trying exigencies? Is longevity a blessing of so little importance, as to be thus unnecessarily sacrificed?

The manner in which an excess of nourishment taken into the system operates to shorten life is generally but little known. The fact is, it prepares the constitution for the attacks of disease upon slight exposures to any morbid influences; such as inclement weather, or fatiguing labors of body or mind and it weakens the power of resisting those attacks. When the digestive organs are called upon to perform extra labors, they cannot perform the work as thoroughly as when not overtasked; and consequently they cannot send the food into the system so perfectly prepared for nourishment, as they might do, with a less quantity. This is one source of disease. Again, the additional task demanded of these organs, requires a draft to be made upon that secret strength of the constitution, which is reserved for resisting disease and meeting other exigences. That elasticity of the system, by which rigid temperance enables it to repel the first onset of disease, is thus more or less weaken. ed; and the foe easily fastens his talons in the victim. Nor can all the stimulants of the physician bring back, or create anew, the lost energies of temperance, to repel the invader. Multitudes in this way sink early into the grave, and are regarded by the community as the unfortunate victims of diseases that have pounced upon them like birds of prey; whereas, their intemperance has invited the fatal disorder and taken away the power of resisting it.

In extreme cases, all men see disease and death to be the consequence of excess. But what reason can be given, why any amount of food, not required by health and strength, will not operate in the same way, to induce disease and weaken the power of resistance? And if this be indeed true, why is it not intemperance to indulge the appetite beyond the demands of bodily and mental health?

Finally; if we take not this standard as to the then we have left us no other guide, but appetite.

quantity of our food, For if you say that we are not bound to limit our amount of food by the actual requirement of the system, for health and strength, then I ask, how much more than this may we take? You will admit that there may be excess in eating, and that the devoted glutton is intemperate. But will you lay your finger on the precise point, between what the system demands, and the excesses of gluttony, to which we may indulge our appetites. You say, perhaps, that we should be temperate, but not excessively abstemious. But what do you mean by being temperate? If you cannot tell me how far my appetite may be indulged, then I say, I will indulge it to the extent of its calls; nor do I see how you can regard me as intemperate, even though I emulate the grossest gormand. For you say that I may indulge that appetite beyond what the strength and health of the system requires; and yet you give me no rule for determining the limits

of that indulgence. What guide have I then, but my appetite? And if I may follow this, how can you condemn the most voracious glutton, who certainly never indulges beyond the calls of appetite?

But is it any easier to determine how much food is necessary for the health and strength, than to ascertain the precise limits between moderate and immoderate indulgence? I admit that the balances will not in general settle this question: since there is no small difference among different constitutions, in the power of abstracting nourishment from the same amount of food; and there are also very various quantities of nourishment in equal weights of different sorts of food. But it is not very difficult to determine the amount of food demanded by nature, if we will but carefully attend to its effects on the system. "Any discomfort of body," says a distinguished physician, "any irritability or despondency of mind, succeeding food and drink, at the distance of an hour, a day, or even two or three days, may be regarded, (other evident causes being absent,) as a presumptive proof that the quantity has been too much, or the quality injurious." "Ifa few hours after his dinner he feel a sense of distension in the stomach and bowels, or any of the symptoms of indigestion, which have been pointed out; if he feel a languor of body, or a cloudiness of the mind; if h ha ve a restless night; if he experience a depression of spirits, or irritability of temper next morning; his repast has been too much, or improper in kind, and he must reduce and simplify till he come to that quantity and quality of food and drink for dinner, which will produce little or no alteration in his feelings, whether of exhiliration immediately after dinner, or of discomfort some hours after this meal." These remarks, though having reference only to dinner, the principal meal of the day, will apply with the same force to every other repast; as will also the testimony of one, who, to the age of upwards of a hundred years, had experienced the happy effects of an attention to this rule. "My spirits," says he, “are not injured by what I eat; they are only revived and supported by it. I can, immediately on rising from the table, set myself to write or study, and never find that this application, though so hurtful to hearty feeders, does me any harm. And besides, I never find myself drowsy after dinner, as a great many do. The reason is, I feed so temperately as never to load my stomach, or oppress my nerves; so that I am always as light, active, and cheerful, after dinner as before."

In attempting to make an application of this rule, for determining the necessary quantity of food, it ought to be recollected that many in good health and of laborious habits in the open air, have found that about 20 ounces of solid nourishing food, have been an ample daily allowance; and that invalids, and those of sedentary habits, have needed only from 12 to 16 ounces. Let then persons of these characters, commence with about these quantities, and afterwards increase or diminish them according to their effects, as they have now been described. In this

way, they will ere long learn the amount which their constitutions need; and to this they must resolutely adhere, if they would avoid the guilt of intemperance, and escape that "blackness of darkness," which, in the context, is threatened against those who, knowing their duty, still persist in "feeding themselves without fear."

SERMON CLXIV.

JUDE 12-FEEDING THEMSELVES WITHOUT FEAR,

II. In pursuing the subject of the preceding discourse, 1 next remark, that it is intemperance to use food OF SUCH A QUALITY, as to injure the digestive organs, and oppress the intellectual and moral powers.

No reasonable man will hesitate a moment to admit this proposition in the abstract. For to derange the digestive organs is to induce disease and death; and to oppress the intellectual and moral powers, is to pervert the object of our existence. And surely, if the use of any particular quality of food makes such havoc with our best interests, to employ it is sinful intemperance. Yet here too, the grand difficulty lies in the entire ignorance, or erroneous opinions of the great majority of respectable and Christian men, on the subject. Hence in respect to the quality, as well as quantity of food, "they feed themselves without fear."

