in the facred writings in which John TitE Baptist j s 
faid to have fed on locufts and wild honey ; and the 
word MioiSxi has been fuppofed to mean the young 
fhoots of vegetables, rather than locufts ; but fince the 
fad is well eftablilhed, that thefe infeds are ftill eaten 
by the inhabitants of the Eaft, there feefns not the 
leaf! reafon for admitting any other interpretation than 
the ufually received one : Why fhould we wonder that 
the abftemious prophet, during his date offolitary fe- 
clufion from the commerce of the world, fhould fup- 
port himfelf by a repaft which is to be numbered not 
amongft the luxuries of life, but merely regarded as a 
fubftitute for food of a more agreeable nature ? We 
may alfo adduce, in fupport of this idea, rhe teftimo- 
ny of Hassel^uist, who thus expreffes himfelf on 
this very fubjed. " They who deny infeds to have 
been the food of this holy man, urge, that this infed 
is an unaccuftomary and unnatural food ; but they 
would foon be convinced of the contrary, if they would 
travel hither, to Egypt, Arabia, or Syria, and take a 
meal with the Arabs. Roafted locufts are at this time 
eaten by the Arabs at the proper feafon, when they 
can procure them ; fo that in all probability this difh 
has been ufed in the time of St. John. Ancient cuf- 
toms are not here fubjed to many changes, and the 
vi&uals of John are not believed unnatural here ; and 
I was allured by a judicious Greek prieft, that their 
church had never taken the word in any other fenfe, 
than that of locufts ; and he even laughed at the idea 
of its being a plant or a bird.” 
Hasselquist’s Travels, Eng. Tranjlation, p.419. 
