NPR: "Reconsidering The Pilgrims, Piety And America's Founding Principles"

Here. A taste:

Historians, however, have disputed the extent to which the Pilgrims can be counted as among America's founding fathers.

"This is one little pocket of colonial America," says John Fea of Messiah College in Mechanicsburg, Penn. He has written widely on America's early religious history.

"It's hard to make the same argument if you're studying Virginia or Pennsylvania or the Carolinas or Georgia," Fea says. "We've taken that New England model and extrapolated from it over the last 200 or 300 years into some kind of view of the nation as a whole."

Fea notes the absence of any reference to the Bible in either the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution.

"There are a lot of arguments that say, 'This was just in the air. The Bible would have influenced their construction, even though it's never mentioned,'" he says. "But as a historian, I need a smoking gun. Maybe they left it out because they deliberately wanted to leave it out."

George Makari Publishes Long Article about John Locke

In Salon here. A taste:

John Locke didn’t quite fit the Deist mold, for he fully believed in miracles and biblical revelation. Furthermore, while Deists argued that the rational soul with its heavenly heritage could unveil God’s work, Locke’s mind had no such power. Worse, his rejection of innate ideas actually undermined Deism. For if the mind was a net of imperfect associations, prone to prejudice, superstition, and delusion, then it was hardly dominated by a universally endowed right reason, but rather pedestrian, often wrong, reason. Nonetheless, Locke’s ethics echoed some Deist views and attracted its advocates, since he also believed God’s desire was encoded in His design and could be found in natural law.

Among the most prominent of Deists was the Irishman John Toland. In 1696, he penned his Christianity Not Mysterious, a book deeply indebted to Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding. Reason, though deeply vulnerable to deception, was still the only grounds for certitude. Matters of faith should always be rational. Even biblical commandments must stand up to logic before becoming law. Hauled before a grand jury, Toland became notorious. Shunned as a pariah, he ended up homeless and destitute. Thirty years later, incensed believers, still bitter, assaulted his idea that God was an analogy.

In 1707, Locke’s pupil Anthony Collins dared to publish An Essay Concerning the Use of Reason, which denied religious mysteries and revelations, and argued that all morality rested on logic. Another Lockean, John Trenchard, used the master to debunk superstitions, noting how easily the mind could be fooled to worship shadows and clouds as gods. The deistic Matthew Tindal wielded Locke like a whip to demand that reason test all Christian beliefs.

Late 19th Cen. Book on Essex Street Unitarian Church in England

The book is entitled "Centenary of Unitarism in England," Charles H. Brigham - 1874.

I've long written about unitarianism and its impact on the political theology of the American Founding. It's important to distinguish between theological unitarianism and Unitarianism as an "official denomination." Theological unitarianism is old and became en vogue during the Enlightenment, leading to official Unitarianism presenting itself at that later time.

The opening of the Essex Street Chapel in England in 1774 marked the first of its kind: They called themselves Unitarian. The preacher was Theophilus Lindsey. In attendance that day were among others Ben Franklin and Joseph Priestley.

A taste:

Various obstacles had been placed in the way of opening a Chapel with so odious a name. It was intimated that the State would interfere to prevent such sacrilege. The enemies of the Chapel tried to hinder the judges at Westminster from granting license to a house in which the Godhead of Jesus would be denied and the scheme of his Atonement be explained away. Vexatious delays were interposed, and the judges were urged to pause before they authorized a form of Dissent that denied the foundations of dogma as well as the rules of church discipline. When the Chapel was opened, it was really opened without a license, without any written warrant from the authorities of the State. Its preacher might have been arrested, and its doors summarily closed. This fact, nevertheless, did not hinder nearly two hundred persons from coming together in the Upper Room; and it is mentioned that there were about ten coaches at the door; “which I was glad of,” says John Lee, the friend of the modest and glad preacher, “because it gave a degree of respectableness to the congregation in the eyes of the people living thereabouts.” There was a nobleman in the congregation, Lord Despenser, Dr. Franklin was there; and the famous Dr. Priestley; and Dr. Chambers and Dr. Hinchley, and other clergymen of the Establishment.

WND/Charles: "Was Benjamin Franklin a Christian?"

