Over the past few years we’ve seen controversies arise when ministers consider denying communion to unrepentant politicians. But there once was a time when pastors were so hardcore they were willing to refuse to give the sacrament to a contrite Founding Father . . . on his deathbed!
Although I’m an enthusiast of the history of the founding era, Jonathan Rowe relates a story I hadn’t heard before: Two ministers—an Episcopalian and a Presbyterian—refused to give communion to Alexander Hamilton (though one later relented on the condition that, if Hamilton lived, he would stop letting Vice Presidents shoot at him):
The scholars who have most meticulously studied Hamilton’s religion conclude that though he probably had a conventional religious youth, during the time in which he acted as a “Founder” (from 1776-after 1800) he was not conventionally religious. In other words, he was not an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. (For more see here.)
After his son Philip died in a duel in 1801, Hamilton, understandably grief stricken, converted to a less generic/more concrete religion — orthodox Christianity.
What follows are some primary sources on Hamilton’s death. Interestingly though he had accepted the truth of the orthodox Christian religion by his death in 1804, he had never gotten around to joining a church, which suggests the “newness” of Hamilton’s orthodox faith.
Also of note, Hamilton converted to a form of orthodox Christianity that, understandably, held communion to be a central sacrament. Yet, when he begged for the Lord’s Supper on his deathbed, Hamilton appeared naively unaware of the rituals surrounding administering the sacrament in the two churches from which he sought communion: The Episcopalian and the Presbyterian. As we will see, Hamilton was TWICE refused communion on his deathbed before, finally, having it administered.
January 6th, 2010 | 11:38 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by First Things, Joseph Winston. Joseph Winston said: RT @ROFTERS: Pastors to Alexander Hamilton: No Communion for You http://bit.ly/7Ug4uL [...]
January 6th, 2010 | 7:37 pm
Many thanks for the link!
January 7th, 2010 | 4:12 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by ROFTERS: Pastors to Alexander Hamilton: No Communion for You http://bit.ly/7Ug4uL…
February 13th, 2010 | 11:42 pm
Interesting take on this story. However, the whole thing has been taken out of context, unfortunately, with the apparent intent on the part of Rowe (with whom I discussed this issue) of making Hamilton look like a new and “clumsy” Christian.
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.
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. In Mason’s own account, he records Hamilton’s moving expressions of conviction in the truth of the Gospel. The reader of Mason’s letter (which I have posted in its entirety on my blog) ought to note that it was excruciatingly painful for Hamilton to speak, and to lift his hands in the air, as Burr’s shot had grazed his diaphragm and lodged in his spine.
These two ministers did not deny Hamilton communion because they thought he was unorthodox most of his life. They did what they did for very different reasons.
As for Hamilton’s “Trinitarian orthodoxy,” Rowe makes the mistake of equating it with religious forms such as church membership and communion. I myself am a Christian, and I know that these are not the essentials of “being a Christian.” Although I have informed Rowe of this, he has refused to answer my arguments, and to insist that his view of Christianity (he is an agnostic, and views Christianity from the outside) is the correct one.
I have also studied Hamilton’s life and writings, with the intent of exploring his religious beliefs, for a period of about 5 to 6 years. In looking at Hamilton’s writings, I have discovered that everything he said concerning Christianity is favorable, and indicates his own firm belief in it — yes, after 1776, and yes, before his son died. In fact, in the year 1776, when Hamilton was an artillery captain, his good friend Robert Troup found Hamilton still kneeling in his tent, maintaining the same practice of private prayer that he observed in Hamilton’s “conventional religious youth.”
More documentation (and I will add more to the page) can be found here:
http://ahpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/06/alexander-hamilton-and-christianity-in.html
http://ahpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/08/quote-in-question.html
I could go into more detail refuting Rowe’s claims, but considering that this is a comment on someone else’ blog, I digress, lest my remarks should make my comment longer than the above post itself. But, thank you for considering my side of the argument, and for allowing me to participate in this discussion.
Best regards,
Hercules
February 18th, 2010 | 10:39 pm
Yes, we know HM sees this issue differently. And I am willing to leave it alone.
However, it’s simply not true that I “refused to answer [his] arguments, and to insist that my view of Christianity…is the correct one.”
Yes, it’s possible that one could be a non-church member and still be an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. In the absence of “smoking guns,” virtually ANY speculative answer HM might want to offer is POSSIBLE.
The question is whether it’s PROBABLE or LIKELY that a lifelong orthodox Trinitarian Christian would have never gotten around to joining a church and the answer to that is NO.
That’s why virtually all reputable scholars of whatever ideological bent agree with me that Hamilton died a newbie orthodox Christian, and didn’t convert to orthodox Christianity until after his son died.
February 18th, 2010 | 11:04 pm
One other quick note that might interest First Things readers. It relates to HM’s genetic fallacy of claiming since I’m not an orthodox Christian, I’m somehow not qualified to judge whether AH was at certain periods of his life.
My friend Dr. Gregg Frazer is, like Joe Carter, HM, etc. a conservative evangelical/fundamentalist and familiar with the entire record of Hamilton’s religion. He categorizes Hamilton before his son died as a “theistic rationalist.” We might not agree with the term. But I think we understand the concept — a theist, someone who, unlike a deist, believes in an active God, but is nonetheless not orthodox, believes in a more generic deity.
Daniel Dreisbach, also a Christian, is one of the foremost authorities on religion and the American Founding, sympathetic to religious conservatism, originalism, lowering the “wall of separation” and so on. I don’t always agree with his analysis; but I pay him the due respect he deserves.
He’s one of the “conservatives” on the Texas Social Studies panel. And while I’ve (for good reason) criticized David Barton and Peter Marshall, I won’t touch Dreisbach, because his bona fides on this issue are beyond reproach.
He, along with Mark David Hall, and Jeffry Morrison (also conservative Christians) edited a book (published by Notre Dame Press) that included a chapter by Dr. Frazer entitled “Alexander Hamilton, Theistic Rationalist.”
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Forgotten-Founders-on-Religion-and-Public-Life/Daniel-Dreisbach/e/9780268026028
If it’s so obvious to anyone really familiar with the record on Hamilton’s religion that he was an orthodox Trinitarian regenerate or born-again Christian his entire adult life, then Dr. Frazer (and God knows why he, as a conservative evangelical would do this) pulled a fast one on Dreisbach, et al.
Sorry, but that’s highly unlikely. The informed scholarly authorities, whether secular liberals, conservative Christians or whatever, don’t agree with HM on this.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact