the Rev. W. Turner , Jun. , MA., Lives of the eminent Unitarians

[23]

John Biddle

May without impropriety be called the father of English Unitarianism; for though, as we have already observed, there is good reason to believe that Arianism spread so rapidly in the reign of Edward VI. as to excite the alarm of the rulers of the church, and that several refugees from the horrors of the Marian persecution returned home with a considerable tincture of the Anti-trinitarian views which had already been professed by some of the most distinguished reformers on the continent, and though more than one Unitarian martyr may be cited from the annals of those gloomy times, yet, as far as is distinctly known, Biddle was the first Englishman who came forward openly to vindicate Unitarian principles either from the press or from the pulpit. He also appears to have been the first to gather even two or three to offer their requests to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in the form which may be presumed to be most acceptable to him who laid the injunction on his disciples, ‘In that day ye shall ask me nothing; but whatever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.’ It was but a little flock, and was speedily dispersed when the shepherd was taken away; but the leaven still remained to work more extensively in happier and more liberal, if not more enlightened, times. On these accounts, we justly place his name at the head of that catalogue of worthies in whose characters and history, we, as [24] Unitarians, may be expected to take a peculiar interest, as the ornaments of our faith, and as mainly instrumental in recommending it to the Christian world, not only by their able appeals to scripture and reason in its behalf, but by illustrating its efficacy and practical value in the example they have set before us of the virtues which ought to adorn the Christian character.

Mr. Biddle was born at Wotton-under-Edge, in Gloucestershire, in the year 1615. Though he had no pretensions to the rank or eminence derived from a long line of distinguished ancestry, he inherited from his parents that truest respectability which arises from a faithful discharge of the duties of life, and which procured them, along with other more valuable advantages, an intercourse with persons of superior station. He received his classical education at the grammar school of his native place, where he seems to have distinguished himself by early proficiency, and to have attracted notice as a youth of high promise. It is pleasing to learn that there was also observable in him, at this early period, that singular piety of mind and disregard of mere worldly and temporal considerations which characterized him through life; for he now not only devoted himself to liberal pursuits and studies, but engaged with great diligence and assiduity in the assistance of his recently widowed mother.

In 1632 he was admitted of Magdalen Hall, Oxford, where he continued his studies with increasing success and reputation; and there is reason to believe that he already gave indications of that disposition to exercise an independence of judgment and freedom of inquiry which were ever after a leading feature of his character, and the [25] mainspring at once of his eminence and of his misfortunes. After occupying with high reputation for a few years the post of college tutor, he was offered the mastership of the grammar school in which he had received the rudiments of his education, but declined in favour of a competent person, who at his recommendation was appointed. At length he was induced to accept the appointment of master of the free school of St. Mary of Crypt, in the city of Gloucester. In this honourable station, on which he entered in the year 1641, he met with the success which was anticipated from the high reputation he had previously acquired; and notwithstanding the dangers attendant on the impending political struggle, there can be little doubt that, if he could have refrained from an earnest and ardent inquiry after religious truth, or (having met with it, as he believed, in a different track from that pointed out by the ruling sects of the day); if he could have reconciled his conscience to an outward conformity, he might have remained unmolested in a condition of great credit, usefulness, and prosperity. But though, doubtless, well aware of the troubles which awaited him in that violent and intolerant age, his high sense of duty did not permit him to chain himself down to an implicit adoption of authorized creeds, nor to bury in the silence of his own breast what he conceived to be important, though unpopular and obnoxious, truth.

In addressing his mind to this inquiry, he did not (as is the practice with too many) first examine what the rulers and pharisees believe,— what the fathers, the councils, or the church, have determined,—and then seek to adjust the scripture [26] to a conformity with the comments and traditions of fallible men,—but applied in the first instance to the fountain head, seeking for his religious faith nowhere but in the oracles of God. Nor had he, when he finally embraced Anti-trinitarian sentiments, any familiarity or even acquaintance with the writers on that side, though he afterwards studied the works of the Polish Socinians. There are few who have the impartiality or independence of mind to adhere rigidly to this rule; and yet there can be no question that, if the object be to ascertain not what this or that sect or church believes, but to learn as nearly as possible the true meaning of the sacred scriptures, the most likely way is first to acquire a competent knowledge of the languages in which they are written, and then read and judge for ourselves. If commentaries or any other extraneous sources of information are sought for, they should be such as are chiefly critical; or make it their business to collect the various facts relating to the history of ancient nations, the habits, manners, and general condition of the people, and other circumstances which may serve to illustrate obscure allusions and difficult passages which a mere acquaintance with the language will not alone enable us to explain.

It is not to be expected,—such is the diversity of connexions, previous opinions, and peculiar associations, which variously influence the mind of man,—that this method, even when conscientiously pursued, shall always lead to the same results; and therefore we ought neither to be surprised nor offended to find honest and candid inquirers differing in their conclusions;—least of all, however satisfied of the truth of our own, are [27] we entitled to take it for granted that such inquirers will infallibly adopt them. In Mr. Biddle's case the result was a conviction that the commonly received doctrine of the Trinity has no foundation in scripture. As he was well persuaded that it could not be otherwise than important, that what God had condescended to reveal should be rightly understood by those to whom it was addressed, his newly-acquired views were communicated without reserve, not only to those who might be engaged in similar researches, and might therefore be of service either to confirm or to correct them, but to some whose narrow-minded notions were disturbed or offended by these novelties, as they considered them, and whose intolerant bigotry could not endure that others should seek the way to salvation on a different track from themselves.

