The years that marked the transition from America’s colonial era to that of the early national period were also the years of greatest Presbyterian growth in American history. From 1788, when the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America adopted its constitution, until the schism between the Old and New Schools in 1837, the denomination witnessed more than a tenfold increase in membership. Although Methodists and Baptists experienced even higher rates of growth, Presbyterianism expanded dramatically in the young nation. Presbyterian beliefs and practices thrived in the land of liberty.^[1]

Speaking of liberty, it is noteworthy that these same years witnessed contrasting developments in the broader Atlantic world: the abolition of the slave trade and later emancipation of enslaved persons in the British colonies, but not in the newly liberated American nation.

In England, under the leadership of figures like Thomas Clarkson and William Wilberforce, abolitionist efforts led to the formation of the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade in 1787. In 1807 Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act, which made it illegal for British ships and British subjects to engage in the Atlantic slave trade. Enslaved persons in the British colonies finally were emancipated in 1834, when the Slavery Abolition Act of the previous year took effect, although many remained bound in apprenticeship until 1838. All of this took place decades earlier than the nationwide abolition of slavery in America, which did not occur until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865.^[2]

The historical reality is that the American experiment with liberty has always been a mixed bag.

The same is true of Presbyterian approaches to slavery. Many Presbyterian leaders in the 18th century, like many of their colonial fellows, took the system of enslavement for granted and themselves enslaved people. At the same time, over the course of the 1700s, a growing number of Presbyterian theologians and leaders came to challenge slavery on theological and moral grounds. The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America also issued statements and adopted policies criticizing slavery before the nation took decisive action.

In addition to these voices and actions, early African American Presbyterians themselves established churches and ministries within and alongside the denomination. They not only played a significant role in the American Presbyterian Church, but also laid groundwork for later abolition efforts and broader African American religious and social advancement over the course of the 19th century.

Thus, the history of American Presbyterianism reflects broader tensions within the American experiment with liberty. This study examines these developments through three interrelated themes: early Presbyterian theological approaches to slavery, early Presbyterian church actions regarding slavery, and the enduring legacy of early African American Presbyterians.

Early Presbyterian Theological Approaches to Slavery

Most early American Presbyterians held high views of Scripture and the Westminster Standards, but these shared commitments did not lead to a uniform approach to slavery during the 18th century. Because Scripture both regulates slavery (particularly in the Old Testament and in the New Testament’s instructions to slaves and masters) and affirms the equal dignity and moral accountability of all people as bearers of the image of God, Presbyterians differed over how these biblical teachings should be reconciled and applied. The absence of significant engagement with slavery in the Westminster Standards permitted debate as well as diverse and fluid views regarding the institution.^[3]

Many early Presbyterians thus assumed the permissibility of slaveholding, and some explicitly defended it. Others advocated limits or restraints on masters but did not call for outright emancipation. Many regarded slavery as an unfortunate consequence of life in a fallen world, believing that the institution would gradually disappear through the spread of Christian influence. Over the course of the century, however, some Presbyterians began to move beyond arguments for more humane treatment of the enslaved and gradual reform to argue that slavery itself ought to end.^[4] By the end of the century, the institution had become a matter of significant controversy among Presbyterians, just as it had within the new American republic more broadly.

These complexities are illustrated by some of the most well-known early American Presbyterians.

Francis Makemie often is considered among the founders of American Presbyterianism for his role in organizing some of the first congregations, establishing the first American presbytery in 1706, and advancing religious toleration through the prosecution of his case for religious liberty in New York. He also actively participated in the slaveholding society of the colonial Atlantic world. His years and wealth generated in Barbados in the 1690s benefited from an economy dependent on enslaved labor, his estate in Virginia included enslaved persons, and his 1708 will directed the distribution of 33 enslaved persons. He was not alone.^[5]

Samuel Davies, the fourth president of the College of New Jersey (later Princeton University) and another prominent early Presbyterian, also enslaved people, as indicated by his correspondence and sermons. At the same time, during the 1740s and 1750s, he preached to enslaved Africans, encouraged masters to permit their attendance in worship, and defended their right to receive Christian instruction. He noted the participation of enslaved persons in his services, and he praised their attentiveness to Scripture and the sincerity of their faith.

In one sermon, he even reminded white Virginians that distinctions of “country, colour, liberty or slavery” did not determine standing before God and that slaves and masters possessed equally “immortal” souls.^[6] Yet this did not lead him to advocate for immediate emancipation, but merely to encourage Christians to exercise religious responsibility within the existing institution of slavery. On the one hand, his ministry challenged some prevailing assumptions about slavery, but on the other hand, he accommodated the social order of colonial Virginia.^[7]

John Witherspoon left a similarly mixed legacy. Witherspoon is known for his prominence as a lecturer and as president of the College of New Jersey, the only member of the clergy to sign the Declaration of Independence, and an important leader in the formation of the PCUSA and the adoption of revisions to the Westminster Confession in 1788. He also affirmed the natural equality of humanity and supported the eventual abolition of slavery through gradual emancipation, though he did not live long enough to participate in the New Jersey Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery. While still ministering in Scotland, he personally baptized an enslaved person named Jamie Montgomery, which later aided Montgomery’s appeal for civil freedom after his self-emancipation. At the College of New Jersey, he offered private instruction to free Black students. In 1790, while serving in the New Jersey General Assembly, he participated in the consideration of petitions calling for the abolition of slavery. The committee report he helped to produce affirmed the desirability and legality of gradual abolition, though it did not support immediate abolition.^[8]

He nevertheless owned enslaved persons, according to both tax records and an inventory of his estate prepared after his death.^[9] Witherspoon’s antislavery views thus coexisted with his participation in the institution, making his life another example of tension between theological principles and personal practices.^[10]

One stream of influence that contributed to changing Presbyterian approaches to slavery came from the “New Divinity” associated with the successors of Jonathan Edwards. Theologians like Samuel Hopkins and Jonathan Edwards, Jr. argued that slavery was fundamentally incompatible with divine law, emphasizing the moral agency of all people, love of neighbor, and disinterested benevolence.^[11] Their arguments moved beyond appeals to humane treatment or gradual reform to insist that slavery itself ought to be abolished.^[12] This emphasis on universal moral agency, however, was intertwined with controversial revisions to Reformed theological categories.

New Divinity theologians drew upon the traditional distinction between natural and moral ability to develop rigorous accounts of universal moral accountability.^[13] Yet the theological function they assigned to natural ability could blur the distinction between the faculties necessary for temporal civic agency and the spiritual ability necessary for salvation.^[14] Theologians from Joseph Bellamy to Timothy Dwight and, most radically, Nathaniel Williams Taylor also raised questions about the federal headship of Adam, human agency in salvation, the guilt of original sin, and substitutionary atonement.^[15] Thus, the same theological tradition that supplied new resources for opposition to slavery also reformulated traditional Reformed theological categories in ways that created tensions concerning human ability, sin, and salvation.

Although these influences were important, they were not the only views that shaped Presbyterian advocacy for abolitionism. It is notable that one of the most uncompromising Presbyterian critics of slavery in the early years of the 19th century was similarly steadfast in his commitment to traditional Reformed doctrine. George Bourne was a minister serving in Virginia. He rejected the gradualist approach to slavery’s abolition as morally inadequate.

In his influential 1816 treatise, “The Book and Slavery Irreconcilable,” he argued that slaveholding itself was a public sin. No characteristic or circumstance could justify ownership of another human being, no matter how benevolent the master claimed to be. Because Presbyterian churches practiced church discipline of members guilty of public offenses, Bourne argued that slaveholders should be disciplined as well.^[16]

Bourne’s arguments provoked fierce opposition. Many fellow ministers agreed that slavery was undesirable but regarded his demands for ecclesiastical discipline as unnecessarily divisive. Others defended slavery outright as a biblically permissible institution. Given this diversity, the handling of Bourne’s teaching illustrates the limits of acceptable Presbyterian views in the early 19th century.

