In the two foregoing Divisions, this Author’s Fondness of calling Men and Women, each perfect in their Sex, Hermaphrodites, is very culpable; but in this his forging a new Kind is inexcusable; for he has put two Figures in his Book to explain this Division; the first of which is that of a single Body, with the Vulva on the Right Side, and the Penis and Scrotum on the Left, close to each other, over which he has this Inscription[97]: ‘The Figure of an Hermaphrodite, Man and Woman.’ And yet in this Division he describes the same Kind, and calls it[98] ‘neither one nor t’other:’ declares them incapable of Generation, and that their Parts serve for no other Use than for the Discharge of Urine; but leaves us in the Dark as to which of the Parts, or whether both, serve to this Use. Now as by the Inscription over this Figure he intends to demonstrate both Male and Female, which is his fourth Division; and by his third Division, he describes the same Figure to be neither the one nor the other; it is no difficult Matter to perceive this Figure is purely invented to illustrate what an Hermaphrodite is in general, according to the Idea he himself had formed of it. The second is a Figure of two Children sticking together by the Backs, to both which he puts the same Marks of the Parts of Generation as to the former, as if both Children were Hermaphrodites; and, indeed, he might have as well placed the Parts of fifty to the same Body, as to have been guilty of what appears to have been his common way of proceeding, for he feigns or borrows Figures to serve every Occasion; this clearly appears by comparing this Author’s Figures with those of _Jac. Rueffe_; for he makes one of the Figures of that Author serve to illustrate two different Stories; he tells of Monsters with four Hands, and as many Feet; but this, with several others of the like Kind, may be the Subject of another Place[99]. ‘Hermaphrodites, that are both Male and Female, are such as have the two Sexes perfectly formed, and capable of Generation.’