( in ) 
fion; And^ if in my Anfwgr foffle things may ftem 
ff^fsf/^ 5 or not exaftly adapted to the qnaftjon in 
hand 5. if otherwife they may not be uaufeful, I hope 
they will not be unacceptable to you. 
But, before I come more particularly to confider your 
Hjpodejis, give me leave to remark, That, had Man 
been defigri*d by Nature not to have been a CarnivdroHs 
Animal^ no doubt there would have been obferved, in 
fome part of the World, Men which did not at all feed 
upon Fle(h; But fince no Hiftory ( as I know of) for- 
nifties us with fuch an inftance, I cannot but think what 
hath been done univerfally by the whole Species^ muft 
be Natural to them. What the Pythagoreans did, in Ab- 
ftainingfrom Flefh^ was upon the notion of a uzriix-i^vx^^iu 
or Tranfmigration of Soul a miftake in their Philofoph}^ 
and not a Law of Nature. And, though in fome Coun- 
tries Men feed more freely. on Flefli, in others morefpa- 
ringly, this is owing to their own choice, from the 
Advantage they find thereby. Nature having given 
Mm^mA Reafon, he can, or ought to elefl: what food 
he finds moll agreeable to him, in the Climate he lives 
in A and is not determined to any one fort, but has li- 
berty to all. And 'tis as probable, that the Ante-dilu- 
vial World had fo likewife. Wherefore I (Iial) wholly 
acquiefce in your determinarion of this point, and am 
tolly fatisfied with the Reafons you give for if. 
We ftiall theretore now, as you direft, confider it as 
a Qiiefrion in Natural Philofophj -^' Whether from the 
Obfervation of theftruftureof the Parts in M^?>/, \yq 
can find reafon to think Nature did, or did not, afligri 
him ro be Car?iivorous. For I am of Gajfendus his opi- 
nion. Licet ex conformationc Partium Corpork Hamam^ 
conjeSluras deftimere ad Fuf2c{io?!es mere Natural es. For, 
all the Knowledge we have of the Vfes of' the Parts in 
Animal Bodies, is by obferving Natures wonderful con- 
trivance in the formation of them 3 who raoft wifely 
adapts 