In 1818, the Presbyterian church eventually upheld the 1815 decision of Lexington Presbytery to depose Bourne from the ministry, formally charging him with accusing ministers “respecting their treatment of slaves” and for making “unwarrantable and unchristian” accusations against church members for similar offenses (in addition to some later charges added as the case unfolded). Bourne’s deposition not only indicates the limits on the acceptability of uncompromising abolitionist views within the Presbyterian church at that time — it also demonstrates that those who claimed to hold similar theological standards nevertheless came to sharply different ethical conclusions.

In 1830, Presbyterian theological perspectives regarding slavery remained deeply divided. Defenders of slavery, gradual emancipation advocates, and abolitionists all claimed fidelity to Scripture and the Westminster Standards. Their disagreements centered not on the authority of the Bible but on how it should be interpreted and applied in a society where slaveholding was legal and deeply culturally and economically embedded in the social fabric. These theological debates in turn influenced the policies adopted by the Presbyterian church courts, where moral conviction also intersected with regard for church unity, concerns reflecting regional diversity, and disputes about church authority.

Early Presbyterian Church Actions Regarding Slavery

The early actions of American Presbyterian bodies illustrate both theological diversity and development in American Presbyterian approaches to slavery. From the colonial period through the early 19th century, synods, presbyteries, and the General Assembly increasingly recognized slavery as a moral problem, yet they rarely treated slaveholding itself as grounds for church discipline. It is fair to describe the big picture as one of increasing openness to moral criticism of slavery combined with ongoing institutional caution regarding moral enforcement.

Nevertheless, the Revolutionary years did mark a changing of the tide. For most of the 18th century, Presbyterian church courts were preoccupied with organizing congregations, equipping ministers, and resolving disputes over revivalism and church government. Furthermore, American Presbyterian churches and their higher courts were spread out across some regions where slavery remained central to society and others where the institution was in decline. As Presbyterians struggled to establish church life in America in the 18th century, there was little collective impetus to address the issue for these and other reasons.

The American Revolution contributed to newfound attention on slavery. Inspired by the era’s language of liberty, the Synod of New York and Philadelphia issued one of the earliest American Presbyterian formal statements on the institution in 1787. They proclaimed that they “do highly approve the general principles in favour of universal liberty, that prevail in America.” They also declared their recommendation “to all peoples to use the most prudent measures… to procure eventually the final abolition of slavery in America.”^[17] The Synod thus encouraged members to support gradual emancipation, treat enslaved persons with justice and compassion, and (elsewhere) to offer religious instruction and moral improvement to enslaved persons in order to prepare them for eventual freedom. It stopped well short, however, of declaring slaveholding itself a disciplinary offense. The appeal to prudence left considerable discretion to local churches.

The creation of the General Assembly in 1789 meant the establishment of a national body capable of addressing slavery more comprehensively. In 1792 the Assembly approved the formation of a committee to append additional proof texts to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. Apparently, one of the additions related to Question 142 of the Westminster Larger Catechism, where proof texts related to “man-stealing” were added, along with a note identifying “man-stealers” as those who brought a person into slavery, retained, sold, or purchased them.^[18]

On the other hand, in 1795 the Assembly responded to an overture arising in Transylvania Presbytery in Kentucky as to whether a congregation must maintain Christian fellowship with members who owned enslaved persons. In resolving the case, the Assembly declined to make slaveholding a bar to communion or membership, urging “forbearance and moderation” between those who differed on the subject.^[19]

In 1801, the Plan of Union between Presbyterians and Congregationalists increased both the theological and regional diversity of the denomination. The goal was the promotion of evangelization on the American frontier (western New York, Ohio, and the Old Northwest extending from present-day Ohio to portions of Minnesota). The emphasis on evangelization drew upon energy from both the revivalist influences and theological proclivities of New England Congregationalism. Looking back in 1837, later partisans of the controversy between the “Old School” and “New School” lamented that the Plan of Union weakened Presbyterian polity and confessional theological commitments. At the same time, the Union arguably also strengthened Presbyterian opposition to the institution of slavery.^[20]

