The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1868-03-04
ANSWER TO ARIEL.

There are two kinds of evidence referred to
by khia writer -GEaaG- af-lis-- pEo possascs's
namely the Bible and science, especially that OF
Ethnology, which treats of the division of man
into races, their origin and relations, and the
differences which characterize them.
Let us first see what he makes out of the
Bible. The foundation of his whole work is
in the following sentence, page %:
ave read in the Bible-And God said, Let
us make man in our own image and after oar
likeness" which is equivalent to saying, We
have man already, but not III our image for
if the negro was already in God image, God
could not hare said, now let US make man an
our image"
The words in italics are Ariel's. Let us
bring this wonderful logic to fair test. We
can prove in the same way, that is by empha-
Sising certain words according to our own fancy
and drawing differences therefrom, that Adam
had son before Seth, his first born, and also
that this son must have been negro, that is,
according to Ariel, beast. Here it is: In
Genesis V: 3, it is written, "And Adam begat
son in his oaoa likeness and called has
name Seth which is equivalent to saying he
had son already who was not in his oloa like
ness, and who had some different name. And
as there was no other white man before Adam
and Seth, that other son must have been in
evitably negro and a beast. For if that
other son was already in Adam likeness, the
Bible would not have here said he begat son
Sin his o,oa likeness"
Yet upon such an airy nothing, upon mere
assumption does this man build his house.
He does not undertake to offer a particle of
proof that the negro belonged to the fifth days
work, when the irrational animal kingdom was
created. The process of argument lit is bur-
lesque on the world is this:
Lpquner-How do you know, Ariel, that the
Negro has no soul and is beastP
.Ariel-Because when God said. "Let us
make man in our image, and in our likeness, "
he meant only ,ohite men.
Lpquirer-But how do you know be did not
spring from that same original stock, and did
not belong to the creation of man on the sixth
day?
ArieL-Because have asserted most posi-
lively that he must have belonged to the crea-
ton of the nth day, and is therefore beast
You ought to be convinced that my theory OF
this matter is right, because you see it exactly
suits my Interpretation of Scripture.
LQurer-Yes, but how do you know your
Interpretation is right?
A1iel-There can be no mistake on that
point: know my Interpretation is right, be-
cause it suits my theory.
Admirable demonstrations It is beautiful
tit, to be sure, and fine example of the axiom
that things which are equal to the same are
equal to one another" No wonder the au-
thor felt himself peculiarly qualified to set
aside the learned world and 1.-THE Clergy"
with few indignant sweeps of his pen, and
let them see what amazing things he can
turn up by "the logic Of facts (save the
mark y and by proving all so plainly and so
positively that no fair or candid man can have
the least doubt of their truth And what is
specially worthy of admiration here is the sur
prising results, the deep hidden meaning of
Scripture that may be brought out by just
laying an emphasis upon the right word
Take, for example, a case which we are told
really occurred. A certain young preacher,
somewhat untaught, it is presumed, as Ariel
formerly was when he preached to "beasts"
without knowing it, having learned that print
ers usually designate the important word by
using italics, determined to profit by the in
formation. So on the following Sabbath,
when reading l Kings xiii: 81, concerning an