John Biddle

                                                                                                                    

A Return to First Principles: John Biddle’s Use of Reason

The Socinian movement of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was intertwined with the rise of Enlightenment thought, particularly amongst Eastern Europeans immigrating to the West.[1]  Socinians rejected an instrumental use of reason, as in Reformed theology, in favor of a magisterial use of reason as the first principle in theological method.[2]  The locus of authority transitioned from external to internal, where it still remains in much of modern theology.[3]      

The use of reason shaped the entirety of Socinian theology.  By stripping away man-made traditions and building on human reason, it sought to return to a strictly biblical Christianity.  The Socinian method is exemplified by the English Socinian/Unitarian of the seventeenth century, John Biddle.[4]  Reformed theologian, John Owen, in his Vindiciae Evangelicae, challenged this methodology.[5] 

The purpose of this essay is to examine John Biddle’s theological method as revealed in the preface to his Two-Fold Catechism.[6]  This paper proves that Biddle used reason as the first principle, resulting in his four-fold theological method: 1) Removal of man-made tradition, 2) sola Scriptura, 3) Magisterial Reason, 4) Certainty.[7]  Biddle’s approach is contrasted with that of John Owen in his response to the Two-Fold Catechism.   This essay is in three parts.  First, a brief biography of Biddle sets his theology in its context; second, Biddle’s use of reason is examined; and third, Biddle’s use of reason is contrasted with that of John Owen.

Biography

John Biddle was born in 1615/6 in Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire, England, to a woolen cloth dealer.  Before the age of ten, he had demonstrated such scholastic aptitude that a nearby nobleman began to make annual contributions to support his education.  After receiving his Master’s degree from Oxford, this freethinker set out to study the Bible for himself, rather than simply accept the traditions of others. 

Biddle determined that the Bible does not teach the common doctrine of the Trinity, nor does the doctrine conform to reason.  Apparently, he came to these conclusions without having previously read any Socinian works.[8]  He formulated his conclusions in XII Arguments drawn out of the Scripture; wherein the commonly-received Opinion touching the Deity of the Holy Spirit, is clearly and fully refuted.  This work led to an accusation of heresy and drew the attention of Parliament, which kept Biddle in prison or exile for the majority of the last seventeen years of his life.

In his moments of freedom, Biddle published A Confession of Faith touching the Holy Trinity, according to Scripture (1648), and A Two-fold Catechism (1654).  He also published a translation of the life of Socinus and two Socinian tracts, while founding what is regarded as the first Unitarian church in England.[9]  In 1662, at the age of forty-seven, Biddle succumbed to illness while in prison.    

Examination

Removing Tradition

In the preface to his Two-Fold Catechism, John Biddle began his theological method by removing man-made traditions.  He was motivated to write by the lack of a catechism that taught the “true grounds” of Christianity, as it is presented in Scripture.  Previous catechisms were “stuffed with the supposals and traditions of men,” and were not derived from the Word of God.[10]

Biddle was opposed to all councils and assemblies of divines, which formulated creeds and confessions “according to their own fancies and interests,” thereby usurping the primary place of Scripture.  No doubt Biddle was thinking specifically of the Westminster Assembly, which had taken place less than ten years earlier.[11]  The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England seemed to be a target, alongside the Westminster Standards, when Biddle disparaged the ratifying of articles and confessions by the civil magistrate.[12]

The stripping away of the traditions of men extended all the way back to the Council of Nicea, where in Biddle’s eyes, the Council, pressured by Constantine, deviated from the language of Scripture.  Describing the Son of God as coessential with the Father opened the door for others, who later devised unbiblical terminology at will, under the pretence of combating heresy.  Biddle likened the true Christian faith to the ship of Theseus of Greek myth, with men throughout the centuries replacing biblical truth with their own tradition, leaving the original unrecognizable.  Regarding the religion of his day, Biddle thought, “that one might justly question whether it were the same Religion with that which Christ and his Apostles taught, and not another since devised by men.”[13]  Biddle removed the traditions of men so that he could return to sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura

After years of battling the Roman Catholic Church concerning the doctrine of sola Scriptura, the Reformers were engaged on another front in the war for truth by Biddle and his fellow Socinians.  The Reformers had challenged Rome for making tradition an equal authority with Scripture; now, the Socinians were essentially accusing the Reformers of the same thing.  Rome had repudiated the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura; the Socinians claimed that they believed in sola Scriptura more than the Reformers.  This is evidenced by Biddle’s method in his catechism.

