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.