Helmont, it seems, had rested his principal argument for flesh-eating, not altogether in accordance with _Genesis_, and certainly not in accordance with Science, on the presumption that man was formed expressly for carnivorousness. To this Gassendi replied that, without ignoring theological argument, he still maintained comparative Anatomy to be a satisfactory and sufficient guide. He then applies himself to refute the physiological prejudice of Helmont about the teeth, &c. (as already quoted), and begins by warning his friend that he is not to wonder if the self-love of men is constantly viewed by him with suspicion.[121] “For, in fact, we all, with tacit consent, conspire to extol our own nature, and we do this commonly with so much arrogance that, if people were to divest themselves of this traditional and inveterate prejudice, and seriously reflect upon it, their faces must be immediately suffused with burning shame.” He repeats Plutarch’s unanswerable challenge:-- “Man lives very well upon flesh, you say, but, if he thinks this food to be natural to him, why does he not use it as it is, as furnished to him by Nature? But, in fact, he shrinks in horror from seizing and rending living or even raw flesh with his teeth, and lights a fire to change its natural and proper condition. Well, but if it were the intention of Nature that man should eat _cooked_ flesh, she would surely have provided him with ready-made cooks; or, rather, she would have herself cooked it as she is wont to do fruits, which are best and sweetest without the intervention of fire. Nature, surely, does not fail in providing necessary provision for her children, according to the common boast. But what is more necessary than to make food pleasurable? And, as she does in the case of sexual love by which she procures the preservation of the _species_, so would she procure the preservation of the _genus_. “Nor let anyone say that Nature in this is corrected, since, to pass over other things, that is tantamount to convicting her of a blunder. Consider how much more benevolent she would be proved to be, in that case, towards the savage beasts than towards us. Again, since our teeth are not sufficient for eating flesh, even when prepared by fire, the invention of knives seems to me to be a strong proof. Because, in fact, we have no teeth given us for rending flesh, and we are therefore forced to have recourse to those _non-natural_ organs, in order to accomplish our purpose. As if, forsooth, Nature would have left us destitute in so essential things! I divine at once your ready reply: ‘think that Nature has given man reason to supply defects of this kind.’ But this, I affirm, is always to accuse Nature, _in order to_ defend our unnatural luxury. So it is about dress--so it is about other things.