NAT AURAL THEOLOGY. 209 



produced one colour on one leaf, with marks of 

 fading and withering. It seems a lame account to 

 call it, as it has been called, a disease of the plant. 

 Is it not more probable that this property, which 

 is independent, as it should seem, of the wants and 

 utilities of the plant, was calculated for beauty, in- 

 tended for display ? 



A ground, I know, of objection has been taken 

 against the whole topic of argument, namely, that 

 there is no such thing as beauty at all ; in other 

 words, that whatever is useful and familiar comes 

 of course to be thought beautiful ; and that things 

 appear to be so, only by their alliance with these 

 quahties. Our idea of beauty is capable of being 

 in so great a degree modified by habit, by fashion, 

 by the experience of advantage or pleasure, and 

 by associations arising out of that experience, that 

 a question has been made, whether it be not alto- 

 gether generated by these causes, or would have 

 any proper existence without them. It seems, how- 

 ever, a carrying of the conclusion too far, to deny 

 the existence of the principle, viz., a native capacity 

 of perceiving beauty, on account of an influence, 

 or of varieties proceeding from that influence, to 

 which it is subject, seeing that principles the most 

 acknowledged are liable to be affected in the same 

 manner. I should rather argue thus : — The ques- 

 tion respects objects of sight. Now every other 

 sense hath its distinction of agreeable and disagree- 

 able. Some tastes offend the palate, others gratify 

 it. In brutes and insects, this distinction is stronger 



18* 



