2. May not the uneasiness which many persons feel after a moderate meal, arise from its having consisted of articles of aliment which were not related to each other? 3. May not the delicacy of stomach which sometimes occurs after the fortieth or forty-fifth year of human life, be occasioned by nature recovering her empire in the stomach, so as to require simplicity in diet, or such articles only of aliment as are related? May not this be the reason why most people, who have passed those periods of life, are unable to retain or to digest fish and flesh at the same time, and why they generally dine only upon one kind of food? 4. Is not the language of nature in favour of simplicity in diet, discovered by the avidity with which the luxurious and intemperate often seek relief from variety and satiety, by retreating to spring water for drink, and to bread and milk for aliment? 5. May not the reason why plentiful meals of fish, venison, oysters, beef, or mutton, when eaten alone, lie so easily in the stomach, and digest so speedily, be occasioned by no other food being taken with them? A pound, and even more, of the above articles, frequently oppress the system much less than half the quantity of heterogeneous aliments. 6. Does not the facility with which a due mixture of vegetable and animal food digests in the stomach, indicate the certainty of their relation to each other? 7. May not the peculiar good effects of a diet wholly vegetable, or animal, be occasioned by the more frequent and intimate relation of the articles of the same kingdoms to each other? And may not this be the reason why so few inconveniences are felt from the mixture of a variety of vegetables in the stomach? 8. May not the numerous acute and chronic diseases of the rich and luxurious, arise from heterogeneous aliments being distributed in a _diffused_, instead of a _mixed_ state, through every part of the body?