That both good and bad angels have only one nature

Having in the foregoing book seen how the two cities began among the angels, we must now speak of the creation of man, and show how the cities took their rise so far as regards the race of rational mortals. Before we do this, however, I see that I must first make certain remarks concerning the angels, by way of demonstrating, as far as I can, that it is not improper or inconsistent to speak of a society consisting of both men and angels. For we may properly speak not of four cities or societies – that is, two of angels and two more of men – but rather of two in all, one composed of the good angels and men together, and the other of the wicked.

It is not permissible for us to doubt that the contrasting appetites of the good and bad angels have arisen not from a difference in their nature and origin – for God, the good Author and Creator of all substances, created them both – but from a difference in their wills and desires. For some remained constant in cleaving to that which was the common good of them all: that is, to God Himself, and His eternity, truth and love. Others, however, delighting in their own power, and supposing that they could be their own good, fell from that higher and blessed good which was common to them all and embraced a private good of their own.

Of the next part of this work, in which we begin to demonstrate the origin and end of the two cities, that is, the heavenly and the earthly

The City of God of which we speak is that to which the Scriptures bear witness: the Scriptures which, excelling all the writings of all the nations in their divine authority, have brought under their sway every kind of human genius, not by a chance motion of the soul, but clearly by the supreme disposition of providence. For it is there written: ‘Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God.’ And in another psalm we read: ‘Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of His holiness, increasing the joy of the whole earth.’ And a little later in the same psalm: ‘As we have heard, so have we seen in the city of the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God. God has established it for ever.’ And again in another: ‘There is a river the streams whereof shall make glad the city of our God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the Most High. God is in the midst of her, she shall not be moved.’ From these testimonies – and there are others of the same kind, but it would take too long to mention them all – we have learned that there is a city of God, whose citizens we long to be because of the love with which its Founder has inspired us.

1. Authors have frequently made use of the term Natural law in their writings without however agreeing on its definition. The method of starting with definitions and avoiding equivocation is of course the proper method for those who leave no opportunity for counter-argument. Others go about it differently. Some of them argue that a particular act is against natural law because it runs counter to the united opinion of all the wisest or most civilized nations. However, they do not tell us who is to pass judgement on the wisdom, learning and morals of all the nations. Others argue from the position that an act is contrary to the agreed opinion of the whole human race. This definition we must certainly not accept; for it would be impossible on this account for anyone except infants and the retarded to offend against such a law. For in the term human race they certainly include all who actively have the use of reason. Offenders therefore are either not acting against the law of nature or are acting against it without their own consent, and are therefore to be excused. But to take the laws of nature from those who more often violate them than observe them is surely unreasonable. Moreover, men condemn in others what they approve in themselves, publicly praise what they secretly reject, and form their opinions from a habit of listening to what they are told, not from their own observation.

1. In the last two chapters we have been speaking of the commonwealth by design [civitas institutiva], the commonwealth which is initiated by an accord between a number of men, binding themselves to each other by agreements and by pledging their faith to each other. The next topic to discuss is the natural commonwealth [Civitas naturalis], which may also be called the commonwealth by Acquisition [Acquisita] since it is acquired by natural power and strength. The most important things to know here are the ways by which the right of Dominion [Dominium] is acquired over men's persons. Where such a right has been acquired, there is a kind of little kingdom. For to be a King is simply to have Dominion over many persons, and thus a kingdom is a large family, and a family is a little kingdom. To return once again to the natural state and to look at men as if they had just emerged from the earth like mushrooms and grown up without any obligation to each other, there are only three ways by which someone can have Dominion over the person of another. The first is if, for the sake of peace and mutual defence, they put themselves under the sway [ditio] and Dominion of some one man or group of men by means of reciprocal agreements made with each other. We have already spoken of this way.

Although Hobbes is known to most readers today primarily as the author of Leviathan, his first claim to fame was as the author of this work, De Cive (On the Citizen). It had been known to a few intimates of Hobbes since 1641, but it was not known to a wider public until the famous Elzevir Company in Amsterdam picked it up and produced it in a generally available edition, which appeared in the bookshops in the early months of 1647, when its author was 59 and was about to begin working on Leviathan. It was entitled (in Latin) Elementa Philosophica de Cive, that is, ‘Philosophical Elements of the Citizen’ or, less literally but more felicitously, ‘Philosophical Elements of Citizenship’, by ‘Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury’.

