Friendly and Unfriendly Critics.
Few men in their day were more talked about than Elias Hicks. The
interest in his person and in his preaching continued for years after
his death. While the discussion ceased to be warm long years ago,
his name is one which men of so-called liberal thought still love to
conjure with, without very clearly knowing the reason why. Some clearer
light may be thrown upon his life, labor and character by a brief
review of opinions of those who criticised him as friends, and some
of them as partisans, and those who were his open enemies, for the
theological atmosphere had not yet appeared in which he could be even
approximately understood by the men of the old school.
We shall begin the collection of criticisms by quoting Edward
Hicks,[194] who wrote a comparatively judicial estimate of his friend
and kinsman. After stating that even the apostles had their weak side,
that Tertullian "was led into a foolish extreme by the fanatical
notions of Montanus;" and that Origen "did immense mischief to the
cause of primitive Christianity by his extreme attachment to the
Platonic philosophy, scholastic divinity and human learning," he
remarks:
[194] Edward Hicks, a relative of Elias Hicks, was born in Attleboro,
Pa., Fourth month 4, 1780. His mother passed away when he was an
infant, and he was cared for in his early youth by Elizabeth Twining,
a friend of his mother. When a young man, he became a member of
Middletown Monthly Meeting in Bucks County by request. He began
speaking in meeting when about thirty years of age, and was a little
later recorded as a minister. Edward Hicks for many years carried on
the business of carriage maker and painter at Newtown, Pa. Although
much more orthodox in doctrine than his celebrated kinsman, he was one
of the most ardent friends and defenders of Elias Hicks.
"Therefore, it is among the possible circumstances that dear Elias
was led to an extreme in the Unitarian speculation, while opposing
the Trinitarian, then increasing among Friends, and now almost
established among our orthodox Friends. But I have no recollection
of ever hearing him in public testimony, and I have heard him
much, when his speculative views or manner of speaking, destroyed
the savour of life that attended his ministry, or gave me any
uneasiness. But I have certainly heard to my sorrow, too many of his
superficial admirers that have tried to copy after him, pretending
to wear his crown, without knowing anything of his cross, make
use of the naked term, Jesus, both in public and private, till it
sounded in my ears as unpleasant, as if coming from the tongue of
the profane swearer; and on the other hand, I have been pained to
hear the unnecessary repetition of the terms, our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, from those I verily believed Elias's bitter enemies,
especially the English preachers, and have scarcely a doubt that
they were substantially breaking the third commandment. And I will
now add my opinion fearlessly, that Elias was wrong in entering into
that quibbling controversy with those weak Quakers, alluded to in
his letter, about the marvellous conception and parentage of Christ,
a delicate and inexplicable subject, that seems to have escaped the
particular attention of what we call the darker ages, to disgrace the
highest professors of the nineteenth century."[195]
[195] "Memoirs of Life and Religious Labors of Edward Hicks," p. 92.
An independent, and in the main, a judicial critic of Quakers
and Quakerism is Frederick Storrs Turner, an Englishman. Some of
his estimates and observations of Elias Hicks, are both apt and
discriminating. Of his preaching Turner says:
"His great theme was the light within; his one aim to promote a
true living spiritual, practical Christianity. He was more dogmatic
and controversial than Woolman. There seems to have been in him a
revival of the old aggressive zeal, and something of the acerbity
of the early Quakers. 'Hireling priests' were as offensive in his
eyes as in those of George Fox. He would have no compromise with the
religions of the world, and denounced all new-fangled methods and
arrangements for religious work and worship in the will of man. He
was a Quaker to the backbone, and stood out manfully for the 'ancient
simplicity.'"[196]
[196] "The Quakers;" a study, historical and critical, by Frederick
Storrs Turner, 1889, p. 292.
With still deeper insight Turner continues his analysis:
"This was his dying testimony: 'The cross of Christ is the perfect
law of God, written in the heart ... there is but one Lord, one
faith, and but one baptism.... No rational being can be a real
Christian and true disciple of Christ until he comes to know all
these things verified in his own experience.' He was a good man, a
true Christian, and a Quaker of the Quakers. His very errors were
the errors of a Quaker, and since the generation of the personal
disciples of George Fox it would be difficult to point out any man
who had a simpler and firmer faith in the central truth of Quakerism
than Elias Hicks."[197]
[197] The same, p. 293.
