Hobbes's Eschatology and Scriptural Interpretation in Leviathan

Hobbes's eschatology in Leviathan is one of the most striking aspects of this classic work and has received considerable scholarly attention. Nevertheless, its scriptural interpretation has rarely been examined. This article closely analyses Hobbes's scriptural case for two aspects of eschatology: the doctrine of mortalism and the terrestrial kingdom of God. It shows that, to a large extent, Hobbes's biblical exegesis for these two eschatological issues was preceded by that of his contemporaries, including Richard Overton and John Archer. It is likely, in particular, that the scriptural interpretation for Hobbes's mortalism was directly indebted to Overton's Mans mortalitie.

all probability, derived from those of Joseph Mede, a renowned bible scholar and millennialist whom Hobbes mentioned in his later work.  In relation to Hobbes's eschatology, Davis argues that the way in which Hobbes associated the names of the place of the damned with events or places in the Old Testament corresponds well with Mede's approach.  Drawing on Davis's insight, I will turn to two other eschatological issues about which similarities between Hobbes and his contemporaries have been suggested: mortalism, the idea that both body and soul are destroyed at death, and the kingdom of God on earth after the Resurrection. I will conduct a close analysis of Hobbes's use of the Bible regarding these two issues in relation to that of his contemporaries.
The analysis will, first, establish that Hobbes's mortalism is likely to have been directly indebted to Mans mortalitie, the notorious work on mortalism by the future Leveller leader Richard Overton. Previous studies have already shown that Hobbes's mortalism had precedents or contemporary parallels, including in Overton's work.  However, remarks on the similarities between Hobbes and Overton have remained only suggestive due to Hobbes's reluctance to mention his sources. While definite contextual evidence indicating Hobbes's knowledge of Overton's work is not available, a close analysis of textual evidence will show that, among the works of several controversialists on mortalism, only Overton's proof-texts and relevant scriptural interpretation overlap considerably with those in Leviathan. Thus, this article will substantiate the important but disputable claim of Overton's influence on Hobbes.
Second, this paper will turn to the issue of the terrestrial kingdom of God after the last judgement and maintain that elements of Hobbes's scriptural interpretation in support of this view can to a large extent be found in the work of his contemporaries. Jürgen Overhoff has already pointed out that a view similar to Hobbes's was indicated by his contemporary John (Henry) Archer, who envisaged the political kingdom of Christ abiding on earth for a thousand years at the end of this world.  Nevertheless, Overhoff only presented Hobbes's and Archer's views of the kingdom of God without making a close comparison between their readings of the Bible. This article, then, will clarify which aspect of Hobbes's scriptural interpretation in support of the terrestrial kingdom of God was preceded by Archer. It will also take into account another exponent of Christ's personal rule on earth, Robert Maton. While the similarities between Hobbes and Overton are substantial enough to suggest the strong possibility of Overton's influence on Hobbes, those between Hobbes and Archer or Maton are only partial. However, this article argues that, taken as a whole, many elements of Hobbes's scriptural interpretation in defence of the terrestrial kingdom of God were preceded by the work of Archer and Maton. While this study cannot, as Paul Davis does, provide definite circumstantial evidence of Hobbes's knowledge of the works of the contemporaries under discussion, it strengthens the case that the publication of works presenting new biblical exegesis during the revolutionary years was an important factor in the development of Hobbes's new eschatology in Leviathan. It also helps to clarify which elements of Hobbes's biblical exegesis in his eschatology were truly peculiar to him.

