that Lady Conway in many things adopted the Quaker customs.
This year (1676) seems to have been a remarkably busy one. Indeed so
well was Barclay's time filled up during his short life, that one
biographer most appropriately speaks of him as "posting" through the
business of his life. He might almost have foreseen the early close of
his career, so diligently did he redeem the time. The labours of this
year included the publication of his treatise on Christian discipline
entitled "The Anarchy of the Ranters," a visit to the continent, the
publication of the Apology, and probably the preparation of materials
for a projected history of the Christian Church. See Jaffray, p. 571.
The full title of the first-named book was, "The Anarchy of the
Ranters and other libertines, the Hierarchy of the Romanists and other
pretended churches, equally refused and refuted." Its object was to
defend the system of discipline which the Friends had established
under Fox's leadership. This system was impugned by some members as an
infringement of gospel liberty. Those who were led by the Spirit, they
argued, needed no rules or discipline to guide them aright, and must
not have their liberty interfered with by man-made rules. The leader
of this party was Wm. Rogers, a Bristol merchant. But his opposition
was not known to Robert Barclay at the time of the publication of his
treatise, though his arguments so fully anticipated their objections,
that Rogers and his friends considered the book an attack on them.
Feeling ran high, and Barclay was spoken of as popishly affected, if
not a Papist. Yet with wonderful meekness and humility, he agreed to
meet William Rogers in the presence of some trusty Friends that the
offence so taken might be removed. But though the meeting resulted in
Rogers acknowledging his fault, the perfect harmony of the Society was
not secured by it, and he and his captious friends ultimately separated
from the Society.
The treatise on Church Government is one of the best of Barclay's
productions, and has been very useful, both in establishing Friends in
the right development of their principles, and in enlightening other
Christians as to the views they hold. One fact in connection with
its publication is in perfect accord with its arguments. Three years
before, there had been established in London a standing committee of
the Quaker Society, called the Morning Meeting. One of its objects was
to examine all writings issued by the brethren in which questions of
Christian truth were discussed, so as to stamp with its approval such
as were in accordance with their principles, and to disavow such as
were otherwise. The necessity for such action was evident, from the
fact that much annoyance and damage had been sustained by Friends, from
the Society being held responsible for books written by those who were
not members. Henceforth no book was to be considered an expression of
the views of the Society, unless it had secured the sanction of the
Committee. The "Anarchy of the Ranters" was therefore duly submitted to
their scrutiny, and not only received their sanction then, but was for
at least a century, published largely by the Society as an authorised
statement of their views on Church discipline. Later the Yearly Meeting
gave it a second title, "A Treatise on Christian Discipline." But they
also struck out a passage of special interest in these times, showing
how the strong reason of Barclay was logically forced along the line of
Free-Churchmanship not only to Disestablishment but to Disendowment. It
runs thus: "The only way then soundly to reform and remove all these
abuses (i.e. those following the connection of the Church with the
State) is to take away all stinted and forced maintenance and stipends,
_and seeing those things were anciently given by the people, that they
return again to the public treasury, and thereby the people may be
greatly benefitted by them, for that they may supply for those public
taxations and impositions that are put upon them, and ease themselves
of them_."[21]
[21] Barclay's "Inner Life," p. 549. This sentence is first omitted in
the edition of 1765, and has been lost from the work since!
