Some Points of Doctrine.
Elias Hicks had ideas of the future life, salvation, rewards and
punishments, sometimes original, and in some respects borrowed or
adapted from prevalent opinions. But in all conclusions reached he
seems to have thought his own way out, and was probably unconscious
of having been a borrower at all. He believed unfalteringly in the
immortality of the soul, and held that the soul of man is immortal,
because it had its origin in an immortal God. Every sin committed "is
a transgression against his immutable and unchangeable law, and is an
immortal sin, as it pollutes and brings death on the immortal soul
of man, which nothing in heaven nor in the earth but God alone can
extinguish or forgive, and this he will never do, but upon his own
righteous and merciful conditions, which consist in nothing more nor
less than sincere repentance and amendment of life."[84]
[84] From letter addressed to "A Friend," name not given, written at
Jericho, Second month 22, 1828.
It will be noted that this statement was made near the close of
his career, and has been purposely selected because it undoubtedly
expressed his final judgment in the matter. In all probability the
words used were not meant to be taken literally, such for instance as
those referring to the "death" of the soul. There is little, if any
reason to think that Elias Hicks believed in the annihilation of the
sinner.
Touching sin he further explained his position. Whatever God creates
is "immutably good." "Therefore if there is any such thing as sin and
iniquity in the world, then God has neither willed it nor ordained
it."[85] His position regarding this point caused him to antagonize
and repudiate the doctrine of foreordination. From his standpoint
this involved the creation of evil by the Almighty, a thoroughly
preposterous supposition. Again, he held that if God had, "previous
to man's creation, willed and determined all of his actions, then
certainly every man stands in the same state of acceptance with
him, and a universal salvation must take place: which I conceive
the favorers of foreordination would be as unwilling as myself to
believe."[86]
[85] Journal, p. 161.
[86] From funeral sermon delivered in 1814. Journal, p. 161.
Three years after the declaration quoted above, Elias Hicks wrote
a letter[87] to a person known as "J. N.," who was a believer
in universal salvation. In this letter he revives his idea that
foreordination and universal salvation are twin heresies, both equally
mischievous. This letter is very long, containing nearly 4,000 words.
The bulk of it deals with the theory of predestination, while some of
it relates to the matter of sin and penalty. At one point the letter is
censorious, nearly borders on the dogmatic, and is scarcely kind. We
quote:
[87] Letter dated Baltimore, Tenth month, 1817.
"Hadst thou, in thy researches after knowledge, been concerned to
know the first step of wisdom--the right knowledge of thyself--such
an humbling view of thy own insufficiency and entire ignorance
of the Divine Being, and all his glorious attributes, would, I
trust, have preserved thee from falling into thy present errors.
Errors great indeed, and fatal in their consequences; for if men
were capable of believing with confidence thy opinions, either as
regards the doctrine of unconditional predestination and election,
or the doctrine of universal salvation, both of which certainly and
necessarily resolve in one, who could any longer call any thing he
has his own? for all would fall a prey to the villains and sturdy
rogues of this belief. And, indeed, a belief of these opinions
would most assuredly make thousands more of that description than
there already are; as every temptation to evil, to gratify the
carnal desires, would be yielded to, as that which was ordained to
be; and of course would be considered as something agreeable to
God's good pleasure; and therefore not only our goods and chattels
would become a prey to every ruffian of this belief, but even our
wives and daughters would fall victims to the superior force of the
abandoned and profligate, as believing they could do nothing but
what God had ordained to be. But we are thankful in the sentiment
that no rational, intelligent being can possibly embrace, in full
faith, these inconsistent doctrines; as they are founded on nothing
but supposition; and supposition can never produce real belief, or a
faith that any rational creature can rely upon."[88]
[88] "Letters of Elias Hicks," p. 28.
We make no attempt to clear up the logical connection between the
doctrine of foreordination and the theory of universal salvation, for
it is by no means clear that the two necessarily belong together.
