1. Because that being driven into the field, and eating grass as oxen, and having his body (it was his body, not the body of an oxe, and therefore no corporeal nor real change) wet with the dew of Heaven, do not at all conclude or infer, that his body was really and essentially changed, nor in the external figure of it altered from what it was before; for he might go upon all four, and eat grass, and yet that doth argue no real change of his bodily shape at all; for so have divers persons done, that being young, have been lost in Woods and Desarts, and have been brought up with Bears or Wolves. To which purpose take one story for all from Philip Camerarius, that learned Counsellor of Norimberg, a man of great credit and reputation, in these words. “In the year 1543. there was in the parts of Hesse a Lad taken, who (as he reported afterwards, and so it was found true) when he was but three years old, was taken away, and afterwards nourished and brought up by Wolves. These Wolves, when they got any prey, would always bring the best of it to a Tree, and give it to the Child, which did eat it: in Winter and time of cold, they would dig a pit, and strew it with grass and leaves of trees, and thereupon lay the Child, and lying round about it, preserve him from the injury of the weather: after they would make him go upon all four, and run with him, till by use and length of time, he could skip and run like a Wolf; being taken, he was compelled by little and little to go only upon his feet. He would often say, that if it had been in his power, he could have taken more delight to have conversed among Wolves, than among men: he was carried to the Court of Henry Lantgrave of Hesse to be seen.” And in the same Chapter he relateth another story to the same purpose of one that he himself had known and seen, that was of admirable agility, and more to the same end. Now must we conclude, that because this Boy did live and lye in the open air, was fed with raw flesh, and went upon all four, that therefore he was really and essentially charged into a Wolf? no, that would be inconsequent and ridiculous; and so would it be, if because Nebuchadnezzar lay in the open field, was wet with the rain and dew, and did eat grass as an ox, to conclude, that therefore he was really changed into a beast; the absurdities are both alike. This is as mad a kind of inference, as if we should say, Conies and Geese do eat grass like an Ox, therefore they are Oxen or Asses, when notwithstanding they still retain their essential beings and shapes, without any essential transformations at all.
Argum. 2.
2. Because the hairs of his head (as the Text saith) were grown like to an Eagles feathers, and for that also the very nails of his hands and feet were like the claws of a bird: yet it doth not prove that he was really changed into a beast, and that for these Reasons. 1. Because it would be more consonant to conclude, that he was rather transformed into some bird, having feathers and claws, than into a beast that hath horns and hoofs, though there was in him no corporeal transformation at all, but only a changed mind. 2. The Text is not according to the Hebrew Phrase used when there is real transubstantiation, as in Lots Wife; Et fuit statua salis; but as Tremellius renders it: Usquedum pili ejus ut Aquilarum plumæ crevissent, & ungues ejus ut avium. And Arias Montanus thus: Donec capillus ejus sicut Aquilarum crevit, & ungues ejus sicut avium: which is exactly agreeable to the Hebrew. So that the assertion is not, that his hairs were changed into Eagles feathers, nor his nails into birds claws, but that they were sicut as the feathers of Eagles, and as the claws of birds; the hairs by being grown ruffled, squalid, and rugged, and the nails by being grown long, hard, and crooked for want of cutting, dressing, combing, and ordering; and more change than this the words or sense do not bear. 3. There was no other change, but what was by natural growth; for the Hebrew word רָבָה doth properly signifie multus fuit, succrevit in multitudinem: so that the hairs were increased naturally in multitude and length, and the nails in magnitude and length, and so there was no essential change at all, but only an excessive augmentation of them both, he having lost the use of reason, whereby he could not use means to cut, cleanse, and order them. So that they did but grow squalid and ill-favour’d for want of using means to order and make them comely, even as many that have been lost, or left in Desarts, and desolate places, have after some length of time been found to be overgrown with hairs and ugly nails, that they have scarce been taken for men, but have appeared as savage and feral Monsters.
Argum. 3.
Dan. 4. 34, 36.
Avenar. Diction. pag. 313.
Palon. in loc.
3. His restauration doth plainly testifie what kind of change it was; for that which was restored unto him, did bring him into the same condition that he was in, before this transformation; and that was his knowledge or understanding. Now therefore if his knowledge or understanding did reduce him to the right use of reason, and brought those conditions and qualities that he had before: Then it is most plain, that it was only his knowledge or understanding that was taken away or changed; and so there was no other transformation, but what was internal in the mind, judgment, or imagination, by altering his will, desires, cogitations, condition, and qualities, and so no essential transformation at all, nor no change of his external shape, but what grew naturally in regard of his hair and nails or skin, for want of due ordering and decent dressing. And that this is an unanswerable truth, the words in the Text do sufficiently testifie, which are in our English: And mine understanding returned unto me, and at the same time my reason returned unto me; therefore it was only his understanding and reason, that had for a time been turned from him, and at his restauration they returned, or came again. Tremellius renders the former Verse: Et mente meâ ad me reversâ Excelso benedixi. And in the latter: Mente meâ reversâ in me. In both Verses Arias Montanus renders it: Cognitio mea super me reversa est; for the Hebrew word there used יָדַע scivit, restituit, cognovit, agnovit, propriè est mentis & intellectûs, as Avenarius saith. And the Septuagint in both the Verses do agree with the Hebrew, αἱ φρένες μου ἐπ’ ἐμὲ ἐπεσρόφησαν. And to this purpose doth the French, Italian, and Luthers Translation render it, only the vulgar Latine gives it by the word sensus, & figura mea reversa est, which is altogether vicious. So that from hence we may safely conclude, that this transformation was only internal and mental, and no essential change at all: of which a most learned Divine tells us thus much: Sunt nonnulli, inter quos est Johannes Bodinus, qui putant humanam figuram reverà fuisse ei ademptam. Ac sanè Deus pro sua omnipotentia miraculum hoc in rege isto impio facere, & humanam ejus naturam in bruti animalis essentiam mutare potuit: sed verisimilius est regem alienatum mente, vel etiam maniacum factum, ademptâ ei divinitùs mente, ut patet, ex sequente vers. 34. & in furorem versum, sive per iram, sive per dolorem, ob acceptam ignominiam, quòd regiâ dignitate esset orbatus. Sic Ericus Rex Sueciæ in furorem est actus per iram & dolorem, quòd regno esset dejectus, Anno 1568.
Argum. 4.
Obser. medic. p. 57, 58.