ST. AUGUSTINE: Bishop of Hippo, wrote The City of God in 413 A.D. to respond to charges that Christianity was responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire. But the City of God is more than an apologia to the pagans; it is a book about the problem that really interested St. Augustine: the theology of the two cities (i.e., the 'Heavenly City' and the 'Earthly City') and of the intervention of God in human history. Put another way: The City of God is the autobiography of the Roman Catholic Church written by the most Catholic of her saints.

The heart of The City of God is Book XIX, which is concerned with the theology of peace. St. Augustine traces the origins of the two cities from the fall of Eden and Adam's Original Sin, which severed the union with God that depended upon the subjection of Adam's will to the will of God. Adam's apostacy was fall into falsehood and unreality because God is Truth. Because God is Unity, Adam's fall was a collapse into division and disharmony. All men fell from God with Adam. As Adam's soul was divided against itself by sin, so too are all men divided against each other by selfishness.

The City of God traces the history of this "mystical" City of Man through the whole of human history. But at the same time St. Augustine traces the history of another city -- the City of God -- which He planned to repair the work Adam's sin could not be allowed to ruin and which was redeemed by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. According to St. Augustine, the whole of human history since the Ascension of Jesus into Heaven is concerned with one work only: the building and perfecting of the City of God. Wars, persecutions, and every other evil have had a purpose: they have been the tools by which God separated the wheat from chaff, the elect from the damned.

The difference between the two cities is that in the City of Man, humans are motivated by love of self; in the City of God, humans are united in Christian love of God. The earthly city is beset with conflict because each person is judge of the worth of his thoughts and acts. There is no strife in the heavenly city, only eternal peace, because the citizens are united and motivated by their love of God and for each other. The reason there is no conflict in the City of God is because conflict stems from the scarcity of good things; charity -- the good thing which motivates the citizens of Heaven -- is infinite and increases as it is shared.

The extent to which citizens of Heaven can be happy in the earthly city depends upon the extent to which the object of love of the earthly city approximates that of the heavenly city. For every society is bound together by its shared values. Mostly, the City of Man loves domination, i.e. ruling others. But it loves to rule in peace. Temporal peace is also beneficial to the citizens of the Heavenly City because it provides the normal conditions in which they can safely expect to work out their eternal destinies. The temporal peace of the earthly city, however, will always be at best temporary and uncertain. But a shaky peace is better than none at all.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS: A transitional figure in the history of political thought. Aquinas made a significant contribution to political philosophy by synthesising Aristotelian teleology and Christian thought.

According to Aquinas, the state is a part of the universal empire of which God is the maker and ruler. The laws of the state are, or can be made to be, particular determinations of this empire's eternal code; and the authority which enforces these laws is a power whose origin is also in God. Its goal and justification is to offer to man satisfactory material conditions of life as a basis for a moral and intellectual education which, in turn, must be such as to lend itself to the spiritual edification of the Christian man. This is the common good of man and his highest worldly end.

Aquinas follows the Aristotelian method which makes of man a political animal but he modifies it in accordance with the exigencies of his Christian philosophy. Aquinas agrees with Aristotle that reason and lack of instinct leads man to become social. Aquinas contends that man's ability to collaborate rationally is proven by his power of speech and a 'naturally ordained division of Labour.'

The 'divine intention' is primarily directed to the order of the state and then to components unified in it. Thus, Aquinas states, "if we remove order from created things, we remove the best they have. For though the individual beings are good in themselves, joined they rise to the highest goodness because of the order of the universe." Evil is a condition that obtains when order is removed. But Aquinas states that a universe in which there was no evil would not be preferable to the current one because "there would not be in this assumed universe so many different good natures as there are in this present one, which contains both good natures free from evil as well as some conjoined with evil; and it is better to have the combination of both rather than to have one only."

Aquinas differs from St. Augustine in that he does not believe that the relationship of ruling and being ruled is a result of the Fall; according to him, it would have existed in Eden because 'obedience is the tie of human societies.' For Aquinas, unlike St. Augustine, the state (i.e., the City of Man) is legitimate because it is necessary for man to reach his telos, which is to become a citizen of the Heavenly City.

Aquinas agrees with Augustine that "ruling power is given by nature to the best and most intelligent." What the Fall did was to eliminate spontaneous obedience and make it important that the ruler possessed the power to coerce obedience. Aquinas says this power is divinely granted, citing St. Paul's statement that "all power comes from God."

Thus political authority derives from divine law. Power is sanctioned by God to the ruler in order that he may realise justice on earth. But men use natural law (i.e., reason) to form states on earth and govern them by means of human laws. This is why the divine law is eternal and unchanging but human laws can vary and change. The purpose of spiritual laws is to provide further support for the legitimacy of political authority and obedience. Obedience is owed to the ruler as divine obligation unless the ruler abuses his power by ruling unjustly. But the really important thing for Aquinas is the preservation of order and stability; this is why the manner by which a ruler obtains power is not a strong justification for civil disobedience. Aquinas believes it far more important to focus on how the ruler exercises his power.

Aquinas thinks that the best form of government is a monarchy because it is more efficient and energetic than an oligarchy or republic. He also makes the bold claim that the TEMPORAL POWER AND TEMPORAL RULERS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SPIRITUAL SOVEREIGN, i.e. the Pope. This proposition HOBBES vehemently attacks in Chapter 42 of the Leviathan, where he takes the position that Christ did not delegate sovereign power over the earth to the Pope but only the authority to teach, witness, and exhort. The power to compel obedience to the Gospel was vested in the secular or political sovereign, whoever he may be, whether Moses, Constantinople, or the King of England.

MACHIAVELLI is misunderstood. Even today he is still vilified as the inventor of realpolitik, the proponent of the politics of amorality and the tyrant's counsellor. In fact, he was a republican and he believed that the purpose of politics was to foster and promote the common good, as his Discourses on Livy and the Government of Florence demonstrate. He wrote the Prince at a time when he thought that Italy was in danger of being destroyed by foreign enemies and could be saved only by a strong leader. But even in the Prince he speaks often that the Prince must take care to tend to the happiness of his subjects and he stresses the importance of retaining their support.

Did Machiavelli really believe that the "ends justify the means"? Probably not. Machiavelli should be understood as asserting that vices masked as virtues will ruin the people, and that virtues, though disguised as vices, will bring about the common welfare. There are open to a prince two courses: one, devotion to the principles of morality; the other, devotion to the good of his people. In the imaginary kingdoms of the moralists the two are one and the same; Machiavelli wishes they were in actual life. But they are not. The prince must choose. Shall he save his own soul? Shall he ruin his people? For Machiavelli, there is no debate. The prince's duty is to his people.