Hamilton v. Seabury
Jonathan Rowe on May 4th 2008
Alexander Hamilton’s “The Farmer Refuted” is a classic piece of American literature justifying rebellion against Great Britain. Less well known is the fact that Hamilton was replying to Tory loyalist, the Reverend Samuel Seabury, the first American Episcopal bishop. This page collects the pieces of literature to which Hamilton was responding. I’m fairly certain it was the third one down, this one, to which Hamilton specifically responded.
Regarding the theological implications of the letters, I’ve already conceded traditional Christianity to be compatible with both sides. When Hamilton wrote “The Farmer Refuted” in 1775 he didn’t have any kind of established record as an orthodox Christian, while Seabury, as an Anglican minister, certainly did.
The content of “The Farmer Refuted” certainly has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity but rather relies on theistic naturalism and rationalism to advance its claims. In short, it is an Enlightenment, not a Christian document. Here are some highlights:
Good and wise men, in all ages, have…supposed, that the deity, from the relations, we stand in, to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensibly, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever.
This is what is called the law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately, or immediately, from this original.” Blackstone.
Upon this law, depend the natural rights of mankind, the supreme being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beatifying that existence. He endowed him with rational faculties, by the help of which, to discern and pursue such things, as were consistent with his duty and interest, and invested him with an inviolable right to personal liberty, and personal safety.
Hence, in a state of nature, no man had any moral power to deprive another of his life, limbs, property or liberty; nor the least authority to command, or exact obedience from him; except that which arose from the ties of consanguinity.
[...]
The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.
The nations of Turkey, Russia, France, Spain, and all other despotic kingdoms, in the world, have an inherent right, when ever they please, to shake off the yoke of servitude, (though sanctified by the immemorial usage of their ancestors;) and to model their government, upon the principles of civil liberty.
Hamilton invokes the law of nature which defines as what man discovers through reason unassisted by scripture, but also notes that the law of nature is dictated by God, which is necessary to make it binding everywhere and serve as an ultimate trump.
Where orthodox Christians run into trouble is when they suppose the Deity must be their God. Not according to Founding era doctrine. All that is needed is a monotheistic Deity. Christianity, of course, posits a monotheistic Deity, so Christianity could serve as the “religion.” But so too could, according to America’s Founders, Judaism, Islam, Confucianism, Native American Spirituality, and many other exotic world religions. Notice how Hamilton says, “[g]ood and wise men, in all ages,…” The plain meaning of Hamilton’s words does not speak only to Christianity or Biblical religion, but rather assumes good men all over the world, even in non-Christian or “Judeo-Christian” lands worship the same God Christians do, or at least can discover His rules through reason, without the Bible. This is what’s known as theological naturalism or “natural religion.” Some orthodox Christians of that era and today believe in natural religion. But Christians today still should question the compatibility. Francis Schaeffer, for instance, held natural religion (key to the American Founding!) to be inconsistent with Christian orthodoxy. The risk is, non-biblical ideas will be “imported” and given the same respect as sacred scripture.
And that’s exactly what America’s Founders did (the key ones of which held natural religion or the discoveries of man’s reason supersedes what’s written in the Bible!). That’s exactly what the Declaration of Independence does. And that’s what Hamilton does in this very document. Hamilton, like Jefferson et al., put words in God’s mouth, saying God grants men unalienable natural rights, when the Bible says nothing of the sort. Those Christians who act as though America’s Declaration of Independence and documents like “The Farmer Refuted” reflect “God’s Truth” like Scripture essentially Mormonize their faith, importing non-biblical ideas under the auspices of “Christianity.”
Finally a word on Blackstone whom Hamilton quotes. Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the law, likewise explicates the law of nature and defines it as what man discovers through reason, unaided by scripture.
This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws [my emphasis].
Blackstone then goes on to say that because man’s reason is fallen, God revealed truth in the Bible, that reason and revelation should perfectly agree, but if seemingly not, scripture is more authentic than the findings of man’s reason; it’s probably fallen reason that errs.
