An Old Jared Sparks Post is Still Relevant

I wrote this in 2008 (yeah, I've been doing this for a while). I'm hoping to shed light on some of the "issues" relating to how we understand and categorize America's founders religious creeds with the terms that are used. Many "Deists" and almost all "Unitarians" of the period in which we study -- mainly the 18th century, but also the antecedent late 17th and subsequent early 19th centuries -- considered themselves to be "Christians." 

Rather, it was the orthodox Trinitarians -- perhaps not all, but the "theologian" types -- who would deny them that label.

With that, this is Jared Sparks, a very notable early 19th Century scholar of the American founding and a Unitarian, defending the notion that Unitarians like himself are entitled to the "Christian" label against one Rev. Samuel Miller of Princeton who himself was quite prominent, back in the day:

And Locke must still be considered a Unitarian, till he can be proved a Trinitarian ; a task, which it is not likely you will soon undertake. At all events, he had no faith in the assemblage of articles, which you denominate the essence of christianity, and without believing which, you say, no one can be called a Christian. His whole treatise on the Reasonableness of Christianity bears witness to this truth. For the leading object of that work is to show, that "the Gospel was written to induce men into a belief of this proposition, 'that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah,' which if they believed, they should have life."* He says nothing about total depravity, the atonement, the "sanctifying spirit of an Almighty Surety," nor any of your peculiar doctrines. Yet who has done more to elucidate the sacred Scriptures, or to prove the consistency and reasonableness of the religion of Jesus? Your rule, however, will take from him the Christian name.

Yes, I agree, John Locke was almost certainly a theological unitarian. We are dealing with different baselines for the term "Christian." Theological unitarianism, by definition, rejects the articulation of the Trinity found in the Nicene Creed and like places. Most of such unitarians rejected the Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement*, all the while believing Jesus is Messiah/Son of God. 

*The majority of such unitarians were Arians and Socinians, with Arianism predominating. The theology of both rejects the Trinity and Incarnation. Some of these unitarians posit a doctrine that sounds like the Atonement, but it's an unorthodox version. Others outright reject the Atonement by name. Some scholars lump in Modalists/Sabellians with "unitarianism." Though, such believes God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- which sounds like a Trinity; though, such also denies F, S & HS are eternally distinct, but rather different titles/forms that God as One Person holds.