482 



THE LANCASTER FARMER. 



f December, 



For The Lancastkr Farmeb, 

 VEGETABLE VS. ANIMAL DIET. 



Mr. President and Gentlemen. — The discus- 

 sion at our last meeting terminated in a mo- 

 tion requesting me to prepare an essay on the 

 subject just announced. It is with diffidence, 

 on the one hand, yet with confidence, on tlie 

 other, that I accede to the request. You are 

 well aware that it is up-hill labor to advocate 

 the unpopular side of any question, no matter 

 what arguments may be presented ; but the 

 hope of sowing seed that may possibly produce 

 some good fruit, should always be sufficient 

 inducement to earnest labor in whatever field 

 circumstances may place us. My first request 

 is that you give me an unprejudiced hearing ; 

 second, that you will conclude an impartial 

 judgment in the case. It is not reasonable to 

 expect that this essay will convert one from 

 flesh-eating, nor fully convince any that they 

 could possibly get along without the use of 

 flesh diet. Your essayist, however, is confi- 

 dent of his ability to demonstrate beyond 

 question that there are stronger arguments on 

 the vegetarian side of the question than any 

 of you who have not investigated the subject 

 have ever dreamed of. 



As a rule, we are disposed to judge and de- 

 cide matters from a standpoint of custom and 

 habit, rather than upon their real merit. If 

 mankind had always been, or were now in a 

 normal condition, custom and habit might be 

 a sound basis from which to argue this, as 

 well as other questions. If man's appetites 

 and cravings were a just criterion, then the 

 question of vegetarianism could not be sus- 

 tained. From a Bible standpoint we must 

 conclude that man in his primeval state sub- 

 sisted simply on fruits, which sustained human 

 life in its greatest perfection. We have no 

 evidence that his expulsion from Paradise 

 caused any physical changes so as to make him 

 carnivorous, or even omnivorous ; and we 

 therefore assume that he remained, if not 

 simply a fruit-eater, at least a vegetable-eater, 

 until after the deluge, during which period he 

 attained a greater age than ever since. The 

 plea that after the flood he received permission 

 to eat flesh, does not prove any change physi- 

 cally, except that life was shortened, and we 

 consequently assume that he remained by na- 

 ture a vegetarian. The Scripture pass- 

 age generally quoted in support of flesh- 

 eating is, at best, somewhat obscure. How- 

 ever, from the period of the flood to the pre- 

 sent day, flesh-eating has prevailed to a cer- 

 tain extent among certain nations, peoples, 

 communities and families ; but at the same 

 time there have existed families, communi- 

 ties, and almost entire nations without resort- 

 ing to flesh, and, so far as physical develop- 

 ment, endurance and longevity are concerned, 

 the preponderance is in favor of the latter. 

 In fact, the most feeble and diminutive peo- 

 ple we can now think of are the Esquimaux, 

 who are exclusively flesh and fat eaters. 



When Moses led the children of Israel 

 through the wilderness, and provisions seemed 

 to run short, they began to murmur, and 

 longed rather to die by the flesh-pots of Egypt 

 than from hunger in the wilderness. Food 

 was at once provided as if by miracle, in the 

 shape of manna and quails. No doubt life 

 might have been sustained by the former 

 alone, but as the perple were hankering after 

 flesh, it was also provided, evidently to satisfy 

 their clamoring. But mark the result. A 

 great plague was the consequence, by which 

 multitudes died with the flesh of quails be- 

 tween their teeth. The place was given an 

 appropriate name, because there they buried 

 the people that lusted. 



Both .sacred and profane history record in- 

 stances of prominent men who lived without 

 flesh. The prophet Daniel and liis com- 

 panions are interesting subjects in this con- 

 sideration, as many persons want Scripture 

 evidence in support of any doctrine. When 

 Nebuchadnezzar required a number of the 

 most promising young men in his realm to be 

 educated for the first offices under the king, 

 they were to be without blemish, such as had 

 ability to stand in the king's palace. Daniel 



and liis three Jewish companions were among 

 those who stood a prehminary examination. 

