Classical & Calvinist: The Federalist Papers as a Model for Classical Christian Education in America
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?”
–James Madison, Federalist 51
When Americans discuss the purpose of government, often what comes up is the services government provides: defense, education, healthcare, and so on. What does not usually enter the conversation is the restraining of man’s depraved nature. The Westminster Confession describes man’s nature as, “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil” [1]. This would not be news to James Madison, nor to the two other men who wrote the essays of The Federalist, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton. Yet these three, writing in support of ratifying the Constitution, believed they and the other Framers had found a system to restrain man’s fallen nature and create a just government. The three men drew upon the wisdom of the classical tradition and combined it with the Reformed thought in which the authors were saturated. In their writing, the authors of The Federalist not only produced one of the finest articulations of political doctrine in history, but offered a model to American classical Christian students. The Federalist should hold a cherished place in the curriculum of any such school not only for its insight into American civics, politics, and human nature, but for a portrait of how a Reformed classical student ought to apply the wealth of learning entrusted to him for the good of the commonwealth.
All three authors of The Federalist received a rigorous classical education. All three were steeped in Protestantism. Jay and Hamilton were graduates of what is now Columbia University. Madison graduated from Princeton. Jay was a devout Episcopalian [2]. After retirement from public office, he became the president of the American Bible Society, founded by his son [3]. Hamilton led a colorful life, but regularly attended Trinity Episcopal Church in New York. He was heavily influenced by Presbyterians like the Reverend Hugh Knox, who mentored him and sponsored his entrance to Columbia as an orphan from the Caribbean islands [4]. Whatever his standing before the Lord, Hamilton’s dying moments were spent conversing over the grace of Christ with a local Presbyterian minister and his pious Dutch Reformed wife, Eliza [5]. Madison was the least religiously orthodox of the three and the most influenced by the Enlightenment and deism. However, at Princeton Madison was a pupil of the staunch Presbyterian John Witherspoon, president of the college and the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence. All three men would have received a strenuous classical education, and all were shaped by the widespread Protestantism of their society.
One of the counter proposals during the ratification debate was the argument of some, the “Anti-Federalists,” that the American states would be better off remaining as independent, sovereign states, or forming small coalitions with a few other states. The states, though not united, could maintain amity by trade and commerce. One of the signal traits of The Federalist is how the authors explain the incompatibility of this plan with man’s natural state as understood by Reformed doctrine. The authors then turn to their wealth of classical knowledge to prove it.
The authors of The Federalist assume the view of man’s total depravity. Though the essays lack direct references to Scripture, a clear-eyed understanding of man’s base nature permeates the writings. In refuting the idea of thirteen independent states or a few confederacies of states, Hamilton and Jay predict what will transpire in such a scenario: the states will turn against each other out of jealousy and strife. Believing that the states would live together in harmony would be the delusions of a “man far gone in Utopian speculations,” according to Hamilton [6]. States would each pursue different policies, to varying degrees of success. Humans cannot be forced into equal outcomes, for each will approach life differently, work harder, or diverge in any number of factors. Jay argues the same of different states. Even if every state began on equal footing, “it cannot be presumed that the same degree of sound policy, prudence, and foresight, would uniformly be observed by each of these confederacies, for a long succession of years” [7]. What would happen when one state saw success above the others? At that “moment would her neighbors behold her with envy and fear” [8]. The neighboring states would both promote “whatever might promise to diminish her importance,” and also become distracted from pursuing measures for their own prosperity [9].
External threats would arise too, again given man’s nature. Countries, governed by men, behave no differently than those men do as individuals. A man does not always act out of his own best interest, but is often carried away by his passions. Hamilton writes that history is full of men who “have not scrupled to sacrifice the national tranquility to personal advantage, or personal gratification” [10]. Additionally, countries go to war when they perceive their opponent is vulnerable. Strong nations prey upon the weak in war and humiliate them in diplomacy [11]. A strong nation seeing the fledgling states would leap at the opportunity.
Pure democracy, the rule of the fifty-one percent, depends on man not being carried away by his passions and ambitions, or sacrificing the public good to his selfish interests. Such a system would only function if men were inherently good, but if “men were angels, no government would be necessary,” as Madison wrote [12]. But men are not angels. Madison again wrote in Federalist 55 that whenever a group of men gather to debate, no matter the character of each individual, “passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason” [13]. Even if they were all men of great wisdom and character, man cannot escape his sin, for even if “every Athenian citizen had been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob” [14]. Since men are not angels, in fact they usually aren’t even Socrates, the government must have restraint, checks and balances, built in to control the predilections of sinful man, rather than allowing the reign of whoever can stir up the strongest whims of the crowd.