After attending the Yearly Meeting in London, Robert Barclay went on
a mission to the Continent. Of this visit, unfortunately, we have
no record. Probably, one object for which he made it was to see to
the publication of his Apology in Amsterdam. But one incident of the
journey is full of interest. He visited Elizabeth, Princess Palatine
of the Rhine, granddaughter of James I. and aunt of George I.; an
accomplished lady and a most exemplary ruler. She was not only a
distant relative of his (his mother and she were third cousins), but
she also attracted him by her spiritual-mindedness. She had appreciated
all that was best in the teachings of De Labadie, a Jesuit who turned
Protestant, and by his preaching led many to seek after spiritual
religion, and a simple, self-denying life.[22] So in afterwards
stating the reasons for a subsequent visit, William Penn says,
"Secondly, that they (the Princess and her friends) are actually lovers
and favourers of those that separate themselves from the world for the
sake of righteousness. For the Princess is not only a private supporter
of such, but gave protection to De Labadie himself and his company, yea
when they went _under the reproachful name of Quakers_, about seven
years since."[23]
[22] The following note concerning De Labadie, by Whittier, the
American poet, may interest the reader. "John De Labadie, a Roman
Catholic priest converted to Protestantism, enthusiastic, eloquent, and
evidently sincere in his special calling and election to separate the
true and living members from the Church of Christ from the formalism
and hypocrisy of the ruling sects. George Keith and Robert Barclay
visited him at Amsterdam, and afterwards at the Communities of Herford
(the Princess Elizabeth's home) and Wieward; and according to Gerard
Croese, found him so near to them on some points, that they offered
to take him into the Society of Friends. This offer, if it was really
made, which is certainly doubtful, was, happily for the Friends at
least, declined. Invited to Herford, in Westphalia, by Elizabeth,
daughter of the Elector Palatine, De Labadie and his followers preached
incessantly, and succeeded in arousing a wild enthusiasm among the
people, who neglected their business, and gave way to excitements and
strange practices. Men and women, it was said, at the Communion drank
and danced together, and private marriages or spiritual unions were
formed. Labadie died in 1674, at Altona, in Denmark, maintaining his
testimonies to the last. 'Nothing remains for me,' he said, 'except
to go to my God. Death is merely ascending from a lower and narrower
chamber to one higher and holier.'"
[23] He goes on to say, writing in 1677, "About a year since,
Robert Barclay and Benjamin Furly took that city in the way from
Frederickstadt to Amsterdam, and gave them a visit; in which they
informed them somewhat of Friends' principles, and recommended the
Testimony of Truth to them as both a nearer and more certain thing than
the utmost of De Labadie's doctrine. They left them tender and loving."
Travels in Holland, Penn's Select Works, p. 453.
Barclay's visit bore fruit beyond what he possibly could have foreseen.
The Princess learnt heartily to esteem and love the brotherhood,
welcomed the visits of its ministers, and used her influence at the
English court for their relief from harassing persecution. From this
time until her death she kept up a correspondence with Robert Barclay,
which is included in the printed but not published Reliquæ Barclaianæ.
It would seem that this visit also afforded the opportunity for
conversation with one Herr Adrian Paets, Dutch Ambassador to the
court of Spain, which led to the production of one of Barclay's minor
works. The subject of their converse was the very soul of Quakerism,
the inward and immediate revelations of the Holy Spirit. Paets stated
his objections, and wished Barclay to reconsider the whole question.
The Apologist did this, and was more than ever satisfied with his own
position. Accordingly he wrote to Herr Paets a long letter in Latin
full of subtle reasonings in his very best style, replying to the
objections urged. Paets promised an answer to the letter but never
sent it. However, when he met Barclay in London some years after, he
acknowledged that he had been mistaken in his notions of the Quakers,
for he found they could make a reasonable plea for the foundation of
their religion. Barclay afterwards translated his letter into English,
and published it.
This was a kind of service in which he was quite at home, and in his
quiet northern home doubtless it kept him constantly employed. His
English friends had not the leisure necessary to do the work in the
thorough style in which he performed it. How diligently he laboured in
this field, the facts already stated attest.