The General Assembly of 1818 issued the strongest official American Presbyterian statement on slavery prior to the Civil War. The Assembly declared that “voluntary enslaving one part of the human race by another” violated “the most precious and sacred rights of human nature.” The same Assembly condemned the separation of families, the denial of education, and the treatment of human beings as property. It also encouraged Presbyterian church members to work for the “complete abolition” of slavery “throughout Christendom, and if possible throughout the world.”^[21]

And yet, the meaning of these declarations remained contested. Abolitionists could cite the words as evidence that the church had formally recognized slavery as morally wrong. Slaveholding Presbyterians could emphasize the gradualism of the statement and the reticence of the General Assembly in the George Bourne case to make slaveholding a disciplinary offense. Not only that, but the aforementioned Scripture proofs related to man-stealing, together with the explanatory note, were ordered removed from the Westminster Larger Catechism in 1816, further evidence of toleration for slavery.^[22] Both sides could appeal to evidence in favor of their preferred views.

These theological disagreements were amplified within a Presbyterian polity in which authority was shared among church sessions, presbyteries, synods, and the General Assembly. National statements did not necessarily indicate or lead to uniform local practices. Congregations interpreted denominational statements according to their own regional and economic circumstances.

Formal church actions not only could be received in different ways, but they also intersected with other institutional efforts. The most significant to mention in this context was the American Colonization Society, founded in 1816 to promote the emigration of free Black Americans to West Africa. The ACS contributed to the founding of Liberia and the emigration of approximately 11,000 Black Americans prior to the Civil War, which represented far less than one percent of the Black Americans living in the United States at the time.^[23] Abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison, who supported the Society early on before becoming a prominent critic, pointed out that colonization was hardly a feasible way to avoid the social integration of Black Americans, and figures like Frederick Douglass rejected the claim that Black and white Americans could not coexist as equals and opposed efforts to compel Black Americans to leave the United States.^[24]

Nevertheless, influential Presbyterians like Archibald Alexander and Samuel Miller viewed the colonization effort as a practical means of encouraging gradual emancipation while avoiding the social upheaval they associated with immediate abolition.^[25] The Presbyterian General Assembly formally endorsed the American Colonization Society on numerous occasions in the 1820s and 1830s.^[26] This support indicates the denomination’s continuing preference for gradualism over immediate abolition in these years. It also raises questions related to wisdom and motivations.

At the same time, by the 1830s growing abolitionist pressure exposed deep regional divisions within the Presbyterian church. Generally speaking, Northern leaders in the church were more open to public opposition to slavery and Southern leaders were less so. Although slavery was not the formal cause of the Old School–New School division in 1837, tensions related to slavery intersected with and intensified debates over revivalism, church government, voluntary societies and the Plan of Union. Both sides included slaveholders and critics of slavery, but the schism created separate ecclesiastical structures in which sectional disagreements deepened in the years leading to the Civil War.

The institutional history of early American Presbyterianism mirrored the historical development of its theology. The church increasingly acknowledged slavery as a moral evil, but its reluctance to discipline slaveholders preserved broad diversity within its pews. This reluctance left a complicated legacy for African American Presbyterians. They encountered a church that proclaimed the spiritual dignity of every believer but often failed to practice what it preached.

Early African American Presbyterians and Their Legacy

African American encounters with Presbyterianism in the colonial and early national eras were similarly diverse. Black Christians participated in the tradition as enslaved converts, free church members, ministers, educators, community leaders, and in many other roles. Their relationships with Presbyterian theology also varied. Some embraced Reformed doctrines and Presbyterian distinctives alongside their opposition to slavery and pursuit of liberty; others selectively appropriated the tradition while questioning certain doctrines, practices, and structures. Yet others concluded that Presbyterian churches failed to embody the principles it professed, which led some to seek greener church pastures elsewhere. The history of early African American Presbyterians therefore reflects the same complexity charted above. Their tradition was one capable of spiritual empowerment but also one that frequently allowed and even perpetuated institutional exclusion.

