records. Here we have the normal development of civilization: religious
faith enlightens the general conscience, and reveals to it the true
conditions of social progress. In this order of things, it is not a
question of _beliefs_, but of _acts_ imposed in the name of the
interests of society. The state may take account of the religious
beliefs of its subjects, and enter into such relations as may seem to it
convenient with the ecclesiastical authorities: this is the basis of the
system of concordats, a system which has nothing in it contrary to first
principles, so long as liberty is maintained. But the establishment of
_national_ religions, decreed by the temporal power and varying in
different states, manifestly supposes a foundation of scepticism. For
the idea of truth, one and universal in itself, is substituted the idea
of decisions obligatory for those only who are under the jurisdiction of
a definite political body. If the State, without pretending to decree
dogma, receives it from the hands of the Church, and imposes it upon its
subjects, it seems at first that the temporal power has placed itself at
the service of the Church, but that the idea of truth is preserved. But
when the question is studied more closely, it is seen that this is not
the case, and that the state usurps in fact, in this combination, the
attributes of the spiritual power. In fact, before protecting _the true
religion_, it is necessary to ascertain which it is; and in order to
ascertain the true religion, the political power must constitute itself
judge of religious truth. So we come back, by a _détour_, to the
conception of national religions. The Emperor of Russia and the Emperor
of Austria will inquire respectively which is the only true religion, to
the exclusive maintenance of which they are to consecrate their temporal
power. To the same question they will give two different replies; and
each nation will have its own form of worship, just as each nation has
its own ruler.