Hobbes's mortalism
Although Hobbes's eschatology as a whole was nothing like that of other thinkers, Hobbes's mortalism, at least, is known to have had contemporary parallels. In particular, Norman Burns makes the important claim that 'most of his [Hobbes's] proof-texts and some of his interpretation of them are the same as those of Milton and Overton'.  However, Burns maintains that, in his work against mortalism, 'Calvin conveniently cites and discusses most of the scriptural texts used by both sides in the next century of dispute.'  Moreover, Burns mentions several controversialists on the doctrine of mortalism during the Civil War other than Hobbes and Overton.  Given Hobbes's lack of reference to his sources, remarks on the similarities between Hobbes and Overton, or any other contemporary for that matter, have only pointed to potential sources without an adequate foundation. However, it is possible to substantiate the useful but questionable claim of Overton's influence on Hobbes by a close analysis of scriptural interpretation, in particular the proof-texts used by Hobbes and others for or against the doctrine of mortalism. This paper will show the significant similarity between Hobbes and Overton among Hobbes's contemporaries concerning the citation and reading of scriptural passages, noting that this extent of similarity is rarely found between Hobbes and Calvin or any other contemporary writer, such as Milton, on the immortality of the soul.   Burns, Christian mortalism, . The similarity between Hobbes's use of the Bible and Overton's is also noted by Overhoff, Hobbes's theory, .  Burns, Christian mortalism, .  Ibid. -.  Milton's work proposing the doctrine of mortalism, De doctrina christiana, was not published at that time and was thus unknown to his contemporaries, including Hobbes. Bryan Ball notes that Milton's mortalism probably had little influence on his contemporaries: The soul sleepers: Christian mortalism from Wycliffe to Priestley, Cambridge , . Nevertheless, this article will take Milton into consideration, as it will show that For the sake of clarity, it should be noted that in England in the middle of the seventeenth century, the issue of mortalism was discussed on the basis of natural reason and the Bible. Some, such as Kenelm Digby and Seth Ward, used only philosophical arguments,  while others, such as Overton, Alexander Ross and Guy Holland, used both types of arguments.  The focus here, however, is on biblical cases.
The most significant similarity between Hobbes and Overton concerns the citation and interpretation of scriptural passages. In discussing the doctrine of mortalism in chapters xxxviii and xliv, Hobbes cited numerous scriptural passages, most of which were also quoted by Overton. First, in defence of mortalism, Hobbes cited four passages (Genesis ii.; Romans v.-;  Corinthians xv.-; Job xiv.-) in chapter xxxviii of Leviathan and three (Ecclesiastes iii.; iv.; ix.) in chapter xliv.  Of these seven scriptural verses, six were cited by Overton to support the doctrine of mortalism.  Overton did not cite Rom. v.-, 'As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life', as Hobbes did.  However, Overton did cite  Cor. xv.-, 'For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive', which was a more clearly articulated version of Rom. v.- in Hobbes's view.  The two men's interpretations of this passage were also similar. Just after citing this passage, Overton said, 'What fell in Adam shall be raised by Christ; what even with a view to Milton, the correspondence between Hobbes and Overton is striking. Although Burns points out that Hobbes's mortalism was close to those of Overton and Milton, he does not clarify which of the two was closer: Christian mortalism, -.
was mortalized by the earthly Man shall be immortalized by the Heavenly man.'  Similarly, Hobbes commented on the passage that 'Eternall life was lost by Adams forfeiture, in committing sin, he that should cancell that forfeiture was to recover thereby, that Life again.'  Controversialists other than Overton also referred to some of the seven scriptural passages Hobbes quoted in support of mortalism, but not as many as Overton did. Milton, another mortalist, quoted two scriptural passages ( Cor. xv.; Job xiv.-).  Guy and Ross, opponents of mortalism, presented three passages (Eccl. iii.;  Cor. xv.; Job xiv) as proof-texts allegedly supporting Overton's mortalism.  In addition, Calvin cited three passages (Gen. ii.; Job xiv.-; Eccl. iii.) as ones that his opponents emphasised.  Some of Hobbes's citation of prooftexts for mortalism, therefore, was conventional in the long-running controversy over Christian mortalism. The extent of the similarity between Hobbes and Overton, however, was significant even in this tradition.
Hobbes not only referred to scriptural verses supporting mortalism but also cited and discussed those apparently against mortalism. One such scriptural passage that Hobbes discussed in chapter xxxviii was Luke xx.-.  In chapter xliv he handled Eccl. xii. and the case of Enoch, who was translated so that he would not die, with citations of Gen. v. and Hebrews xi..  Additionally, in chapter xliv, without quoting specific scriptural verses, he mentioned and addressed Christ's remark that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were living and the story of Lazarus, who, upon his death, was carried into Abraham's bosom.  Here again, Hobbes and Overton were much more alike than were Hobbes and the other controversialists considered in this paper. Before Hobbes, Overton had already dealt with all five of the issues or scriptural verses that Hobbes addressed.  Hobbes's and Overton's interpretive approaches to these passages were also alike in some cases. For example,  both Hobbes and Overton treated the story of Lazarus as a 'parable'.  More significant was a parallel interpretation of Christ's remark in Luke xx.-: 'That the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto him.' Both Hobbes and Overton, noting that this remark of Christ was meant to prove the Resurrection, referred to the possibility of reading this passage as a proof-text for the immortality of the soul.  They then rejected this reading by pointing out that it would entail the remark of Christ not proving what it was meant to prove, the Resurrection.
