[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 torepentance. 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 wastoo 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 notoriousLudovicMuggleton. 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 withwhich 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 hisfriends 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 ablessed 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]Seesketch 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-maderules. 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 authorisedstatement 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]Soin 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 wentunder 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 afulness 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 asheartily 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 newsof 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 faithcould 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 thatthe 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 mineown 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, andin 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 asmall 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.
[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.
[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 torepentance. 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 wastoo 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.
[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 notoriousLudovicMuggleton. 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 withwhich 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.
[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 hisfriends 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 ablessed 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."
[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]Seesketch of Penn, p.54.
[19]Seesketch 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.
[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-maderules. 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 authorisedstatement 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!
[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]Soin 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 wentunder 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.'"
[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.
[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 afulness 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 asheartily 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 newsof 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 faithcould 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 thatthe 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."
[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 mineown 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, andin 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."
"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, andin 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 asmall 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.
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.