Health #1
“Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.” 3 John 2.
From this text and from other scriptures of similar import, it is apparent that health is a blessing of sufficient importance and magnitude to be especially noticed by inspiration, and to be designed for man’s enjoyment. It is evident that God’s original design was that man should enjoy this rich blessing. Yet it is a lamentable fact, too plain to be denied, that it is possessed but by few, and only to a limited extent; that disease and suffering
are seen and felt everywhere, bringing misery and death to the human family. And how have these evils been brought about? Can they be mitigated? Can we enjoy the rich blessing of health? and if so, how ?
In reply to these questions we would say, 1. These evils do not spring from the dust, or without cause; but sickness and death come by sin. (Gal 6:7) But, 2. We believe that disease can, as a general thing, be mitigated, and often healed; though it cannot be expected that it will be eradicated from the earth until the curse is wiped away. 3. We also believe that we can have health, if disease has not taken too strong hold on our systems. The sick, as a general thing, can improve their health and add to their life; and those who are well can also have better health, and can, by pursuing a certain course, avoid many diseases that they would otherwise be subject to, and lengthen their days. 4. As to how we can have health, we would say, Certainly not by continuing in sin. For if we were to get health by pursuing the course by which disease comes, then would God be represented as a changeable being, sin would be justifiable, and Satan would rule in spite of the Almighty.
Disease comes by sin, which is the transgression of the law of God; therefore if we would avoid disease we must avoid transgressing God’s law. But in avoiding disease we pursue a course to promote health, and to avoid transgression we must keep the law of God; consequently in keeping the law of God we will enjoy health. With this view of the subject, we can understand how the Lord could promise health to His ancient people for keeping His holy law; and that disease would follow their violation of this law. Of course, God could add His special blessing and His dreadful curse to His people according as they obeyed or disobeyed His law.
The law of God makes it obligatory upon us to care for our lives and health. This law may be called the law of life, not merely from the consideration that life is bestowed for keeping it, but also because it is so adapted to the wants of our natures, that by keeping it we will, as a natural consequence, live longer than we
would by breaking it. Let the reader read each of the ten commandments with reference to this point, and see if our assertion is not correct. But the sixth commandment, in particular, regulates our course with regard to preserving life and health. It is one of the negative precepts, and not only prohibits the sin of destroying our lives and the lives of others, but it includes the injunction of the contrary duty, viz., to make use of all proper and available means to ameliorate and preserve health, and prolong our existence and the existence of others.
Health is the result of obedience to the laws of our being, which grow out of the law of God, and disease is the result of the violation of the same laws. God has clothed these laws with ten-fold authority; first the health and happiness consequent upon their observance; and second the pain and disease caused by their infraction; the one enticing us to obedience, and the other being a powerful preventive of disobedience.
This invention of reward and punishment evinces the wisdom and love of God. Without it the laws of our being would be powerless,—perfect mockery. Without it health would be a matter of uncertainty; but now it is as certain as mathematics, and the laws of attraction. We can now trace health and disease to their true and respective causes. Like causes will always produce like effects. Obedience to the laws of our being will always produce health, while disobedience to these laws will as certainly produce disease. If we would enjoy health, whether we have lost it, or whether we possess it in a measure, we must obey. Obey and live, disobey and die.
The laws of health are elucidated by the fact that they grow out of the relation that we sustain to those agencies upon which health and life depend. Among these agencies, food, air, light, temperature, clothing, bathing, exercise, and rest stand prominent. By properly relating ourselves to these agencies, we shall obey the laws of our being and have health; but by relating ourselves to them improperly we shall disobey these laws, and have pain, disease and death.
From these principles it is evident that we cannot have health outside of obedience, any more than we can have pardon without repentance. This applies to the sick as well as to those who have health. In every case the law of God must be magnified. If the sick would have health, they must use those agencies which have a tendency to preserve health and life’ in a well man, and not those so-called remedies which would make a well man sick. Thus we see that the art curative is properly the art preservative. In other words, in learning how to get well, we learn how to keep well after we have gotten health.
