![]() |
Icon of George Keith (L) and John Talbot (R) displayed at the diocesan headquarters in Trenton, New Jersey. The Greek to the right of Talbot is translated “The Holy John.” Photo by Jolyon Pruszinski. |
One of the earliest priests installed in New Jersey was the Rev. John Talbot, who, together with the Rev. George Keith, worked to plant and sustain many of the earliest congregations in the colony. He served most consistently at St. Mary’s Burlington, where he resided and served in his later years, until his death in 1727.[1] Talbot was best known as a well-established priest who appears to have sought to become the bishop of the colonies through debatably reputable channels.[2] And while the latter years of his priestly service were tarnished by allegations of seeking, and claiming, dubious episcopal authority, he should also be known as an enslaver. This source of his wealth and his practice of enslavement is typically glossed over by church historians, taking a cue from contemporaneous avoidance of the topic. The Rev. Nathaniel Horwood, who immediately followed Talbot in Burlington, insisted that few residents of Burlington owned slaves, and that though some Anglicans in Burlington did enslave Black people, for the most part their servants were white.[3] This articulation of the situation seems to strain to avoid the fact that the wealth of many Anglican Burlington families was tied to plantation ownership (and enslavement) in other locations, particularly the West Indies. Talbot was among those with significant West Indies holdings, as is shown by legal documentation from the time. In her last will and testament, which came into effect only three years after the death of Rev. John Talbot, the widow Mrs. Talbot bequeathed to her children at least seven enslaved persons, most of whom were enslaved in the West Indies.[4] The avoidant treatment of this practice of enslavement has been perpetuated by Episcopal historians, including Nelson Burr,[5] who repeats Horwood’s characterization of Anglican enslavement in Burlington uncritically even as he was aware of the documentary evidence of Talbot’s practice of slavery.[5]
Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski, Ph.D.
Reparations Commission Research Historian
Episcopal Diocese of New Jersey
[1] Robert W. Duncan, Jr., “A Study of the Ministry of John Talbot in New Jersey, 1702-1727: On ‘Great Ripeness,’ Much Dedication, and Regrettable Failure,” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 42.3 (1973): 233-256.
[2] Nelson Burr, The Anglican Church in New Jersey (Philadelphia: The Church Historical Society, 1954), 643-44.
[3] Horwood to the SPG Secretary, from Burlington, April 22, 1728 (SPG Correspondence Letter Book A, Vol. 21, pp. 327-331): https://britishonlinearchives.com/collections/11/volumes/37/the-a-series-letter-books-1702-1737. He writes “There are no large plantations hereabout, so yt ye substance of ye inhabitants does consist in negroes slaves but in trade, they keeping only white servants generally, & they few that keep negroes not about one to a family…”
[4] Anne Talbot, “The Will of Mrs. Talbot,” in George M. Hills, History of the Church in Burlington, New Jersey (Trenton, NJ: William S. Sharp, 1876), 246-47.
[5] But also Robert Duncan in “A Study of the Ministry of John Talbot in New Jersey, 1702-1727.” Duncan, like Burr, is aware of the documentation in Hills’ History of the Church in Burlington.
[6] Burr, The Anglican Church in New Jersey, 225: “Horwood observed that there were no large plantations about the town and therefore few Negro slaves, and that the people were mostly traders and kept white servants.” It is clear from other citations that he is aware of the material reproduced in Hills’ History of the Church in Burlington (See Burr, The Anglican Church in New Jersey, 667-68).