{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-12:professor-briggs",
  "slug": "professor-briggs",
  "title": "Professor Briggs",
  "subtitle": "On the Presbyterian heresy trial of Charles A. Briggs.",
  "excerpt": "On the Presbyterian heresy trial of Professor Charles A. Briggs of Union Theological Seminary — the most famous doctrinal dispute in American Protestantism of the 1890s.",
  "year": 1893,
  "volume": 12,
  "category": "Essay",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/professor-briggs/",
  "wordCount": 3930,
  "body": "To the study of the Bible he has given the best years of his life. When\nhe commenced this study he was probably a devout believer in the plenary\ninspiration of the Scripture—thought that the Bible was without an\nerror; that all the so-called contradictions could be easily explained.\nHe had been educated by Presbyterians and had confidence in his\nteachers.\n\nIn spite of his early training, in spite of his prejudices, he was led,\nin some mysterious way, to rely a little on his own reason. This was\na dangerous thing to do. The moment a man talks about reason he is on\ndangerous ground. He is liable to contradict the \"Word of God.\" Then he\nloses spirituality and begins to think more of truth than creed. This is\na step toward heresy—toward Infidelity.\n\nProfessor Briggs began to have doubts about some of the miracles.\nThese doubts, like rats, began to gnaw the foundations of his faith. He\nexamined these wonderful stories in the light of what is known to have\nhappened, and in the light of like miracles found in the other sacred\nbooks of the world. And he concluded that they were not quite true. He\nwas not ready to say that they were actually false; that would be too\nbrutally candid.\n\nI once read of an English lord who had a very polite gamekeeper. The\nlord wishing to show his skill with the rifle fired at a target. He and\nthe gamekeeper went to see where the bullet had struck. The gamekeeper\nwas first at the target, and the lord cried out: \"Did I miss it?\"\n\n\"I would not,\" said the gamekeeper, \"go so far as to say that your\nlordship missed it, but—but—you didn't hit it.\"\n\nProfessor Briggs saw clearly that the Bible was the product, the growth\nof many centuries; that legends and facts, mistakes, contradictions,\nmiracles, myths and history, interpolations, prophecies and dreams,\nwisdom, foolishness, justice, cruelty, poetry and bathos were mixed,\nmingled and interwoven. In other words, that the gold of truth was\nsurrounded by meaner metals and worthless stones.\n\nHe saw that it was necessary to construct what might be called a sacred\nsmelter to divide the true from the false.\n\nUndoubtedly he reached this conclusion in the interest of what he\nbelieved to be the truth. He had the mistaken but honest idea that a\nChristian should really think. Of course, we know that all heresy\nhas been the result of thought. It has always been dangerous to grow.\nShrinking is safe.\n\nStudying the Bible was the first mistake that Professor Briggs made,\nreasoning was the second, and publishing his conclusions was the third.\nIf he had read without studying, if he had believed without reasoning,\nhe would have remained a good, orthodox Presbyterian. He probably read\nthe works of Humboldt, Darwin and Haeckel, and found that the author\nof Genesis was not a geologist, not a scientist. He seems to have his\ndoubts about the truth of the story of the deluge. Should he be blamed\nfor this? Is there a sensible man in the wide world who really believes\nin the flood?\n\nThis flood business puts Jehovah in such an idiotic light.\n\nOf course, he must have known, after the \"fall\" of Adam and Eve, that he\nwould have to drown their descendants. Certainly it would have been\nmore merciful to have killed Adam and Eve, made a new pair and kept the\nserpent out of the Garden of Eden. If Jehovah had been an intelligent\nGod he never would have created the serpent. Then there would have been\nno fall, no flood, no atonement, no hell.\n\nThink of a God who drowned a world! What a merciless monster! The\ncruelty of the flood is exceeded only by its stupidity.\n\nThousands of little theologians have tried to explain this miracle. This\nis the very top of absurdity. To explain a miracle is to destroy it.\nSome have said that the flood was local. How could water that rose over\nthe mountains remain local?\n\nWhy should we expect mercy from a God who drowned millions of men, women\nand babes? I would no more think of softening the heart of such a God\nby prayer than of protecting myself from a hungry tiger by repeating\npoetry.