of disownment or exclusion.  In this case of the Philadelphia Meeting, however, it may be remarked, that in a community of many thousand members, the practice may be regarded as almost eradicated by the milder methods of persuasion.  It is a fact deserving of notice, that the same worthies of the last century, Woolman, Benezet, and others, who raised the standard of anti-slavery testimony, also by the same process of independent thinking, and single-minded, unhesitating obedience to convictions of duty, anticipated the verdict of public opinion on this subject.  Woolman found that even the most moderate use of ardent spirits, was unfavorable to that calm religious meditation, which was the habit of his mind, and has left his views on record in various characteristic passages.  I shall also, I trust, be excused for introducing the following anecdote of two of his contemporaries.

“Jacob Lindley, to adopt his own designation of himself was a ‘stripling’ when he attended a Yearly Meeting of Friends held at Philadelphia; his mind had been for some time much afflicted with an observation of the pernicious effects of spirituous liquors, and he was anxious that the religious society to which he belonged, should cease to use, and prevent any of its members from being instrumental in manufacturing or vending them.  He therefore rose and developed his feelings to the assembly, in the energetic and pathetic manner for which he was peculiarly remarkable.  When the meeting adjourned, he observed a stranger pressing through the crowd towards him, who took him by the hand in the most affectionate manner, and said, ’My dear young friend, I was very glad to hear thy voice on the subject of spirituous liquors; I have much unity with thy concern, and hope that no discouragement may have been received from its not being farther noticed; and now I want thee to go home, and take dinner with me, having something farther to say to thee on the subject.’  Lindley accepted the invitation, and after they had dined, Benezet introduced his young guest into a little room used as a study, where he produced a manuscript work on the subject of spirituous liquors, in an unfinished state; he opened the book and laid it on a table before them, saying, ’This is a treatise which I have been for some time engaged in writing, on the subject of thy concern in meeting to-day; and now if thou hast a mind to sit down, and write a paragraph or two, I will embody it in the work, and have it published.’"[A]

[Footnote A:  Life of Anthony Benezet, p. 107-109.]

These eminent men, John Woolman and Anthony Benezet, had much in common; yet their characters were as unlike as opposite temperaments, and as alike as similarity of views, could make them.  So marked was their coincidence of sentiment in opposition to the prevailing opinions and practices of that day, that it might be surmised one was a disciple of the other, yet there is no reason to suppose such was the case.  Each