Three Apostles of Quakerism: Popular Sketches of Fox, Penn and Barclay

by Benjamin Rhodes

PREFACE.

This sketch was outlined as a companion sketch to those of Fox and Penn. But the opportunity of embodying in it extracts from unpublished letters in the keeping of members of the Barclay family, (for which the author cannot be too grateful,) led to its being enlarged to a disproportionate size. But the reader will not regret this, when he finds himself furnished with new materials throwing light on a character so little understood. To most readers, Barclay is merely a name; the author has attempted to realise the man and his work, as far as the still very imperfect information will allow.

ROBERT BARCLAY,
THE
APOLOGIST OF QUAKERISM.

George Fox, that fervid evangelist who anticipated Wesley in claiming the whole world as his parish, visited Scotland only once. This was in 1657. But some years previously, several Quaker ministers, including two lady-evangelists, Catherine Evans and Sarah Cheevers, had preached "the truth" there, and meetings had been gathered, says Sewel the Quaker historian, in Edinburgh, Aberdeen, and other places. James Nayler preached in Scotland as early as 1651, with his usual fervour and success. But no church of professed "Friends" was formed in Aberdeen until 1662, when Alexander Jaffray sometime provost of Aberdeen, one of the Scottish Commissioners to King Charles, and a member of Cromwell's Parliament, was led along with others to a full and open acceptance of Quakerism by William Dewsbury. The number of the names was small, but they were men and women whose energy and sterling worth made them noteworthy. Their decision may be measured by their daring the contempt so profusely accorded the "Friends" by the orthodox; "possessed with the devil, demented, blasphemous deniers of the true Christ" being some of the expressions hurled at them by the neighbouring pulpits. In 1666, they were strengthened by the accession of Colonel David Barclay, and a little later by that of his son, Robert Barclay, the future Apologist of Quakerism. Fully then was the expectation of George Fox realised, of which he afterwards told Robert Barclay, in 1675, "As soon as ever my horse set his foot upon the land of the Scottish nation, the infinite sparkles of life sparkled about me; and so as I rid with divers friends, I saw the seed of the seedsman Christ that was sown; but abundance of clods—foul and filthy earth—was above it; and a great winter and storms and tempests of work." "Thick cloddy earth of hypocrisy and falseness atop," says the corresponding passage of his journal, "and a briary brambly nature, which is to be turned up with God's Word, and ploughed up with his spiritual plough, before God's seed brings forth heavenly and spiritual fruit to his glory. But the husbandman is to wait in patience."

David Barclay represented an ancient and honourable family, supposed to be a branch of the Berkeleys in Gloucestershire. He was a lineal descendant of Theobald de Berkeley, born about 1110, who held a large estate in Kincardine, and was conspicuous in the court of David I. In the 15th century, Alexander Berkeley began to spell the name Barclay, and his descendants followed his example.[13] They were a powerful, sometimes a turbulent race, with an occasional instance of a literary or scholarly scion. David Barclay's father having wrecked his fortune by spendthrift and easygoing habits, his sons had to shift for themselves. Three of them died before their father, two in infancy, the third, James, falling at the battle of Philiphaugh, whilst fighting under his brother David. Of the two survivors, the younger, Robert, became a Catholic priest, and flourished in Paris, becoming Rector of the Scottish College there. Of David, the elder and the father of the subject of this sketch, we must speak more at length.

[13] Of the father of this Alexander de Barclay, whose name was David, we read that he was the "ringleader of the savage barons who exaggerated the atrocities of a reckless age by actually boiling an obnoxious sheriff of the Mearns in a cauldron, and then 'suppin' the broo'." Yet the son was something of a poet, and some lines full of good advice, said to be from his pen, are given in the "Short Account of R. Barclay."

David Barclay was born at Kirtounhill, in 1610. The only patrimony he got from his father was a good education: for in 1633, the old family estates were sold to pay off his father's debts. Finding that he had to make his own way in the world, with all the energy of his race he "flung himself into the saddle of opportunity as a soldier of fortune," and rose to the rank of major in the army of Gustavus Adolphus, specially distinguishing himself at Lutzen. Returning home with substantial gains as well as honours, when the civil war broke out he became a colonel in the Royal Army. He fought under Leslie at Philiphaugh, and effectively assisted Middleton in holding the north, until Cromwell removed him from command, after his victory at Preston-pans. Then he retired from military service, bought the Ury estate, and with his wife and son Robert settled there. He had contracted an advantageous marriage in the spring of 1648, with Catherine, daughter of Sir Robert Gordon, of Gordonstown. The father was the second son of the Earl of Sutherland and second cousin to James I. He was a man of great parts, and held various high offices under the Crown. After his marriage, David Barclay sat in Parliament for Sutherland, and then for Angus and Kincardine. He used his influence to regain possession of his Ury estate which had been seized by General Monk, and to befriend other gentlemen who were in similar trouble, and his success in these efforts made him very popular. Then he retired into private life. In 1663, he lost his excellent wife when Robert was not fifteen. But before her death, she took one step of the greatest moment to Robert. He had been sent to Paris, to finish his education under his uncle's eye. But though his progress must have satisfied even a mother's pride, she, herself a staunch Protestant, felt a great anxiety lest he should adopt the Romish faith. So, when dying of consumption, she obtained from his father the promise that he should be recalled home. This step was farther urged by her mother, good old lady Gordon, in an earnest letter which still exists. Accordingly Col. Barclay visited his brother in Paris in 1664, and after vigorous opposition from him, brought his son home.

But the time had come for a complete change in the tone and tenour of David Barclay's life. He had gained renown and position, and had allied himself with a branch of the Royal family, but these had brought him neither peace nor satisfaction. Royal blood is no guarantee against disease and death, and he had had to see his beloved wife fade away and die at the early age of forty-three. He had risked limb and life, and had striven with hand and brain to win renown, and position, and wealth, only to find that these things expose their possessor to special trials and dangers. He had found out by hard experience how uncertain was his tenure of earthly good. His sorrows and disappointments prepared his heart for more earnestness about spiritual truth than he had hitherto manifested, and Quakerism was to present that truth in a form which would satisfy his mind and heart.

Perhaps it was whilst on the journey to fetch home his son, that he became closely acquainted with the Quakers. He tells us how he had heard of their simple and conscientious living, and "he considered within himself that if they were really such as even their enemies were forced to acknowledge, there must be something extraordinary about them." Whether or not this knowledge was gained in Aberdeen, where a meeting had been gathered now more than a year, we do not know. But, "being in London" on some errand or other, he had opportunities to enquire into the Quaker principles and practises, which he did to such purpose, that his mind became convinced that their tenets were according to the Scriptures. Still, the cautious Scotchman did not immediately join them.

Immediately afterwards we find David Barclay in prison in Edinbro' Castle. Although he had suffered for the king, he was accused of having held office under Cromwell, and it might have gone hardly with him had he not been befriended by his old chief, the Earl of Middleton. Through the influence of that nobleman the proceedings were quashed, and he was liberated.

This imprisonment, in the ordering of God's providence, brought to the right issue the great crisis of his life. In the same room with him in Edinbro' Castle was imprisoned Sir John Swintoune, who from a soldier and a Presbyterian had become a thorough Quaker. He was so zealous in propagating his opinions that the only way to silence him was to keep him in solitary confinement, which was at one time done for several weeks. No wonder, then, that he urged on David Barclay the full acceptance of the truth.

On leaving the Castle, the colonel seems to have remained in Edinbro' even after he had sent his son, in company with a Quaker, David Falconer, to Ury. In Edinbro' he came out as an acknowledged Friend.

He tells us what points satisfied his sober and careful judgment that the Quakers were right. He was struck with the correspondence between their peace principles and Isaiah's prophecy, that in Gospel times they would beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks. Then again, they were all as brothers, loving and standing by each other, and had not Christ said, that his disciples should be known by their mutual love? The courageous soldier was in sympathy with those who, whilst others worshipped God by stealth, bravely dared all persecution by openly assembling to worship God as their consciences dictated. So he thought within himself, that "if the Lord Jesus Christ had a visible Church on earth these must be they." But all this merely cleared the ground for the final and decisive proof, without which he would never have made a Friend. Feeling his judgment satisfied by these tests, he yielded his heart to the influence of the truth, and he experienced a peace which insults and sufferings could not disturb, and gained an experimental acquaintance with God that satisfied the cravings of his soul.

He became distinguished for his solemn fervour in prayer, his deep piety and uncomplaining meekness in ill-usage—the latter, "a virtue," says one of his descendants, "he was before very much unacquainted with." "One of his relations, upon an occasion of uncommon rudeness, lamenting that he should be now treated so differently from what formerly he had been, he answered, that he found more satisfaction as well as honour in being thus insulted for his religious principles, than when, some years before, it was usual for the magistrates as he passed through Aberdeen, to meet him several miles, and conduct him to a public entertainment in their town-house, and then convey him so far out again, in order to gain his favour." This noble testimony is the subject of one of Whittier's most spirited ballads. The old soldier lived to a ripe old age, his son only surviving him four years.

We have thus traced the career of the father, that we may better understand the influences through which the son passed before his hearty acceptance of Quakerism. He belonged to a family divided in religious opinions, some of the Catholic faith, some Protestant to the core. His abilities, connections, and worldly expectations, all invited him to a distinguished career. Yet from the noblest and purest motives he turned away from brilliant prospects, and from older and more respected churches, and linked himself with a new, despised and persecuted sect.

Robert Barclay was born at Gordonstown, Oct. 23rd, 1648. From both sides of his parentage, he seems to have inherited scholarly ability and literary tastes. His grandfather, Sir Robert Gordon, was a man of culture and refinement, and his great-grandfather, John Gordon (father-in-law of Sir Robert), was Dean of Sarum, a good classical scholar and a keen theologian. On the other side, the Barclays seem to have supplied the Catholic church with several theologians and scholars. From early years he gave promise of great intellectual powers, which were sedulously cultivated at the best schools that Scotland possessed. His uncle Robert offered to look after his education, and took him in hand, as he tells us, when he had "scarcely got out of his childhood." But early as he left Scotland for Paris, he carried with him such impressions of the narrowness and bigotry of his Calvinistic countrymen as remained with him through life. In Paris, his uncle and others so skilfully assailed his Protestant instincts that they succumbed, and he became an avowed Catholic. He was a great favourite with his uncle, who purposed making him his heir, and who watched him through his brilliant college course with the greatest delight.

But whilst his uncle was thus satisfied, his mother's heart was filled with dismay at the thought of her son growing up a Catholic—a consummation for which his scholarly proficiency was poor compensation. She therefore on her death-bed obtained from his father a promise that her son should be brought home.

On this errand the Colonel went to Paris, in 1664. But he found his brother stoutly opposed to parting with his nephew. He met the argument of worldly welfare by offering to buy Robert a larger estate than his father's, and put him in possession immediately. But the boy had a noble reverence for his father in spite of his long absence from home, and his wish settled the question with him, and he replied to all pleas, "He is my father and must be obeyed." So father and son returned home together, and the uncle's property eventually enriched the College of which he was Rector, and other religious houses in France.

When David Barclay was passing through that crisis in his spiritual history which resulted in his embracing Quakerism, he made no efforts to win his son to the same view. No doubt he had all a new convert's confidence in the power of "the truth." Probably he had also a Quaker's persuasion that though such efforts might sway the understanding, they could not "reach" the soul. He said he wished the change to come from conviction, not from imitation. The early Friends never considered themselves a sect, and did not seek proselytes so much as they sought to spread deep spiritual life. In the end at least, the laissez-faire method resulted in what the father wished. The son quietly looked around on the different classes of professed Christians. He felt his old repugnance to the Calvinists invincible. The latitudinarians, with all their professed charity and condemnation of "judging," pleased him no better. Finally, he gave his hearty allegiance to Friends within twelve months of his father's admission to their fellowship.

It is an interesting question, "What led such a clear and powerful mind to accept Quakerism?"

It could not fail to impress such a nature to see the great change which had passed over his father. The warrior and the man of the world had become a consistent Friend, trusting God to plead his cause, anxious most about spiritual wealth, careful most to walk closely and humbly with God. Further, it seemed to him that whilst others were wonderfully strict in creed, the Friends, whom they called heretics, far surpassed them in holy and exemplary living. Lastly, came the evidence that so often in those days turned the scale decisively in favor of the new brotherhood. The very first time that Robert Barclay attended a Friends' meeting he was struck by the awful Presence there; he felt that God was in that place. Some minister who was present used these epigrammatic words, which are said to have made a great impression on him. "In stilness there is fulness, in fulness there is nothingness, in nothingness there are all things." It is true that we are told that Sir John Swintoune and another Friend named Halliday were specially helpful to him at this critical time. But we have the clearest evidence that what most impressed him and attracted him to Friends was not their ministry, but the marvellous divine influence enjoyed in the period of silent waiting upon God. His intimate friend, Andrew Jaffray, bears testimony that he was "reached" in the time of silence. His own words, too, in his apology are unmistakable; they are introduced into his glowing description of an ideal Friends' meeting, as a personal testimony to the value of silent worship. Speaking of his own conversion, he says, "Who not by strength of argument, or by a particular disquisition of each doctrine, and convincement of my understanding thereby, came to receive and bear witness to the truth, but by being secretly reached by this Life. For when I came into the silent assemblies of God's people, I felt a secret power amongst them which touched my heart; and as I gave way unto it, I found the evil weakening in me, and the good raised up; and so I became thus knit and united unto them, hungering more and more after the increase of this power and life, whereby I might find myself perfectly redeemed." Apology, Prop. XI., Sect. 7.

