from necessity as belonging to the class of contingent things, for in that case it would be the necessity itself, in which those very finite ends are merely contingent; nor is it foreordination in general, and the directing of finite things in accordance with an end; but, rather, it is happiness with a definite content, with certain definite elements.
But a definite content, again, does not mean any kind of random content in general. On the contrary, although it is finite and actually present, it must be universal in its nature, and its existence must be justified on higher grounds—justified in and for itself. And this end accordingly is the State.
The State, however, as representing this end is, to begin with, only the abstract State—the union of men held together by some bond, but in such a way that this union is not yet in itself in the form of a rational organisation, and it does not yet take this form because God is not yet a rational organisation in Himself. Such conformity to an end as there is, is external; if it were conceived of as existing inwardly, it would represent the peculiar nature of God. Just because God is not yet this concrete Idea, because He does not yet represent in Himself the true fulness of Himself reached through Himself, this end, namely, the State, is not yet a rational totality in itself, and does not therefore deserve the name State, but is merely a kind of dominion or sovereignty, the union of individuals, of peoples, held together by some bond under one Power. Since, too, we have here the distinction between end and realisation, this end exists at first only in a subjective form, and not as end which has been carried out, and the realisation of it is represented by the acquiring of sovereignty, the realisation of an end which is of an à priori character, which, in the first instance, lays hold of the peoples and carries itself out.
As this quality of external utility or action in accordance with an end is different from the moral substan-