Presbyterian commitment to the evangelization of enslaved Africans expanded during the Great Awakening. Despite his paternalism and other faults noted above, Samuel Davies believed enslaved persons possessed the same spiritual capacities as other believers and should receive Christian instruction. His ministry in Virginia and beyond demonstrated that enslaved Africans could worship as committed Christians in Presbyterian congregations. His preaching attracted large numbers of enslaved converts, and he appealed to their knowledge of Scripture and growth in holiness as signs of genuine Christian faith.

For enslaved Presbyterians, however, conversion did not eliminate the realities of bondage. Participation in a church that affirmed spiritual equality did not necessarily translate to the practice of spiritual equality, nor did it provide protection from exploitation. Enslaved believers often worshipped in segregated spaces, remained under the hierarchical authority of white elders and masters, and had little opportunity to exercise leadership. In a society that treated some Christians as property, and in churches that refused to challenge this status quo directly, claims that all Christians are “brethren” could sound pretty hollow.

Nevertheless, many African Americans embraced and appropriated Presbyterian teaching and applied it to their lives and circumstances. Reformed theology’s enthusiastic articulation of divine sovereignty provided hope and assurance. Human suffering existed under divine authority and was not outside God’s control. God promised to judge evil deeds and to vindicate his people from their oppressors. Biblical teaching on covenant community offered a theological vision that challenged the social inequalities of slavery. Presbyterian commitments to literacy, catechetical instruction, and the dedicated pursuit of Christian holiness and growth in the Christian life also created opportunities for education, spiritual and otherwise. Many Black Christians viewed these educational efforts as crucial building blocks of individual and communal improvement.

Several individual voices deserve highlighting, including John Gloucester. Gloucester was born in Tennessee in 1776, the same year the American colonies signed the Declaration of Independence. He grew up enslaved, but his freedom was purchased by the Presbyterian missionary, church planter, and future college president Gideon Blackburn.

After studying at Greeneville College (now Tusculum University) he was licensed to preach in 1807 and moved with Blackburn to Philadelphia to establish First African Presbyterian Church. His early evangelistic efforts were very fruitful, the work grew, and he was ordained to pastor the church in 1810, making him the first ordained African American minister in the Presbyterian church.^[27]

Gloucester firmly embraced traditional Presbyterian and Reformed doctrine. Though Philadelphia was a hotbed for the establishment of other African American denominations, he also remained deeply committed to the Presbyterian Church throughout his life. All four of his sons even went on to become Presbyterian ministers. He also was deeply opposed to the institution of slavery. While he did not advocate for immediate abolition, he did mentor a future generation of abolitionists in his church. This included Samuel Cornish, who went on to co-found Freedom‘s Journal (the first Black-owned newspaper in America) and the American Anti-Slavery Society. His sons worked to establish anti-slavery societies in the 1830s and 1840s, and Stephen Gloucester served on the Underground Railroad.

John Chavis was another of the earliest African Americans to become a Presbyterian preacher. He was born free around 1763 and served during the Revolutionary War in the 5th Virginia Regiment. After the war, he pursued an education through Presbyterian institutions, notably studying under John Blair Smith, a Presbyterian minister and president of Hampden-Sydney College, John Witherspoon at the College of New Jersey, and the Presbyterian William Graham at Liberty Hall Academy (now Washington and Lee University). In 1800, the Presbytery of Lexington licensed Chavis to preach, and he went on to serve for six years as a missionary and circuit rider before settling in Raleigh, North Carolina, where he established a renowned academy for classical education. He taught until 1832, when the North Carolina General Assembly passed sweeping legislation that prohibited all Black people from preaching publicly and restricted their ability to teach. He continued to write theological essays until his death in 1838.^[28]

Chavis’ approach to slavery was complex. In private correspondence, he expressed opposition to slavery and racism, but his accommodationist approach carefully avoided advocacy for abolition. Harsh North Carolina law imposed severe penalties for any act likely to incite rebellion among enslaved or free Black people, including whipping, imprisonment, and — for certain subsequent offenses — death. But Chavis’ public writing did not merely avoid the topic, for in 1836 he wrote a letter in opposition to abolition, arguing that Congress had no right to vote away the property of slaveholders.