I'm critical enough of World Net Daily when they get their facts wrong as they often do. Joshua Charles seems to get it right here. A taste:

Franklin believed that Jesus had more regard “for the heretical but charitable Samaritan” than for “the uncharitable though orthodox priest and sanctified Levite” (see Luke 10:25–37), and “thought much less of these outward appearances and professions than many of his modern disciples. He preferred the doers of the Word to the mere hearers” (see James 1:22). In response to some of his family members who were concerned about the state of his soul, Franklin responded not by appealing to secular arguments, but like many of the other Founders, to the Bible, which he called “that excellent book.” “I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue; and the Scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined for what we thought, but what we did; and our recommendation will not be that we said Lord! Lord! but that we did good to our fellow creatures. See Matthew 25.”

That's right, Franklin didn't believe in the Protestant doctrine of "Sola Fide" that men are saved through faith or grace alone. But rather that good works/virtue were at the least a component for salvation.

Franklin also didn't affirm orthodox doctrines like the Trinity and Incarnation. Mr. Charles references Franklin's end of life letter to Ezra Stiles noting this.

Hall on Religious Liberty Accomodations

Writing at The Daily Signal, Mark David Hall argues for religious accommodations. A taste:

In the midst of World War II, some schoolchildren refused to salute and pledge allegiance to the American flag for religious reasons. In spite of pleas that state laws requiring these practices were necessary to promote national unity, the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that the First Amendment demanded an exemption for these students. America was still able to win the war.

During Prohibition, religious Americans were permitted to use wine for sacramental purposes. Today, Native Americans are allowed to use the narcotic peyote in religious ceremonies. The abuse of alcohol and drugs has caused great harm, but few would attribute this damage to these accommodations.

In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Supreme Court famously ruled that Amish families could not be forced to violate their religious convictions by sending their children to public schools. Quakers and others are permitted to affirm rather than swear oaths, in spite of concerns that allowing them to do so poses a risk to the integrity of the judicial system.

The short piece mainly argues for such accommodations on policy as opposed to constitutional grounds and that is good because whether the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause, properly understood, guarantees such is a complicated matter contested on grounds that transcend politics. Legal scholars on the Left and Right fall on both sides of this question.

Justice Scalia, Philip Hamburger and Marci Hamilton on the one side (that the Free Exercise Clause doesn't guarantee such accommodations) v.  Justice O'Connor, Douglas Laycock and Michael McConnell on the other (that the FEC does).

I endorse the notion in Smith that the FEC clause does NOT guarantee such accommodations on constitutional grounds. But on policy grounds (statutes, etc.), I support such. Likewise as a libertarian I believe every consenting adult should be able to do peyote regardless of the motivation behind the action.

Tillman: "Justice Jackson’s Biblical Metaphor in Youngstown"

From Seth Barrett Tillman writing at The New Reform Club here. A taste:

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring):

Just what our forefathers did envision, or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh.

Id. at 634 (emphasis added).[1]

As usual, Justice Jackson’s writing is beautiful and engaging. But is his metaphor apt and sensible?

First, Pharoah’s dreams were only enigmatic to Pharoah’s courtiers; Joseph—if we take the text at face value—knew precisely what the dreams meant. Thus, the dreams were not inherently “enigmatic”. Rather, they were only enigmatic to some people. Second, whether Pharoah had dreams (to use the plural) was the core issue being contested. Joseph’s position was that Pharoah only had a “single” dream, not dreams. [Genesis 41:25.] In both these ways, Jackson was wilfully rejecting the plain meaning of the text.

Furthermore, Jackson’s point of view is odd. It was Joseph’s position which (at the time) was adopted by Pharoah’s courtiers: his court. [Genesis 41:37.] In other words, not only is Jackson rejecting plain meaning, Jackson is wilfully choosing to restate the story—not through Joseph’s eyes—but through Pharoah’s courtier’s eyes prior to the time they consented to adopt Joseph’s interpretation. Only in this limited way can Jackson make his biblical metaphor work.

Welcome to modernity.

Yes, this -- "modernity" -- is part of the Whig-Enlightenment history that can revise the biblical narrative to "fit" proper outcomes, like the revisionist notion that the Hebrews had a "republic." (When in actuality, they did not; the idea of a "republic" originated in the Greco-Roman tradition and was eventually adopted into the Judeo-Christian one, with an interesting revisionist tale that sold the idea.)

