adapts them to the Vfes they are defigned for. Not be- 
caufe they are cafually fo and fo formed, are they ne* 
ceffarily put to fuch and fuch ufes : But therefore they 
are fo contrived, that they may perform fuch Offices in 
the Oeconomy of Animal Bodies, as Nature intended 
them for. Lo?2ge proinde facefjat ilUEmped&clk^ Epicuri, 
aliorumque Opinio^ fc. Membra Animalium non effe facia 
propter TJfum 5 *fed^ Memhrk ita cafu faUk^ & caaUfcen* 
tihm^ ipforum ufkm Accomodatione Experientia^^ varia ad* 
inventum^ faith the fame G<ijfmdus. Arid there are fe- 
veral remarkable Inftances T have given in my JateTrea- 
tife of the Homo Sylvedrk^ that fufficfently confutes fuch 
TJnphilofophical Atheifls, 
I come therefore now more clofely to our Bufinefs. 
Since you have fo fairly reprefented Qaffendus his Opi- 
nion and Argument from the ftrudure of the Teeth^ why 
Man fhould not be defigned by Nature to be Carnivo- 
rous and have likewife fufficiently, I think, anfvvered 
his Reafons 3 I (hall wholly pafs that over at prefent ; 
And fhall only confider the Obfervation you have made 
-of the different Formation of the Inte[lines in Carnivo- 
rous Animals, from thofe that are to be met with in 
fuch as do not feed upon Fle(h, but other food. And 
indeed this feems to me to be of far greater weight, and 
to carry more ftrength in it, than any thing I have met 
with before. And all the Inftances you give "are very 
True. 
We fliall therefore firft of all obferve^ "That the Dulius 
Alimentalk (for fo I call the Gula^ the Stomachy and In- 
felines • all which make but one continued Canalk or 
Ducius ^ ) This DuUm^ I fay, is properly the true Qha- 
racferiflick of an Animal, or Proprium quarto modo. For 
there is no Animal but hath (uch a DuUus ^ and what- 
foever hath filch a Ducius^ may properly enough be 
ranged under the Clajfis of Animals- Plants receive their 
Nourifhment by numerous Fibres of their Roots, but 
have 