Biddle was presently summoned before the magistrates to answer to a charge of heresy. In the statements of his opinions which he offered at this period, there appears a degree of indistinctness and apparent vacillation, ascribable, perhaps, to an unwillingness to encounter the hostility of persecuting bigots, of which, in that intolerant age—when what are now the most obvious, and, indeed, generally acknowledged principles of religious liberty, were very imperfectly understood and even expressly disclaimed by all the contending parties who were then striving for the mastery—one of the lightest consequences would probably be the forfeiture of a lucrative, honourable, and important office, on which not merely his station in life but his subsistence appeared to depend. If it were so, there are few who would be entitled, and of these very few would be inclined, to visit with [28] strong censure the infirmity of human nature, which had not, at first, the fortitude to look consequences like these steadily in the face. On this, his first appearance before the civil magistrate to answer for his religious faith, he appears to have availed himself, as many of those who are called his followers afterwards did with less excuse, of the acknowledged ambiguity of the scholastic term person, to screen himself from the penalties of avowed nonconformity by expressing heterodox opinions in orthodox language.

On the other hand, when it is considered that he was at this time extricating himself by his own unassisted researches from the prejudices of his early education, and gradually acquiring fresh light by his own examination of scripture, it is by no means improbable that his views may as yet have partaken of the indistinctness of his language, and that he had not yet arrived at that clear perception of the truth which he afterwards attained, and boldly professed in the midst of still more formidable hazards. Certain it is, that he persevered for more than a year after this time in that course of free and diligent inquiry, the result of which had already brought him into so much peril. Nor did his experience of former dangers inspire him now with so much worldly prudence as to lead him to withhold his more matured and decided opinions from his friends, to whom he now freely opened his mind on the doctrine of the Trinity.

At this time he drew up and communicated to them a piece, which he intended afterwards to publish, entitled, ‘Twelve Arguments drawn out of Scripture, wherein the commonly received Opinion [29] touching the Deity of the Holy Spirit is clearly and fully refuted.’ These arguments are reduced to the form of regular syllogisms, each proposition of which is largely illustrated by the author, both from reason and scripture. Thus, ‘He that is distinguished from God, is not God. The Holy Spirit is distinguished from God;’ ergo, ‘He that speaketh not of himself, is not God. The Holy Spirit speaketh not of himself;’ ergo, ‘He that is sent by another is not God. The Holy Spirit is sent by another;’ ergo, &c. It will be perceived that they are all founded on the assumed personality of the Holy Spirit, which Mr. Biddle continued to acknowledge to the last; and hence, though sufficiently well adapted to serve as argumenta ad hominem, when addressed to an opponent who proceeds on this assumption, they will appear less satisfactory to Unitarians of the present day, by whom this notion is almost universally rejected, except in a few cases where the term Holy Spirit is clearly synonymous with God the Father.

By indiscretion or treachery, a copy of this paper fell into the hands of the parliamentary committee, at that time sitting at Gloucester, by whom the author was committed (Dec. 2, 1645) to the common gaol, till the parliament, which was then (as the writer of a short account of his life in the old Socinian tracts expresses it) inflamed with Genevan zeal against such heretics, should take cognizance of the matter. This measure, the professed object of which was merely to secure his person, a purpose which might have been accomplished by much less rigorous means, had this additional hardship, that he was labouring at [30] the time under a dangerous fever. From this confinement, however, a friend at Gloucester had influence enough to procure his enlargement, by giving security for his appearance when it should please the parliament to send for him. During the interval, which lasted about six months, he was visited by the celebrated Archbishop Usher, who happened to pass through Gloucester, and, hearing of his case, endeavoured to convince him of his error, but without success. Indeed, he was not very likely to succeed, if it be true that the argument he chiefly dwelt on was, that, if Mr. Biddle was right, the church for so many centuries had been wrong, and guilty of idolatry. His opponent would, doubtless, reply, ‘Let the church bear its own burden: it is my business to inquire what says the scripture.’

Shortly afterwards he was summoned to appear at Westminster, and examined before a Committee of the House of Commons, appointed for that purpose. He now freely confessed that he did not acknowledge the commonly received notion of the Deity of the Holy Spirit, as he was accused; but was ready to hear what could be opposed to him, and, if he could not make out his opinion to be true, honestly to own his error. This, however, was not the style in which any of the religious parties of those times, at least when they felt themselves the strongest, were disposed to deal with those who differed from them. For sixteen months from the time of his first commitment he was detained in a chargeable attendance, without any sentence of condemnation having been passed upon him. At length, being wearied out with tedious and expensive delays, he addressed himself [31] to Sir H. Vane, who was a member of the committee, beseeching him to endeavour either to procure his discharge, or, at all events, to bring the matter to a crisis, by making a report to the House. He then proceeds to deliver his opinion concerning the Holy Spirit, whom he considers to have been ‘the chief of all ministering spirits peculiarly sent out from heaven to minister in their behalf that shall inherit salvation.’ This opinion he endeavours to confirm by various arguments and references to scripture, most of which appear to us in these days somewhat fanciful, though not ill-adapted to the taste of the times and the party to whom they were addressed. He concludes his appeal in the following impressive and pathetic strain:

For my own particular, after a long, impartial inquiry of the truth in this controversy, and after much and earnest calling upon God to give me the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him, I find myself obliged, both by the principles of reason and scripture, to embrace the opinion I now hold forth, and, as much as in me lyeth, to endeavour that the honour of Almighty God may not be transferred to another, not only to the offence of God himself, but also of his Holy Spirit, who cannot but be grieved to have that ignorantly ascribed to himself which is proper to God that sends him, and which he nowhere I challenges to himself in scripture. What shall befall me in the pursuance of this work, I refer to the disposal of Almighty God, whose glory is dearer to me, not only than liberty, but than my life. It will be your part, honoured Sir, into whose hands God hath put such an opportunity, to examine the business impartially, and to be a helper [32] of the truth, considering that his controversy is of the greatest importance in the world, and that the divine truth suffers not herself to be despised scot-free.