The Latest Notable Piece Criticizing David Barton

Is found at Salon here. A taste:

David Barton is a self-styled historical revisionist who has made it his life’s work to instill in doctrinaire conservative Evangelicals and fundamentalists that America was founded as an explicitly Christian nation — that, in fact, it was designed to be a theocracy. (The formal term for his belief system is Christian reconstructionist.) He has written books, given speeches, traveled around the world giving advice on history and government, and he is close to many prominent conservative politicians, preachers, pundits and thought leaders. He runs an organization called Wallbuilders which is “dedicated to presenting America’s forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was built.” He is one of the most influential “thinkers” in the conservative movement.

The boldface is mine. 

If what is written in boldface is true, then God forbid.  

Just When I Thought ....

The World Net Daily was getting honest in its approach to religion and the American Founding, they pull me back in. See Drs. John Fea and Warren Throckmorton for the details.

A taste from Throckmorton:

First, [you know who] said Simon & Schuster was going to publish it. They declined.

Today, World Net Daily announced plans to publish a new edition in 2016.

I am looking forward to learning the identity of the “academic endorsements.” Why not just post them now on the WND page promoting the book?

Michael and I are up for another round. We have a few academic endorsements of our own.

WND: "John Adams: Unorthodox Christian"

Glad to see they have finally noticed. The comments are also interesting. A taste:

John Adams was a bit more nuanced and definitely more philosophical than Washington in his approach. Without a doubt he always considered himself a Christian, even though he did not believe in the Trinity, placing him by default in the category of an unorthodox Christian (with orthodox for our purposes being defined by the Nicene Creed, which affirms the Trinity). “The human understanding is a revelation from its maker, which can never be disputed or doubted. … No prophecies, no miracles are necessary to prove this celestial communication. This revelation has made it certain that two and one make three, and that one is not three nor can three be one,” he once argued. And while he considered Christianity itself a divinely revealed religion, he harbored grave doubts as to the divinity of Jesus, registering his consternation with his much more orthodox son: “An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipotent omnipresent omniscient Author of this Stupendous Universe, Suffering on a Cross!!! My soul starts with horror at the idea, and it has stupefied the Christian world. It has been the source of almost all the corruptions of Christianity.”

Hamburger, Laycock, Hamilton and McConnell at the Constitution Center

To top yesterday's post, below is Philip Hamburger, Douglas Laycock, Marci Hamilton and Michael McConnell speaking at the Constitution Center on religious liberty issues. They are arguably the four leading scholars of religion and the US Constitution.

Hamburger and Laycock on Religious Liberty

Check out Philip Hamburger and Douglas Laycock -- two of the foremost authorities on the matter -- discussing the current state of religious liberty in the United States.

Feser on Problems with Sola Scriptura and the Quakerish Solution

Ed Feser often has interesting and thoughtful things to say. In this post he criticizes the concept of Sola Scriptura from the perspective of traditional Roman Catholicism but with a corresponding analysis of empiricism.

But what does this have to do with sola scriptura? The idea is this. Summarizing an early Jesuit critique of the Protestant doctrine, Feyerabend notes that (a) scripture alone can never tell you what counts as scripture, (b) scripture alone cannot tell you how to interpret scripture, and (c) scripture alone cannot give us a procedure for deriving consequences from scripture, applying it to new circumstances, and the like. Let’s elaborate on each and note the parallels with modern empiricism.

First, there is no passage in any book regarded as scriptural that tells you: “Here is a list of the books which constitute scripture.” And even if there were, how would we know that that passage is really part of scripture? For the Catholic, the problem doesn’t arise, because scripture is not the only authoritative source of revealed theological knowledge in the first place. It is rather part of a larger body of authoritative doctrine, which includes tradition and, ultimately, the decrees of an institutional, magisterial Church.

I agree the idea that you simply look something up in the Bible to find answers doesn't work. Protestants I've heard say "Bible interprets Bible." Well Bible interprets Bible to produce all sorts of contradictory understandings.

I sometimes have a hard time distinguishing between Sola Scriptura and fideism. I'm something of an expert on the political theology of the American Founding. While there were orthodox Trinitarians, deists, unitarians and folks all over the spectrum among them, the prevailing political theology rejected fideism and incorporated "essences" in nature as a necessary component for proper theological understanding (and it tended to be in nature, not in special revelation where they parked the public issues).