But the grandest fruit of his genius is undoubtedly his Apology. The
address to the king is dated Nov. 25th, 1675; the Latin edition is
dated Amsterdam, 1676. He was therefore only twenty-seven years of age
when his masterpiece was completed; and as it was first published, so
it stands to-day, unaltered. His genius matured early, though to the
great perplexity of our human judgment, early maturity was followed by
early death. For three or four years, his English brethren had been
struggling with an unusually strong tide of misrepresentation and
obloquy. He could not be a passive looker-on now that God had given
him rest from persecution. He would endeavour to state the opinions
of his brethren, and the rationale of them, with a fulness for
which they had neither time nor opportunity. It was a brotherly and
chivalrous feeling, and it had its own reward. The work was at once
accepted as a standard exposition of Quakerism. It has been profusely
eulogised by many who have not accepted the creed it defends. Even
Voltaire has warmly praised its pure Latinity. He called it "the finest
Church Latin that he knew." Sir James Mackintosh in his "Revolution
in England," calls it "a masterpiece of ingenious reasoning, and a
model of argumentative composition, which extorted praise from Bayle,
one of the most acute and least fanatical of men." The writer in the
"Theological Review," from whom we have already quoted, is enthusiastic
in his admiration of it. After speaking of Rutherford's "Letters," and
Scougal's "Life of God in the Soul of Man," he proceeds, "Greater,
where they were greatest, than Rutherford or Scougal, was Robert
Barclay; it is a country's loss that his splendid Apologia should be
left in the hands of a sect. Here, indeed, is a genuine outcome of the
inner depth of the nation's worship; something characteristic and her
own; a gift to her religious life akin to her profoundest requirements;
and if she did but know it, far worthier of the acceptance of her
people than any religious aid which she has ever welcomed from the
other side of the border; more satisfying to the intellect than the
close scholastic conclusions of the English divines at Westminster;
more full of melody to the soul than even the rude music of those
ballad psalms which the Kirk had not been too proud to adapt from the
version of the Cornish statesman. One great original theologian, and
only one, has Scotland produced; he it is the history of whose life and
mind we shall endeavour to approach in the present Article." Theol.
Review, 1874, p. 528.
We must not leave the Apology without referring to its manly and honest
preface. It has been praised as heartily as the book itself. In an age
of fulsome flattery, it is unique in its appeal to the better nature of
King Charles, whom the writer begs not to despise the singular mercies
which God had shown him. On Barclay's return to London from Holland,
he probably presented a copy to the king; and it is to the credit of
that monarch that, far from taking offence at the plain speaking of his
Quaker kinsman, we find him ever after showing him special favour. Penn
and Barclay seem alike to have possessed the power of drawing out the
best side of the characters of Charles II. and his brother James II.
This fact must be borne in mind in considering the charges laid against
the former because of intimate relations with the Court.
From the Continent, Barclay returned to London, where he heard that his
father and other of his Aberdeen friends had been thrown into prison
for "holding conventicles." He immediately began to devise measures
for their release. He had a letter from the Princess Elizabeth to her
brother Prince Rupert. He presented this, met of course with a civil
reception, and took the opportunity to obtain the Prince's concurrence
with a petition which he was presenting to the king. He also wrote
to the Princess to support his application, and then presented his
petition. His plea is that a difference should be made between the
peaceable and loyal Quakers, and those against whom the laws were
directed. Unfortunately Prince Rupert was indisposed, and unable to
keep his promise. So as the petition was vigorously opposed, his
memorial was passed on to the Scotch Privy Council, with such a cool
endorsement that it took no effect.
It was on this errand that he first sought the Duke of York, afterwards
James II. He himself has told the story in his "Vindication." "Being
at London and employed by my friends to obtain a liberty for them out
of their imprisonment at Aberdeen for the single exercise of their
conscience, and not being able to gain any ground upon the Duke of
Lauderdale, in whose hands was the sole management of Scots affairs
at that time, I was advised by a Friend to try the Duke of York, who
was said to be the only man whom Lauderdale would bear to meddle in
his province, or who was like to do it with success. And having found
means of access to him, I found him inclined to interpose in it, he
having then and always since to me professed himself to be for liberty
of conscience. And though not for several years, yet at last his
interposing proved very helpful in that matter."
