Now if you would know what might be done by this glasse, in the sight of such things as were neerer at hand, the same Authour will tell you,[1] when hee sayes, that by it those things which could scarce at all bee discerned by the eye at the distance of a mile and a halfe, might plainely and distinctly bee perceived for 16 Italian miles, and that as they were really in themselves, without any transposition or falsifying at all. So that what the ancient Poets were faine to put in a fable, our more happy age hath found out in a truth, and we may discerne as farre with these eyes which _Galilæus_ hath bestowed upon us, as _Lynceus_ could with those which the Poets attributed unto him. But if you yet doubt whether all these observations were true, the same Authour may confirme you,[2] when hee saies they were shewed, _Non uni aut alteri, sed quamplurimis, neque gregariis hominibus, sed præcipuis atque disciplinis omnibus, necnon Mathematicis & opticis præceptis, optimè instructis sedulâ ac diligenti inspectione_. “Not to one or two, but to very many, and those not ordinary men, but to those who were well vers’d in Mathematickes and Opticks, and that not with a meere glance but with a sedulous and diligent inspection.” And least any scruple might remaine unanswered, or you might thinke the men who beheld all this though they might be skilfull, yet they came with credulous minds, and so were more easie to be deluded. He addes that it was shewed,[3] _vius qui ad experimenta hæc contradicendi animo accesserant_. “To such as were come with a great deale of prejudice, and an intent of contradiction.” Thus you may see the certainety of those experiments which were taken by this glasse. I have spoken the more concerning it, because I shall borrow many things in my farther discourse, from those discoveries which were made by it. [Sidenote 1: _ibid. c. 5._] [Sidenote 2: _Cap. 1._] [Sidenote 3: _Cap. 5._] I have now cited such Authors both ancient and moderne, who have directly maintained the same opinion. I told you likewise in the proposition that it might probably be deduced from the tenent of others: such were _Aristarchus_, _Philolaus_ and _Copernicus_, with many other later writers who assented to their hypothesis, so _Ioach. Rlelicus_, _David Origanus_, _Lansbergius_, _Guil. Gilbert_, and (if I may believe _Campanella_[1]) _Innumeri alii Angli & Galli_. Very many others both English and French, all who affirmed our Earth to be one of the Planets, and the Sunne to bee the Centre of all, about which the heavenly bodies did move, and how horrid soever this may seeme at the first, yet is it likely enough to be true, nor is there any maxime or observation in Opticks (saith _Pena_) that can disprove it. [Sidenote 1: _Apologia pro Galilæo._] Now if our earth were one of the Planets (as it is according to them) then why may not another of the Planets be an earth?