So here is James Wilson on how the Bible though it contains truth is an incomplete book:

But whoever expects to find, in [Scripture], particular directions for every moral doubt which arises, expects more than he will find. They generally presuppose a knowledge of the principles of morality; and are employed not so much in teaching new rules on this subject, as in enforcing the practice of those already known, by a greater certainty, and by new sanctions. They present the warmest recommendations and the strongest inducements in favour of virtue: they exhibit the most powerful dissuasives from vice. But the origin, the nature, and the extent of the several rights and duties they do not explain; nor do they specify in what instances one right or duty is entitled to preference over another. They are addressed to rational and moral agents, capable of previously knowing the rights of men, and the tendencies of actions; of approving what is good, and of disapproving what is evil.

Wilson ends the discussion by asserting "that the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supercede the operations of reason and the moral sense."

The "operations of reason and the moral sense" were to Wilson among other things the teachings of the Scottish Common Sense Enlightenment in which he was imbibed. He could incorporate those truths into his theology just as Aquinas incorporated Aristotle.

This is a rejection of fideism. Is it a rejection of Sola Scriptura? Perhaps. Though I have learned that there is a much neglected tradition of the natural law in orthodox Protestantism (it goes without saying that such tradition exists in unorthodox, freethinking Protestantism too).

So if "the Bible alone" is insufficient, there is always the natural law as an added component to achieve a holistic understanding.

But this still does not solve the dilemma posed by Feser. On a personal note -- the approach that I am sympathetic to -- is the most radical Protestant one: The Quakerish approach. And that is to concede everything Feser and critics of Sola Scriptura note and conclude there is no problem. That's because it's up to the individual -- radical priest that she is -- to determine for herself how to understand, including which books are inspired, what they mean, and whether there are errors in them.

Now, it should be done "in good faith" according to the dictates of conscience. And truth is what it is. You don't just get to make stuff up. There are a lot of learned folks out there who will call you out if you do.

But this is how William Livingston, a Quakerish American Founding Father put it in the context of explaining to a then prominent member of the religious right why the Bible/Christian religion would not be part of the organic "higher law" of the Articles of Confederation/the United States:

[A]nd to have made the 'law of the eternal God, as contained in the sacred Scriptures, of the Old and New Testament, the supreme law of the United States,' would, I conceive, have laid the foundation of endless altercation and dispute, as the very first question that would have arisen upon that article would be, whether we were bound by the ceremonial as well as the moral law, delivered by Moses to the people of Israel. Should we confine ourselves to the law of God, as contained in the Scriptures of the New Testament (which is undoubtedly obligatory upon all Christians), there would still have been endless disputes about the construction of the of these laws. Shall the meaning be ascertained by every individual for himself, or by public authority? If the first, all human laws respecting the subject are merely nugatory; if the latter, government must assume the detestable power of Henry the Eighth, and enforce their own interpretations with pains and penalties.

For your second article, I think there could be no occasion in the confederacy, provision having been made to prevent all such claim by the particular constitution of each State, and the Congress, as such, having no right to interfere with the internal police of any branch of the league, farther than is stipulated by the confederation.

To the effect of part of your third article, that of promoting purity of manners, all legislators and magistrates are bound by a superior obligation to that of any vote or compact of their own; and the inseparable connexion between the morals of the people and the good of society will compel them to pay due attention to external regularity and decorum; but true piety again has never been agreed upon by mankind, and I should not be willing that any human tribunal should settle its definition for me.

The bold face is mine.

Livingston is sympathetic to the notion that each individual decides for himself how to understand the Christian religion. Therefore any and all human laws that try to properly understand, define or Livingston's actual word "respect[]" Christianity are nugatory.

It's a good argument as to why America was not founded to be a "Christian nation."

DeForrest on Gordon Wood on Freemasonry and the American founding

Check out what Mark DeForrest wrote at The Reform Club here. A taste:

Wood addresses the question in the first part of his book [Empire of Liberty (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009)], proposing that Masonry played a dual role as a source of unity in America and as a new religion designed to replace Christianity for those skeptical of Christianity's claims. His take on Masonry is set out on page 51 of the book:

Freemasonry was a surrogate religion for enlightened men suspicious of traditional Christianity. It offered ritual, mystery, and communality without the enthusiasm and sectarian bigotry of organized religion. But Masonry was not only an enlightened institution; with the Revolution, it became a republican one as well. As George Washington said, it was "a lodge for the virtues." As Masonic lodges had always been places where men who differed in everyday affairs -- politically, socially, even religiously -- could "all meet amicably, and converse sociably together." There in the lodges, the Masons told themselves, "we discover no estrangement of behavior, nor alienation of affection." Masonry had always sought unity and harmony in a society increasingly diverse and fragmented. It traditionally had prided itself on being, as one Mason put it, "the Center of Union and the means of conciliating friendship among men that might otherwise have remained at perpetual distance."