Boy as Barclay was when he returned from Paris, in spite of his precocity it may be questioned whether his surrender of Catholicism cost him much conflict of soul, though he assures us in his "Vindication," he did "turn from that way not without sincere and real convictions of the errors of it." But beyond question, it would cost him a severe struggle to surrender his proud vantage ground as a scholar, and to join a sect who taught not only that learning was not necessary to a saving knowledge of Christ, but also that it had small share in the efficient ministry of the Gospel. The battle was first fought out in his own search for peace and light. From his childhood he had been ambitious of scholarship. Conscious, as he tells us in the introduction to his treatise on "Universal Love," of abilities beyond the average, he had a pleasure in intellectual pursuits which led him to follow them up with keen relish for their own sakes. But now the appetite was to receive a check, not only that it might ever afterwards keep its right place, but that he might learn how much more effectively God can teach than can the best of men. George Fox had to learn from sad experience that even enlightened Christians cannot stand instead of God. Robert Barclay had to learn by a shorter, but no doubt sharp experience, that his favourite books could do nothing for him in spiritual religion without Christ, and that in spiritual power and spiritual discernment illiterate men might be by far his superiors. He has described the experience in his Apology, when speaking of the insufficiency of learning to make a true minister, and the possibility of being a true minister without it.

"And if in any age since the Apostles' days, God hath purposed to show his power in weak instruments, for the battering down of the carnal and heathenish wisdom, and restoring again the ancient simplicity of truth, this is it. For in our day, God hath raised up witnesses for himself as he did the fishermen of old, many, yea most of whom are labouring and mechanic men, who, altogether without that learning, have by the power and spirit of God, struck at the very root and ground of Babylon; and in the strength and might of this power have gathered thousands by reaching their consciences into the same power and life, who, as to the outward part, have been far more knowing than they, yet not able to resist the virtue that proceeded from them. Of which I myself am a true witness, and can declare from certain experience; because my heart hath often been greatly broken and tendered by that virtuous life that proceeded from the powerful ministry of those illiterate men.... What shall I say then to you who are lovers of learning and admirers of knowledge? Was not I also a lover and admirer of it, who also sought after it according to my age and capacity. But it pleased God in his unutterable love, early to withstand my vain endeavours, while I was yet but eighteen years of age, and made me seriously to consider (which I wish may also befal others) that without holiness and regeneration no man can see God; and that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and to depart from iniquity a good understanding; and how much knowledge puffeth up, and leadeth away from that quietness, stillness and humility of mind, where the Lord appears and his heavenly wisdom is revealed.... Therefore, seeing that among them (these excellent, though despised, because illiterate witnesses of God) I with many others, have found the heavenly food that gives contentment, let my soul seek after this learning, and wait for it for ever." Truth Triumphant, p. 426.

In the means and mode of his conversion Robert Barclay was like many of his co-religionists in Scotland. It is an interesting feature of Scottish Quakerism that a number of its adherents were not gained by preaching. Many of the early Friends tell us that they adopted the Quaker views before they knew of the existence of any society which held such views. Their hearts yearned after an ideal which they did not find in any existing sect. But when Quakerism was presented to their view, they recognised in it the features which they had learned to love. The case of Alexander Jaffray is fairly representative of others, and his diary enables us to watch the process in minute detail in most of its stages. The awakened soul gets disgusted with chopping logic, and with manipulating the dry bones of a formal theology. It longs for bread and is offered a stone. It longs for pure spiritual life and for true holiness, and for an experimental acquaintance with God that shall satisfy its quickened instincts; and instead it finds the sects around it mostly busied with preparations for living rather than with life, ever constructing scientific scaffolding but not building, keenly discussing the right attitude of the soul towards God rather than having actual dealings with Him. Quakerism comes on the scene and at once commends itself to such a soul by dealing with the practical life, putting the teaching and promises of the Bible to the test of experience, and finding that they actually work and lead to assured conviction, hearty consecration, and holy living. Modern Quakerism has come to be associated with a few negations; primitive Quakerism won its triumphs by a robust and full-blooded spiritual life. The Assembly's catechism correctly defined the chief end of man to be "to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever." The Friends exemplified the definition in actual life. Most professing Christians, in spite of their beautifully finished creed, were still in bondage to questions like these: "Shall we succeed in life, and what will men think of us, and how will they treat us, if we act up to our convictions?" Such questions troubled the Quakers very little. They acted as if they believed religion a sufficient end and object in life, worth living for, and worth dying for. This was the way in which they glorified God, and so they did enjoy Him even in this life. They had great peace and joy in believing. The power of God was in their gatherings and attended their ministry. They were mighty in prayer, and did wonders through their strong faith. Their acquaintance with experimental religion was astonishing, and their knowledge of the word of God extensive and practically useful, such as might be expected from men who searched it lovingly, and relied upon its counsels in the affairs of life. Above all they were enabled to do what they most aspired to do, to live a holy life. They were rich not only in gifts but in grace. All this commended Quakerism to such men as Swintoune and Jaffray and the Barclays. It was better proof than the exactest syllogism, and far more satisfying to the soul than the best compacted creed.

Henceforth Robert Barclay's life is closely connected with the history of Quakerism, and especially of Quakerism in northern Scotland. He did not travel so much as many Friends beyond his own country in the service of the gospel, but his position, wealth, and learning were freely devoted to the service of "the truth." It is not clear that the same earnest evangelising spirit prevailed in Scotland which inspired the English Friends. For some reason the society never gained such numbers north of the Tweed as it did in England. Possibly they were too jealous of activity. In a letter of Christian Barclay's, written after her husband's death, I find a sad instance of that mischievous overvaluing of silence, which did so much harm amongst the Quakers in the eighteenth century. Writing to Friends in and about Aberdeen, she says, after a warning against "needless jesting,"—"in the bowels of motherly love is my heart towards you all, desiring we may all travel more and more into silence, for it is a safe place. Let all our conversations be more and more in it. Let us all in whatsoever state or station we be in, remember ourselves to be in it. As we are gathered in our minds in it, we shall less and less desire the best of words; for inward silence as far exceedeth the best of words as the marrow exceeds the bone." Certainly, as she goes on to say "the sensible knows beyond expression." But "how forcible are right words!" The spread of this Quietistic spirit amongst Friends effectually stopped the evangelistic work which marked and glorified the early years of their society. It also so dwarfed and discouraged true ministry that the marvel is that the Society survived.

Barclay's life belongs to the sad list of bright biographies as it seems to us too soon cut short by death. He died in his prime, when every year seemed to bring increased usefulness and influence for good. He was but eighteen when he was converted, but nineteen when he began to preach; his first controversial work was written when he was twenty-two, and almost the whole of his writings were produced during the next nine years, and yet they fill nine hundred folio pages!

The little band of Scottish Friends contained several remarkable men, with whom he had close and continued intercourse. For several years after his conversion, until 1673, Alexander Jaffray (see pp. [83] & [93]) survived, infirm in the body, but bright and happy in soul. His long unrest was ended; he had found amongst the Friends the close walk, the pure life, and the godly and loving brotherhood that he had long sought. The only thorns in his dying pillow were the persecuting spirit of the churches, and the non-conversion of his beloved wife. She, however, was so impressed by his death-bed experiences and testimony that she soon afterwards joined the Society. George Keith, a graduate of Aberdeen University, was a zealous advocate of Quakerism by tongue and pen, doing and suffering with a loving zeal, on which he looked back with regretful glances after his decline and perversion. He became a Friend in 1663, and for thirty years was a pillar amongst the brotherhood. His treatises on "Immediate Revelation" and on the "Universal Light, or the Free Grace of God asserted" were highly valued by Friends. He settled in Pennsylvania; but changing his social and religious opinions, he quarreled with his brethren and with the authorities there; and after an attempt to form a new sect of "Christian Friends," he came to England and joined the established church. He was put forward as a resolute opponent of his old allies. But Gough in his History of Friends gives reasons for believing that he was conscious at the last that he had declined in grace at this time. To a Friend who visited him on his dying bed, he is reported to have said, "I wish I had died when I was a Quaker, for then I am sure it would have been well with my soul." John Swintoune, already mentioned, was a frequent visitor at Ury, at Monthly Meetings and other special times. Sir Walter Scott claims him as one of his ancestors. He, like Jaffray, turned from a life of political activity and honours, to a life of hearty devotion to Quakerism. He was of very good family, baron of Swintoune, and at one time one of the Lords of Sessions. He had been so mixed up with the affairs of the commonwealth, that at the Restoration he was thrown into prison, and was in great peril. But in the meantime the light of divine truth shone into his heart, and when brought to trial, he was more ready to condemn himself than his judges could be, and only anxious to tell of the goodness of God to his soul. Bishop Burnet says "He was then become a Quaker, and did with a sort of eloquence that moved the whole house, lay out his own errors, and the ill-spirit he was in, when he did the things that were charged on him, with so tender a sense, that he seemed as one indifferent what they should do with him; and without so much as moving for mercy, or even for a delay, he did so effectually prevail on them, that they recommended him to the king as a fit object for his mercy." His estates, however, seem not to have been restored to him, for in 1682 we find Robert Barclay opening his liberal purse to assist him. We have seen how useful he was to David Barclay and again to Robert Barclay at the time of their convincement; for besides his religious experience, he had, says the Biographia Brittanica, "as good an education as almost any man in Scotland, which, gained to very strong natural parts, rendered him a most accomplished person."

Amongst the pious if not prominent members of the little church at Aberdeen were Bailie Molleson and his wife. The latter died young, but her death-bed was surrounded by a halo of glory through her triumphant faith. Her daughter, Christian, had joined the Friends in her sixteenth year. She won the favourable regard and then the warm affection of the young laird of Ury, and he addressed to her the following religious love-letter.

28th of 1st month, 1669.

"Dear Friend,

Having for some time past had it several times upon my mind to have saluted thee in this manner of writing, and to enter into a literal correspondence with thee so far as thy freedom could allow, I am glad that this small occasion hath made way for the beginning of it.

The love of thy converse, the desire of thy friendship, the sympathy of thy way, and meekness of thy spirit, has often, as thou mayst have observed, occasioned me to take frequent opportunity to have the benefit of thy company; in which I can truly say I have often been refreshed, and the life in me touched with a sweet unity which flowed from the same in thee, tender flames of pure love have been kindled in my bosom towards thee, and praises have sprung up in me to the God of our salvation, for what he hath done for thee! Many things in the natural will occur to strengthen and encourage my affection toward thee, and make thee acceptable unto me; but that which is before all and beyond all is, that I can say in the fear of the Lord that I have received a charge from him to love thee, and for that I know his love is much towards thee; and his blessing and goodness is and shall be unto thee so long as thou abidest in a true sense of it."

After speaking of Christian contentment, "from which there is safety which cannot be hurt, and peace which cannot be broken," he warns her against the dangers to which they were both exposed from their easy circumstances, and concludes—"I am sure it will be our great gain so to be kept, that all of us may abide in the pure love of God, in the sense and drawings whereof we can only discern and know how to love one another. In the present flowings thereof I have truly solicited thee, desiring and expecting that in the same thou mayst feel and judge.

Robert Barclay."

The reader accustomed to modern Quaker phraseology, will be astonished to find it so purely spoken by so young a convert at this early date of the Society's history. But he must remember what is too often overlooked in studying the writings of the early Friends, that the Friends simply adopted in many things the religious phraseology of the times (See Barclay's Inner Life, p. 214). But he cannot fail also to be charmed with the blending of love and piety in this epistle. Within a few months of the mother's death, the young couple were married in the simple Quaker fashion. This was the first wedding of the kind in Aberdeen, and it roused in the minds of many ministers and others much unnecessary alarm and irritation. The Bishop of Aberdeen was stirred up to procure letters summoning Robert Barclay before the Privy Council for an unlawful marriage; but, says the Ury record, "the matter was so overruled of the Lord that they never had power to put their summons into execution, so as to do us any prejudice."

