will needs have me a Jesuite; that the access and interest I have been
thought to have had with the king is thereto ascribed; that I have
been a great caballer and councealor of those things that have been
done for the advancement of the Romish interest and agrieving of the
people: and thence have been a joint contriver with the Jesuit Peters
and others; and that for this I have received advantages and money
from the king, and so consequently am chargeable with the odium and
censure that such doings merit." To this he replies, that he has been
married eighteen years and has several children, which proves him no
Jesuit; that for twenty-two years he has been no Papist, "without being
under the least temptation to return to it again;" that he has always
avowed his opposition to those principles "in the opinion of some more
forwardly than prudently," when the catholic party was strong, "judging
it," he adds sarcastically, "a fitter season then than now to show zeal
for the Protestant religion." The only money ever paid to him from the
treasury is acknowledged in the published accounts, and so on. But
what is most daring is his charity towards the fallen monarch and his
Catholic friends in the hour of their unpopularity. "For I must confess
that the fatal stroaks the interest of the Church of Rome seems to have
gotten in these nations does not a whitt increase my aversion to their
religion, for that I judge truth and error is not rightly measured by
such events; and as to the persons of Roman Catholics, as it never
agreed with the notions I have of the Christian religion to hate these
persons, so their present misfortunes are so far from embittering my
spirit towards them that it rather increases tenderness and regard to
them, while I consider the ingenerous spirit of those who cannot take a
more effectual way to lessen the reputation of the Protestant religion."
"I come now to the great charge of my access to and interest with
the king. And if I should ask whether that were a crime? I find few
reasonable men, if any, would say so. But I am neither afraid nor
ashamed to give a candid account of that matter." He then gives
the occasion of their meeting in 1676, as narrated elsewhere, and
proceeds:--"To do him right, I never found reason to doubt his
sincerity in the matter of liberty of conscience.... After his
happening to be in Scotland, giving me an opportunity of more frequent
access, and that begetting an opinion of interest, I acknowledge
freely that I was ready to use it to the advantage of my friends and
acquaintances, what I esteemed just and reasonable for me to meddle
in." Again he says, "In short I must own nor will I decline to avow
that I love King James, that I wish him well, that I have been and am
sensibly touched with a feeling of his misfortunes, and that I cannot
excuse myself from the duty of praying for him that God may bless him,
and sanctify His afflictions to him. And if so be His will to take from
him an earthly crown, He may prepare his heart and direct his steps
so that he may obtain through mercy an heavenly one, which all good
Christians judge the most preferable."
The last two years of Robert Barclay's life seem to have been spent in
social enjoyment and quiet usefulness at home. "There," we are told,
"his mild and amiable virtues found their happiest sphere of exercise,
and he enjoyed the esteem of his neighbours." But such serene happiness
was not to last. In 1690, he travelled in the ministry in the north of
Scotland, accompanied by another Quaker preacher named James Dickinson.
Soon after his return home, he was seized with a violent fever, under
which he soon sunk, and died on the 3rd of October, 1690. He was laid
beside his father in the vault in the burial place in the beautiful
grounds of Ury which his father had prepared. (Thither his descendants
and namesakes were gathered one by one for 160 years, until in 1854,
the last laird, Capt. Barclay-Allardice, after mortgaging his estates
to their full value, and bringing sadness to the hearts of all who
loved the name he bore, was brought there to his last rest.) There was
great lamentation, especially in his own society, when the news got
abroad. Fox, Penn, and others bore no grudging testimony to his gifts
and services. The latter edited his works, with an ample preface, in
which the subjects and merits of the different treatises are spoken of
with judgment, yet with all the warmth of a personal friend.
Barclay's Apology has been spoken of as a system of Divinity. It is
nothing of the kind, but simply an exhaustive treatise on the points
in which Quakerism differs from the current evangelical Christianity
of his day. The point is of importance, because otherwise the reader
may be led astray both by the omissions from the work, and by the
proportions allotted to different subjects. He must look elsewhere, for
instance, for proofs that the early Friends were substantially orthodox
in their views of the Trinity.
Much has been said about the Apology being framed on a plan similar
to the Assembly's Catechism, and being indeed a reply to it. But
that Catechism itself is on the plan of Calvin's Institutes, the
trusted guide of Scotch orthodoxy. It would be an interesting point
to trace the relation between the Institutes and the Apology. As to
the Calvinistic controversy, a recent writer says, "No man ever gave
Calvinism such mighty shakes as Barclay did. And he shook it from
within. He understood it. As the religion of his country he had entered
into it and made himself master of it. His controversy with Calvin
was on fundamental principles." (Theological Review, 1874, p. 553).
