252 INQUIRY CONCERNING 
has read this letter, that the great object which its author 
had in view, was to exhibit a flattering picture of the 
Province, with the defign of inticing emigrants to make 
fettlements in it. An infect whofe produdts are fo valua- 
ble as thofe of the bee would not, L think, have been 
omitted in the lift of animals indigenous to the country of 
Pennfylvania, if Mr. Penn had had any certain intima- 
tions of its exiftence there. Neither do I find the bee 
mentioned by any of the early Swedifh writers who pub- 
Jithed accounts of Pennfylvania. bot: 
I do not find that any of the writers on Virginia men- 
tion the honey-bee among the indigenous animals of the 
country. The little that Mr. Beverley has faid on the fub= 
ject, inhis. Hiffory of V irginia, rather authorifes the fup-. 
pofition that this author did not confider the honey-bee 
as a native. ‘* Bees, fays he, thrive there abundantly, 
and will very eafily yield to the careful Hufewife a full 
Hive of Honey, and befides lay up a Winter-ftore, fuffici- 
ent to preferve their Stocks’’}. 
Dr. Belknap fays, that in. the languages of the Indians 
of New-England, there are no words for either honey or 
wax, Accordingly, when Mr. John Elliot, who was cal- 
led the Indian Evangeliff, undertook the arduous tafk of . 
tranflating the Bible into. the Natic-language, wherever: 
thefe two words occurred, as they frequently do in the 
{criptures, he ufed the Englith words, though fometimes, 
indeed, with an Indian termination. 
I confider this circumftance asa ftrong argument in 
favour of our common opinion, that the honey-bee is not 
x native of New-England. At the fame time, however, 
i cannot help obferving that as Mr. Elliot confined him- 
felf in the tranflation, which | have mentioned, to the 
language 
See page 282. Second cdition. London : 1722. 8v0. 