And if our reason were always, as in our first ancestor before his transgression, clear and perfect, unruffled by passions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the task would be pleasant and easy; we should need no other guide but this. But every man now finds the contrary in his own experience; that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error.
This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine providence; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in divers manners, to discover and enforce it’s laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity.
Still I’ve seen many Christians confused by that passage, thinking it means “the law of nature” is shorthand for scripture. Not so. According to Blackstone, the law of nature and the law of revelation are two separate things.
Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these [My emphasis].
Notice how Blackstone says TWO foundations. 1) Law of nature or reason and 2) law of revelation. That Blackstone said reason and revelation should always agree and if not, resolve the tension in favor of more authentic revelation, is nonetheless irrelevant to what America’s Founders believed. They had a qualified appreciation for Blackstone and criticized him as much as they lauded him. They criticized him because his teachings were too Toryish and in fact supported the British, not American side, in the revolution. It is therefore ironic that Hamilton cited Blackstone for revolt against Parliament, the exact opposite position that Blackstone’s commentaries take. As Blackstone said of Parliament:
It can, in short, do every thing that is not naturally impossible; and therefore some have not scrupled to call it’s power, by a figure rather too bold, the omnipotence of parliament. True it is, that what they do, no authority upon earth can undo.
And as Gary North summarized the irony: “Blackstone was wrong: beginning eleven years later, the American colonies undid a lot of what Parliament had done.”
How to make sense of this? Hamilton, in “The Farmer Refuted” selectively cited Blackstone and when doing so, invoked the law of nature or what man discovers through reason and wisely avoided invoking the law of revelation. The Declaration of Independence likewise relies ONLY of the law of nature or reason and makes no mention of revelation. As a rationalist, Hamilton, like Jefferson, Adams, et al. probably believed man’s reason was so keen it could pick out truth from a variety of sources whether it was Blackstone, the Bible or some pagan writer, and avoid the error. Theirs was the consummate cafeteria method of selective citation with man’s reason as the penultimate guide.
Hamilton, in the that document, was wise not to credit the Bible or Christian religion with its ideas because to do so would be deceptive. As noted, the ideas contained in “The Farmer Refuted,” though theistic, have nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity. They truly were a product of man’s reason. Whether their reason really discovered what was dictated by God (as this understanding of the natural law claims) I’ll not say. But if so, the Bible certainly doesn’t inform us of this.
Filed in The Belfry, The Bureau
It’s true that our founding fathers made frequent reference to the law of nature, but like you said, Blackstone insisted that the law of nature always needed to be subject to the law of revelation (the Bible).
Reason, by itself, is a good, God-given tool to search out truth, but it is not an objective standard. There’s nothing that says one can’t reason that the Holocaust was justified if one’s worldview and predilections demand such an end result.
The problem here is that revelation is not an objective standard either if it is not 100% true, and “God given” reason dictates that revelation is at least partially false (I am convinced that divine revelation is 100% false). So working from that starting point, if we are looking for objective standards we need to look elsewhere.
This is also where Jon Rowe’s argument that reason should be applied as the trump but atheism doesn’t support democracy and liberty hits what seems to me like a major contradiction. When I apply my reason I reach atheism. Jon Rowe may not think atheism is so reasonable, but I sure do. I literally cannot honestly believe that there is a God because for me God belief contradicts reason.
EA,
That’s fine. I’m trying to explicate what they believed, not what I believe about God. They believed reason leads you to Nature’s God, not necessarily the God of the Bible.
While I agree with your analysis of Nature’s God, and the important role this theology played in the founding as a counter to religious illiberalism that was in conflict with democratic ideals, I am not convinced that the intention was to establish that theology as a government religion.
