dogmatic truths; that would completely destroy the Magian concept of the Consensus. And the same applied in this Culture generally--not only to dogma, but also to law[424] and to the State. The Islamic community, like that of Porphyry and that of Augustine, embraces the _whole_ of the world-cavern, the here and the beyond, the orthodox and the good angels and spirits, and within this community the State only formed a _smaller unit of the visible side_, a unit, therefore, of which the operations were governed by the major whole. In the Magian world, consequently, the separation of politics and religion is theoretically impossible and nonsensical, whereas in the Faustian Culture the battle of Church and State is inherent in the very conceptions--logical, necessary, unending. In the Magian, civil and ecclesiastical law are simply identical. Side by side with the Emperor of Constantinople stood the Patriarch, by the Shah was the Zarathustratema, by the Exilarch the Gaon, by the Caliph the Sheikh-ul-Islam, at once superiors and subjects. There is not in this the slightest affinity to the Gothic relation of Emperor and Pope; equally, all such ideas were alien to the Classical world. In the constitution of Diocletian this Magian embedding of the State in the community of the faithful was for the first time actualized, and by Constantine it was carried into full effect. It has been shown already that State, Church, and Nation formed a spiritual unit--namely, that part of the orthodox consensus which manifested itself in the living man. And hence for the Emperor, as ruler of the Faithful--that is, of that portion of the Magian community which God had entrusted to him--it was a self-evident duty to conduct the Councils so as to bring about the consensus of the elect. IV