Various Opinions.
Elias Hicks had very definite ideas on a great many subjects. While
in many respects he was in advance of his time, at other points he
was conservative. At any rate he was not in unity with some of the
prevalent social and economic arrangements. On the question of property
he entertained some startling convictions. Just how much public
expression he gave to these views may not be positively determined.
That he believed that there were grave spiritual dangers involved in
getting and holding great wealth, is abundantly attested in his public
utterances, but we must look to his private correspondence for some of
his advanced views on the property question.
In a letter addressed to "Dear Alsop," dated Jericho, Fifth month 14,
1826, he deals quite definitely with the matter of property. After
claiming that the early Christians wandered from the pure gospel of
Jesus after they ceased to rely on the inward teacher, he makes a
declaration on the subject as follows:
"But did we all as individuals take the spirit of truth, or light
within, as our only rule and guide in all things, we should all then
be willing, and thereby enabled, to do justly, love mercy, and walk
humbly with God. Then we should hold all things in common, and call
nothing our own, but consider all our blessings as only lent to us,
to be used and distributed by us in such manner and way as his holy
spirit, or this inward teacher, may from time to time direct. Hence
we should be made all equal, accountable to none but God alone, for
the right use or the abuse of his blessings. Then all mankind would
be but one community, have but one head, but one father, and the
saying of Jesus would be verified. We should no longer call any man
master, for one only has a right to be our Master, even God, and all
mankind become brethren. This is the kind of community that I have
been labouring for more than forty years to introduce mankind into,
that so we might all have but one head, and one instructor and he
(God) come to rule whose only right it is, and which would always
have been the case, had not man rebelled against his maker, and
disobeyed his salutary instruction and commands."
Touching the "cares and deceitfulness of riches," he had much to say.
He tells us that on a certain day he attended the meeting of ministers
and elders in Westbury, and sat through it "under great depression
and poverty of spirit." There was evidently some confession and not
a little complaining, as there is now, regarding the possession
and exercise of spiritual gifts on the part of Friends. But Elias
affirmed that the "cloud" over the meeting was not "in consequence of
a deficiency of ministers, as it respects their ministerial gifts, nor
from a want of care in elders in watching over them; but from a much
more deep and melancholy cause, viz.: the love and cares of this world
and the deceitfulness of riches; which, springing up and gaining the
ascendency in the mind, choke the good seed like the briars and thorns,
and render it fruitless; and produce such great dearth and barrenness
in our meetings."[68]
[68] Journal of Elias Hicks, p. 233.
Elias Hicks apparently believed that labor had in itself a vital
spiritual quality. In fact he held that the famous injunction in
Genesis "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread" "was not a
penalty, but it was a divine counsel--a counsel of perfect wisdom and
perfect love."[69] It was his opinion that all oppression, slavery and
injustice, had their origin in the disposition of men to shirk the
obligation to labor, thus placing burdens on their fellows, which
they should bear themselves.
[69] Sermon preached at Abington, Pa., Twelfth month 15, 1826. The
"Quaker," p. 155.
Every exhortation touching labor he religiously followed himself. He
records that at the age of sixty he labored hard in his harvest field,
and remarks with evident pride and satisfaction as follows:
"I found I could wield the scythe nearly as in the days of my youth.
It was a day of thankful and delightful contemplation. My heart
was filled with thankfulness and gratitude to the blessed Author
of my existence, in a consideration of his providential care over
me, in preserving me in health, and in the possession of my bodily
powers, the exercise of which were still affording me both profit
and delight; and I was doubly thankful for the continued exercise
of my mental faculties, not only in instructing me how to exert and
rightly employ my bodily powers, in the most useful and advantageous
manner, but also in contemplating the works of nature and Providence,
in the blessings and beauties of the field--a volume containing more
delightful and profitable instruction than all the volumes of mere
learning and science in the world.