But even if that was the intent, I don’t think that is fair, workable or sustainable. Once we open that door to religious exclusivity, in the name of “In God We Trust” or “Under God”, as with NDOP, its difficult to stop there, someone will come along and try to hijack it for an even less inclusive agenda (possibly claiming the best of intentions, to convert people to the Truth and save them for internity, and make our nation more moral, and prevent another Holocaust, and military soldiers who will die for the nation, etc.), and, most importantly, even without such a hijacking by a less inclusive group it is already too exclusivist for a democracy since democracy is rooted in equal protection before the laws and freedom of conscience and all that. Government just isn’t the place to go for guidence about what we should or shouldn’t believe regarding god(s), that just isn’t a proper role for government at all.
We should keep in mind that in the first passage, Hamilton is arguing [vociferously] against Thomas Hobbes’ view of the law of nature, which is quite nasty and brutish [albeit not short]. Hobbes’ view, is of course also the product of reason, and excludes a notion of God.
We should not read entirely too much into Founders making arguments excluding the particulars of Christianity—it’s a fine tradition going back to the medievals to argue from reason and not scripture, and any sectarian particulars of revelation would risk losing consensus rather than gain it.
Still, we have Hamilton cheating here by dragging God [deity] into the whole deal in the first place—Hugo Grotius, the influential Protestant philosopher, argues that natural law exists and
“what I have just said would be relevant even if we were to suppose (what we cannot suppose without the greatest wickedness) that there is no God, or that human affairs are of no concern to him.”
Of course, Hobbes has a natural law of his own that is uncongenial to Hamilton’s and Grotius’s, yet still seems quite reasonable. It appears then, that reason alone does not necessarily lead to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
Unless someone would like to argue that it’s an essentially Hobbesian document, theism—and a providential, monotheistic one at that—cannot be decoupled from the Founding principles.
It is one thing to say that reason alone cannot lead to ethical commitments, I have no problem with that, after all, ethics is a distinct subject, its not identical to anything else.
It something altogether different to say that “theism—and a providential, monotheistic one at that—cannot be decoupled from the Founding principles”. Let me be clear about this: The best kind of citizens, bar none, are atheists. Establishment of monotheism is rooted in anti-atheist bigotry and all of the discriminatory implications that entails do in fact follow from it.
“…we hold no truths to be self-evident…”
Ah, one more comment, I would argue that the Declaration of Independence does reference divine revelation when it refers to the Laws of Nature “and of Nature’s God.”
As for Explicit Atheist’s comments about revelation, our interpretation of what Blackstone called revealed or divine law, which is “to be found only in the Holy Scriptures,” may be somewhat subjective, but I don’t think any of us can doubt that the revealed law itself is a 100% objective standard. Of course, as you suggest, whether or not you believe it is as another matter. You either believe it our you don’t.
As for freedom of conscience, I totally agree with you that we should all have freedom of conscience before the law. As Jefferson said in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions.” However, (i) I don’t see how we can truly be said to have true freedom of conscience if expression of our faith (or atheism, in your case) is excluded from the public square, and (ii) if government is to punish wrong behavior (i.e., murder), it would seem to me that it would have to have some standard for defining what is right and wrong. A Christian worldview, in this case, seems to me to be no more exclusive than an atheistic one.
As for atheism itself, I personally believe it takes more faith to believe that there is NOT a God than to believe that there is. As one of our presidents said before, “Sometimes when I’m faced with an unbeliever, an atheist, I am tempted to invite him to the greatest gourmet dinner that one could ever serve, and when we finished eating that magnificent dinner, to ask him if he believes there’s a cook.”
Romans 1:18-20 says, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”
I understand where you are coming from, but I sure hope and pray that you will come to change your mind… Personally, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes;” (Romans 1:16).
Lastly, Jonathan Rowe, I just want to say that I appreciate your respectful and detailed analysis of this issue, even though I may not agree with all of your conclusions…
Thanks Elliot and keep chiming in!
I don’t think any of us can doubt that the revealed law itself is a 100% objective standard.
Yes and no, sir. The Bible does not necessarily hold “these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Unless you have a Bible quote to back that up.
That is the nub of the discussion here. Such things might be found in the Christian philosophical tradition in the 17 hundred and 76 years or so following the birth of Jesus, but the Bible acknowledged slavery without condemning it, and one of its major figures advised Joe Sixpack to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, i.e.