Regarding some of the bitter criticisms uttered against Elias Hicks
at the time of the controversy in the second decade of the nineteenth
century, and repeated by the biographers and advocates of some of his
opponents, Turner says:
"This concensus of condemnation by such excellent Christian men would
blast Hicks's character effectually, were it not for the remembrance
that we have heard these shrieks of pious horror before. Just so did
Faldo and Baxter, Owen and Bunyan, unite in anathematizing George Fox
and the first Quakers. Turning from these invectives of theological
opponents to Hicks's own writings, we at once discover that this
arch-heretic was a simple, humble-minded, earnest Quaker of the old
school."[198]
[198] The same, p. 291.
James Mott, Sr., of Mamaroneck, N. Y., was among the friendly, although
judicial critics of Elias Hicks. In a letter written Eighth month 5,
1805, to Elias, he said: "I am satisfied that the master hath conferred
on thee a precious gift in the ministry, and I have often sat with
peculiar satisfaction in hearing thee exercise it." He then continues,
referring to a special occasion:
"But when thou came to touch on predestination, and some other
erroneous doctrines, I thought a little zeal was suffered to take
place, that led into much censoriousness, and that expressed in
harsh expressions, not only against the doctrines, but those who had
embraced them.... I have often thought if ministers, when treating on
doctrinal points, or our belief, were to hold up our principles fully
and clearly, and particularly our fundamental principle of the light
within, what it was, and how it operates, there would very seldom be
occasion for declamation against other tenets, however opposite to
our own; nor never against those who have through education or some
other medium embraced them."
This would seem to be as good advice at the beginning of the twentieth
century as it was in the first years of the nineteenth.
In the matter of estimating Elias Hicks, Walt Whitman indulged in
the following criticism, supplementing an estimate of his preaching.
Dealing with some opinions of the contemporaries of Elias Hicks, he
says:
"They think Elias Hicks had a large element of personal ambition,
the pride of leadership, of establishing perhaps a sect that should
reflect his own name, and to which he should give special form and
character. Very likely, such indeed seems the means all through
progress and civilization, by which strong men and strong convictions
achieve anything definite. But the basic foundation of Elias was
undoubtedly genuine religious fervor. He was like an old Hebrew
prophet. He had the spirit of one, and in his later years looked like
one."[199]
[199] "The Complete Works of Walt Whitman," Vol. 3, p. 269-270.
It is not worth while to deny that Elias Hicks was ambitious, and
desired to secure results in his labor. But those who carefully go over
his recorded words will find little to warrant the literal conclusion
of his critics in this particular. He probably had no idea at any time
of founding a sect, or perpetuating his name attached to a fragment
of the Society of Friends, either large or small. He believed that he
preached the truth; he wanted men to embrace it, as it met the divine
witness in their own souls, and not otherwise.
Among the severe critics of Elias Hicks is William Tallack, who in his
book "Thomas Shillitoe," says that "many of Elias Hicks' assertions
are too blasphemous for quotation," while W. Hodgson, refers to the
"filth" of the sentiments of Elias Hicks. But both these Friends use
words rather loosely. Both must employ their epithets entirely in a
theological, and not a moral sense. Having gone over a large amount of
the published and private utterances of the Jericho preacher, we have
failed to find in them even an impure suggestion. The bitterness of
their attacks, simply illustrates the bad spirit in which theological
discussion is generally conducted.
The fame of Elias Hicks as a liberalizing influence in religion seems
to have reached the Orient. Under date, "Calcutta, June 29, 1827," the
celebrated East Indian, Rammohun Roy,[200] addressed an appreciative
letter to him. It was sent by a Philadelphian, J. H. Foster, of the
ship Georgian, and contained the following expressions:
[200] Rammohun Roy was born in Bengal in 1772, being a high-class
Brahmin. He was highly educated, and at one time in the employ of the
English Government. In comparatively early life he became a religious
and social reformer, and incurred the enmity of his family. He
published various works in different languages, including English. In
1828 he founded a liberal religious association which grew into the
Brahmo Somaj. Roy visited England in 1831, and died there in 1833.
"My object in intruding on your time is to express the gratification
I have felt in reading the sermons you preached at different
meetings, and which have since been published by your friends in
America.... Every sentence found there seems to have proceeded
not only from your lips, but from your heart. The true spirit of
Christian charity and belief flows from thee and cannot fall short of
making some impression on every heart which is susceptible of it. I
hope and pray God may reward you for your pious life and benevolent
exertion, and remain with the highest reverence.
"Your most humble servant,
"RAMMOHUN ROY."