\n\nProfessor Briggs has sense enough to see that the story of the flood\nis but an ignorant legend. He is trying to rescue Jehovah from the\nfrightful slander. After all, why should we believe the unreasonable?\nMust we be foolish to be virtuous? The rain fell for forty days; this\ncaused the flood. The water was at least thirty thousand feet in depth.\nSeven hundred and fifty feet a day—more than thirty feet an hour, six\ninches a minute; the rain fell for forty days. Does any man with sense\nenough to eat and breathe believe this idiotic lie?\n\nProfessor Briggs knows that the Jews got the story of the flood from the\nBabylonians, and that it is no more inspired than the history of \"Peter\nWilkins and His Flying Wife.\" The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is\nanother legend.\n\nIf those cities were destroyed sensible people believe the phenomenon\nwas as natural as the destruction of Herculaneum and Pompeii. They do\nnot believe that in either case it was the result of the wickedness of\nthe people.\n\nNeither does any thinking man believe that the wife of Lot was changed\nor turned into a pillar of salt as a punishment for having looked back\nat her burning home. How could flesh, bones and blood be changed to\nsalt? This presupposes two miracles. First, the annihilation\nof the woman, and second, the creation of salt. A God cannot\nannihilate or create matter. Annihilation and creation are both\nimpossible—unthinkable. A grain of sand can defy all the gods. What was\nMrs. Lot turned to salt for? What good was achieved? What useful lesson\ntaught? What man with a head fertile enough to raise one hair can\nbelieve a story like this?\n\nDoes a man who denies the truth of this childish absurdity weaken the\nfoundation of virtue? Does he discourage truth-telling by denouncing\nlies? Should a man be true to himself? If reason is not the standard,\nwhat is? Can a man think one way and believe another? Of course he can\ntalk one way and think another. If a man should be honest with himself\nhe should be honest with others. A man who conceals his doubts lives a\ndishonest life. He defiles his own soul.\n\nWhen a truth-loving man reads about the plagues of Egypt, should he\nreason as he reads? Should he take into consideration the fact that like\nstories have been told and believed by savages for thousands of years?\nShould he ask himself whether Jehovah in his efforts to induce the\nEgyptian King to free the Hebrews acted like a sensible God? Should he\nask himself whether a good God would kill the babes of the people on\naccount of the sins of the king? Whether he would torture, mangle and\nkill innocent cattle to get even with a monarch?\n\nIs it better to believe without thinking than to think without\nbelieving? If there be a God can we please him by believing that he\nacted like a fiend?\n\nProbably Professor Briggs has a higher conception of God than the author\nof Exodus. The writer of that book was a barbarian—an honest barbarian,\nand he wrote what he supposed was the truth. I do not blame him for\nhaving written falsehoods. Neither do I blame Professor Briggs for\nhaving detected these falsehoods. In our day no man capable of reasoning\nbelieves the miracles wrought for the Hebrews in their flight through\nthe wilderness. The opening of the sea, the cloud and pillar, the\nquails, the manna, the serpents and hornets are no more believed than\nthe miracles of the Mormons when they crossed the plains.\n\nThe probability is that the Hebrews never were in Egypt. In the Hebrew\nlanguage there are no Egyptian words, and in the Egyptian no Hebrew.\nThis proves that the Hebrews could not have mingled with the Egyptians\nfor four hundred and thirty years. As a matter of fact, Moses is a myth.\nThe enslavement of the Hebrews, the flight, the journey through the\nwilderness existed only in the imagination of ignorance.\n\nSo Professor Briggs has his doubts about the sun and moon having been\nstopped for a day in order that Gen. Joshua might kill more heathen.\nTheologians have gathered around this miracle like moths around a flame.\nThey have done their best to make it reasonable. They have talked about\nrefraction and reflection, about the nature of the air having been\nchanged so that the sun was visible all night. They have even gone\nso far as to say that Joshua and his soldiers killed so many that\nafterward, when thinking about it, they concluded that it must have\ntaken them at least two days.