The reply of the Princess Palatine to Robert Barclay's request, is
interesting as a specimen of the religious correspondence of these
illustrious friends. She says, "Your memory is dear to me, so are
your lines and exhortations very necessary. I confess also myself
spiritually very poor and naked; all my happiness is, I do know I am
so, and whatever I have studied or learnt heretofore is but dirt in
comparison with the true knowledge of Christ. I confess my infidelity
to this Life heretofore, by suffering myself to be conducted by false,
politic lights. Now that I have sometimes a small glimpse of the true
Light, I do not attend it as I should, being drawn away by the works
of my calling, which must be done; and as your swift English hounds I
often overrun my scent, being called back when it is too late."
In his reply, Barclay tells of the non-success of his efforts to obtain
the release of his friends, and yet adds with calm heroism, "I this
day take my journey towards them, not doubting but I shall also share
their joys." Nor was he mistaken. Soon after reaching Aberdeen, he was
arrested and placed in the Tolbooth. This gaol was divided into two
parts, the lower, which was vile, the upper, which was worse. Robert
Barclay was allowed a place in the lower prison, but those who were
arrested with him were thrust into the upper prison. Here shortly
afterwards they were joined by David Barclay, who had been released
only to fall again into the clutches of the enemy.
The news of Robert Barclay's commitment to prison reached his royal
friend Elizabeth the next month (Dec. 1676). She at once wrote to
console him. "I am sure that the captivers are more captive than you
are, being in the company of him that admits no bonds, and is able to
break all bonds." She also wrote at once to her brother Prince Rupert
to use his influence with the king on his behalf.
Her letter put the case plainly and well. "I wrote you some months ago
by Robert Barclay who passed this way, and hearing I was your sister,
desired to speak with me. I knew him to be a Quaker by his hat, and
took occasion to inform myself of all their opinions; and finding they
were accustomed to submit to magistrates in real things, omitting
the ceremonial, I wished in my heart the King might have many such
subjects. And since I have heard that notwithstanding his Majesty's
most gracious letters in his behalf to the Council of Scotland, he
has been clapped up in prison with the rest of his friends, and they
threaten to hang them, at least those they call preachers among them,
unless they subscribe their own banishment; and this upon a law made
against other sects that appeared armed for the maintenance of their
heresy; which goes directly against the principles of those which are
ready to suffer all that can be inflicted, and still love and pray
for their enemies. Therefore, dear brother, if you can do anything
to prevent their destruction, I doubt not but you will do an action
acceptable to God Almighty, and conducive to the service of your royal
master. For the Presbyterians are their violent enemies, to whom they
are an eyesore, as being witnesses against all their violent ways. I
care not though his Majesty see my letter. It is written out of no less
an humble affection for him, than most sensible compassion for the
innocent sufferers."
Besides writing this letter she agreed to use her influence with Lady
Lauderdale, and to get her brother to do his best with the Earl, but
she explains she has little expectation of success as they are no
friends of theirs.
This letter and other influences led to a royal recommendation to the
King's Council in Edinbro', but some interval elapsed before it bore
fruit. Meanwhile, the father and son had been removed to a gaol outside
the town, called the Chapel. Their treatment here was malicious enough,
but mild in comparison with what many of their brethren suffered; and
though they protested, as became Britons and Quakers, no doubt they
thanked God for the comparative ease of their lot. Whilst in prison
they received many letters of sympathy from their friends. Amongst
these is a little known letter from William Penn, hoping that they
"may grow spiritual soldiers, expert and fitted by these exercises for
such spiritual conflicts as the Lord hath for you to go through;" and
that they may grow "as trees in winter, downwards, that your root may
spread; so shall you stand in all storms and tempests."
One of the excuses for ill-using the Friends was that they were
Popishly affected. This must have galled Robert Barclay's sensitive
nature exceedingly. His growing friendship with the King and the
suspected Duke of York gave colour to the charge, and his training in
a Catholic college, his former profession of the Catholic faith, and
his near kinship to many Catholics, were taunts ready to the hand of
disputants like the Aberdeen students or the scurrilous John Brown.
