will be at fifty one degrees distance from the aforesaid line, as well as at fourty two, this dewy temper of the Aire, there will necessarily appear two Rain-bows at once, as has been frequently seen, and so, I confess, some things being put, the Colours of Flowers will be a necessary result of the Matter in such a motion or posture: Yet for all this, the variety of the placing of these Colours of Flowers cannot but shew that it is a thing either fortuitous or arbitrarious; but being that they ever some way gratifie the beholder, it is a signe that it is not fortuitous, and therefore it must be arbitrarious, and from some Counsel that contriv'd them thus.
But that I insist upon most and contend to proceed from an Intellectual principle is their Symmetry, against which the Objection seems very invalid, the reason of it being thus, as you plainly see. That the regular Motion of the Matter made the first Plant of every kinde: for we demand. What regulated the Motion of it so as to guide it to form it self into such a state that at last it appears a very pleasant Intellectual spectacle, and exceeding hard (if not impossible) to be hit upon without some other Director distinct from the blinde Matter? As a man will easily believe, if he do not think so much upon the Trunks and Branches of Trees (whose shooting out of the ground, and then having arms again shooting out of the trunk and branching themselves into a many subdivisions, is not so difficult to conceive) as upon their Blossoms, Fruits, and Leaves. As in the Leaf of the Oak and of Holly, and abundance of leaves of Herbs & their Flowers, as in Monks-hood, Snap-dragon, sundry sorts of Flie- flowers, as the Flie-flower properly so called, the Butterflie-Satyrion, the Gnat-Satyrion, to which adde the Wasp-Orchis, the Bee-flower, and the like. The Matter could never have hit upon such hard and yet regular shapes, had it not been regulated by something besides it self; the concinnity of which figures gratifying us that are Rational, we ought in all reason to conclude that they came from a Principle Intellectual.
5. But it was objected in the second place, That Beauty is no Intellectual Object, because Women and Children are more taken with it then Men, and Beasts as well as either. To which I answer. That Children are not so much taken with the Symmetry as the gayness of colours in things that are counted beautiful, as Larks are mightily pleased at the shining of the Glass the Lark-catcher exposes to their view. But if they can also discover a want of Symmetry and correspondency, as supposing a Flower which has some leaves cropt off, that Spirit which is in them being Intellectual, it is not at all unreasonable it should exercise it self upon such easy Objects as these betimes. But that They or Women are taken more with outward beauty then Men, is because Men imploy their Intellectuals about harder tasks, and so cannot minde these smaller matters. Otherwise there is no question but if they could be idle from other imployments, they would be as devout admirers of beauty as Women themselves, and be as well pleased with theirs, if they have any, as they them-selves are with it.
But as for Brutes, I deny that they have any sense of so noble an Ob-
