of oxygen, to burn up which, he must have this great supply of carbon. We should, therefore, eat more in cold weather than in warm, and food richer in carbon.

The advocates of a flesh diet claim that meat is indispensable, at least in winter, to supply this increased demand for carbon. The premises are granted that we need more carbon, and of course food more highly charged with carbon, in winter than in summer. Yet their argument is completely overthrown by the fact that vegetable food contains, in the aggregate, as much carbon as animal. Thus, roasted flesh contains only 52 per cent. of carbon, while eggs contain 53, and bees-wax 81. The albumen of wheat contains 55 per cent., and of almonds 57 of carbon. Starch contains 44 per cent., and the amount of carbon contained in four pounds of starch equals that contained in thirteen pounds of meat. Indian corn contains a great amount of carbon, so does molasses. In fact, abstract the water from molasses, and the remainder is carbon; so that molasses and Indian meal furnish an excellent winter diet. So do bread and molasses. All vegetable oils are composed of about four fifths of carbon, and as drop after drop of this oil can be pressed out of a walnut, or butternut, of course these nuts furnish a far greater proportion of carbon than lean meat. Why not, then, seek in nuts and vegetable oils the carbon, to obtain which you say we must eat meat? That is, why not eat nuts in place of meat? Chestnuts and other nuts should be well cured, yet they were undoubtedly created to subserve the purposes of food, and should form a part of our regular winter meals. Nor are nuts inferior to butter as a relish with bread. Sugar, and sweets generally, contain from 40 to 45 per cent. of carbon, according to how dry or wet they are, the balance being water. Hence, also, as their water is easily taken up by the stomach, they may justly be considered as nearly all carbon. Hence, as fat is nearly all carbon, all the slaves, animals, and even dogs on the sugar plantations, become fat while making sugar. That is, almost the entire solid matter of sweets, when their water is dried out, is carbon. Nearly the whole of honey, after its water has been abstracted, is carbon. Olives, and olive-oil, also contain it, especially the latter, in far greater proportion than meat. We do not, therefore, need to go to the animal kingdom for carbon, when we can obtain it, in forms much more concentrated, from the vegetable. True, we can obtain it from meat, especially fat meat, yet this very fat is a state of disease, caused by a superabundance of carbon; whereas, health requires fixed proportions of oxygen to burn it up. To fatten well, animals must be lazy; and does not this excessive stuffing on the one hand, and deficient exercise on the other, engender disease? Yet in vegetables we obtain all the carbon we require without any of the evils of meat-eating. Then why seek that carbon in diseased flesh-flesh cannot become fat but by becoming diseased-which we can obtain from vegetable diet in greater abundance, and in a healthy state?

The sufficiency of vegetables for winter food is still further established by the fact that horses, cattle, and even reindeer-all graminivora-arę kept abundantly warm by their natural diet, though they inhabit regions quite as cold as any of the carnivora. Indeed the latter are more abundant, relatively, in the torrid zone-a fact which tears this winter meateating argument in tatters. If meat is so conducive to animal heat and

life, why are lions, tigers, etc, confined to warm climates? As oats keep the horse abundantly warm, why not oatmeal keep man warm enough in winter? Ask the Highland Scotch from time immemorial, if their oatmeal cakes and gruel have not kept them warm enough to camp out even in winter, with snow for their pillow and blanket. Thus is this meateating argument completely routed in every aspect.

But the great trouble of civilized life is not, to get carbon enough, but to get LITTLE enough. This is especially true of the sedentary. They breathe but little, because they exercise little, and because they live mostly in heated rooms, where the air is both rarefied and vitiated. Hence they take in but little oxygen, and therefore require but little carbon to burn it up. Yet such eat, and keep eating, as heartily as out-door laborers, and often more so; thus taking in great quantities of carbon while they consume but little. Hence their dyspeptic and other dif ficulties. No; few, if any, require more carbon than they now obtain, even in winter; whereas ninety-nine in every hundred would be benefited by lessening the quantity one half, especially in summer. Its superabundance is the great cause of disease, of which fasting, less highly carbonized food, and more oxygen, are the remedies. All who feel better when cold weather sets in, superabound in carbon, and by taking less of it in food would be cured by the cold. But that very cold which brings their relief sharpens up appetite, and they take still more carbon; thus keeping up both its superabundance and their disease; whereas, if they would not increase such quantity, meanwhile breathing freely so as to burn up its surplus, they would obtain permanent health. And such, in fact all, to be healthy, MUST diminish the quantity of carbon taken in food in spring, compared with winter. The great cause of the prevalence of diseases in the spring, is to be found in our eating as much carbon then as in winter; whereas we burn out, and therefore require, far less. And one of the great instrumentalities of health is to be found in graduating the amount of carbon received from food in proportion to that of oxygen inspired from breath.-PHYSIOLOGY.