From the "Chapel," Barclay wrote a strong appeal to Archbishop Sharpe
to abandon his unchristian persecutions. Does the reader think this is
like asking Shylock to renounce his pound of flesh? He must remember
that the Quakers were accustomed to accomplish such impossibilities;
and where their hardy faith could not succeed in such feats, it could
persevere in attempting them. Their love was as invincible as their
patience. They sincerely pitied their persecutors, and felt that they
were harming themselves more than they hurt the Friends. So for their
soul's sake they pleaded with them, using every argument which they
thought they could ask God to bless. Whilst in Aberdeen prison, Barclay
also wrote his treatise on "Universal Love," an earnest plea for
religious toleration.
The prisoners gained their liberty by an amusing disagreement between
the Aberdeen Magistrates and the Sheriff, which led to a lawsuit.
Meanwhile, Robert Barclay and others who had been liberated on parole,
went before a notary and claimed their full liberty.
We now find Robert Barclay attending the Yearly Meeting in London, and
then going on to the Continent in company with George Fox and William
Penn. Their object was two-fold, aggression and organisation. The
Mennonite churches of the Netherlands and Germany were the special
attraction. William Caton, at one time tutor at Swarthmoor Hall, had
settled in Holland, and had met with a cordial welcome amongst these
churches. William Ames and other Friends also visited them, and by
degrees the Quakers had become very strong in Holland. William Penn
had visited them before. We may here remark that the Friends have ever
kept up a kindly and brotherly intercourse with the Mennonites whether
in Germany, Russia, or the United States, visiting them for fraternal
encouragement, and helping them in times of famine and persecution.
Considering that both of Barclay's companions kept diaries which have
since been published, it is remarkable how little we learn of him from
their records. Penn's narrative is a rich spiritual treat, but would
have been richer had it been his purpose to tell of the private as
well as of the public transactions of the "three great apostles of the
sect," as Hepworth Dixon calls them. What glorious times of spiritual
communion they must have had. With strongly marked individuality,
there was yet a genuine bond of union and true sympathy between them.
Fox, the senior by twenty years, was strongest in acquaintance with
the facts about the state of the Society. His faulty English might at
times jar on the ears of his scholarly brethren, but that was less
offensive to them than the impure spiritual dialects of many professed
Christians. His strong and many-sided nature enabled him to meet Penn
in his large philanthropic schemes, and to sympathise with Barclay in
his scholarly labours. If already his frame was feeling the effects of
much suffering whilst his brethren were in their prime, his soul knew
no decay. Penn might be the strongest of the three on the point of
leavening earthly institutions with heavenly aims. Barclay's surpassing
intellectual gifts might forbid any man to despise his youth. But in
deep spiritual life they were equals. What mighty wrestlings must have
been theirs as they talked of the spiritual needs of the world! How
they must have exulted in the progress of spiritual truth! Their own
Society at the time probably numbered at least 50,000 members. There
were many not of their community with whom they held sweet intercourse
through a common enjoyment of spiritual religion. Their faith was
unfaltering that a new era had dawned upon the Christian church, which
was about to renew its youth, and repeat the glorious triumphs of its
days.
After successfully organising in Holland the same system of church
government which had been set up in England, they visited Herford,
the court of the Princess Elizabeth. Barclay had written to her from
Aberdeen prison, strongly urging her, since she felt the power and
blessing of silent waiting on God, to trust that, and especially to
dismiss her "hireling" chaplain with his "unallowable services." In
reply she had pleaded that the way was not yet plain to her; she must
wait for light. If only her faith were strengthened what might she not
do? But the result did not answer Barclay's expectation. They had,
indeed, times of great spiritual refreshment, and the right hand of the
Lord was revealed, but the Princess was not won to silent worship, nor
to renounce the ordinary modes of worship. However Barclay urges and
pleads with her, her reply still is "I must go by my light." "I cannot
submit to the opinions or practice of others, though they have more
light than myself."[24]
[24] Not that Barclay aimed at proselytising, but he wished her to take
the course which seemed to him the necessary outcome of her views. "I
pretend to be no sect master," he writes, "and disgust all such."