From the reasoning of Elias Hicks it would seem that he considered
salvation a transaction which made a fixed and final condition for the
soul at death, whereas the Universalist theory simply provides for a
future turning of all souls toward God. Surely the supposition that
the holding of the views of "J. N." would bring the moral disorder
and disaster outlined by his critic had not then been borne out by
the facts, and has not since. Neither the believers in foreordination
or universal salvation have been shown worse than other men, or more
socially dangerous.
"Sin," he says, "arises entirely out of the corrupt independent will
of man; and which will is not of God's creating, but springs up and
has its origin in man's disobedience and transgression, by making
a wrong use of his liberty."[89] As the sin is of man's voluntary
commission, the penalty is also to be charged to the sinner, and not to
God. On this point Elias Hicks was clear in his reasoning and in his
conclusions:
[89] "Letters of Elias Hicks," p. 30.
"Hence those who make their election to good, and choose to follow
the teachings of the inward law of the spirit of God, are of course
leavened into the true nature of God, and consequently into the
happiness of God. For nothing but that which is of the nature of God
can enjoy the happiness of God. But he who makes his election, or
choice, to turn away from God's law and spirit, and govern himself
or is governed by his own will and spirit, becomes a corrupt tree
and although the same justice, wisdom, power, mercy and love are
dispensed to this man as to the other, yet by his contrary nature,
which has become fleshly, by following his fleshly inclinations, he
brings forth corrupt fruit."[90]
[90] "Letters of Elias Hicks," p. 33.
Manifestly the idea that the Almighty punishes men for his own glory
had no place in the thinking of the Jericho preacher.
The theory of sin and penalty held by Elias Hicks necessarily led him
to hold opinions regarding rewards and punishments, and the place
and manner of their application, at variance with commonly accepted
notions. In fact, the apparent irregularity of his thinking in this
particular was one of the causes of concern on his behalf on the part
of his captious critics and some of his friends. One of the latter had
evidently written him regarding this matter, and his reply is before
us.[91] From it we quote:
[91] Letter dated Jericho, Third month 14, 1808.
"As to the subject relative to heaven and hell, I suppose what gave
rise to that part of my communication (although I have now forgotten
the particulars) was a concern that at that time as well as many
other times has sorrowfully impressed my mind, in observing the
great ignorance and carnality that was not only prevailing among
mankind at large, but more especially in finding it to be the
case with many professing with us in relation to those things. An
ignorance and carnality that, in my opinion, has been one great
cause of the prevailing Atheism and Deism that now abounds among
the children of men. For what reason or argument could a professed
Christian bring forward to convince an Atheist or Deist that there is
such a place as heaven as described and circumscribed in some certain
limits and place in some distant and unknown region as is the carnal
idea of too many professing Christianity, and even of many, I fear,
of us? Or such a place as hell, or a gulf located in some interior
part of this little terraqueous globe? But when the Christian brings
forward to the Atheist or Deist reasons and arguments founded on
indubitable certainty, things that he knows in his own experience
every day through the powerful evidence of the divine law-giver in
his own heart, he cannot fail of yielding his assent, for he feels as
he goes on in unbelief and hardness of heart he is plunging himself
every day deeper and deeper into that place of torment, and let him
go whithersoever he will, his hell goes with him. He can no more
be rid of it than he can be rid of himself. And although he flies
to the rocks and mountains to fall on him, to deliver him from his
tremendous condition, yet he finds all is in vain, for where God is,
there hell is always to the sinner; according to that true saying of
our dear Lord, 'this is the condemnation of the world that light is
come into the world, but men love darkness rather than the light,
because their deeds are evil.' Now God, or Christ (who are one in
a spiritual sense), is this light that continually condemns the
transgressor. Therefore, where God or Christ is, there is hell always
to the sinner, and God, according to Scripture and the everyday
experience of every rational creature, is everywhere present, for he
fills all things, and by him all things consist. And as the sinner
finds in himself and knows in his own experience that there is a
hell, and one that he cannot possibly escape while he remains a
sinner, so likewise the righteous know, and that by experience, that
there is a heaven, but they know of none above the outward clouds
and outward atmosphere. They have no experience of any such, but
they know a heaven where God dwells, and know a sitting with him at
seasons in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."