From the connection that exists between health and the law of God, it is clear that the health question involves right and wrong, and should be made a matter of conscience. It is in viewing the subject from this standpoint, that we can see its true importance, and take a proper stand with reference to it. We should realize that, when we carelessly, and understandingly, violate the laws of our being, we sin against our own bodies, and against God, and shall be brought to an account sooner or later.
Our happiness and usefulness depend greatly on health. It is when we have health that we can truly enjoy the blessings of this life, easily understand and appreciate the truth, and better live it out. And the healthier we are, the greater will be our usefulness; the more can we glorify God in our bodies and our spirits which are His.
The Health Reformer Vol. 1 No. 1 August, 1866
Health # 2. Eating and Drinking
“Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” 1 Cor. x, 31
In order that it may be said that we eat to the glory of God, we should, as far as possible, eat sanitary food, eat properly, and temperately. And,
1. We should, as far as it is practicable, eat sanitary or healthy food. Under this head we will first refer to the most healthy food. And we claim that food is the best which was originally selected for man’s use. And what was this food? Was it flesh meats? No. We find no permission from God to eat flesh meats for more than sixteen hundred years after the creation. The Creator originally selected a vegetable diet for man. Thus reads the sacred record: “And God said, Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed, to you it shall be for meat.” Gen. i, 29.
When man was in his state of innocence, the kind Creator must have selected the kind of food for his use which was best adapted to his nature and wants; and any material deviation from God’s original selection, must necessarily affect man in various ways.
It must be apparent to every enlightened and reflective mind, that the permission to eat flesh meats must have grown out of the fall. God’s original design could not have been that man should subsist on flesh meats; that he should have to destroy the lives of other creatures equally tenacious of life, and averse to suffering, as himself, to prolong his own life. There is something deeply affecting to any one whose heart vibrates in tenderness for all of God’s creatures, to see any of them suffering and dying to save
our lives. The tendency of this must before mind us that man has fallen, —that by the fall the beautiful creation is marred, and that there must be a penalty attached to sin. And how appropriate it was for the Creator to institute sacrifices to keep the idea of the fall and the curse, fresh to the human family, and to point their minds to the great sacrifice that was to be offered up that they might be saved from sin and death.
The advantages of a vegetable diet over flesh meats, are numerous and worthy of our candid attention.
1. A farinaceous and vegetable diet contains all the nutritive properties that can he derived from food, and we can partake of it without feeling that we are eating that which has had to suffer and die.
2. It is a cheaper diet than that which consists of flesh meats. Let those who eat flesh meats take the grain that they feed out to the creatures they eat, or the means they use in buying meat, and they will see that it will he cheaper for them to eat the grain, or to use their means in buying grains, fruits, and vegetables. It is a fact easy of demonstration, that the grains, fruits, and vegetables which will grow on a certain piece of land, will go much further in sustaining life when eaten by man, than they will if you first feed them to swine, cattle, or any other creature, and then eat the meat into which a portion of these articles has been converted.
3. You can get a greater and better variety in a vegetable diet than in a meat diet. The variety in a vegetable diet is almost infinite, and such a diet is used with great gustatory pleasure, as those have found who have adapted their taste to it. Desserts are considered as the best part of a meal, and are usually composed of grains and fruits. How the vegetarian lives chiefly on desserts, and partakes of his food with the greatest possible relish.
4. A farinaceous diet is more nutritious than a flesh diet. It has been frequently proved by chemical experiments that one pound of bread contains more nourishment than two pounds of the best meat.
5. A vegetable diet is freer from disease, (it hasn’t gotten any safer since 1866, but much the opposite)and consequently can be used with more safety, than a flesh diet; and it is easier to detect disease in grains, fruits, and vegetables, than in flesh meats.
