36 



In discussing a philosophical question, it may not, at first 

 \-iew, seem very important, to determine with whom the 

 opinion originated ; but ]Mr. Locke tells us, that, in the case 

 of propositions whereof we have no certainty, but only some 

 inducements to receive them for true, the grounds of proba- 

 bility are to be considered; and, where the question turns 

 on the testimony of otliers, we are to look to the number, 

 the integrity, the skill, of the witnesses, and the design of 

 the author, if it be a book, &c. 



Now, I have shewn already, from the letter, of which 

 Mr. Desiiiarcst himself Avas bearer,* that his design, in 

 making observations in natural history, was to enable him 

 to combat the account, given by Moses, of the creation of 

 the world, particularly in its date. — I do not mean to avail 

 myself any farther, of this discovery of Mr. Desmarest's in- 

 tentions, than as an excuse for examining his Memoir with 

 more minuteness, than it is probable I would otherwise have 

 d(Hie; and, also, for cautioning those Avho read it, to be on 

 their guard against the statements of an ex parte Avriter. — If 

 the merit of an author is to be estimated by the success of 

 his work, I do not know any man, who, in this point of 



^iew, 



* It is to the following tenor : — " This letter, m3' dear companion, will be 

 •' delivered to you by Desmarest, a man of merit and sound philosophy, who 

 " wishes to pay his respects to you, on liis journey to Italy, where he purposes 

 " to make such observations in natural history, as may very -well give the lie to 

 " Moses. He will not say a word of this to the master of the Sacred Palace, but 

 " if, perchance, he should discover, that the world is more ancient than even 

 " the Septuagint pretend, he will not keep it a secret from you." (Lettr. 137. 

 An. 1703, as quoted by Baruel, Memoircs de Jacobinisme, Tom. I. p. 151.) 



