as we shall see in the sequel.

If I have a favorite, with the rest, it is the moral argument, or
perhaps a combination of this with the economical. But then I dwell on
the latter with so much interest, chiefly on account of the former. I
would give very little to be able to bring the world of mankind back to
nature's true simplicity, if it were only to make them better and more
perfect animals; though I know not but an attempt of this sort would be
as truly laudable as the attempt so often made to improve the breed of
our domestic animals. I suppose man, considered as a mere animal, is
superior, in point of importance to all the others. But, after all, I
would reform his dietetic habits principally to make him better,
morally; to make him better, in the discharge of his varied duties to
his fellow-beings and to God. I would elevate him, that he may become as
truly god-like, or godly as he now too often is, by his unnatural
habits, earthly or beastly. I would render him a rational being, fitted
to fill the space which he appears to have been originally designed to
fill--the gap in the great chain of being between the higher quadrupeds
and the beings we are accustomed to regard as angelic. I would restore
him to his true dignity. I would make him a child of God, and an _heir_
of a glorious immortality.

But I now proceed to the discussion of the subject which I have assigned
to this chapter.

I. THE ANATOMICAL ARGUMENT.

There has been a time when the teeth and intestines of man were supposed
to indicate the necessity of a mixed diet--a diet partly animal and
partly vegetable. Four out of thirty-two teeth were found to resemble
slightly, the teeth of carnivorous animals. In like manner, the length
of the intestinal tube was thought to be midway between that of the
flesh-eating, and that of the herb-eating quadrupeds. But, unfortunately
for this mode of defending an animal diet, it has been found out that
the fruit and vegetable-eating monkey race, and the herb-eating camel,
have the said four-pointed teeth much more pointed than those of man and
that the intestines, compared with the real length of the body, instead
of assigning to man a middle position, would place him among the
herbivorous animals. In short--for I certainly need not dwell on this
part of my subject, after having adduced so fully the views of Prof.
Lawrence and Baron Cuvier--there is no intelligent naturalist or
comparative anatomist, at present,