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 notorious Ludovic Muggleton. 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 with which 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.