It will be remembered that Elias based salvation on repentance and
amendment of life, but the bulk of his expression would seem to
indicate that he held to the idea that repentance must come during this
life. In fact, an early remark of his gives clear warrant for this
conclusion.[92] He does not seem to have ever adopted the theory that
continuity of life carried with it continuation of opportunity touching
repentance and restoration of the soul.
[92] See page 23 of this book.
From the twentieth century standpoint views like the foregoing would
scarcely cause a ripple of protest in any well-informed religious
circles. But eighty years ago the case was different. A material place
for excessively material punishment of the soul, on account of moral
sin and spiritual turpitude, was essential to orthodox standing in
practically every branch of the Christian church, with possibly two or
three exceptions. Elias Hicks practically admits that in the Society
of Friends not a few persons held to the gross and materialistic
conceptions which he criticised and repudiated.
The question of personal immortality was more than once submitted to
him for consideration. After certain Friends began to pick flaws with
his ideas and theories, he was charged with being a doubter regarding
nearly all the common Christian affirmations, immortality included.
There was little reason for misunderstanding or misrepresenting him
in this particular, for, however he failed to make himself understood
touching other points of doctrine, he was perfectly clear on this
point. In a letter to Charles Stokes, of Rancocas, N. J., written
Fourth month 3, 1829, he said:
"Can it be possibly necessary for me to add anything further, to
manifest my full and entire belief of the immortality of the soul of
man? Surely, what an ignorant creature must that man be that hath
not come to the clear and full knowledge of that in himself. Does not
every man feel a desire fixed in his very nature after happiness,
that urges him on in a steady pursuit after something to satisfy
this desire, and does he not find that all the riches and honor
and glory of this world, together with every thing that is mortal,
falls infinitely short of satisfying this desire? which proves it to
be immortal; and can any thing, or being, that is not immortal in
itself, receive the impress of an immortal desire upon it? Surely
not. Therefore, this immortal desire of the soul of man never can
be fully satisfied until it comes to be established in a state of
immortality and eternal life, beyond the grave."[93]
[93] "Letters of Elias Hicks," p. 218.
There are not many direct references to immortality in the published
sermons, although inferences in that direction are numerous. In a
sermon at Darby, Pa., Twelfth month 7, 1826, he declared: "We see
then that the great business of our lives is 'to lay up treasure in
heaven.'"[94] In this case and others like it he evidently means
treasure in the spiritual world. In his discourses he frequently
referred to "our immortal souls" in a way to leave no doubt as to his
belief in a continuity of life. His reference to the death of his young
sons leave no room for doubt in the matter.[95]
[94] "The Quaker," Vol. IV, p. 127.
[95] See page 61 of this book.
In speaking of the death of his wife, both in his Journal and in his
private correspondence, his references all point to the future life.
"Her precious spirit," he said, "I trust and believe has landed safely
on the angelic shore." Again, "being preserved together fifty-eight
years in one unbroken bond of endeared affection, which seemed if
possible to increase with time to the last moment of her life; and
which neither time nor distance can lessen or dissolve; but in the
spiritual relation I trust it will endure forever."[96]
[96] Journal, p. 425.
During the last ten years of the life of Elias Hicks he was simply
overburdened answering questions and explaining his position touching
a multitude of views charged against him by his critics and defamers.