These assertions must be modified by remembering that, as we have seen,
almost from childhood Barclay disliked Calvinism, so that whilst he
might effectually combat some of its positions, he was little likely to
do justice to its strong points, and can hardly be said to have shaken
it from within. The Arminianism of the Catholic Church would strengthen
his instinctive dislike, so that though he found the Quakers Arminians,
he in nowise owed his convictions on this point to them.
The style of the Apology is beautifully clear. The best proof of its
simplicity is to be found in the fact that many of the artisan class
have so followed its reasonings as to be led to accept Quakerism by
this book alone. Probably it has brought more converts to Quakerism
than any other book that ever was written. It is grand in its efficient
handling of great questions without any appearance of labour or effort.
There is a cumulative power in many of the paragraphs that is very
effective; epithet piled on epithet, clause following up clause like
the waves of the incoming tide, until mind and heart are alike borne
along by its rush. The thought is made to stand out not only boldly
and clearly, but clothed with that subtle power which is only wielded
by the transparently honest and the intensely earnest. At times the
writer condescends to brusque vehemence or touching appeal to his own
experience.
Whatever claim for originality of thought is advanced on behalf of
Robert Barclay, must principally be based on his arguments in defence
of Quakerism, and on his systematising of Quaker thought.[29] His
namesake and descendant, the late Robert Barclay of Reigate, bestowed
great pains and labour on investigations to find out how far the ideas
of the Early Friends were known to the world before George Fox preached
them. He has shewn in his "Inner Life of the Religious Societies of the
Commonwealth" that to a large extent the religious phrases and tenets
of the Friends, were those used and held by Caspar Schwenkfeld, and
his followers amongst the Mennonite churches of Holland and Germany.
Churches of their faith and order were established in York and Lincoln
when George Fox began to preach, through which he may have received
their views.[30]
[29] In the "Yorkshireman," a religious paper conducted by the
eminent meteorologist, Luke Howard, F.R.S., before he left the
Society of Friends, in consequence of their action in the "Beacon"
controversy--there is (vol. III. pp. 8-14) an interesting enquiry
as to Barclay's indebtedness to George Keith for his views as to
the "hypothesis or system relating to the 'Seed or Birth of God
in the soul, which makes it a distinct being or substance as the
Vehiculum Dei, &c.'" The writer terms Barclay's view a Platonising
doctrine. Certainly Keith felt very kindly towards Dr. Henry More,
the great Platonist, and urged Friends to shew him loving sympathy
"notwithstanding of his mistakes." Keith declared afterward that
Barclay learnt the doctrine from him, and the writer produces proofs of
this from Keith's writings. But the recent proofs of a common source in
the writings of Schwenkfeld, makes the enquiry less interesting.
[30] The Mennonites condemned all oaths, all war, all adornment in
dress, and frivolity in conduct and conversation. They had times for
silent prayer in their worship; they had no paid ministry; they taught
that a university training alone did not fit a man for the ministry.
They also set the fatal example of excluding from their membership
those who married either unconverted persons, or Christians of other
denominations. They had circulating Yearly Meetings like the early
Friends.
But the followers of Caspar Schwenkfeld were still more like Friends
than were other Mennonites. The same authority says (p. 237):--"The
teaching of Schwenkfeld and Fox was identical on three important
points. First, on what is called the doctrine of the 'Inward Light,
Life, Word, Seed, &c.' Secondly, on 'Immediate Revelation;' that is,
that God and Christ in the person of the Holy Spirit, the Word of God,
communicates with the human soul without the absolute necessity of the
rites and ceremonies of the church, or of any outward means, acts or
things, however important they may be.... Thirdly, that as a necessary
consequence, no merely bodily act, such as partaking of the Lord's
Supper or Baptism, can give the inward and spiritual reality and power
of the Lord's 'body and blood,' or that of the spiritual 'washing of
regeneration;' nor can the soul be maintained in spiritual union with
him by bodily acts." Schwenkfeld and his followers therefore discarded
baptism and the Lord's Supper.
At least Mr. Barclay has proved that Fox was acquainted with these
views, though possibly he may not have known their source. But it is
evident that they were not received by him mechanically. They were
assimilated, not swallowed; that which seemed to him chaff being
separated from the wheat with intelligent appreciation, and such
variations being introduced as his own experience and conscience
indicated.
The Apology develops with systematic thoroughness, the doctrine of the
"Seed" or "Light within." The "Light within" is given to every man
in measure, whether he be born in Christian or heathen lands; and so
has been given since the Creation. It manifests his sins with kindly
severity. As it is attended to, it grows in clearness, more light is
given until the whole soul is filled with light, and joy, and peace.
