The Priesthood of the Believers: Quakers and the Abolition of Slavery
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
This is an important subject, and while the author has many good insights, many of his/er bases for his/er assertions are disconnected or off base. For instance, while Quakers did indeed believe in the ministry of every Christian, this is not to say that Luther’s view of the priesthood of every believer was the way that Quakers spoke about it, and there is little evidence that this was the major basis for their work to abolish slavery. Their main concern was the inhumanity of the institution--totally against the love of God and the way of Christ.
As the Quaker movement emerged out of 17th century Puritan England (with Hugh Barbour), the first three parts of this essay should be scrapped and replaced with a focus on the experiences of George Fox, Margaret Fell, Francis Howgill and other early Friends, followed by a treatment of Quaker theology as articulated by Robert Barclay, Isaac Penington, and William Penn, etc.
Parts 4 and following do cite some of the relevant secondary literature on the subject, but the author does not really get into the primary writings of early Friends, which is essential for a research related essay on the subject. Many of the comments about Friends are general, but their own words on the subject need to be cited and engaged.
Within the writings of 17th century Friends on slavery, the convictions of William Edmundson (issued the first Quaker statement against slavery—1676), George Keith (1689), Germantown Friends’ statement against slavery (1888), Francis Daniel Pastorius, Cadwalder Morgan, George Moore (1693), Richard Hill (1698), and Robert Piles.
Clearly the issues here are slaves being human and deserving of being treated in their full humanity—the Golden Rule is key—and the suffering of the enslaved cannot be countenanced by authentic Christians.
George Fox also called for slaves being welcomed as equals in meetings for worship (Barbados), and in his 1657 letter to all Friends who keep slaves, Fox argues from a number of New Testament passages that God loves all people and that all are of one blood; God is no respecter of persons, reminding plantation holders that God’s eyes are overall. In his visit to Barbados (1671), Fox called for Friends to welcome slaves in meetings for worship—an act that was seen as fomenting revolution, but in his letter to the Governor of Barbados, Fox assured him of Friends orthodox Christian doctrine. In 1676, Fox called for treating slaves as family members (Philemon) and in 1701, he argued to Philadelphia Yearly Meeting that slaves should not be enslaved for life but that they should be freed after a period of time.
Things developed further in the 18th century, as Benjamin Lay performed a provocative act, piercing a Bible filled with red blood-like juice (1738) at Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, calling for the abandonment of slavery, and the mission of John Woolman (d. 1772), including his essay against the keeping of Negroes (1754), played a major role in piquing the conscience of Friends in the US and the UK. Anthony Benezet also played a major role in the opposition of slavery among Friends and others (Thomas Clarkson), and Philadelphia YM banned the owning of slaves in 1776.
Thomas Foxwell Buxton influenced England to abolish the slave trade and worked to provide recompense for those giving up their slaves. Quakers organized an international conference in England against slavery (1840) and were leading abolitionists hence.
Perhaps another way to begin the essay is to note how early Friends saw each person as beloved of God and having access to the saving, transforming, and guiding light of Christ within them, and this would include slaves. And, citing the Scriptures they found compelling would be important, as much as I love John 20:21-23, which was the basis for Luther's witness.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
This article addresses a key and often neglected aspect of the abolition of slavery, namely the fact that the Quakers were the first religious group to embrace anti-slavery as a religious/theological program. The author correctly situations this is the egalitarianism of early Quakerism. More importantly the author discusses the importance of Quaker scriptural hermeneutics, demonstrating that Quakers were less bound by the literal meaning of the text compared to all other Protestant bodies. There are some significant omissions in the scholarship that must be addressed before publication. In particular, the author must engage with the research of Katherine Gerbner (Christian Slavery) who demonstrates convincingly that the Quaker move toward abolition was rooted in the fact that many Quakers were slave holders, especially in the British West Indies, but also in Pennsylvania. Why the author acknowledges "hypocrisy", Gerbner shows that early Quakers were not consistently opposed to slave holding and did not view Blacks as equal to whites. Likewise, the author needs to take into account the limits of Quaker egalitarian and commitment to equal rights when dealing with Native Americans in Pennsylvania, especially the duplicity of the Walking Purchase and the fact that Native American spirituality/religion was not recognized as legitimate. The native population was never given political rights within the commonwealth, unlike the non-English white immigrants. The author also implies that Quaker anti-slavery was rooted in anti-racism, but there is little evidence that 18th century Quakers welcomed or even wanted people of color in their churches/communities. It is well-established that anti-slavery could and often was coupled with racist attitudes. Even in the 19th century, there seems to be scant evidence of Quakers evangelizes or engaging in other ways with Black people other than paternalistically. The article would be strengthened by giving much greater attention to the development of anti-slavery convictions within Quakerism and the controversy it caused among Quakers rather than implying that Quakers were arguing with non-Quakers. This raises another critical issue, John Woolman and other early Quaker anti-slavery authors were focused on the issue of whether Quakers should own slaves, which is much different from the abolition of slavery itself. Benezet would be the key figure in moving from an internal Quaker concern over the morality of enslaving people to agitation for the abolition of slavery entirely. In this regard, the author should acknowledge the importance of the Quaker alliance with evangelicals, especially in England, and how that alliance in turn affected Quakers in the United States. At what point did Quakers become political in their opposition to slaveholding? Since much of the article is about Quaker hermeneutics, it would be helpful to delve more deeply into how other Protestant, especially small (sectarian), churches like the Moravians and Mennonites approached Scripture compared to Quakers. There is some of this, but not enough. Greater attention to the work of Mark Noll would be helpful. In terms of the writing itself, I think that the opening pages on the New Testament and Martin Luther are unnecessary and are not well integrated into the article. Since Catholics and Protestants alike justified slavery since the time of the apostle Paul (Philemon) the simple teachings of Jesus were obviously not compelling for much of Christian history. And there is little evidence that Martin Luther's understanding of the priesthood of all believers had significant impact on English Protestantism, which was much more affected by Calvinism. There is the further problem that the priesthood of all believers obviously did not apply to non-believers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
This article is interesting and valuable. It shows the evolution of the Quakers' position on the issue of slavery and the social significance of their stance, particularly the impact on changing public perceptions of slavery in the United States. I recommend it for publication.