Among the matters thus brought to his attention was the miraculous
conception of Jesus, and the various beliefs growing out of that
doctrine. In an undated manuscript found among his papers and letters,
and manifestly not belonging to a date earlier than 1826 or 1827, he
pretty clearly states his theory touching this delicate subject. In
this document he is more definite than he is in some of his published
statements relating to the same matter. He asserts that there is a
difference between "begetting and creating." He scouts as revolting the
conception that the Almighty begat Jesus, as is the case in the animal
function of procreation. On the other hand, he said: "But, as in the
beginning of creation, he spake the word and it was done, so by his
almighty power he spake the word and by it created the seed of man in
the fleshly womb of Mary." In other words, the miraculous conception
was a creation and not the act of begetting.
In his correspondence he repeatedly asserted that he had believed in
the miraculous conception from his youth up. To Thomas Willis, who was
one of his earliest accusers, he said that "although there appeared
to me as much, or more, letter testimony in the account of the four
Evangelists against as for the support of that miracle, yet it had
not altered my belief therein."[97] It has to be admitted that the
miraculous conception held by Elias Hicks was scarcely the doctrine of
the creeds, or that held by evangelical Christians in the early part
of the nineteenth century. His theory may be more rational than the
popular conception and may be equally miraculous, but it was not the
same proposition.
[97] "Letters of Elias Hicks," p. 179.
Whether Elias considered this a distinction without a difference we
know not, but it is very certain that he did not consider the miracle
or the dogma growing out of it a vital matter. He declared that a
"belief therein was not an essential to salvation."[98] His reason
for this opinion was that "whatever is essential to the salvation of
the souls of men is dispensed by a common creator to every rational
creature under heaven."[99] No hint of a miraculous conception, he
held, had been revealed to the souls of men.
[98] "Letters of Elias Hicks," p. 178.
[99] "Letters of Elias Hicks," p. 178.
It is possible that in the minds of the ultra Orthodox, to deny the
saving value of a belief in the miraculous conception, although
admitting it as a fact, or recasting it as a theory, was a more
reprehensible act of heresy than denying the dogma entirely. Manifestly
Elias Hicks was altogether too original in his thinking to secure his
own peace and comfort in the world of nineteenth-century theology.
When we consider the theory of the divinity of Christ, and the theory
of the incarnation, we find Elias Hicks taking the affirmative side,
but even here it is questionable if he was affirming the popular
conception. Touching these matters he put himself definitely on record
in 1827 in a letter written to an unnamed Friend. In this letter he
says:
"As to the divinity of Christ, the son of the virgin--when he had
arrived to a full state of sonship in the spiritual generation, he
was wholly swallowed up into the divinity of his heavenly Father,
and was one with his Father, with only this difference: his Father's
divinity was underived, being self-existent, but the son's divinity
was altogether derived from the Father; for otherwise he could not
be the son of God, as in the moral relation, to be a son of man,
the son must be begotten by one father, and he must be in the same
nature, spirit and likeness of his father, so as to say, I and my
father are one in all those respects. But this was not the case with
Jesus in the spiritual relation, until he had gone through the last
institute of the law dispensation, viz., John's watery baptism, and
had received additional power from on high, by the descending of
the holy ghost upon him, as he came up out of the water. He then
witnessed the fulness of the second birth, being now born into the
nature, spirit and likeness of the heavenly Father, and God gave
witness of it to John, saying, 'This is my beloved son, in whom I
am well pleased.' And this agrees with Paul's testimony, where he
assures us that as many as are led by the spirit of God, they are the
sons of God."[100]
[100] "The Quaker," Vol. IV, p. 284.
Just as he repudiated material localized places of reward and
punishment, Elias Hicks disputed the presence in the world of a
personal evil spirit, roaming around seeking whom he might ensnare and
devour. In fact, in his theology there was no tinge of the Persian
dualism. Satan, from his standpoint, had no existence outside man. He
was simply a figure to illustrate the evil propensity in men. In the
estimation of the ultra Orthodox to claim that there was no personal
devil, who tempted our first parents in Eden, was second only in point
of heresy to denying the existence of God himself--the two persons
both being essential parts in the theological system to which they
tenaciously held.
