[ .8 ] 
©f things, is apt to be prefled with many difficul- 
ties; and whenever palpable contradictions appear, 
they may be regarded certainly as proofs of our 
having fallen into error. Upon this principle, I 
think, we might freely have rejected any theories, 
hitherto entertained, concerning the folar fpots, tho* 
their falfity had not become manifeft from more 
enlarged experience and obfervation. It muft in- 
deed be acknowledged, that it is very difadvanta- 
geous to fcience, to indulge much in hypothefes, 
the truth being rarely hit upon in this way, and 
very often miffed.. Sometimes, however*- it may 
not be improper, to throw out hints and conjec- 
tures, when we can attain to nothing better, pro- 
vided we are at due pains to diftinguifh betwixt 
fuch and that real knowledge, which we derive, by 
ftriCt induction, from inconteftable principles. The 
beft way therefore, of preferving fo proper and 
neceflary a diffinCtion, will be to propofe what: 
further remains to be faid, upon thisfubjeCt, in the 
form of queries; becaufe, however plaufible they 
may appear, they are at belt but matter of conjec- 
ture. Hints, when propounded in this way, are 
freed from the danger of making us reft in any 
error, whiKt, fooner or later, they may become 
helps in leading us to a right underftanding of the 
fubjeCt. 
The queries which we fhall proceed to make, 
are chiefly founded upon the following phaenomena, 
of the fpots, as dfefcribed by Schemer and Heve- 
lius., 
i- Every fpot which hath a nucleus, hath al~ 
fb an umbra furrounding it. Vid. Schemer, p. 496. 
Hev. p. 409. 349- 
2 2, The 
