Suppose that all the interpolations in the Bible should be found and the
original be perfectly restored, what evidence would we have that it was
written by inspired men? How can the fact of inspiration be established?
When was it established? Did Jehovah furnish anybody with a list of
books he had inspired? Does anybody know that he ever said that he had
inspired anybody? Did the writer of Genesis claim that he was inspired?
Did any writer of any part of the Pentateuch make the claim? Did the
authors of Joshua, Judges, Kings or Chronicles pretend that they had
obtained their facts from Jehovah? Does the author of Job or of the
Psalms pretend to have received assistance from God?
There is not the slightest reference to God in Esther or in Solomon's
Song. Why should theologians say that those books were inspired? The
dogma of inspiration rests on no established fact. It rests only on
assertion--the assertion of those who have no knowledge on the subject.
Professor Briggs calls the Bible a "holy" book. He seems to think that
much of it was inspired; that it is in some sense a message from God.
The reasons he has for thinking so I cannot even guess. He seems also to
have his doubts about certain parts of the New Testament. He is not
certain that the angel who appeared to Joseph in a dream was entirely
truthful, or he is not certain that Joseph had the dream.
It seems clear that when the gospel according to Matthew was first
written the writer believed that Christ was a lineal descendant of
David, through his father, Joseph. The genealogy is given for the
purpose of showing that the blood of David flowed in the veins of
Christ. The man who wrote that genealogy had never heard that the Holy
Ghost was the father of Christ. That was an afterthought.
How is it possible to prove that the Holy Ghost was the father of
Christ? The Holy Ghost said nothing on the subject. Mary wrote nothing
and we have no evidence that Joseph had a dream.
The divinity of Christ rests upon a dream that somebody said Joseph had.
According to the New Testament, Mary herself called Joseph the father
of Christ. She told Christ that Joseph, his father, had been looking for
him. Her statement is better evidence than Joseph's dream--if he really
had it. If there are legends in Holy Scripture, as Professor Briggs
declares, certainly the divine parentage of Christ is one of them. The
story lacks even originality. Among the Greeks many persons had gods for
fathers. Among Hindoos and Egyptians these god-men were common. So in
many other countries the blood of gods was in the veins of men. Such
wonders, told in Sanscrit, are just as reasonable as when told in
Hebrew--just as reasonable in India as in Palestine. Of course, there
is no evidence that any human being had a god for a father, or a goddess
for a mother. Intelligent people have outgrown these myths. Centaurs,
satyrs, nymphs and god-men have faded away. Science murdered them all.
There are many contradictions in the gospels. They differ not only on
questions of fact, but as to Christianity itself. According to Matthew,
Mark and Luke, if you will forgive others God will forgive you. This
is the one condition of salvation. But in John we find an entirely
different religion. According to John you must be born again and
believe in Jesus Christ. There you find for the first time about
the atonement--that Christ died to save sinners. The gospel of John
discloses a regular theological system--a new one. To forgive others is
not enough. You must have faith. You must be born again.
The four gospels cannot be harmonized. If John is true the others are
false. If the others are true John is false. From this there is no
escape. I do not for a moment suppose that Professor Briggs agrees with
me on these questions. He probably regards me as a very bad and wicked
man, and my opinions as blasphemies. I find no fault with him for that.
I believe him to be an honest man; right in some things and wrong in
many. He seems to be true to his thought and I honor him for that.
He would like to get all the stumbling-blocks out of the Bible, so
that a really thoughtful man can "believe." If theologians cling to
the miracles recorded in the New Testament the entire book will be
disparaged and denied. The "Gospel ship" is overloaded. Somethings must
be thrown overboard or the boat will go down. If the churches try to
save all they will lose all.
They must throw the miracles away. They must admit that Christ did not
cast devils out of the bodies of men and women--that he did not cure
diseases with a word, or blindness with spittle and clay; that he had no
power over winds and waves; that he did not raise the dead; that he was
not raised from the dead himself, and that he did not ascend bodily to
heaven. These absurdities must be given up, or in a little while the
orthodox ministers will be preaching the "tidings of great joy" to
benches, bonnets and bibs.
Professor Briggs, as I understand him, is willing to give up the
absurdest absurdities, but wishes to keep all the miracles that
can possibly be believed. He is anxious to preserve the important
miracles--the great central falsehoods--but the little lies that were
told just to embellish the story--to furnish vines for the columns--he
is willing to cast aside.
But Professor Briggs was honest enough to say that we do not know the
authors of most of the books in the Bible; that we do not know who wrote
the Psalms or Job or Proverbs or the Song of Songs or Ecclesiastes or
the Epistle to the Hebrews. He also said that no translation can ever
take the place of the original Scriptures, because a translation is at
best the work of men. In other words, that God has not revealed to us
the names of the inspired books. That this must be determined by us.
Professor Briggs puts reason above revelation. By reason we are to
decide what books are inspired. By reason we are to decide whether
anything has been improperly added to those books. By reason we are to
decide the real meaning of those books.
It therefore follows that if the books are unreasonable they are
uninspired. It seems to me that this position is absolutely correct.
There is no other that can be defended. The Presbyterians who pretend to
answer Professor Briggs seem to be actuated by hatred.
Dr. Da Costa answers with vituperation and epithet. He answers no
argument; brings forward no fact; points out no mistake. He simply
attacks the man. He exhibits the ordinary malice of those who love their
enemies.
President Patton, of Princeton, is a despiser of reason; a hater of
thought. Progress is the only thing that he fears. He knows that
the Bible is absolutely true. He knows that every word is inspired.
According to him, all questions have been settled, and criticism said
its last word when the King James Bible was printed. The Presbyterian
Church is infallible, and whoever doubts or denies will be damned.
Morality is worthless without the creed. This, is the religion, the
philosophy, of Dr. Patton. He fights with the ancient weapons, with
stone and club. He is a private in Captain Calvin's company, and he
marches to defeat with the courage of invincible ignorance.
I do not blame the Presbyterian Church for closing the mouth of
Professor Briggs. That church believes the Bible--all of it--and the
members did not feel like paying a man for showing that it was not all
inspired. Long ago the Presbyterians stopped growing. They have been
petrified for many years. Professor Briggs had been growing. He had
to leave the church or shrink. He left. Then he joined the Episcopal
Church. He probably supposed that that church preferred the living to
the dead. He knew about Colenso, Stanley, Temple, Heber Newton, Dr.
Rainsford and Farrar, and thought that the finger and thumb of authority
would not insist on plucking from the mind the buds of thought.
Whether he was mistaken or not remains to be seen.
The Episcopal Church may refuse to ordain him, and by such refusal put
the bigot brand upon its brow.
The refusal cannot injure Professor Briggs. It will leave him where
it found him--with too much science for a churchman and too much
superstition for a scientist; with his feet in the gutter and his head
in the clouds.
I admire every man who is true to himself, to his highest ideal, and who
preserves unstained the veracity of his soul.
I believe in growth. I prefer the living to the dead. Men are superior
to mummies. Cradles are more beautiful than coffins. Development is
grander than decay. I do not agree with Professor Briggs. I do not
believe in inspired books, or in the Holy Ghost, or that any God has
ever appeared to man. I deny the existence of the supernatural. I know
of no religion that is founded on facts.
But I cheerfully admit that Professor Briggs appears to be candid, good
tempered and conscientious--the opposite of those who attack him. He is
not a Freethinker, but he honestly thinks that he is free.