Neither let the meanness of my outward appearance deter you from stirring, since it is the part of a wise man, as in all things so especially in matters of religion, not to regard so much who it is that speaketh, as what it is that is spoken; remembering how our Saviour in the Gospel saith, that God is wont to hide his secrets from the wise and prudent, and reveal them unto children; in which number I willingly reckon myself, being conscious of my own personal weakness, but well assured of the evidence and strength of the scripture to bear me out in this cause.

This appeal was so far effectual, that Sir H. Vane endeavoured to befriend him by bringing his case before the House; but the only consequence was, that he was forthwith committed to the custody of one of the officers of the House, under which restraint, exercised with more or less rigour, he continued for five years. The question in debate was referred to the assembly of divines then sitting at Westminster, before a committee of whom he was frequently summoned, and submitted to them his ‘Twelve Arguments.’ As might be expected, however, from a discussion conducted under such circumstances, no satisfactory result was obtained. Indeed, it appears that he was met by appeals to the passions rather than to the judgment,—by bitter railing, and threats of a further appeal to the strong arm of the civil power; a species of weapon as he justly observes, which might enable the weakest disputant [33] easily to subvert the strongest controversy. Hence he was at length induced to publish this piece, with a preface bespeaking the reader's serious attention to the arguments laid before him, as to a matter which affected the Divine glory and his own salvation; and requesting him, ‘at any hand, to forbear condemning his opinion as erroneous, till he was able to bring pertinent and solid answers to all his arguments.’

The appearance of this tract produced, as may be supposed, a great sensation, and excited a vehement outcry. By order of the House of Commons, it was speedily called in, and ordered to be burnt by the common hangman; a mode of dealing with religious, or indeed with any, controversy, which, while it is suggested by bad and violent passions and still further exasperates them, has an obvious tendency to defeat its own purpose; since it draws the attention of the bystanders and of the public to the subject, and the work itself which is treated with such contumely,—still further excites the general curiosity, and creates a natural suspicion in every candid and thoughtful mind, that those who resort to such violent proceedings seek only to stigmatize and suppress that which they feel themselves unable to refute. Thanks to the operation of the printing-press, it is in vain now to expect that a production which has once made its way before the public can ever be finally put down by such means as these.

Mr. Biddle, however, was not so intimidated by the formidable exercise of human power displayed against him as to be deterred from directing his thoughts to the further promotion of what he conceived to be the noblest and most [34] worthy object on which they could be engaged, namely, a just understanding of the truth of God as revealed in his holy word. The fruit of these studies he soon afterwards published to the world in two tracts, which appeared in 1648; the first entitled ‘A Confession of Faith touching the Holy Trinity, according to the Scriptures;’ the second, ‘The Testimonies of Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Novatianus, Theophilus, and Origen, who lived in the two first centuries after Christ was born, or thereabouts, as also of Arnobius, Lactantius, Eusebius, Hilary, and Brightman, concerning the One God, and the Persons of the Holy Trinity.’ These pieces were doubtless suppressed at the time of their first publication, as far as was practicable; but they were reprinted in 1691, and are included in the first volume of the collection commonly called ‘The Old Socinian Tracts.’ In the preface to his ‘Confession of Faith,’ the author enlarges with much force of argument on the doctrinal absurdities and practical mischiefs which arise from the belief of three persons in one God; shewing that it introduceth, in fact, three Gods, and thus subverteth the unity of God so frequently inculcated in Scripture. Moreover, it hinders us from praying to God through his son Jesus Christ, as the Gospel directeth us to do; it prohibiteth us to love and honour God as we ought, for the highest love and honour is due to him who is the most high God; but the highest can be given to one person only; and the Son and Spirit being obviously derivative and dependent beings, can be only secondary objects of honour and love. The Confession itself is comprised in six articles, in the first of which he declares his belief in one most high God, the creator [35] of heaven and earth, the father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Son he considers as the second cause of all things pertaining to our salvation, and consequently as the intermediate object of our faith and worship, to whom also he ascribes the title of God, but in an inferior and subordinate sense. The last article relates to the Holy Spirit, and is as follows:—‘I believe that there is one principal minister of God and Christ, peculiarly sent from heaven to sanctify the church, who by eminence and intimacy with God is singled out of the number of the other heavenly ministers or angels, and comprised in the Holy Trinity, being the third person thereof; and that this minister of God and Christ is the Holy Spirit.’ The subjoined scriptural illustrations of these articles contain much acute and ingenious criticism on the texts which have been chiefly insisted on, on both sides of this controversy; but his concessions of the title God, as applied to Christ, and of the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit, involve his argument in difficulties and obscurities, of which an expert opponent would not fail to take great advantage. The ‘Testimonies,’ &c., among other decisive proofs that the opinions of these early fathers were very remote indeed from what has passed for orthodoxy in later times, contain several of the remarkable passages which have since been rendered so familiar by Dr. Priestley's ‘History of the Corruptions of Christianity,’ and the controversy to which it gave rise.