The conversion of the Barclays to Quakerism seems to have fanned into a flame the fires of persecution both amongst Presbyterians and Episcopalians. The Presbyterians, though suffering persecution themselves, zealously preached against the heretics, and were resolute in excommunicating all who joined them. There is a sad story of one minister who, against his own conscience, was being compelled to excommunicate his own daughter, but fell dead in the pulpit whilst pronouncing the sentence. But the clergy was especially bitter. The Bishop of Aberdeen, Patrick Scougal, and his primate, Archbishop Sharpe, were bent on extirpating the sect, and carried out the system of fine and imprisonment with the utmost vigour. Scougal (father of Henry Scougal, professor of Divinity in Aberdeen University, and whose "Life of God in the soul of man" ranks high amongst our religious classics) was too good for such dirty work. Burnet says of him, contrasting them with his scandalous brother bishops: "There was indeed one Scougal, Bishop of Aberdeen, that was a man of rare temper, great piety, and prudence, but I thought he was too much under Sharpe's conduct, and was at least too easy to him." Sharpe was just in his element in the work. A pervert from Presbyterianism for no other reason than interest, he was a suitable tool for thrusting Episcopacy on those who hated it. The wanton insults and high-handed violence which he practiced, roused the bitterest hatred on the part of the populace, and led to his murder. But from the Quakers he had no violence to fear. They would only reason, protest, and pray for him; and on a coarse spirit like his their noble Christian conduct was thrown away. At last in 1672 the declaration of indulgence cut the claws of these persecutors and gave their victims relief.

In England the Quakers had a grand service to perform for the nation, in bearing the brunt of the fierce assault made on liberty of conscience. Whilst other dissenters temporised and resorted to stratagems to conceal the fact that they still continued to meet to worship God, the Quakers openly dared the wrath of the authorities, and took gladly the penalties of their faithfulness. In Scotland this faithful service was somewhat varied. In 1662 Episcopacy was established by law, and Presbyterianism put down. But the Covenanters were not easily coerced. They took up arms in defence of their religious liberties. They met to worship God with pistols in their belts, to defend themselves from the troopers sent to break up their meetings and to arrest their preachers. The consequences were conflict and bloodshed. Loyalty to God was confounded with disloyalty to the crown. The Quakers were not slow to condemn this mode of asserting the rights of conscience. Besides complicating the issue, they deemed it inconsistent with faith in God, who was quite competent to vindicate his own cause without appeal to the sword. They set the example of passive endurance of persecution, using only spiritual and peaceful means in resisting interference with the conscience. They appealed to the consciences of their judges; they petitioned the king's council, asserting their loyalty to the throne. But whilst these assertions of loyalty and condemnations of arms won clemency from the Council, they exasperated the Presbyterians; so that in spite of the fact that they had a common foe to fight, they wasted their strength in persecuting their stoutest allies, the Quakers. In 1661 the "drunken parliament" had met in Edinbro, and vested all executive authority in the king; so that the power of the Council was unlimited. We see, then, the profligate ministers of a dissolute monarch, with Lauderdale at their head, extending protection to the Quakers whom they despised and ridiculed; and checking the rage of exasperated Covenanters, and the violence of domineering clergy.

Soon after his marriage, Robert Barclay narrowly missed a first taste of prison life. The "monthly meeting" at Aberdeen (the gathering of the local congregations for denominational business, always preceded by worship) was entered by officers sent by the magistrates to disperse the assembly. They violently dragged to the Council House all the men who were present. There the magistrates endeavoured by fair words to induce them to give up their meeting, and then let them go. If they had had more experience of Friends they would have anticipated what followed. In spite of their recent arrest, the released Friends simply returned to the meeting, and resumed their worship. Soon the officers "appeared again, and with greater fury than before dragged them back to the Council House, where the provost and council reprimanded them for contumacious resistance of civil authority, using much threatening language. But Friends were preserved in a tranquil and innocent boldness, so that 'neither the big words nor yet the barbarous deeds' of their opponents could make them flinch from an honest confession of the true reasons for their conduct." They were all sent to prison, except Patrick Livingstone, and the young laird of Ury. To the eager martyr spirit of the latter, this exemption was quite disappointing. Young as he was, and so recently married, he would gladly have shared the hardships of his brethren.

Christian Barclay became a minister of the Society of Friends, but how early we are not told. She was an admirable wife, and an exemplary mother to her seven children, all of whom not only survived their father, but by a remarkable longevity were alive fifty years after his death. She was a noted nurse, and the poor for many miles round sought her advice in sickness. No doubt she used these occasions like a true medical missionary to minister to both body and soul. She lived to be seventy-five years of age, and was greatly lamented, not only by her numerous descendants, but by the poor to whom she had been such a friend, and by the Society to which she belonged, and in whose spiritual welfare she took a deep and life-long interest.

Robert Barclay was now fairly settled with his young wife at Ury under his father's roof. His life seems to have been one of retirement and scholarly research. The fathers and theologians engaged his attention, as well as the study of the Holy Scriptures in the original tongues, so that when in 1670 he was drawn into controversy, we find him furnished with a wealth of material with which to illustrate and enforce his arguments. There has been found a MS. volume, dated 1670, consisting of controversial letters addressed by him to one of his uncles, Charles Gordon, and going over the whole ground of the Quaker controversy. This correspondence would form a valuable stepping-stone to his future work. Though his uncle died before the series of letters was complete, Barclay carried out his plan to the end, and preserved the letters on both sides as a memorial of his deceased relative.

The occasion of his first work is fully stated in its preface. In September, 1666, the Rev. Geo. Meldrum, of Aberdeen, one of the leading ministers in northern Scotland, preached a sermon specially attacking the Quakers, towards whom he seems to have had a hatred not quite proportioned to his knowledge of them. He laid many grievous charges against them, but was suspiciously anxious that they should not get a copy of his discourse. Soon after this, proceedings were instituted to excommunicate Alexander Jaffray. But his friends raised the sound objection that no attempt had yet been made to reclaim him. So the bishop offered to confer with Jaffray in the presence of Meldrum and his colleague Menzies. But Jaffray, suspicious of one who could attack people in the dark, refused the interview unless he could have witnesses. "At length, Friends being objected to, Jaffray's brother and son who were not Friends were allowed to be present, when the Lord remarkably assisted him in declaring the truth, and defending himself and it against their unjust allegations." One result was that the Bishop directed Meldrum to give Friends a copy of the sermon preached against them, that they might reply to his statements. But instead of complying, Meldrum sent thirty Queries to be answered, and a paper entitled, "The state of the controversy between the Protestants and the Quakers." Jaffray was ill at the time, but George Keith on his behalf answered the Queries at once, and some time afterwards also replied to his paper, and to the sermon, of which they had at last obtained a copy from one of the congregation who heard it. No wonder that the future Apologist questions the honesty of the man who first condemns, and then makes enquiries, "that he might know in what things we did differ, and in what things we only seemed to differ." After giving the desired information, the Friends waited for two years for some reply, or otherwise for a retraction of the charges made. But they waited in vain. At last appeared a "Dialogue between a Quaker and a stable Christian," which Barclay ascribed to a William Mitchell, a neighbouring catechist with whom Patrick Livingstone had had some disputation. Upon him therefore Robert Barclay fell with all the energy of honest indignation, and with all the resources of a fertile and well stored mind. He entitled his book "Truth cleared of Calumnies." Though bearing the marks of a "prentice hand," many of the qualities of his later style are found in this production. William Penn says "It is written with strength and moderation." If the reader is disposed to question the moderation, he must remember the habits of the age.[14]

[14] There is in this work an interesting passage ("Truth Triumphant" pp. 29, 30), in which the view of singing held by the early Friends is set forth, which will correct some mistaken impressions. Barclay maintains "that singing is a part of God's worship, and is warrantably performed amongst the saints, is a thing denied by no Quaker so-called, and is not unusual among them, whereof I have myself been a witness, and have felt the sweetness and quickening virtue of the spirit therein, and at such occasions ministered." But they object to a mixed congregation of believers and unconverted persons singing words which in the mouths of many must be lies. (See also the Apology, Prop. II., paragraph 26, &c.)

But once launched on the stormy sea of controversy, there was no more rest for him. W. Mitchell acknowledged the authorship of the "Dialogue," and returned to the attack in some "Considerations." This drew forth in rejoinder "William Mitchell unmasked," published 1672. Here we find a more mature style, a fulness of matter, and an ease and power in statement, that are only excelled in the Apology. Says the writer in the Biographia Brittanica: "In this work our author discovers an amazing variety of learning; which shows how good a use he made of his time at Paris, and how thorough a master he was of the scriptures, the fathers, and ecclesiastical history; and with how much skill and judgment he applied them." And a recent writer says "Poor William Mitchell is not only unmasked but extinguished."

Some have imagined that Robert Barclay and his friend William Penn introduced into Quakerism a new, more reasonable, and more scholarly tone. But comparing the sixteen or eighteen years of Quakerism before these worthies accepted it, with the subsequent period when they have been supposed to affect its counsels, effectually disposes of this view. Neither in doctrine nor in practice is there any material difference. Quakerism had its scholars before them. Their pre-eminence was rather in popular gifts than in learning, and in statement and illustration of Quaker views rather than in their discovery or modification. As regards the positions of Quakerism that have given offence, Barclay and other scholarly converts accepted them in toto. They speak of the "apostacy" of the churches, and of Quakerism as the only true church. They speak boldly of the spiritual gifts of the brethren. They are severe on "hireling" priests. They argue that justification is one with sanctification. Most of the important passages referring to the authority of Holy Scripture, Barclay applies to the light within.

As to practice, nothing has more offended the proprieties of modern life than their imitations of the O. T. prophets, exhibiting themselves as signs. There is no reason to believe that any of the cultured Quakers of the day disapproved of these things; rather they rejoiced in them as part of the manifestation of the restored gifts of olden times. So far from Robert Barclay being superior to George Fox in this matter, he afforded one of the most striking instances on record. This was in 1672, and it happened thus. "On the 24th June, 1672, on awakening early in the morning, he seemed to see a great store of coined money that belonged to him lying upon his table; but several hands came and scattered it from him. Presently the scene appeared changed, and he was 'standing by a marish' filled with a rich yellow matter, which he went about eagerly to gather in his grasp, till plunging in over the ancles, he was like to sink in the bog; then one came and rescued him. This marsh, was the world, this matter was the world's goods; the whole thing was to him an intimation of love from the Lord, just as he was beginning more eagerly than before to concern himself in his outward affairs."[15] "The journey in sackcloth," says Mr. Gordon, "was the natural sequence of this impression." That it was "partly a penance of self-expostulation," as he further declares, we in no wise admit. We must take Barclay's own word for it that it was simply done in obedience to a clear conviction of a divine call. "The command of the Lord concerning this thing came unto me that very morning as I awoke, and the burden thereof was very great, yea, seemed almost unsupportable unto me; for such a thing until that very moment had never before entered me, not in the most remote consideration. And some whom I called to declare unto them this thing can bear witness how great was the agony of my spirit,—how I besought the Lord with tears that this cup might pass from me!—yea, how the pillars of my tabernacle were shaken, and how exceedingly my bones trembled, until I freely gave up unto the Lord's will." Truth Triumphant, p. 105.

[15] From the Bury Hill MSS., quoted in a remarkable article in the Theological Review of 1874, on "the Great Laird of Urie," by Alexander Gordon, M. A. The name and article suggest some family relationship with the Barclays.

The command was to go through three of the principal streets covered with sackcloth and ashes, calling the people to repentance. They would not listen to the voice within, nor heed the ordinary warnings of God-sent preachers. So he felt that in that terrible cross which God laid on him, He was making a more striking appeal in pity and love to their souls. He found that several of his friends approved of his obedience and were willing to go with him. So he took up his cross, and as he went on his strange errand, they felt constrained to join with him in calling the people to repentance. No sooner was the call obeyed than his soul was filled with peace. "I have peace with my God in what I have done, and am satisfied that his requirings I have answered in this thing." His heart overflows with love as he takes up his pen to explain his procedure, and to plead with them that his appeal might not be in vain. The address is a remarkable document, full of most tender pleading and loving remonstrance. No true minister of Jesus Christ can read it without being deeply stirred, and reminded of hours when his own spirit was clothed with sackcloth and ashes for those who would not heed his warnings.

Such soul-stirrings as this, coupled with his heart-felt experience of Scripture truth, must have made Robert Barclay an able minister of Jesus Christ. He seems to have been the teacher rather than the evangelist. Probably he could no more have done George Fox's work, than George Fox could have done his. Excellently as he often writes of evangelical truth, we miss in his pages the arousing, pungent appeals of his leader. Still at this and other times he seems to have felt powerful visitations of divine grace. His brethren also now enjoyed such a gracious season that at one of the "monthly meetings," the preliminary worship was prolonged for seven hours, and the business which should have received attention afterwards had to wait until the next month. The evidences of vigorous life on all hands were most encouraging. For instance, at one of their gatherings there appeared one John Forbes, merchant of Ellon, to claim their sympathy and advice. He had adopted the Quaker views of Christian worship, and consequently had forsaken the kirk. For this he had been cited before the Presbytery of Ellon. The Friends warmly sympathised with him, and determined that Robert Barclay and certain others of their number should go to Ellon on the next Sabbath and "keep a meeting" at his house. The crowd that gathered was too great to get indoors, and doors and windows were therefore thrown open that all might hear and unite in the worship. From this beginning, the good work went on regularly every Sunday, until John Forbes had to be commissioned to look out for some more convenient place of assembly, one half of the gathering not being able to gain admittance. We have very little information of the part which Robert Barclay took in these Christian services. He kept a diary, but it seems to have been lost.[16] The letters of his which have been preserved are few. The most vivid and life-like impressions of the man that remain are contained in his books. These with true Quaker appreciation of the value of facts, contain many autobiographical passages, and references to his experience. To him, as to all Friends, experience was the great matter. They waited on God for clear and living views of his truth. They recognised it not by logic, but by their trained spiritual instincts. Naturally, therefore, when addressing others by tongue or pen, they preferred to be experimental rather than argumentative. But the habits of the age compelled them to be dialecticians. They could only gain a hearing by so far yielding to the popular taste. But with amusing truthfulness, William Penn says of Barclay that he adopted the scholastic style in his Apology in condescension to the weakness of literary men.

