where it seems manifest that the Superficial parts are singly Diaphanous,
(being either Water, or Air, or Glass) we see not that such Variety of
Colours are produc'd as usually are by the Refraction of Light, even in
those Bodies, when by their Bigness, Shape, &c. they are conveniently
qualify'd to exhibit such Various and Lively Colours as those of the
Rain-bow, and of Prismatical Glasses.

28. By what has been hitherto discours'd, _Pyrophilus_, we may be assisted
to judge of that famous Controversie which was of Old disputed betwixt the
_Epicureans_ and other _Atomists_ on the one side, and most other
_Philosophers_ on the other side. The former Denying Bodies to be Colour'd
in the Dark, and the Latter making Colour to be an Inherent quality, as
well as Figure, Hardness; Weight, or the like. For though this Controversie
be Reviv'd, and hotly Agitated among the _Moderns_, yet I doubt whether it
be not in great part a Nominal dispute, and therefore let us, according to
the Doctrine formerly deliver'd, Distinguish the Acceptions of the word
Colour, and say, that if it be taken in the Stricter Sense, the
_Epicureans_ seem to be in the Right, for if Colour be indeed, though not
according to them, but Light Modify'd, how can we conceive that it can
Subsist in the Dark, that is, where it must be suppos'd there is no Light;
but on the other side, if Colour be consider'd as a certain Constant
Disposition of the Superficial parts of the Object to Trouble the Light
they Reflect after such and such a Determinate manner, this Constant, and,
if I may so speak, Modifying disposition persevering in the Object, whether
it be Shin'd upon or no, there seems no just reason to deny, but that in
this Sense, Bodies retain their Colour as well in the Night as Day; or, to
Speak a little otherwise, it may be said, that Bodies are Potentially
Colour'd in the Dark, and Actually in the Light. But of this Matter
discoursing more fully elsewhere, as 'tis a difficulty that concerns
Qualities in general, I shall forbear to insist on it here.