attenuated with each division, so that, in a few generations, man would have no soul, or, if any at all,

it would be so thin and weak that it would not have power to produce a vibration in brain or nerve pulp, and hence would not be manifest.

The absurdity of this beautiful theory (?) as set forth by this "reasoner of the age," could be still further shown, but through pity for the vanquished, we forbear.

We have now met every argument advanced through the first, second, third and fourth chapters of Prof. Carroll's book, "The Negro a Beast," and as he uses these as his foundation for all future arguments, we hope that the reader will remember that not one stone is left standing upon another in this foundation.

We will now present a summary of our objections to Prof. Carroll's "beautiful theory:"

I. Prof. Carroll has never proved that animals have no soul, but takes it for granted, although opposed to positive declaration of Scripture.

II. Prof. Carroll makes mind a distinct creation, while the Bible shows that it is an attribute of the soul.

III. Prof. Carroll makes the soul a creation, and, at the same time, says it is a part of God.

IV. Prof. Carroll says that these three creations— matter, mind and soul-are transmitted to offspring by the parents, and that in case two of these in the male meet with the same two in the female they fertilize each other and are reproduced, the other, remaining passive, is not reproduced. If this were true, human parents could beget offspring without souls; or, bodiless offspring, having mind and soul, by an accident very common in the act of fecundity. V. The small particle of soul "substance" transmitted to the offspring, being expanded to fill the whole body, and again being divided and expanded for successive generations, would finally leave the soul a zero in the human being.

The fact is God sends an immortal soul into every individual conceived by sexual union, by His own. divine will and power, and does not leave so important a matter to the mercies of chance and accident.

Prof. Carroll's effort at Scriptural proof-Prof. Carroll's argument that Cain's sin was illicit intercourse with a negro paramour disproven-The proof from Jude examined-The impossibility of hybridization explained-Proof that the Ethiopians were negroes, that Philip baptized a negro, and that Moses married a negress-Where Cain got his wife explained, and other matters of interest.

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose,

An evil soul producing holy witness

Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,

A goodly apple rotten at the heart;
Oh, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!

-Merchant of Venice.

Our "Reasoner of the Age" now becomes "The Revelator of the Century," as his fifth chapter begins with an attempt to prove by the Scripture his two propositions that he has so signally failed to prove scientifically, viz., That the Negro is not human, but a beast; and being a beast, that he has no soul. It would be unnecessary to follow him further, were it not that he so ingeniously clothes the vilest sophistry in the garb of fair argument. We will then proceed to follow him through, and to crush the head and

sear the neck of each branch of the hydra as it appears.

He says:

"First, The atheist takes the negro which God made an ape and thrusts him violently into the family of man as a lower race of the human species, and enlightened Christianity receives him with open arms; the atheist then points to the remnant of the animals and tells us with much the appearance of truth that there is no beast with which man may associate himself carnally and produce offspring; and enlightened Christianity responds with a hearty amen! This theory may be good modern philosophy, but it is not Scripture, as shown by the following: 'And Adam knew Eve, his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering, but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth and his countenance fell.'" (Gen. 4: 3, 4, 5.)

It will be observed that these brothers were not rivals in business, they were engaged in different pursuits; each offered the products of his labor and skill; and had each of them walked uprightly before God, there could have been no reason why their offerings would not have been alike acceptable to God. But such was not the case. Abel was a good man; he had faith in God (Heb. 2:4) and respected and obeyed His laws. Hence, the Lord had respect unto Abel as a man, and consequently to his offering. But Cain was a bad man; the little faith which he had in God, was not expressed in obedience to his laws; he had no respect for the laws of God. Hence, God had no respect for his offering. Cain was a violator of the laws of God, as shown by the following:

"And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth, and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted, and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at thy door, and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." (Gen. 4: 6, 7.)

This indicates that Cain had not only violated the law of God, but that he had an associate in the crime. To have desire requires life, and also requires intelligence; no inanimate object can have desire. In view