do exactly agree; but these few may suffice to fhew us, that the change of no other part of the body in age, can be hereby figured out unto us so properly as this we have been speaking of. Befide canities is a conftant attendant on. age, and is intimated unto us in no other. part of this allegory: How often in scripture are they mentioned both together? I am now old and gray-headed, faith Samuel, 1 Sam. xii. 2.. and David prayeth, When I am old and grayheaded, O Lord, forfake me not, Pfal. Ixxi. 18. Nay, I may say one thing of this symptom, that is not faid of any of the other; it is a plain and a full defcription of age, without any addition at all; fay a gray-headed man, and you say an old man, without any farther periphrafis. The fword without, and terror within, shall deAtroy both the young man, and the virgin; the fuckling also, with the man of gray hairs, Deut. xxxii. 25. The grafhopper fhall be a burden; Shall grow (or fhew) big and burdensome. In the interpretation of this fentence, and that which follows, which doth depend hereon, I must of neceffity recede fomewhat both from the common translation, and the usual interpretation of the place; wherein, if my opinion, together with its novelty, bring along H 3 with with it any thing of fatisfaction, I prefume it will be never the worse accepted: For in these theoretical notions, the danger is not fo great, to deviate from the beaten road, and to be heterodox to the generally received opinion. For the fubject of this propofition, without all controverfy it is the locuft or grafhopper; which differ very little, either in their nature or form, and may very well intend the fame thing: The predicate is far more difficult, and therefore hath given occasion to more variety of tranflations; that which is moft ufual is, erit oneri, which our English exactly follows, The grafhopper shall be a burden; from whence most interpreters do put this sense upon the place, viz. that the grafhopper, or any such fmall thing, is a great burden to old men; which although it may be a truth, yet it can in no wise be intended by these words: For then king Solomon would in this clause vary much from the general scope of all these verses, which is (as hath already been faid) allegorical, and from the particular mode of expreffing himself in this verfe, which is hieroglyphical. Befide, the words in no propriety of grammar can poffibly bear such a sense as this; and it hath been a great wonder to me how this conftruction was first taken up, and how it hath gained fo great credit among men : Nor can I yet give myself the leaft fatisfaction herein, unless it be from the ambiguity of the La tin phrafe, erit oneri, which may very well be taken in a double fense; either erit oneri feni, feu alteri; or erit oneri fibi. The first of these must be taken for the carrying the words to the interpretation which hath been before mentioned; but how incongruous it is to the very grammatical reading of the words, any one who is the least skilled in the original can eafily give an account. For what is here predicated is directly predicated of the grafhopper, and not in relation to any other perfon, or thing else whatsoever. And hence fome have translated it, onerabitur, five gravabitur ; others, onerabit, five gravabit fe; others, crefcet: the vulgar Latin gives the metaphor one remove more, to thofe that are burdened with flesh or fat, rendring it, impinguabitur locufta; but the translation of the Septuagint upon this word is most remarkable, and gives very great light to the understanding of the true meaning of the place, xuvtñ ǹ angis, Crassabitur, denfabitur, vel pinguefcet. Wherefore, that the doubtfulness of speech, both in the Latin and English, (which hath misled most interpreters) may be for the future removed, I judge it moft convenient that the tranflation of the vulgar Latin take principal place, or that it be rendred in Latin, locufta, onuftam fe reddet, or, præbebit; which the conjugation doth mostly favour; and in English, the grashopper shall grow (or fhew) big and burdenfome. For the right H 4 right understanding of which words, we must be fure to enquire, what parts of the body of man they are, that may be most aptly reprefented by the grafhopper, and what change that is, that is here denoted unto us: Which that we may the better do, we must also take notice of one fpecial diftinction of the parts of the body. Of the parts of the body that are enlivened by the spirit of the whole (for of the other mention was made in the last) there be two forts: Either the fluid, moift, fucculent, tender, and foft parts of the body; or the dry, folid, tenfile, hard, and crufty parts of the body. The firft of these seem to be intended in the following words; the last of these, in these that are before us. This distinction is ufually termed, the diftinction of the philofophers, in oppofition to all thofe manifold divifions of the parts of the body, that are to be found among phyficians; and indeed it hath more of clearness and demonftration in it, than any of the other; neither that of Hippocrates in ἔχοντα, ἰσχόμενα, & ὁρμῶντα ; nor that of Galen, in fpermaticas & fanguineas; nor that generally received among moft, in fimilares & organicas, is without its difficulties; it hath put very learned and ingenious men very hard to it, to make the best of these ftand firm against its oppofers: but this that we are now fpeaking of, is so plain and obvious to the fenfe, fenfe, that no man ever yet difallowed of it, or hath at any time undertaken to contradict it. Indeed, that diftinction of the parts into spermatical and fanguineous, as usually it is applied, comes the nearest to what is here intended; but the terms are not so proper; and befide, they are built upon a falfe foundation, which is, that the feveral parts of the body have their origination from several and diftinct principles of generation, viz. femen & fanguis menftruus; but the ingenuity of this latter age, hath juftly exploded such a doctrine as that, and hath brought all knowing men to confefs, that all the parts of the body, both of one kind and of another, have their original equally from one and the fame feminal matter. And yet the former distinction of the parts, in molles & duras, may be found to have a just right, even from their first producer. For the feed itself is not of so equal a substance and consistence, but that variety of parts, as to foftness and hardness, may easily be difcerned in it. And this Job (beyond all human writers whatsoever) doth plainly declare, when he faith, Thou hast poured me out like milk, and curdled me like cheefe, Job x. 10. The very firft matter of generation in this refpect hath a double substance; there is a lacteous, and a cafeous part therein; there is a tenderer and a more fluid part; there is also a more condensed and coagulated part ; which are apt to produce afterward parts in the body H 5 |