It was an immediate best-seller – Elzevir's had sold out of its stock by the summer, and rushed out a reprint. And it remained until the nineteenth century the major Hobbesian text for many readers on the Continent, partly because an authoritative French translation by Hobbes's friend Samuel Sorbière appeared in 1649, whereas Leviathan was not translated into French until our own time, and partly because it was kept in print throughout the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Hobbes himself never repudiated the book, despite having published Leviathan four years later, and he proudly reprinted it in his collected works (in Latin) in 1668, alongside a Latin translation of Leviathan.

1. The Moral and Natural law is normally also called the Divine law. And that is right, for two reasons: because reason, which is the law of nature itself, has been given to each and every man directly by God as a Rule for his actions; and because the precepts for living derived from it are the same as the precepts which have been promulgated by God's own Majesty as the laws of the Kingdom of heaven through our Lord Jesus Christ and the holy Prophets and Apostles. So we shall attempt in this chapter to confirm from holy scripture the understanding of natural law which we arrived at above by process of reasoning.

2. In the first place we shall point to the passages which declare that the divine law lies in right reason. Psalm. 36.30–1: The mouth of the just shall meditate wisdom, and his tongue shall speak justice, the law of God shall be in his heart. Jerem. 31.33: I will give my law in their entrails, and will write it in their heart. Psal. 18.8: The law of the Lord is immaculate converting the soul, v. 9. The Lord's precept is lucid, enlightening the eyes. Deut. 30.11: This command which I give you this day is not above you nor is it set far away, etc., v. 14: But the word is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart.

1. It is self-evident that men's actions proceed from their wills and their wills from their hopes and fears; hence they willingly break the law, whenever it seems that greater good or lesser evil will come to themselves from breaking it. Each man's hope therefore of security and preservation, lies in using his strength and skill to stay one step ahead of his neighbour either openly or by stratagems. One sees from this that the natural laws do not guarantee their own observance as soon as they are known; consequently, as long as a person has no guarantee of security from attack, his primeval Right remains in force to look out for himself in whatever ways he will and can, i.e. a Right to all things, or a Right of war; he will satisfy the requirements of natural law if he is ready to welcome peace when it can be had.

2. It is a commonplace that laws are silent among arms. This is true not only of the civil laws but also of natural law, if it is applied (by ch. III, art. 27) to actions rather than to state of mind, and if the war in question is understood to be the war of every man against every man. Such is the state of pure nature, though in wars between nations a degree of restraint has normally been observed.

1. The second of the derivative laws of nature is: Stand by your agreements, or keep faith. In the last chapter it was shown, that the law of nature instructs each and every man, as the necessary means of securing peace, to make a reciprocal transfer of certain of their own rights; it was also shown that when the transfer is to take place in the future, it is called an agreement. This is instrumental to securing peace, since by the very fact of agreement, we are doing (or not doing) what we agree should be done (or not done); and agreements would be pointless if we did not stand by them. Since standing by Agreements or keeping faith is necessary for securing peace, it will take its place, by chapter II, article 2, as a precept of natural law.

2. In this matter, we may not make any exception among the persons with whom we make agreements, for instance, if they do not themselves keep faith with others and do not believe in doing so, or have any other fault. For in making an agreement, one denies by the very act of agreeing that the act is meaningless. And it is against reason knowingly to take away the meaning of anything. If he does not believe the agreement should be fulfilled, by the very fact that he so believes he affirms that the agreement is meaningless.

1. In the old Testament there are many plain prophecies about our Saviour Jesus Christ; who was to restore the Kingdom Of God by a new agreement; some of them predict his Royal dignity, some his humility and suffering. Among the prophecies of his dignity are these: God, blessing Abraham, promises him a son, Isaac, and adds, And the Kings of the peoples shall spring from him (Gen. 17.16). Jacob blessing his son Judah says, The sceptre shall not be taken from Judah (Gen. 49.10). God to Moses: I will raise up for them, he says, a prophet like you from the midst of his brothers, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall tell them all that I shall instruct him. And I will take revenge upon anyone who refuses to hear the words which he shall speak in my name (Deut. 18.18[–19]). Isaiah: The Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive and shall give birth to a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel (Isa. 7.14). Isaiah again: A little child has been born to us, and a son has been given to us, and a princedom has been put upon his shoulders, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, mighty God, Father of the age to come, the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9.6).