14 
not Infidels ground a similar objection upon the well known decla- 
ration of Copernicus, in answer to the objection that, if his sys- 
tem of astronomy were true, Venus would appear with phases simi- 
lar to those exhibited by the moon—I doubt not, (said he,) but 
this will be one day found to be the case: a prediction verified 
by the discoveries of Gallileo? It is because they could not call 
that a prediction, which was evidently founded upon previous know- 
ledge, that such a fact must be the case. The foundation of Se- 
neca’s knowledge was of a totally different nature from that of 
Copernicus ; but it was nevertheless suited to his purpose; and the 
case which was adduced by Collins makes no more for the support 
of his argument, than the one he has overlooked. 
A passage in Dante, which has been taken for a description of 
the southern constellation, called “the Cross,” is supposed to re- 
semble the passage under consideration— 
I’ mi volsi a man destra, e posi mente 
All’ altro polo, e vidi quattro stelle 
Non viste mai, fuor ch’ alla prima gente. 
Pure. Lib. i. 22—24. 
There is this remarkable difference: if Dante alluded to the 
Southern Cross, he must have had a supernatural knowledge of its 
existence ; for it was beyond the reach of human knowledge, either 
direct or traditional. But there was nothing which rendered it 
impossible for Seneca to have known of the existence of a trans- 
atlantic continent, and I hope I have shown that he did know it, 
at least traditionally. Nor can we compare Dante with Copernicus, 
because the latter presumed on the existence of a fact, which 
every principle of science warranted him to believe ; but the for- 
mer had not the least ground for supposing that a constellation, 