[16] Is this amongst the Bury Hill MSS.? The extract quoted from the Theological Review looks like a passage from it.

But to him this adaptation was easier than to many Friends. He was a scholar and man of letters by habit and instinct. It was a necessity of his nature that he should see clearly the whole scope and logical inferences of his principles. His intellectual fearlessness is wonderful. His learning was not idle lumber in his mind. It bore some important relation, either of agreement or of antagonism, to his views, and to the arguments of his assailants. It was either light in which he could rejoice, or shadow which revealed some obstruction to the light, and threw out the light into bolder contrast. So learning had to him a real use and value; it was not counters but coins and the world of books was to him a very real world.

The progress of Quakerism in the neighborhood of Aberdeen, filled the hearts of many with malice that would stoop to any meanness, and carry out any iniquity. They actually demolished the walls of the Friends' burying-ground, and removed the dead bodies elsewhere; and after some subsequent interments, they kept up the practice, until stopped by the king's Council.

But it was not in Aberdeen but at Montrose that Robert Barclay first suffered imprisonment for conscience sake. It happened thus. Most of the Quakers at Kinnaber near Montrose, after being in prison for two months for the high crime of meeting together to worship God, had been released by the king's Council at the instance of John Swintoune. That gentleman and Robert Barclay sympathisingly determined to join them in their first public service, and did so. As the company was dispersing, the constables arrived, and arrested William Napier, at whose house the meeting was held, and carried him before the magistrates. Swintoune and Barclay went with him, and insisted on seeing the magistrates, and reasoning with them. On this they too were committed to prison, the ground alleged being that they had been present at the meeting. But they do not seem to have been many days in prison before the king's Council again interfered and liberated them. Whilst in prison they addressed a spirited remonstrance to the magistrates, boldly and vigorously telling them the unvarnished truth about their conduct, and appealing to them to act more righteously in future. Thus they were not behind their English brethren in the vigour with which they fought the battle of religious liberty.

In 1673 died Alexander Jaffray, whose valuable diary gives us such an interesting picture of the religious life of his time. The editor of it, John Barclay of Croydon, the laborious editor of many standard Quaker journals, found it in two parts, whilst ransacking Ury for remains of his distinguished ancestor. He published with it a sketch of the early history of Friends in Scotland, especially enriched with the substance of the minutes of the Ury meeting. Much valuable information was added in copious notes, the whole forming a precious memorial of a period of eminent spirituality and remarkable faithfulness to conscience. Jaffray's death-bed was visited by many who rejoiced in the remarkable experiences and testimony he furnished. We may be sure that the Apologist was amongst the number.

In the same year, 1673, was published Barclay's well-known Quaker Catechism. Part of its quaint title richly deserves quoting. He calls it a "Catechism and confession of faith, approved of and agreed unto by the General Assembly of the Patriarchs, Prophets and Apostles, Christ himself chief speaker in and among them." Thus he steals a march on the Assembly's Catechism on the very title-page. The object of the little book was to meet the allegation that the Quakers vilified and denied the Scriptures, by asserting their whole creed in the language of the Scriptures. The answers to the successive questions therefore are passages of Scripture without note or comment. The work is deftly done, and the Catechism has had a very large circulation.

In the next year, 1674, we find him attending the Friends' Yearly Meeting in London, then newly established, and taking part in a visit of remonstrance to the notorious Ludovic Muggleton. The only account of the interview occurs in the journal of John Gratton, the ancestor of John Bright, who was one of the party. It is interesting chiefly as indicating the hopefulness with which the early Friends tried to do good unto all men. Their patience must have been sorely tried by the ridiculous answers of the pretended prophet, whom they entrapped and exposed several times in their short interview.[17] Yet this is the man whom Macaulay represents as morally and intellectually the equal of George Fox.

[17] William Penn had exposed him two years before in a pamphlet entitled, "The New Witnesses proved Old Heretics." However he still gained converts.

The magistrates and clergy of Aberdeen continued specially bitter against Friends. Their preachers were imprisoned, their names published as rebels, and their goods declared forfeit to the Crown. Their meetings were disturbed with impunity by the rabble, and especially by the students of the University. This led, in February 1675, to a public dispute between some of them and Robert Barclay and George Keith. Persisting in his attempt to correct the false representations of Quakerism made by the clergy, Barclay had put forth his famous Theses Theologicæ, which played almost as important a part in the history of Quakerism as Luther's did in the Reformation. At the end of the paper he offered to defend these Theses against those who had so grossly misrepresented the teachings of Friends. The clergy, however, were not willing to meet him, but they allowed certain divinity students to accept the challenge. These young men did not regard the matter in a very serious light; it was a good joke, an opportunity to air their logic and to badger the Quakers. If other measures failed, they could rely on the mob taking their part with coarse jests, such as the cry, "Is the Spirit come yet?" Or if this treatment seemed too mild for the humour of the moment, their allies were just as ready to break the heads of the Quakers with sticks and stones. If the reader has any doubts about this description of the temper of the times, let him first read Leighton's Life, and see there the character of the ministers whom his friends had to call in to fill up the pulpits of the ejected Presbyterians. Then after this preparation, let him read the Quaker journals of the time.

This disputation ended in uproar, the students claiming the victory of course. But the spoils were taken by the Friends in a manner little expected by the clergy. Four students, who were present at the debate, were so impressed by the arguments and Christian spirit of Barclay and Keith, that they joined the Friends, and bore public testimony against the unfairness with which the debate was conducted. Here was a spiritual triumph indeed, to win trophies amidst such clamour and strife.

The dispute was not allowed to rest. The students published an account of the transaction, under the title, "Quakerism canvassed." Barclay and Keith declared the report unfair, and published theirs in self-defence. They further replied to the students in "Quakerism confirmed." Here was a field of controversy where numbers and noise were of no avail. But the termination was indeed singular. The students found that their pamphlet would not sell, and that so they were likely to be heavy losers. What was to be done? They petitioned the Commissioners for help. A little while before some of David Barclay's cattle had been seized to pay fines imposed for his attending meetings. These cattle could not be sold, so strongly did the people sympathise with the old soldier. So at last, through Archbishop Sharpe's influence, they were handed over to the students to recoup their losses!

The Theses were destined to higher honours than this farce. Dr. Nicolas Arnold, Professor of Divinity at a Dutch University, replied to them, and Barclay issued his rejoinder in Latin at Rotterdam, in 1675. Still following up the lines of thought thus opened out, the Theses were next expanded into the famous Apology, published in Latin in Amsterdam, 1676.

The years 1675 and 1676 were remarkable for a blessed quickening of spiritual life in Aberdeen meeting. It made the Friends who were cast into prison rejoice in their bonds. It made both them and English Friends believe that the time had come when God would do great things for Scotland.[18]

[18] The following extracts show forth these facts and hopes with great clearness:

George Fox writes from Swarthmore, 10th of 10th month, 1675, a long letter to Robert Barclay, but evidently intended as a circular letter to Friends in Scotland. Its opening has been quoted already, pp. [84], [85]. It is rich in its glowing and powerful statement of Gospel truth. After relating the vision of the condition and future blessedness of Scotland, he states how he was taken before the Council in Edinburgh and banished the nation, "but I staid three weeks after, and came to Edinburgh and had meetings all up and down." He sets forth in quaint scripture metaphors the hopes of the spiritual life which he was raised up to preach. "With the spiritual eye the virgins will see to trim their heavenly lamps, and see their heavenly olive-tree from which they have their heavenly oil, that their lamps might burn continually night and day and never go out. So that they may see the way and enter into the heavenly Bridegroom's chamber, which is above the chambers of death and imaginery." "And soe away with that chaf that would not have perfection here, for he that is perfect is risen, and that (which) is perfect is revealed." "It is the spirit of truth that leads into all truth. And they that are not led by this spirit as Christ hath sent and sends, they are led by the spirit of the false prophet, beast, whore. Though in that spirit they may profess the scriptures from Genesis to the Revelations, that spirit shall lead them into the ditch together, where they shall be consumed by God's eternal fire without the heavenly Jerusalem, as all the filth was consumed by fire without the gates of the outward heavenly Jerusalem."

"And now, Robert, concerning the things thou speaks of about thy books. I say it is well that they are sent. Keep within the rules of the spirit of Life which will lead into all truth, that all may be stirred up in your nation to walk in it, for they have been a long time asleep. For the Gospel bell does ring and sound to awaken them out of sin to righteousness. So all that have the instrument to work in God's vineyard be not idle, but be diligent that you may have your penny. For God's gospel trumpet is blown, and his alarum is sounding in his holy mountain. That makes that mind and spirit that inhabits the earth to tremble, and that they must all doe, before they inhabit and inherit eternity."

The language here may be quaint and the figures sometimes strained; but the spiritual truth is clearly seen and vigorously put, and Barclay would readily recognise its fitness to the times.

David Barclay writes to his son from Aberdeen prison on 12th of 3rd mo., 1676, in a strain of mingled trust and resignation. He writes, "we are all in health, and refreshed daily by the Lord's powerfully appearing in and amongst us, and in a wonderful and unexpected way visiting us by his overcoming love to the gladdening of our hearts and making us not only to believe but to suffer for His name's sake; living praises!"

George Keith writes to Robert Barclay, also from the Aberdeen Tolbooth, "We have exceeding sweet and comfortable meetings most frequently, wherein the power of the Lord doth mightily appear in the midst of us, so that Friends generally are greatly encouraged to the astonishing and confounding of our adversaries.... I am busy answering H. More's papers[19] unto me, and have near finished my answers which I hope ere long to send unto her that is called the Lady Conway,[20] or else bring them myself if the persecution that is at present cease hereaway, and that I find freedom to visit Friends in England this summer. But if the Lord open a door in this country for the receiving of the truth among people (as it is like to be, and of which we have some good expectation, the power of the Lord gloriously appearing among us, which is preparing us for some great service) I verily believe this may be ane occasion to stay me for some time."

[19] See [sketch of Penn], p. [54].

[20] From a letter of Barclay's to the Princess Elizabeth, it appears that Lady Conway in many things adopted the Quaker customs.

This year (1676) seems to have been a remarkably busy one. Indeed so well was Barclay's time filled up during his short life, that one biographer most appropriately speaks of him as "posting" through the business of his life. He might almost have foreseen the early close of his career, so diligently did he redeem the time. The labours of this year included the publication of his treatise on Christian discipline entitled "The Anarchy of the Ranters," a visit to the continent, the publication of the Apology, and probably the preparation of materials for a projected history of the Christian Church. See Jaffray, p. 571.

The full title of the first-named book was, "The Anarchy of the Ranters and other libertines, the Hierarchy of the Romanists and other pretended churches, equally refused and refuted." Its object was to defend the system of discipline which the Friends had established under Fox's leadership. This system was impugned by some members as an infringement of gospel liberty. Those who were led by the Spirit, they argued, needed no rules or discipline to guide them aright, and must not have their liberty interfered with by man-made rules. The leader of this party was Wm. Rogers, a Bristol merchant. But his opposition was not known to Robert Barclay at the time of the publication of his treatise, though his arguments so fully anticipated their objections, that Rogers and his friends considered the book an attack on them. Feeling ran high, and Barclay was spoken of as popishly affected, if not a Papist. Yet with wonderful meekness and humility, he agreed to meet William Rogers in the presence of some trusty Friends that the offence so taken might be removed. But though the meeting resulted in Rogers acknowledging his fault, the perfect harmony of the Society was not secured by it, and he and his captious friends ultimately separated from the Society.

The treatise on Church Government is one of the best of Barclay's productions, and has been very useful, both in establishing Friends in the right development of their principles, and in enlightening other Christians as to the views they hold. One fact in connection with its publication is in perfect accord with its arguments. Three years before, there had been established in London a standing committee of the Quaker Society, called the Morning Meeting. One of its objects was to examine all writings issued by the brethren in which questions of Christian truth were discussed, so as to stamp with its approval such as were in accordance with their principles, and to disavow such as were otherwise. The necessity for such action was evident, from the fact that much annoyance and damage had been sustained by Friends, from the Society being held responsible for books written by those who were not members. Henceforth no book was to be considered an expression of the views of the Society, unless it had secured the sanction of the Committee. The "Anarchy of the Ranters" was therefore duly submitted to their scrutiny, and not only received their sanction then, but was for at least a century, published largely by the Society as an authorised statement of their views on Church discipline. Later the Yearly Meeting gave it a second title, "A Treatise on Christian Discipline." But they also struck out a passage of special interest in these times, showing how the strong reason of Barclay was logically forced along the line of Free-Churchmanship not only to Disestablishment but to Disendowment. It runs thus: "The only way then soundly to reform and remove all these abuses (i.e. those following the connection of the Church with the State) is to take away all stinted and forced maintenance and stipends, and seeing those things were anciently given by the people, that they return again to the public treasury, and thereby the people may be greatly benefitted by them, for that they may supply for those public taxations and impositions that are put upon them, and ease themselves of them."[21]

[21] Barclay's "Inner Life," p. 549. This sentence is first omitted in the edition of 1765, and has been lost from the work since!

