Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 05.djvu/22

 mistake not, was put under the tuition of John Oxenbridge, a person noted to be of no good principles.' In his college, an early biographer informs us, 'he did so philosophize, as it might be observed, he was determined more by reason than authority; however, in divine things he did not much dissent from the common doctrine, as may be collected from a little tract he wrote against dancing.'

On 23 June 1638 he passed B.A., and then became an eminent tutor in his college. On 20 May 1641 he proceeded M. A. Before this date he had been 'invited to take upon him the care of teaching the school wherein he had been educated' (Athenæ Oxon.) Soon after the magistrates of Gloucester, 'upon ample recommendations from the principal persons in the university,' chose him 'master of the free school in the parish of St. Mary le Crypt in that city.' He accepted this appointment, and 'he was much esteemed for his diligence in his profession, serenity of manners, and sanctity of life.' 'At length,' says Wood, 'the nation being brought into confusion by the restless presbyterians, the said city garrison'd for the use of the parliament, and every one vented his or their opinions as they pleased, he began to be free of his discourses of what he studied there at leisure hours concerning the Trinity, from the Holy Scriptures, having not then, as he pretended, convers'd with Socinian books. . . . But the presbyterian party, then prevalent, having notice of these matters, and knowing well what mischief he might do among his disciples, the magistrate summon'd him to appear before him ; and after several interrogatories, a form of confession imder three heads was proposed to him to make, which he accomingly did 2 May 1644, but not altogether in the words proposed. Which matter giving them no satisfaction, he made another confession in the same month, more evident than the former, to avoid the danger of imprisonment which was to follow if he did deny it.'

The matter seemed to have blown over, and Biddle quietly pursued his study in Holy Scripture. His manuscript—which ultimately he meant to print and publish—containing a statement of nis religious opinions, was treacherously obtained by a supposed friend. The parliamentary commissioners were then sitting in Gloucester, and were put in possession of his manuscript on 2 Dec. 1645. The commissioners read his 'Arguments,' and forthwith committed their author to the common gaol till opportunity should offer of bringing nis case before the House of Commons. A local gentleman interposing on his behalf, and becoming bail for him, he was allowed out ' on condition of his appearing before parliament when required, to answer any charges which might be brought against him.'

In June 1646 Archbishop Ussher, passing through Gloucester on his way to London, held a conference with the bailed prisoner of state, but could not convince him of his errors. The great prelate 'spoke to and used him with all fairness and pity, as well as strength of argument,' and it must be added with all respect ; 'for the truth is,' observes Anthony à Wood, 'except his opinions there was little or nothing blameworthy in him.'

About six months after he had been liberated on bail, he was cited to Westminster to make his defence. The parliament appointed a committee to examine him. He admitted that he did not believe in the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, and express his readiness to discuss the subject with any theologian whom they might appoint. There was delay, and Biddle desired Sir Henry Vane of the committee to see that his cause might be heard or he be set at liberty. Vane proposed this on the floor of the house, and otherwise showed a friendliness to Biddle which did not improve his prospects. Biddle therefore boldly published 'Twelve Questions or Arguments drawn out of Scripture, wherein the commonly received Opinion touching the Deity of the Holy Spirit is clearly and fully refuted,' 1647. Prefixed is a letter to Vane, and at the end 'An Exposition of five principal Passages of the Scripture alledged by the Adversaries to prove the Deity of the Holy Ghost.' Called to the bar of the house, he owned the book, and was remanded to prison, and on 6 Sept. 1647 the ' Twelve Arguments ' was ordered to be burnt by the hangman as being blasphemous.

The 'Twelve Arguments' attracted great attention, and was reprinted in the same year. It was answered by Matthew Poole in his 'Plea for the Godhead of the Holy Ghost,' subsequently enlarged. The letter to Vane is able and dignified. Nicholas Estwick, B.D., and others, exposed mistakes of fact in the book, but Biddle, who read all, would not admit that he was confuted.

On 2 May 1648 an ordinance was passed that inflicted the penalty of death upon those who denied the doctrine of the Trinity. None the less Biddle published in the same year his 'Confession of Faith touching the Holy Trinity according to Scripture,' and in quick succession 'The Testimonies of Irenæus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Novatianus, Theophilus, Origen (who lived in the first two centuries after Christ was born or thereabouts), as also of Arnobius, Lactantius, &c., concerning that One God and the Persons of