..the government.
I join you in your praise and admiration for Mr. Rowe, an honest man if there ever was one.
No, Tom, I don’t believe I can quote a Bible verse off the top of my head that says that that all men have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” : ) but if I understand what I wrote correctly, : ) I was not saying that the Bible necessarily had to support every idea articulated in the Declaration of Independence, only that it was a 100% objective standard for determining (among many other things) what rights are “unalienable” among men.
For example, I believe all men have a right to life, not because they have been given such a right by popular consensus of their community, or by decree from their government, but because God made each and every man in His image (Genesis 1:27), and because He tells us in Exodus 20:13, “You shall not kill.”
Thoughts?
Elliot –
Where in the Bible do you find the right to representation in government, as opposed to government by divine command?
Where is there a clear, unambiguous condemnation of slavery, and how do you explain the passages that actually endorse slavery?
What about the equal rights of women in civil government? (Do what you like with women in your church; I’m asking about civil, not religious rights.)
How about private property? The early Christians, as I understand it, held all things in common. Or, in modern parlance, were communists.
If we were to take the Bible as the 100% objective standard on any of these questions, we would be in a heap of trouble.
LOL. I thought it might come to this… :-) Honestly, I don’t have answers to all of your questions off the top of my head, but that’s OK. My mom only gave me 5 minutes on the Internet, so I’ll have to get back to you later, that is, if I do think of something…
I would say, however, that I think there is a Biblical basis for private property ownership, at least as it relates to governmental policy (if individuals want to pool their assets, and live like Communists, that’s fine, but it’ll only work in an ideal world), separation of powers (i.e., three branches of government), etc. That’s not to say that there’s a specific Bible verse that deals with each concept found in our Constitution, only that there’s a Biblical basis for understanding most of what’s in our Constitution.
Again, however, I’ll have to think about it some more, and get back to you later if I have something worthwhile to share!
A. OK. Starting from the top:
1. Representative government: If you’re referring to ancient Israel, Israel was, as I understand it, first a theocracy, than a monarchy. However, there doesn’t seem to be anything in the Bible that suggests that a monarchy is the best form of government. In fact, if you read 1 Samuel 8 and 11, you’ll find Samuel warning the people against appointing a king over them…
For example, in 1 Samuel 8:11-18, Samuel says, “This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.”
As for “government by divine command,” I do believe political leaders should see themselves as primarily responsible to God for their actions, whether they are elected by the people, appointed by a higher authority, or otherwise. As Nehemiah wrote in Nehemiah 5:19, “Think upon me, my God, for good, according to all that I have done for this people.”
On a sidenote, we find three branches of government delineated in Isaiah 33:22, long before any political philosopher I know of came up with the idea, “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.”
2. Slavery: The Bible doesn’t specifically condemn slavery (at least as far as I know), but it does teach that all men are created equal, which was (and still is) at the very heart of the argument against slavery. If we don’t have an objective basis for believing that all men are created equal, then I don’t see why slavery shouldn’t be allowed.
3. Equal rights for women: I do believe the Bible teaches that husbands and fathers should be the head of their families. However, that is not to say the Bible doesn’t lay the foundation for equal dignity and fair treatment of women.
Ephesians 5:25 says, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it; That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loves his wife loves himself.”
1 Peter 3:7 says, (after giving a charge to the wives), “Likewise, you husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”
I don’t see this respect for women displayed in many cultures of the past, whether in Greece, Rome, the Middle East or Asia, and I say that as one whose parents were both from Taiwan. In fact, if not for the Bible, I tend to think we would see women mistreated much more frequently on a sort of “might makes right” basis.
So, if not for the Bible, where would be in terms of equal rights, equal protection, and equal dignity for women?
4. Private property ownership: Genesis 1:28 says, “And God blessed them [Adam and Eve], and God said unto them, ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” I believe this “dominion mandate” is the Biblical basis for private property ownership, as God tells two individuals to take dominion over every living thing that moves upon the earth.