No one acquainted with the temper of those times will imagine that such publications as these could come abroad without exciting the most vehement indignation againt their author, and calling [36] down upon his head a still heavier storm than any which he had hitherto experienced. It was manifested, as usual, by most arbitrary exertions of that power which our Lord utterly disclaimed as a supporter for his church. On this occasion it was that the Assembly of Divines, chiefly Presbyterians, solicited from the Parliament the infamous ordinance against heresy and blasphemy. By this, among other flagrant outrages, it was enacted that any one who should, by preaching, printing, or writing, controvert the Deity of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, or the equality of Christ with the Father, or the distinction of two natures, or the sinless perfection of his humanity, should be declared a felon. It doomed them, if convicted on confession or on the oaths of two witnesses, before two justices, to imprisonment, without bail or mainprize, until the next gaol delivery, when the witnesses were bound to give evidence, and the party were to be indicted for feloniously publishing and maintaining such error. It then enacted, that in case the indictment should be found, and the party on trial should not abjure the said error, and maintenance and defence of the same, he or they should suffer the pains of death, as in case of felony, without benefit of clergy.

When such an instrument as this was placed in the hands of his enemies, it might seem that Biddle's fate was sealed; and it would most probably have been so, if he and such as he had been the only parties endangered by it. But it happily contained other clauses, denouncing severe penalties, though not proceeding to the same extremity, against many who, in these days of civil strife, were too powerful and formidable to be [37] thus dealt with. Among others, not a few in the army, both officers and soldiers, held opinions which were branded as heretical by this iniquitous statute; and hence, when the violently intolerant party whose councils had hitherto been predominant were shortly afterwards displaced by military force, their persecuting law was not enforced, and for several years lay nearly unregarded. After the death of the king, chiefly through the representations of Cromwell, a milder policy was adopted in respect of religious dissentients, by which Mr. Biddle in some measure benefited. He was still in custody under his original commitment by the House of Commons; but at this time he had somewhat more liberty allowed him by his keeper, and was even permitted, on security being given for his appearance, to go into Staffordshire, where he lived for some time in the house of a gentleman, who not only entertained him with kindness, but made him his chaplain, and procured him an appointment to preach at a neighbouring church. At his death he left him a legacy, which proved a seasonable supply to him, as he had by this time exhausted whatever funds he had accumulated at Gloucester in the expenses which his long confinement and other persecutions had occasioned. The name of this generous friend has not been preserved, nor does it appear for what length of time Mr. Biddle's respite continued. But it was probably not long; for we find that notice of his situation having been given to Bradshaw, the President of the Council of State, he was, by his direction, recalled, and placed in more strict and rigorous confinement.

At length, in 1651, the Parliament having passed a general act of oblivion, this virtuous sufferer [38] for conscience' sake was restored to full liberty, which he improved without delay, with a few friends whom his writings and the harsh usage he had received had procured for him in London. These he formed into a small religious society, who met in private every Lord's day for worship and the study of the scriptures. Their association was formed on the principle of the strict and absolute unity of the Divine nature, acknowledging the Father only as the proper object of Christian worship; the Saviour Christ as a man approved of God and sent by him to save mankind from their sins, and recognised to be the Son of God with power by his resurrection from the dead; and the Holy Ghost, conformably to the views maintained in Mr. Biddle's ‘Twelve Arguments,’ to be a distinct intelligent spirit, of high dignity and excellence, but not God, nor in any sense the object of worship. It is singular that, though we have good reason to believe that in this small community good seed was sown which did not altogether perish, and in particular that among its members were some of the authors of that remarkable collection of tracts already mentioned, which appeared in this country towards the close of the seventeenth century, and strongly attracted the attention of the religious world at that period to the Unitarian controversy, very few of the names of Mr. Biddle's immediate followers and disciples have been recorded.

For about three years Mr. Biddle and his friends appear to have enjoyed the liberty of meeting for worship and mutual improvement in humble obscurity, but unmolested. During this period his little congregation received a visit from Dr. Gunning, afterwards Regius Professor of Divinity at [39] Cambridge, and Bishop of Ely. He came attended by some learned friends, not, however, as presently appeared, for the purpose of witnessing, still less of joining in their worship, but to interrupt, oppose, and contradict. If Mr. Biddle had returned the compliment, the constable would have been sent for to take him into custody as a disturber of the public peace, and, perhaps, not undeservedly. But Gunning seems to have delighted in this kind of skirmishes, and was in the habit, as his biographer tells us, of looking out all sorts of sectaries, to dispute with them openly in their own congregations. On this occasion he immediately commenced a formal disputation, first, on the Deity of the Holy Spirit; and afterwards on the supreme Deity of Christ. Mr. Biddle was taken at a disadvantage, and by surprise, and, therefore, if he had been worsted in a contest undertaken upon such unfair and unequal terms, it ought not to have been considered, nor would it by any impartial person, as a symptom of the weakness of his cause. The discussion was conducted, as was customary in those days, according to the technical forms of the scholastic method of disputation, in which it is probable that the habits of our author's former life, as a student and tutor at the University, had rendered him sufficiently well skilled. At all events, he acquitted himself with such ability in this unlooked — for contest, as to defeat the design of his antagonist, and even to call forth a complimentary acknowledgment of his talent and skill as a disputant. Thus it happened that this attack, which was intended to destroy his credit with and influence over his adherents, had the contrary effect, [40] and served only to shew more clearly how deeply he had studied the question, and made himself master of the argument before he ventured on the bold and decisive step of avowing an unpopular doctrine, which rendered him obnoxious at once to the multitude and the civil power, and placed him in collision with the most learned men and the subtlest disputants of his time.