MR. FOWLER:

RIDGEWAY, Jan. 13th, 1848.

In your Journal for the present month, page 13, you say, "in no way whatever can mind be studied, except in and by means of its organic relations; because in no other way is it manifested, or can we know any thing of it, or do any thing with it." Again, in the article on Clairvoyance, page 29, you say, "its (Clairvoyance's) opponents claim that in this life the mind can act and 'manifest itself only by means of its material or bodily organs, the senses, brain, etc." You then ask, "is this view of the mind correct," and answer, "it is not."

I should like to have you show how these two passages can harmonize. By so doing you will greatly oblige your friend.

INQUIRER.

Answer. The last "and manifest itself" should not have been inserted. Mind can ACT in this life independently of its material organization, yet can MANIFEST such action to other minds only by means of its organs of speech, etc.

MISCELLANY.

O. S. FOWLER AN INFIDEL AND NO INFIDEL.

A WRITER in the Religious Telescope thus misrepresents, and then condemns as infidel, the American Phrenological Journal:

"BRO. EDWARDS:-The question has frequently pressed itself upon my mind, Should the above-named journal be patronized by a Christian public? I have thought it should not, in consequence of the antichristian tendency of many of the writings scattered through it. I believe Phrenology to be a science worthy of some attention; but it should not be made the all-absorbing subject of thought, nor should it shove revealed religion out of public notice. I will not say there are no excellent truths contained in Fowler's Journal, for there are many, and as much we may say of the Regenerator,' or Nauvoo Times;' but what the religious influence of that Journal is may be seen by a few extracts. Vol. ix., No. 2, p. 44: Ye who dread this king of terrors, obey the physical laws, and you disarm him of every terror, and render your worst enemy your best friend.' Can obedience to the physical laws disarm death of its terrors? Is sin, the sting of death, thus easily removed? Facts show that some who have been the most obedient to the physical laws have dreaded death awfully!"

That the above is a distortion of our views, is evident from the following quotation from the article he criticises:

"The pains and horrors of death appertain only to a violent death, never to that which transpires in accordance with the institutes of nature, and then not to the act of dying, but to that violation of the physical laws which occasions death. VIOLENT death-rather those pains which cause it-alone is dreadful, and unexhausted life alone desirable-the former horrible, and the latter sweet, only because of, and in proportion to, the fund of life remaining. Let the vital powers become gradually and completely exhausted, in harmony with that principle of gradual decay which constitutes nature's terminus of life, and death has lost its horrors-is even a most welcome visitor, in and of itself, to say nothing of those joys into which it is the constitutional usher.

“This gradual decay and final termination of life cannot be painful. So far therefrom, its accompanying repose, like the grateful rest of evening after diurnal toil is ended, is far more pleasurable than all the joys of life combined. That very repose, so agreeable to the old man, is the usher of death-is death itself and as this repose is sweet, so that death, of which it is a constituent part, is still more so. Death is to life exactly what retiring to sleep is to the day. The analogy between them is perfect, only that the repose of the grave is as much more agreeable than evening rest, as the day and the twilight of life are longer and more eventful than of the natural day. Nor does death supervene till this grateful decline has consumed every remaining power to enjoy in life, and suffer in death, so that to die a natural death is simply to fall asleep 'without a struggle or a groan.'

999

This quotation renders it apparent that we were speaking of the PHYSICA pains of death, and that the obnoxious passage, interpreted in accordance with the plainest rules of construction, means this, and this only: that obedience to the physical laws will prolong life till we die a NATURAL death, which has no PHYSICAL pain. Nor is any reference made, throughout the article, to that

MORAL sting of death which our critic falsely accuses us of meaning. Let religious cavilers manifest at least common intelligence.

The balance of his strictures are of the same piece.

But how is it that, while many religionists accuse me of rank infidelity, others accuse me of truckling to religion and currying its favor? False accusers, both, as is evident by their accusing me of directly opposite crimes. But neither of their accusations RENDER me infidel or sycophantic, nor seriously affect me either way. My wWORKS speak for themselves, and will slowly but effectually correct both classes of accusers, and show unprejudiced inquirers after religious truth what I really am. If rank partisans cannot see clearly because of the fog which obscures their vision, others not thus biased can and will. I wait patiently the final issue, yet am often cheered by the fact that many Do see and appreciate my views, of which the following is one among many examples:

TO O. S. FOWLER.

PURSUE with zeal thine own, thy soul ennobling work;
And still the god-like powers of man portray,

In colors clear and bright, and language so sublime,

That all who read, or hear, are borne as on an angel's wing,

Up to a purer sphere- more congenial clime

To sip a nect'rous draught at life's o'erflowing fount.