As for the early Christian church holding their property in common (Acts 4:32), I would just say that that was an example of private individuals voluntarily choosing to share their property in common (and provide for each others’ needs), as distinctly opposed to the government carrying out some quasi-communistic “redistribution of wealth.”
The Biblical role of civil government, as found in Romans 13:4, is to punish that which is evil, and command (or reward) that which is good. [As Blackstone writes in his Commentaries, "[M]unicipal law is a rule of civil conduct, commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong.”] This pointedly excludes any sort of government involvement in interfering with private property ownership.
So, I personally feel the Bible actually supports private property ownership, with special guidelines for the church to provide for those who are truly in need (e.g., widows and orphans) found in 1 Timothy 5, James 1:24, etc.
5. So, in summary, if NOT for the Bible being a 100% objective standard we can reference on many of this issues, I think we would be a whole lot worse off than we currently are.
B. Really, if I’m understanding this discussion correctly, the basic question here is this: What law do we live by? Specifically, do we pick and choose what we want to believe, according to what we think is decent, and right, and fair, and reasonable, or do we rely on some other objective standard (such as the Bible)?
I know some of you will probably disagree with me here, but I believe, for a number of reasons, that the standard we ought to live by is the Bible.
1. I believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God. I know there are some people who don’t believe that, and as I said earlier, you either believe it or you don’t (or you believe some of it, and not the rest), but if you believe, like I do, that the Bible has been given to us by “the benign interposition of divine Providence, which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in divers manners, to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct revelation…to be found only in the holy scriptures,” then it is only reasonable to hold that the Bible should take precedence over all other standards of morality, reason included.
2. Reason is great. As Blackstone said, “As, therefore, the Creator is a being not only of infinite power, and wisdom, but also of infinite goodness, [H]e . . . . has graciously reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept, ‘that man should pursue his own true and substantial happiness.’ This is the foundation of what we call ethics, or natural law . . . .” Again, however, I believe with Blackstone that man’s reason (while a helpful tool) is “corrupt, and [man's] understanding full of ignorance and error.” As Hume pointed out, there will always be a gap between what “is,” that is, what we can observe about human nature and the world around us, and what “should be.” I personally believe the Bible is the only true and objective (and best) standard to bridge that gap, although of course many will disagree with me on that point.
3. If we believe in the law of nature, unchecked by any other law or standard, that is, if we get to pick and choose the standard by which we live our lives, than in the long run, anything goes, as long as we can (i) justify it in our mind, and (ii) get by with it in our community. On the other hand, if we are governed by the Bible, we will be responsible, of course, to a higher authority for our actions, whether we are just little children, ordinary citizens, or presidents of great nations.
C. It’s been an interesting discussion; thanks for giving me an opportunity to do my own little bit of a Bible study on these issues; I still have SO much to learn… :)
If you don’t mind me asking Elliot, how old are you? I ask that because you said your mom only gave you 5 minutes on the Internet.
Elliot is a good friend of mine and a fellow classmate in Oak Brook College of Law. He is wise beyond his years. :)
Thanks. I thought he might be in high school after the remark above, but I know lots of folks who continue to live with their parents into their 20s.
I too feel as though I have so much to learn on this issue as well.
LOL, thanks Tyler! :) No, Jonathan, I don’t mind you asking; I just turned [deleted], and the only reason why my mom was limiting my computer usage on that particular day was for my own good, :) because I sometimes spend more time on the computer (and not enough time on my studies) than is good for me.
But I’m really grateful for the education I am getting at OBCL, and I think Tyler would say the same thing too if you ask him…
If there’s any way to remove this comment or not publish it, I would really appreciate that, only because I don’t particularly care to have my age permanently published on the Internet.
Thanks again for giving me the opportunity to have a civil discussion on your blog; it’s been a good learning experience for me…
I just deleted your age as you asked. Thanks again and keep reading.
[...] Commenter Elliot left the following reply to this post, to which I thought I’d devote a top-level entry. His words are blockquoted, my replies are not… [...]