6. Inasmuch as those beasts which subsist on animal food are characterized by ferocity and rapacity, a flesh diet, eaten largely by man, naturally and necessarily develops fierceness and rapaciousness in him also; whereas a vegetable diet is constitutionally adapted to foster docility.
The reader needs only to compare the ferocity of the eagle, the lion, the tiger, the hyena, the wolf, etc., with the docility of the dove, the lamb, the deer, the ox, etc., to convince himself of the truthfulness of this point. Compare also the ferocity of the savage with the natural docility of the Japanese. You have also noticed that those dogs that live at the slaughter-house, and subsist wholly on raw meat, are more ferocious and ugly than the common domestic dogs. The ancients in preparing fighters for their bloody arenas in which ferocity was required, fed them exclusively on raw flesh.
7. In order that health may be promoted, it is necessary that our various faculties be equally exercised and developed; but a flesh diet excites and unduly develops the feelings and animal propensities to the prejudice and deterioration of the moral and intellectual faculties. This is equally true of intoxicating drinks, tea, coffee, and tobacco, and highly stimulating food of any kind. By these stimulants, the animal organs are unduly excited and developed, the blood and vitality are withdrawn from the moral and intellectual organs, and they are blunted and weakened. And thus it is that so many are swayed by feeling, appetite and passion, instead of being led by enlightened reason. Thus it is that so few are prepared to appreciate religious principles, and to be religiously inclined. But not so with a plain vegetable diet, which reduces the inflammation of the blood, keeps the system
cool, promotes clearness of thought, equally develops all the organs, and opens the way for moral and religious pursuits.
8. A plain vegetable diet is more conducive to longevity than flesh meats. It is not so stimulating in its nature as animal food. A flesh diet, especially if it is diseased and of a coarse and scrofulous nature, stimulates the system to undue action—beyond the strength that it imparts, draws from the general fund of vitality, from the oil and stamina of the system, causes the wheel of life to roll faster, and consequently shortens life.
Animal food tends to corruption more than vegetable food. It has been ascertained that chyme and blood formed of flesh, will corrupt sooner when extracted from the system and exposed to the atmosphere, than when formed of a vegetable diet. The same is also true of the flesh that is formed of animal food.
Again it is more difficult for sores or wounds to heal in those who eat largely and promiscuously of animal food, than it is in those who live on a vegetable diet. This has been proved on various occasions; but especially was it illustrated during the late war between the Russians and the allied powers. It was ascertained that wounds which would prove fatal in French and English soldiers, would heal up rapidly in Russian soldiers. This difference was inquired into, and was easily traced to the difference in the diet of the two armies. The French and English soldiers ate largely of animal food, while the Russian soldiers subsisted chiefly on a vegetable diet.
But more on this branch of the subject in our next article.
The Health Reformer Vol.1 No. 2 Sept. 1866
Health # 3. EATING AND DRINKING.
(Continued.)
But the following objections are some times urged against the position that a vegetable diet is superior to flesh meats:
OBJ . 1. One feels better and stronger after eating meat, than after simply eating a vegetable diet; therefore there is more strength in animal food than in vegetable.
ANS. This objection is not only against clear and generally acknowledged facts, demonstrated by plain chemical experiments, but it proves too much, and therefore does not amount to a real objection, as appears from the same reasoning applied to other articles, as follows: Men feel better and stronger after using spirituous liquors, tea, coffee, and tobacco, than they do after living on a simple vegetable diet; therefore there is more nutriment in these articles than in a vegetable diet.
No, feeling is not the criterion by which to decide which articles are the most nutritious, and impart the greatest amount of strength. Feeling varies with different tastes and habits. Some may feel well while using articles which are really injurious to them, and which would make those feel bad whose tastes and habits are unperverted. In the case of spirituous liquors, tea, coffee, tobacco, and other stimulating articles, the strength that is realized under their influence, is not derived from them, but is drawn from the general fund of vitality in the system. These articles stimulate to undue action; and every time you use them, you make a direct draft upon your capital of vitality, and lessen the sum total of your life-power; and thus, instead of being made stronger by their use, you are made weaker. Therefore the strength that is experienced under the influence of these stimulants, should not be credited to the stimulants themselves, but to the vitality that already exists in the system.