It is a well established principle among medical writers, that "the more simply life is supported, and the less stimulus we use, the better." What a sad comment on this principle does the practice of nearly all mankind present! In the great mass of the community, the natural appetite is so completely perverted, or rather destroyed, that all relish for simple food and drink is gone: nay, such nourishment is regarded as even unhealthy, and incapable of sustaining life and vigor. Although, for example, water is the most salubrious of all kinds of drink, and the only fluid that can answer all the purposes of drink, and, therefore, the best calculated for health and strength, yet few persons feel as if it were tolerable, without the admixture of something stimulating: and it really excites the surprise of most men, to be told of an individual, who dainks nothing but water, and is yet strong and healthy.

Milk is another substance, expressly designed by the Creator to answer every purpose of nourishment, with the least tax upon the digestive and assimilating organs. And accordingly it furnishes almost the only food in the early and most delicate stages of existence. But by the great majority of adults it is regarded with disgust; it disagrees with them. And the reason is, they have so long substituted hot and stimulating fluids, such as tea and coffee, wine and spirit, for this simple fluid, that

when the usual stimulus is abstracted, the stomach, like a jaded beast of burden, refuses to act. And thus the two substances, which the Creator provided expressly for fluid aliment, have, by habit, come to be regarded as altogether unfit for use, unless mixed with stimulating materials, never intended for food.

A like hurtful and unnatural change is produced upon another class of articles, which, in their simple state, God prepared for the principal support of man: I mean the different sorts of grain and roots, from which bread is prepared. It is a settled principle in dietetics, that food in a form rather coarse, is best adapted to the organs designed for its reception. Yet is it regarded as an object of the first importance, at the present day, to prepare all farinaceous articles in as concentrated a form as possible; to extract from the wheat, for example, only its finest and whitest portions. But this is only a commencement of the perverting process. For here cookery comes in, with its refinements, lays under contribution the four quarters of the globe for condiments, and employs the flour, only as a receptacle of all manner of indigestible aromatics, oils, and sweets; so that the cake and the pastry, in their countless varieties, which hence result, are as compound and unnatural, and I may add, as injurious to the system, as possible.

A no less injurious system of cookery is applied to the preparation of almost every other article of food. Not that cookery of a simple kind is unfriendly to health. On the contrary, when it merely softens, or dissolves the food, so as to assist the organs of digestion, it is eminently salutary. But when its chief object is to tempt the appetite, by compound and stimulating dishes, it deserves the reprobation of every Christian and patriot. But at the present day, how few are the Christians, or the patriots, who do not employ this very system in the preparation of their food, without even a suspicion that it is injurious! The various kinds of meat, which Providence permits man to use, in their simple state, how are they loaded with condiments and stuffings, and made to swim in gravies, and thus rendered pernicious to any but the strongest powers of digestion; and how must not only the bodily organs, but the noble powers of the soul also, suspend their operations, while the stomach is laboring and struggling to master the incongruous mixture! In short, how little of the food which is used by the higher classes of society, is not so compounded, and rendered indigestible by oils, aromatics, sweets, and acids, as to be quite disagreeable to the man, whose appetite has never been perverted by indulgence!

One fact in relation to invalids, exhibits still farther evidence, how erroneous are the prevalent opinions as to the quality of food. It is these very injurious mixtures, that cookery has invented, which the greater part of men will offer to the feeble, as best suited to their condition! They need, it is thought, these rich and nourishing dishes, to keep up their strength; and the invalid himself, also, is soon persuaded that they agree

with him best, because they gratify most his morbid appetite; forgetful, that it is the digestion of food, and not the eating of it, that sustains and invigorates the system; and that it may be as absurd to give cake, pastry, and stimulating meats, to the feeble, as it is to load the horse or the ox with a heavier burthen, because he is weak or fatigued.

The quality of food is greatly and even chemically different, at different temperatures, and at different periods after its preparation. And a perverted and morbid appetite often relishes it in that state when it is most unhealthy and oppressive. Hence it is, that the great mass of the community, unconscious of the injury they receive, must sip their tea and coffee almost at a boiling temperature; and hot rolls, hot cakes, hot bread, and melted butter, constitute no small part of their diet. The morbid feelings that follow some time after, are imputed to other causes; nor can even the invalid, in many cases, be made to believe that food, in such a state, and at such temperatures, is injurious.

But I have given enough-probably many will say, too many and too specific illustrations-of what I mean by that quality of food, which renders it injurious to the animal system, and destructive to the mind. I appeal to the highest medical authorities in proof that these illustrations are neither visionary nor overdrawn. And I appeal to the conscience of every Christian, whose case they describe, to ponder well, whether it be not criminal intemperance, thus to pamper a depraved appetite, at such

III. In the third place, to indulge in more than one dish or course at a meal, is intemperance.

This assertion will doubtless be startling to many; because it aims a blow so directly at their practice. But let the principle be well understood and weighed, before it is rejected.

The first inquiry will be, what constitutes a single dish? It may strictly be defined, any simple article of food, cooked in such a manner as to be most conducive to health and strength. Or perhaps there would be no great objection to giving more latitude of definition, so as to include a mixture of different kinds of food and condiments, suitably made before eating, or when eating. It ought, however, to be remembered, that these compound dishes may be of such a quality, as to oppress the digestive organs and the intellect; and their use thus become real intemperance. But in practice, there will be little difficulty in distinguishing between different dishes. At every meal, there is commonly some principal article of food, with its proper accompaniments, calculated to furnish a substantial repast. This is to be regarded as one dish; and when one course of meat succeeds another, or the pudding succeeds the meat, or the cake and pastry follows the whole, there is what we mean by variety of dishes. Now, I contend, that the use of more than one of these at a single meal, is intemperance.