At first, the "seed" lies all but dormant in the human soul, until its
faint impulses are recognised, accepted and honoured. Then it grows
in power, it subdues the corruptions of the flesh, it spreads its
influence throughout the whole nature and the whole life. Its power
is sufficient for every duty and for all righteousness. But the early
Friends are not at all careful to maintain unity of idea and congruity
of figure with regard to the terms "Light" and "Seed." They use them
indiscriminately to describe the Divine In-dwelling in all its stages.
They are the secret of man's capacity for salvation. Through the
"Universal Light" all men may be led to a saving knowledge of God. It
prepares the way for those "Immediate Revelations" of divine truth,
which Barclay declares to have been the formal objects of faith in all
ages. By these "Immediate Revelations" or discoveries of vital truth
to the soul, and by these alone, every Christian becomes savingly
acquainted with the things of God.
Like the Mennonites, the Quakers did not believe the Seed to have any
vitality apart from the Spirit of God. Neither the early Friends nor
any of their successors have ever believed in any natural power in man,
by which he could savingly know God, or work out his soul's salvation.
The seed or light was the gift of God; it was not the soul, as Barclay
is careful to explain, but a "substance"[31] divinely given to every
man, not naturally, but by grace. The seed was not separable from
Christ, and when it was quickened, Christ was formed in the heart, and
became the life of the soul.[32]
[31] Barclay uses the term in its scholastic sense as opposed to
"attribute."
[32] The following extract will assist in correcting one mistaken
idea of the "Light within." It is from a speech made in the Yearly
Meeting of 1861, by my respected former tutor, Isaac Brown, whose
solid learning and sound judgment have won him the greatest confidence
amongst Friends. The notorious "Essays and reviews" were under
discussion, and he said, "Some thought the work ought to be hailed
by our Society, because of the views it advanced on the doctrine of
the 'inward light.' He believed this idea was a misconception. The
opinion of the Essayists appeared to coincide rather with those of the
Hicksite body in America, than with those preached by George Fox and
now held by our Society. It was not the 'inward light' (by which our
early Friends clearly stated that they meant nothing else than the
light of the Spirit of Christ) to which these writers referred us, but
the 'enlightened reason.' He thought it was time for us to discontinue
the use of this term 'the inward light,' as it had been grievously
misinterpreted out of the Society, and was not found in Scripture."
Let me here say that any one may find the essentials of Quakerism
without the Platonising doctrine of the "Seed," in J. J. Gurney's
"Distinguishing Views and Practices of the Society of Friends."
Another peculiar feature of the Quaker view of the Divine In-dwelling
is developed by Barclay in his chapter on Perfection. He has before
claimed that justification is all as one with sanctification; he
now explains that, in the view of Friends, regeneration implies the
possibility of perfection in this life. He contends earnestly for a
lofty view of the power of Christ in the believer. His proposition runs
thus:--"Proposition VIII. In whom this pure and holy birth is fully
brought forth, the body of death and sin comes to be crucified and
removed, and their hearts united and subjected to the truth, so as not
to obey any temptation or suggestion of the evil one, to be free from
actual sinning and transgressing of the law of God, and in that respect
perfect; yet doth this perfection still admit of a growth, and there
remaineth always in some part a possibility of sinning, where the mind
doth not most diligently attend unto the Lord."
From these and other teachings it has been inferred that the Friends
did not believe in the earthly life and sacrificial death of our
Lord; that they knew no Christ but the Christ within. This is a great
mistake.[33] That they received and held these truths is a point easily
proved, and Barclay distinctly affirms that they must be preached, or
the believer will not become a complete Christian. But they argued that
there might be Christian life without the knowledge of these truths.
In their teachings the Christ within was prominent, and the death of
Christ filled a less prominent position as the ground of God's mercy,
the meritorious cause of the gift within.
[33] See the valuable letter, quoted p. 70.
But in perusing Barclay, the reader will of course remember the
controversies out of which his works sprung, and will make allowance
for the strain of debate. Points on which disputants are agreed will
always be passed over slightly; points that have been overlooked or
challenged will be emphasised, and dwelt on so largely as to seem out
of proportion. But undoubtedly, when amongst the Friends of the next
century these controversial works became the staple reading of an
age of declining piety, the mischief done by this disproportion was
great. Quakerism, contrary to the designs and aspirations of its early
leaders, became almost synonymous with mysticism and quietism, and
little better than theism. The objective facts of Christianity were
neglected, and subjective experiences were everything. For instance in
all the writings and Journal of John Woolman, admirable as they are in
many respects, there is hardly a single statement of the atoning work
of our Lord and Saviour.
