BARCLAY AND HIS ASSAILANTS. I. "They (Fox, Penn, and Barclay) pleaded only for broad, unfettered, spiritual Christianity.”—J. J. Gurney. SURELY it is time that something more at large than has lately appeared should be said or written in vindication of Robert Barclay. It is not that the Apology, fairly and fully understood and interpreted, is not perfectly able to vindicate itself; or that Robert Barclay, were he now living, would not be more than able amply to justify his own writings. But the living voice that inspired those writings cannot now be heard. It remains for us, who are convinced of the truth of the principles advocated by our great Apologist, to raise our voices, however feebly in comparison, in his defence, against the various attacks, from within our Society, to which he has of late been subjected. I have waited long for some Friend of far more ability and experience than I can lay claim to, to take up the pen on behalf of principles which were once considered to lie at the foundation of our religious profession, and to be inseparably bound up with our very existence as a distinct religious Society; but which have recently been assailed in various quarters of high authority. We have not been left without exception being taken to some of these attacks, both in speech and writing; but from the small amount upon the whole, and the absence of any official counteraction, the opponents of Barclay seem to be gaining strength, and we are not so far without indications of an increasing growth in the general disaffection towards the essentially distinguishing views and principles of the author of the Apology. It may be that the greater part of our more recent current literature has been gradually undermining that tenderness and susceptibility in the handling of religious topics, and that deep, inward, spirituality of perception, which can alone render Barclay acceptable, or even intelligible; and that the voices we have heard from time to time are only the natural consequence and expression of our altered condition. It behoves us, however, when authorities whom we have hitherto regarded as the especial exponents of our principles are openly called in question, to examine seriously into the matter, and see what it means. Such strange alterations occur in the current of opinion, that what is evidence to one generation or to one order of mind, is no longer evidence to another generation or to another order of mind. Nevertheless, there are eternal, unchangeable principles underlying all our social and religious relationships. The discovery of these is the great object of thought and experience. But while constant in their nature, it is in the application of principles, which will ever admit of the greatest variety, that we are bound to allow the utmost liberty of one towards another. Mere authority is, therefore, no longer the arbiter of either thought or action in social or religious affairs; and the door is thus left open for the utmost freedom of inquiry. Still I have often been discouraged of late, amid the conflicts and changes of opinion, by the reflection,-What is the use of speaking or writing? We have the Bible constantly before us. It is daily read in our families, taught in our schools; and oftener than the returning week it constitutes the text-book, throughout the nation, of the pulpit and the gallery. We accord it a place and invest it with an authority, not only in degree but in kiud, far above any other volume. Yet what influence does it really exercise over the national mind, and over our own everyday life and conduct? Do we take its divine precepts individually home to ourselves, and allow its inspired teachings to penetrate and leaven our households, our occupations, our transactions in trade, our pursuits, and all our social relationships? I am not referring merely to the uncultured and uninstructed masses of the community-but how is it among the well-educated, and even with the professedly religious world? Do the motives set before us in the New Testament at once animate and restrain all our actions, enter into the heart of our various organizations and enterprises, and mould and modify the whole fabric of society? Almost the last thing under the practical control of which our modern civil ization would think of bringing its arrangements, our private concerns, our public engagements, our general laws, and our governments,—is the Bible. The central principle even of our advanced education, and of all our wonderful scientific improvements, the direct aim and object,-almost necessarily so, in the constitution of modern society, and the "struggle for existence" which every advance seems only to intensify, is self-interest— disguised often under the name of success in life,—but the very reverse of all that is inculcated in the New Testament. No barrier is offered, as far as we can see, even in the minds of those professing to belong to the religious world in general, to the pursuit of the things of this world as eagerly as the rest of the community. In our better reading also we occasionally meet with a tract, a volume, or a verse, that seems to come home to us irresistibly at the time,-seizing hold of our minds,—taking us as it were out of ourselves,-opening them up to the clear conviction of some new truth,-or with the statement so excellent and impressive of old and familiar ones, that we think we will store them up in our memories, revert to them again and again, make the necessary sacrifice, and conform our lives to their standard. We lay down the book, defer the application, and in the hurry or oppression of our daily concerns are again caught in the