The Christian Belief of Alexander Hamilton
Bill Fortenberry
Over the past several weeks, I have been cataloguing the
religious statements of our founding fathers in order to publish them on my new
website – Christian76.com. This has been a very rewarding and
enlightening study, and I hope that Christians all across our nation will be
able to profit from it. My goal is to
provide modern believers with a dependable resource with which to defend the
claim that America was founded as a Christian nation.
In the process of this study, I have come across several articles which seem to provide good arguments against this claim. One such article was published by John Rowe in which he claimed that Alexander Hamilton was a theistic rationalist instead of a true Christian believer.
Mr. Rowe is quite mistaken on several points in this article. For example, he claims that we have only two references to God or religion from Mr. Hamilton's writings in the period from 1777-1792, but in order to do this, he must ignore the content of Hamilton's "Letters of Caesar" which he wrote in 1787. In the second of these letters, Hamilton wrote:
“Whether the New Constitution, if adopted, will prove adequate to such desirable ends, time, the mother of events, will show. For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system, which, without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.”[1]
Now, perhaps Mr. Rowe shares the opinion of a few recent scholars that Mr. Hamilton was not the author of the "Letters of Caesar." In that case, he should have at least mentioned the above quote and then stated his opposition to it.
I am of the opinion that these letters were penned by Mr. Hamilton. This is the opinion held by the majority of scholars, and it is based on the contents of the following letter from Hamilton which was published by Paul Leicester Ford in his 1892 book, Essays on the Constitution:
"Dear Sir:
Since my last the chief of the state party has declared his opposition to the government proposed, both in private conversation and in print. That you may judge of the reason and fairness of his views, I send you the two essays, with a reply by Caesar. On further consideration it was concluded to abandon this personal form, and to take up the principles of the whole subject. These will be sent you as published, and might with advantage be republished in your gazettes."[2]
Mr. Rowe is also very much mistaken in concluding that Alexander Hamilton only referred to God as a superintending Deity and did not use specific Christian language about God until after the death of his son in 1801. In 1775, Mr. Hamilton quoted Sir William Blackstone to explain that the law of nature was "dictated by God himself," and in 1798, he wrote:
“Americans rouse — be unanimous, be virtuous, be firm, exert your courage, trust in Heaven, and nobly defy the enemies both of God and man!”[3]
Additionally, Mr. Hamilton's 1798 essays on the French Revolution contained several references to the Christian religion itself, and he decried the efforts of the French to overthrow that religion as depriving "mankind of its best consolations and most animating hopes, and to make a gloomy desert of the universe.”[4] Later in that same essay, he remarked that "The praise of a civilized world is justly due to Christianity."[5]
And finally, Mr. Rowe is mistaken in concluding that Mr. Hamilton was a theistic rationalist. In another of Mr. Rowe's posts, he quotes Gregg Frazer's description of a theistic rationalist as one who holds to a "belief system mixing elements of natural religion, Protestant Christianity, and rationalism." Mr. Frazer went on to present the following description of this belief:
"The God of the theistic rationalists was a unitary, personal God whose controlling attribute was benevolence. Theistic rationalists believed that God was present and active in the world and in the lives of men. Consequently, they believed in the efficacy of prayer – that someone was listening and might intervene on their behalf. Theistic rationalism was not a devotional or inward-looking belief system; it was centered on public morality. God was served by living and promoting a good, moral life. The primary value of religion was the promotion of morality, and the morality generated by religion was indispensable to a free society. Since all of the religions with which they were familiar promoted morality, they held that virtually all religions were more or less equally valid and led to the same God who is called by many names. Theistic rationalists generally disdained doctrines or dogmas. They found them to be divisive, speculative, and ultimately unimportant since many roads lead to God."
This most certainly was not true of Mr. Hamilton. His critique of the French Revolution leaves no doubt as to his acceptance of the Christian religion and the gospel in particular as opposed to the theistic rationalism which has been attributed to him:
“Facts, numerous and unequivocal, demonstrate that the present AERA is among the most extraordinary which have occurred in the history of human affairs. Opinions, for a long time, have been gradually gaining ground, which threaten the foundations of religion, morality, and society. An attack was first made upon the Christian revelation, for which natural religion was offered as the substitute. The Gospel was to be discarded as a gross imposture, but the being and attributes of god, the obligations of piety, even the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments, were to be retained and cherished.”[6]
After Mr. Hamilton was fatally wounded in a duel with Aaron Burr, he called for the Episcopal minister, Dr. John Mason, and requested to partake in the Lord's Supper. Dr. Mason declined to do so because his church had a principle "never to administer the Lord's Supper privately to any person under any circumstances." However, Dr. Mason also took the opportunity to explain to Mr. Hamilton that the Lord's Supper is not a requirement for salvation and proceeded to explain the plan of salvation in clear detail. Mr. Hamilton assured Dr. Mason that he had not requested the Lord's Supper as a means of obtaining heaven, and he gave the following testimony of his salvation:
"I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ."[7]
_________________________________________
[1] Ford, Paul L., Essays on the Constitution of the United States, Historical Printing Club, Brooklyn, 1892, pg 288
[2] Ford, Paul L., Essays on the Constitution of the United States, Historical Printing Club, Brooklyn, 1892, pg 245
[3] Hamilton, John C., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 7, John F. Trow, New York, 1851, pg 676
[4] Hamilton, John C., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 7, John F. Trow, New York, 1851, pg 651
[5] Hamilton, John C., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 7, John F. Trow, New York, 1851, pg 684 - This publication has an empty space in place of the word "civilized." The full quote is available from the Online Library of Liberty.