Touching this matter he thus expressed himself: "And as to what is
called a devil or satan, it is something within us, that tempts us to
go counter to the commands of God, and our duty to him and our fellow
creatures; and the Scriptures tell us there are many of them, and that
Jesus cast seven out of one woman."[101]
[101] From letter to Charles Stokes, Fourth month 3, 1829. "Letters of
Elias Hicks," p. 217.
He was charged with being a Deist, and an infidel of the Thomas Paine
stripe, yet from his own standpoint there was no shadow of truth in any
of these charges. His references to Atheism and Deism already cited in
these pages afford evidence on this point. In 1798 he was at Gap in
Pennsylvania, and in referring to his experience there he said:
"Whilst in this neighborhood my mind was brought into a state of
deep exercise and travail, from a sense of the great turning away
of many of us, from the law and the testimony, and the prevailing
of a spirit of great infidelity and deism among the people, and
darkness spreading over the minds of many as a thick veil. It was a
time in which Thomas Paine's Age of Reason (falsely so called) was
much attended to in those parts; and some, who were members in our
Society, as I was informed, were captivated by his dark insinuating
address, and were ready almost to make shipwreck of faith and a good
conscience. Under a sense thereof my spirit was deeply humbled before
the majesty of heaven, and in the anguish of my soul I said, 'spare
thy people, O Lord, and give not thy heritage to reproach,' and
suffer not thy truth to fall in the streets."[102]
[102] Journal, p. 70.
Touching his supposed Unitarianism, there are no direct references to
that theory in his published works. A letter written by Elias Hicks
to William B. Irish,[103] Second month 11, 1821, is about the only
reference to the matter. In this letter he says:
[103] William B. Irish lived in Pittsburg, and was a disciple of Elias
Hicks, as he confessed to his spiritual profit. In a letter written
to Elias from Philadelphia, Eleventh month 21, 1823, he said: "I tell
you, you are the first man that ever put my mind in search of heavenly
food." Whether he ever united with the Society we are not informed,
although Elias expressed the hope that he might see his way clear to do
so.
"In regard to the Unitarian doctrine, I am too much a stranger to
their general tenets to give a decided sentiment, but according to
the definition given of them by Dyche in his dictionary, I think it
is more consistent and rational than the doctrine of the trinity,
which I think fairly makes out three Gods. But as I have lately
spent some time in perusing the ancient history of the church, in
which I find that Trinitarians, Unitarians, Arians, Nestorians and
a number of other sects that sprung up in the night of apostacy, as
each got into power they cruelly persecuted each other, by which
they evidenced that they had all apostatized from the primitive
faith and practice, and the genuine spirit of Christianity, hence
I conceive there is no safety in joining with any of those sects,
as their leaders I believe are generally each looking to their own
quarter for gain. Therefore our safety consists in standing alone
(waiting at Jerusalem) that is in a quiet retired state, similar to
the disciples formerly, until we receive power from on high, or until
by the opening of that divine spirit (or comforter, a manifestation
of which is given to every man and woman to profit withal) we are led
into the knowledge of the truth agreeably to the doctrine of Jesus to
his disciples."
In regard to the death and resurrection of Jesus, Elias Hicks
considered himself logically and scripturally sound, although his
ideas may not have squared with any prevalent theological doctrines.
In reply to the query, "By what means did Jesus suffer?" he answered
unhesitatingly, "By the hands of wicked men." A second query was to the
effect, "Did God send him into the world purposely to suffer death?"
Here is the answer:
"By no means: but to live a righteous and godly life (which was
the design and end of God's creating man in the beginning), and
thereby be a perfect example to such of mankind as should come to
the knowledge of him and of his perfect life. For if it was the
purpose and will of God that he should die by the hands of wicked
men, then the Jews, by crucifying him, would have done God's will,
and of course would all have stood justified in his sight, which
could not be." ... "But the shedding of his blood by the wicked
scribes and Pharisees, and people of Israel, had a particular effect
on the Jewish nation, as by this the topstone and worst of all their
crimes, was filled up the measure of their iniquities, and which put
an end to that dispensation, together with its law and covenant.
