What then? shall we give up these books?  Does not the admission that the narrative of the fall in Eden is legendary carry with it the surrender of that most solemn and sacred of Christian doctrines, the atonement?

Let us reflect on this!  Christianity, in its earliest days, when it was converting and conquering the world, knew little or nothing about that doctrine.  We have seen that, in his “Apology,” Tertullian did not think it worth his while to mention it.  It originated among the Gnostic heretics.  It was not admitted by the Alexandrian theological school.  It was never prominently advanced by the Fathers.  It was not brought into its present commanding position until the time of Anselm Philo Judaeus speaks of the story of the fall as symbolical; Origen regarded it as an allegory.  Perhaps some of the Protestant churches may, with reason, be accused of inconsistency, since in part they consider it as mythical, in part real.  But, if, with them, we admit that the serpent is symbolical of Satan, does not that cast an air of allegory over the whole narrative?

It is to be regretted that the Christian Church has burdened itself with the defense of these books, and voluntarily made itself answerable for their manifest contradictions and errors.  Their vindication, if it were possible, should have been resigned to the Jews, among whom they originated, and by whom they have been transmitted to us.  Still more, it is to be deeply regretted that the Pentateuch, a production so imperfect as to be unable to stand the touch of modern criticism, should be put forth as the arbiter of science.  Let it be remembered that the exposure of the true character of these books has been made, not by captious enemies, but by pious and learned churchmen, some of them of the highest dignity.

While thus the Protestant churches have insisted on the acknowledgment of the Scriptures as the criterion of truth, the Catholic has, in our own times, declared the infallibility of the pope.  It may be said that this infallibility applies only to moral or religious things; but where shall the line of separation be drawn?  Onmiscience cannot be limited to a restricted group of questions; in its very nature it implies the knowledge of all, and infallibility means omniscience.

Doubtless, if the fundamental principles of Italian Christianity be admitted, their logical issue is an infallible pope.  There is no need to dwell on the unphilosophical nature of this conception; it is destroyed by an examination of the political history of the papacy, and the biography of the popes.  The former exhibits all the errors and mistakes to which institutions of a confessedly human character have been found liable; the latter is only ton frequently a story of sin and shame.