After stripping away man-made tradition, Biddle was left with Scripture alone.  He claimed to have composed his catechism “according to the understanding I have gotten by continual meditation on the word of God.”[14]  Biddle spent years in “an impartial search of Scripture,” and thus presented “a body of Religion, exactly transcribed out of the Word of God.”[15]  The process he described sounds similar to that of Descartes, stripping away everything but that which is indubitable.[16]

Biddle was so committed to sola Scriptura that the answers to all his catechism questions contained only scriptural quotations, with no interpretation.  He rejected all doctrine that was explained using any non-biblical language, including original sin, substitutionary atonement, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, et al.  He explained, “[t]hou shalt finde, that as these forms of speech are not owned by the Scripture; so neither the things contained in them.”[17]  Left with sola Scriptura, Biddle relied solely on his own reason to interpret revelation.

Magisterial Reason

All that was necessary for an understanding of the true Christian faith, according to Biddle, was Scripture aided by reason.  He chided the councils and assemblies that wrote catechisms, because they “refuse to make use of their Reason, but presume that their Readers also would do the same.”[18]  Readers who exercised their own reason would plainly see through man-made traditions and interpret the Bible for themselves.

Reason was the foundation of Biddle’s theology, with the catechism implicitly revealing that reason was more foundational than Scripture itself.  He desired to return Christianity to its “primitive integrity” and reduce it to its “first principles.”[19]  While not explicitly stated in the preface, it is clear for Biddle that the principles of reason formed the boundaries for revelation.  Reason was not directly pitted against Scripture, but any interpretation that did not conform to right reason must be reinterpreted.  This led to Biddle’s rejection of the Trinity and the incarnation. 

Biddle nowhere revealed a belief that reason had been corrupted by the Fall.  As noted earlier, he gained understanding only through meditation on the word of God.  He believed that the individual’s faculty of reason was capable of interpreting Scripture properly, unaided by others, and even claimed to “assert nothing, (as others have done before me) but onely [sic] introduce the Scripture faithfully uttering it own assertions.”[20]  His belief in the capability of reason to remain unbiased explains why Biddle spoke of “an impartial search of the Scripture.”

Literal interpretation of Scripture was the objective standard for Biddle.  Based on a proper use of reason, it was surer than a “mystical or figurative” interpretation, due to “there being no certain rule to judge of such meanings, as there is of the literal ones.”[21]  Those who adopted a non-literal interpretation, especially when the literal was clear from similar texts, turned the Scriptures into a “nose of wax.”  Biddle, referring to the Bible speaking of God having a shape, residing in heaven, and as having affections, asked, “Why now should I depart from the letter of the Scripture in these particulars, and boldly affirm with the generality of Christians . . . that God is without a shape, in no certain place, and uncapable [sic] of affections?”[22]  Whereas a figurative interpretation offered “no setled [sic] belief” and caused believers “to be turned aside by any one that can invent a new mystical meaning of the Scripture,” reason revealed that the literal interpretation led to certainty .[23]

Certainty

Biddle believed that reason was capable of providing certainty in religion, in contrast to those relying on the traditions of men, who were left “having little or no assurance touching the reality of their Religion!”[24]  This was the result of constant flux within man-made traditions, while Scripture founded on reason provided sure footing.  Many who relied on human tradition, according to Biddle, had abandoned piety altogether, “thinking that there is no firm ground whereon to build the same.”[25]

The avenue for genuine certainty was a return to sola Scriptura, accompanied by a reasonable approach to the Bible.  If the readers approach the Word with diligence and sincerity, they will “embrace the doctrine that is there plainly delivered” and “easily discern the Truth.”[26]  The reader arrives at certainty through the senses, “which the Scripture it self [sic] intimates to be of infallible certainty, see 1 Joh. 1.2.”[27]  Biddle elevated reason, through the use of the senses, to the point of infallible certainty. 

