of a blind zeal, instead of the broad philanthropy of Christ.  Is there no better alternative?  Yes.  To adopt the principle of William Penn; to allow freedom of opinion; and while we permit the Evangelical party to hold their favorite notions, so long as they consent to conform to our system of public worship, to confess that we have acted harshly to the Hicksites, and open our arms to all who are sincere in their faith, and orderly in their conduct.”

As the adherents of Elias Hicks at that time represented freedom of conscience, of course Isaac T. Hopper belonged to that party, and advocated it with characteristic zeal.  In fact, he seems to have been the Napoleon of the battle.  It was not in his nature intentionally to misrepresent any man; and even when the controversy was raging most furiously, I believe there never was a time when he would not willingly have acknowledged a mistake the moment he perceived it.  But his temperament was such, that wherever he deemed a principle of truth, justice, or freedom was at stake, he could never quit an adversary till he had demolished him completely, and convinced him that he was demolished; though he often felt great personal kindness toward the individual thus prostrated, and was always willing to render him any friendly service.  He used to say that his resistance in this controversy was principally roused by the disposition which he saw manifested “to crush worthy, innocent Friends, for mere difference of opinion;” and no one, who knew him well, could doubt that on this subject, as on others, he was impelled by a sincere love of truth and justice.  But neither he nor any other person ever entered the lists of theological controversy without paying dearly for the encounter.  Perpetual strife grieved and disturbed his own spirit, while his energy, perseverance, and bluntness of speech, gained him many enemies.  Wherever this unfortunate sectarian schism was introduced, it divided families, and burst asunder the bonds of friendship.  For a long time, they seemed to be a Society of Enemies, instead of a Society of Friends.  In this respect, no one suffered more acutely than Isaac T. Hopper.  It was his nature to form very strong friendships; and at this painful juncture, many whom he had long loved and trusted, parted from him.  Among them was his cousin Joseph Whitall, who had embraced Quakerism at the same period of life, who had been the friend of his boyhood, and the cherished companion of later years.  They had no personal altercation, but their intimacy gradually cooled off, and they became as strangers.

He had encountered other difficulties also, at a former period of his life, the shadows of which still lay across his path.  About twelve or fifteen years after his marriage, his health began to fail.  His vigorous frame pined away to a mere shadow, and he was supposed to be in a consumption.  At the same time, he found himself involved in pecuniary difficulties, the burden of which weighed very heavily