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._ [Sidenote: _Argum. 4._] [Sidenote: _Obser. medic._ _p._ 57, 58.] [Sidenote: History 1.] [Sidenote: History 2.] [Sidenote: _De Hydrop._ _l._ 1. _c._ 12. _p._ 99.] [Sidenote: _Sennert. de Hydrop._ _pag._ 417.] [Sidenote: _De medend. morb._ _c._ 9. _p._ 97.] [Sidenote: History 3.] [Sidenote: _Obser. medic._ _l._ 10. _p._ 440.] [Sidenote: History 4.]