"What a vast portion of the joys and comforts of life do the idle and
slothful deprive themselves of, by running into cities and towns,
to avoid labouring in the field; not considering that this is one
of the principal sources that the gracious Creator of the universe
has appointed to his creature, man, from whence he may derive
great temporal happiness and delight. It also opens the largest
and best field of exercise to the contemplative mind, by which it
may be prepared to meet, when this mortal puts on immortality,
those immortal joys that will ever be the lot of the faithful and
industrious."[70]
[70] Journal of Elias Hicks, p. 185.
It will probably be disputed in our time, that those who labor and
attempt to live in cities enjoy lives of greater ease than those who
till the soil.
While Elias recognized the obligation to labor, and believed it was a
blessed privilege, he had learned in the school of experience that an
over-worked body and an over-worried mind tended to spiritual poverty.
We quote:
"The rest of this week was spent in my ordinary vocations. My farming
business was very pressing, and it being difficult to procure
suitable assistance, my mind was overburdened with care, which
seldom fails of producing leanness of spirit in a lesser or greater
degree."[71]
[71] Journal, p. 151.
As offset to this we quote the following:
"What a favor it is for such an active creature as man, possessed of
such powers of body and mind, always to have some employment, and
something for those powers to act upon; for otherwise they would be
useless and dormant, and afford neither profit nor delight."[72]
[72] Journal, p. 184.
The building of railroads in this country had fairly begun when Elias
Hicks passed away in 1830. Projects had been under way for some time,
and certain Friends in Baltimore, then the center of railroad activity,
had become interested in the enterprise. In a letter to Deborah and
James P. Stabler,[73] written in New York, Sixth month 28, 1829, Elias
expresses himself quite freely regarding the matter. He says: "It was a
cause of sorrow rather than joy when last in Baltimore to find my dear
friend P. E. Thomas[74] so fully engaged in that troublesome business
of the railroad,[75] as I consider his calling to be of a more noble
and exalted nature than to enlist in such low and groveling concerns.
For it is a great truth that no man can serve two masters, for he
will either love the one, and hate the other, or hold to the one, and
despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. The railroad in this
case I consider mammon."
[73] Deborah Stabler was the widow of Dr. William Stabler, the latter
being a brother of Edward Stabler, of Alexandria, the well-known
preacher, and close friend of Elias Hicks. Deborah was a recorded
minister. James P. was her son. He was chief engineer of the Baltimore
and Susquehanna Railroad in its early construction, and was the
first general superintendent and chief engineer of the Baltimore and
Ohio, and built part of the line from Baltimore to Frederick. He was
the author of a small pamphlet entitled, "The Certain Evidences of
Practical Religion," published in 1884. He resided at Sandy Spring, Md.
[74] Philip E. Thomas, for many years sat at the head of the Baltimore
meeting. He was the son of Evan Thomas, of Sandy Spring, who was a
recorded minister. Philip E. was an importing hardware merchant, a
most successful business man, and the first president of the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad. In the construction and operation of that line of
railroad, he was associated with the leading business men of Baltimore.
He was for many years an elder of Baltimore meeting.
[75] The railroad thus referred to by Elias Hicks was undoubtedly
the section of the Baltimore and Ohio which ran from Baltimore to
Ellicott's Mills, a distance of 15 miles. It was begun in 1828, and
opened in Fifth month, 1830. Horses were at first used as motive power.
This was the first railroad built in the United States.
The following is an extract from the same letter:
"It afforded me very pleasing sensations to be informed of dear
James' improvement in health, but it excited some different feeling
when informed that he had taken the place of Assistant Superintendent
of the railroad company, a business I conceive that principally
belongs to the men of this world, but not to the children of light,
whose kingdom is not of this world; for when we consider that there
are thousands and tens of thousands who are voluntarily enlisted in
works that relate to the accommodation of flesh and blood which can
never inherit the kingdom of heaven."