However, the article has some weaknesses that are worth improving:
1. The abstract is not appropriate. It does not refer at all to the research method.
2. The Introduction is not structured correctly. The author does not discuss the research method or the sources of the article.
3. In Part 2 (‘The New Testament’), the author relies on her or his own interpretation of biblical quotations (e.g., in a critical view of Judaism). This is inappropriate in a scholarly article where it is necessary to refer to the results of research on biblical text and biblical history. In my opinion, the lack of reference to the literature results in a biased interpretation of the biblical texts by the author. For example, the New Testament is explained selectively. The impression is created as if the New Testament is opposed to slavery. It is difficult to understand why the author does not refer to St Paul's Epistle to Philemon. In this letter, the attitude of the early Christians towards slavery is evident. They were by no means rejecting the practice, as it was common in the Roman Empire. Rather, it was a matter of civilising it by treating slaves as human persons, as brothers and sisters in Christ.
By the way, Part 2 is misnamed: it refers not only to the New Testament but also to the Old Testament.
4. In Part 3 (‘Luther's Priesthood of the Believers’), the author does not reflect on why Luther rejected the Catholic church hierarchy. The problem is that the author does not consider the historical context at all, especially the relationship of Luther and his followers with the Catholic bishops in the early years of the Reformation.
Other comments:
vv. 5-6 – The author states: ‘Quakers became the first group in history to develop a consciousness about slavery, and spearheaded the early movement in America and Britain that led to its abolition’. I would advise abandoning this claim. The author seems to be unfamiliar with, for example, the activities of Archbishop Bartolomé de las Casas (1484-1566).
v. 27 – ‘certain religious sects like the Quakers’; v. 367: ‘sectarian groups’
I would suggest abandoning this terminology. Many people may find the term ‘sect’ offensive.
v. 29-30 – ‘This article wishes to challenge’, v. 37: ‘This article hopes’
The article cannot wish or hope for anything. Rather, it is the author who wishes or hopes.
vv. 192-193 – ‘In rejecting an opulent, aristocratic lifestyle and condemning slaveowners, the Quakers simply placed the work ethic on steroids’.
I think this type of statement is more suited to journalism than to a scientific article.
Endnote 70 – The author makes an important point about the limitations of this study. I think it should be in the Introduction rather than in an endnote.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
1) Perhaps it would be possible to explain the use of the word "secular" in the Introduction. It is used twice.
2) The same could be possible for the term "sectarian".
3) Perhaps there is an occasion to explain in one sentence or so a little bit more explicitely how exactly "theological" arguments are (institutionally and hermeneutically) developed in the Quaker movement.
Author Response
I added a couple of sentences to the introduction to clarify the meaning of secular and sectarian. I could not address in any detail the matter of how Quakers develop theological arguments. I already addressed what was relevant on pp. 6 and 7 and in the notes. A complete study of this problem would require a large study, and Quakers in general don't address prolegomena questions. They have a tendency to look to the Spirit/conscience, even above the Scripture, and that is all that mattered to me.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
This article is improved in focusing on Quakers and the Abolition of Slavery rather than the Priesthood of All believers. I'm really not sure to what degree Quakers followed Luther's expansion upon John 20:19-23, but they did indeed build upon being Friends of Jesus (John 15:12-17), which called for believers to be partners with Christ in his saving/redeeming work and loving one another in justice.
