wholly on vegetable, or on animal food, or on a diet consisting of both, they have done so without any regard to correct physiological principles,—either in relation to quality, quantity, or condition of their food,—or in relation to other physiological wants and habits of the body; which are nearly as important to the general welfare of the system, as the quality and condition of the food. If their climate and circumstances have been less favourable than others to health, vigour, and longevity, they have learned (from experience) how far, as a general rule, they must restrain their indulgences; and in what way they must regulate their habits and appetites, so as to secure life long enough for one generation to become. the progenitors and nurturing protectors of another generation. And if their climate and circumstances have been more favourable than others to health, vigour, and longevity, they have also learned (from experience) how far they may go in indulgence, and still keep within the bounds necessary for the perpetuation of the race. So that in all cases, as a general rule, what they have wanted in natural advantages, they have made up in correctness of habits; and what they have possessed in natural advantage, they have squandered in erroneousness of habits. If their climate has been salutary, they have indulged the more freely in dietetic and other excesses. If their food has been congenial to their nature, they have balanced or counteracted its good effects by other things unfavourable to health, and vigour, and longevity; and, in this way, the whole human family—whether inhabiting frigid, torrid, or temperate zones; whether

dwelling on high mountains or in, low valleys; whether residing in ceiled houses, or living in tents, or in the open air; whether subsisting on animal or vegetable food, or on a mixed diet of the two; whether eating their food in its simplest and most natural state, or cooked and prepared in the most complicated manner; whether confined to simple food and water, or indulging in every variety of condiments, and stimulating and intoxicating liquors and substances; whether moderate or excessive in quantities; whether cleanly or filthy; whether chaste or lewd; whether gentle or truculent; whether peaceful or warlike-have, in the great experiment to ascertain how much indulgence the human constitution is capable of sustaining without sudden destruction, so balanced their good and evil as to preserve, throughout the world. and for many centuries, very nearly a general and uniform level, in respect to health, vigour, and longevity. This statement, however, is general; and admits of many particular exceptions of individuals, and sects, and societies, and perhaps tribes; but these exceptions in no case militate against its truth as a general statement, nor against any of the facts on which it is predicated. The fact, then, that a large portion of the human family actually have, for many centuries, and probably ever since the flood, subsisted (to a greater or less extent) on animal food, and apparently done as well as those who have subsisted wholly on vegetable diet, does not, in any degree, invalidate the evidence of Comparative Anatomy;that man is, naturally and purely, a frugivorous animal.” *

*GRAHAM'S LECTURES ON THE SCIENCE OF HUMAN LIFE. Vol. II. P. 90.

CHAPTER IV.

SENSITIVE AND MORAL FEELINGS OF MAN.

142. THE last argument I shall introduce, in favour of vegetable diet, as the natural food of man, is founded on his sensitive and moral feelings; which, like his other instincts already noticed (37), are dependant on his organization, and inseparable from his nature. Every manifestation of pain and suffering, in a sensitive being, must at all times awaken the sympathies of the human heart; except in those who are constitutionally obdurate, or whose feelings have been blunted by repeated acts, or scenes, of cruelty and misery. Some there are who, like a Nero, can take pleasure in the sufferings of mankind, and of inferior animals; but such are blots upon the fair creation of God; and are unfit for the society of those, who long for the universal reign of happiness, peace, and benevolence. Can we suppose, then, that the Deity would have implanted in the human breast such an aversion to the taking of life,—such a horror of shedding blood, and such a heart-sickness on witnessing it ;-such a hatred of cruelty, and such a sympathy with creatures writhing with pain, if he had intended us to feed upon

the flesh of slaughtered animals? Would he not rather have formed us cruel and ferocious-like all carnivorous animals; which seem to derive pleasure from witnessing the sufferings of their victims? Or has the All-wise Creator departed from that harmony of design, so conspicuous in all his works; and rendered necessary for man's support a food, the procuring of which shall do violence to the best and kindliest feelings of his nature; shall be continually weakening and tending to exterminate the attributes of benevolence, mercy, and love; and gradually defacing the image in which God created him? Could he intend, that the human race should eat their food with compunction ;—that every morsel should be purchased with a pang, and every meal empoisoned with remorse? No! Consistency runs through all the works and designs of God! We have already seen, that the organization of man-so far as the procuring, masticating, and digesting of food are concerned-is strictly adapted to a vegetable diet; and his sensitive and moral feelings confirm the views we have taken, and are in direct harmony with all other parts of his system." The feelings of the heart point more unerringly", says Nicholson, "than the dogmas and subtilties of men; who sacrifice to custom the dearest sentiments of humanity."

143. Much of the feeling manifested in this chapter, will doubtless be attributed to a state of morbid sensibility; and it must be acknowledged, that all the sentimental faculties, as well as the propensities, are liable to abuse; and may be the cause of much unnecessary sorrow, when not directed by the intellectual powers. But an

enlightened benevolence will endeavour to avoid each extreme, and neither give pain to its possessor at the sight of imaginary torture, nor yet render him insensible in the presence of actual suffering, whether in man or brute. I cannot agree with Shakspere who says,

"The poor beetle, that we tread upon,

In corporal sufferance finds a pang as great
As when a giant dies;

because we know that the inferior development of its nervous system, renders it not so acutely sensible to pain as the higher classes of animals: we also know, that the inferior classes experience comparatively little inconvenience from the loss of one or two of their limbs. But there can be little doubt that most of the more highly organized animals, such as various divisions of the vertebrata, which form so large a portion of human food, and whose nervous system is so similarly developed to our own—are acutely sensible both of pleasure and pain; and suffer dreadfully from the brutality of man, who abuses them in his service, hunts them for amusement, or kills them for food.

144. How few of those who feed upon the flesh of slaughtered animals, are aware of the enormous amount of excruciating pain, that is inflicted to satisfy their unnatural appetites! But the scenes of the slaughter-house are seldom (if ever) witnessed by those, whose feelings are likely to be wounded by the struggles and cries of dying animals.

* MEASURE FOR MEASURE. Act III. Scene 1.