To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
How God communicated Religion to the world by a Booke deliuered to Bremaw, the particular Tracts of the same: The first Tract thereof touching the morall Law laid downe with the ap∣propriation of the same to the seuerall Casts, and a Confutation of the Errours thereof.
GOD knowing that there would be but euill gouernment, where there was not the establishment of his worshippe and feare; after the world was replenished a new, bethought
himselfe of giuing them lawes to restraine that euill in them that was the cause of the destruction of the former Age.
Descending therefore on the Mountaine M••ropurbatee, he called Bremaw to him, and out of a darke and duskie cloude, with cer∣taine glimpses of his glory, hee magnified himselfe to Bremaw, telling him that the cause why hee brought destruction on the former Age, was because they did not obserue the In∣structions contained in the Booke deliuered to Brammon: so deliuering a booke out of the cloud into the hand of Bremaw, commanded him to acquaint the people with those things contained therein. So Bremaw made knowne the Sanctions and Lawes vnto the dispersed Generations.
Of the contents thereof if any desire to be informed, the Banians deliuer that this Booke by them called the SHASTER, or the booke of their written Word, consisted of these three Tracts. The first where∣of contained their morall Law, or their Booke of precepts, together with an Expli∣cation vpon euery precept, and an Appro∣priation of the precepts to their seuerall Trybes or Casts. The second Tract vnfolded their ceremoniall Law, shewing what cere∣monyes they were to vse in their worship. The third Tract distinguished them into cer∣taine Casts or Tribes, with peculiar obser∣uations
meete to each Cast or Tribe: such was the summe of this Booke deliuered to Bre∣maw, of which particulars if any desire more distinct knowledge, we shall propose the pith and substance of this in that which followes.
First then the Tract that containeth the Morall Law, and was by Bremaw published to the Nations, comprised in the same eight Commandements; which are these following.
The first Commandement, Thou shalt not kill any liuing Creature whatsoeuer it bee, hauing life in the same; for thou art a Creature of mine, and so is it, thou art indued with a soule, and it is indued with the same, thou shalt not therefore spill the life of any thing that is mine.
The second, Thou shalt make a Couenant with all thy fiue senses. First with thine eyes that they behold not things that bee euill. Secondly with thine eares that they heare not things that bee euill. Thirdly with thy tongue that it speake not things that bee euill. Fourthly with thy pallate that it taste not things that bee euill, as wine or the flesh of liuing Creatures. Fifthly with thy hands, that they touch not things de∣filed.
The third, Thou shalt duely obserue the times of deuotion, thy washings, worship∣ping, and prayers, to the Lord thy God: with a pure and vpright heart.
The fourth, Thou shalt tell no false tales or vtter things that bee vntrue, by which thou mightest defraud thy Brother in dealings, bargaines, or Contracts, by this cosenage, to worke thine owne peculiar ad∣uantage.
The fift, Thou shalt be charitable to the poore, and administer to his need, Meate drinke and Money, as his necessity requi∣reth, and thine owne ability inableth thee to giue.
The sixt, Thou shalt not oppresse, iniure or doe violence to the poore, vsing thy power vniustly to the Ruine and ouerthrow of thy Brother.
The seuenth, Thou shalt celebrate certaine Festiuals, yet not pampering thy body with excesse of any thing, but shalt ob∣serue certaine seasons for fasting, and breake off some houres of sleepe for wat∣ching,
that thou mayest be fitter for deuo∣tion and holinesse.
The eight, Thou shalt not steale from thy Brother any thing how little soeuer it bee of things committed to thy trust in thy profession or calling, but shalt content thy seife with that which hee shall freely giue thee as thy hyre, considering that thou hast not right to that which another man calleth his.
These eight Commandements are bestow∣ed amongst the foure Tribes or Casts, appro∣priating to each two Commandements in se∣uerall.
First, Brammon and Shuddery the Priest and the Merchant man are bound in greatest strictnesse of Religious obseruance, and hold the greatest agreement in their worshippe; and Cuttery and Wyse the Ruler & the Handy∣crafts man, do most correspond in theirs.
To the Bramanes which are the Priests, they giue the first and second Commandements, as placing the strictest parts of Religion in these two things. First in the preseruation of liuing Creatures from destruction. Next in Abstinence from things forbidden, as in the eating of Flesh, or drinking of Wine▪ to
which obseruance they doe also strictly en∣ioyne the Merchant-men.
Next, more particularly they apportion to Shuddery, as most proper to his profession, the third, and fourth Commandements, which two precepts inioyne to Deuotion, and binde from cosenage in their dealings, a sinne too incident to those that are conuersant in the ballance and waights, who are so myste∣rious in that particular as may well neede an Act of Religion to restraine them from such fraudulency.
