Reasons for not Eating Animal Food, 
1811 .] 
feel that the prepared substances are 
not the less what they truly are, and that 
no disguise of food, in itself loathson.e, 
ought to delude the unsophisticated per¬ 
ceptions of a considerate mind. 
xrr. 
Because the forty-seven Millions of 
acres in England and Wales would main¬ 
tain in abundance as many human Inha¬ 
bitants, if they lived wholly on grain, 
fruits and vegetables; but tiiey sustain 
only twelve millions .scantily, while ani¬ 
mal Food is made the Basis of human 
Subsistence. 
xrri. 
Because Animals do not present or 
contain the substance of food in mass, 
like Vegetables; every part of their Eco¬ 
nomy being subservient to their mere ex¬ 
istence, and their entire frames being 
solely composed of Blood necessary for 
Life, of Bones for Strength, of Muscles 
for Motion, and of Nerves for Sensation. 
XIV. 
Because the practice of killing and de¬ 
vouring Animals can be justified by no 
moral Plea, by no physical Benefit, nor 
any allegation of Necessity, in Coun¬ 
tries where there is Abundance of vege¬ 
table food ; and where the arts of Garden- 
ingand Husbandry are favoured by social 
protection, and by the genial character of 
the Boil and Climate. 
XV. 
Because whenever the humber and 
hostility of predatory Land Animals 
might so tend to prevent tiie cultivation 
of vegetable food, as to render it neces¬ 
sary to destroy, and perhaps to cat, 
them, there could in that case exist no 
necessity for destroying the animated ex¬ 
istences of the distinct Elements of Air 
and Water; and, as in most civilized 
countries, there exists no land animals 
besides those vvhich are purposely bred for 
Slaughter or Luxury, of course the de¬ 
struction of Animals, Birds, and Fish, in 
such countries must be ascribed either to 
nmhinking wantonness or carnivorous 
gluttony. 
xvr. 
Because the Stomachs of loco-motive 
Beings, appears to have been provided 
for the purpose of conveying about with 
the moving animal, nutritive Substances, 
analogous in effect to the Soil in which 
are fixed the roots of plants, and conse¬ 
quently nothing ought to be introduced 
into the stomach for Digestion and for 
Absorption by the Lacteals, or Roots of 
the Animal System, but the natural bases 
•f .simple Nutrition, as the saccharine, the 
oleaginous, and the farinaceous matter 
of the Vegetable Kingdom. 
O C> 
Common Sense. 
July 27, 1811. 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine* 
SIR, 
OUil correspondent Christianus, 
(voh .xxi. p. 518) seems ignorant 
of the rules of biographic writing, wiseu 
he complains, in the Life of a philosoplier., 
about a passage which extenuates infide¬ 
lity. By whatever opinions a given in¬ 
dividual w'as influenced, from the poir^t 
of view which those opinions indicate, his 
conduct should be surveyed. The bio¬ 
grapher ought to climb upon the same 
standing, and to take tlie same regard of 
men and things and thoughts, vvhich the 
departed spirit took: else the connecting 
principle of its actions, the nerve whence 
its various efforts were directed with con¬ 
sistency, would escape notice; its beha¬ 
viour in the flesh would appear to want 
the beauty of naturalness and congruity. 
In a Life of Dr. Doddridge, orthodox: 
credulity must be extenuated, in order to 
obtain for the hep^O the complacence and 
interest of the reader. In a Life of the 
Abbd Barruel, the dangers of infidelity 
must be sedulously enumerated, in order 
to account and apologize for the lie!!- 
hound-hearted mangling fury, v^ ilh which 
his Christian zeal barks and backbites. 
But, in a Life of Fransham,such common. 
places would have been utterly misap¬ 
plied. And surely it must have sounded 
harsh and censoiious, to relate his more 
than equitable hostility against the esta- 
blislied superstitions, without also re¬ 
calling to recollection those predisposing 
causes of it, vvhich are to be found in the 
literature of the age of Hume, and in the 
tone adopted by sovereigns that are no 
more. 
Cliristianus proceeds to censure a phrase, 
in which it is said, that “the literature 
of infidelity was thought to diminish the 
certainty and the authoiaty of theologia'ns, 
and thus their asperities and persecu¬ 
tions.” This is a mere truisno. If Co¬ 
nyers Middleton be impressed by any 
argument of Bayle, against tlie early 
miracles, his Oertainty is thereby dimi¬ 
nished. If the public lie impressed by 
this argument, tliey must tiiiiik less higlily 
of the authority of those who vindicate 
such miracles. The less certain Middle- 
ton becomes, the less of positiveness and 
asperity-will probably appear in his as- 
seiuoiis* And the less authority the 
people 
