262 



4. " Seeing the fixed stars are not much less than the 

 sun, they are to be esteemed so many suns." 



Not much less ! How is this proved ? To argue 

 from the distance, is to prove ignotum per ccque ig- 

 notum. 



" You see, sir, the hypothesis of innumerable suns, is 

 so far from vanishing into air, that it is almost altogether 

 founded on demonstration." 



Indeed I do not see one tittle of demonstration yet 

 from the beginning to the end. 



In order to prove that the planets are inhabited, you 

 say, 1. " The earth is spherical, opake, enlightened by 

 the sun, casting a shadow opposite thereto, and revolving 

 round it, in a time exactly proportioned to its dis- 

 tance. The other planets resemble the earth in all these 

 particulars. Therefore they likewise are inhabited." I 

 cannot allow the consequence. 



2. " The earth has a regular succession of day and 

 night, summer and winter. So probably have all the 

 planets ; therefore they are inhabited." I am not sure 

 of the antecedent. But however that be, I deny the 

 consequence. 



5. " Jupiter and Satan are much bigger than the 

 enrth." Does this prove that they are inhabited ? 



4. " The earth has a moon, Jupiter has four, Saturn 

 five, each of them larger than ours. They eclipse their 

 respective planets, and are eclipsed by them." 



* All this does not prove that they are inhabited. 



5. " Saturn's ring reflects the light of the sun upon 

 .him." 



I am not sure of that. And till the fact is ascer- 

 tained, no certaiu inference can be drawn from it. 



6. " But is it probable God should have created pla- 

 nets like our own, and furnished them with such ad 



