Calvin and Hobbes: The Covenantal Debate

Repeatedly throughout The Leviathan, Hobbes has quietly, though straightforwardly, posited his opposition to the notions of the Reformation. Time and again he has called to mind the actions of the Presbyterians and independents and has attributed to them, in part, the disruption of the perfection of the commonwealth. Moreover, in his discussion of covenants, Hobbes remarks, in no uncertain terms, “to make covenant with God is impossible” except “by mediation of somebody that representeth God’s person” (85, 111). Likewise, he says, “this pretence of covenant with God is so evident a lie […] that is not only an act of an unjust, but also of a vile and unmanly disposition” (85, 111). In reading these passages I could not help but be reminded of the social and religious setting of Hobbes’ work and the subsequent waves he created through his attacks on the reformers. It is true that for a people whose faith was dependent upon the idea that God’s covenantal interaction with humanity serves as the primary means through which salvation comes and out of which they derive the authority to interpret the Scriptures, Hobbes’ claim for the impossibility of a Godly covenant would have been a heresy equal to that of the Papal indulgence.

All the same, though Hobbes’ claims would have come as offensive to the greater Reformed movement, his proclamations against the “vile and unmanly disposition” of the covenanter appear directed at an individual; namely, John Calvin. Calvin, a central figure of the Presbyterian movement, became famous for his writings and outspoken discourses on the doctrines of election and of God’s covenant with man. Undoubtedly, Calvin held to the notion that God’s interaction with man rested entirely God’s own hands. Thus, for Calvin, the covenants God makes with man are not only entirely possible, they are, by nature of God’s sovereignty, in no need of a mediator (as is true in the case of Abraham). Hence, whereas Hobbes’ saw a covenant with God as telling of a weakness unfit for the commonwealth, Calvin saw it as essential to obtaining peace in the human condition. Whereas Hobbes promotes an absolute monarchy, Calvin calls his followers back to an Abrahamic theocracy wherein God is the sovereign and humankind is the subject. What would Hobbes then say, believing God/Man covenants are impossible, if presented with this notion of a theocracy? How would Calvin respond to Hobbes’ notion of the all out war of everyone against everyone? And how would Hobbes respond if we pointed out his blatant misinterpretation of the Samuel passage presented in Chapter 20? I don’t know. But it’s worth considering further.