After attending the Yearly Meeting in London, Robert Barclay went on a mission to the Continent. Of this visit, unfortunately, we have no record. Probably, one object for which he made it was to see to the publication of his Apology in Amsterdam. But one incident of the journey is full of interest. He visited Elizabeth, Princess Palatine of the Rhine, granddaughter of James I. and aunt of George I.; an accomplished lady and a most exemplary ruler. She was not only a distant relative of his (his mother and she were third cousins), but she also attracted him by her spiritual-mindedness. She had appreciated all that was best in the teachings of De Labadie, a Jesuit who turned Protestant, and by his preaching led many to seek after spiritual religion, and a simple, self-denying life.[22] So in afterwards stating the reasons for a subsequent visit, William Penn says, "Secondly, that they (the Princess and her friends) are actually lovers and favourers of those that separate themselves from the world for the sake of righteousness. For the Princess is not only a private supporter of such, but gave protection to De Labadie himself and his company, yea when they went under the reproachful name of Quakers, about seven years since."[23]

[22] The following note concerning De Labadie, by Whittier, the American poet, may interest the reader. "John De Labadie, a Roman Catholic priest converted to Protestantism, enthusiastic, eloquent, and evidently sincere in his special calling and election to separate the true and living members from the Church of Christ from the formalism and hypocrisy of the ruling sects. George Keith and Robert Barclay visited him at Amsterdam, and afterwards at the Communities of Herford (the Princess Elizabeth's home) and Wieward; and according to Gerard Crœse, found him so near to them on some points, that they offered to take him into the Society of Friends. This offer, if it was really made, which is certainly doubtful, was, happily for the Friends at least, declined. Invited to Herford, in Westphalia, by Elizabeth, daughter of the Elector Palatine, De Labadie and his followers preached incessantly, and succeeded in arousing a wild enthusiasm among the people, who neglected their business, and gave way to excitements and strange practices. Men and women, it was said, at the Communion drank and danced together, and private marriages or spiritual unions were formed. Labadie died in 1674, at Altona, in Denmark, maintaining his testimonies to the last. 'Nothing remains for me,' he said, 'except to go to my God. Death is merely ascending from a lower and narrower chamber to one higher and holier.'"

[23] He goes on to say, writing in 1677, "About a year since, Robert Barclay and Benjamin Furly took that city in the way from Frederickstadt to Amsterdam, and gave them a visit; in which they informed them somewhat of Friends' principles, and recommended the Testimony of Truth to them as both a nearer and more certain thing than the utmost of De Labadie's doctrine. They left them tender and loving." Travels in Holland, Penn's Select Works, p. 453.

Barclay's visit bore fruit beyond what he possibly could have foreseen. The Princess learnt heartily to esteem and love the brotherhood, welcomed the visits of its ministers, and used her influence at the English court for their relief from harassing persecution. From this time until her death she kept up a correspondence with Robert Barclay, which is included in the printed but not published Reliquæ Barclaianæ.

It would seem that this visit also afforded the opportunity for conversation with one Herr Adrian Paets, Dutch Ambassador to the court of Spain, which led to the production of one of Barclay's minor works. The subject of their converse was the very soul of Quakerism, the inward and immediate revelations of the Holy Spirit. Paets stated his objections, and wished Barclay to reconsider the whole question. The Apologist did this, and was more than ever satisfied with his own position. Accordingly he wrote to Herr Paets a long letter in Latin full of subtle reasonings in his very best style, replying to the objections urged. Paets promised an answer to the letter but never sent it. However, when he met Barclay in London some years after, he acknowledged that he had been mistaken in his notions of the Quakers, for he found they could make a reasonable plea for the foundation of their religion. Barclay afterwards translated his letter into English, and published it.

This was a kind of service in which he was quite at home, and in his quiet northern home doubtless it kept him constantly employed. His English friends had not the leisure necessary to do the work in the thorough style in which he performed it. How diligently he laboured in this field, the facts already stated attest.

But the grandest fruit of his genius is undoubtedly his Apology. The address to the king is dated Nov. 25th, 1675; the Latin edition is dated Amsterdam, 1676. He was therefore only twenty-seven years of age when his masterpiece was completed; and as it was first published, so it stands to-day, unaltered. His genius matured early, though to the great perplexity of our human judgment, early maturity was followed by early death. For three or four years, his English brethren had been struggling with an unusually strong tide of misrepresentation and obloquy. He could not be a passive looker-on now that God had given him rest from persecution. He would endeavour to state the opinions of his brethren, and the rationale of them, with a fulness for which they had neither time nor opportunity. It was a brotherly and chivalrous feeling, and it had its own reward. The work was at once accepted as a standard exposition of Quakerism. It has been profusely eulogised by many who have not accepted the creed it defends. Even Voltaire has warmly praised its pure Latinity. He called it "the finest Church Latin that he knew." Sir James Mackintosh in his "Revolution in England," calls it "a masterpiece of ingenious reasoning, and a model of argumentative composition, which extorted praise from Bayle, one of the most acute and least fanatical of men." The writer in the "Theological Review," from whom we have already quoted, is enthusiastic in his admiration of it. After speaking of Rutherford's "Letters," and Scougal's "Life of God in the Soul of Man," he proceeds, "Greater, where they were greatest, than Rutherford or Scougal, was Robert Barclay; it is a country's loss that his splendid Apologia should be left in the hands of a sect. Here, indeed, is a genuine outcome of the inner depth of the nation's worship; something characteristic and her own; a gift to her religious life akin to her profoundest requirements; and if she did but know it, far worthier of the acceptance of her people than any religious aid which she has ever welcomed from the other side of the border; more satisfying to the intellect than the close scholastic conclusions of the English divines at Westminster; more full of melody to the soul than even the rude music of those ballad psalms which the Kirk had not been too proud to adapt from the version of the Cornish statesman. One great original theologian, and only one, has Scotland produced; he it is the history of whose life and mind we shall endeavour to approach in the present Article." Theol. Review, 1874, p. 528.

We must not leave the Apology without referring to its manly and honest preface. It has been praised as heartily as the book itself. In an age of fulsome flattery, it is unique in its appeal to the better nature of King Charles, whom the writer begs not to despise the singular mercies which God had shown him. On Barclay's return to London from Holland, he probably presented a copy to the king; and it is to the credit of that monarch that, far from taking offence at the plain speaking of his Quaker kinsman, we find him ever after showing him special favour. Penn and Barclay seem alike to have possessed the power of drawing out the best side of the characters of Charles II. and his brother James II. This fact must be borne in mind in considering the charges laid against the former because of intimate relations with the Court.

From the Continent, Barclay returned to London, where he heard that his father and other of his Aberdeen friends had been thrown into prison for "holding conventicles." He immediately began to devise measures for their release. He had a letter from the Princess Elizabeth to her brother Prince Rupert. He presented this, met of course with a civil reception, and took the opportunity to obtain the Prince's concurrence with a petition which he was presenting to the king. He also wrote to the Princess to support his application, and then presented his petition. His plea is that a difference should be made between the peaceable and loyal Quakers, and those against whom the laws were directed. Unfortunately Prince Rupert was indisposed, and unable to keep his promise. So as the petition was vigorously opposed, his memorial was passed on to the Scotch Privy Council, with such a cool endorsement that it took no effect.

It was on this errand that he first sought the Duke of York, afterwards James II. He himself has told the story in his "Vindication." "Being at London and employed by my friends to obtain a liberty for them out of their imprisonment at Aberdeen for the single exercise of their conscience, and not being able to gain any ground upon the Duke of Lauderdale, in whose hands was the sole management of Scots affairs at that time, I was advised by a Friend to try the Duke of York, who was said to be the only man whom Lauderdale would bear to meddle in his province, or who was like to do it with success. And having found means of access to him, I found him inclined to interpose in it, he having then and always since to me professed himself to be for liberty of conscience. And though not for several years, yet at last his interposing proved very helpful in that matter."

The reply of the Princess Palatine to Robert Barclay's request, is interesting as a specimen of the religious correspondence of these illustrious friends. She says, "Your memory is dear to me, so are your lines and exhortations very necessary. I confess also myself spiritually very poor and naked; all my happiness is, I do know I am so, and whatever I have studied or learnt heretofore is but dirt in comparison with the true knowledge of Christ. I confess my infidelity to this Life heretofore, by suffering myself to be conducted by false, politic lights. Now that I have sometimes a small glimpse of the true Light, I do not attend it as I should, being drawn away by the works of my calling, which must be done; and as your swift English hounds I often overrun my scent, being called back when it is too late."

In his reply, Barclay tells of the non-success of his efforts to obtain the release of his friends, and yet adds with calm heroism, "I this day take my journey towards them, not doubting but I shall also share their joys." Nor was he mistaken. Soon after reaching Aberdeen, he was arrested and placed in the Tolbooth. This gaol was divided into two parts, the lower, which was vile, the upper, which was worse. Robert Barclay was allowed a place in the lower prison, but those who were arrested with him were thrust into the upper prison. Here shortly afterwards they were joined by David Barclay, who had been released only to fall again into the clutches of the enemy.

The news of Robert Barclay's commitment to prison reached his royal friend Elizabeth the next month (Dec. 1676). She at once wrote to console him. "I am sure that the captivers are more captive than you are, being in the company of him that admits no bonds, and is able to break all bonds." She also wrote at once to her brother Prince Rupert to use his influence with the king on his behalf.

Her letter put the case plainly and well. "I wrote you some months ago by Robert Barclay who passed this way, and hearing I was your sister, desired to speak with me. I knew him to be a Quaker by his hat, and took occasion to inform myself of all their opinions; and finding they were accustomed to submit to magistrates in real things, omitting the ceremonial, I wished in my heart the King might have many such subjects. And since I have heard that notwithstanding his Majesty's most gracious letters in his behalf to the Council of Scotland, he has been clapped up in prison with the rest of his friends, and they threaten to hang them, at least those they call preachers among them, unless they subscribe their own banishment; and this upon a law made against other sects that appeared armed for the maintenance of their heresy; which goes directly against the principles of those which are ready to suffer all that can be inflicted, and still love and pray for their enemies. Therefore, dear brother, if you can do anything to prevent their destruction, I doubt not but you will do an action acceptable to God Almighty, and conducive to the service of your royal master. For the Presbyterians are their violent enemies, to whom they are an eyesore, as being witnesses against all their violent ways. I care not though his Majesty see my letter. It is written out of no less an humble affection for him, than most sensible compassion for the innocent sufferers."

Besides writing this letter she agreed to use her influence with Lady Lauderdale, and to get her brother to do his best with the Earl, but she explains she has little expectation of success as they are no friends of theirs.

This letter and other influences led to a royal recommendation to the King's Council in Edinbro', but some interval elapsed before it bore fruit. Meanwhile, the father and son had been removed to a gaol outside the town, called the Chapel. Their treatment here was malicious enough, but mild in comparison with what many of their brethren suffered; and though they protested, as became Britons and Quakers, no doubt they thanked God for the comparative ease of their lot. Whilst in prison they received many letters of sympathy from their friends. Amongst these is a little known letter from William Penn, hoping that they "may grow spiritual soldiers, expert and fitted by these exercises for such spiritual conflicts as the Lord hath for you to go through;" and that they may grow "as trees in winter, downwards, that your root may spread; so shall you stand in all storms and tempests."

One of the excuses for ill-using the Friends was that they were Popishly affected. This must have galled Robert Barclay's sensitive nature exceedingly. His growing friendship with the King and the suspected Duke of York gave colour to the charge, and his training in a Catholic college, his former profession of the Catholic faith, and his near kinship to many Catholics, were taunts ready to the hand of disputants like the Aberdeen students or the scurrilous John Brown.

From the "Chapel," Barclay wrote a strong appeal to Archbishop Sharpe to abandon his unchristian persecutions. Does the reader think this is like asking Shylock to renounce his pound of flesh? He must remember that the Quakers were accustomed to accomplish such impossibilities; and where their hardy faith could not succeed in such feats, it could persevere in attempting them. Their love was as invincible as their patience. They sincerely pitied their persecutors, and felt that they were harming themselves more than they hurt the Friends. So for their soul's sake they pleaded with them, using every argument which they thought they could ask God to bless. Whilst in Aberdeen prison, Barclay also wrote his treatise on "Universal Love," an earnest plea for religious toleration.

