“The ‘humane studies’ of which you speak will only satisfy human thought when, as they advance, they meet the exact sciences and progress side by side with them.  Whether they will meet under a new microscope, or in the monologues of a new Hamlet, or in a new religion, I do not know, but I expect the earth will be covered with a crust of ice before it comes to pass.  Of all humane learning the most durable and living is, of course, the teaching of Christ; but look how differently even that is interpreted!  Some teach that we must love all our neighbours but make an exception of soldiers, criminals, and lunatics.  They allow the first to be killed in war, the second to be isolated or executed, and the third they forbid to marry.  Other interpreters teach that we must love all our neighbours without exception, with no distinction of plus or minus.  According to their teaching, if a consumptive or a murderer or an epileptic asks your daughter in marriage, you must let him have her.  If cretins go to war against the physically and mentally healthy, don’t defend yourselves.  This advocacy of love for love’s sake, like art for art’s sake, if it could have power, would bring mankind in the long run to complete extinction, and so would become the vastest crime that has ever been committed upon earth.  There are very many interpretations, and since there are many of them, serious thought is not satisfied by any one of them, and hastens to add its own individual interpretation to the mass.  For that reason you should never put a question on a philosophical or so-called Christian basis; by so doing you only remove the question further from solution.”

The deacon listened to the zoologist attentively, thought a little, and asked: 

“Have the philosophers invented the moral law which is innate in every man, or did God create it together with the body?”

“I don’t know.  But that law is so universal among all peoples and all ages that I fancy we ought to recognise it as organically connected with man.  It is not invented, but exists and will exist.  I don’t tell you that one day it will be seen under the microscope, but its organic connection is shown, indeed, by evidence:  serious affections of the brain and all so-called mental diseases, to the best of my belief, show themselves first of all in the perversion of the moral law.”

“Good.  So then, just as our stomach bids us eat, our moral sense bids us love our neighbours.  Is that it?  But our natural man through self-love opposes the voice of conscience and reason, and this gives rise to many brain-racking questions.  To whom ought we to turn for the solution of those questions if you forbid us to put them on the philosophic basis?”