To Cuttery their Rulers or Magistrates, they attribute the fift and sixt Commandements, as knowing oppression to bee a sinne most common to the Mighty, and inioyning them to Charity, who are best able to relieue the necessities of the poore.
To Wyse the handycrafts man they referre the seuenth and eight Commandements, who haue neede of some free times of en∣ioyment, yet giuen to lauishment of their gettings, if they were not admonished by their Law; as also binding them from theft, a sinne to which they may be inuited by oppor∣tunity, as they discharge the duties of their callings in other mens houses.
In fine, to all these they owe a generall ob∣seruance, but are more particularly cautious in keeping the Commandements appropria∣ted to their owne peculiar Tribe or Cast.
Since then the Lawes or Precepts of any Religion, are no further to be allowed, than they seeme to be well grounded, and to carry truth and good reason with them: Me thinks by the way, here is something to be excepted against, in this Banian Law, which distingui¦shing them from men of other Religions, may bee examined whether it may haue al∣lowance or no.
The principall part of their Law admit∣ting nothing prodigious to opinion, we passe ouer, onely that which commeth into excep∣tion, is that which is laid downe in the first and second Commandement, and is enioyned the Bramanes and Banians to obserue, viz. First, that no liuing creature should be killed. Next, that they should not taste wine, or the flesh of liuing creatures.
Concerning the first, that they should not kill any liuing creature, the reason by which they confirme this precept, is because it is en¦dued with the same soule that man is.
This we deny, for the Banians here seeme to halt in their Philosophy, and the learning of the Ancients, who haue deliuered, that there is a threefold kinde of soule. First, a ve∣getant soule, such as is in hearbes and plants. Secondly, a sentient soule, such as is in beasts. Thirdly, a reasonable soule, such as is in man; which soule hath more noble Acts to distin∣guish it selfe from the other two; As also
that when the other doe interire cum corpore, perish with the body, this suruiueth, and therefore is not the same soule, as shall here∣after be prooued.
But that this Tenent of theirs denying the slaughter of liuing Creatures for Mans vse is nothing soueraigne, may appeare by Scrip∣ture, which after the Flood declareth Gods allowance in this particular, G••n. 9.3. Euery moouing thing that liueth shall be meate for you, euen as the greene hearbe haue I giuen you all things. Next by the custome of Nations, who differenced in other points of Religion, yet hold consent in this slaughter of liuing Creatures; adde vnto this the practise of Py∣thagoras, one whose name they adore, and who did lay the ground whereon this Secte leaneth, he killed an Oxe, as Athenaus eui∣cteth, lib. 1. Dipnosoph. in this distichon.
Inclyta Pythagorae cum primum inuenta figura est, Inclyta, propter quam victima bos cecidit.
Neither haue they beene abhorrent to this practise themselues, if the report of History may be credited, for Coel▪ Rodigin reporteth, that the ancient Indians (which are the peo∣ple now in mention) when Liber Pater disco∣uered those parts, were cloathed with the skinnes of wilde beasts, which were before by them slaughtered. Neither is this obser∣ued
by the Cutteries now, and therefore may seeme to be a Tradition of their owne deui∣sing, neither from the beginning by them practised, nor by authenticke law enioyned, that it should be an essentiall part of their Re∣ligion.
And so we come to their second Comman∣dement, which containeth in it two prohibi∣tions to be excepted against. The first, forbid∣ding to drinke of wine: the next, the eating of flesh.
To the first, whereas the Bramanes and the Banians abstaine from wine by a Religious kinde of forbearance, at all times and seasons, without the absolute vse of the creature; we answer, that this is a Tradition voyde of ground or reason.
First, it is against the common end and vse of the Creature, which God hath made to comfort the heart of Man, obseruing these cautions. First, that men drinke not too much for the quantity. Secondly, for the manner, not in boasting or ostentation. Thirdly, for the time, that it be not when Religious fasts re∣quire forbearance. Fourthly, for the place, that it be not where the vse of the creature may bring scandall.