That as John's baptism summed up in one, all the previous water
baptisms of that dispensation, and put an end to them, which he
sealed with his blood, so this sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ,
summed up in one all the outward atoning sacrifices of the shadowy
dispensation and put an end to them all, thereby abolishing the law
having previously fulfilled all its righteousness, and, as saith the
apostle, 'He blotted out the handwriting of ordinances, nailing them
to his cross;' having put an end to the law that commanded them,
with all its legal sins, and abolished all its legal penalties, so
that all the Israelites that believed on him after he exclaimed on
the cross 'It is finished,' might abstain from all the rituals of
their law, such as circumcision, water baptisms, outward sacrifices,
Seventh-day Sabbaths, and all their other holy days, etc."[104]
[104] All of the extracts above are from a letter to Dr. Nathan
Shoemaker, of Philadelphia, written Third month 31, 1823. See "Foster's
Report," pp. 422-23.
Continuing, he says: "Now all this life, power and will of man, must
be slain and die on the cross spiritually, as Jesus died on the cross
outwardly, and this is the true atonement, of which that outward
atonement was a clear and full type." For the scriptural proof of
his contention he quotes Romans VI, 3:4. He claimed that the baptism
referred to by Paul was spiritual, and the newness of life to follow
must also be spiritual.
The resurrection was also spiritualized, and given an internal, rather
than an external, significance. Its intent was to awaken in "the
believer a belief in the sufficiency of an invisible power, that was
able to do any thing and every thing that is consistent with justice,
mercy and truth, and that would conduce to the exaltation and good of
his creature man."
"Therefore the resurrection of the dead body of Jesus that could not
possibly of itself create in itself a power to loose the bonds of
death, and which must consequently have been the work of an invisible
power, points to and is a shadow of the resurrection of the soul that
is dead in trespasses and sins, and that hath no capacity to quicken
itself, but depends wholly on the renewed influence and quickening
power of the spirit of God. For a soul dead in trespasses and sins
can no more raise a desire of itself for a renewed quickening of
the divine life in itself than a dead body can raise a desire of
itself for a renewal of natural life; but both equally depend on the
omnipotent presiding power of the spirit of God, as is clearly set
forth by the prophet under the similitude of the resurrection of dry
bones." Ezekiel, 37:1.[105]
[105] "The Quaker," Vol. IV, p. 286. Letter of Elias Hicks to an
unknown friend.
"Hence the resurrection of the outward fleshly body of Jesus and some
few others under the law dispensation, as manifested to the external
senses of man, gives full evidence as a shadow, pointing to the
sufficiency of the divine invisible power of God to raise the soul
from a state of spiritual death into newness of life and into the
enjoyment of the spiritual substance of all the previous shadows of
the law state. And by the arising of this Sun of Righteousness in the
soul all shadows flee away and come to an end, and the soul presses
forward, under its divine influence, into that that is within the
veil, where our forerunner, even Jesus, has entered for us, showing
us the way into the holiest of holies."[106]
[106] "The Quaker," Vol. IV, pp. 286-287. Letter of Elias Hicks to an
unknown friend.
We have endeavored to give such a view of the doctrinal points covered
as will give a fair idea of what Elias Hicks believed. Whether they
were unsound opinions, such as should have disrupted the Society of
Friends, and nearly shipwreck it on a sea of bitterness, we leave for
the reader to decide. It should be stated, however, that the opinions
herein set forth did not, by any means, constitute the subject matter
of all, or possibly a considerable portion of the sermons he preached.
There is room for the inquiry in our time whether a large amount of
doctrinal opinion presented in our meetings for worship, even though it
be of the kind in which the majority apparently believe, would not have
a dividing and scattering effect.