A copy of what purports to be a reply to this letter is in existence,
and is probably genuine, as the language is in accordance with the
well-known ideas of Elias Hicks. Besides, an undated personal letter
contains a direct reference to the East Indian correspondence. From it
we quote: "I take my pen to commune with thee in this way on divers
accounts, and first in regard to a letter I have recently received from
Calcutta, subscribed by Rammohun Roy, author of a book entitled, 'The
Precepts of Jesus, a Guide to Peace and Happiness.'"[201]
[201] From letter written to William Wharton of Philadelphia.
A request is made that William Wharton will find out if the
ship-master, Foster, mentioned above, would convey a letter to
Calcutta. Then Elias expresses himself as follows:
"I also feel a lively interest in whatever relates to the welfare and
progress of that enlightened and worthy Hindoo, believing that if he
humbly attends to that hath begun a good work in him, and is faithful
to its manifestations that he will not only witness the blessed
effects of it, in his own preservation and salvation, but will be
made an instrument in the divine hand of much good to his own people,
and nation, by spreading the truth, and opening the right way of
salvation among them, which may no doubt prove a great and singular
blessing not only to the present, but to succeeding generations. And
also be a means of opening the blind eyes of formal traditional
Christians, who make a profession of godliness, but deny the power
thereof, especially those blind guides, mere man-made ministers, and
self-styled missionaries, sent out by Bible and missionary societies
of man's constituting, under the pretence of converting those, who
in the pride of their hearts they call Heathen, to Christianity,
while at the same time, judging them by their fruits they themselves,
or most of them, stand in as great, or greater need, of right
conversion."
Among the present-day critics of Elias Hicks, is Dr. J. Rendell Harris,
of England. In his paper at the Manchester Conference in 1895, this
quotation from Elias Hicks is given: "God never made any distinction
in the manifestation of his love to his rational creatures. He has
placed every son and daughter of Adam on the same ground and in the
same condition that our first parents were in. For every child must
come clean out of the hands of God."[202] Doctor Harris says Elias
Hicks "was wrong not simply because he was unscriptural, but because
he was unscientific."[203] Doctor Harris prefaces this remark by the
following comment on the quotation from Elias Hicks: "Now suppose such
a doctrine to be propounded in this conference would not the proper
answer, the answer of any modern thinker, be (1) that we never had
any first parents; (2) we were demonstrably not born good."[204] We
do not at all assume that Elias Hicks had no limitations, or that he
was correct at all points in his thinking, measured by the standards
of present-day knowledge or any other standard. But we must claim that
in holding that we had first parents, he was scriptural. The poor
man, however, seems to have been, unconsciously, of course, between
two stools. The orthodox Friends in the early part of the nineteenth
century claimed that Elias was unsound because he did not cling to
the letter of the scripture, and his critic just quoted claims that
he was unscientific although he used a scriptural term. Doctor Harris
then concludes that "a little knowledge of evolution would have saved
him (Hicks) all that false doctrine." But how, in his time, could he
have had any knowledge of evolution? A man can hardly be criticised
for not possessing knowledge absolutely unavailable in his day and
generation. We are then informed "that the world at any given instant,
shows almost every stage of evolution of life, from the amoeba to the
man, and from the cannibal to the saint. Shall we say that the love of
God is equally manifested in all these?"[205] To use the Yankee answer
by asking another question, may we inquire, in all seriousness, who is
qualified to say with certainty that it is not so manifested? Who has
the authority, in the language of Whittier, to
... "fix with metes and bounds
The love and power of God?"
[202] "Report of the Proceedings of the Conference of Members of
the Society of Friends, held by Direction of the Yearly Meeting in
Manchester," 1895, p. 220.
[203] The same, p. 220.
[204] We do not hesitate to say that had Elias Hicks made this
statement he would have suffered more at the hands of the Philadelphia
Elders in 1822 than is recorded in this book.
[205] Report Manchester Conference, pp. 220-221.
Elias Hicks was given to using figures of speech and scriptural
illustrations in a broad sense, and those who carefully read his
utterances will have no trouble in seeing in the quotation used
by Doctor Harris simply an attempt to repudiate the attribute of
favoritism on the part of the Heavenly Father toward any of his human
children, and not to formulate a new philosophy of life, based on a
theory of the universe about which he had never heard.
The special labor of Elias Hicks, as we may now dispassionately review
it, was not as an expounder of doctrine, or the creator of a new
dogmatism, but as a rationalizing, liberalizing influence in the field
of religion. He was a pioneer of the "modern thinkers" of whom Doctor
Harris speaks, and did much, amid misunderstanding and the traducing
of men, to prepare the way for the broader intellectual and spiritual
liberty we now enjoy.