Next, those that haue abstained from wine, haue abstained for diuers endes, but not pre∣cisely obseruing the points of this Banian in∣iunction. The Romans did forbid their ser∣uants
the drinking of wine, but it was because they might not forget the bonds of duty to∣wards their Masters. They did also inioyne their women to abstaine from wine, but it was as Valer. Max. reports, Lib. 2. Cap. 1. Ne in aliquod dedecus prolaberentur, quia proximus à Libero Patre intemperantiae gradus ad inconces∣sam venerem esse consueuit: Least they should fall into defame, for that the next neighbour to intemperancie is vnbridled lust. The Car∣thaginians forbad their souldiers the iuyce of the grape, but it was least drowsinesse should oppresse them in their watch to a publique perill. The Egyptian Priests called Sarabaitae, did for temperate ends abstaine from wine, but it was not for euer. That false Prophet Mahomet, by his Law forbad the drinking of wine, but it was a Tradition and Imposture of his owne, and the very Mullaes and Priests do not obserue it alwayes at present, as I my selfe haue beheld. The Leuites were forbid to drinke wine, Leuit. 10.9. but it was onely before their enterance into the Sanctuary, that as Tremelius obserueth, they might not deliuer the Counsels of the Lord with a troubled minde, but know what was fit for their administration: this was no perpetuall prohibition. The Nazarites vowe was to drinke no wine, but this was not euer, but in the dayes of separation. Numb. 6.2, 3. The Re∣chabites vowed to drinke no wine, but this was
arbitrary, and not by Religious obligation, and not for euer, but for 30. yeeres, the space betweene Iehu and Ioachim the latter, and Ze∣dekiah King of Iudah. The ciuill abstinence ne∣uerthelesse is not to be condemned, but this absolute disannulment of the vse of Gods Creature.
Againe, the confirmations of men most temperate doe condemne this interdiction of wine. Gallen called it the nurse of old age: Mnesytheus allowed men laxare habenas, to loose the reynes in merry and harmelesse Potations. Rigid Seneca said, though a man ought not by drinking to drowne his sence, yet hee might by drinking drowne his cares. Plato that leaned to some of the opinions that this people hold, said that wine was a reme∣dy of God against old age, that a man might haue Vsum liberaliorem vini, a more liberall vse of wine; and others thinke, that Pythago∣ras did not altogether abstaine from the Greeke wines. To conclude, Historie repor∣teth of these ancient Indians, that they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. vini amatores, Louers of wine. Coel. Rhodigin. lib. 18. cap. 31. reporteth, that at the death or Funerall of one Calanus, there was a strife or contention mannaged Acrato∣posiae, of healths drinking, and he that gained the victory, who was called Promachus, emp∣tied foure great drinking Bowles. So that this Law prohibiting the vse of this Creature,
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
was not from the beginning, neither is obser∣ued of all, and therefore seemes no prohibi∣tion worthy of obseruance or iniunction.
To the second prohibition, laid downe in their second Commandement, concerning the eating of flesh, wee thus make our en∣trance.
First, it is certaine, that these Bramanes or Banians will not eate of the flesh of liuing creatures, that haue either had life in them, or the likenesse thereof; Egges therefore come within the precincts of their abstinence, be∣cause they suppose the life to bee in the shell, by which they become hatched or animate; Roots also that are red are abstained from, because they hold consanguinity with the co∣lour of blood. Neither will they cure their Feauers by Phlebotomy, but by fasting, because they suppose some of the life issueth with the blood. The reason why they would de∣terre men from eating of flesh, is because they suppose there is a kinde of Metempsycho∣sis or passage of soules from one creature to another, that the soules of men did enter into other liuing creatures, which should make men to abstaine from tasting of them. Which opinion of theirs, that it may appeare to bee vaine, wee will shew first who were the Au∣thors of this opinion, concerning such Me∣tempsychosis, and how it hath had his successi∣on of maintainers. Secondly, what is the ef∣fect
and substance of this opinion. Thirdly, shew the reasons by which it is maintained. And lastly, proceed to the refutation of the same.
First, then for the originall of this opinion, though certainely these Indians are a people ancient, yet may it not be thought, that this opinion began first amongst them. First, be∣cause History that is the light of times, affir∣meth them to be slaughterers of liuing Crea∣tures. Next, because Plato and Pythagoras that haue name for defending this Metempsycho∣sis or Metempsomatosis, haue an honoured mention amongst the people. It is likely therefore that they haue met with some of their writings, in this particular, by which they haue become knowne to them. Thirdly, because Iamblichus with Chaeremon the Stoicke, thinke it to be first maintained amongst the Egyptians: That from the Egyptians then it came to the Grecians, that after it had beene rife amongst them, it was made more tenable by the wits and learnings of Pythagoras, Plato, Empedocles, Apolonius, Tyanius, and Proclus, and might in Liber Paters discoueries of those parts, bee dispersed amongst this people, as well as by a Scholler of Pythagoras, who spread it in Italy, where it found fauour with Numa Pompilius that superstitious Emperour, and was maintained by the Albanienses, and Albigenses, confuted by Athanasius.