Certainly, some of Hobbes's interpretations of biblical passages that seemed against mortalism could be found in the works of others. According to Calvin, for example, his opponents, like Hobbes, read the story of Lazarus as a parable and regarded the remark of Christ about a living Abraham and others as the promise of Christ.  Milton addressed Eccl. xii. and Luke xx., giving an interpretation of Luke xx. similar to those of Hobbes and Overton.  Guy and Ross emphasised the matter of a living Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as well as the story of Lazarus.  Thomas Hooker cited Eccl. xii..  None the less, the extent of the similarity between Hobbes and Overton was unparalleled.
In addition to the common use and interpretation of proof-texts, Hobbes's interpretation of  Cor. xv.-, as part of his attempt to deny the reprobate an eternal life, can be understood as his reply to Overton's reading. In Hobbes's view, the passage, 'It [the body, according to the wording of Hobbes] is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power', might be interpreted to mean that not only the faithful but also the reprobate will have eternal life after the Resurrection.  Actually, this was the position of Overton, who cited only  Cor. xv., 'It is sowne in corruption, it is raised in incorruption', to present the signifi-

 T A K U Y A O K A D A
cance of the Resurrection as a change into 'an everlasting Being'.  Against such an interpretation, Hobbes pointed out that it was inconsistent with the terms in the next verse, 'glory' and 'power', which could be attributed only to the faithful.  Apart from the use and interpretation of proof-texts, another remarkable correspondence between Hobbes and Overton concerns the structure of their arguments. When Hobbes presented his scriptural exegesis in defence of the doctrine of mortalism at the beginning of chapter xxxviii of Leviathan, the sequence of biblical topics that he handled was as follows: the eternal life that Adam, free from sin, enjoyed in the beginning; Adam's Fall and the change of human beings from immortal into mortal creatures; and the effect of the atonement of Jesus Christ.  These topics were discussed in this same sequence at the beginning of Mans mortalitie.  Moreover, both Hobbes and Overton quoted Gen. ii., 'In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die', for the change into mortality, and  Cor. xv., 'For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive', for the atonement of Christ.  Lastly, Hobbes and Overton also shared their treatment of the word 'soul' in the Scriptures.  Usually, the human soul was thought to be a substance. Hobbes's remark in The elements of law that 'the soul of man is a spirit' and immortal was an expression of this conventional idea.  In Leviathan, however, he began to see the 'soul' in the Scriptures not as a distinct substance but simply as 'the Life', 'the Living Creature' or 'the Body alive', which reflected his new philological examination of 'spirit' in chapter xxxiv.  Overton also offered several meanings of the term 'soul' as it is used in the Bible, including 'life', to deny the interpretation of 'soul' as a substance.  This treatment of 'soul', certainly, can be traced back to the age of Calvin. Calvin presented his reading of several key words to defend his view of the immortality of the human soul against the views of his opponents.  One of his opponents claimed that the 'soul' referred to in the Bible was nothing but life (or living creatures), precisely the view that would later be adopted by Hobbes.  Moreover, apart from Calvin, the contemporary mortalist Milton characterised the 'soul' as the animated body or the whole man, rejecting an understanding of the 'soul' as a substance separable from the body.  Nevertheless, it appears that, apart from mortalists such as Overton and Milton, no other writer on the soul's immortality in the s mentioned this interpretation of the 'soul' in the Scriptures. Now that the textual evidence for the probable influence of Overton's Mans mortalitie on Hobbes has been adduced, it may be useful to give some consideration to the possible contextual link between Hobbes and Mans mortalitie, despite the limited available evidence. The first thing to observe is that even during his sojourn in Paris, Hobbes had access to some works published in England during the revolutionary years. Despite Hobbes's general lack of explicit reference in Leviathan to contemporary authors or texts,  at least three contemporary authors whose works were published in England between  and  have been identified confidently as Hobbes's source or the object of his implicit references: Joseph Mede, Anthony Ascham and Marchamont Nedham.  This indicates that, even in Paris, Hobbes could read contemporary works published in England.
