of the Junto in his autobiography: Prehistory Franklin was influenced by two predecessor organizations in particular. Dry Club One was an English group called the “Dry Club,” which had philosopher John Locke, William Popple, and Benjamin Furly among its members during the 1690s (and was itself partially inspired by Furly's “heretics of the Lantern” society). It met one evening a week for two hours at a time and required that its members reply affirmatively to the following questions: Whether he loves all Men, of what Profession or Religion soever? Whether he thinks no person ought to be harmed in his Body, Name, or Goods, for mere speculative Opinions, or his external way of Worship? Whether he loves and seeks Truth for Truth's sake; and will endeavour impartially to find and receive it himself, and to communicate it to others? Each member of the club would take turns proposing topics for discussion and moderating these discussions. The discussions were to be held in a spirit of open-minded tolerance: That no Person or Opinion be unhandsomely reflected on; but every Member behave himself with all the temper, judgement, modesty, and discretion he is master of. Neighborhood benefit and reforming societies The other important predecessors were the "neighborhood benefit societies” and “reforming societies” proposed in Massachusetts by Cotton Mather. Cotton Mather described the neighborhood societies as being composed of a dozen married couples who would meet at one another's homes in succession for prayer and other religious exercises, and also to consider questions like the following: Who are in any peculiar adversity; and what may be done to comfort them? What contention or variance may there be among our neighbours; and what may be done for healing it? In what open transgressions do any live? and who shall be desired to carry faithful admonitions to them? The similar reforming societies would entertain questions like these: Can any further methods be devised that ignorance and wickedness may be more chased from our people in general; and that domestic piety, in particular, may flourish among them? Is there any instance of oppression or fraudulence in the dealings of any sort of people, which may call for our efforts to rectify it? Is there any matter to be humbly recommended to the legislative power, to be enacted into a law for the public benefit? Do we know of any person languishing under severe affliction, and is