Yet, there is a paradox in man’s nature. Madison struck at this paradox in Federalist 55: “there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust” [15]. Man cannot be trusted with unrestricted authority. At the same time, Madison continues, “there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form” [16]. Madison echoes the writing of John Calvin here. Though Calvin is better known for his low view of human nature, Calvin also wrote of the kindness of God bestowed on all mankind that enables him to seek truth, justice, and beauty to some degree. Even when reading pagan authors, Calvin writes that the “admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us, that the human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from its Creator” [17]. To ignore such gifts, Calvin says, is to insult the One who gave them. Calvin recognizes all the great classical works in mathematics, art, and philosophy as the gift of common grace, and we must read them “with the highest admiration” as we praise the Divine Gift-Giver who lavished these blessings [18]. Madison recognizes, along with Calvin, that, sinful though he may be, man is still capable of attaining some level of virtue by God’s common grace. Democracy relies on man’s virtue without providing a guard against his vices though. The republican model of the Constitution, Madison argued, best sought to utilize the capacity for virtue while restraining depravity.
To test these beliefs, the authors drew on their extensive training in the classical world to apply its wisdom to the principles of the constitutional debate. The essays are filled with references to classical authors. John Jay counters the idea that the states could be independent but still pledged to mutual defense by drawing on the example of the Persian War, when many Greek city-states abandoned each other and even joined the Persians [19]. Madison uses the examples of Rome, Sparta, Athens, and Carthage as points of comparison for how the U.S. Senate will be constituted in Federalist 63 [20]. When delineating the office of the president in Federalist 71, Hamilton describes the president like a platonic philosopher-king who guards the public interest when “the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations” [21]. The Greek historian Polybius who analyzed the strengths of the Roman Republican order in his Histories provided arguably the most enduring impact on both the authors of The Federalist and the Framers of the Constitution in general. Polybius attributes the virtue of Rome’s government to its separation of powers between three forms of government, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, which check the excesses of each other [22]. Madison devotes Federalist 47 and 48 to show how the American Constitution will satisfy just such a safeguard against despotism.
The classical tradition provided its wisdom to the Federalist authors not just in domestic policy, but in foreign relations too. Some reasoned separate states would be able to live together in peace because peace would best serve the interests of each state. Hamilton and Madison take down this argument in Federalist 6 and 18, respectively. Hamilton cites Plutarch’s biography of Pericles to expose how the “causes of hostility among nations are innumerable” [23]. Countries fight out of ambition, fear, and all manner of irrational reasons. In the case of Pericles, the Athenian statesman instigated wars against several fellow Greek city-states for his own personal aims. Pericles launched one war to suit the whims of his love interest [24]. Another war he began to avoid prosecution for appropriating public funds to promote his own popularity [25]. “At the expense of much of the blood and treasure of his countrymen,” Pericles brought on unnecessary conflicts that triggered the Peloponnesian War and the ultimate ruin of Athens [26].
Madison takes on the question of interstate relations in Federalist No. 18 by using the writings of Thucydides and the speeches of Demosthenes. One argument was that shared American culture, religion, language, and history would hold the states together in friendship despite no formal unification. From Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War, Madison points out that Athens and Sparta had no sooner worked together to repulse the invasion of Xerxes’ Persian Empire than they turned on each other “out of mutual jealousies, fears, hatreds and injuries,” leading to the ruinous Peloponnesian War [27]. Despite their shared culture, the Greeks caused “infinitely more mischief than they had suffered from Xerxes” [28].
From the speeches of the Athenian orator Demosthenes, Madison retells the story of the subversion of the Greek city-states by the Macedonians, implying the same would happen to the American states. The city-states formed a religious alliance, the Amphictyonic Council, for the care of the sacred Oracle of Delphi. When the city-state Phocis desecrated the ground of Delphi, the members of the league bickered over the proper response. The Council levied a fine, but Phocis refused to pay. Thebes sought to enforce the payment, but Athens and Sparta, rivals of the Thebans, backed Phocis. Since Phocis was weaker than Thebes, Phocis turned externally for aid: Philip II of Macedon. Philip jumped at the chance to dominate his neighbors, bribing some members of the league, using force to subdue others like the Thebans. Philip’s more famous son would complete the subjugation of Greece: Alexander the Great annihilated Thebes and subdued Athens, bringing an end to Greek independence. Madison sees the clear lesson from the ancients: human nature is such that even ethnic and cultural identity will not be enough to withstand jealousy and intrigue. When those neighbors quarrel, the weaker neighbors will invite stronger foreign powers in to help [29]. A strong foreign nation will see the weakness of the states and exploit them all for its own gain. To Madison, the only answer to avoid “the chains of Macedon” is a union of states under a central government strong enough to balance the interests of the states and maintain unity [30].