The next point is that Hobbes knew, in Paris, an author of a work on the immortality of the soul: Kenelm Digby. Digby, a natural philosopher, had been acquainted with Hobbes since at least the s. After the outbreak of the Civil War, he left for France, where he renewed his friendship with Hobbes between  and .  A member of the Blackloist group, he was also familiar with Thomas White, whose work published in , De mundo, prompted Hobbes to write an extensive manuscript refutation, known as Anti-White, around -.  In  Digby published his major work, Two treatises, the second part of which was devoted to demonstrating the immortality of the soul.  Given the friendship between  Milton, De doctrina christiana, -. This agreement between Hobbes and Milton is often noted. See, for example, Ball, The soul sleepers, . Jeremy Taylor, who expressed an opinion that came close to the doctrine of mortalism, also presented an understanding of 'soul' similar to Milton's. For Taylor, the soul in the Scriptures signified 'an essential part of man, relating to his whole constitution' rather than 'of it self an intellectual and separate substance': The great exemplar of sanctity and holy life,

 T A K U Y A O K A D A
Hobbes and Digby, it is likely that Hobbes knew this work and took an interest in the theme of the immortality of the soul.  Mans mortalitie had an enormous impact in England at the time of its publication in .  Soon after its publication, the work was discussed in the Westminster Assembly, and the doctrine of mortalism was taken up in the parliament.  In the Blasphemy Ordinance of , espousing the doctrine of mortalism became a punishable crime.  Furthermore, the doctrine of mortalism, together with Mans mortalitie, was mentioned as one of the 'heresies' emerging at that time in the major works of heresiography in the s.  It should be noted, however, that the author of Mans mortalitie was not known to contemporary readers. Sources of the day often mentioned this work without specifying its author. The author of Mans mortalitie, moreover, was sometimes misidentified. In the Westminster Assembly, for example, the doctrine of mortalism was associated with the Independent minister John Goodwin.  Even Thomas Edwards, the author of Gangraena, the then-famous heresiography, did not identify the author of Mans mortalitie as Richard Overton, at least not explicitly. In this work, certainly, he both mentioned Mans mortalitie and recognised Overton as one of the Leveller leaders.  In part II of Gangraena, he reported about 'one Overton' who was involved in a dispute over the immortality of the soul, though it is not entirely clear whether this 'Overton' was actually Richard Overton.  However, in part I of Gangraena, Edwards wrongly assumed that  Note, however, that unlike Hobbes, Digby did not provide any scriptural exegesis. Mans mortalitie was written by Clement Writer, then known for his departure from theological orthodoxy.  Moreover, when Edwards ascribed several political works to Overton in part III of Gangraena, he did not mention The arraignment of Mr persecution, a central piece of evidence for the attribution of Mans mortalitie to Richard Overton.  In view of the contemporary failure to identify the author of Mans mortalitie, it would be inappropriate to consider Hobbes's probable use of Mans mortalitie in relation to Overton's other works on toleration or contemporary politics. If Mans mortalitie is taken together with Overton's other political works, it might be possible to discern a link between his Leveller ideas and the doctrine of mortalism, as Nicholas McDowell has done.  Without knowledge of its author, however, it would have been difficult for contemporary readers to infer wider political implications than a direct challenge to the religious orthodoxy at that time from Mans mortalitie, a work dedicated simply to proving the doctrine of mortalism. If Hobbes used Mans mortalitie, he probably read it as a work of scholarly and ingenious scriptural interpretation, as he did Mede's work. Hobbes might also have seen provocative ideas in Mans mortalitie, as he did his own in Leviathan: they were, Hobbes said, 'New and well proved Truth' that could cause no 'disorder in a State' when people called 'not onely for Peace, but also for Truth'.  This examination, focusing on one of the unusual elements of Hobbes's eschatology, the doctrine of mortalism, has revealed the significant agreement in biblical interpretation found only between Hobbes and Overton. It is now time to turn to another uncommon feature of Hobbes's eschatology, the terrestrial kingdom of God after the last judgement, and to consider scriptural arguments for it.

Hobbes's terrestrial kingdom of God after the Resurrection
Before discussing Hobbes's scriptural interpretation in Leviathan arguing for the terrestrial kingdom of God after the last judgement, it is useful to clarify the nature of the development of his opinion on this issue from