John Owen’s Use of Reason

In 1654 the Council of State commissioned John Owen to refute Socinianism, and the following year Vindiciae Evangelicae was published.[28]  In it, Owen meticulously dissected Socinian arguments, particularly those of John Biddle in his Two-Fold Catechism.  Owen’s response to Biddle’s four-fold method will be introduced, before turning to Owen’s use of reason in his own theology.

Owen viewed Biddle’s lament that previous catechisms were insufficient in the use of Scripture and reason as arrogant.  He mockingly described Biddle’s view, “All that have gone before him were knaves, fools, idiots, madmen.”[29]  Owen did not deny that previous catechisms contained errors and mistakes, but they were certainly useful.

In Owen’s opinion, using only Scripture quotations for the answer portion of the catechism was not a helpful solution.  Biddle claimed neutrality, but instead taught his own views in the “insinuating, ensnaring, captious questions, . . . leaving the understanding of the reader to a misapprehension and misapplication of the words of the Scripture.”[30]  Owen believed that Biddle grossly perverted biblical teaching, even more so than Socinus, all under the guise of sola Scriptura.

With regard to reason, Owen asserted that Biddle set himself as the standard as to what man could or could not understand, with Biddle concluding that if he could not understand the doctrine, it must not be true.  This was evidenced in Biddle’s position on the two natures of Christ.  Owen also critiqued Biddle’s biblicism, particularly the idea that God has a shape, explaining that God accommodates himself for human understanding.  This was far from Biddle’s accusation that Reformed theology read the Bible as saying one thing and intending the contrary.[31]

 Skepticism was the end product of Biddle’s system, said Owen, not certainty.  The catechism pretended to fix readers to a sure foundation of Scripture, but instead converted people from faith.  They were not secured to the answers taken from Scripture, but to Biddle’s questions.[32]  Owen profoundly disagreed with Biddle’s belief in the infallibility of the senses, believing that natural capabilities are corrupted after the Fall.  He concluded his evaluation of the preface to the catechism, “Having thus . . . washed off the paint that was put upon the porch of Mr B.’s fabric, and discovered it to be a composure of rotten posts and dead men’s bones. . .”      

John Owen’s use of reason was the common Reformed approach, fides quarens intellectum. He wanted to find a middle ground between the “cashiering of reason from having any hand” and “ascribing sovereignty to reason to judge of the particulars of religion.”[33]  Along with Turretin and other Reformed contemporaries, Owen believed that reason is an instrument of faith, not the foundation, as the Socinians.[34]  Biddle and the Socinians used reason to provide the boundaries of belief; Owen and the Reformed used reason to explain what was already believed from Scripture and the Analogy of Faith. 

Owen utilized the Reformed distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology.  Man can only know what is revealed to him.  What is revealed may be suprarational, but is never irrational.  He explained:

This is the sovereign dictate of reason, – that whatever God reveals to be believed is true, and as such must be embraced, though the bottom of it cannot be sounded by reason’s line; and that because the reason of a man is not absolutely reason, but, being the reason of man, is variously limited, bounded, and made defective in its ratiocinations.[35]

 

Biddle did not distinguish between archetypal and ectypal theology, and thus used boundless human reason (univocal to absolute reason) to bind revelation; whereas, Owen started with boundless revelation and sought to understand it (in an ectypal capacity), using reason as instrument.

Reason is corrupt and blind after the fall, said Owen, and the senses can never provide infallible certainty, contra Biddle.[36]  However, after regeneration, believers are capable of using reason properly, in accordance with obedience to Christ (2 Cor 10:5).[37]  Regenerated reason receives the commands of Christ and understands, loves, believes, and obeys them.[38]  Certainty can only come when reason is enlightened by the Holy Spirit.[39]

Owen summarized his opposition to the magisterial use of reason, “For those who would resolve their faith into reason, we confess that they overthrow not only faith but reason itself; there being nothing more irrational than that belief should be the product of reason, being properly an assent resolved into authority.”[40]

In conclusion, John Biddle believed that he was returning to a truer form of Christianity by removing tradition, returning to sola Scriptura, using reason in a magisterial capacity, and relying on his senses for infallible certainty.  Reason took a fundamental role and determined the boundaries of inspired revelation.  In contrast, John Owen used reason instrumentally to explain his faith seeking understanding, while never providing the ultimate criterion for truth.

