C 3 ] 
impoffible to oppofe them. The fpots upon the 
fun, and the many ftrange variations, to which they 
were fubjeft, convinced all, who were able to lay 
afide the prejudices of a vain philofophy, that there 
was not fo great a difference, betwixt celeftial and 
fublunary bodies, as had Been imagined. 
To fuch as were fo reconciled to it, the difeovery 
appeared grand and ftriking; and great hopes were 
entertained, that, by duly attending to the pheno- 
mena of the fpots, fomething curious and important 
might be determined concerning the nature and 
conflitution of the fun itfelf. 
We accordingly find, that many affronomers, of 
the firft note,' were very early engaged in this in- 
quiry. Of all thofe who applied themfelves this way, 
scheiner and hevelius defervedly hold the firft 
place, and nothing but the charms of fo noble an 
inveftigation could have induced them to profecute 
their obfervations with fo much affiduity. scheiner 
began his in the year 1624, 14 years after galileo 
had firfi made the difeovery. In the year 1630, he 
at lait publilhed his Rofa Urfina, in which we have 
a detail of his labours during that long interval of 
time, hevelius came after scheiner, and dili- 
gently watched the appearances of the fpots for two 
: years, the refult of which application he has given 
us in his Selenographia and Cometographia. 
But notwithftanding thefe attempts, fo worthy 
of men actuated by a true defire of knowledge, it 
muft beconfefled,that nothing of moment hath been 
derived from them. If we except a few conclufions 
concerning the rotation of the fun round its axis, 
and the inclination of its axis to the plane of th& 
B 2 ecliptic. 