The objection to railroads is one of those unaccountable but
interesting contradictions which appear in the lives of some
progressive men. By a sort of irony of fate, Valentine Hicks, the
son-in-law of Elias, a few years after the death of the latter, became
very much interested in the railroad business. The charter of the Long
Island Railroad Company was granted Fourth month 24, 1834. In this
document Valentine Hicks was named one of the commissioners to secure
the capital stock, and appoint the first Board of Directors. While not
the first president of that company, he was elected president Sixth
month 7, 1837, and served in that capacity until Fifth month 21, 1838.
Elias Hicks at points anticipated the present theory of suggestion
touching bodily ailment, if he did not forestall some of the ideas
regarding mental healing, and Christian Science. Writing to his
son-in-law, Valentine Hicks, from Easton, Pa., Eighth month 15, 1819,
he thus expressed himself:
"And indeed, in a strict sense, the mind or immortal spirit of man
cannot be affected with disease or sickness, being endued with
immortal powers; therefore all its apparent weakness lies in mere
imagination, giving the mind a wrong bias and a wrong direction,
but it loses more of its real strength, as to acting and doing.
For instance, if at any time it admits those false surmises and
imaginations, and by them is led to believe that its outward
tabernacle is out of health and drawing towards a dissolution, and
not being ready and willing to part with it, although little or
nothing may be the disorder of the body, yet so powerfully strong is
the mind under the influence of these wrong surmises that there seems
at times to be no power in heaven or earth sufficient to arrest its
progress, or stop its career, until it brings on actual disease, and
death to the body, which, however, had its beginning principally in
mere imagination and surmise. Hence we see the absolute necessity
of thinking less about our mere bodily health, and much more about
the mind, for if the mind is kept in a line of right direction, as
it is that in which all its right health and strength consisteth, we
need not fear any suffering to the body. For, if while the mind is
under right direction, the body is permitted to fall under or into
a state of affliction or disease, and the mind is kept in a state
of due arrangement, it will prove a blessing and be sanctified to
us as such, and in which we shall learn by certain experience that
all things work together for good to those whose minds are preserved
under the regulating influence of the love of God, which love casteth
out all fear."
Elias Hicks was a firm opponent of the public school system, and
especially the law which supported such schools by general taxation.
His views regarding this matter are quite fully stated in a letter
written Fifth month 24, 1820. It was written to Sylvanus Smith, and
answered certain inquiries which had evidently been directed to Elias
by this Friend. His objection to public schools, however, was partly
based on what he considered moral and religious grounds. He said he had
refrained from sending his children to any schools which were not under
the immediate care of the Society of Friends. Observation, he said, led
him to believe that his "children would receive more harm than good by
attending schools taught by persons of no religious principles, and
among children whose parents were of different sects, and many very
loose and unconcerned and vulgar in their lives and conduct." He also
assumed that in the public schools his children would be demoralized
"by the vicious conduct of many of the children, and sometimes even
the teachers, which would be very degrading to their morals, and
wounding to their tender minds." From his standpoint Friends could not
consistently "take any part in those district schools, nor receive any
part of the bounty given by the legislature of the state for their use."
Touching the question of parental authority and individual freedom,
Elias Hicks also had opinions prejudicial to the public schools. In the
letter under review he said:
"Believing the law that has established them to be arbitrary and
inconsistent with the liberty of conscience guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States, and derogatory to right parental
authority; as no doubt it is the right and duty of every parent to
bring up and educate his children in that way he thinks is right,
independent of the control of any authority under heaven (so long
as he keeps them within the bounds of civil order). As the bringing
up and right education of our children is a religious duty, and
for which we are accountable to none but God only, therefore for
the magistrate to interfere therewith by coercive means is an
infringement upon the divine prerogative."
The observance of Thanksgiving Day, outside of New England, had not
become a common thing in the time of Elias Hicks. Evidently about 1825,
the Governor of New York issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation, which
caused Elias to write an article. It was addressed to _The Christian
Inquirer_,[76] and bore heavily against the whole thanksgiving scheme,
especially when supported by the civil government. In his opinion
wherever the magistrate recommended an observance of Thanksgiving Day,
he was simply playing into the hands of the ecclesiastical power. We
quote:
[76] The _Christian Inquirer_ was a weekly newspaper in New York,
started in 1824. It was of pronounced liberal tendencies. A good deal
of its space was devoted to Friends, especially during the "separation"
period.
