136 
ark for any other purpose than the accommodation of man, 
and to preserve seed alive for his comfort, places a gra- 
tuitous restraint upon our creed, and causes many to believe 
that those things which really are stated for our belief 
have a meaning attached to them which Scripture does not 
warrant. 
The introduction of the ark in the position that it takes in 
the Mosaic account justifies us in saying that, while it was 
only there for man^s accommodation and comfort, without 
which he could not have existed or continued on the earth, it 
brings him inseparably and morally in contact with those 
parents that first brought him into existence upon the earth, 
and identifies him immediately with the punishment that had 
been denounced upon his progenitors; thereby showing the 
imperative necessity there is for man’s believing that the sin 
of Adam was the only cause which led to the death of any 
creature, and that, therefore, without this cause, there would 
have been no death. The ark, therefore, placed where it is in 
the Mosaic account, not only shows the justice and consistency 
of God in uniting in this way by blood relationship the ante- 
diluvial with the post-diluvial man, but it still further verifies 
the truth of the Scriptures, that for man’s sin, and for no 
other cause, death first came into the world, at the time stated 
by the Prophet. 
The Chairman. — It is my pleasing duty to ask you to tender your most 
grateful thanks to Dr. Burnett for the admirable paper just read, which has 
lost none of its force from the manner in which it has been read by Mr. 
Montagu Burnett. I feel that this paper is one which requires attentive 
study. Though it may appear contrary to the popular views of geology, I 
believe it to be most accordant with the recent progress of that science. 
I venture to characterize it as a far-sighted paper, — one which could only have 
been written by a person thoroughly conversant with geological progress, 
while it is penetrated by a profound reverence for revealed truth. Dr. 
Burnett has not shrunk from any of the difficulties of the question. He has 
shown that geology has made no discoveries inconsistent with Revelation, 
while he has also shown that it has not yet developed itself into a perfect 
science. The popular theory among geologists a few years since — a theory 
retained in many modern text-books— was to ascribe the fossil remains of 
certain strata to different successive creations ; the plants and animals of 
one creation being destroyed by some cataclysm before those of the succeed- 
ing creation made their appearance. This theory is now for the most part 
abandoned as inconsistent with the facts accumulated within the last few 
years. The tendency is to abandon it altogether, and to admit one creation 
only. It is true that some would spread this creation over a large period, 
and that most still require millions or billions of years for the formation of 
