The Covenant with Moses and the Kingdom of God

In The Covenant with Moses and the Kingdom of God: Thomas Hobbes and the Theology of the Old Covenant in Early Modern England, Andrew J. Martin traces the development of covenant theology in English theological writings from the early 1600s through to its employment and reworking by Thomas Hobbes in the 1650s. This volume commences its analysis by examining the covenant theology of Bishop Robert Sanderson, who articulated a flattened covenant theology which held to important aspects of continuity between the various biblical covenants (chapter 2). Sanderson collapsed the distinction between civil and ecclesiastical authority and argued that English rulers possessed power similar to that wielded under the Mosaic covenant (48–50). The upshot was a strong emphasis on obedience to lawful authorities in both civil and ecclesiastical realms (60), and so ministers who refused to adhere to the rites and ceremonies of the church were guilty of violating their ordination vows (22).

In chapter 3, Martin analyzes Presbyterian covenant theology of the 1640s by examining four leading theologians: Samuel Bolton, John Ball, Anthony Burgess, and Edmund Calamy, who were members or close associates of the Westminster Assembly. Here, Martin aims to demonstrate that there was significant diversity among theologians on key issues in covenant theology, especially as to the nature of the Mosaic covenant and its relation to the new covenant.

Chapter 4 then shows that there was a significant narrowing of the range of views regarding the covenant with Moses that were considered acceptable, examining the works of leading theologians namely Thomas Blake, Samuel Rutherford, and Francis Roberts. These theologians more sharply distinguished between covenants of works and covenants of grace, believing that all biblical covenants must be in one of these two categories (96–7). Further, there emerged a much stronger emphasis on continuity between the Mosaic and new covenants, in place of the diversity of views on this issue among earlier theologians (94). They also argued that both the old and new covenants confer temporal and civil as well as spiritual privileges, and so contemporary nations and societies may enjoy temporal blessings under the new covenant era (93, 98–9). Martin argues that these tendencies represent a moving away from “the theological consensus painstakingly developed at the Westminster Assembly” (111).

The book concludes with two chapters on Hobbes, which aim to show how he drew from the covenant theology of earlier writers, but radically reshaped and recast their ideas. In chapter 5, Martin contends that while the sum of Hobbes’ writings may have been controversial, “It is difficult to isolate any one of the components as particularly objectionable” (117). Hobbes considered that the new covenant was merely a renewal of the Mosaic covenant, and “not a heavenly kingdom,” which would be inaugurated only at Christ’s second coming (137, 148). Based on this understanding of the new covenant, Hobbes distinguished between spiritual and temporal power, not to elevate spiritual power (as was typical), but instead to subordinate it to civil power (152). Hobbes saw significant continuity between the old covenant and contemporary England, grounded political authority in the Mosaic covenant, and saw political order as lying “under the absolute temporal authority of the civil sovereign” (135). The right of interpreting God’s will be a matter for the public, rather than the private, conscience, such that it was necessary for salvation to obey the sovereign’s commands (133).

This book has many strengths. It is very well researched and carefully situated within relevant scholarship. It demonstrates that covenant theology was not the preserve of any particular tradition (63) but that there were interesting levels of diversity, which cannot be neatly mapped on to labels such as “Puritan” and “non-Puritan.” For instance, Sanderson held to hypothetical universalism, a moderate predestinarian view occupying a middle ground between Arminianism and Calvinism (25–7). The book shows how covenant concepts were employed in the polemics of the 1600s and how they were marshalled to defend or critique existing arrangements and theological positions.

Theological influences on the thought of Hobbes have often been downplayed or ignored. Martin’s work is consistent with recent scholarship that pays more attention to the theological influences on Hobbes, and breaks down anachronistic readings which would categorise Hobbes as solely a political thinker. Martin writes that “the chief argument of this study is that attention to the specific theological debates of his contemporaries sheds light not only on the intellectual context in which [Hobbes] wrote but the polemical purposes of his treatment of covenant theology as well” (166). It is difficult to disagree with this argument at that level of generality; the intellectual waters in which Hobbes swam certainly included the covenant theologies of the mid seventeenth century.

However, the detail of the narrative in this regard is not always convincing. In particular, the author’s arguments that Hobbes simply appropriated and reworked the covenant ideas of his contemporaries to serve his own purposes (159) and that “it is difficult to isolate any one of the components as particularly objectionable” (117), are somewhat less persuasive. While Hobbes may have employed familiar terminology, it is difficult to escape the sense that his views are decidedly different from those of the earlier Presbyterian theologians.

For example, Hobbes’ view that the Christ’s kingdom was a renewal of the old covenant is (to my knowledge) without precedent, certainly in the sources cited in the book. Martin himself concedes that this is a novelty, noting that Hobbes “would have been hard pressed to find antecedents for his reticence to refer [to] the new covenant as a present reality rather than a merely eschatological one” (160). Similarly, Hobbes’ view that God’s relationship with Adam should not be conceived in covenantal terms (159) is a definite departure from orthodox Reformed views of the covenant of works. While Hobbes drew on covenant themes, his views seem very different from what came before, especially the Presbyterians.

This is a fine work, and will be of interest to those interested in the development of covenantal ideas, as well as those working in the thought of Thomas Hobbes and the roots of liberalism.

Benjamin B Saunders is an associate professor at Deakin Law School.

Benjamin Saunders

Date Of Review:

March 26, 2024