Woolman’s Journal brings us to new areas and issues in this course. First, it introduces us to the colony of New Jersey. New Jersey was founded initially as feudal colony, something like a medieval barony under Sir Edmund Plowden. In 1664, the Duke of York granted what was then called "Nova Caesaria" to Lord John Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, in a structure that provided for religious freedom, an appointive governor and council, and an elective assembly. In the 1670s, Quakers led by William Penn got Berkeley's share, and West Jersey became a haven for spiritual pilgrims and economic adventurers. East Jersey, first a proprietary colony and then a royal colony, was mostly Puritan, with towns (including Shrewsbury, Perth, Amboy, Middletown, Elizabethtown, and Woodbridge) that integrated church and civil governments.

West Jersey, on the other hand, was predominantly Quaker, since William Penn was a follower of George Fox, and took an active role in promoting Quaker settlement there. Like "Puritan," "Quaker" was initially a derogatory term, referring to people who shook in church. Early Quakers referred to themselves as Friends, or as the Society of Friends. Their faith grew out of the radical wings of reformers within the English church. Founded by George Fox (1624-91), Quakerism extends Puritanism's distrust of sacramentalism and hierarchy. The central issue in early Quaker religion was the indwelling of the Spirit, the immanent Word of Light and Life in people's hearts. They believed that the Holy Spirit dwelled within individuals, as a direct revelation of Christ to the soul.

Consequently, their approach to Scripture was slightly different. They believed that the Bible was important, but also believed that all people had an inward Word through the indwelling of the Spirit. Early Friends also strove to purify their language, striving to remove human obstructions that might interfere with the transmission of the inward Word.

Early Friends tried to awaken people to the light present in themselves, though later Friends put less emphasis on proselytizing. They were perfectionist in their ethics--they believed that the indwelling Holy Spirit made it possible for people to overcome the problems of the body, sin, and death and to live in accordance with God’s will. They took the Sermon on the Mount, with its emphasis on love and nonresistance, as the primary statement of God’s will. They also emphasized the unifying power of God's presence; they had a very strong sense of community, and often relied on consensus to make community decisions. They also believed in equality without respect to race, class, gender. There was no formally educated Quaker ministry; instead, anyone at a Quaker meeting could stand up and speak if he or she had a motion of the Spirit to do so. Quakers also emphasized "the simplicity of truth" and thus advocated plain dress and plain living.

Quakers were also pacifists. They refused military service and generally dissociated themselves from violent methods of social control and social change. Later Quakers worked to reform prisons and care for mentally ill, and were very important in the anti-slavery movement, among the first to speak out against slavery. John Woolman (1720-1772) was one of the first of Quaker abolitionists, at a time when even many Friends owned slaves. Because of Woolman’s influence as an abolitionist, John Greenleaf Whittier prepared an edited and abridged version of Woolman’s Journal in the nineteenth century.

As you read Woolman’s Journal, think about how Woolman shapes his autobiography. How does he explain his reasons for writing? What issues does he emphasize? What does he omit? Note any incidents that seem to be especially significant in Woolman’s account. Is this a spiritual autobiography, and if so, why? To what extent does Woolman represent abolition as a spiritual issue, rather than a political one? What persuasive techniques does Woolman use to convince those he meets that slavery is wrong? Does he use similar techniques as he addresses his reader? In other words, how does he envision his relationship with his reader? More broadly, how is this autobiography similar to and different from autobiographical texts you’ve read earlier in the term?

Consider also Woolman’s approach to language and speech. What value does he place on human language, and on his role as a speaker or writer? Pay particular attention to Woolman’s descriptions of instances in which he speaks in public and instances in which he experiences revelatory dreams or visions. What roles do speech and language play in these visions?