 Provision was made for their diet and drink 

 from the king's table. When it came to the 

 point of eating and drinking, Daniel and his 

 companions declined partaking of what was 

 provided for them, and requested to be fed on 

 pulse and water. The overseer of the stu- 

 dents feared the wrath of the king in case 

 tlie.se young men should appear emaciated 

 when they would be presented before his 

 majesty, but they prevailed upon a ten days' 

 trial, after which the overseer allowed them 

 to continue their choice diet for a term of 

 three years, quite a reasonable time to test 

 the effect of a vegetarian diet. Now as to the 

 result. When they were brought before the 

 king, he found these four young Hebrews 

 above all the rest, and not only first among 

 the students, but ten times better than all the 

 magicians and astrologers in all his realm ; 

 consequently, they were assigned the highest 

 positions under thesaid monarch of the world. 

 Evidently they continued their diet which 

 sustained them so well. 



There have existed in nearly all ages of 

 Jewish history, organizations, as well as indi- 

 viduals, which excluded flesh-diet altogether. 

 It is therefore evident that there were many 

 of those classed in Holy Writ as God's people 

 who did not consider flesh essential to their 

 well-being; at least, they did not consider it a 

 positive command from God. May we not 

 reasonably conclude that, like the bill of di- 

 vorcement granted by Moses and rather coun- 

 termanded by Christ, flesh-eating was allowed 

 on account of the hardness of man's heart. 

 The command to Noah after the flood may 

 have been simply for an emergency, as it re- 

 quired some time for the earth to produce 

 food, and he being directed to take into the 

 ark seven pairs each of the clean animals, 

 would seem like making provision for this 

 very condition of things. So much for Bible 

 vegetarians. 



Profane history gives us many instances of 

 men eminent for learning, endurance and 

 longevity, who abstained entirely from flesh 

 diet, some of whose dietic habits were ex- 

 tremely simple. It would require much time 

 and research, and would extend this essay far 

 beyond reasonable limits, should I enter into 

 details. I shall, however, quote from a few 

 reliable authors iiv support of vegetable diet. 

 Mr. Horsell, of London, England, lias pub- 

 lished a work in which, among other extracts 

 from ancient authors, we find the following : 

 "It is a notorious fact that one half of the 

 inhabitants of our globe live on vegetables 

 either from necessity or from choice. The 

 hundreds of millions of Southern Asia are for 

 the most part vegetable eaters. The ancient 

 Greeks say Porphyry lived entirely on the 

 fruits of the earth. The ancient Syrians ab- 

 stained entirely from every species of animal 

 food. By the laws of Triptolemus, the 

 Athenians were strictly commanded to ab- 

 stain from all living creatines. Tlie Romans 

 were so fully persuaded of the superior 

 effects of vegetable diet, that aside from the 

 examples of many of their good men, they 

 publicly countenanced this mode of diet in 

 their laws concerning food. Plutarch says it 

 is best to accustom ourselves to eat no flesh 

 at all, for the earth affords plenty not only fit 

 for nourishment, but for enjoyment and de- 

 light." 