\n\nThis miracle can be accounted for only in one way. Jehovah must have\nstopped the earth. The earth, turning over at about one thousand miles\nan hour—weighing trillions of tons—had to be stopped. Now we know that\nall arrested motion changes instantly to heat. It has been calculated\nthat to stop the earth would cause as much heat as could be produced by\nburning three lumps of coal, each lump as large as this world.\n\nNow, is it possible that a God in his right mind would waste all that\nforce? The Bible also tells us that at the same time God cast hailstones\nfrom heaven on the poor heathen. If the writer had known something of\nastronomy he would have had more hailstones and said nothing about the\nsun and moon.\n\nIs it wise for ministers to ask their congregations to believe this\nstory? Is it wise for congregations to ask their ministers to believe\nthis story? If Jehovah performed this miracle he must have been insane.\nThere should be some relation, some proportion, between means and ends.\nNo sane general would call into the field a million soldiers and a\nhundred batteries to kill one insect. And yet the disproportion of means\nto the end sought would be reasonable when compared with what Jehovah is\nclaimed to have done.\n\nIf Jehovah existed let us admit that he had some sense.\n\nIf it should be demonstrated that the book of Joshua is all false, what\nharm could follow? There would remain the same reasons for living a\nuseful and virtuous life; the same reasons against theft and murder.\nVirtue would lose no prop and vice would gain no crutch. Take all the\nmiracles from the Old Testament and the book would be improved. Throw\naway all its cruelties and absurdities and its influence would be far\nbetter.\n\nProfessor Briggs seems to have doubts about the inspiration of Ruth. Is\nthere any harm in that? What difference does it make whether the story\nof Ruth is fact or fiction; history or poetry? Its value is just the\nsame. Who cares whether Hamlet or Lear lived? Who cares whether\nImogen and Perdita were real women or the creation of Shakespeare's\nimagination?\n\nThe book of Esther is absurd and cruel. It has no ethical value. There\nis not a line, a word in it calculated to make a human being better. The\nking issued a decree to kill the Jews. Esther succeeded in getting this\ndecree set aside, and induced the king to issue another decree that\nthe Jews should kill the other folks, and so the Jews killed some\nseventy-five thousand of the king's subjects. Is it really important to\nbelieve that the book of Esther is inspired? Is it possible that Jehovah\nis proud of having written this book? Does he guard his copyright with\nthe fires of hell? Why should the facts be kept from the people? Every\nintelligent minister knows that Moses did not write the Pentateuch; that\nDavid did not write the Psalms, and that Solomon was not the author of\nthe song or the book of Ecclesiastes. Why not say so?\n\nNo intelligent minister believes the story of Daniel in the Lion's den,\nor of the three men who were cast into the furnace, or the story of\nJonah. These miracles seem to have done no good—seem to have convinced\nnobody and to have had no consequences. Daniel w'as miraculously saved\nfrom the lions, and then the king sent for the men who had accused\nDaniel, for their wives and their children, and threw them all into\nthe den of lions and they were devoured by beasts almost as cruel as\nJehovah. What a beautiful story! How can any man be wicked enough to\ndoubt its truth?\n\nGod told Jonah to go to Nineveh. Jonah ran away, took a boat for another\nplace. God raised a storm, the sailors became frightened, threw Jonah\noverboard, and the poor wretch was swallowed and carried ashore by a\nfish that God had prepared. Then he made his proclamation in Nineveh.\nThen the people repented and Jonah was disappointed. Then he became\nmalicious and found fault with God. Then comes the story of the gourd,\nthe worm and the east wind, and the effect of the sun on a bald-headed\nprophet. Would not this story be just as beautiful with the storm and\nfish left out? Could we not dispense with the gourd, the worm and the\neast wind?\n\nProfessor Briggs does not believe this story. He does not reject it\nbecause he is wicked or because he wishes to destroy religion, but\nbecause, in his judgment, it is not true. This may not be religious, but\nit is honest. It may not become a minister, but it certainly becomes a\nman.\n\nProfessor Briggs wishes to free the Old Testament from interpolations,\nfrom excrescences, from fungus growths, from mistakes and falsehoods.