To illustrate: With proper care, a horse is capable of performing a certain journey in a given time, providing that you travel so many miles in a day. But if you undertake to travel the same distance in half or two-thirds of the time required, or if you travel as far again in the same time, in nine cases out of ten you will spoil your horse by using up his vitality, however much you may boast of his speed and capacity.
Again, if you drive your horse with care, fifty miles a day, he may be weary, yet rest will enable him to recuperate. But if instead of giving him a chance to rest, you undertake to drive him five miles further, increasing his speed, by applying whip and spur, as you reach the close of your journey, your horse may look prompt and famous, but he has been injured, as you will find when the excitement is over. But where did your horse get his strength toward the end of his journey? Did he derive it from his system, or from the whip ? From his system, you say. So we say in regard to those who use the stimulants we have mentioned. We admit there is more nutriment in flesh-meats than there is in these stimulants; yet as far as they nerve up the system unduly and unnaturally, beyond the strength they impart, so far do they tend to prematurely exhaust the system and shorten life. Hence it is that great meat eaters so often complain of faintness, especially if they fail to eat just at their hours of eating, and feel that they can do nothing if they go beyond their meal time. But it is not so with those who subsist on a vegetable diet. Other things being equal, they are not thus prematurely exhausted, and have vitality on hand to fall back upon in time of need, without experiencing that faintness that meat eaters are subject to. This, the writer and thousands of others, are prepared to say from experience.
OBJ. 2. Some have reached to a good old age, who have eaten largely and promiscuously of flesh meats, and indulged in the use of the various stimulants you mention; consequently these things do not shorten life as you say they do.
ANS. But what were the organizations and habits of these individuals ? An answer to this question will perhaps furnish a reputation of the objection under consideration. By a candid and careful examination, you will find that the persons referred to, are individuals who are better related to life in their organization than people generally. You will find, as a general thing,- that they have good blood-making organs, and a great amount of vitality bound up in their system, naturally. These natural qualifications, in connection with out-door exercise, and other healthy habits, enable them to throw off poison and diseases which would fasten upon persons of different habits and organizations, and prove fatal. But even individuals of good constitutions and other good habits would have better health and live longer, if they dispensed with all unnecessary stimulants; so that they should not thank these stimulants for long life and comparatively good health, but should thank God and nature for a good foundation for health and life in their build and natural stamina.
But have you ever noticed the closing years and death of these large meat eaters? If so, you have seen that, if they were of a lymphatic temperament, and are endowed with large blood-making organs, they are uncomfortable, and are liable to die suddenly with apoplexy or some other singular disease; or if they have but fair blood-making organs, and their nervous temperament predominates, and if they indulge freely in injurious stimulants, they will, in the latter part of their career, complain of pain, drag a miserable existence, and wind up their lives in misery. Their nervous fluid failing them in some of their organs, especially those which have been abused the most under the spur of stimulants, weakens in those organs will follow; and their sensitive nerves will feel the effects of former abuses, and of poisons which have so long lodged in the system.
OBJ. 3. In order to supply the system with animal heat in cold weather, it is necessary to use more carbon, and animal food is highly carbonaceous, especially if it is fat.
