FIRST INTERVIEW.

_Polonius. My lord, I will use them according to

their desert.

Hamlet. God's bodikins, man, much better: use

every man after his desert, and who should 'scape

whipping? Use them after your own honor and

dignity: the less they deserve, the more merit is

in your bounty._

_Question_. Have you read the sermon of

Mr. Talmage, in which he exposes your mis-

representations?

_Answer_. I have read such reports as appeared in

some of the New York papers.

_Question_. What do you think of what he has

to say?

_Answer_. Some time ago I gave it as my opinion

of Mr. Talmage that, while he was a man of most

excellent judgment, he was somewhat deficient in

imagination. I find that he has the disease that seems

16

to afflict most theologians, and that is, a kind of intel-

lectual toadyism, that uses the names of supposed great

men instead of arguments. It is perfectly astonishing

to the average preacher that any one should have the

temerity to differ, on the subject of theology, with

Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, and other gentlemen

eminent for piety during their lives, but who,

as a rule, expressed their theological opinions a few

minutes before dissolution. These ministers are per-

fectly delighted to have some great politician, some

judge, soldier, or president, certify to the truth of the

Bible and to the moral character of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Talmage insists that if a witness is false in one

particular, his entire testimony must be thrown away.

Daniel Webster was in favor of the Fugitive Slave

Law, and thought it the duty of the North to capture

the poor slave-mother. He was willing to stand

between a human being and his freedom. He was

willing to assist in compelling persons to work without

any pay except such marks of the lash as they might

receive. Yet this man is brought forward as a witness

for the truth of the gospel. If he was false in his

testimony as to liberty, what is his affidavit worth as

to the value of Christianity? Andrew Jackson was a

brave man, a good general, a patriot second to none,

17

an excellent judge of horses, and a brave duelist. I

admit that in his old age he relied considerably upon

the atonement. I think Jackson was really a very great

man, and probably no President impressed himself

more deeply upon the American people than the hero

of New Orleans, but as a theologian he was, in my

judgment, a most decided failure, and his opinion as

to the authenticity of the Scriptures is of no earthly

value. It was a subject upon which he knew probably

as little as Mr. Talmage does about modern infidelity.

Thousands of people will quote Jackson in favor of

religion, about which he knew nothing, and yet have

no confidence in his political opinions, although he

devoted the best part of his life to politics.

No man should quote the words of another, in place

of an argument, unless he is willing to accept all the

opinions of that man. Lord Bacon denied the Copernican

system of astronomy, and, according to Mr.

Talmage, having made that mistake, his opinions upon

other subjects are equally worthless. Mr. Wesley

believed in ghosts, witches, and personal devils, yet

upon many subjects I have no doubt his opinions were

correct. The truth is, that nearly everybody is right

about some things and wrong about most things; and

if a man's testimony is not to be taken until he is

18

right on every subject, witnesses will be extremely

scarce.

Personally, I care nothing about names. It makes

no difference to me what the supposed great men of

the past have said, except as what they have said

contains an argument; and that argument is worth to

me the force it naturally has upon my mind. Chris-

tians forget that in the realm of reason there are no

serfs and no monarchs. When you submit to an

argument, you do not submit to the man who made it.

Christianity demands a certain obedience, a certain

blind, unreasoning faith, and parades before the eyes

of the ignorant, with great pomp and pride, the names

of kings, soldiers, and statesmen who have admitted

the truth of the Bible. Mr. Talmage introduces as a

witness the Rev. Theodore Parker. This same The-

odore Parker denounced the Presbyterian creed as

the most infamous of all creeds, and said that the worst

heathen god, wearing a necklace of live snakes, was a

representation of mercy when compared with the God

of John Calvin. Now, if this witness is false in any

particular, of course he cannot be believed, according

to Mr. Talmage, upon any subject, and yet Mr.

Talmage introduces him upon the stand as a good

witness.

19

Although I care but little for names, still I will sug-

gest that, in all probability, Humboldt knew more upon

this subject than all the pastors in the world. I cer-

tainly would have as much confidence in the opinion

of Goethe as in that of William H. Seward; and as

between Seward and Lincoln, I should take Lincoln;

and when you come to Presidents, for my part, if I

were compelled to pin my faith on the sleeve of any-

body, I should take Jefferson's coat in preference to

Jackson's. I believe that Haeckel is, to say the least,

the equal of any theologian we have in this country,

and the late John W. Draper certainly knew as much

upon these great questions as the average parson. I

believe that Darwin has investigated some of these

things, that Tyndall and Huxley have turned their

minds somewhat in the same direction, that Helmholtz

has a few opinions, and that, in fact, thousands of able,

intelligent and honest men differ almost entirely with

Webster and Jackson.

So far as I am concerned, I think more of reasons

than of reputations, more of principles than of persons,

more of nature than of names, more of facts, than of

faiths.

It is the same with books as with persons. Proba-

bly there is not a book in the world entirely destitute

20

of truth, and not one entirely exempt from error.

The Bible is like other books. There are mistakes in

it, side by side with truths,--passages inculcating

murder, and others exalting mercy; laws devilish and

tyrannical, and others filled with wisdom and justice.

It is foolish to say that if you accept a part, you must

accept the whole. You must accept that which com-

mends itself to your heart and brain. There never was

a doctrine that a witness, or a book, should be thrown

entirely away, because false in one particular. If in

any particular the book, or the man, tells the truth, to

that extent the truth should be accepted.

Truth is made no worse by the one who tells it,

and a lie gets no real benefit from the reputation of its

author.

_Question_. What do you think of the statement

that a general belief in your teachings would fill all

the penitentiaries, and that in twenty years there

would be a hell in this world worse than the one

expected in the other?

_Answer_. My creed is this:

The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 05 (of 12) Dresden Edition—Discussions · 第 18 / 68 题