actly of the same length? Can this be chance? And this occurs, it is to be observed, not in one, or in a few species of plants, but in thousands. Take a small portion only of known species, as the most obviously endowed with this adjustment, and say ten thousand. How should all these organized bodies be constructed for the same period of a year. How should all these machines be wound up so as to go for the same time? Even allowing that they could bear a year of a month longer or shorter, how do they all come within such limits? No chance could produce such a result. And if not by chance, how otherwise could such a coincidence occur, than by an intentional adjustment of these two things to one another? by a selection of such an organization in plants, as would fit them to the earth on which they were to grow; by an adaptation of construction to conditions; of the scale of the construction to the scale of conditions.

It cannot be accepted as an explanation of this fact in the economy of plants, that it is necessary to their existence; that no plants could possibly have subsisted, and come down to us, except those which were thus suited to their place on the earth. This is true; but this does not at all remove the necessity of recurring to design as the origin of the construction by which the existence and continuance of plants is made possible. A watch could not go, except there were the most exact

much to change, the pro
would be interrupted,
What, for instance, wo
dar of Flora, if the
shortened by six mont
would never arrive in
getable processes whi
superseded; some s
dates in the other cas
be employed in a wa
no doubt speedily de
not only a year of c
peated and continue

But in the existing
of the earth's revolu
duration of the revo
tions of most plants
riods are adjusted to
which the elements
and continue for s
supported in health
reproduce its kind.
is measured out for
cute their task, as
best manner.

Now such an ad cepted as a proof of

ly, that the assumptravagant to require

, moreover, it does How came the funcmal at all? Here is, greement in the form of the organic and in the appears to us a clear their Author. And the might be made to any similar gument. Any supposition gradually approximated to y among the operations of its which we have one instance in

under consideration, would for the objector to assume a things preparatory to this per

mation of the world.nce. And in this preparatory

be so long and no lo a length, why should

sis would enable the opponent aces of an intentional adaptaf nature to another.

t all affect the argument, if these rences could be traced to some se: if for instance it could be e budding or flowering of plants out at particular intervals, by the cumulated in their vessels during

months. For the question would how their functions were so adjusted, mulation of the nutriment necessary

and flowering, together with the self, comes to occupy exactly a year, a month only, or ten years. There

their structure some reference to did such a reference occur? how rmined to the particular time of the volution round the sun? This could erwise, as we conceive, than by design intment.

e left therefore with this manifest adjustfore us, of two parts of the universe, at t so remote; the dimensions of the solar and the powers of vegetable life. These gs are so related, that one has been made → other. The relation is as clear as that ch to a sundial. If a person were to comwatch with a dial, hour after hour, after day, it would be impossible for him

adjustment in the forms and positions of its wheels; yet no one would accept it as an explanation of the origin of such forms and positions, that the watch would not go if these were other than they are. If the objector were to suppose that plants were originally fitted to years of various lengths, and that such only have survived to the present time, as had a cycle of a length equal to our present year, or one which could be accommodated to it; we should reply, that the assumption is too gratuitous and extravagant to require much consideration; but that, moreover, it does not remove the difficulty. How came the functions of plants to be periodical at all? Here is, in the first instance, an agreement in the form of the laws that prevail in the organic and in the inorganic world, which appears to us a clear evidence of design in their Author. And the same kind of reply might be made to any similar objection to our argument. Any supposition that the universe has gradually approximated to that state of harmony among the operations of its different parts, of which we have one instance in the coincidence now under consideration, would make it necessary for the objector to assume a previous state of things preparatory to this perfect correspondence. And in this preparatory condition we should still be able to trace the rudiments of that harmony, for which it was proposed to account: so that even the most unbounded

license of hypothesis would enable the opponent to obliterate the traces of an intentional adaptation of one part of nature to another.

Nor would it at all affect the argument, if these periodical occurrences could be traced to some proximate cause: if for instance it could be shown, that the budding or flowering of plants is brought about at particular intervals, by the nutriment accumulated in their vessels during the preceding months. For the question would still remain, how their functions were so adjusted, that the accumulation of the nutriment necessary for budding and flowering, together with the operation itself, comes to occupy exactly a year, instead of a month only, or ten years. There must be in their structure some reference to time: how did such a reference occur? how was it determined to the particular time of the earth's revolution round the sun? This could be no otherwise, as we conceive, than by design and appointment.

We are left therefore with this manifest adjustment before us, of two parts of the universe, at first sight so remote; the dimensions of the solar system and the powers of vegetable life. These two things are so related, that one has been made to fit the other. The relation is as clear as that of a watch to a sundial. If a person were to compare the watch with a dial, hour after hour, and day after day, it would be impossible for him