Thematic sentence. Thomas Hobbes's interpretation of natural law is not only radically different, but also inconsistent with the traditional view. This can be seen through the similarities and differences found when comparing the theory of Thomas Hobbes and the theory of Thomas Aquinas regarding their view of man's ultimate purpose, their definition of natural law regarding its relationship with human rationality and, finally, how they see the meaning and relationship between divine providence and religion in natural law. The following pages will define natural law and analyze all three issues listed above by comparing and contrasting the views of Hobbes and that of Thomas Aquinas. Hobbes' vision is utilitarian. Leviathan marks the moment where traditional natural law ends and, through Hobbes, a new scientific version from a realist perspective begins. The roots of natural law lie in Aristotle's doctrine that every substance or nature contains a telso, or in other words a "law of development" (Baumgarth, Regan 1988: xvii). Thomas Aquinas is known for being one of the most influential moral philosophers of natural law; his theory is based on Aristotle's concentration on the final cause of things, which in turn created a new branch of theology dedicated exclusively to the moral supremacy of the Catholic Church. (O'Connor, 1967: 5) The fundamental principles of the natural law tradition are that all men should strive to do good, and evil should be avoided at all costs, because human nature strives to do good and has a "natural purpose" that can only happen in life when man's goal is the vision of God after death (source). Thomas Aquinas states that "... a man is ordained to the end of eternal happiness... directed to his end by a law given by God." Add some text here. Thomas Hobbes i... in the center of the paper... who forbids them” (Hobbes, 1958: ch. 13, 107). This view is definitely in conflict with the Catholic Church's and Aquinas's view of natural law. They reveal that in the state of nature there is no supernatural being that can truly, mathematically define good and evil or justice and injustice. This question then leads to an arguably even more interesting topic, Hobbes's belief in divine providence. Thomas Aquinas supports the human consciousness of good and evil and uses the following biblical quotation in his argument: "Although they have no written law, yet they have the natural law, whereby each one knows and is conscious of what is good and of what is evil” (a gloss on Rom. 2:14, quoted in Aquinas, 1988: 19). The above therefore implies that Hobbes does not share the same idea of ​​divine providence as Aquinas and therefore is not in line with the tradition of natural law.