Part 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[22] The following note concerning De Labadie, by Whittier, the American poet, may interest the reader. "John De Labadie, a Roman Catholic priest converted to Protestantism, enthusiastic, eloquent, and evidently sincere in his special calling and election to separate the true and living members from the Church of Christ from the formalism and hypocrisy of the ruling sects. George Keith and Robert Barclay visited him at Amsterdam, and afterwards at the Communities of Herford (the Princess Elizabeth's home) and Wieward; and according to Gerard 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.