The Quote in Question

While Henry Cabot Lodge was preparing his own edition of Alexander Hamilton's works (John Church Hamilton had published his own in the 1840s and 1850s), he discovered an incomplete writing of Hamilton's that had never been published. The piece itself was an extraordinary criticism of the French Revolution, and Hamilton usually did, he started his denunciations of the French Revolution by denouncing their blatant rejection of Christianity. The work was undated, but several clues lead me to believe that it was written sometime in the mid-1790s:

(1) Hamilton's language is very strong, passionate, and fervent, as if the news of the infidelity of France was still fresh in Hamilton's mind, and he sat down and scrawled down his thoughts on paper (as was his habit).

(2) The words, phrases, and structure are very similar to Hamilton's published pamphlet The Stand, No. III, which was published in 1798. It is probable that this writing in question, which Lodge titled "Fragment on the French Revolution," was a rough draft of The Stand, No. III.

The "Fragment" began,

Facts, numerous and unequivocal, demonstrate that the present ÆRA 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.
In proportion as success has appeared to attend the plan, a bolder project has been unfolded. The very existence of a Deity has been questioned and in some instances denied. The duty of piety has been ridiculed, the perishable nature of man asserted, and his hopes bounded to the short span of his earthly state. DEATH has been proclaimed an ETERNAL SLEEP; "the dogma of the immortality of the soul a cheat, invented to torment the living for the benefit of the dead." Irreligion, no longer confined to the closets of conceited sophists, nor to the haunts of wealthy riot, has more or less displayed its hideous front among all classes. (1)

Here, Hamilton is clearly attacking atheism and deism (that defeats the popular argument that Hamilton became a deist). And yet there is a new theory that is being popularized by the secularists. They are losing the "The Founders were deists" argument, and so now they are giving the Founders labels such as "religious, but not Christian" and "theistic rationalists." And a theistic rationalist accepts the existence of God, has respect for Jesus as a "good teacher," and accepts parts of the Bible to be true, perhaps even inspired. It believes that divine revelation does exist, but that man's rational faculties are superior to anything with the label "divine revelation" on it. Now, to any rational and unprejudiced mind, Hamilton is not defending theistic rationalism, but rather Christianity. Here's the proof:

(1) He refers specifically to the "Christian revelation" and "the Gospel." He never uses any language that is distinctly "rationalist," but rather "Christian."

(2) "Theistic rationalism" may not discard ALL of the "Christian revelation," but it cannot accept "the Gospel," to which Hamilton not only makes direct reference, but implies an equation of "Christian revelation" and "the Gospel." Theistic rationalism is incompatible with the Gospel, and if one takes Hamilton's definition of "natural religion" at face value, one must admit the following obvious facts:

Theistic rationalism is incompatible with the Gospel, and may be categorized ultimately as "natural religion" (because theistic rationalism ultimately holds the dictates of man's reason and the laws of nature to be the sources of absolute truth). The Gospel, according to the rationalist, is fundamentally erroneous.

The basic tenets of the Gospel are as follows:

(1) Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who became a human being as the son of a chaste virgin.

According to the mind of any rationalist, this is impossible, as it goes beyond the comprehension of reason and it is contrary to the laws of nature.

(2) Jesus Christ performed the miracles described in the Gospels, and fulfilled the divinely-inspired prophesies of the Old Testament.

According to theistic-rationalistic reasoning, the miracles that Jesus performed (multiplying fishes and loaves, casting out demons, walking on water, etc.) are merely myths or parables, since it is impossible for such things to REALLY happen because they transgress the bounds of reason and natural laws.

(3) Jesus Christ died on the cross to atone for the sins of the human race, and accomplished what moral codes alone could not accomplish.

Atonement is impossible, according to the theistic rationalist, because only God incarnate could possible and truly atone for humanity's sins, and since theistic rationalism has ruled out the possibility of God being incarnate, and being born of a virgin, atonement is rationally impossible.

(4) Jesus Christ truly died, and yet He arose from the grave physically alive, just as the Gospels record.

According to theistic rationalism, this is rationally incomprehensible, and once again, it transgresses the bounds of natural law.

Theistic rationalism, although not specifically referred to by Hamilton in the above quotation, must then be included in the philosophies which "attack ... the Christian revelation" and discard the Gospel "as a gross imposture." If you reject some of Christian revelation, you reject all of it, because you acknowledge a higher source than revelation. If the basic tenets of the Gospel are untrue, than the Gospel is untrue, and is, according to the theistic rationalist, "a gross imposture," although he may not refer to the Gospel in such strong terms.