It may, however, be made a question how far such public contests, whether conducted in the formal method of syllogistic warfare, or in the more popular style of personal conference occasionally practised in our own times, are well fitted to promote either the cause of truth or the love of it. The point determined by the dispute, if any, is not which party is in the right, but which is the ablest disputant, the acutest reasoner, or most eloquent speaker; and the object will commonly be, not to search candidly for the truth, and to embrace it wherever it is to be found, but to prove the opponent to be in the wrong, to lay hold of and magnify those flaws and oversights in argument of which he who has the better cause may often be guilty. A habit of disputing, not for truth but for victory, is in this manner too apt to be generated. It may be added, that success in contests of this kind commonly depends not so much on general talent, or even on a correct knowledge of the points in question, as on other qualifications of a merely personal nature;—on a facility in public speaking, or on a peculiar readiness and self-possession, with an acuteness in discerning and exposing the weak parts of an opponent's case, which may or may not be connected with the profession of the truth, or with a disposition [41] to seek after and embrace it. We have no further record of the particulars of this public contest, or of its result; but there is no reason to think that it was any exception to the general rule in such cases, where the opposite parties commonly leave the scene of contention with their views unchanged, except that the line of separation is made more distinct, more broad and impassable than before, and each disputant more thoroughly fixed and settled in his original opinion.

About this time Mr. Biddle published several small pieces, chiefly translations from the writings of the Polish Unitarians; among the rest, ‘A brief Inquiry, touching a better Way than is commonly made use of to refute Papists, and to reduce Protestants to a certainty and unity in Religion,’ The immediate object of the writer (Joachim Stegman) is to point out the advantage which the advocates of Popery derive from certain opinions maintained by some Protestants, particularly on the condition of the soul in a supposed intermediate state. His remarks on this subject are judicious and forcible; but the work derives its principal interest from the sound views it exhibits of the proper method of seeking for religious truth, namely, to discard all human authority, and to stick to the scripture only, as explained and understood by right reason, without having any regard to tradition, or the authority of fathers, councils, &c. On this subject the following remarks of the translator are well deserving of attention.

Speaking of those who would be displeased with the work, because reason is therein much cried up, he says,

My desire therefore is, that [42] such persons would but consider what the holy scripture itself saith on this behalf;—how Paul (Rom. XII. 1) calleth the service which Christians are to exhibit unto God a rational or reasonable service. And Peter (1 Ep. III. 15) saith, “ Be ready always to make an apology unto every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.” Which passage clearly intimateth, that as there is no incongruity for others to require a reason of our hope in Christ, so we Christians are, above all other professors whatsoever, obliged to be very rational; —for to make an apology or defence in the behalf of so abstruse and sublime a doctrine as ours is, requireth a more than ordinary improvement of reason.

This being so, it may seem strange why so great a number even of Protestant ministers should make reason a common theme to disclaim against, giving to it (without warrant of scripture) the name of corrupt reason and carnal reason, and other the like eulogies. But the truth is, they themselves hold many absurd, unreasonable opinions; and so know right well, that if men once begin to make use of their reason, and bring the doctrines that are commonly taught to the touchstone of the scripture, explained and managed in a rational way, their tenets and reputation with the people will soon be laid in the dust. Let such ministers henceforward either leave off clamouring against reason, or no more open their mouths against Papists, and their opinion about transubstantiation; for whosoever shall sift the controversy between Papists and Protestants concerning it, shall find, that the principal, if not [43] only, ground why we reject it, is because it is repugnant to reason. But if transubstantiation is to be disclaimed because contrary to reason, why shall not all other unreasonable doctrines upon the same ground be exploded, especially seeing there is scarce any one of them that can plead so plausible a colour of scripture for itself as that can?

Another piece translated by Mr. Biddle was Przipcovius's Life of F. Socinus, with the preliminary discourse prefixed by that writer to the works of Socinus. ‘His views in this publication,’ says Dr. Toulmin, ‘appear to have been truly laudable and liberal; namely, to do justice to a character which had been much aspersed, and to hold up to contemplation a great example, at the same time that he enters a caveat against an implicit deference to the judgment of his hero.’