 

---

[1]  Jonathan Israel, Enlightenment Contested (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 115-34.

[2]  See Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, trans. by George Musgrave Giger, ed. by James T. Dennison, Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), I.viii.

[3]  An example being the Openness theology movement of the late twentieth century, which uses a similar hermeneutic as Socinianism; see Richard Rice, God’s Foreknowledge & Man’s Free Will (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1985); Clark H. Pinnock, ed., The Grace of God, the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989); Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Bainsger, The Openness of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994).  See also, Robert B. Strimple, “What Does God Know?” in The Coming Evangelical Crisis, ed. John H. Armstrong (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), who directly connects Openness theology with Socinianism.

[4]  In the seventeenth century, it was common to label any antitrinitarian a Socinian.  Biddle differed with Socinus on a few key points, but remained in the same vein.  See Earl Morse Wilbur, Our Unitarian Heritage: An Introduction to the History of the Unitarian Movement (Boston: The Beacon Press, 1925); and Alan W. Gomes, Unitarian Universalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998).

[5]  John Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae; or The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1966).

[6]  John Biddle, A Twofold Catechism: The One Simply Called a Scripture-Catechism; The Other, A Brief Scripture-Catechism for Children.  (London, 1654).  There is no pagination in the preface.

[7]  Biddle does not delineate his theological method.  The four-fold structure is the author’s conclusion, based on Biddle’s work.

[8]  Wilbur, Unitarian Heritage, 300.

[9]  Wilbur, Unitarian Heritage, 303.

[10]  Biddle, Catechism, preface.

[11]  Biddle had been repeatedly called before the Assembly to explain his views on the deity of the Holy Spirit.  See Wilbur, Unitarian Heritage, 301.  

[12]  Biddle, Catechism, preface.

[13]  Biddle, Catechism, preface.  

[14]  Biddle, Catechism, preface.

[15]  Biddle, Catechism, preface.

[16]  For Descartes, the indubitable was the fact of his existence; for Biddle the indubitable was Scripture accompanied by his reason.

[17]  Biddle, Catechism, preface.

[18]  Biddle, Catechism, preface.

[19]  Biddle, Catechism, preface.

[20]  Biddle, Catechism, preface.

[21]  Biddle, Catechism, preface.

[22]  Biddle, Catechism, preface.

[23]  Biddle, Catechism, preface.

[24]  Biddle, Catechism, preface.

[25]  Biddle, Catechism, preface.

[26]  Biddle, Catechism, preface. 

[27]  Biddle, Catechism, preface. 

[28]  For a biography of Owen, see Peter Toon, God’s Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen (Exeter: Paternoster, 1971).  For an overview of his theology, see Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K.: Paternoster, 1998).

[29]  John Owen, Vindiciae Evangelicae: or the Mystery of the Gospel vindicated and Socinianism Examined, volume XII (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1974), 60.

[30]  Owen, XII, 61.

[31]  Owen, XII, 64-5.

[32]  Owen, XII, 62.

[33]  Owen, XIV, 73-4.

[34]  See Turretin, Institutes, I.viii.  

[35]  Owen XIV, 74.

[36]  He wrote, “To make the reason of a man, proceeding and acting upon its own light and inbred principles, the absolute and sovereign judge of the things that are proposed to be believed or practiced in religion, so as that it should be free for him to receive or reject them, according as they answer and are suited thereunto, is. . . absurd and foolish.” Owen XIV, 356-7.

[37]  Owen, XIV, 74; 356-7.

[38]  Owen, XIV, 76.

[39]  Owen wrote, “The certainty and assurance that we may have and ought to have of our right understanding the mind of God in the Scripture. . . doth not depend upon, is not resolved into, any immediate inspiration or enthusiasm; it doth not depend upon nor is resolved into the authority of any church in the world; nor is it the result of our reason and understanding merely in their natural actings, but as they are elevated, enlightened, guided, conducted, by an internal efficacious work of the Spirit of God upon them.”  IV, 126.

[40]  Owen, XIV, 76.