“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” When experience and reason, based upon physiological facts, threaten the table of the epicure, not unfrequently is he found resorting to some doubtful text of Scripture to support a theory which he supposes will allow him to gratify his appetite. By doubtful texts, we do not mean doubtful as to their authenticity, but to their meaning. When an argument is presented, showing that flesh-meat is not the best food for man, quite often the above scripture is used against it. We propose, in this article, to briefly consider some points in reference to this portion of Scripture. Some men reason upon this text thus: The word “creature” in the fourth verse of this chapter corresponds with “meats” in the third verse. The fourth and fifth verses are only a conclusion drawn from the first three verses. The third verse speaks of meats “which God created to be received with thanksgiving;” and if God created certain meats to be received with thanksgiving, there can be only one conclusion, namely, “every creature of God is good.” And as meat signifies flesh, the individual who offers the fact that animals are diseased, hogs being scrofulous and measly, containing trichinæ, as an argument sufficient to look upon a flesh-diet with suspicion, and as not being fit for food, is setting himself up above the knowledge of God, and is a heretic and infidel; yes, one that has departed from the faith and given heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. The apostle must have considered this subject as one of no little importance, if we may judge by the expressions he uses. 1. “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly.” 2. He states that those of whom he speaks “shall depart from the faith,” leave the Bible, “giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.” 3. He says of the nature of their teachings, “Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;” insensible to sin. Perhaps there is no class of people that more fully answer to this description than that class who deny the existence of sin, and call it a progression, a development into a higher life. This is not the doctrine of men, but of devils. Bloomfield says, “Doctrines suggested by demons.” Thus, man is only a medium through which the devil speaks. “Through the hypocrisy of liars who are seared in their own consciences.”—Macknight. But it purports to come from the dead. Wakefield renders this verse, “Giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines about dead men, through the hypocrisy of liars, with a seared conscience.” The apostle proceeds to say what this people will teach: “Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” The word “forbidding,” in the English language, conveys a stronger meaning than was designed by the apostle. “Recommend abstinence from marriage” is Macknight’s comment. Greenfield renders koluo, the word translated forbidden, “To impede, hinder, to dissuade.” Robinson gives the same rendering. The teachings of those referred to here will be principles subversive to the marriage institution, and will also teach the necessity of other kinds of food than those which God created to be received with thanksgiving. The expression, “and commanding,” are supplied words. A more mild term would answer as well. Wakefield says, “Giving commands about abstinence from marriage and from meats,” etc. There is a peculiar fitness of all this with the writings of a certain class of spiritualists who have written on the subjects of marriage, flesh-meats, tobacco, alcoholic drinks, etc. The writings and teachings of the ones referred to here will pertain to both marriage and diet. We now raise the important inquiry, What meats has God created to be “received with thanksgiving,” and who are those referred to by the apostle, who “believe and know the truth?” It is that truth or knowledge which includes an understanding concerning those meats which God created to “be received with thanksgiving.” The word meat does not necessarily mean flesh. Webster defines meat, “Food in general, anything eaten for nourishment either by man or beast.” The Greek word broma bears the same signification. “Meat; food.”—Greenfield. “Eatables; food.”—Robinson. The American Bible Union renders the word translated meat in this verse, “food.” So does Newcomb’s version. The question relates to the meat or food which God created for man to subsist upon; not what man was permitted to eat after the flood, or after the introduction of the Mosaic economy, or any other age subsequent to the creation. Every Bible student well understands that certain requirements and permissions oftentimes grow out of the circumstances under which the people of God are placed, and the condition in which they may be. Matt. 19:8, furnishes an illustration of this kind. “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you,” etc. But the question under consideration carries the mind back to the creation. What kind of meat did God CREATE for the human family? It would be folly to suppose that God would create a human being, making his life dependent upon what he ate, and then make no provision for his physical wants. We therefore inquire for the original bill of fare given to man in the garden of Eden, before sickness, pain, or a perverted appetite had affected the human frame. In Gen. 1, we find a brief account of the creation of this world, and the creation of the representatives of the human family. In the 29th verse, we have the original bill of fare given to the united head of the human race in their sinless and upright condition. “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” If ham and eggs, beef, pork, and sausage, are meant by such expressions as “herb,” “fruit of a tree,” etc., then we might reasonably conclude that the word creature in 1 Tim. 4:3, is animal food; but who would ever think this? Yet this was the MEAT given to the representatives of the human race. Who believes and knows this truth, if it is not the Bible hygienist? Daniel and his three friends understood it when they refused to eat the king’s meat, and desired pulse. See Daniel 1. But do we not read that “every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving?” and does not creature mean animals? If this text proves that animals should be eaten because of the expression, creature, then the cannibals are not far out of the way in taking a roast of human flesh, for in James 1:18, we read, “Of his own will begat he us, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.” The same Greek word rendered creature in the epistle of James, is rendered creature in 1 Tim. 4. And certainly, are we not as much creatures as the lower animals? The word creature cannot be confined to the lower animals; but when taken in its broadest and unqualified sense, it embraces all that God created. “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight, but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.” Heb. 4:13. The same word that is here rendered creature is rendered building in Heb. 9:11. It is also rendered creation in Mark 13:19. “From the beginning of the creation which God created.” It embraces “the fruit of the tree” and the “herb” that was given to man for meat. Bloomfield says, of 1 Tim. 4:4, “Ktis̄ma; this means anything provided by God in creation.” The sweet Psalmist of Israel sings in the following strain: “And herb for the service of man; that he may bring forth food out of the earth.” Ps. 104:14. But it may be asked, If the word, ktisma, can be taken in such a broad and unlimited sense, by what authority is it restricted in the passage under consideration? and if it is to be restricted, how much? To what part of the creation of God shall we limit the expression, “every creature of God”? We answer, 1. The word must be restricted in its meaning to those articles of diet which were created for man. 2. The apostle must have reference to some scripture upon this point, for he says, “It is sanctified by the word of God.” We therefore present Gen. 1:29, as that scripture, for we, as yet, have never been able to find any scripture that presents any other article of diet which was created for man. If Gen. 9 be offered as proof that God gave flesh to man for food, we answer, that there is not the slightest evidence by what is here recorded that animals were ever created for this purpose. One of the reasons why God here permits man to eat animal food, is strongly intimated in verse 5; and this reason agrees with physiological facts. We have not space to give them here. Some men have learned this truth from science, others from the word of God in connection with science; for true science and the word of God always agree. Whenever this truth has been practically received, and a proper amount of wholesome grains and fruits constitute man’s diet, the fact that “every creature of God is good,” is confirmed by its effect upon the human system. There are thousands, to-day, who experimentally know, and bear witness to this important truth. There are thousands whose hearts swell with praise and thanksgiving to God that they have ever learned that every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. The apostle calls this the truth. And we have found where it was sanctified, set apart by the word of God. 1 Tim. 4, therefore, instead of teaching that those who advocate a vegetable diet instead of a flesh diet are in error, is found to teach just the reverse.