This text is part of:
‘
[285]
be infected with the leaven 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
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.