wardly compliant, but in such a case the feeling of inconsistency enters into the minds of men. The community clings to a definite religion, and cleaves at the same time to principles which are in opposition to it; in so far as people carry these out, while at the same time they wish to continue to belong to that definite religion, they are guilty of great inconsistency. Thus for example, the French who hold fast to the principle of worldly freedom, have as a matter of fact ceased to belong to the Catholic religion, for that religion can relinquish nothing, but consistently demands unconditional submission to the Church in everything. In this way religion and the State come to be in contradiction to each other, and religion is in this case left to get along how it can. It passes for being something which is merely the affair of individuals, about which the State has no occasion to concern itself; and then it is further asserted that religion is not to be mixed up with the constitution of the State. The laying down of those principles of freedom goes on the assumption that they are true because they are in essential connection with the inmost consciousness of man. If, however, it be really reason which finds these principles, the verification it gives of them, so far as they are true and do not remain formal, consists in this only, that it traces them up to the rational knowledge of absolute truth, and this is just the object of philosophy. This tracing up, however, must be accomplished in a complete manner, and carried to the ultimate point of analysis; for if rational knowledge does not attain completeness in itself, it runs the risk of becoming the one-sidedness of formalism; but if it penetrate to the ultimate ground, it reaches that which is recognised as the Highest—as God. It may perhaps be affirmed with regard to this, that the constitution of the State ought to remain on the one side, and religion on the other. But here there is a danger that such principles may remain infected with one-sidedness.