Thus, the essay could do more with that theme--a loving concern for all humanity, and justice concerns--as connected with following Jesus. More should be done with Woolman's crisis of conscience in being asked to write a bill for a slave (he was not a child, he was a young adult--read Woolman's Journal), and the particulars of their antislavery developments should be sketched in fuller detail. See these particulars, for instance.
https://web.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/speccoll/quakersandslavery/commentary/people/fox.php
I don't think Luther's Priesthood of All Believers should be in the title, nor should it play a primary role in the argument--the parallel is simply taking biblical views of ministry and justice seriously and seeking to follow Jesus in justice for all humanity.
Author Response
The reviewer rejects fundamental Reformation scholarship about the significance of Luther’s priesthood of the believers or Protestant egalitarianism. He or she leaves the impression that the Quakers just look at the text of the Bible and develop their own sui generis viewpoints.
The reviewer wants me to look at a website, but when you type the address and enter it, the message appears, “The requested URL is not found on this server.”
I added some mention of the reviewer’s emphasis upon love and justice, just as an olive branch. I added a sentence that speaks of the early Quakers of the 1660s following the Levellers of the 1640s in their radical rejection of hierarchical society and demand for social justice. The Quakers continue to demand justice like most Christian groups after this time, but it is never so radical as its early expressions. I also expanded my endnote on the Golden Rule, as a significant element among the Quakers and all Christian groups in their concept of love and argument against slavery. However, their emphasis upon love or justice is not unique to Quakers, and both should be understood in terms of their belief in egalitarianism. The Golden Rule (and the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself) interprets love in egalitarian terms. The demand for social justice is understood by everyone as a demand for equality or equity.
The reviewer wanted me to mention “Woolman’s crisis of conscience in being asked to write a bill for a slave.” I was happy to comply with this simple request.
The bottom line is the reviewer wants me to espouse his or her position and I’m not going to do it. The other two reviewers accept the basic position of the article that the unique emphasis of Quakers on egalitarianism was most significant in moving the Quakers to denounce slavery. To accept what they say is to reject what this reviewer says.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The author has clarified the limitations of this study and added some necessary references. It would be stronger if some of the newer research was incorporated into the body of the paper.
Author Response
The reviewer accepts the previous response that clarified the limitations of the study and made significant changes. The reviewer requests that I add some new research. To accommodate this suggestion, I read Thomas Drake’s Quakers and Slavery in America and five new articles. I refer to these works throughout the new endnotes bolstering the argument. I also add a new paragraph to the introduction (and add some further comments in n.15) discussing the literature on the subject. In the case of the specific purpose of my study, there is a paucity of specific material. Works typically discuss the history of Quakers and slavery and might mention some impetus that moved the Quakers to reject the institution but do not elaborate on their theological motivation.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The text is clear, well-written and coherent. The Author uses multiple (and relevant) sources and skillfully presents the argument.
The Author does not state what research design and methods He/She will use in the text. There is no methodological discussion in the introduction. The text also lacks a proper conclusion in a separate section.
Neither the topic, nor the argument is new, but both are well-documented here. What is missing is the discussion (at least in the conclusion) concerning the difference between abolitionism and the elimination of racism, even among Quakers. Some authors argue that it is a misconception that, because of their belief in equality, most Quakers were also anti-separationist and eradicated racism entirely. Already in the 19th century Sarah Mapps Douglass argued that many more blacks would attend Quaker meetings if they were not asked to sit on the segregated back benches. Contemporary authors also stress that it wasn’t until 1947 that all Quaker schools in the USA admitted black pupils. It would be useful to make such distinction and look at literature concerning this problem, including writings by Quakers themselves, such as ‘Fit for Freedom, Not for Friendship: Quakers, African Americans, and the Myth of Racial Justice’ by Donna McDaniel and Vanessa Julye.
Reviewer 2 Report
See the end line of comments for editors.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author,
The article entitled "The Priesthood of the Believers: Quakers and the Abolition of Slavery" could be a valuable contribution to the academic community. The manuscript provides a literature review and overview of this religious movement and its relationship to the abolition of slavery and the priesthood of the believers. However, the study would need to be newly designed for the results to be original and for there to be a significant advance in knowledge.
Specifically, the article could narrow its research by exploring primary sources on the Quakers and slavery. In addition, it could clearly state the objectives, methodology, and conclusions through specific sections. The objectives section should include the hypotheses or research questions that are clearly related to the conclusion section's contents. The methodology section should explain and justify the selected method, introduce the texts chosen for the analysis and the structure of the presentation of the results. Likewise, I recommend that the instructions for authors regarding references be followed.
Furthermore, because of the subject of the Special Issue, the study could not only explore primary sources of the Quakers in relation to the abolition of slavery, but also their views on the relationship between Church and State.
With this rethinking of the study, the work could provide original conclusions to an advancement of the current knowledge.
Yours faithfully,
The Reviewer.
