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:

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

"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]

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

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.