vortex of incessant occupation, and whirled round and round till some impediment, perhaps of health or accident, again makes us pause, and—it may be after months or years—the very same thing, all this while neglected, turns up again, evoking the same admiration or conviction, with the same resolve, but with much diminished power of rescuing ourselves from opposing influences than before. If thus it is with the best and most inspired writings in the world, what influence can we expect from inferior productions, and what is the use of thus employing our thoughts and our time? With the utmost fidelity to Truth and duty, can we hope, by any effort we may make, to have the slightest effect in turning the tide of thought or of action, or in producing any permanent impression? The only answer I can find is, Whatsover is put into thy heart, in singleness and sincerity of purpose, or thy hand findeth to do, do it with all thy might, as unto God, and not unto man. Exercise a little faith; and leave the result. He who alone enableth any effort to be made, and directeth it, can alone give such fruit as seemeth to Him meet. The question before us is no longer one of forms or of words. Few, I believe, are now to be found, who would defend the verbosity, or the occasional harshness and severity of the language employed by our early Friends in the setting forth of their own views or answering their opponents. The times when they wrote were times of bitter controversy. They were assailed without mercy, fairly and unfairly,-on every hand. They were in direct antagonism to all the established churches and prevailing forms of belief of the day. They were therefore suspected and persecuted by all. No names were too hard for them to be called by, no penalties too severe to be inflicted upon them. We cannot wonder that some human and naturally excited feelings were awakened, on their part, under the burning sense of injury and injustice; and found their vent occasionally in corresponding language. To judge of their writings and of some of the expressions they contain with any degree of fairness, we must throw ourselves back into their times and circumstances, so different in refinement and general courtesy from our own; though perhaps we are not much modified in actual spirit. The language employed in our Old and New Testaments,--in the translations made some three or four hundred years ago, of course I am speaking of,-would not be tolerated now. In the Originals themselves we should have to realize, as far as possible, those coarse, barbarous, and disorganized times, in order fully to accept and understand their language and imagery. Nor is it now a question of mere outward peculiarities. They have long been given up as marks or tests of inward piety, or of fitness for offices in the church; although they found a defender, inconsistently, as I think, with his general religious views, in our ablest and most prominent writer of the last generation. But since the discipline has been relaxed, another phase has come over us. Instead of a return to circumspection and simplicity in life and manners, which must ever become the Christian character, and which one had a right to expect when the motive for rebellion against a conventional rule was removed, we find the changes,— not only among our young people,-have gone on to extremes, in adopting the prevailing customs of society. With the extension of liberty, the disposition to judge has also changed sides. Some who claimed liberality to be extended to them, now that they are greatly in the majority, are somewhat disposed to be uncharitable, and to look down upon those who still think it right to adhere to the old Quaker language and costume, as men and women of somewhat narrow mind and antiquated intellect, of whom it is nearly time that the last specimen was placed in the British Museum! It is almost denied that these outward observances can be consistent with truly enlightened views and an humble unobtrusive walk in life; or that they are needful to uphold any deeply awakened and conscientious minds in the conduct of themselves and their families. And yet there is a clear and living Christian testimony on behalf of simplicity of "speech, behaviour, and apparel," and all other circumstances of individual habit and influence, and against conformity to the maxims, customs, and ever-changing fashions of the world,-in favour of circumspection and sobriety at all times, and against flattery, superfluity, and extravagance on all occasions, in the giving up of which we should lose greatly; and it is not a little remarkable, that in all ages especial religious profession almost always results in costume singularly analogous, in numerous instances, to what has been adopted by Friends. In the translation of a Sanscrit religious MS., probably more than 3000 years old, I read,— "Let his house, his diet, and his clothes We are not without public expressions from the outside world, of how sincerely the more serious and sensible part of the religious community in general regret the rapid disappearance of the old Quaker garb and language, and their accompanying severity of manners. As a question of principle, let us see then how the matter really stands. The facts are these. Recently, from time to time, certain pamphlets have appeared,-emanating from members high in station in our Society, and deservedly esteemed for their works' sake, impugning in no dubious or measured terms, not merely the form and phraseology, but some of the fundamental principles of Barclay's Apology, as no longer tenable, but in their apprehension mistaken and unscriptural. These have not, as far |