At this period our author also published two remarkable tracts in the catechetical form, explanatory of his peculiar views of Christian doctrine; one entitled ‘A Scripture Catechism,’ the other ‘A Brief Scripture Catechism for Children;’ in which the apparently unexceptionable plan is pursued, of leaving the scripture to speak for itself, by constructing the questions in such a form that the answers may be given in the unaltered words of holy writ. He describes his Scripture Catechism as ‘composed for their sakes that would fain be mere Christians, and not of this or that sect; inasmuch as all the sects of Christians, by what name soever distinguished, have more or less departed from the simplicity and truth of the scripture.’ I have called this an apparently unexceptionable method; but it may, [44] perhaps, be doubted, whether it is really entitled to all the praise of impartiality and fairness which seems at first sight to belong to it. It is granted that we have good reason to consider it as no small recommendation of our religious opinions, that they admit of being expressed in the genuine words of scripture, without requiring the introduction of new and strange terms and phrases unknown to the sacred writers. But it may be alleged, that the difficulty which is sometimes felt in dispensing with such phrases, is to a certain degree incidental, arising from the change of language, and from the circumstance that the books of the New Testament were, for the most part, written with an immediate view to local and temporary purposes; so that it is hardly to be expected that they should contain a regular statement of doctrines which admits of being construed with minute verbal accuracy, like the clauses of an act of parliament, or the formal propositions of a systematic treatise. It must be remembered, too, that all Protestant sects profess at least to found their peculiar doctrines upon scripture; and there can be little doubt that, by a dexterous adaptation of the questions to the phraseology of detached passages selected from different places and separated from their connexion, catechisms might be constructed upon this plan which should appear to give the sanction of holy writ to the most discordant opinions. The method, if it be adopted at all, requires to be pursued with caution, from its tendency to withdraw the attention from the general scope and tenor of the sacred writings, and direct it upon particular words and phrases; in not a few instances, upon the words, [45] not of the author himself, but of his uninspired translator, who may not always have fairly represented the meaning of the original; being, perhaps, unconsciously biassed so as to give a turn to the passage favourable to his own previously formed opinions. It may be added, that this mode of citing texts, unless carefully guarded, is in danger of encouraging the baneful practice of adducing passages of scripture as though they were a collection of detached aphorisms, and not portions of a continued discourse, to be interpreted by reference to the context and the obvious intention and purpose of the writer. The remark of some one, that at this rate we might prove from scripture the proposition, ‘there is no God,’ is scarcely an exaggeration of the extent to which this abuse has sometimes been carried, or of the mischievous absurdities which have in this manner sought to derive the shadow of support from the highest authority.

The appearance of these tracts was enough to alarm the bigoted advocates of prevailing doctrines, who presently proceeded to adopt the usual arbitrary and oppressive mode of dealing with an opponent stigmatized with the odious and unpopular name of heretic. A series of propositions was selected and condemned by a vote of the House of Commons, and the book itself ordered, as usual, to be burnt by the common hangman. Mr. Biddle was summoned to the bar of the House, and interrogated whether he was the author of the obnoxious treatise. Instead of committing himself by an avowal, he answered by asking, in his turn, whether it seemed reasonable that one brought before a judgment-seat [46] as a criminal should acuse himself? This prudent reserve, however, was of no avail to protect him when the judges had already condemned him unheard. He was forthwith committed close prisoner to the Gate-house; debarred the use of pen, ink, and paper, and denied the access of any visitant. At the same time his book encountered two opponents, who attacked it with more suitable and appropriate weapons. Mr. N. Estwick, some time fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge, published an examination and confutation of Mr. Biddle's ‘Confession of Faith,’ touching the Holy Trinity; and the celebrated Dr. Owen, then in the zenith of his fame and the brightest ornament of the University of Oxford under the Commonwealth, at the request of the Council of State, drew up and published his ‘Vindiciae Evangelicae, or the Mystery of the Gospel vindicated, and Socinianism examined in the Consideration and Confutation of a Catechism, called a Scripture Catechism by J. Biddle.’

The oppressive treatment to which our intrepid confessor was thus subjected seems to have had no effect on his subsequent conduct. Undismayed by the fear of man, he continued to assert the rights of conscience; and when set at liberty from his rigorous confinement, instead of withdrawing into tranquil obscurity, contented to enjoy his opinions in silence, he resumed his former labours for the promotion of what appeared to him to be the truth as it is in Jesus. It was not long, therefore, before he was again brought under the cognizance of the civil power. There seems little reason to doubt that Mr. Biddle's personal exertions and publications, aided as they doubtless [47] were to a very considerable extent by the notoriety and public sympathy which he derived from these repeated persecutions, had excited a spirit of inquiry, and even a disposition to embrace his doctrines in numbers sufficient to rouse the alarm both of the sincere bigot, who honestly believed that the profession of the right faith (meaning his own faith) was essential to salvation, and of others, who, with more unworthy motives, were anxious to maintain their own personal influence, and the political predominance of the religious party to which they belonged. To the former class probably must be referred a Mr. Griffin, the minister of a Baptist congregation in the city, many of whose hearers had begun to shew a leaning to Unitarian opinions; he was induced, in consequence, to challenge Mr. Biddle to a public disputation on the subject in his own meeting-house. With considerable hesitation and reluctance, probably arising from an unwillingness to court the hostile notice of the temporal power, though he never allowed such considerations to deter him from the path of indispensable and acknowledged duty, Mr. Biddle at length complied, and met his antagonist, whom he found surrounded by a numerous auditory, including some of his own most bitter and vehement adversaries. Griffin began by asking, if any man there did deny that Christ was God most high? on which Mr. Biddle replied, with sincerity and firmness, ‘I do deny it.’ The disputation then proceeded by Griffin endeavouring at large to establish the affirmative, which he is said to have done in such a manner as to shew himself no fit opponent for Mr. Biddle, who it was agreed [48] should take his turn to bring forward the opposite arguments on a future day, to which the debate was adjourned. But in the mean time, a power of a different kind took up the matter. Information had been laid by some of the parties present at the first day's debate of Mr. Biddle's open avowal of his sentiments; the consequence of which was, that he was speedily committed, and at the next session brought to trial for his life. He was arraigned on the iniquitous ordinance before-mentioned against heresy and blasphemy; which after having for some years lain almost dormant, was revived on this occasion as the instrument of oppression against the same individual whose earlier exertions in behalf of free inquiry after religious truth had in the first instance suggested it. The mode of procedure was in many respects worthy of the unchristian spirit of the law (if it deserves that name) on which it was founded. When he prayed that counsel might be allowed him to plead the illegality of the indictment, it was denied him by the judges, and the sentence of a mute threatened. Upon this he gave into court his exceptions engrossed on parchment, and with much struggling had counsel allowed him; but his trial was deferred till the next day.

