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.