Gary Scott Smith: "A nation on a hill?"

From the Christian History Institute here. A taste:

When the colonies came together as the United States, the new nation broke with this 1,450-year practice of religious establishment. Not having a king was radical enough, but even more radical was the new nation’s decision not to establish a national church. The First Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1789 and ratified in 1791, prohibited Congress from establishing a church and from preventing citizens from worshiping as they pleased.

The decision frightened many. Western societies had long assumed that most residents would act morally only if they were compelled to participate regularly in the church; Thomas Jefferson disagreed, calling America’s arrangement “the fair experiment.” Prominent nineteenth-century jurist Dudley Field called America’s separation of church and state the world’s “greatest achievement . . . in the cause of human progress.”

The founding fathers adopted this arrangement for several reasons. For one thing, they knew that the experiment had already been tried for over a century, and it had not led to the moral collapse many feared. The exiled Roger Williams had permitted freedom of worship in the colony of Rhode Island, which he founded in 1636. So did Quaker William Penn in Pennsylvania, which he established in 1681. And these colonies were thriving.

Moreover, the founders’ Enlightenment convictions led them to make several arguments on behalf of religious liberty. ...

Fea: "John Oliver Tackles Fake Founders' Quotes"

Watch Oliver do so at John Fea's blog here.

New Responses to Eric Nelson's "Royalist Revolution"

Here is Eric Nelson's book. Here is a piece by Yoni Appelbaum at The Atlantic. And here is something from The Originalism Blog which links to Tara Helfman's Harvard Law Review article and Dr. Nelson's response on the matter.

The conversation makes one reflect on the transformation of "monarchy" to "democratic-republic" or "liberal democracy" or whatever we term not just America but Great Britain and the rest of the "democratic" world.

Great Britain and other Western European nations presently still have monarchies (and state established churches). We understand their power now is "titular."

But King George III as a monarch wasn't quite the absolutist that monarchs of years past were. At that time the monarchy was more like the Presidency in terms of how it could exercise power. (That's Nelson's thesis.) 

Marginal Revolution: "Thomas Merrill on David Hume’s coalition"

From Tyler Cowen here.

A taste:

American University professor Thomas Merrill writes:

Hume’s message to the “honest gentlemen” is therefore something like this: “you may not understand this curious character the philosopher; you may think him flaky and unhinged; but if you care about establishing a regime dedicated to individual liberty, you need him around. You need not model your life on his; in fact it is better if you do not. But you need to tolerate him and even be open to being guided by him. Especially do you need to heed his negative message of calling into question the political claims advanced by the various forms of superstition on the basis of alleged insights into the ‘original and ultimate principle.’ Think of the philosopher as you might a garbage man: you might not want to do the job yourself, but it is very useful to society that someone does it.”

That is from Merrill’s Hume and the Politics of Enlightenment,...

AU Interview with Bruce Prescot

I found this interesting. A taste:

Q. You are a Southern Baptist min­ister who now calls himself a “post-denominational Christian.” What specifically about your faith led you to take this case on?

Prescott: I call myself a “post-denominational Christian” because today differences between denominations are insignificant in comparison to the divisions between conservative and progressive Christians within each denomination. In Baptist life only a remnant remain advocates for separation of religion and government. On this issue, I find that I have more in common with progressive-minded people of other denominations, other faiths and people of no faith than I do with most contemporary Baptists.

Few people today know that the earliest Baptists were some of the foremost champions of separation of church and state. Those Baptists championed liberty of conscience, and by that they meant the universal right to self-determination in matters of religious belief and worship. They held that decisions regarding religious life and eternal destiny are intensely personal and require a conscientious commitment by a mature individual. Convictions so central to the integrity of personality and character could not be delegated to others — least of all to the government. In their eyes, genuine faith could not be coerced or handed down like an heirloom. That led them to become advocates for religious liberty for everyone — including pagans, atheists, Jews, Muslims and people of other faiths.

I share these convictions of the early Baptists. That is why I opposed placing the Ten Commandments mon­ument at the state capitol in Oklahoma. In that location, the monument symbolizes a union of church and state that is detrimental to both. In effect, it serves notice that the government endorses a certain stream of religion and treats its adherents preferentially. It gives the appearance that persons of no faith and people of other faiths are second-class citizens.

