to fight his battles over again.  In this readiness to recount his own exploits, there was nothing that seemed like silly or obtrusive vanity.  It often reminded me of the following just remark in the Westminster Review, applied to Jeremy Bentham:  “The very egotism in which he occasionally indulged was a manifestation of a want of self-thought.  This unpopular failing is, after all, one of the characteristics of a natural and simple mind.  It requires much thought about one’s self to avoid speaking of one’s self.”

It has been already mentioned that Friend Hopper passed through a fiery trial in his own religious society, during the progress of the schism produced by the preaching of Elias Hicks.  Fourteen years had elapsed since the separation.  The “Hicksite” branch had become an established and respectable sect.  In cities, many of them were largely engaged in Southern trade.  I have heard it stated that millions of money were thus invested.  They retained sympathy with the theological opinions of Elias Hicks, but his rousing remonstrances against slavery would have been generally very unwelcome to their ears.  They cherished the names of Anthony Benezet, John Woolman, and a host of other departed worthies, whose labors in behalf of the colored people reflected honor on their Society.  But where was the need of being so active in the cause, as Isaac T. Hopper was, and always had been?  “The way did not open” for them to be so active; and why should his zeal rebuke their listlessness?  Was it friendly, was it respectful in him, to do more than his religious Society thought it necessary to do?  It is astonishing how troublesome a living soul proves to be, when they try to shut it up within the narrow limits of a drowsy sect!

I had a friend in Boston, whose wealthy and aristocratic parents brought him up according to the most approved model of genteel religion.  He learned the story of the Good Samaritan, and was early accustomed to hear eulogies pronounced on the holy Jesus, who loved the poor, and associated with the despised.  When the boy became a man he joined the Anti-Slavery Society, and openly avowed that he regarded Africans as brethren of the great human family.  His relatives were grieved to see him pursuing such an injudicious and disrespectable course.  Whereupon, a witty reformer remarked, “They took most commendable pains to present Jesus and the Good Samaritan as models of character, but they were surprised to find that he had taken them at their word.”

The case was somewhat similar with Isaac T. Hopper.  He had imbibed anti-slavery principles in full flood at the fountain of Quakerism.  Their best and greatest men were conspicuous as advocates of those principles.  Children were taught to revere those men, and their testimonies were laid up in honorable preservation, to be quoted with solemn formality on safe occasions.  Friend Hopper acted as if these professions were in good earnest; and thereby he disturbed his sect, as my Boston friend troubled his family, when he made practical use of their religious teaching.