Of all the classical sources referenced in The Federalist, Plutarch is the writer most frequently cited. While the authors turned to Plutarch’s biographies of the great heroes of Greece and Rome for historical examples, look no further for Plutarch’s inspiration than the pseudonym under which the essays were written. Hamilton chose the pen-name Publius for the project, and every one of the essays is signed under the name. Publius Valerius and Lucius Brutus drove from Rome the hated Etruscan tyrant Tarquin the Proud, which led to the establishment of the Roman Republic [31]. Publius later acceded to one of the two offices of consul. Publius’ consular partner died in office, leaving him in sole possession of power. Rather than consolidate his own power, Publius strengthened the republic by restoring the Roman senate after Tarquin, creating an appeals process against a consul’s pronouncements, and founding the office of the treasurer so that the consuls would not “have the greater temptation to injustice by holding both the government and the treasury in his hands” [32]. Publius also saved the republic by thwarting a conspiracy to return Tarquin to power, and winning numerous victories against Rome’s attackers. For all his endeavors to reject power and establish the security of the Roman Republic, the Roman people gave Publius the title Poplicola, or “people-lover” [33]. In choosing this nom de plume, Hamilton signals to the readers that the work of The Federalist is the same work achieved by Publius over 2,000 years earlier, to set the republic on a firm foundation of order and liberty for centuries.
The Federalist is a landmark achievement in political philosophy while providing insight into what the Framers of the Constitution intended. Yet, it should also hold a unique value to American classical Christian education. Many classical schools have a “Portrait of a Graduate,” or a description of what characteristics a graduate of that school should possess. They usually contain phrases about wisdom, eloquence, and virtue, perhaps goals of active service in the church and community. The Federalist is a unique American example of those portraits in practice. Three Americans, at a relatively young age, brought together their rigorous education in the wisdom of the ancients and their understanding of Reformed doctrine to serve the commonwealth. All three men were successful in their careers. The offices they attained include Treasury Secretary, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and President of the United States. Job attainment was not the purpose of their education, contrary to common belief today. They were trained to use their wisdom and virtue for the service of their country. They produced a beautiful, wise articulation of principles that are still fundamental to the American Order. Few examples could rival The Federalist for the classically Christian educated American student of the proper end of education: the synthesis of the great learning of the Classical Tradition and the tenets of the Reformed faith to serve the community.
Endnotes
[1] Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith, chap. 6, sec. 4.
[2] Allen Weinreb, “The Jays and Religion,” (lecture transcript), delivered at the 200th Anniversary Celebration of the St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church, Bedford, NY, October, 2010, 1, https://johnjayhomestead.org/wp-content/uploads/The_Jays_and_Religion_for_website.pdf.
[3] Ibid., 4.
[4] Obbie Tyler Todd, “Was Alexander Hamilton a Christian? The Troubled Faith of a Disgraced Founding Father,” Desiring God, October 8, 2021, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/was-alexander-hamilton-a-christian.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers, ed. Gary Willis (New York: Bantam Classic, 2003), Federalist 6, 25.
[7] John Jay, Federalist 5, 23.
[8] John Jay, Federalist 5.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Hamilton, Federalist 6, 26.
[11] Jay, Federalist 3, 16.
[12] James Madison, Federalist 51, 316.
[13] James Madison, Federalist 55, 342.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 2.2.15, 167.
[18] Ibid.
[19] John Jay, Federalist No. 4, 20.
[20] James Madison, Federalist No. 63, 384-387.
[21] Hamilton, Federalist No. 71, 436.
[22] Polybius, The Complete Histories, trans. W.R. Paton (Digireads: 2009), 235. Kindle.
[23] Hamilton, Federalist No. 6, 26.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid., 27.
[26] Ibid., 26-27.
[27] James Madison, Federalist 18, 102.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Madison was essentially proven true during the Civil War. No sooner had the war begun when the Confederate States sought the intervention of European powers against their fellow Americans.
[30] Ibid., 103.
[31] Brutus was the pen name chosen by the men who wrote The Anti-Federalist Papers.
[32] Plutarch, Plutarch’s Lives, trans. John Dryden, rev. Arthur Hugh Clough (New York: Modern Library, 2001), “Comparison of Poplicola with Solon,” vol. 1, 144.
[33] Plutarch, “Poplicola,” 135.
