54 o lord’s DISCOVERY OF THE BANI-ANS AND KERSEE3.
the Greek wines. To conclude, hiflory reporteth of thefe ancient Indians that theywere namely, vini amatores, “ lovers of wine.” Coel Rhodigin, lib. 18. cap. 31.
reporteth, that at the death or funeral of one Calanus, there was a ftrife or contentionmanaged Acratopofive, of healths drinking, and he that gained the victory, who wascalled Promachus, emptied four great drinking bowls. So that this law, prohibiting theufe of this creature, was not from the beginning, neither is obferved of all, and there--fore feems no prohibition worthy of obfervance or injunction.
To the fecond prohibition, laid down in their fecond commandment, concerning theeating of flefh, we thus make our entrance.
Firft, it is certain, that thefe Bramanes or Banians, will not eat the flefh of livingcreatures that have either had life in them or the likenefs thereof: eggs thereforecome within the precin&s of their abftinence, becaufe they fuppofe the life to be in theIhell, by which they become hatched or animate : roots alfo that are red are abltainedfrom, becaufe they hold confanguinity with the colour of blood. Neither will they curetheir fevers by phlebotomy, but by falling, becaufe they fuppofe fome of the life fiftiethwith the blood. The reafcn why they would deter men from eating of flefh, is becaufethey fuppofe there is a kind of metempfychofis, or paffage of fouls, from one creatureto another ; that the fouls of men did enter into other living creatures, which, fliouldmake men to abftain from tailing of them. Which opinion of theirs, that it mayappear to be vain, we will fhew, Firft, who were the authors of this opinion, concerningfuch metempfychofis, and how it hath had his fucceflion of maintainers. Secondly,what is the effedt and fubftance of this opinion. Thirdly, fhew the reafons, by whichit is maintained. And laftly, proceed to the refutation of the fame. x
Firft, then, for the original of this opinion, though certainly thefe Indians are apeople ancient, yet may it not be thought, that this opinion began firft among them :firft, becaufe hiftory, that is the light of times, affirmeth them to be llaughterers ofliving creatures : next, becaufe Plato and Pythagoras , that have names for defendingthis metempfychofis or metempfomatofis, have an honoured mention amongft the people;it is likely, therefore, that they have met with fome of their writings, in this particular,by which they have become known to them. Thirdly, becaufe Jamblichus, with Chtere-mon, the Stoic , think it to be firft maintained amongft the Egyptians: that from theEgyptians then it came to the Grecians ; that after it had been rife amongft them, itwas made more tenable by the wits and learnings of Pythagoras, Plato, Empedocles ,Apolonius, Tyanius and Proclus , and might, in Liber Pater’s difcoveries of thofe parts,be difperfed amongft this people, as well as by a fcholar of Pythagoras , who fpread itin Italy, where it found favour with Numa Pompilius , that fuperftitious Emperor, andwas maintained by the Albanienfes and Albigenfes, confuted by Athanafius.
Secondly, touching the fubftance of this opinion, that gained the patronage of fo greatfcholars ; they did hold that there was a paffage of fouls of one creature into another,that this tranfmigration was of the fouls of men into beads, and of beafts into men:hence Pythagoras averred himfelf to be Euphorbus, and Empedocles in his verfeaffirinei^ himfelf to be a fifli. This made it an abominable crime to eat flefh, left,as faith rertullian in Apologet. Cont. Gent. cap. 48. bubulam dealtquo proavo quifpiaWobfonaret, “ fome fhould eat up the ox-flefh that had fwallowed up his, great grand-father’s foul.” This opinion gained propugnation and defence by Pythagoras andPlato , by this means; becaufe that believing the foul’s immortality, it might gain affentwith others by this thought of its furviving in other bodies, after its relinquifhment ofthe deceafed, as Greg. Tholofs. affirmeth in his Syntax. Art. Mirab. lib. 8. cap. 12.
1 Thirdly?