lord’s discovery op THE banians and persees.

53 9

Inclyta Pythagorce cum primum inuenta figura eft,

Inclyta, propter quam vidima bos cecidit.

Neither have they been abhorrent to this pradice themfelves, if the report of hiftorymay be credited, for Ccel Rhodigin reporteth, that the ancient Indians (which are thepeople now in mention) when Liber Pater difcovered thofe parts, were clothed withthe fkins of wild beads, which were before by them llaughtered. Neither is this obfervedby the Cutteries now, and therefore may feem to be a tradition of their own deviling,neither from the beginning by them pratlifed, nor by authentic law enjoined, that itfhould be an elfential part of their religion.

And fo we come to their fecond commandment, which containeth in it two prohi-bitions to be excepted againft. The firft, forbidding to drink of wine. The next,the eating of flelh.

To the firft, whereas the Bramanes and the Banians abftain from wine by a religiouskind of forbearance, at all times and feafons, without the abfolute ufe of the creature;we anfwer, that this is a tradition void of ground or reafon.

Firft, it is againft the common end and ufe of the creature, which God hath made tocomfort the heart of man, obferving thefe cautions. Firft, that men drink not toomuch for the quantity. Secondly, for the manner, not in boafting or oftentation.Thirdly, for the time, that it be not when religious falls require forbearance. Fourthly,for the place, that it be not where the ufe of the creature may bring fcandal.

Next, thofe that have abftained from wine, have abftained for divers ends, but notprecifely obferving the points of this Banian injundion. The Romans did forbid theirfervants the drinking of wine, but it was becaufe they might not forget the bonds ofduty towards their mailers. They did alfo enjoin their women to abftain from wine,but it was as Valer. Max. reports, lib. 2. cap. 1. Ne in aliquod dedecus prolaberentur,quia , proximus a libero patre intetnperantice gradus ad inconcejfam venerem effe confuerit.“ Left they Ihould fall into defame ; for that the next neigbour to intemperance is unbri-dled lull.” The Carthaginians forbad their foldiers the juice of the grape, but it wasleft drowfinefs Ihould opprefs them in their watch to a public peril. The Egyptianpriefts, called Sarabaitse, did for temperate ends abftain from wine, but it was not forever; that falfe prophet, Mahomet, by his law forbad the drinking of wine, but it wasa tradition and impofture of his own, and the very Mulkes and priefts do not obferveit always at prefent, as I myfelf have beheld. The Levites were forbid to drink wine,Levit. x. 9. but it was only before their entrance into the faiicluary; that, as Tremeliusobferveth, they might not deliver the counfels of the Lord with a troubled mind, butknow what was fit for their adminiftration : this was no perpetual prohibition. TheNazarites vow was to drink no wine, but this was not ever, but in the days of reparation.Numb. vi. 2, 3. The Rechabites vowed to drink no wine, but this was arbitrary, andnot by religious obligation, and not for ever, but for thirty years, the fpace between Jehu and Joachim the latter, and Zedekiah King of Judah. The civil abftinence, neverthelefs,is not to be condemned, but this abfolute difannulment of the ufe of God ’s creature.

Again, the confirmations of men, moll temperate, do condemn this interdiction ofwine. Galen called it the nurfe of old age: Mnefytheus allowed men lamre hebenas ,to loofe the reins in merry and harmlefs potations. Rigid Seneca faid, though a manought not by drinking to drown his fenfe, yet he might by drinking drown his cares.Plato , that leaned to fome of the opinions that this people hold, faid that wine was aremedy of God againft old age, that a man might have ufum liberaliorem vini , “ a moreliberal ufe of wine j” and others think that Pythagoras did not altogether abftain from

322 the