I. Overton’s Stormy Career as Conditionalist Pamphleteer

RICHARD OVERTON, Or “R. O.” (fl. 1643-1659), ^{11) Because there were two writers at this period with the same initials (“R. O.”), A. J. Mills contends that they indicate Robert Overton, not Richard. But authorities such as Dr. W. T. Whitley, secretary of the Baptist Historical Society, in A Baptist Bibliography (1526-1776, vol. 1, pp 16, 25, 29, 39, and 61) clearly identify him as Richard, as do the two authorities in the scholarly Dictionary of National Biography. He is also so designated in the British Museum, where his works are found.} Baptist pamphleteer and outspoken Conditionalist—whose printer-father had a bookshop in Pope’s Head Alley in London—spent his early life in Holland, as many had been forced to do because of religious convictions. The times were tense, and R. O.’s first publications were anonymous attacks on religious “abuses” by the bishops. He then turned to what he profoundly believed to be abuses or errors in theology. ^{22) Charles H, Firth, “Richard Overton,” Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 14, pp. 1279-1281; William E. A. Oxon, “John Canne,” ibid., vol. 3, p. 864.}CFF2 163.2

Picture 1: Tract Mans Mortallitie
Richard Overton’s Man’s Mortalltie (1643) Creates Stir
Had to be Printed Abroad, Treatise Attacked, Author Imprisoned.
Page 163CFF2 163

As a consequence, in 1643 Overton produced Mans Mortallitie, which for safety was printed in Amsterdam by the exiled Baptist minister-printer John Canne, likewise a Conditionalist, with a second or “corrected and enlarged” edition following twelve years later in London. The title of the treatise was then altered slightly, reading Man Wholly Mortal. But in both cases it was followed by an identical explanatory subtitle. In fact, in accordance with the custom of the day, the essence of the entire argument is condensed into the extended subtitle appearing on the cover page and reading:CFF2 164.1

“Or a Treatise Wherein ‘tis proved, both Theologically and Phylosophically, that whole Man (as a rationall Creature) is a Compound wholy mortall, contrary to that common distinction of Soule and Body: And that the present going of the Soule into Heaven or Hell is a meer Fiction: And that at the Resurrection is the beginning of our immortallity, and then Actuall Condemnation, and Salvation, and not before.”CFF2 164.2

As already noted, the learned Johann L. von Mosheim, chancellor of the University of Göttingen, and others, record the fact that at this time there were large numbers of General Baptists and other Conditionalists spread over Britain and on the Continent who held “that the soul, between death and the resurrection at the last day, has neither pleasure nor pain, but is in a state of insensibility.” ^{33) Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History (Murdock tr.), vol. 3, p. 578.} Nevertheless, the appearance of Overton’s bold treatise, printed for security reasons in Holland, “made a great stir” in England, as the “Bookseller’s Note” attested. And the ranks of the “Soul-Sleepers,” as they were called in derision, were considerably augmented.CFF2 164.3

Indeed, so great was the stir that not only did the ecclesiastics demand that “R. O.” be apprehended, but on August 26, 1644, the House of Commons ordered “the authors, printers and publishers of the pamphlets against the immortality of the soul” to be “diligently” sought out. Thus Overton first came into conflict with governmental authority over his Conditionalist views. Incidentally, Overton was coupled with Milton as “the most dangerous of critics.” And at this time any public denial of the immortality of the soul was visited with severe penalty.CFF2 164.4

Commenting on R. O.’s treatise, the learned Anglican Archdeacon Francis Blackburne, likewise a Conditionalist, in his classic Historical View of the Controversy, two, centuries ago declared that Overton “shews himself a master of his subject.” And he adds that, following the customary scholastic type of argument of the day, R. O. exhibits no less than nineteen different ancient and modern opinions on the soul, devised “to uphold this ridiculous invention” of Innate Immortality, which was “traducted from the heathens” and derived from Plato. And Blackburne adds that, examining the system of Aristotle, Overton finds “no less than sixty-nine absurdities of his opponents.” ^{44) Blackburne, A Short Historical View, p. 49.} It was admittedly a learned treatise.CFF2 165.1

Sharp replies to Overton’s pamphlet were quickly forthcoming. In 1645 two vitriolic attacks appeared, one of which was entitled The Prerogative of Man: or His Soule’s Immortality, and high perfection defended and explained against the rash and rude conceptions of a later author who hath inconsiderately adventured to impugne it, and bitterly castigated Overton’s treatise as the “vain cavills of a late worthless pamphleteer.” Blackburne also quotes from another “answerer” who “in the warmth of his orthodoxy” and the caustic terms of the times called R. O. “a worthless pamphleteer, a sorry animal, who had step’d into the crowd of scriblers, in defence of an old rotten heresy, condemned and suffocated by the wise almost at the hour of the birth.” ^{55) Ibid., p. 50, also Abbot, Literature of the Doctrine of a Future Life, no. 647.} Such were the intense feelings of the day on the subject.CFF2 165.2

But Conditionalist-Historian Blackburne’s comment was that Overton’s antagonist only touched upon “R. O.’s scripture proofs with great delicacy.” And he comments that the attacker builds his defense “fortress” with “the untempered mortar of human authority, from a whole cartload of philosophers and divines, poets and schoolmen, pagan, rabbinical, papistical, mohametan and what not, who in reality were just as much in agreement with each other, as he was with R. O.” ^{66) Blackburne op. cit., p. 50.}CFF2 165.3

Picture 2: Newgate and Tower
Overton Imprisoned in Newgate and Tower for Conditionalism—Twice Arrested and Committed by Order of Parliament, First to Newgate Then to Tower of London.
Page 166CFF2 166

Overton issued several anonymous pamphlets criticizing the actions of the Westminster Assembly, which writings he later acknowledged to have authored. In August, 1646, he was arrested by order of the House of Parliament, and committed to Newgate prison. ^{77) Baptist Bibliography, p. 25.} But friends in the army demanded he be either duly tried or released, and in September, 1647, he was released.CFF2 166.1

Overton championed civil and religious liberty, and sent numerous petitions to Parliament, some of which he had composed while in the “most contemptible gaole of Newgate,” as he phrased it. In 1649 he was again arrested. Upon refusing to acknowledge the authority of the Council of State, he was committed a second time to prison, on this occasion in the Tower. But he was once more released.CFF2 166.2

In 1655 Overton had to flee the country to Flanders, the very year the enlarged edition of his Mans Mortallitie, now called Man Wholly Mortal, was republished in London. That his views as a Conditionalist were not the passing whim of an enthusiast but the settled conviction of a careful student is attested by the fact that twelve years after the initial printing Overton brought out this materially improved and enlarged edition—also showing that interest in the theme was growing. And there was yet another reprint, posthumously, in 1674.CFF2 167.1

Overton thus steadfastly maintained his Conditionalist views and risked his reputation and his life in their promulgation. For the third time, in 1659, R. O. was imprisoned for expressing his conscientious convictions. Altogether he was the author of about eighteen treatises, the majority of which, however, were on secular subjects. Such was the stormy life of a militant Conditionalist in 1643-1659.CFF2 167.2