a solid pedestal. Here are the theses which are proposed to us: "It is
impossible for our feelings to supply any light for science. Truth may
be gloomy, and despair may gain its cause. Virtue may be wrong, and
immorality may be the true. Reason alone judges of that which is." I
answer: Human nature has always eagerly followed after happiness. Human
nature has always acknowledged, even while violating it, a rule of duty.
The heart is not an accident, the conscience is not a prejudice: they
are, and by the same right as the reason, constituent elements of our
spiritual existence. If there exist an irreconcilable antagonism between
science and life; if the heart, in its fundamental and universal
aspirations, is the victim of an illusion, if the conscience in its
clearest admonitions is only a teacher of error, what is our position?
In what I am now saying, Gentlemen, I am not appealing to your feelings;
the business is to follow, with calm attention, a piece of exact
reasoning. If the heart deceives us, if the voice of duty leads us
astray, the disorder is at the very core of our being; our nature is ill
constructed. If our nature is ill constructed, what warrants to us our
reason? Nothing. What assures us that our axioms are good, and that our
reasonings have any value? Nothing. The life of the soul cannot be
arbitrarily cloven in twain; it must be held for good in all its
constituent elements, or enveloped wholly and entirely in the shades of
doubt. If the heart and conscience deceive us, then reason may lead us
astray, and the very idea of truth disappears. God is the light of the
spiritual world. We prove His existence by showing that without Him all
returns to darkness. This demonstration is as good as another.

FOOTNOTES:

[26] Christian States have given the force of law to institutions, such,
for instance, as monogamy, which date their origin from the Gospel