Forte on the Role of Religious Speech in a Republic

From David Forte. Check it out here. A taste:

The words “God save the United States and this Honorable Court!” are not mere “ceremonial deism.” This phrase was made up by Eugene Rostow in 1962 when he was dean of Yale Law School, and used calculatingly and wrongly by Justice Brennan in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) to claim that these references to God “have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.”

As Professor Martha Nussbaum at the University of Chicago Law School noted, “‘Ceremonial Deism’ is an odd name for a ritual affirmation that a Deist would be very reluctant to endorse, since Deists think of God as a rational causal principle but not as a personal judge and father.”

True, but two points. One is the understanding of "Deism" being offered here is that of the impersonal God of "strict Deism." Arguably there are other viable definitions of the term. However to many very learned folks in today's scholarly discourse (such as Nussbaum and Forte) that's what the term has come to mean.

Second, if you look at the utterances from the Founding era that Forte offers to support the claim, they are all, we could say, generically monotheistic: James Madison's "Governor of the Universe"; Thomas Jefferson's liberty securing, gifting "God" of justice; the "Creator" of the Declaration of Independence who endowed men with "unalienable rights"; and George Washington's "Almighty Being who rules over the Universe."

None of these is necessarily the Triune God of orthodox Christianity.  If you read Forte's article in detail, you see he attempts to answer a question posed by Justice Kagan that basically asked (my words, not hers) "what if this Court endorsed Christianity?" It doesn't but it does endorse generic God belief.

"Ceremonial Deism" is a word off putting to many of those who like terms like "so help me God" and "God save ... this Honorable Court."

What about "generic monotheism"?

Historic Traditional Christianity and Dueling

I mentioned this topic in my last post where I discussed Alexander Hamilton's death. As most readers know, I endorse the scholarly consensus holding that though Hamilton always seemed to have believed in God, he wasn't an orthodox Christian (what some folks define as a "real Christian") until the end of his life, after his son died in a duel.

Before that he was, pick your term: 1. a nominal Christian; 2. a "Christian-Deist"; 3. a "theistic rationalist."

Some challenge this scholarly consensus. I remember one fairly articulate, learned blogger who did, criticizing me in particular; but he seems to have exited the blogsphere years ago.

When so challenged, of course, we must return to the primary sources and carefully read them. Indeed, perhaps so closely that we memorize them.  When looking for "details" we may sometimes focus on one or more (often what we are looking for) and ignore others. We should not ignore the points the other side makes, but do our best to answer them.

However, interestingly, sometimes relevant points exist right there on the page that neither side addresses and thus get lost.

In 2010, at First Things Joe Carter linked to a post of mine on Hamilton's death, where that above mentioned blogger critical of me showed up in the comments section and challenged my (after more reputable scholars') analysis.

That means we must read the original writings of Bishop Benjamin Moore [Episcopalian] and Pastor J.M. Mason [Presbyterian], the two ministers from whom Hamilton sought communion when near death after being shot. 

The blogger who criticized me asserted,

Rev. Moore hesitated to give Hamilton the communion. He did not deny it, he hesitated; according to his own letter, he wanted to give the dying man time to reflect, so that he did not take the Lord's Supper in haste.

Okay. Hamilton was dying, immediately within if not days, hours (for all they knew). And Bishop Moore did indeed say he wanted "to avoid every appearance of precipitancy in performing one of the most solemn offices of our religion...." I had to look precipitancy up in the dictionary. It means "undue hastiness or suddenness." Moore then said "I did not then comply with his desire."

So yes, this was an initial denial. The blogger could term it a "hesitation" only because Moore ended up relenting and giving Hamilton communion.

The blogger also said something about Moore "want[ing] to give the dying man time to reflect...." That's where we ignored the part about how dueling violates Christianity. So Moore said to Hamilton:

I [Moore] observed to him [Hamilton], that he must be very sensible of the delicate and trying situation in which I was then placed: that however desirous I might be to afford consolation to a fellow mortal in distress; still, it was my duty, as a minister of the Gospel, to hold up the law of God as paramount to all other law: and that, therefore, under the influence of such sentiments, I must unequivocally condemn which had brought him to his present unhappy condition. He acknowledged the propriety of these sentiments, and declared that he viewed the late transaction with sorrow and contrition. I then asked him, "Should it please God to restore you to health, sir, will you never be again engaged in a similar transaction? And will you employ all your influence in society to discountenance this barbarous custom?" His answer was "That, sir, is my deliberate intention."