Still the evangelical reader will find in Barclay much that he can
enjoy and approve. His arguments for the necessity of the Holy
Spirit's help in reading the Scriptures to profit, and in gaining a
saving knowledge of Christian truth, are most excellent. So with many
other points involving spiritual-mindedness. But the present writer
heartily agrees with Joseph John Gurney, when, in the midst of the
Beacon controversy he wrote, when Barclay's name was brought into
special prominence, "I am, however, inclined to the opinion, that
were we compelled to select a single writer in order to ascertain
the religious principles of the Early Friends, we could scarcely do
better than choose George Fox himself."[34] And this choice would be
justified, not only by the clearness and fulness of Fox's expositions
of Scripture truth, but by the healthy tone and practical power of
those expositions. It is significant that Barclay and not Fox was the
favourite writer of the Quietistic age of Quakerism.
[34] J. J. Gurney's Memoirs, vol. 2, p. 28.
For a long period Barclay was more than a standard writer amongst
the Friends. His Apology had all the authority of a creed, and not
to accept it would be sufficient to brand any Friend as unsound.[35]
Nobler minds might feel that this was bondage utterly foreign to the
spirit of the early Friends; yet a large number of Friends did not.
But about the beginning of the present century, a change came over the
Society. Religious and philanthropic works led some of its members to
associate with evangelical churchmen and others. Controversies also
arose, which at least compelled a systematic and critical study of the
Bible. Broader sympathies and more enlightened study of the Scriptures
undermined Barclay's influence. It was found that his exposition of
Scripture texts was sometimes unsatisfactory. The Yearly Meeting ceased
to print the Apology for gratuitous distribution, though not without
strenuous protest from some, who clung to the old ways of presenting
Quaker truth.
[35] "The 'Apology' of Barclay was largely printed and distributed
by the Society, and was accepted at the period of which we are
treating [1833] (contrary to the principles of the ancient Society)
as a _distinct creed_, which every person bearing the name of a
'Friend' ought to be prepared to accept in all its parts. * * * At
this period it was deemed sufficient proof of I. Crewdson's doctrinal
'unsoundness,' to state that he objected to certain portions of the
able theological treatise of Barclay." "R. Barclay's 'Inner Life of the
Religious Societies of the Commonwealth,'" p. 573.
In the more recent literature of the Society, the doctrine of the
Divine seed is scarcely to be found. But its essence is there. The
illumination of the Holy Spirit, and the presence of Christ with his
church are held by Friends with peculiar distinctness and force. The
fact that all men have grace enough to accept the offer of salvation if
they will, is stated as clearly now as it was by George Fox. Let there
be but the zeal and the faith of George Fox, his urgency in dealing
with men, his confidence in pleading with God, and Quakerism has yet
a message that the world needs to hear, and that will win its olden
triumphs, and bring its divine blessings to man.
Transcriber's Note
Archaic, dialectical and inconsistent spellings have been left in the
text. Obvious misprints have been fixed, as detailed in the following:
On page 13: botanist, and says Sewel, "one of the most skilful ..."
Originally, the name was spelled Sewell
On page 27: of representatives from a number of associated
Originally the word "from" was printed "fron"
On page 57: him to sketch a constitution for it. The Quakers, who
Originally "sketch" was spelled "sketeh"
On page 61: we are told by Gerard Croese (certainly not a very
Originally Croese was spelled with the oe ligature.
On page 70: Henry Gouldney, of London, to Robert Barclay, junr.,
Originally "Gouldney" was spelled "Goulding"
On page 71: in Nayler's case, Friends clung lovingly to the
Originally: "Nayler" was spelled "Naylor"
On page 76: about the sufferings of Edinbro' Friends:--"I have ..."
Originally "Edinbro'" was spelled "Edinboro'"
On page 83: and other places. James Nayler preached in Scotland as
Originally the name was spelled "Naylor"
On page 104: (See also the Apology, Prop. II., paragraph 26, &c.)
Originally "II." was "ii"
On page 110: remonstrance to the notorious Ludovic Muggleton. The
Originally the name was spelled "Ludivico"
On page 117: according to Gerard Croese, found him so near
Originally "Croese" was spelled with the oe ligature
On page 122: The news of Robert Barclay's commitment to prison
Originally: "Th enews"
On page 137: "... to become referees. Persevering through all ..."
Originally "Perservering"
On page 142: the writings of Schwenkfeld, makes the enquiry less
In this case, "Schwenkfeld" was originally spelled "Schwenkfeldt"
On page 142: But the followers of Caspar Schwenkfeld were still more
In this case, "Schwenkfeld" was originally spelled "Schwenfeld"
End of Project Gutenberg's Three Apostles of Quakerism, by Benjamin Rhodes