Christian Nationalism and the Original Meaning of the term "Religion"

In the United States Constitution, the term "religion" is used in the First Amendment and in the unamended Constitution, Art. VI, Cl. 3, the term is "religious." The term "religion" is like a genus that could give rise to various species. What is meant by that term and consequently what is "protected" constitutionally is contentious. 

I've observed a tendency in certain Christian Nationalist circles to attempt to limit the meaning to only those religious sentiments that are "acceptable." So for instance, "religion" here doesn't just mean "Christianity," but certain "acceptable" kinds of "Christianity." Roman Catholicism for instance, may or may not qualify. Some religious conservatives accused of "Christian Nationalism" have no problem with adding "Judeo" to the prefix, perhaps in an attempt to form an alliance between traditionally minded Jews and Christians. ... But not others. Not Islam. Not Hinduism. On the other hand, today's Alt-Right breed of Christian Nationalists tend to agree that Judaism is NOT Christianity, and ought to be placed in the same "outside the box" category as Islam and Hinduism. 

After intensely researching this matter for over 20 years, I've concluded that when America's founders used the term "religion," it transcended "Christianity," and "Judeo-Christianity." It may not have meant blatant Satanic demon worship; but other religions like Islam, Hinduism and unconverted Native American "Great Spirit" worship qualified as "religions." 

Here is a quotation from John Adams that well illustrates this:

It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world.

–- John Adams to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818.

I've amassed many other quotations over the years that illustrate the point. But that one above will suffice for now. 

John Fea Featured on PBS Regarding America's 250th

Dr. Fea emerges as the voice of reason in this attempt to put into perspective "Christian Nationalism" and America's 250th. 

See here. 

And I've embedded a YouTube clip:

Frazer, Fea and Hall Featured on the Christian Nation Question

Drs. Gregg Frazer, John Fea, and Mark David Hall were recently featured in an AP article that got lots of press. A taste:

“Neither side really wants to hear what I say,” says Frazer, a professor of history and political studies at The Master’s University, a Christian school in Santa Clarita, California.

The founders, Frazer says, did not create a Christian republic. Several key founders either rejected core Christian doctrines or were vague enough to keep historians debating. For Frazer, that often disappoints audiences of his fellow Christians.

[...]

The long-running debate over the founders’ intentions about religion has been turbocharged with the approaching 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence on July 4. Amid the America 250 celebrations, some Christian activists and authors are redoubling claims that the U.S. had a Christian founding.

[...]

Why do the founders’ beliefs and intentions matter?

“Everyone’s looking for what we historians call a usable past,” says John Fea, author of “Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?”

“We go into the past looking for what we want in order to advance a particular political or cultural agenda,” says Fea, a fellow at the Lumen Center, a Christian research institute and study center in Madison, Wisconsin.

[...]

Historian Mark David Hall argues that Christianity did strongly impact the founding. While core founders did not hold traditional Christian beliefs, he contends many other founders did, and that this shaped their thinking about how to form the new republic.

“There’s plenty of evidence Christianity had an influence,” says Hall, author of “Did America Have a Christian Founding?”

He says founders’ attention to human dignity harmonizes with the Bible’s teaching of humanity created in God’s image. The system of checks and balances — to prevent the concentration of power — reflects teachings about human sin that would have permeated a largely Protestant culture, he says.

[...]

There is no reference to any specific religion in the Constitution beyond the date — “in the year of our Lord” 1787. It forbids religious tests for officeholders. The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees religious freedom and forbids “establishment” of a national religion.

[...]

Frazer argues that the Bible is not cited as a source for any governing principles in the documented proceedings of the Constitutional Convention or in the influential Federalist Papers, which advocated for the Constitution. He says the founders drew on influences such as Enlightenment thinking on such concepts as human equality, accountable government and freedom of religion. Early critics of the Constitution faulted it for lacking religious content.

The Declaration of Independence does have religious language, declaring that rights come from the “Creator.” It appeals to “divine Providence” and to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

Thomas Jefferson and other founders — adroitly, Frazer says — used terms acceptable to Christians as well as followers of other religious and philosophical movements.