 Moore ended his address with:

Let those who are disposed to justify the practice of dueling, be induced, by this simple narrative, to view with abhorrence that custom which has occasioned an irreparable loss to a worthy and most afflicted family; which has deprived his friends of a beloved companion, his profession of one of its brightest ornaments, and his country of a great statesmen an a real patriot.

 Let's then turn to Pastor J.M. Mason. The blogger who criticized me, again, wrote:

Rev. Mason (who, with his father, had been close friends with Hamilton since Hamilton's youth) was not allowed to administer the communion to his friend because the church forbid him, under any circumstances, to administer it privately.

Yes it's true that the Presbyterians like the Episcopalians had strict rules relating to the administering of communion with which Hamilton apparently was unaware and that lead to Hamilton's clumsy Christian death. But there's more to the story.

The blogger also has Mason's account of Hamilton's death archived at his site. In addition to letting Hamilton know that church rules forbade him to administer communion privately, Hamilton's sinful conduct of dueling was discussed:

This last passage introduced the affair of the duel, on which I reminded the General, that he was not to be instructed as to its moral aspect, that the precious blood of Christ was as effectual and as necessary to wash away the transgression which had involved him in suffering, as any other transgression; and that he must there, and there alone, seek peace for his conscience, and a hope that should “not make him ashamed.” He assented, with strong emotions, to these representations, and declared his abhorrence of the whole transaction. “It was always,” added he, “against my principles. I used every expedient to avoid the interview; but I have found, for some time past, that my life must be exposed to that man. I went to the field determined not to take his life.” He repeated his disavowal of all intention to hurt Mr. Burr; the anguish of his mind in recollecting what had passed; and his humble hope of forgiveness from his God.

[...]

Being about to part with him, I told him, “I had one request to make.” He asked “what it was!” I answered “that whatever might be the issue of his affliction, he would give his testimony against the practice of dueling.” “I will,” said he. “I have done it. If that,” Evidently anticipating the event, “if that be the issue, you will find it in writing. If it please God that I recover, I shall do it in a manner which will effectually put me out of its reach in the future.”

The Christian Observer in 1805 gave a review of Mason's Oration on the Death of Hamilton. The review not only slams Hamilton's UNCHRISTIAN conduct of dueling, but also slams Moore for not being critical enough of Hamilton's unChristian conduct that led to his death.

The C.O. piece also examines Hamilton's Statement on Impending Duel with Aaron Burr and from their perspective demolished it. Hamilton's account was (my words, paraphrasing) I went to the duel to protect my honor, but would not shoot at Burr. So Burr took advantage of the situation and killed him. But the Christian Observer didn't buy Hamilton's self serving explanation.

 They wrote:

It is regard to reputation then which induces him to violate the strongest obligations of religion and morality. It is true that this regard to reputation is clothed in the honourable guise of an ability to be in future useful. But are we to do evil, or to yield to a prejudice which we know to be both absurd and sinful, that we may have the power of doing good afterwards! 

The C.O. then declares such a notion the doctrine of "expediency" and slams it. They continue:

A real Christian, who judges only by the plain rules of scripture, would have felt little difficulty in the case which so much perplexed General Hamilton. He would have decided at once that the practice of dueling is sinful; and therefore, whatever the consequences might be, he would not sanction it. If, by following this course, his character should suffer ever so greatly in the estimate of the world, still he must obey God rather than man, and abide by the consequences with the fortitude of a martyr. ... 

Very interesting. Obey God not man. Acts 5:29. I'm used to dealing with that chapter and verse when "man" is earthy government that a believer ought disobey. Here "man" is simply popular opinion represented in notions of "earthly honor." And the "consequences" the believer is to deal "with the fortitude of a martyr" is not a governmental punishment which for the martyr was often death, but rather an injury to "honor."

But to tie this back to the context of Hamilton's twice being denied communion only to have one of the ministers (the Episcopalian Bishop Moore) relent and serve Hamilton communion, the elephant in the room was the inconsistency between the practice of Hamilton's dueling and the practice of Christianity.

I stand by my assertion that Hamilton was a newbie orthodox Christian at death. However, the issue for the ministers was that given he engaged in this unChristian practice of dueling, they doubted he was a "real Christian" deserving of communion.