"Therefore the Governor's recommendation carries the same coercion
and force in it, to every citizen, as the recommendation of the
Episcopal Bishop would to the members of his own church. In this view
we have the reason why the clergymen in our state call upon the civil
magistrate to recommend one of their superstitious ceremonies. It is
in order to coerce the citizens at large to a compliance with their
dogmas, and little by little inure them to the yoke of ecclesiastical
domination. I therefore conceive there is scarcely a subject that
comes under our notice that lies more justly open to rebuke and
ridicule than the thanksgiving days and fast days that are observed
in our country, for there is nothing to be found in the writings of
the New Testament to warrant such formality and superstition, and I
fully believe in the way they are conducted they are altogether an
abomination in the sight of the Lord, and tend more abundantly to
bring a curse upon our nation than a blessing, as they too often end
with many in festivity and drunkenness."
In closing his communication Elias says that in issuing his
proclamation the Governor was simply "doing a piece of drudgery"
for the clergy. The following, being the last paragraph in the
communication referred to, sounds very much like the statements put
forward by the extreme secularists in our own time:
"And has he not by recommending a religious act united the civil and
ecclesiastical authorities, and broken the line of partition between
them, so wisely established by our enlightened Constitution, which
in the most positive terms forbids any alliance between church and
state, and is the only barrier for the support of our liberty and
independence. For if that is broken down all is lost, and we become
the vassals of priestcraft, and designing men, who are reaching after
power by every subtle contrivance to domineer over the consciences of
their fellow citizens."
It is not at all surprising that Elias Hicks was opposed to Free
Masonry. On this subject he expressed himself vigorously. This
opposition was based upon the secret character of the oath, and
especially a solemn promise not to divulge the "secrets of Masonry,
before he knows what the secrets are."
The anti-masonic movement, being the outcome of the mysterious
disappearance of William Morgan from Batavia, New York, was at its
height during the last years of Elias Hicks. It was claimed that Morgan
was probably murdered because of a book published by him in 1826,
exposing the secrets of Masonry. Some of the rumors connected with
this disappearance account for statements made by Elias Hicks in his
criticism of the organization.
Touching the matter of exclusiveness on the part of Friends, Elias
Hicks was a conservative of the conservatives. To keep aloof from
things not connected with the Society he considered a virtue in itself.
In referring to a meeting he attended in Goshen, Pa., he said:
"Had to caution Friends against mixing with the people in their human
policies, and outward forms of government; showing that, in all ages,
those who were called to be the Lord's people had been ruined, or
suffered great loss, by such associations; and manifesting clearly
by Scripture testimony, and other records, that our strength and
preservation consisted in standing alone, and not to be counted
among the people or nations, who were setting up party, and partial
interest, one against another, which is the ground of war and
bloodshed. These are actuated by the spirit of pride and wrath, which
is always opposed to the true Christian spirit, which breathes 'peace
on earth, and good will to all men.' Those, therefore, who are in the
true Christian spirit cannot use any coercive force or compulsion by
any means whatever; not being overcome with evil, but overcoming evil
with good."[77]
[77] Journal, p. 76-77.
In the article in which he condemned Masonry, Elias Hicks spoke
vigorously in criticism of the camp meetings held by some of the
churches. He called them "night revels," and considered them "a very
great nuisance to civil society." He thought they were promoters of
"licentiousness, immorality and drunkenness," and were more or less
reproachful to the Christian name, "giving much occasion for infidels
to scoff."