ANS. Admitting that it is needful to use more carbon in winter than in summer, to keep up sufficient animal heat, to resist excessive cold from without, is it necessary to use animal food to derive the amount of heat required? Is animal food. An agreeable bath, of a proper food the only food that is carbonaceous? If so, then is there force to the above objection. But we find an abundance of carbon in other articles in the vegetable kingdom. Wheat, as a staple article of diet, is sufficiently carbonaceous for all seasons of the year, provided that you breathe largely, have sufficient exercise, and a sufficient amount of clothing to retain the heat that is manufactured. But if you want more carbon, you can find it in corn, nuts, honey, sugars, etc., which articles you can use according to your build, to the state of your health, and to your habits and occupation. And in using these articles, you will not take those diseases which are often found to exist in flesh meats. But as a general thing, it is safer to use less carbon than is generally used, and to use it in a less concentrated state than it is found in fat meats and grease. Articles which are highly carbonaceous, are hard to digest. They are a heavy tax to the digestive organs, and if eaten in large quantities, will injure the blood, produce scrofula, and various other diseases. Better eat less carbon, favor the stomach, and preserve the heat that is manufactured, by adding to your clothing. This will prove to be commendable economy, as it will save precious vitality, as well as require less heat to answer vital purposes.
But these who urge this objection, frequently eat as much meat in summer as they do in winter. Again, they overlook the fact that many animals which are remarkable for resisting the cold, do not eat flesh meats. We would refer to the cow, the horse, sheep, etc. And the reindeer, that lives where the thermometer ranges from twenty to fifty or sixty degrees below zero. Where do these get their carbon ? In the vegetable kingdom. And if they can get it there, cannot we?
The Health Reformer Vol. 1 No. 3 Oct. 1866
HEALTH # 4 Eating and Drinking
Thus far we have noticed some of the numerous advantages of a vegetable diet over flesh meats, and common objections to our views as to what constitutes the best food for man. And from what we have already seen in our investigation, it seems to us that no one who will carefully examine this subject, will fail to acknowledge that the healthiest diet for man is found in the vegetable kingdom.
But another difficulty arises in the minds of some, from the supposed idea that God, who is too good to lead his children in a way that will bring suffering upon them, has in this dispensation, at least, granted mankind unbounded liberty to eat what they choose, irrespective of laws which he enacted for the benefit of his people under the old dispensation.
The following are the principal texts of scripture, which are by some thought to teach such an idea, and to furnish an unanswerable objection to our position: “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, (meat market) that eat, asking no question for conscience sake; for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” 1 Cor. x, 25, 26. “For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving.” 1 Tim. iv, 4. “For one believeth that he may eat all things; another, who is weak, eateth herbs.” Rom. xiv, 2. If these texts can be harmonized with our position, all must admit that other passages of the same nature can be explained without affecting our views.
We admit that if we take these passages as they stand, without considering their connection, and the circumstances which called them forth, we must see in them quite a strong objection. But we will be better prepared to arrive at the true meaning of these passages, if we bear in mind the very important idea that, in studying the sacred Scriptures, we see that words apparently universal in their application, are sometimes limited by other portions of scripture, or by the scope of declarations in which they are used. To illustrate this point, we will refer to some of the many texts which cannot be taken in their broadest sense.
1. Moses, in giving an account of the falling of the manna, and of the course of the Israelites with reference to it, says, “Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from Heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.” Ex. xvi, 4. If we take this verse in its broadest acceptation, and disconnect it from the rest of the chapter, we must conclude that the Hebrews were requested to gather manna on the Sabbath. But this is just the reverse of what the Lord wished them to do; for He was about to prove them to see whether they would refrain from laboring on the Sabbath. The seventh day, therefore, was not included in the expression “every day.”
2. Prov. xxviii, 5: “Evil men understand not judgment; but they that seek the Lord understand all things.” The “all things” which they that seek the Lord are here said to understand, must necessarily be limited; else this text proves that those who seek the Lord, at least, are omniscient. No, the things here spoken of relate to judgment, to right and wrong; to the duties which are incumbent upon us, and to those things from which we should refrain.
3. Of charity, Paul says that it “believeth all things.” 1 Cor. xiii, 7. Not that we are to understand that those who have charity will believe untruths; but they will cherish and cultivate a spirit of confidence in God and in their brethren, and will not disbelieve the testimony of their brethren on slight grounds, and at seeming deviations from rectitude and veracity on their part; but will bind themselves to believe their testimony, and that there is hope in their case, unless they have plain and strong reasons to do otherwise.
