It has been, and still is, the essential prerequisite of civilization. It is, in fact, the chief agent of human progress. To the rapacity of the individual and of groups of individuals it opposes its prohibitions. To the artificer, it says: “Work on in peace, improve your workmanship.” To the artist: “Seek and find beauty in form and color, and give it perfect expression.” To the poet:

: “Sing of all that is great and heroic in life.” To the thinker: “Apply your faculties to the great problems of existence, and elevate the multitude by the nobility of your thought.” But to all of these it has usually said: “Exercise all

powers, vigorously, constantly, and fruitfully; but, see to it, that you think and say nothing ill of

your native

me!”

THE APPROPRIATION OF RELIGION BY THE

STATE

In one great branch of human culture, religion, the State has frequently, and in fact usually, claimed a large right of superintendence, at the same time asserting the necessity of maintaining its own supremacy. Religious faith, on the other hand, rising above the merely personal interests of the individual, and laying hold of what is most deep, most constant, and most mysterious in human existence, has always challenged mere human power, however strong and however well organized. Death, the extreme penalty which the State can inflict

the disobedient, to the religious devotee is merely the door of entrance into another form of existence, where faith, courage, and sacrifice are to receive their reward. Here, then, the State has sometimes found an irreconcilable adversary—a foe to its pretensions and a rival to its authority. The empire of souls has, therefore, always been of interest to the State, and, in proportion as that has become formidable, it has been thought necessary either to suppress or to appropriate it.

What the State has gained, or seemed to gain, by alliance with religion, religion has usually lost through the predominance of the State. This, in spite of the inherent potency of religious feeling, has been inevitable; for the State could never tolerate any power superior to its own, and its aims and interests have never been quite coincident with those of religion. In truth, religion, except when completely conquered and reduced to a position of abject servitude to the State, has often been so bold as to repudiate State control, claiming as its own domain, under the sway of a Higher Power,

, the whole realm of the inner life of thought and feeling, and resigning to its rival only the outer relations of men as alone subject to its jurisdiction.

The conflict between these two claims to obedience has been as prolonged, as general, and as tragic as the contests between rival States. Neither has in the end greatly

a

profited by their union, which has nearly always proved to be a merely transient compromise. The theocratic State has shown itself to be the rudest, narrowest, and most oppressive form of power; for, from the moment the State has attempted to take possession of the inner life, and to impose its arbitrary decrees upon all that is personal in belief, sentiment, loyalty, and devotion, it has begotten hypocrisy, formalism, and moral cowardice; thus ultimately choking the well-springs of sincere religious faith by destroying the freedom of the spirit in its search for truth. In the end, however, wherever the union between Church and State has been unlimited, it has been the State that has ultimately triumphed. And the reason for it is evident. Religion is not, and cannot be, identified with outward forms and organization. The further the alliance is pressed, the more mere forms and organization triumph; religion, which is essentially an expanding life drawing its sustenance from the unseen, is cramped and atrophied. The State aims at mechanism, which lightens its task of control; but religion perishes when it is brought under the bondage of merely mechanical devices.

THE STATE AND GOVERNMENT

The State, as power, must, no doubt, always act in its own defense, must protect its own existence. This is, indeed, necessary to the well-being of society; for the State means order, security, the enjoyment by the individual of a part at least of the fruits of his own labors. The destruction of the State results in anarchy, which means the ruin of society.

The State is not a mere abstraction; it is everywhere a concrete and tangible form of existence. Its forms may vary, but form it must always have. Its organs are mul