[6] Lodge, Henry Cabot, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 8, G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1904, pg 425-426
[7] Vechten, Jacob Van, Memoirs of John M. Mason, D.D., S.T.P., Robert Carter and Brothers, New York, 1856, pg 182
__
In the process of this study, I have come across several articles which seem to provide good arguments against this claim. One such article was published by John Rowe in which he claimed that Alexander Hamilton was a theistic rationalist instead of a true Christian believer.
Mr. Rowe is quite mistaken on several points in this article. For example, he claims that we have only two references to God or religion from Mr. Hamilton's writings in the period from 1777-1792, but in order to do this, he must ignore the content of Hamilton's "Letters of Caesar" which he wrote in 1787. In the second of these letters, Hamilton wrote:
“Whether the New Constitution, if adopted, will prove adequate to such desirable ends, time, the mother of events, will show. For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system, which, without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.”[1]
Now, perhaps Mr. Rowe shares the opinion of a few recent scholars that Mr. Hamilton was not the author of the "Letters of Caesar." In that case, he should have at least mentioned the above quote and then stated his opposition to it.
I am of the opinion that these letters were penned by Mr. Hamilton. This is the opinion held by the majority of scholars, and it is based on the contents of the following letter from Hamilton which was published by Paul Leicester Ford in his 1892 book, Essays on the Constitution:
"Dear Sir:
Since my last the chief of the state party has declared his opposition to the government proposed, both in private conversation and in print. That you may judge of the reason and fairness of his views, I send you the two essays, with a reply by Caesar. On further consideration it was concluded to abandon this personal form, and to take up the principles of the whole subject. These will be sent you as published, and might with advantage be republished in your gazettes."[2]
Mr. Rowe is also very much mistaken in concluding that Alexander Hamilton only referred to God as a superintending Deity and did not use specific Christian language about God until after the death of his son in 1801. In 1775, Mr. Hamilton quoted Sir William Blackstone to explain that the law of nature was "dictated by God himself," and in 1798, he wrote:
“Americans rouse — be unanimous, be virtuous, be firm, exert your courage, trust in Heaven, and nobly defy the enemies both of God and man!”[3]
Additionally, Mr. Hamilton's 1798 essays on the French Revolution contained several references to the Christian religion itself, and he decried the efforts of the French to overthrow that religion as depriving "mankind of its best consolations and most animating hopes, and to make a gloomy desert of the universe.”[4] Later in that same essay, he remarked that "The praise of a civilized world is justly due to Christianity."[5]
And finally, Mr. Rowe is mistaken in concluding that Mr. Hamilton was a theistic rationalist. In another of Mr. Rowe's posts, he quotes Gregg Frazer's description of a theistic rationalist as one who holds to a "belief system mixing elements of natural religion, Protestant Christianity, and rationalism." Mr. Frazer went on to present the following description of this belief:
"The God of the theistic rationalists was a unitary, personal God whose controlling attribute was benevolence. Theistic rationalists believed that God was present and active in the world and in the lives of men. Consequently, they believed in the efficacy of prayer – that someone was listening and might intervene on their behalf. Theistic rationalism was not a devotional or inward-looking belief system; it was centered on public morality. God was served by living and promoting a good, moral life. The primary value of religion was the promotion of morality, and the morality generated by religion was indispensable to a free society. Since all of the religions with which they were familiar promoted morality, they held that virtually all religions were more or less equally valid and led to the same God who is called by many names. Theistic rationalists generally disdained doctrines or dogmas. They found them to be divisive, speculative, and ultimately unimportant since many roads lead to God."
This most certainly was not true of Mr. Hamilton. His critique of the French Revolution leaves no doubt as to his acceptance of the Christian religion and the gospel in particular as opposed to the theistic rationalism which has been attributed to him:
“Facts, numerous and unequivocal, demonstrate that the present AERA is among the most extraordinary which have occurred in the history of human affairs. Opinions, for a long time, have been gradually gaining ground, which threaten the foundations of religion, morality, and society. An attack was first made upon the Christian revelation, for which natural religion was offered as the substitute. The Gospel was to be discarded as a gross imposture, but the being and attributes of god, the obligations of piety, even the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments, were to be retained and cherished.”[6]
After Mr. Hamilton was fatally wounded in a duel with Aaron Burr, he called for the Episcopal minister, Dr. John Mason, and requested to partake in the Lord's Supper. Dr. Mason declined to do so because his church had a principle "never to administer the Lord's Supper privately to any person under any circumstances." However, Dr. Mason also took the opportunity to explain to Mr. Hamilton that the Lord's Supper is not a requirement for salvation and proceeded to explain the plan of salvation in clear detail. Mr. Hamilton assured Dr. Mason that he had not requested the Lord's Supper as a means of obtaining heaven, and he gave the following testimony of his salvation:
"I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ."[7]
_________________________________________
[1] Ford, Paul L., Essays on the Constitution of the United States, Historical Printing Club, Brooklyn, 1892, pg 288
[2] Ford, Paul L., Essays on the Constitution of the United States, Historical Printing Club, Brooklyn, 1892, pg 245
[3] Hamilton, John C., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 7, John F. Trow, New York, 1851, pg 676
[4] Hamilton, John C., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 7, John F. Trow, New York, 1851, pg 651
[5] Hamilton, John C., The Works of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 7, John F. Trow, New York, 1851, pg 684 - This publication has an empty space in place of the word "civilized." The full quote is available from the Online Library of Liberty.
[6] Lodge, Henry Cabot, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 8, G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1904, pg 425-426
[7] Vechten, Jacob Van, Memoirs of John M. Mason, D.D., S.T.P., Robert Carter and Brothers, New York, 1856, pg 182
__