4. 1 Cor. x, 23: “All things are lawful for me; but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.” The “ all things” in this text are confined to lawful things, to those things which are permitted by Bible principles; for no believer in Bible truth will claim that it was lawful for Paul to sin.
5. Again, verse 33: “Even as I please all men in all things.” If the connection of this declaration was left out, the apostle might be made to appear in a wrong light, and to even contradict himself, for he says in another place, “If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” Gal. i, 10. In the first text referred to, the apostle is recommending and illustrating a yielding, sacrificing, and accommodating spirit in those things in which we can deny ourselves for the good and salvation of others, without sacrificing the truth. In the latter text he condemns the idea of pleasing men at the sacrifice of truth.
These texts are sufficient to show the necessity of limiting and explaining certain declarations of scripture in harmony | with their connection, and with the general tenor of Holy Writ. Let us now examine the scriptures which are urged against our position, in the light of this principle.
1. “Whatsover is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no questions for conscience sake.” By reading the connection, we see that Paul is speaking with reference to things offered in sacrifice unto idols, and on the duty to abstain from idolatry. See verses 14-22. In this chapter the apostle falls back upon, sums up, and concludes from, what he has fully delineated in the eighth chapter, which we will briefly notice.
Paul having in this chapter first introduced the subject “touching things offered unto idols,” seems to convey the idea that those to whom he wrote had knowledge on this subject. Yet on this point he adds: “Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth,” clearly intimating that there were some at Corinth who made a selfish use of knowledge on this point, instead of having that charity, or love, which edifieth, buildeth up others. Verse 1.
At the fourth verse and onward the apostle shows the lawfulness of eating those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, as far as the idols are concerned, by stating that an idol is nothing in the world “and consequently cannot affect anything that may be offered up to it, and that to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him,” etc. But at the 7th verse he says, “Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge; for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their weak conscience is defiled.” There were some at Corinth who had but recently merged from idolatry, and the power of their former habits with reference to idolatry was so great that there was danger of their being swayed back into idolatry, if they ate things offered unto idols. They might think that the idol was something, and that eating that which was offered to an idol might make them better. But idols could not bless them. Eating meats offered to idols, not only would not bring blessings to them from the idols themselves, but it would not commend them to God. “For neither if we eat,” says Paul, “are we the better; neither if we eat not are we the worse.” Verse 8. This verse must also be limited by the subject, and to healthy meats; for certainly we would be worse before God, if we knowingly and from choice ate meat which would make us sick.
Then the apostle continues: “But take heed lest by any means this liberty of your’s become a stumbling block to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died. But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Therefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” Verses 2, 3.
This is so plain that it needs no comment. In harmony with this chapter the apostle gives his experience in the next chapter, after which he is better prepared to enforce the same subject in the tenth chapter. See verses 25—33, granting the Corinthians the privilege of eating “whatsoever was sold in the shambles;” or the remains of sacrifices which were exposed for sale in the market, or made the occasion of a banquet, either in the idol’s temple, or at the owner’s house. The Corinthians could eat these things as far as the idol was concerned, providing that by so doing, they did not lead their weak brethren into idolatry. That the passage under consideration does not grant us the privilege to eat what we please, appears from the 6th verse of the same chapter, where Paul, in speaking of ancient Israel in the wilderness, says, “ These things were our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.” Query. How could we lust after evil things, if there were no such things to lust after?
Thus we see that this passage is in a certain sense local in its nature, applying to the Corinthians and to those who were in like circumstances. For instance, it does not mean that if you should find yourselves at a market where mice, rats, reptiles, etc., were sold as articles of diet, that you should purchase and eat these articles.
D.T. Bourdeau
The Health Reformer Vol. No. 5 December 1866