The prisoners gained their liberty by an amusing disagreement between the Aberdeen Magistrates and the Sheriff, which led to a lawsuit. Meanwhile, Robert Barclay and others who had been liberated on parole, went before a notary and claimed their full liberty.

We now find Robert Barclay attending the Yearly Meeting in London, and then going on to the Continent in company with George Fox and William Penn. Their object was two-fold, aggression and organisation. The Mennonite churches of the Netherlands and Germany were the special attraction. William Caton, at one time tutor at Swarthmoor Hall, had settled in Holland, and had met with a cordial welcome amongst these churches. William Ames and other Friends also visited them, and by degrees the Quakers had become very strong in Holland. William Penn had visited them before. We may here remark that the Friends have ever kept up a kindly and brotherly intercourse with the Mennonites whether in Germany, Russia, or the United States, visiting them for fraternal encouragement, and helping them in times of famine and persecution.

Considering that both of Barclay's companions kept diaries which have since been published, it is remarkable how little we learn of him from their records. Penn's narrative is a rich spiritual treat, but would have been richer had it been his purpose to tell of the private as well as of the public transactions of the "three great apostles of the sect," as Hepworth Dixon calls them. What glorious times of spiritual communion they must have had. With strongly marked individuality, there was yet a genuine bond of union and true sympathy between them. Fox, the senior by twenty years, was strongest in acquaintance with the facts about the state of the Society. His faulty English might at times jar on the ears of his scholarly brethren, but that was less offensive to them than the impure spiritual dialects of many professed Christians. His strong and many-sided nature enabled him to meet Penn in his large philanthropic schemes, and to sympathise with Barclay in his scholarly labours. If already his frame was feeling the effects of much suffering whilst his brethren were in their prime, his soul knew no decay. Penn might be the strongest of the three on the point of leavening earthly institutions with heavenly aims. Barclay's surpassing intellectual gifts might forbid any man to despise his youth. But in deep spiritual life they were equals. What mighty wrestlings must have been theirs as they talked of the spiritual needs of the world! How they must have exulted in the progress of spiritual truth! Their own Society at the time probably numbered at least 50,000 members. There were many not of their community with whom they held sweet intercourse through a common enjoyment of spiritual religion. Their faith was unfaltering that a new era had dawned upon the Christian church, which was about to renew its youth, and repeat the glorious triumphs of its days.

After successfully organising in Holland the same system of church government which had been set up in England, they visited Herford, the court of the Princess Elizabeth. Barclay had written to her from Aberdeen prison, strongly urging her, since she felt the power and blessing of silent waiting on God, to trust that, and especially to dismiss her "hireling" chaplain with his "unallowable services." In reply she had pleaded that the way was not yet plain to her; she must wait for light. If only her faith were strengthened what might she not do? But the result did not answer Barclay's expectation. They had, indeed, times of great spiritual refreshment, and the right hand of the Lord was revealed, but the Princess was not won to silent worship, nor to renounce the ordinary modes of worship. However Barclay urges and pleads with her, her reply still is "I must go by my light." "I cannot submit to the opinions or practice of others, though they have more light than myself."[24]

[24] Not that Barclay aimed at proselytising, but he wished her to take the course which seemed to him the necessary outcome of her views. "I pretend to be no sect master," he writes, "and disgust all such."

At Herford, Barclay left his friends and returned to Amsterdam. In September we find him in London, using his influence with the Duke of York to procure liberty for Friends in Scotland. He only succeeded, however, so far as his father and himself were concerned. When he wrote the result to his friend the Princess, and after shewing the dangers that awaited him, told her he was returning to Scotland, she was astonished, and warmly remonstrated with him for taking such a course. Robert Barclay had expressed sorrow at her non-success. She tells him that it is no cross to her that Lady Lauderdale returns no other answer to her request than a mere court compliment, and proceeds:—"But it is a cross to me that you will not make use of the liberty which God miraculously gave you, but will return into Scotland to be clapt up again into prison, for which we have neither precept nor example." But to stop in the path of duty because there were dangers ahead, would have been a failure of obedience which would have plunged Barclay's soul into darkness and distress. He must go forward and leave the consequences to God.

The persecution of the Aberdeen Friends continued unabated until 1679. In the spring of that year Archbishop Sharpe, the chief instigator of it, was assassinated, and Lauderdale removed from office: and immediately came a lull in the storm. In November, Robert Barclay and some others were indeed thrown into prison, but they were released in a few hours. The favour of the Council towards Friends in general, and especially the interest at court of Robert Barclay, were too strong for the persecutors, and they capitulated. Locally the hard fought fight was won.

The royal favour was still more distinctly shown to Robert Barclay when, in the same year, the Ury estate was, by royal charter dated 14th August, erected into a barony, with civil and criminal jurisdiction to himself and his heirs forever. This was about the time when James was made Lord High Commissioner, and being jealous of the influence of Monmouth, was nursing his Scotch popularity. In the act of parliament (1685) confirming the charter, it is said to be granted "for the many services done by Colonel David Barclay and his son the said Robert Barclay to the king and his most royal progenitors in times past." It was swept away, with all kindred privileges, when George II. remodelled the government of Scotland. But the Court Book is still in existence to bear testimony to his conscientious administration of justice.

In this year he also paid another visit to Holland, but was unable to visit his royal correspondent the Princess Elizabeth at Herford. However he wrote her what proved to be a final letter, dated Rotterdam, 6th of the 5th month, 1679. In this characteristically sensitive but affectionately faithful epistle, he says, "Thou may think strange that after so long a silence I should now apply myself to answer thy last (which came to my hands at a time when I was under great bodily weakness) for which I will not trouble thee with any further Apologie than to assure thee that no want of respect or regard to thee, but ane unwillingness to work in mine own will, and a fear in so doing rather to hurt than help thee, hath hindered me until now. Had I given way to my own inclinations, and to the course of that love, which, without flattery I can say I have for thee, so as to have exprest but the hundred part of that concern which frequently possessed me on thy account, I had overcharged thee with my letters. But knowing it is not the will of man that bringeth about the work of God, I choosed rather to be silent than forward. But being through a singular occasion come to this country, and not having access to make thee a visit, I found a true liberty from the Lord in my spirit thus to salute thee." From what follows it seems that either the Princess misunderstood his anxious solicitude for her, or he thought she did. His apology for his urgency is touching. He concludes; "For herein I have peace before God, that I never sought to gather thee nor others to myself, but to the Lord. I pretend to be no sect master, and disgust all such. My labour is only as an ambassadour to instruct all to be reconciled to God, and desire no more than to be manifest in the consciences of those to whom I come that I am such, by the answer of that of God there, to which therefore in my conscience I recommend my testimony." In not seeing the Princess on this visit he missed his last opportunity, for she died the following year. Penn has paid a tribute to her memory in "No Cross, No Crown," in which he says, "I must needs say her mind had a noble prospect; her eye was to a better and more lasting inheritance than can be found below, which made her often despise the greatness of courts, and learning of the schools, of which she was an extraordinary judge."

To this year also belong two of his writings—a "duply" to a scurrilous reply to his Apology, entitled "Quakerism the pathway to Paganism," by John Brown, and a translation of his Latin letter to the Ambassadors assembled at Nimeguen, urging the claims of peace.

During the remaining years of his life, Robert Barclay published little. Probably he was too busy to write much. Of his employments unfortunately we know little. His writings, his learning, his great ability, his rank, his aristocratic friends and connections, and his influence at court, made him a man of mark. In his own society, he was a recognised leader. His ministry evidently was of a high order. Possibly not so popular as that of Fox or Penn, it must have been solid, earnest, and impressive. He is known to us almost solely as an author, but his own generation knew him as a capable man of affairs. He was not a popular leader like Fox, or a man consumed by large humanitarian schemes like Penn. But he had a broad and liberal mind, sound judgment, and an insinuating address. The dedication of the Apology shows with what skill he could walk on delicate ground.

About this time, the divisions which troubled Friends in England found their way to Aberdeen. Rogers and Bugg sent their slanderous letters everywhere, and as Barclay was mistakenly supposed to have written the "Anarchy of Ranters" against the former, it was not likely that the peace of Aberdeen would be undisturbed. Several members had to be expelled and then harmony was restored. It is to this that the following extract from a letter of George Fox refers.

"London, 31st of 4th mo. (June), 1680.

"Dear Robert Barclay,

With my love to thee and thy Father and all the rest of the faithful friends in the holy peaceable truth, that is over all and changes not. I am sorry to hear that there should be any difference or distance amongst any Friends in your parts, and that they should not keep in the power of the Lord to the spreading of the truth abroad, and such great want and need as there is in your country. For all should be in the Gospel of peace, in the power of God in which enmity cannot come, and in the peaceable wisdom which is easy to be entreated. And therefore you that are ministers in that nation should meet together sometimes, and keep in unity, and that you might treat of things that tend for peace, as the Apostles and Elders did in their day, to the establishing, settling, and preserving of the churches in Christ Jesus."

It may surprise some who have mistaken ideas of Fox's methods to find him saying: "I shall write a few words to John Blaikling, for him and Thomas Langhorn to come into your country, for they are honest men and may be very serviceable." From the next sentence, it appears that Barclay had not been at the recent Yearly Meeting which had threatened to be a stormy one, but had passed off peaceably. "As for the Yearly Meeting, the Lord did manifest his wonderful power and presence in all the meetings, and it was mighty large from all parts, and the love of God was raised in Friends beyond words. I have not seen the like. And though many of the dirty spirits was there that are rebellious, yet the Lord's power and truth was over them, and Friends parted in the power and love of God, and all was quiet."

In 1679-1682 the Duke of York was in Scotland, first as Lord High Commissioner, afterwards on a visit. Considering the cruel and mischievous policy which he pursued there, it seems incredible to us that Barclay should have been able to like him. Yet he seems often to have been at his court, and to have had the favourable impressions which he had already received of the duke deepened and confirmed. Hume says indeed that, "the duke had behaved with great civility towards the gentry and nobility [of Scotland] and by his courtly demeanour had much won upon their affections." So that Barclay was not alone. At one time he verified before the duke a claim of his father's for money laid out in the service of Charles I.; the debt was acknowledged, but only a small part, less than £300, was ever paid. Again he visits him in Edinbro' at the earnest desire of William Penn about the New Jersey affairs.[25] At other times he fully used his great influence with James on behalf of his friends. Even when in 1680 the Duke was called to Windsor, Barclay's wishes were not forgotten as appears by the following note.

Windsor, June 27th, 1680.

I send you here enclosed a letter to the Lord Advocate as you desired. I choose to write to him because I had spoken to him of it when I was in Scotland. You see I do my part, and I make no doubt but that he will do his, and then you will have no further trouble in that affair.

James.

[25] The whole letter which tells us this is worth quoting. Letters of the Early Friends, pp. 257, 8.

Edr. [Edinburgh], the 10th mo. [Dec.] 1679.

"Dear G. F.,

"To whom is my dear and unfeigned love in the unchangeable Truth, of whom to hear is always refreshful to me. I know it will be acceptable to thee to understand that at last the tedious persecution at Aberdeen seems to have come to an end, for Friends have had their meetings peaceable near these two months, and dear P. L. (Patrick Livingstone) after having had several peaceable meetings, is now come away a noble conqueror from that place, and is gone to visit Friends in the west country, and then intends homeward by way of Newcastle. I doubt not, but that God will abundantly reward his courage and his patience; for his stay hath been of great service to Truth and Friends in these parts.

"I came here at the earnest desire of W. P. (William Penn) and other Friends to speak to the Duke of York concerning the New Jersey business; but fear there will be little effectual got done in it. I doubt it has been spoiled in the managing at first. * * * I should be very glad, if thy freedom could allow of it, to see thee in this country in the spring. I know it would be of great service, for there are several things that would need it. Several things go cross, and are so now in divers places; and I know no man's presence could so easily remedy it as thine." He signs himself, "thy real friend, R. Barclay."

Whilst in London in 1682, Robert Barclay was appointed governor of East Jersey (the Eastern part of New Jersey) which had been purchased by William Penn, the Earl of Perth, and other of his friends. He was made one of the proprietors, and "to induce him to accept thereof [of the Governorship] they gifted him a propriety with 5000 acres more for him to bestow as he should think fit." "Charles II. confirmed the grant of the Government, and the royal commission states that 'such are his known fidelity and capacity, that he has the Government during life; but no other governor after him shall have it longer than three years,'" He appointed as his deputy Gawen Laurie, a London Friend and merchant, already attached to the province as one of the proprietors of West Jersey. His brothers John and David intended to settle there, but David died on the voyage. He was a youth of great piety and promise, greatly beloved, especially by his father. John settled at Perth-Amboy, the capital of the province, where he died in 1731. The only mention of him which I can find is in Smith's History of New Jersey, where it is said, "He bore the character of a good neighbour, and was very serviceable to the public in several capacities, but more particularly in Amboy, where he lived and died."[26]

[26] Both brothers were members of the Society of Friends, and the younger was already a minister at the time of his death.