What though e'en men of God thy noble work oppose,
Attempt refute, and call thee Infidel?

Dost thou not love a holy God, and nature too;

Delight in prayer and praise, and soar aloft
On Faith's swift wing, above terrestrial scenes,

As thou his works explore, and study man?

Oh! who admires, adores, and worships more his God,
Through nature's fair, enchanting scenes?

The deep still wood-sequestered shade;

Meandering crystal streams, with murmurs sweet; 1
The setting sun, with all the varying tints

And mellow light, thrown back o'er earth,

To deck the fleecy clouds, and charm the eye of man;
The opening morn, the rising sun's refulgent beams,
As first on earth she dawns, dispelling night;

The melody of birds, the dew-bespangled lawn;
The gentle shrub, half hid from mortal view

The stately oak, tow'ring toward the sky;

The prairie vast, o'erspread with waving grass and beauteous flowers;

The lofty mountain's rugged brow;

The foaming torrent's mighty roar,

As down it leaps into the dark abyss below;—

All these, but waft thy mind up to the fountain-head,

The source of life, of light, and joy.

Thy soul, though now inclosed within its bony cell,*
Itst windows ope, and gazes on its God;

Wrapt in extatic joy, divinely sweet,

It stands on Pisgah's lofty height, and God adores.

Oh, who, in prayer and praise, pours forth his heart
In more exalted strains, or soars on loftier wing?

The Skull.

ADELIA.

Spirituality.

GOOD BREAD

Is a star of the first magnitude, no less in the intellectual and moral horizon than in the physiological hemisphere. That FERMENTED bread as generally made is highly injurious, as well as impoverished, is perfectly obvious from the fact that this fermenting process is a decomposing or COOLING process, and that the gas which lightens it is ALCOHOL. An apparatus for condensing this gas as it escapes into the oven during the baking of bread, manufactured gas so fast as to arrest the attention of government, and call down its interdiction. This shows WHY a barrel of flour will make ONE SEVENTH more bread by effervescence than by fermentation, as asserted by Dr. L., namely, because fermentation decomposes a part of its VIRTUE or nourishment.

The difference between these two processes is this. Effervescence, or the union of an alcohol with an acid within the dough, engenders a gas which lightens it without either souring or decomposing it; whereas fermentation does both before it can produce the leavening gas, and in ORDER to its production.

A correspondent writes us condemnatory of saleratus bread, alleging that it unduly excites Amativeness, with what justness I know not; yet I confess my own predilections strongly favor effervescence. “ Milk-emptyings bread” is altogether less objectionable than yeast or turnpike risings; yet then, too, decomposition engenders the leavening gas. But hear Dr. L. and the Trib

une:

"Dr. H. L. B. Lewis of this city has published a small tract containing Instructions for making unfermented bread,' which we could wish were placed in every reading and thinking family. We wish some of the long-eared gentry who have brayed so vociferously their contempt for and disdain of bran bread,' if they are able to comprehend the simplest sentences of plain English, could be constrained to read some of the proofs here reiterated—like these, for instance:

"Bread made from flour not bolted, or even with an extra quantity of bran, is the best form in which farinaceous and excremental matters can be usually taken; not only in diabetes, but in most of the other varieties of dyspepsia, accompanied by obstinate constipation. This is a remedy, the efficacy of which has been long known and admitted; yet, strange to say, the generality of mankind choose to consult their taste rather than their reason; and officiously separating what nature has beneficially combined, entail upon themselves much discomfort and misery."-Dr Prout, on Diseases of the Stomach, etc. page 300. "In corroboration of the value of brown bread, Professor Johnston, of the University of Durham, England, has subjected the meal and flour of wheat to chemical analysis, according to which, the flour of wheat contains, at the lowest estimate, twenty-two per cent. less of the staminal principles of nutrition than the entire meal (flour unbolted); and, if to this is added the smallest allowance for the matters destroyed by fermentation, we shall be under the mark in saying, that fermented flour bread contains twenty-five per cent. less of the nutritious ingredients than fermented meal bread. This loss in quality, together with the loss in quantity, furnishes data for a correct estimate of the relative value of the two as articles of diet. Hence it appears, for every seventy-five loaves of fermented bread, we might possess one hundred of unfermented meal bread; and in every three of these at least as much nourishment as is contained in four of the other."

Dr. Lewis's favorite recipes for making unfermented bread are these:

"No. 1. To make White Bread.-Take of flour finely bolted, three pounds avoirdupois; bi-carbonate of soda, in powder, nine drachms; hydro-chloric