AN EXCUSE FOUNDED ON A REASON.
By John Harvey Waggoner
In a former article I endeavored to show that the pretended reasons for eating flesh were only excuses. The following objection I wish to notice: God allowed people in past ages to eat meat, which shows that it was not wrong; and therefore it is not now wrong. The above has, perhaps, more show of reason than any other objection that can be urged; though I am not willing to give it any better title than that above, for I cannot think it a sufficient reason for now using meat as food. 1. It is no evidence that it was the best arrangement because God allowed it; for the Saviour asserts that divorce was allowed because of their condition, but “from the beginning it was not so;” it was not the design or pleasure of God that it should be so. God allowed the children of Israel to have a king, and such a state of things continued for generations, during which time he often gave directions to their kings, many of whom enjoyed his special favor; yet it was271not his desire that they should have a king, but very displeasing to him. Paul says of a certain condition of things, “God winked at” it; that is, suffered, or allowed it; though it certainly was not the best nor any way desirable. So we know that eating the flesh of animals was not originally allowed, and probably was never designed to be practiced. Certain it is that it was allowed to Israel in the desert after they came out of Egypt while they incurred God’s displeasure by its use. That it ever had any beneficial effect on the human race cannot be proved; while there are good reasons for believing to the contrary. 2. We must not consider this subject in the light of permission given in ages past, but according to the present state of things. And we need to consider (1.) The present condition of beasts. (2.) The present condition of the human race. And 1. That beasts are diseased no one will presume to deny; and that we are in danger of eating diseased meat in using their flesh, no one will deny. It is not possible for us to detect disease in the flesh as sold in the market or put on the table. Nor is it possible to detect disease in the living animal. So then, entire abstinence from the use of their flesh is the only safeguard against eating diseased flesh. The plea put forth by many that their animals are healthy because they fatten so readily is urged in utter ignorance of the animal constitution. Neither man nor beast will fatten up to be an unwieldy, bloated, carcass, if in a healthy condition, if the depurating and excretory organs are capable of discharging their functions, and of expelling the effete matter from the system. The last swine I ever assisted in slaughtering, had not a spot on its liver over one inch in diameter having any appearance of health; most of it being hard and of a gristly appearance. I told the owner I would not let my family taste of it, for it must soon have died of liver complaint; yet while living it seemed to be healthy, and he boasted that it fatted well, and on comparatively little grain. No wonder. The impurities were not expelled from the body, but were deposited in the flesh, and it bloated up a mass of disease. Nothing appears more repulsive and shocking to me than to put it on the table for food. And what must be the condition of a family eating daily meals of scrofula and liver complaint? But observation has proved that the fattening qualities of animals are according to the condition of the liver, fattening most readily where the liver is most diseased. It is a subject of general remark that animals fatten faster if put up very poor, and make a better quality of meat, than if put up in a better condition. The reason is obvious. Their appetite is stronger, and they eat more, thereby doing more violence to their digestive organs, and sooner destroying the conditions of health. And the change of habits is greater, and the shock given to the whole animal constitution is stronger, and diseased matter is more readily deposited in the system. The meat is considered of better quality because healthy flesh is hard and firm; diseased flesh is soft and tender, suited to the tastes of those who will gratify a depraved appetite at the risk of becoming themselves a mass of disease and corruption. This is shown by facts like the following. Place on the table the flesh of an animal fastened in close confinement, fed on the slops of a distillery, and place beside it that of an animal fed on solid food and allowed a wide range, and the epicure or flesh gourmandizer will invariably choose the former. And this is about the popular judgment on good meat. But to meet more directly the intent of the objection I ask, Why are the beasts diseased? It is positively stated in the Scriptures that disease is the result of sin; but the poor dumb animals have done nothing to incur such a curse. The answer, then, is, the beasts which at first were placed under the dominion of man, suffered in his fall; as the earth itself was cursed for man’s sake, so every thing living on the earth must of necessity suffer under the curse. No one will disagree with this. But it is also evident that the power of the curse is increasing over man; or in other words, the race is degenerating and sinking lower and lower under the weight of that curse. Might we not expect that the beasts would also sink in the same degree, and be more liable to diseases now than in past ages, seeing that their condition is so inseparably connected with that of man? We might; and the facts correspond to such an expectation. Almost every month, far less than every year, brings to our notice accounts of new diseases and increased mortality among all classes of animals. Therefore they are becoming more and more unfit for food, and the danger in eating their flesh is vastly greater than when God first gave the permission, and is fast increasing. No one can deny that the circumstances are greatly changed; why, then, urge an objection so entirely overlooking that change. The world at large recognize the change, and thousands now fear to eat pork who would be glad to eat it if the increase of disease did not deter them. Let this be considered. And 2. The present condition of man, as compared with that three or four thousand years ago, must be considered. No one would think for a moment of feeding all persons, under all circumstances, on the same kind or quality of food. A strong, hardy, vigorous man may be permitted to eat “strong meat” (provided it be healthy), while a sickly man, prostrated with disease, consuming with fever, would be put upon a different diet. But the human race is now diseased to a deplorable extent; not to speak of the great variety of diseases, dyspepsia and scrofula are almost all prevailing. The digesting and depurating organs, not of a few only, but of all, are diseased. Not an individual can be found who is free from ailments of these organs, either inherited or contracted. And it is well known by every observing person that the present habits in diet are constantly increasing the difficulty. I think the two greatest sources of disease at this day are meat and white bread; and though white bread, by inducing constipation, indirectly affects the liver, greasy food, or meat, is the chief cause of liver complaint and scrofula. And while so loathsome a malady as scrofula is so very prevalent, is it not the height of folly to daily renew the cause by constantly irritating the organs with stimulating food, when the system is already consuming under the power of disease? How widely different when God first gave permission to man to eat flesh. Then his age was counted by hundreds of years; he was strong and vigorous; and the thousand maladies under which we constantly groan, and prematurely sink into the grave were then unknown. How can any person consistently urge that we may now follow their habits with impunity? It is as idle as to urge that we are able to do the labor they did. And yet we should have less to say if animal flesh was now as healthy as it was then. Their unfitness for food increases with our increased inability to use them as such. So that while the permission only shows what might then be done, not what was best, from that point we run diverging lines till we have now arrived where the reasons for entirely abstaining from flesh food are overwhelming. Of the future—the coming time of trouble—I have not room to speak; but ask a candid consideration of the above facts. Health Institute, Battle Creek, May 10.