In Robert Barclay, William Penn would have not only a practical adviser, but one able to understand and sympathise with his lofty aims. He who suggested two hundred years ago a just method of disendowment, and who so effectively advocated the cause of peace, would have large-hearted sympathy and suggestions for the founder of the Western Utopia. It is unfortunate that we have no information of his plans and efforts for the two colonies. Once only the curtain is lifted. In 1685 we find him "attentive to the welfare of East Jersey by shipping provisions and engaging indented servants in Aberdeen."[27]

[27] Education was early attended to by Friends. "In 1681 in Aberdeen Monthly Meeting, two schools were established, one for boys and one for girls. The latter was held in the meeting-house. The schoolmistress was besought by the church 'to seek to accomplish herself in reading, writing, and arithmetic,' and also to get 'a good stocking-weaver.' The church also, 'had a true sense that there is cause for encouraging her.' Some of the parents thought otherwise and withdrew their children, and it was directed, that they be weightily dealt with to return them again. The boys school had a schoolmaster who was allowed 100 pound rent. It was to impart 'the Latin tongue and other commendable learning.' The 'priests' manifested 'great trouble' at the setting up of this school, because 'several considerable people of the world have sent their children thereto, highly commending their profiting therein beyond their own schools. And some fruits also as to conviction and conversion among the young ones hath been of great encouragement to us." (Robert Barclay's "Inner Life, &c.," p. 482, note.)

That Robert Barclay took great interest in this effort may be taken for granted. There is extant a copy of a letter of his widow's (dated 15th of 6th mo., 1693) full of earnest desires for the scholars and recommendations to the teachers.

There is a well-known and authentic story of Barclay's adventure with a robber, which is often quoted by Friends in support of their belief in non-resistance to evil. He had been to London, and had left one of his sons at Theobalds, where his old friend George Keith had set up a school. One morning his wife noticed that he looked thoughtful, and asked the reason. He replied that he believed some uncommon trial would that day befal the company. They set out on their journey, and met with the not uncommon incident in those days near London—an attack from highwaymen. One of these presented his pistol at Robert Barclay, who with calm self-possession took him by the arm, and asked him how he came to be so rude. The robber dropped his pistol, and became quiet as a lamb. Mrs. Barclay's brother was not so fortunate, he was robbed; and one of the four members of the party, a Dutchman named Sonmans, accidentally received a wound in his thigh from which he died. Surely the father never showed more coolness under fire than did the son when suddenly confronted by such danger.[28]

[28] The incident is thus told more fully and picturesquely by Wilson Armistead. "Calm and self-possessed, he looked the robber in the face, with a firm but meek benignity, assured him he was his and every man's friend, that he was willing and ready to relieve his wants; that he was free from the fear of death through a divine hope of immortality, and therefore was not to be intimidated by a deadly weapon, and then appealed to him whether he could find in his heart to shed the blood of one who had no other feeling or purpose but to do him good. The robber was confounded; his eye melted; his brawny arm trembled; his pistol dropped out of his hand on to the ground, and he fled from the presence of the non-resistant hero whom he could no longer confront." Mr. Armistead's memoir was published long after the publication of the contemporary letters which give the simpler narrative; the reader must take his choice.

Barclay like William Penn was charged with doubtful relations with James II. They both believed him sincere in his professed regard for religious liberty; they both felt for him a real, though it seems to us an unmerited regard. He showed them both special kindness, and listened to their pleas for their brethren and for others. George Fox writes to Barclay in 1686:—"Friends were very sensible of the great service thou hadst concerning the truth with the king and all the court; and that thou hadst their ear more than any Friend when here." But it must not be supposed that they were therefore indifferent to the constitutional principles at stake. (See [sketch of Penn].) There is a curious disproof of this in a hint conveyed in the Friends' address to the king on his Declaration of Indulgence, drawn up by the Yearly Meeting of 1687, when it is almost certain that Barclay was present and must have concurred. "We hope," they say, "the good effects thereof may produce such a concurrence from the parliament as will secure it to our posterity." This influence at court caused Robert Barclay often to be wanted in London, and he seems to have been a constant attender of the Yearly Meetings up to 1688.

In 1685 we are told that Barclay was again in London at the Yearly Meeting, and employed himself in many acts of kindness. Charles II. had died on the 6th of February, and James at once ascended to the throne. If Barclay had been anxious for the royal favour, as some asserted, he would at once have gone to court to salute the rising sun. Instead, we find him going simply to the May gatherings of his brethren, and only at a later date seeking the royal presence on behalf of others.

In 1686 he repeated his visit on the same errand and took part with George Whitehead in an appeal to the king, which resulted in the liberation of 1200 Friends. Whitehead says he took Barclay with him, "the king having a particular respect for him from the knowledge he had of him in Scotland;" but Whitehead seems to have been the chief speaker. In the end the king granted a commission to the attorney-general, Sir R. Sawyer, to issue warrants to release all whom he could legally discharge as the king's prisoners, which through George Whitehead's energy was thoroughly carried out.

Soon after Barclay's return, his aged father sickened, and died on the 12th of October. His son published a very full account of his last days, which seem to have been full of heavenly calm and restful faith. The old soldier, after a youth of adventures and a manhood of perils and persecutions, "fell asleep," says his son, "like a lamb." The feelings that first won him to Quakerism were strong to the last. To the doctor who attended him he said, "It is the life of righteousness that we bear witness to, and not an empty profession." To the Friends who gathered round his dying-bed, he said, "How precious is the love of God among his children, and their love to one another! My love is with you—I leave it among you." As the end drew near, he exclaimed, "Now the time comes! Praises, praises to the Lord! Let now thy servant depart in peace." And so he crossed the river.

Again in 1687 Robert Barclay visited London, travelling with Viscount and Lady Arbuthnot, the latter as a daughter of the Earl of Sunderland being a distant cousin of his own. The Scotch Quakers had previously met in Aberdeen, and had drawn up in their General Meeting an address of acknowledgment to the king on his recent Declaration of Indulgence; this Robert Barclay presented. A similar one, prepared by this London Yearly Meeting of 1687 and presented to the king by William Penn, has been already mentioned. On this occasion, Barclay visited the seven bishops who were in the Tower for refusing to circulate this very Declaration. They had declared that the Quakers had belied them by reporting that they had been the death of some of them. Probably Barclay felt not only that the charge, which certainly had been made, must be sustained for the credit of his brethren, but what was more important, that the bishops were now in a position better to understand the Quaker pleas for liberty of conscience. So he produced to them unquestionable proof that some Friends had been kept in gaol until they died, even after trustworthy physicians had warned their persecutors that death must be the result of their longer detention. However, he assured them that they would not publish the damaging facts, lest it should furnish a handle to their enemies.

His last visit to London was early in 1688, and he remained all the summer. On the journey he had the company of his brother-in-law, Sir Ewen Cameron, of Lochiel. He took with him his eldest son Robert, then a boy of sixteen, remarkable alike for his piety and for his precocious Scotch prudence, and introduced him to the court at Windsor. There he remained for some time, "being much caressed, it is said, on account of his father's interest, which occasioned numerous dependents; and he appears to have conducted himself so as to incur no reproach even with Quakers." A sermon which Robert Barclay preached at this time in Gracechurch St. Meeting, was reported and has been published. One great object of this journey was to see justice done to his brother-in-law, who had a difference with the powerful Duke of Gordon. Barclay set himself in good earnest to get the matter righted. First he wrote to several English noblemen with whom he was intimate, but they were shy of the difficult task, though they all professed their willingness to help him in anything else. Then he appealed to the king, and "succeeded in obtaining from him a full hearing upon the whole matter, in the presence of the Marquis of Powis and the Earls of Murray and Melfort, who were requested to become referees. Persevering through all obstructions raised by the opposite party, Barclay was able at length to obtain a final settlement, much to the advantage of Cameron of Lochiel." Thus again James appears under Barclay's influence as the good genius of the oppressed.

On one of his visits to the court, he found the king full of the thought of the coming of the Prince of Orange. They had a serious conversation about the state of affairs, and Barclay, like Penn, sincerely sympathised with the royal culprit in his troubles. "Being with him near a window, the king looked out and observed that 'the wind was then fair for the Prince of Orange to come over.' Robert Barclay replied, 'it was hard that no expedient could be found to satisfy the people.' The king declared he would do anything becoming a gentleman, except parting with liberty of conscience, which he never would whilst he lived."

After the Revolution, the calumnies by which he was assailed led to his drawing up a "Vindication," which is the last known production of his pen. For himself he would have been content to bear these calumnies in silence. Two reasons overruled this choice. Some men of judgment who found how completely he could refute them, wished his answers to be well known. On the other hand, the loss of his reputation caused damage to the Society to which he belonged, and of whose interests he was so jealous. Yet his own contempt for the charges laid against him, and for the popular opinion of him, is evident in almost every paragraph. There is more than courageous outspokenness; there is the indifference of one who feels, "With me it is a small thing that I should be judged of you. He that judgeth me is the Lord."

He sums up the charges against him thus:—"That I am a papist and some will needs have me a Jesuite; that the access and interest I have been thought to have had with the king is thereto ascribed; that I have been a great caballer and councealor of those things that have been done for the advancement of the Romish interest and agrieving of the people: and thence have been a joint contriver with the Jesuit Peters and others; and that for this I have received advantages and money from the king, and so consequently am chargeable with the odium and censure that such doings merit." To this he replies, that he has been married eighteen years and has several children, which proves him no Jesuit; that for twenty-two years he has been no Papist, "without being under the least temptation to return to it again;" that he has always avowed his opposition to those principles "in the opinion of some more forwardly than prudently," when the catholic party was strong, "judging it," he adds sarcastically, "a fitter season then than now to show zeal for the Protestant religion." The only money ever paid to him from the treasury is acknowledged in the published accounts, and so on. But what is most daring is his charity towards the fallen monarch and his Catholic friends in the hour of their unpopularity. "For I must confess that the fatal stroaks the interest of the Church of Rome seems to have gotten in these nations does not a whitt increase my aversion to their religion, for that I judge truth and error is not rightly measured by such events; and as to the persons of Roman Catholics, as it never agreed with the notions I have of the Christian religion to hate these persons, so their present misfortunes are so far from embittering my spirit towards them that it rather increases tenderness and regard to them, while I consider the ingenerous spirit of those who cannot take a more effectual way to lessen the reputation of the Protestant religion."

"I come now to the great charge of my access to and interest with the king. And if I should ask whether that were a crime? I find few reasonable men, if any, would say so. But I am neither afraid nor ashamed to give a candid account of that matter." He then gives the occasion of their meeting in 1676, as narrated elsewhere, and proceeds:—"To do him right, I never found reason to doubt his sincerity in the matter of liberty of conscience.... After his happening to be in Scotland, giving me an opportunity of more frequent access, and that begetting an opinion of interest, I acknowledge freely that I was ready to use it to the advantage of my friends and acquaintances, what I esteemed just and reasonable for me to meddle in." Again he says, "In short I must own nor will I decline to avow that I love King James, that I wish him well, that I have been and am sensibly touched with a feeling of his misfortunes, and that I cannot excuse myself from the duty of praying for him that God may bless him, and sanctify His afflictions to him. And if so be His will to take from him an earthly crown, He may prepare his heart and direct his steps so that he may obtain through mercy an heavenly one, which all good Christians judge the most preferable."

The last two years of Robert Barclay's life seem to have been spent in social enjoyment and quiet usefulness at home. "There," we are told, "his mild and amiable virtues found their happiest sphere of exercise, and he enjoyed the esteem of his neighbours." But such serene happiness was not to last. In 1690, he travelled in the ministry in the north of Scotland, accompanied by another Quaker preacher named James Dickinson. Soon after his return home, he was seized with a violent fever, under which he soon sunk, and died on the 3rd of October, 1690. He was laid beside his father in the vault in the burial place in the beautiful grounds of Ury which his father had prepared. (Thither his descendants and namesakes were gathered one by one for 160 years, until in 1854, the last laird, Capt. Barclay-Allardice, after mortgaging his estates to their full value, and bringing sadness to the hearts of all who loved the name he bore, was brought there to his last rest.) There was great lamentation, especially in his own society, when the news got abroad. Fox, Penn, and others bore no grudging testimony to his gifts and services. The latter edited his works, with an ample preface, in which the subjects and merits of the different treatises are spoken of with judgment, yet with all the warmth of a personal friend.

Barclay's Apology has been spoken of as a system of Divinity. It is nothing of the kind, but simply an exhaustive treatise on the points in which Quakerism differs from the current evangelical Christianity of his day. The point is of importance, because otherwise the reader may be led astray both by the omissions from the work, and by the proportions allotted to different subjects. He must look elsewhere, for instance, for proofs that the early Friends were substantially orthodox in their views of the Trinity.

