Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/230

 2 20 S. £. Baldwin ured from earth ; too far from man, near though it be at every step, to be so much as seen in all its outline by his philosophy. The relation of history to religion has been greatly changed during the last two centuries. What we call modern history, and distant times may deem to be that of the Middle Ages, had its real beginning when modern government arose, and that was when the peoples of France and the United States, as they gathered in the fruits of their revolutions, pronounced that absolute religious liberty was one. Civil liberty and popular government were no new things in the world. A state without a church was. Guizot has said that Democracy was introduced into Europe by a foreign missionary named Paul. If this be so, it was a democracy whose motive and sphere were religious. Political democracy dissevered from re- ligion was to come seventeen centuries later. It was to take from religion its legal authority, but only to strengthen its moral power. Until the " ideas of 1789 " took formal shape, history had been the record of what the few did with the help of the many. It has since been the record of what the many do, with the help of the few. It may well be that at some time the leaders — the few who are in authority in any nation — may be care- less of religion. The many — or at the least, the whole people — never will be. If a majority should be indifferentists or irreligious, the minority will be all the more devoted to the cause to which they attribute a sacred character. Religion offers in statecraft a means of resting policy upon prin- ciple. It is, as Talleyrand has said, only when rested upon prin- ciple that a policy can endure.^ The principles sanctioned by the religion of the time are incontestable. Later times may discard them. But to each generation of any people the principles instilled by ministers of religion under the sanction of the church will permeate society and become a part of its being — of what in the truest sense is its political constitution. I use religion to signify something real, and not less real be- cause to one set of men it is one thing, to another set another thing. It does not seem to me that Renan was right when he said that " Les religions, comme les philosophies, sont toutes vaines ; mais la religion, pas plus que la philosophic, n'est vaine." - No re- ligion is wholly vain. Each is true to its disciples, and in its truth to them inspires their lives. History has to do with all religions, because it has to do with all men. ^Memoirs. Putnam's edition, II. 124. ^Histoirc du Peiiple d'Israc!. I. xxviii.