Objeblions of M. de la lande. 163 
As i conceive it, however, of fome importance to have the 
diftinftion above treated of perfectly underhood in future, I 
now purpofely avoid entering upon any theoretical ground 
whatever. My with therefore is, that the author of the Me- 
moire may acquit me of every thing not perfectly refpe&ful, 
though I do not follow him through that train of objection 
founded upon vague and incompetent phyfical arguments, 
which is to be met with in p. 51 1. &c. By further confidering 
the particulars hinted at in p. 21. and 29. of my paper, feveral 
difficulties, perhaps, may be removed ; but we forbear any 
illuftration of this kind, chiefly to evince how little we concern 
ourtelves whether the views delivered in part II. can Hand of 
themfelves or not. Thofe who do not like the principles there 
affumed, or the conclufions drawn from them ; in fhort, thofe 
who will call part II. a theory, and who think it a bad one, may, 
if they pleafe, mend it, or contrive a new and a better one of 
their own. But fo long as they cannot, by irrefragable opti- 
cal arguments, fet alide the induction laid down in part I. we 
muff demand of them, fo to fabricate their theories as to ac- 
count for the various circumftances of the fpots, confidered as 
things which poflfefs three dimenfions, viz. length, breadth, 
and depth, or, in other words, as excavations in the luminous 
matter of the fun. 
This faff is the only one I am folicitous to maintain or to 
contend for ; and for a very good reafon, becaufe I confider it 
as a£lually demonflrated by competent obfervations. As fuch, 
to indulge for a moment in a figure, it would be a pity not to 
refcue it from being drawn into the eddy of fome treacherous 
theory., the nature of all which is to fweep into their vortex 
and finally to precipitate to the bottom every thing which 
obflruds their impetuous career. 
Y 2 
Sit 
