“Do not think these are unimportant things [questions of diet, etc.], not dignified enough to be spoken of in the pulpit. I tell you they reach to your mind and to your morals; they reach to your theology; they reach clear to heaven, so far as you are concerned, and are of fundamental importance, touching your religious and moral life a good deal more, sometimes, than what you think about the Bible, Sunday, or any other religious institution whatever.”——SAVAGE. “Nothing hurts me——I eat everything.” (Next year): “Nothing agrees with my stomach——I can’t eat anything.” Thus the dyspeptics’ ranks are kept full with recruits from those who “don’t want any advice about diet.” “Indigestion is charged by God with enforcing morality on the stomach.”——THOLEMYÉS. Every appetite held in check, aids in restraining every other——making _all_ serve the man, instead of the man them; while every one let loose, tends powerfully to give free rein to all. CHAPTER IX. THE FLESH-FOOD FALLACY [See Chapter III.] demands more than the passing notice accorded to it in the chapters on Consumption: The facts of chemistry are eternal and indisputable, as are all the truths of science; but, as between two kinds of aliment, or two substances which are being considered as to their adaptation to the purpose of nourishing the body, while chemistry accurately points out which contains the greatest amount of this or that constituent, and is often of service, as affording data for a presumption, in the absence of definite knowledge, she often fails to discover——despite the chemist’s, or rather his blind pupil’s dogmatic assertion to the contrary——which is really the _most natural_, and consequently the _best adapted_ for the purpose of alimentation. In nothing do we observe this more strikingly than in a comparison between flesh and vegetable foods. A three-column criticism of a former work (How to Feed the Baby), in one of our leading magazines, and which sums up its merits by “hoping the book will be read by all on whom devolves the important duty, the care of children; for it is an effort to institute the correct principle of feeding ‘the baby,’” contains the following upon the subject of animal _vs._ vegetable food: “We discover,” says the critic, “on page 98 that our author is a vegetarian, after all. In speaking of a nutritious diet whereby to enrich the breast milk, he makes the following startling statement: ‘Unleavened bread, or mush, made from the unbolted meal of wheat, rye, or corn, has _very much more nutriment_, pound for pound, than is contained in beef or mutton, notwithstanding the fallacy that classes the latter as hearty food.’ This is only a declaration without proof, contrary to all authority on foods. We take the following table from Prof. Johnston’s ‘Chemistry of Common Life’: Lean beef. Wheaten bread.