the hope, as before stated, that he may prove the negro a beast, and thus widen the gap between the Caucasian and the negro, uses the saying of Paul in I. Cor. 15:39: "All flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." He could not have found a passage of Scripture more fatal to what he wants to prove, for it completely bars his argument, as we will see further on. He

says:

"Thus it is shown that man is a creation as separate and distinct from the fish and fowl and beast as he is from the plant or the planet. Hence we with just as much propriety consider man a member of the sidereal kingdom as to consider him simply a member of the animal kingdom. It would be no more irrational, no more unscriptural, to consider man an undeveloped planet than to consider him merely a highly developed animal."-"The Negro a Beast," p. 27.

"What is most directly opposed to the inspired. declaration of the great apostle that there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds, making in all four different kinds of flesh, as separate and distinct from

each other, as if the one made its first appearance on and inhabited the earth, the other the moon, the the other Jupiter, and the other Mars."-Ibid. p. 35.

In commenting on this Scripture, Professor Carroll positively declares that the different kinds of flesh to which Paul refers are perfectly distinct from each other, and that man is as distinct from the beast as from the fish or the fowl; and that the beast is as distinct from the man as from the fish and the fowl; the same of the fowl, etc.

Now he claims to prove that the negro is a beast, and that the amalgamation of the man and beast has filled the earth with corruption.

Did you ever hear of an offspring from a union of the animal and the fish? or from the beast and the fowl? or from the man and the fish or the fowl? Yet Professor Carroll declares the four kinds of flesh perfectly distinct, the one from the other, and man as distinct from the beast as from the fish or the fowl. How, in the name of consistency, could there be offspring from the man and the beast, if they are as remote from each other as from the fish and the fowl?

Professor Carroll uses this quotation from I. Cor., 15:39, many, many times throughout his book, to

show that the beast and man are as far removed in the scale of creation as either is from the fish or the fowl and yet claims that they beget offspring, which could not be done by union with the fish or fowl. We admit that the passage of Scripture teaches this, but it forever bars Professor Carroll from proving the negro a beast and not human, as they, the negro and the white man, do beget offspring by each other.

As to hybridity of species we shall treat that in a future chapter; but the hybridity of the different kinds of flesh as distinct from each other as if one were an inhabitant of the moon, another of Jupiter, another of Mars, etc., is, at present, the burden of our song. We are unable to see why Professor Carroll did not recognize the fact that he here spoiled his whole argument.

As he quotes this passage not less than forty or fifty times throughout the book, he as many times admits the fallacy of his theory that the negro is a beast, as distinct a creation from man as is the fish or the fowl, and then declares that all the ills that flesh is heir to come from the amalgamation of creatures as distinct from each other as is man and the fish.

Before he finishes the book he seems to recog

another Mars, and yet claiming the possibility of an amalgamation between the man and one of these kinds of flesh is too ridiculous. Think of a creature half fish and half man, or half fowl and half man, or as the man and the beast are, he says, as far apart as either of these other kinds of flesh, think of a creature half beast and half man! Prof. Carroll is indeed a believer in miracles! Half man and half fish! The mermaid then that has so long been considered a myth is by Prof. Carroll's argument a reality, in spite of St. Paul's saying that these kinds of flesh are distinct from each other. I suppose he will become a naturalist now, and say that the bat is the result of the union of the mouse and the sparrow. It would be just as reasonable. O, Reasoner of the Age! O, Revelator of the Century!

CHAPTER II.

Prof. Carroll's second chapter examined-His denunciation of atheistic science-Proves himself an atheist-Comparative anatomy examined and refuted-Positive proof that Adam was a red man instead of white or black.

The first thing to show in regard to the second chapter of Prof. Carroll's book, "The Negro a Beast," is his inconsistency in bitterly denouncing the Christianity that will accept the teachings of atheistic scientists, and then in making his whole argument contained in the second chapter, rest upon the science set forth by these very scientists—these atheistic writers. To do this fairly, we will quote Prof. Carroll's own language:

"There are just two schools of learning in the world to-day which propose to explain the existence of the heavens and the earth, with all the phenomena which characterize each. These are (1) The Scriptural School of Divine Creation, (2) The Atheistic School of Natural Development."-"The Negro a Beast," p. 9.