

[Sidenote: _Opinions concerning_ +akrides+, _or the Locusts of S._ John _Baptist_.]

The second affirmeth that they were the tops or tender crops of trees: for so _Locusta_ also signifieth: which conceit is plausible in Latin, but will not hold in Greek, wherein the word is +akris+, except for +akrides+, we read +akrodrya+, or +akremones+, which signifie the extremities of trees, of which belief have divers been: more confidently _Isidore Peleusiota_, who in his Epistles plainly affirmeth they think unlearnedly who are of another belief. And this so wrought upon _Baronius_, that he concludeth in neutrality; _Hæc cum scribat Isidorus definiendum nobis non est et totum relinquimus lectoris arbitrio; nam constat Græcam dictionem_ +akrides+, _et Locustam, insecti genus, et arborum summitates significare. Sed fallitur_, saith Montacutius, _nam constat contrarium_, +Akrida+ _apud nullum authorem classicum_ +Akrodrya+ _significare_. But above all _Paracelsus_ with most animosity promoteth this opinion, and in his book _de melle_, spareth not his Friend Erasmus. _Hoc à nonnullis ita explicatur ut dicant Locastus aut cicadas Johanni pro cibo fuisse; sed hi stultitiam dissimulare non possunt, veluti Jeronimus, Erasmus, et alii Prophetæ Neoterici in Latinitate immortui._

[Sidenote: _The more probable what._]

A third affirmeth that they were properly Locusts: that is, a sheath-winged and six-footed insect, such as is our Grashopper. And this opinion seems more probable than the other. For beside the authority of _Origen_, _Jerom_, _Chrysostom_, _Hillary_ and _Ambrose_ to confirm it: this is the proper signification of the word, thus used in Scripture by the Septuagint, Greek vocabularies thus expound it. _Suidas_ on the word +Akris+ observes it to be that animal whereon the Baptist fed in the desert; in this sense the word is used by _Aristotle_, _Dioscorides_, _Galen_, and several humane Authors. And lastly, there is no absurdity in this interpretation, or any solid reason why we should decline it, it being a food permitted unto the _Jews_, whereof four kinds are reckoned up among clean meats. Beside, not only the _Jews_, but many other Nations long before and since, have made an usual food thereof. That the _Æthiopians_, _Mauritanians_ and _Arabians_ did commonly eat them, is testified by _Diodorus_, _Strabo_, _Solinus_, _Ælian_ and _Pliny_: that they still feed on them is confirmed by _Leo_, _Cadamustus_ and others. _John_ therefore as our Saviour saith, came neither eating nor drinking: that is, far from the diet of _Jerusalem_ and other Riotous places: but fared coursly and poorly according unto the apparel he wore, that is of Camels hair: the place of his abode, the wilderness; and the doctrin he preached, humiliation and repentance.