The Life and Labors of Elias Hicks

by Henry Watson Wilbur

[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: