( 33 ) 



in iuch an enterprize, without great rafhnefs. Let 

 us now fee whether he himfelf is not an example of 

 what he finds fault with in the Spanifh hiftorian. 



He fets out with declaring, that he does not 

 believe it poffible America could have been peopled 

 before the flood, confidering the fliort fpace of time 

 which elapfed between the creation of the world 

 and that memorable event. Very able men have, 

 notwithftanding, believed that there were more men 

 on the face of the earth at that early period, than 

 there are at this prefent ; the thing is at leaft pofli- 

 ble, and this is fufficient to prevent the deftroying 

 the abfolute certainty of the opinion. Neverthelefs, 

 it muft be owned, that de Hornn is not fingle in 

 this opinion ; but what he adds, gives us no great 

 notion either of his accuracy or of his probity. 

 According to him, Lefcarbot places Noah's birth 

 in the New World ; whereas, this French hiftoriari 

 has faid nothing that bears the frnalleft refemblance 

 to fuch a paradox. 



In the next place, he lays it down for a principle, 

 that after the deluge, men and other terreftrial ani- 

 mals have penetrated into America both by land and 

 by water, and both too out of a formed defign, 

 and by accident and that birds have got thither by 

 flight, which does not appear to be improbable, 

 feeing that they have been obferved to follow veflfels 

 Without Hopping, - for the fpace of three hundred 

 leagues together, and fince there are rocks and 

 iflands, where they might reft themfelves, fcattered 

 about every where in the ocean. Thus, according 

 to him, John de Laet had reafon to fay, that the 

 article of birds occafioned no manner of difficulty. 

 All the world, however, will not be of their 

 opinion h 9 for do not we know many of the fea- 



D thered 