Chavis did not express full-throated support for Presbyterian doctrine either. In 1837 he published a notable work entitled “Chavis’s Letter Upon the Extent of the Atonement of Christ,” which was based upon an earlier essay he submitted to his presbytery. The treatise rejected Presbyterian doctrines related to the atonement and divine decrees, affirming instead Arminian distinctives including universal atonement and election based on divine foreknowledge. Nevertheless, Chavis left a remarkable spiritual and intellectual legacy through missionary preaching and the school he established.^[29]

Finally, the theological approach to slavery of Theodore Sedgwick Wright also deserves mention. In 1828 Wright became the first African American to graduate from Princeton Theological Seminary and was ordained by the Presbyterian Church in 1829. His ministry as pastor of the First Colored Presbyterian Church in New York City was characterized by a commitment to Presbyterian and Reformed doctrine as well as more overt abolitionist activism. Alongside Samuel Cornish, he was one of the first African Americans elected to lead the American Anti-Slavery Society upon its founding in 1833.^[30]

Wright’s commitment to Presbyterianism remained strong throughout his life. His conviction of the moral agency of all human beings created in the image of God led him to critique the institution of slavery, the prejudice of the church, and the revivalistic efforts of his day. In one particularly memorable address, he declared that because “slavery cuts off the colored portion of the community from religious privileges, men are made infidels. What, they demand, is your Christianity? How do you regard your brethren? How do you treat them at the Lord’s table? Where is your consistency in talking about the heathen; traversing the ocean to circulate the Bible every where, while you frown upon them at the door? These things meet us and weigh down our spirits.”^[31]

In another address, he lamented that his Presbyterian tradition fell behind other theological traditions — including Roman Catholics and Quakers -– and even the political machine in Tammany Hall in faithfully living out the biblical and theological principles of human equality that Presbyterians claimed to uphold.

“I know of many men who turn away from Christ on this account,” he lamented. “They inquire, naturally, ‘Can this be the religion of Jesus Christ?’” ^[32] Wright’s approach combined firm adherence to the Presbyterian commitments he learned at Princeton Theological Seminary with an equally firm commitment to immediate abolitionism.

These brief sketches of three early African American Presbyterian leaders represent only a fraction of the full story. That said, they do give a clear sense of the diversity that existed within African American Presbyterianism from the beginning on both why and how to approach the question of slavery. Some embraced Presbyterianism because of its emphasis on Scripture, divine sovereignty, education, and a disciplined Christian life. Others maintained commitments to Presbyterian doctrine, worship, and polity while criticizing the tradition’s failures. Others selectively appropriated or even challenged specific features of the tradition. Still others departed for other denominations or left the faith altogether. Like American Presbyterians more broadly, the approaches of African American Presbyterians were diverse and sometimes conflicting, a fact sadly obscured by lopsided and selective versions of the history.

More importantly, these vignettes also indicate that African American Presbyterians made significant contributions to American religious life and the Presbyterian theological tradition despite the limitations placed upon them. They served as ministers, educators, abolitionists, congregational leaders, and in countless other roles. As they lived out their faith, they also challenged both slavery and racial inequality. Their story demonstrates that Presbyterianism was a tradition they actively interpreted and reshaped. The history considered here therefore suggests that opposition to slavery did not require Presbyterians to move away from their theological inheritance, though some did. It did require taking that inheritance more seriously and following its implications further than the Presbyterian church was generally willing to go.

---

The complete series can be found here.

Drew Martin is an associate professor of systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary.