\n\nI am satisfied that he is sincere, actuated by the noblest motives.\n\nSuppose that all the interpolations in the Bible should be found and the\noriginal be perfectly restored, what evidence would we have that it was\nwritten by inspired men? How can the fact of inspiration be established?\nWhen was it established? Did Jehovah furnish anybody with a list of\nbooks he had inspired? Does anybody know that he ever said that he had\ninspired anybody? Did the writer of Genesis claim that he was inspired?\nDid any writer of any part of the Pentateuch make the claim? Did the\nauthors of Joshua, Judges, Kings or Chronicles pretend that they had\nobtained their facts from Jehovah? Does the author of Job or of the\nPsalms pretend to have received assistance from God?\n\nThere is not the slightest reference to God in Esther or in Solomon's\nSong. Why should theologians say that those books were inspired? The\ndogma of inspiration rests on no established fact. It rests only on\nassertion—the assertion of those who have no knowledge on the subject.\nProfessor Briggs calls the Bible a \"holy\" book. He seems to think that\nmuch of it was inspired; that it is in some sense a message from God.\nThe reasons he has for thinking so I cannot even guess. He seems also to\nhave his doubts about certain parts of the New Testament. He is not\ncertain that the angel who appeared to Joseph in a dream was entirely\ntruthful, or he is not certain that Joseph had the dream.\n\nIt seems clear that when the gospel according to Matthew was first\nwritten the writer believed that Christ was a lineal descendant of\nDavid, through his father, Joseph. The genealogy is given for the\npurpose of showing that the blood of David flowed in the veins of\nChrist. The man who wrote that genealogy had never heard that the Holy\nGhost was the father of Christ. That was an afterthought.\n\nHow is it possible to prove that the Holy Ghost was the father of\nChrist? The Holy Ghost said nothing on the subject. Mary wrote nothing\nand we have no evidence that Joseph had a dream.\n\nThe divinity of Christ rests upon a dream that somebody said Joseph had.\n\nAccording to the New Testament, Mary herself called Joseph the father\nof Christ. She told Christ that Joseph, his father, had been looking for\nhim. Her statement is better evidence than Joseph's dream—if he really\nhad it. If there are legends in Holy Scripture, as Professor Briggs\ndeclares, certainly the divine parentage of Christ is one of them. The\nstory lacks even originality. Among the Greeks many persons had gods for\nfathers. Among Hindoos and Egyptians these god-men were common. So in\nmany other countries the blood of gods was in the veins of men. Such\nwonders, told in Sanscrit, are just as reasonable as when told in\nHebrew—just as reasonable in India as in Palestine. Of course, there\nis no evidence that any human being had a god for a father, or a goddess\nfor a mother. Intelligent people have outgrown these myths. Centaurs,\nsatyrs, nymphs and god-men have faded away. Science murdered them all.\n\nThere are many contradictions in the gospels. They differ not only on\nquestions of fact, but as to Christianity itself. According to Matthew,\nMark and Luke, if you will forgive others God will forgive you. This\nis the one condition of salvation. But in John we find an entirely\ndifferent religion. According to John you must be born again and\nbelieve in Jesus Christ. There you find for the first time about\nthe atonement—that Christ died to save sinners. The gospel of John\ndiscloses a regular theological system—a new one. To forgive others is\nnot enough. You must have faith. You must be born again.\n\nThe four gospels cannot be harmonized. If John is true the others are\nfalse. If the others are true John is false. From this there is no\nescape. I do not for a moment suppose that Professor Briggs agrees with\nme on these questions. He probably regards me as a very bad and wicked\nman, and my opinions as blasphemies. I find no fault with him for that.\nI believe him to be an honest man; right in some things and wrong in\nmany. He seems to be true to his thought and I honor him for that.\n\nHe would like to get all the stumbling-blocks out of the Bible, so\nthat a really thoughtful man can \"believe.\" If theologians cling to\nthe miracles recorded in the New Testament the entire book will be\ndisparaged and denied. The \"Gospel ship\" is overloaded. Somethings must\nbe thrown overboard or the boat will go down. If the churches try to\nsave all they will lose all.