While at Elizabeth, in New Jersey, Elias wrote a letter[78] to a young
man named Samuel Cox. It seems that this person contemplated studying
for the ministry; that his grandmother was a Friend, and Elias labored
with the grandson on her account. He said that "human study or human
science" could not qualify a minister. In fact to suppose such a thing
was to cast "the greatest possible indignity on the Divine Being, and
on the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." Of course it was asserted that
ministry came only by the power of the Spirit, and much Scripture was
quoted to prove it. There is little in the writings of Elias Hicks to
show that he considered that equipping the natural powers was helpful
in making the spiritual inspiration effective.
[78] Letter was dated, Fifth month 12, 1813.
It is evident, however, that Elias was not indifferent to his own
intellectual equipment. He was fond of quoting from books the things
which fortified his own position. The following shows how he stored his
mind with facts, from which he drew certain conclusions:
"Indisposition of body prevented my attending meeting. I therefore
spent the day quietly at home, and in reading a portion of Mosheim's
Ecclesiastical History of the Fifth Century, and which is indeed
enough to astonish any sensible, considerate man, to think how the
professors of that day could be hardy enough to call themselves
Christians, while using every artifice that their human wisdom could
invent to raise themselves to power and opulence, and endeavoring to
crush down their opposers by almost every cruelty that power, envy
and malice could inflict, to the entire scandal of the Christian
name; and changing the pure, meek, merciful and undefiled religion
of Jesus into an impure, unmerciful, cruel, bloody and persecuting
religion. For each of those varied sects of professed Christians, in
their turn, as they got the power of the civil magistrate on their
side, would endeavor, by the sword, and severe edicts, followed
by banishment, to reduce and destroy all those who dissented from
them, although their opinions were not a whit more friendly to real,
genuine Christianity than the tenets of their opposers; for all were,
in great measure, if not entirely, adulterated and apostatized from
the true spirit of Christianity, which breathes peace on earth, and
good will to men."[79]
[79] Journal, p. 224.
Elias Hicks believed that there was a sure way of determining conduct,
whether it was from "one's own will," or whether it proceeded from the
divine leading. In regard to this matter, he said:
"But the great error of the generality of professed Christians lies
in not making a right distinction between the works that men do in
their own will, and by the leadings of their own carnal wisdom, and
those works that the true believer does, in the will and wisdom of
God. For although the former, let them consist in what they will,
whether in prayers, or preaching, or any other devotional exercises,
are altogether evil; so on the contrary those of the latter, let
them consist in what they may, whether in ploughing, in reaping,
or in any handicraft labor, or in any other service, temporal or
spiritual, as they will in all be accompanied with the peace and
presence of their heavenly Father, so all they do will be righteous,
and will be imputed to them as such."[80]
[80] Journal, p. 218.
His contention regarding this matter is possibly more clearly stated in
the following paragraph:
"The meeting was large, wherein I had to expose the danger of
self-righteousness, or a trust in natural religion, or mere morality;
showing that it was no more than the religion of Atheists, and was
generally the product of pride and self-will; and, however good
it may appear to the natural unregenerate man, is as offensive in
the divine sight as those more open evils which appear so very
reproachful to the eyes of men. I was favored by the spirit of truth,
in a large, searching testimony, to the convicting and humbling many
hearts, and comfort of the faithful."[81]
[81] Meeting at Uwchlan, Pa., Tenth month 22, 1798. Journal, p. 76.
This is not unlike statements often made in modern revivals, touching
the absolute uselessness of good works, without the operation of divine
grace, in bringing salvation.
A broader view of goodness and its sources seems to have been taken by
Clement, of Alexandria[82] who said: "For God is the cause of all good
things; but of some primarily, as of the Old and New Testament; and of
others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was
given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call
the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster to bring 'the Hellenic mind,'
as the law, the Hebrews 'to Christ.'"[83]
[82] Titus Flavius Clemens, called sometimes St. Clement, and Clement
of Alexandria in Church history, was born either at Athens or
Alexandria about A. D. 153, and died about A. D. 220. He early embraced
Christianity, and was among the most learned and philosophical of the
Christian fathers.
[83] "Ante-Nicene Fathers," Vol. II, p. 305.