The two sides—the subjective conviction and that formal constitution—are inseparable, and neither can do without the other; but in recent times a one-sided view has made its appearance, according to which the constitution is to be self-sustaining, and subjective disposition or private conviction, religion, conscience, are to be set aside as matters of indifference, it being no concern of the government what may be the sentiments or private convictions of individuals, or what form of religion they profess. How one-sided this is, however, is clearly seen when we consider that the administration of the laws is in the hands of judges, and hence everything depends upon their uprightness, as also upon their insight, for the law does not rule, but men have to make it rule. This carrying of the law into effect is something concrete; the will of men, and their power of insight, too, must contribute their share. The intelligence of the individual must therefore often decide, because although civil laws are very comprehensive, yet they cannot touch each special case. But subjective conviction by itself is onesided, too, and the Republic of Plato suffers from the defect which this implies. At the present day men will not rely at all upon intelligence, but insist on everything being deduced in accordance with positive laws. A striking example of this one-sidedness has been given us in connection with the most recent contemporary history. We have seen a religious sentiment or conviction taking its place at the head of the French Government, a conviction for which the State generally was something illegitimate and devoid of rights, while it itself took up an antagonistic attitude to all that was actually established, to justice, and morality. The last revolution was thus the result of the dictates of a religious conscience, which contradicted the principles of the constitution, and yet, according to that same constitution, it is not of any importance what religion individuals may profess. The two elements which occa-
