The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1921. THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE

New Zealand Tablet, 10 November 1921, Page 25

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1921. THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE

N' the confusion of modem thought, after \sj, [j w the errors which concern the eternal truths of man's destiny and end, perhaps none are so fraught with universally evil results as the modern errors which have made of the State an idol instead of a slave of mankind. Hence, at the risk of repeating ourselves, we believe it is useful once again to set before our readers clearly certain fundamental notions about the State, as regards its origin and as regards man's relations to it. # History shows us the family as the origin of the State and traces how the latter developed from some sort of rudimentary and embryonic authority exercised in families, or in groups of families, or in tribes. Man is a social animal and to live gregariously is a law to mankind. Aristotle rightly said that the man who lived outside of some sort of society— extra social man—is not man at all: Units homo, null us homo. Whatever fantastic theories philosophers like Rousseau might excogitate the fact remains that man is and was found only in society in his normal condition. In this fact lies the true rationale of the origin of the State, not in theories about social contracts or about divine right. In the latter there is a compact of truth but not the whole truth. It is true that there is a compact inasmuch as there is no government without the consent of the governed; it is true also that there is divine right to this extent, that civil society is natural to nran; and what is natural has its origin in the Creator. But radically the origin of the State is the fact that men naturally form themselves into a society, and that there are fundamental laws of right and wrong which must be maintained by authority in every society however small. The State thus springs from an original necessity; and as man differs from other animals in that through will and intellect he is, as Aristotle says, an ethical animal having perception of right and wrong, justice and injustice, and the like," so the State differs from animal societies inasmuch as it is formed and fashioned on reason and justice. From man's very nature arises the need for organisation and authority. Lasson says: "The external ground for the existence of the State is the nature of man. There are no men without continuity of social life. There is no

continuity of social life without order. There is no order without law. There is no law without coercive force. There is no coercive force without organisation. And this organisation is the* State. The inner ground for the existence of the State is man's endowment of reason, which is the most distinctive part of his manhood." The fact that not only natural inclination but also material and spiritual necessity* or at least utility, draw men into society, postulates that there be some authority for the preservation of good order and for the protection of individual members and of the society as a whole. Men endowed with reason and will could not long exist together without an authority being exercised as well for the common good as for the good of individuals. Moreover, society must have a common end, and a directive power is necessary if any progress towards that end is to be made by the society and its members. This authority has therefore its origin remotely in the moral order and proximately in reason and will by which men are responsible under that order. History proves that authority is necessary, for even in barbarous communities there has always been "a government of some kind, however rudimentary and embryonic. •xTherefore, we hold that the State has its origin in the natural social needs and inclinations of mankind, and that just as the State is natural so the authority, without which the State cannot exist, is founded in a natural law and in reason and free will. From this doctrine it follows that it is erroneous to hold that there was ever a natural anti-social or extra-social condition in the history. of mankind;.and also that men existing in an extra-social condition formed a State by free consent or compact. It also -follows that as the State is a natural necessity and not a creation' of free human intellects, the State must have its own natural and essential character, in fixed relation to its natural end. The State is a consequence of human nature; therefore it has stable relations to mankind: in other • words, it is natural, and being natural its limits and its functions are conditioned by its natural aim and end. The State is for man, and not man for the State: the State is a servant and a helper of humanity, and not an idol or a Juggernaut before which man must fall down in slavery. And it is precisely from this truth most modern States have wandered away in recent years, bringing untold confusion and misery on the victims of State tyranny. And it is precisely to this truth we must go back if we would again have, governments for the people and by the people instead of for placemen and by placemen.

A Mistake in Modernism The Rev. Father A. L. Cortie, S.J., F.R.A.S., Director of Stonyhurst College Observatory, preaching in the Sacred Heart Church, Edinburgh, recently, said that the true believer had nothing to fear from science, and cordially welcomed every advance in natural knowledge. For historical, archaeological, anthropological, and ethnological science all conspired to show the authenticity and the veracity of the. Gospel of Christ, which set forth His claims to be. divine. If science cannot give faith," v it at least prepared the way for faith. In the whole range of natural science, physical and biological, there was no single known process of nature, no law of nature, which ran counter to revealed religion. It was by confounding

The Natural and the Supernatural, the laws deduced by observation and experiment and ‘ the truths of faith and revelation, that the so-called modern Churchmen had been led to the denial of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, and even the central doctrine, the Divinity of Christ. Let the Modernist confuse the natural and supernatural and he was logical in denying the Divinity of Christ.

“But,” said Father Cortie, “for the Christian who is a student of nature, his attitude is sufficiently explained by the words of one of the greatest of Catholic scientists, Pasteur. ‘ The deeper I go,’ he writes, ‘ into the mysteries of Nature, the more simple becomes my faith. Already it is as the faith of the Breton peasant, and I have every reason to believe that if I am able to penetrate yet deeper it will become as the faith of the Breton peasant’s wife.’ ” ' .