Secondly, touching the substance of this opinion that gained the Patronage of so great Schollers. They did hold, that there was a passage of soules of one Creature into another, that this Transmeation was of the soules of men into beasts, and of beasts into men: hence Pythagoras auerred himselfe to be Euphorbus, & Empedocles in his verse affirmed himselfe to bee a Fish. This made it an abo∣minable crime to eate flesh, least as saith Ter∣tullian in Apologet. Cont. gent. Cap. 48. Bubulam De aliquo Proauo, Quispiam obsonaret: Some should eate vp the Oxeflesh, that had swal∣lowed vp his great Grandfathers soule. This opinion gayned propugnation and defence by Pythagoras, and Plato, by this meanes; be∣cause that beleeuing the soules immortality, it might gaine assent with others by this thought of its suruiuing in other bodies, af∣ter its relinquishment of the deceased, as Greg. Tholoss. affirmeth in his Syntax. Art. Mirab. lib. 8. cap. 12.
Thirdly, the reasons by which they doe in∣duce assent to this Transanimation of soules, were these, because the soule was impure by the sinnes and corruptions of the body, there∣fore it was needfull it should bee sublimed from this corruption, by such transmeation out of one body into another, as Chymicall spirits gaine a purer essence by passing through the Still or Limbecke, diuers times;
euery Distillation taking away some of his grosse part, and leauing it more refined. A∣gaine, because it was meete the soule should make a satisfaction for the filthinesse it had contracted, by remaining in the prison of the body, an exile from blessednesse a longer time, till this passage from one body to ano∣ther had so purified them, that they might be fit to enter into the Elysium or place of blisse.
Lastly, in confutation of this opinion for prohibition of eating of flesh from supposall of a Metempsychosis; we maintaine that there is no such Metempsychosis, or transanimation of soules.
First, the immortality of the soule wee euince without this Chymera of the fancy, by an argument drawne from mans dissolution: this is the nature of all things that are com∣pounded, that they should bee resolued into that which they were at first before their coniunction. Man is compounded of soule and body, the very dissolution of these two in death declareth this, for that cannot be se∣parated that was not before conioyned. This composition was by life, and a creature with∣out life, being in the soule alone, it is mani∣fest that the soule had it before euer it came to the body, or else that which was dead could neuer haue liued by the meanes of that which was likewise dead. If the soule had this life before the body, it must needes haue the
same after in his separation, and by conse∣quence is immortall.
Next in confutation of their reasons for this opinion: We answer. First, that the soule is not cleansed by such Transmeation from body to body, but rather defiled by that fil∣thinesse those bodies contract, as water be∣commeth defiled by infusion into an vncleane vessell. Much more, since they affirme the soules of men enter into beasts, which are creatures of greater impurity. Besides, those spirits that are subtiliated by Stils and Lym∣becks, the fire is effectuall to their subliming, but the bodies haue not the goodnesse in them that may tend to the soules greater pu∣rity, in such Transmeation. To conclude, it is improbable the soule should be enioyned to such a satisfaction for sinne, as tendeth to its greater defilement. These reasons therefore auaile little to confirme the soules Transmea∣tion in the manner premised.
We in the last place shall prooue this Me∣tempsychosis, to be no other then a vaine imagi∣nation, by the reasons following.
1. Then, that the soules are not deriued from one another per traducem, by way of tra∣duction, appeareth by Adams speech to Eue, Gen. 2 23. This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh: he doth not say, soule of my soule and spirit of my spirit. It appeareth then, that though shee receiued her body
from Adam, yet she had her soule from God. And this is that which Zachery affirmeth, Zach. 12.1. The Lord formeth the Spirit of a man within him: whence Augustine saith, Eam infundendo creari, & creando insundi, That the soule being put into man was created, and by creating was into man infused; if therefore God created some, why not all?
2. Of spiritual things & corporal, there shold seeme the same manner of increase; but the bodies haue new beings, therefore the soules.
3. If the soules were purified by their passage from one body to another, then that man that had the soule last, should be ca∣pable of all that knowledge that was enioyed by them that had it before, and so the Infant should be an experienced creature in past oc∣currences: but we discerne no such extraordi∣nary ripenesse of knowledge in one more then another, but that all our habits are gai∣ned by industry; which whilst Plato would ex∣cuse, saying, that the wandering soules did re∣ceiue from the diuell a draught of the cuppe of Obliuion, and so were forgetfull of that which is past; Irenaeus thus taunteth him: I•• Plato had tryall that his soule was obtused with such a draught: I wonder that he could remember, that his soule had lost her remem¦brance.
Lastly, if this were true, it would follow, that the soules of beasts should be immortall,
which would be absurd to thinke in these bet∣ter knowing times. Hauing therefore proued this opinion of passage of soules out of one body into another to be a fancy, and nothing reall, this may bee no iust cause to detaine them from eating the flesh of creatures, that haue had life in them. Neither would they, if there were great reason to the contrary, per∣mit it as they doe in the Casts of Cuttery and Wyse, whom if they pleased they might re∣straine by the like iniunction. All which thus euidenced, this already deliuered may be suf∣ficient to publish concerning the first Tract in the Booke deliuered to Bremaw, touching the Morall Law.