\n\nThey must throw the miracles away. They must admit that Christ did not\ncast devils out of the bodies of men and women—that he did not cure\ndiseases with a word, or blindness with spittle and clay; that he had no\npower over winds and waves; that he did not raise the dead; that he was\nnot raised from the dead himself, and that he did not ascend bodily to\nheaven. These absurdities must be given up, or in a little while the\northodox ministers will be preaching the \"tidings of great joy\" to\nbenches, bonnets and bibs.\n\nProfessor Briggs, as I understand him, is willing to give up the\nabsurdest absurdities, but wishes to keep all the miracles that\ncan possibly be believed. He is anxious to preserve the important\nmiracles—the great central falsehoods—but the little lies that were\ntold just to embellish the story—to furnish vines for the columns—he\nis willing to cast aside.\n\nBut Professor Briggs was honest enough to say that we do not know the\nauthors of most of the books in the Bible; that we do not know who wrote\nthe Psalms or Job or Proverbs or the Song of Songs or Ecclesiastes or\nthe Epistle to the Hebrews. He also said that no translation can ever\ntake the place of the original Scriptures, because a translation is at\nbest the work of men. In other words, that God has not revealed to us\nthe names of the inspired books. That this must be determined by us.\nProfessor Briggs puts reason above revelation. By reason we are to\ndecide what books are inspired. By reason we are to decide whether\nanything has been improperly added to those books. By reason we are to\ndecide the real meaning of those books.\n\nIt therefore follows that if the books are unreasonable they are\nuninspired. It seems to me that this position is absolutely correct.\nThere is no other that can be defended. The Presbyterians who pretend to\nanswer Professor Briggs seem to be actuated by hatred.\n\nDr. Da Costa answers with vituperation and epithet. He answers no\nargument; brings forward no fact; points out no mistake. He simply\nattacks the man. He exhibits the ordinary malice of those who love their\nenemies.\n\nPresident Patton, of Princeton, is a despiser of reason; a hater of\nthought. Progress is the only thing that he fears. He knows that\nthe Bible is absolutely true. He knows that every word is inspired.\nAccording to him, all questions have been settled, and criticism said\nits last word when the King James Bible was printed. The Presbyterian\nChurch is infallible, and whoever doubts or denies will be damned.\nMorality is worthless without the creed. This, is the religion, the\nphilosophy, of Dr. Patton. He fights with the ancient weapons, with\nstone and club. He is a private in Captain Calvin's company, and he\nmarches to defeat with the courage of invincible ignorance.\n\nI do not blame the Presbyterian Church for closing the mouth of\nProfessor Briggs. That church believes the Bible—all of it—and the\nmembers did not feel like paying a man for showing that it was not all\ninspired. Long ago the Presbyterians stopped growing. They have been\npetrified for many years. Professor Briggs had been growing. He had\nto leave the church or shrink. He left. Then he joined the Episcopal\nChurch. He probably supposed that that church preferred the living to\nthe dead. He knew about Colenso, Stanley, Temple, Heber Newton, Dr.\nRainsford and Farrar, and thought that the finger and thumb of authority\nwould not insist on plucking from the mind the buds of thought.\n\nWhether he was mistaken or not remains to be seen.\n\nThe Episcopal Church may refuse to ordain him, and by such refusal put\nthe bigot brand upon its brow.\n\nThe refusal cannot injure Professor Briggs. It will leave him where\nit found him—with too much science for a churchman and too much\nsuperstition for a scientist; with his feet in the gutter and his head\nin the clouds.\n\nI admire every man who is true to himself, to his highest ideal, and who\npreserves unstained the veracity of his soul.\n\nI believe in growth. I prefer the living to the dead. Men are superior\nto mummies. Cradles are more beautiful than coffins. Development is\ngrander than decay. I do not agree with Professor Briggs. I do not\nbelieve in inspired books, or in the Holy Ghost, or that any God has\never appeared to man. I deny the existence of the supernatural. I know\nof no religion that is founded on facts.\n\nBut I cheerfully admit that Professor Briggs appears to be candid, good\ntempered and conscientious—the opposite of those who attack him. He is\nnot a Freethinker, but he honestly thinks that he is free.\n"
}