Much has been said about the Apology being framed on a plan similar to the Assembly's Catechism, and being indeed a reply to it. But that Catechism itself is on the plan of Calvin's Institutes, the trusted guide of Scotch orthodoxy. It would be an interesting point to trace the relation between the Institutes and the Apology. As to the Calvinistic controversy, a recent writer says, "No man ever gave Calvinism such mighty shakes as Barclay did. And he shook it from within. He understood it. As the religion of his country he had entered into it and made himself master of it. His controversy with Calvin was on fundamental principles." (Theological Review, 1874, p. 553). These assertions must be modified by remembering that, as we have seen, almost from childhood Barclay disliked Calvinism, so that whilst he might effectually combat some of its positions, he was little likely to do justice to its strong points, and can hardly be said to have shaken it from within. The Arminianism of the Catholic Church would strengthen his instinctive dislike, so that though he found the Quakers Arminians, he in nowise owed his convictions on this point to them.

The style of the Apology is beautifully clear. The best proof of its simplicity is to be found in the fact that many of the artisan class have so followed its reasonings as to be led to accept Quakerism by this book alone. Probably it has brought more converts to Quakerism than any other book that ever was written. It is grand in its efficient handling of great questions without any appearance of labour or effort. There is a cumulative power in many of the paragraphs that is very effective; epithet piled on epithet, clause following up clause like the waves of the incoming tide, until mind and heart are alike borne along by its rush. The thought is made to stand out not only boldly and clearly, but clothed with that subtle power which is only wielded by the transparently honest and the intensely earnest. At times the writer condescends to brusque vehemence or touching appeal to his own experience.

Whatever claim for originality of thought is advanced on behalf of Robert Barclay, must principally be based on his arguments in defence of Quakerism, and on his systematising of Quaker thought.[29] His namesake and descendant, the late Robert Barclay of Reigate, bestowed great pains and labour on investigations to find out how far the ideas of the Early Friends were known to the world before George Fox preached them. He has shewn in his "Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth" that to a large extent the religious phrases and tenets of the Friends, were those used and held by Caspar Schwenkfeld, and his followers amongst the Mennonite churches of Holland and Germany. Churches of their faith and order were established in York and Lincoln when George Fox began to preach, through which he may have received their views.[30]

[29] In the "Yorkshireman," a religious paper conducted by the eminent meteorologist, Luke Howard, F.R.S., before he left the Society of Friends, in consequence of their action in the "Beacon" controversy—there is (vol. III. pp. 8-14) an interesting enquiry as to Barclay's indebtedness to George Keith for his views as to the "hypothesis or system relating to the 'Seed or Birth of God in the soul, which makes it a distinct being or substance as the Vehiculum Dei, &c.'" The writer terms Barclay's view a Platonising doctrine. Certainly Keith felt very kindly towards Dr. Henry More, the great Platonist, and urged Friends to shew him loving sympathy "notwithstanding of his mistakes." Keith declared afterward that Barclay learnt the doctrine from him, and the writer produces proofs of this from Keith's writings. But the recent proofs of a common source in the writings of Schwenkfeld, makes the enquiry less interesting.

[30] The Mennonites condemned all oaths, all war, all adornment in dress, and frivolity in conduct and conversation. They had times for silent prayer in their worship; they had no paid ministry; they taught that a university training alone did not fit a man for the ministry. They also set the fatal example of excluding from their membership those who married either unconverted persons, or Christians of other denominations. They had circulating Yearly Meetings like the early Friends.

But the followers of Caspar Schwenkfeld were still more like Friends than were other Mennonites. The same authority says (p. 237):—"The teaching of Schwenkfeld and Fox was identical on three important points. First, on what is called the doctrine of the 'Inward Light, Life, Word, Seed, &c.' Secondly, on 'Immediate Revelation;' that is, that God and Christ in the person of the Holy Spirit, the Word of God, communicates with the human soul without the absolute necessity of the rites and ceremonies of the church, or of any outward means, acts or things, however important they may be.... Thirdly, that as a necessary consequence, no merely bodily act, such as partaking of the Lord's Supper or Baptism, can give the inward and spiritual reality and power of the Lord's 'body and blood,' or that of the spiritual 'washing of regeneration;' nor can the soul be maintained in spiritual union with him by bodily acts." Schwenkfeld and his followers therefore discarded baptism and the Lord's Supper.

At least Mr. Barclay has proved that Fox was acquainted with these views, though possibly he may not have known their source. But it is evident that they were not received by him mechanically. They were assimilated, not swallowed; that which seemed to him chaff being separated from the wheat with intelligent appreciation, and such variations being introduced as his own experience and conscience indicated.

The Apology develops with systematic thoroughness, the doctrine of the "Seed" or "Light within." The "Light within" is given to every man in measure, whether he be born in Christian or heathen lands; and so has been given since the Creation. It manifests his sins with kindly severity. As it is attended to, it grows in clearness, more light is given until the whole soul is filled with light, and joy, and peace. At first, the "seed" lies all but dormant in the human soul, until its faint impulses are recognised, accepted and honoured. Then it grows in power, it subdues the corruptions of the flesh, it spreads its influence throughout the whole nature and the whole life. Its power is sufficient for every duty and for all righteousness. But the early Friends are not at all careful to maintain unity of idea and congruity of figure with regard to the terms "Light" and "Seed." They use them indiscriminately to describe the Divine In-dwelling in all its stages. They are the secret of man's capacity for salvation. Through the "Universal Light" all men may be led to a saving knowledge of God. It prepares the way for those "Immediate Revelations" of divine truth, which Barclay declares to have been the formal objects of faith in all ages. By these "Immediate Revelations" or discoveries of vital truth to the soul, and by these alone, every Christian becomes savingly acquainted with the things of God.

Like the Mennonites, the Quakers did not believe the Seed to have any vitality apart from the Spirit of God. Neither the early Friends nor any of their successors have ever believed in any natural power in man, by which he could savingly know God, or work out his soul's salvation. The seed or light was the gift of God; it was not the soul, as Barclay is careful to explain, but a "substance"[31] divinely given to every man, not naturally, but by grace. The seed was not separable from Christ, and when it was quickened, Christ was formed in the heart, and became the life of the soul.[32]

[31] Barclay uses the term in its scholastic sense as opposed to "attribute."

[32] The following extract will assist in correcting one mistaken idea of the "Light within." It is from a speech made in the Yearly Meeting of 1861, by my respected former tutor, Isaac Brown, whose solid learning and sound judgment have won him the greatest confidence amongst Friends. The notorious "Essays and reviews" were under discussion, and he said, "Some thought the work ought to be hailed by our Society, because of the views it advanced on the doctrine of the 'inward light.' He believed this idea was a misconception. The opinion of the Essayists appeared to coincide rather with those of the Hicksite body in America, than with those preached by George Fox and now held by our Society. It was not the 'inward light' (by which our early Friends clearly stated that they meant nothing else than the light of the Spirit of Christ) to which these writers referred us, but the 'enlightened reason.' He thought it was time for us to discontinue the use of this term 'the inward light,' as it had been grievously misinterpreted out of the Society, and was not found in Scripture."

Let me here say that any one may find the essentials of Quakerism without the Platonising doctrine of the "Seed," in J. J. Gurney's "Distinguishing Views and Practices of the Society of Friends."

Another peculiar feature of the Quaker view of the Divine In-dwelling is developed by Barclay in his chapter on Perfection. He has before claimed that justification is all as one with sanctification; he now explains that, in the view of Friends, regeneration implies the possibility of perfection in this life. He contends earnestly for a lofty view of the power of Christ in the believer. His proposition runs thus:—"Proposition VIII. In whom this pure and holy birth is fully brought forth, the body of death and sin comes to be crucified and removed, and their hearts united and subjected to the truth, so as not to obey any temptation or suggestion of the evil one, to be free from actual sinning and transgressing of the law of God, and in that respect perfect; yet doth this perfection still admit of a growth, and there remaineth always in some part a possibility of sinning, where the mind doth not most diligently attend unto the Lord."

From these and other teachings it has been inferred that the Friends did not believe in the earthly life and sacrificial death of our Lord; that they knew no Christ but the Christ within. This is a great mistake.[33] That they received and held these truths is a point easily proved, and Barclay distinctly affirms that they must be preached, or the believer will not become a complete Christian. But they argued that there might be Christian life without the knowledge of these truths. In their teachings the Christ within was prominent, and the death of Christ filled a less prominent position as the ground of God's mercy, the meritorious cause of the gift within.

[33] See the valuable letter, quoted p. [70].

But in perusing Barclay, the reader will of course remember the controversies out of which his works sprung, and will make allowance for the strain of debate. Points on which disputants are agreed will always be passed over slightly; points that have been overlooked or challenged will be emphasised, and dwelt on so largely as to seem out of proportion. But undoubtedly, when amongst the Friends of the next century these controversial works became the staple reading of an age of declining piety, the mischief done by this disproportion was great. Quakerism, contrary to the designs and aspirations of its early leaders, became almost synonymous with mysticism and quietism, and little better than theism. The objective facts of Christianity were neglected, and subjective experiences were everything. For instance in all the writings and Journal of John Woolman, admirable as they are in many respects, there is hardly a single statement of the atoning work of our Lord and Saviour.

Still the evangelical reader will find in Barclay much that he can enjoy and approve. His arguments for the necessity of the Holy Spirit's help in reading the Scriptures to profit, and in gaining a saving knowledge of Christian truth, are most excellent. So with many other points involving spiritual-mindedness. But the present writer heartily agrees with Joseph John Gurney, when, in the midst of the Beacon controversy he wrote, when Barclay's name was brought into special prominence, "I am, however, inclined to the opinion, that were we compelled to select a single writer in order to ascertain the religious principles of the Early Friends, we could scarcely do better than choose George Fox himself."[34] And this choice would be justified, not only by the clearness and fulness of Fox's expositions of Scripture truth, but by the healthy tone and practical power of those expositions. It is significant that Barclay and not Fox was the favourite writer of the Quietistic age of Quakerism.

[34] J. J. Gurney's Memoirs, vol. 2, p. 28.

For a long period Barclay was more than a standard writer amongst the Friends. His Apology had all the authority of a creed, and not to accept it would be sufficient to brand any Friend as unsound.[35] Nobler minds might feel that this was bondage utterly foreign to the spirit of the early Friends; yet a large number of Friends did not. But about the beginning of the present century, a change came over the Society. Religious and philanthropic works led some of its members to associate with evangelical churchmen and others. Controversies also arose, which at least compelled a systematic and critical study of the Bible. Broader sympathies and more enlightened study of the Scriptures undermined Barclay's influence. It was found that his exposition of Scripture texts was sometimes unsatisfactory. The Yearly Meeting ceased to print the Apology for gratuitous distribution, though not without strenuous protest from some, who clung to the old ways of presenting Quaker truth.

[35] "The 'Apology' of Barclay was largely printed and distributed by the Society, and was accepted at the period of which we are treating [1833] (contrary to the principles of the ancient Society) as a distinct creed, which every person bearing the name of a 'Friend' ought to be prepared to accept in all its parts. * * * At this period it was deemed sufficient proof of I. Crewdson's doctrinal 'unsoundness,' to state that he objected to certain portions of the able theological treatise of Barclay." "R. Barclay's 'Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth,'" p. 573.

In the more recent literature of the Society, the doctrine of the Divine seed is scarcely to be found. But its essence is there. The illumination of the Holy Spirit, and the presence of Christ with his church are held by Friends with peculiar distinctness and force. The fact that all men have grace enough to accept the offer of salvation if they will, is stated as clearly now as it was by George Fox. Let there be but the zeal and the faith of George Fox, his urgency in dealing with men, his confidence in pleading with God, and Quakerism has yet a message that the world needs to hear, and that will win its olden triumphs, and bring its divine blessings to man.

---

Transcriber's Note

Archaic, dialectical and inconsistent spellings have been left in the text. Changes are indicated in the text like this. Obvious misprints have been fixed, as detailed in the following:

On page [13]:	botanist, and says Sewel, "one of the most skilful ..."
	Originally, the name was spelled Sewell
On page [27]:	of representatives from a number of associated
	Originally the word "from" was printed "fron"
On page [57]:	him to sketch a constitution for it. The Quakers, who
	Originally "sketch" was spelled "sketeh"
On page [70]:	Henry Gouldney, of London, to Robert Barclay, junr.,
	Originally "Gouldney" was spelled "Goulding"
On page [71]:	in Nayler's case, Friends clung lovingly to the
	Originally: "Nayler" was spelled "Naylor"
On page [76]:	about the sufferings of Edinbro' Friends:—"I have ..."
	Originally "Edinbro'" was spelled "Edinboro'"
On page [83]:	and other places. James Nayler preached in Scotland as
	Originally the name was spelled "Naylor"
On page [104]:	(See also the Apology, Prop. II., paragraph 26, &c.)
	Originally "II." was "ii"
On page [110]:	remonstrance to the notorious Ludovic Muggleton. The
	Originally the name was spelled "Ludivico"
On page [122]:	The news of Robert Barclay's commitment to prison
	Originally: "Th enews"
On page [137]:	"... to become referees. Persevering through all ..."
	Originally "Perservering"
On page [142]:	the writings of Schwenkfeld, makes the enquiry less
	In this case, "Schwenkfeld" was originally spelled "Schwenkfeldt"
On page [142]:	But the followers of Caspar Schwenkfeld were still more
	In this case, "Schwenkfeld" was originally spelled "Schwenfeld"

---