And again, you ask for what reason Pytha- 

 goras abstained from eating the flesh of 

 brutes ? For my part, on the contrarv I am 

 astonished to think what appetite first in- 

 duced man to taste a dead carcass ; or what 

 motive could suggest the thought of nourish- 

 ing himself with the flesh of animals which 

 he saw the moment before bleating and 

 walking about ? How could he see an impo- 

 tent and defenceless creature slaughtered, 

 skinned, and cut up for food ? How could 

 he endure the sight of the convulsed limbs 

 and muscles ? How bear the smell arising 

 from the dissection ? Whence happened it 

 tliat he was not di.sgusted and struck with 

 horror when he came to handle the bleeding 



flesh, and clear away the clotted blood and 

 humors from the wounds ? We should there- 

 fore rather wonder at the conduct of those 

 who first indulged themselves in this horrible 

 repast, than at such as have humanly ab- 

 stained from it. Dr. Whitlaw says that "all 

 philosovihers have given their testimony in 

 favor of a vegetable diet, from Pythagoras to 

 Franklin." "We might also have quoted 

 from Plato, Plutus, Plutrarch, Porpyhry, 

 Cyrus the Great, Lord Bacon, Sir W. Temple, 

 Lord Kairns, Prof. Dick, Sir E. Home, Pope, 

 Sir Isaac Newton, Howard, Shelley, Liuuxus, 

 Cuvier and others." The same author quotes 

 a list of names of persons of rather modern 

 times whose ages varied from one hundred to 

 over two hundred years, who invariably lived 

 temperate and abstemious lives. Their food 

 was very simple and generally vegetable. He 

 also argues that according to natural laws, 

 health and longevity are man's lot, that we 

 owe to God, His Church, and the world, the 

 longest and best life that we can live, and are 

 under the most solenm obligation not to hin- 

 der or shorten it. 1 



Now would not a little sound sober reflec- 

 tion lead us all to conclusions similar to those 

 just quoted V Because the habitsand customs 

 of mankind are as we now find them, is no 

 proof that they are the best, or that they are 

 as they should be. In order to arrive at truth 

 and right we must go behind perverted ap- 

 petites and good natured errors. 



Experience should have taught every one of 

 us that it is much easier to float with the 

 l>opular current, than to return and correct 

 errors. We are too apt to reason from the 

 basis of our feelings and appetites, never 

 dreaming that they are often so abnormal and 

 perverted as to have become almost a second 

 nature. 



The prevailing and erroneous idea that we 

 must partake of stimulating food and drink 

 to give strength to the system, is so strongly 

 impressed upon our minds that it requires 

 thunder tones to shake up the accumulated 

 rubbish. The accejited conclusion, that in 

 order to do hard labor man must eat flesh ; 

 might long since have been exploded even 

 among its strongest advocates, had they only 

 given the other side a fair trial ; but we could 

 now no more persuade our laboring men that 

 they can accomplish a full day's work without 

 meat, than we could 40 years ago have con- 

 vinced our harvest-hands of their ability to do 

 a day's work without a certain quantity of 

 whisky. The result is our harvest-hands 

 now can do better and more work in a day, 

 than they possibly could have done under 

 whisky regime. The laborers of those days 

 were no less positive of the necessity of 

 whisky stimulants, than those of our day are 

 of flesh stimulants. 



The positive testimony as to the ability of 

 men and women in all ages and climes to ac- 

 complish any amount of necessary labor with- 

 out any flesh diet, should indeed be sufficient 

 to convince the most skeptical flesh-eater. 

 "But" says the latter, "I have eaten it so 

 long and am so fond of it that I could hardly 

 leave it." Just so, your strongest logic origi- 

 nates from your stomach insteadof your brain. 

 Again, he will say, " what are all these ani- 

 mals here for if not to be eaten ? " Well, if 

 you must eat everything that you don't know 

 what it is created for, you will have your 

 stomach so full that you will hardly reason at 

 all. In reply to the latter. I will simply say 

 that had our animals not been nursed and 

 domesticated, they would have receded with 

 other wild animals as civilization advanced. 



We do not argue that the flesh of some 

 healthy animals is innutritiousor unhealthful, 

 but claim that the vegetable kingdom will 

 yield a full supply of food best adapted to 

 man's nature and well being, and without ex- 

 citing our carnivorous propensities. Of all 

 the abominations in our dietetic system, the 

 swine plays the most conspicuous part. A 

 scavenger by nature, but by domestication is 

 considered by many one of the sweetest of 

 morsels, almost without exception scrofulous, 

 frequently measly, and often full of trichince, 