His life now appeared to be in imminent hazard, for he was in the hands of those who had no want of disposition to exert to its full extent the power with which this persecuting ordinance invested them. Here, however, the policy of the Protector Cromwell happily led him to interfere on his behalf, and prevent matters from being carried to this extremity. The temper of the [49] times considered, Cromwell had imbibed more just ideas of religious liberty; and in many instances shewed himself not indisposed to act upon them, where political interests and the establishment of his own precarious ascendancy did not appear to demand a different course. It is true he frequently adopted very harsh and arbitrary measures, both against the Episcopalians and the Catholics; but he seems to have been influenced herein, not by religious bigotry, but by the persuasion, doubtless not ill-founded, that these parties were almost unanimously hostile to his government. On the present occasion, it was contrary to his policy to strengthen the hands of the Presbyterian party, who, in that age, were the most active abettors of rigorous proceedings against those whom they deemed heretics. All that were for liberty, especially many congregations of Baptists, petitioned for Biddle's discharge, and earnestly protested against the revival of this tyrannical ordinance, by which their own liberties would be endangered, and the leading articles of the ‘instrument,’ on which the Protector's government was founded, infringed. Of these articles one of the most remarkable was as follows:— ‘Such as profess faith in God by Jesus Christ (though differing in judgment from the doctrine, worship, or discipline publicly held forth) shall not be restrained from, but protected in the profession of their faith and exercise of their religion.’ And again, ‘all statutes, ordinances, &c., to the contrary of the aforesaid liberty, shall be esteemed null and void.’

Notwithstanding this, it would not have been prudent in Cromwell to set Mr. Biddle completely [50] at liberty; by which step not only the Presbyterians, but the greater part of those of all denominations who were earnestly attached to what were called orthodox views in religion, would have been deeply offended. He, therefore, detained him in prison, and, after some time, wearied out with the solicitations of the contending parties, sent him into banishment in the Scilly Islands, October 5, 1655,

In this seclusion he was, it is true, debarred from most of his customary occupations, and particularly from that to which his life had been mainly devoted, namely, that of asserting and promoting the diffusion of what he regarded as the pure truth of the Gospel; but he was at the same time withdrawn from the pursuit of his deadly enemies, and, for nearly three years, employed his solitary leisure without interruption in biblical studies, Here, his biographer informs us,¹ ‘he enjoyed much divine comfort from the heavenly contemplations which his retirement gave him opportunity for;—here he had sweet communion with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ, and attained a clearer understanding of the divine oracles in many particulars. Here, while he was more abundantly confirmed in the doctrines of his confession of faith, &c., yet he seems, notwithstanding, to have become more doubtful about some other points which he had formerly held, as appears from his Essay to the explaining of the Revelation, which he wrote after his return thence; which shews that he still retained a free and unprejudiced mind.’ During this period he was partly provided for by an [51] allowance of a hundred crowns a-year, granted him by the Protector; and there is reason to believe that, in the little flock of attached adherents whom he had collected in London, there were some both able and willing to minister to his necessities.

In the year 1658, Cromwell suffered a writ of habeas corpus to be granted by the Upper Bench Court, as it was then called, by virtue of which Mr. Biddle was at length set at liberty and restored to his friends; among whom he speedily resumed his long interrupted exercises and pursuits, undismayed by the dangers he had encountered and the evils he had suffered, and deeming not even his life dear unto him, if by any means he might promote the knowledge of the only true God, and of Jesus Christ whom he had sent. In a short time, however, fresh troubles arose. Five months after his return from banishment the Protector died, and his son Richard called a parliament, which being mainly returned by his old enemies, the Presbyterians, were not unlikely to resort to hostile proceedings against him. He, therefore, took the precaution of retiring into the country during this session; but, on the dissolution of that parliament, he resumed his former station, till the restoration of Charles II., when, as is well known, the Episcopal church being immediately reestablished, its adherents shortly repaid, with interest, to dissenters of all descriptions, the sufferings they had themselves endured. All public meetings for worship elsewhere than at the established churches were interdicted, and punished as seditious. By these violent and arbitrary measures, Mr. Biddle and his friends suffered in common [52] with those from whom they had formerly endured so much. For some time he endeavoured to protect himself from the impending storm by abstaining from public assemblies, and holding only private meetings. But even so, he was not safe; for, on the 1st of June, 1662, when he and some of his friends were met for divine worship at his own lodgings, they were seized and carried before Sir Richard Brown, a justice of peace, who committed them all to prison, without admitting them to bail. The recorder, having more regard for legal forms, released them on their finding security to answer to the charge to be brought against them at the next sessions. There seems, however, little doubt that these outrageous proceedings were not only prompted by any thing rather than a regard for the public peace, but directed by a “vigour beyond the law.” The Act of Uniformity was indeed passed at this time, but did not come into force till some months afterwards; and, in fact, when the trial came on, the court, not being able to find any statute whereon to found an indictment, they were referred to the following sessions. They were then proceeded against at common law; a mode of procedure which sometimes appears nearly equivalent to leaving every thing to be settled at the discretion of the presiding judge. The result was, that every one of the hearers was fined in twenty pounds, and Mr. Biddle in one hundred pounds, and to be imprisoned till the fine was paid. From inability to pay this fine he, therefore, continued in prison. But, in five weeks afterwards, through the noisomeness of the place and the close air, (very offensive to him, whose only recreation and exercise for many years had been to walk [53] daily in the open air,) he contracted a disease, which put an end to his life on the 22d of September, 1662. He was then in the strength of his age, the forty-seventh year of his life.

