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]

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]

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:

"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]

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:

"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]

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:

"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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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:

"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]

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]

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.

---