So that according to the above mentioned _Cartesian_ principles there should be generated no colour at all in a Ball of Water or Glass by two refractions and one reflection, which does hold most true indeed, if the surfaces be plain, as may be experimented with any kind of prisme where the two refracting surfaces are equally inclin’d to the reflecting; but in this the _Phænomena_ are quite otherwise. The cause therefore of the generation of colour must not be what _Des Cartes_ assigns, namely, a certain _rotation_ of the _Globuli ætherei_, which are the particles which he supposes to constitute the _Pellucid medium_, But somewhat else, perhaps what we have lately supposed, and shall by and by further prosecute and explain. But, First I shall crave leave to propound some other difficulties of his, notwithstanding exceedingly ingenious _Hypothesis_, which I plainly confess to me seem such; and those are, First, if that light be (as is affirmed, _Diopt._ cap. 1. §. 8.) not so properly a motion, as an action or propension to motion, I cannot conceive how the eye can come to be sensible of the _verticity_ of a _Globule_, which is generated in a drop of Rain, perhaps a mile off from it. For that _Globule_ is not carry’d to the eye according to his formerly recited Principle; and if not so, I cannot conceive how it can communicate its _rotation_, or circular motion to the line of the _Globules_ between the drop and the eye. It cannot be by means of every ones turning the next before him; for if so, then onely all the _Globules_ that are in the odd places must be turned the same way with the first, namely, the 3. 5. 7. 9. 11, &c. but all the _Globules_ interposited between them in the even places; namely, the 2. 4. 6. 8. 10. &c. must be the quite contrary, whence, according to the _Cartesian Hypothesis_, there must be no distinct colour generated, but a confusion. Next, since the _Cartesian Globuli_ are suppos’d (_Principiorum Philosoph._ Part. 3. §. 86.) to be each of them continually in motion about their centers, I cannot conceive how the eye is able to distinguish this new generated motion from their former inherent one, if I may so call that other wherewith they are mov’d or _turbinated_, from some other cause than refraction. And thirdly, I cannot conceive how these motions should not happen sometimes to oppose each other, and then, in stead of a _rotation_, there would be nothing but a direct motion generated, and consequently no colour. And fourthly, I cannot conceive, how by the _Cartesian Hypothesis_ it is possible to give any plausible reason of the nature of the Colours generated in the thin _laminæ_ of these our _Microscopical Observations_; for in many of these, the refracting and reflecting surfaces are parallel to each other, and consequently no _rotation_ can be generated, nor is there any necessity of a shadow or termination of the bright Rays, such as is suppos’d (_Chap._ 8. §. 5. _Et