That John Biddle was prepared to meet death in whatever form he might present himself, with calmness and composure, no one who attentively considers the events of his life can for a moment doubt. His whole life had been one continued preparation for its close; and, though devoted to the service of God, and of the best interests of mankind, but little of it had been of such a character as to inspire him with any very ardent wish for its long continuance. With the apostle he might be ready to spend and be spent in the cause of Christian truth, which is that of human happiness and improvement; but with him also he could not but inwardly pray to be released from this toilsome painful service, to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Through much tribulation it was allotted to him, in a dark and troubled age, to perform his appointed work; but he did perform it with an undaunted spirit, swayed neither by the praise nor the fear of man, inspired only by a regard for the honour of God, and what he conceived to be the truth as it is in Jesus, with an earnest endeavour so to impress it on the understandings of men, that it might exercise a practical influence over their hearts and lives.

He was far from being a voluminous writer; and though his name is intimately associated with the history, in our country, of that doctrine which he laboured and suffered so much to diffuse, he was by no means particularly eager to engage in [54] the various controversies which his obnoxious opinions from time to time excited. In fact, he was at all times much more disposed to lay stress on a life suitable to the Christian profession than on the utmost correctness of doctrinal opinion, and was unwilling to discourse of his distinguishing tenets with those who appeared not to be religious according to their knowledge. ‘Neither could he bear those that dissembled in profession for worldly interests. He was a strict observer himself, and a severe exacter in others, of reverence in speaking of God and Christ and holy things; so that he would by no means hear their names or any sentence of holy scripture used vainly or lightly; much less any foolish talking or scurrility. He would often tell his friends, that no religion would benefit a bad man; and call upon them to resolve with themselves as well to profess and practise the truth that is according to godliness, as to study to find it out, and that against all terrors or allurements to the contrary; being assured that nothing displeasing to Almighty God could be in anywise profitable to them.’²

It is to be regretted that the little band of followers whom Mr. Biddle had collected, though many of them had imbibed his religious opinions, do not seem to have been equally imbued with his firmness and spirit. There is no appearance of their having continued after this time to hold meetings for worship, or maintaining their connexion in any way as a religious society upon Unitarian principles. We mention this as a subject of regret, not of censure, with which we, who [55] live in more peaceful tranquil days, have no right to visit those who yielded to trials which we ourselves might not have been able to bear. The only one of Mr. Biddle's disciples who has attained any distinction is Mr. Thomas Firmin, then a young man, who lived, however, to become a very eminent London merchant, and the associate and intimate friend of Archbishop Tillotson, Fowler, Bishop of Gloucester, and others of the most distinguished men of his time. In his private intercourse with these friends, he made no secret of his Unitarian opinions; and it is even understood that many tracts in the curious and valuable collection already mentioned, and known by the name of the old Socinian Tracts, were written under his direction, and published at his expense. But he was all his life an outward conformist to the Church of England; and, in fact, is much more worthy of remembrance as an active, benevolent, though not always very judicious philanthropist, than as a consistent and conscientious Unitarian.

These remarks are believed to apply also in a considerable measure to the writers of the ‘Socinian Tracts.’ These appeared, for the most part anonymously, at intervals during the last ten years of the seventeenth century; and there can be no doubt that they had a powerful effect in drawing the attention of the religious world, at that period to the Trinitarian controversy. Many of them display extensive learning, and are written with no ordinary talent, spirit, and controversial skill. In fact, in various instances these writers have left little of consequence to be added by their successors in more recent times, But they did [56] not conceive that their principles laid them under any obligation to come out of the church. On the contrary, they even pretended to prove the agreement of Unitarians with the Catholic church; and availed themselves with great ingenuity of the controversy at that time prevailing between Sherlock and South, and their respective adherents, to shew that, while the former were no better than Tritheists, the latter, whom they represented as constituting a great majority, differed in nothing essential from the Unitarians; so that they themselves were to all intents and purposes good sound orthodox churchmen. In all this, it must be confessed that logical dexterity is much more conspicuous than honesty or consistency. If Mr. Biddle, to whom they sometimes profess to look up as their master, had learnt in their school, or had been disposed to act upon their principles, he might never have gone to the Scilly Islands; nor would he now have been remembered as an illustrious and venerable confessor, who ‘on evil days though fallen and evil tongues,’ did not hesitate to contend manfully for the truth, though called upon to sacrifice station, property, liberty, and, finally, even life itself, in its cause.