1. Robert Ellis Thompson, A History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1895), 77, 93, 126; Alfred Nevin, History of the Presbytery of Philadelphia and of the Philadelphia Central (Philadelphia: W. S. Fortescue and Co., 1888), vii. ↑
2. Seymour Drescher, Abolition: A History of Slavery and Antislavery (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009). ↑
3. Sean Michael Lucas, “Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Presbyterianism in North America,” in The Oxford Handbook of Presbyterianism, ed. Gary Scott Smith and P. C. Kemeny (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 50–71. Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 142, does address “man-stealing,” on which see below. ↑
4. William Harrison Taylor and Peter C. Messer, eds., Faith and Slavery in the Presbyterian Diaspora (Lanham, MD: Lehigh University Press, 2016). ↑
5. Boyd S. Schlenther, The Life and Writings of Francis Makemie (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Historical Society, 1971). ↑
6. Samuel Davies, The Duty of Masters to their Servants: In a Sermon, by the Late Reverend, Pious, and Learned, Samuel Davies, of Hanover County, Virginia (Lynchburg, VA: William W. Gray, 1809 [1757]), 10, 17. ↑
7. George William Pilcher, Samuel Davies: Apostle of Dissent in Colonial Virginia (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1971). Jeffrey H. Richards, “Samuel Davies and the Transatlantic Campaign for Slave Literacy in Virginia,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 111, no. 4 (2003): 333–378. ↑
8. Kevin DeYoung, “John Witherspoon and Slavery,” Theology Today 80, no. 4 (2024): 355–368. ↑
9. Sean Wilentz, “John Witherspoon and the Abolitionist Travail,” Theology Today 80, no. 4 (2024): 334–354. ↑
10. Lesa Redmond, “John Witherspoon and Slavery: Ideology versus Praxis,” Theology Today 80, no. 4 (2024): 383–394. ↑
11. See Samuel Hopkins, A Dialogue Concerning the Slavery of the Africans (1776); Jonathan Edwards, Jr., The Injustice and Impolicy of the Slave Trade and of the Slavery of the Africans (1791). Both may be found in Julia Jorati, ed., Slavery in Early Modern Philosophy, 1765-1800: Essential Readings (New York: Oxford University Press, 2025). ↑
12. David S. Lovejoy, “Samuel Hopkins: Religion, Slavery, and the Revolution,” The New England Quarterly 40, no. 2 (1967): 227–243; John T. Lowe, “Abolitionism as an Expression of Benevolence in Edwardsean Thought,” Jonathan Edwards Studies 12, nos. 1–2 (2022), 18-27. ↑
13. See John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, 2 vols. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), II.II.2-5 (pp. 256-62), especially his qualified approval of the medieval formula that in the fall the natural gifts are corrupted and the supernatural gifts are lost in II.II.4 (p. 258) [cf. II.II.12 (p. 270)], II.III.5-6 (pp. 294-98); Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., 3 vols., (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992-1997), 10.4.4 (I.669), where Turretin distinguishes between the “natural power or faculty of the will” which remains after the fall from the “moral disposition” to willing well which does not. ↑
14. See Paul Lim and Drew Martin, “Reformed Theology in North America,” in The Oxford Handbook of Reformed Theology, ed. Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 158-59; cf. E. Brooks Holifield, Theology in America: Theology from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 58, 264. ↑
15. See Joseph Bellamy, True Religion Delineated; or Experimental Religion, as Distinguished from Formality on the One Hand, and Enthusiasm on the Other (Boston: S. Kneeland, 1750); Timothy Dwight, Theology Explained and Defended, in a Series of Sermons, 5 vols. (Middletown, CT: Clark and Lyman, 1818-19); Nathaniel W. Taylor, Essays on the Means of Regeneration, First Published in the Quarterly Christian Spectator, for 1829 (New Haven: Baldwin and Treadway, 1829); idem, Lectures on the Moral Government of God, 2 vols. (New York: Clark, Austin & Smith, 1859). ↑
16. Ryan C. McIlhenny, To Preach Deliverance to the Captives: Freedom and Slavery in the Protestant Mind of George Bourne, 1780–1845 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2020). ↑
17. Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., Records of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America: Embracing the Minutes of the General Presbytery and General Synod, 1706–1788, Together with an Index and the Minutes of the General Convention for Religious Liberty, 1766–1775 (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1904), 540. ↑
18. Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, from its Organization from A.D. 1789 to A.D. 1820 Inclusive (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1847), 59, 66. ↑
19. Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, from its Organization, 1789-1820, 103 ↑
20. George M. Marsden, The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience: A Case Study of Thought and Theology in Nineteenth-Century America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970); Molly Oshatz, Slavery and Sin: The Fight against Slavery and the Rise of Liberal Protestantism in Antebellum America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). ↑
21. Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, from its Organization, 1789-1820, 692. ↑
22. Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, from its Organization, 1789-1820, 630. Note: the Assembly did formally disclaim this motivation. ↑
23. Eric Burin, Slavery and the Peculiar Solution: A History of the American Colonization Society (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2005), 169-74. Some accounts of the numbers vary slightly (by less than a few thousand) depending on the dates considered. ↑
24. Ousmane K. Power-Greene, Against Wind and Tide: The African American Struggle against the Colonization Movement (New York: New York University Press, 2014), 48–55, 115–16; William Lloyd Garrison, Thoughts on African Colonization: Or, An Impartial Exhibition of the Doctrines, Principles and Purposes of the American Colonization Society (Boston: Garrison and Knapp, 1832); Frederick Douglass, “On the American Colonization Society,” The Liberator, June 8, 1849. ↑
25. G. S. Mikoski, “Partial Iconoclasm: John Witherspoon’s Presbyterian (Political) Theology and Slavery,” Theology Today, 80, no. 4 (2024): 410, n. 7. ↑
26. Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, from its Organization, 1789-1820, 692. Minutes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America from A.D. 1821 to A.D. 1835 Inclusive (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1847), 88, 92-3, 154, 180, 307, 332, 365-66, 411. ↑
27. William T. Catto, A Semi-Centenary Discourse Delivered in the First African Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, on the Fourth Sabbath of May, 1857: With a History of the Church from Its First Organization, Including a Brief Notice of Rev. John Gloucester, Its First Pastor (Philadelphia: Joseph M. Wilson, 1857); Aston Gonzalez, “Embodying Activism, Bearing Witness: The Portraits of Early African American Ministers in Philadelphia,” in African American Literature in Transition, 1800–1830, ed. Jasmine Nichole Cobb (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 288–315. ↑
28. Benjamin R. Justesen, “John Chavis: Quiet Leader of an Early Revolution,” in North Carolina’s Revolutionary Founders, ed. Jeff Broadwater and Troy L. Kickler (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2019), 257–78. ↑
29. Redmond, “John Witherspoon and Slavery: Ideology versus Praxis,” 391-94. ↑
30. David E. Swift, “Black Presbyterian Attacks on Racism: Samuel Cornish, Theodore Wright and Their Contemporaries,” Journal of Presbyterian History 51, no. 4 (Winter 1973): 433–470; David Brandon Smith, “‘Did You Ever See an Abolitionist without Prayer?’ The Resonance of the Question and Prosopopoeia in Theodore Sedgwick Wright’s Public Addresses from 1834 to 1837,” International Journal of Homiletics 9, no. 1 (2026): 89–106. ↑
31. See Theodore S. Wright, “Speech regarding the negative effects of prejudice on people of all races in terms of self-esteem issues, and educational and moral advancement,” Colored American, July 8, 1837. This address notably appeals to both theological grounds (universal moral agency and the image of God) to support all three critical points (problems in society, the church, and revivals). See also Theodore S. Wright, “Speech given before the New York State Anti-Slavery Society on the acceptance and adoption of the annual report with emphasis placed on the efforts toward emancipation that the society had accomplished since its inception,” Herald of Freedom, November 4, 1837. Accessible at https://libraries.udmercy.edu/archives/special-collections. ↑
32. Theodore S. Wright, “Speech made in support of a resolution that all civil liberties (including religious, literary, and social liberty) should be made available to all persons regardless of race,” New York Evangelist, November 4, 1837 [note: the archive record includes an additional, erroneous, date for this document]. Accessible at https://libraries.udmercy.edu/archives/special-collections. ↑