738 FRIENDS’

REVIEW.

 

especial spiritual gifts? Oh, if dissensions
should prevail among these, how shall they har-
moniously gather the flocks unto the one satis-
fying fountain of living waters? How shall
they together call out, “Spring up, oh well!”
and the people chant in chorus, “ we will sing
unto it?”

D. Cooper to Samuel Allinson.

Woodbury, 6th mo. 15th, 1783.

Lovina Son,—TI received the accompanying
pieces this morning, with two from thyself, and
a letter from Anthony Benezet. Why they are
without date, or name of author or printer, I can’t
conceive, unless he has not consulted the over-
seers of the press, which I suppose has been the
case, as he tells me the difficulties arising there
have occasioned him to lay aside the essay upon
which he had bestowed so much care. Thou’lt
see he hath quoted the words of Congress out of
my manuscript, which he ought not to have
done. He tells me he hears there’s a pamphlet
on the same subject lately come out at Trenton,
which he supposes to be mine, and proposes to
have his and that stitched together; which is odd
enough,*as he knows how careful I was of having
the author suspected. I regret he saw it, con-
cluding I might near as well have put my name
toit. He has sent one to each member of Con-
gress, and to our Assembly at Burlington, and
is about writing to our Governor. -

I have received thy letter of the 10th, the
contents of which greatly disappointed me,
though it gives no uneasiness, my only fear
being lest you should undertake that which Iam
clear the Quarterly Meeting had no idea of, in
denying to the lower Friends that redress which
our Monthly Meeting had so unitedly and re-
peatedly declared they ought to have. And I
cannot help believing had you kept from looking
toward a result till after the Monthly Meeting,
ond had thesubject been properly opened and con-
sidered there, your conclusion would have been
different. Divers considerations would there
have been investigated that you heard no men-
_tion of; one of which is, the consequence

Monthly Meetings are of in Society. For how-
ever strong the Yearly and Quarterly Meetings
may be, however wise the rules established, and
the advices from time to time given, ’tis the
Monthly Meeting, and that only, must carry
them into practice. ’Tis the labor of these
meetings must keep the vineyard clean, or in
vain is the care of superior meetings. To split
Monthly Meetings, then, and render them too
weak to perform this labor with vigor and wis-
dom, is to wound the very vitals of the Society,
and farther lay waste instead of reviving that
good order we so much desire. These reasons
induce me to think great care necessary on those
occasions, and that where members live contigu-
ous, and the business is not overgrown, meetings
ought not to be weakened by dividing. Some

 

propose a committee constantly to attend each
meeting. This looks preposterous. If we are
too weak to hold two Monthly Meetings, why
should we be divided? If we are not, what oc-
casion of a committee? I find Friends were
much disappointed at the turn this matter took _
at the Monthly Meeting ; having generally ex-
pected that was the principal place where light
would be thrown on the subject, for the infor-
mation: of the committee. I know not how it
has got about, but before I saw thy letter, I
heard it pretty confidently mentioned, that you
had moved the Monthly Meeting to Woodbury.
We are as well as usual.

In near affection to you all, Iam thy loving
father, D. Cooper.

This letter appears to have reference to a pro-
posed change in the holding of Haddonfield
Monthly Meeting, which prospect did not im-
mediately mature, as will hereafter be seen.

[Diary resumed.]—“In the 9th month this
year, the Yearly Meeting agreed to address
Congress on the subject of slavery. The ad-
dress was prepared and agreed to with remarka-
ble unanimity, and signed in the meeting by
535 persons, being supposed little more than |
half of the members present; but the sheet
being filled, the signing stopped. Fourteen
Friends (of which number I was one) were ap-
pointed to present it to Congress at their sitting
at Princeton. We proceeded to Princeton on
the 7th of 10th month, and the President was
waited upon, and informed of our desire to de-
liver it ourselves. He made a difficulty about
admitting us, observing that it was an indulgence
which, though often asked, had never been
granted; he would, however, propose it to Con-
gress and give us an answer. After their ad-
journment he let us know it was agreed to re-
ceive us the next day, at a specified hour; at
which time we were admitted with our hats on, and
were asked if we preferred that one of our num-
ber should read it, or that it should be done by
their Secretary. They wereanswered that the for-
mer was our choice if they had no objection, to |
which the President politely answered : ‘ Noneat
all.’ James Pemberton then read it, after which
wewithdrew. Some of the committee had oppor-
tunity of much conversation with divers of the
members,—dining, on invitation, with a number
of them ; and we were treated through the whole
with civility and respect.”

The President here mentioned was of course
the President of Congress, there being at that
time no other United States President. The
one in question must have been Elias Boudinot,
of Burlington, who was elected to Congress in
1777, and was made its Presiding Officer in
1782, and who in his official capacity signed the
treaty of peace with Great Britain, Sept. 23d,
1783. He was descended from the French Hu-
guenots. He was superintendent of the mint,