Quotations For The D.O.I.'s 250th: John Adams on the General Principles of Christianity

I'm trying to motivate myself to start posting more here, especially as America approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here is a quotation that we oft-see cited to prove the Christian Nation hypothesis: It's from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813:

The general principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved [sic] Independence, were…the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty…Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.

The context of the quotation though, shows that it's a wildly heterodox and quite pluralistic notion. Adams considered himself to be a "Christian" -- a "liberal unitarian Christian." He was militantly anti-Trinitarian and bitterly rejected the doctrine of the Incarnation. So it stands to reason that his understanding of the "general principles of Christianity" might be unconventional. Indeed, when we examine the sects that were united under these principles that's exactly what we see:

Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and “Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"].” Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.

Of late I've been reflecting on the just how pluralistic the sectarian nature of religion was during America's founding era and Adams' quotation perfectly illustrates this. There's also the following passage where Adams used various philosophes associated with challenging conventional Christian notions as authoritative support for the quotation:

I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.

See also here for a more detailed analysis. 

Dr. Ken Berry On Romans, Peter and Resistance In Tennessee

This post relates to some issues of personal interest, intersecting. For all the years I've been blogging, I've been a libertarian. And I think I've always been "political independent." As the years go by, I've become even more so; I really dislike the current "culture war," divisive climate in which we live and so I'm happily on the sidelines. I have taken an interest in nutrition science and for some time I've been convinced that there is something to ketogenic diets and that they are probably optimal (though, they are very limiting and thus, for most, too hard to stay on). I even sympathize with the case for "carnivore." 

Unfortunately, this issue has now become politicized. I came to my conclusions on keto before #MAHA existed. There are all sorts of things that come out of RFK Jr.'s mouth that I don't agree with or that otherwise strike me as "off." But things like keto and carnivore are now, in many people's minds, associated with MAHA/RFK Jr. This is unfortunate because it distracts from getting to the truth of the matter. But I am happy that they give it institutional support. 

Ken Berry is a medical doctor from Tennessee and is one of the more notable influential voices in the keto-carnivore space (his YouTube page has 3.8 million subscribers, as it stands). He's the author of "Lies My Doctor Told Me." To me, he's very likeable and down to earth. And he seems to be a "meat and potatoes" (he doesn't eat the latter, lol), conservative evangelical.

Berry is now starting to research and argue the issues of political theology that is the subject of this site. Welcome aboard, Dr. Berry. Drs. Mark David Hall and Gregg Frazer, also reformed/evangelical types, are two of the most learned scholars on the issue of the reformed influence on the political theology of the American founding. And they differ on certain details. And this site has featured their dialog and debates. 

With that, the following is from Dr. Berry's Substack:

Still, that does not mean every disagreement is tyranny. It does not mean every official gets to do whatever he wants in the name of conscience. And it certainly does not mean every frustrated citizen can drape himself in the language of righteous defiance. This doctrine only makes sense if it stays tied to Scripture, tied to real office, and kept within the limits of law. 

Put simply, the doctrine of the lesser magistrate holds that a lower civil authority may, and in some grave cases must, resist a higher authority when the higher authority acts unlawfully or commands what is sinful. The doctrine is not about private citizens taking matters into their own hands. It is about lawful officeholders using the authority of their own office rightly under God and law. 

Scripture gives us the basic tension. Romans 13 says governing authority is from God and calls the ruler “God’s servant for your good.” First Peter says believers are to be subject “for the Lord’s sake” to human authorities, and it describes the proper end of government as punishing evil and praising good. Christians are not anarchists. Civil government is not merely an unfortunate necessity. It is a real institution ordained by God for human good. 

But obedience to earthly rulers is not absolute. In Acts 5:29, Peter and the apostles say plainly, “We must obey God rather than men.” The Hebrew midwives in Exodus refused Pharaoh’s murderous command because they feared God. Daniel continued to pray when the king’s decree forbade it. Scripture does not teach blind obedience to wicked commands. It teaches ordinary submission to rightful authority, always bounded by prior obedience to God. 

That is the tension. Christians are told to honor governing authority, but also to refuse obedience when obedience would require sin. The doctrine of the lesser magistrate grew out of that tension in public life. It asks a question many people today no longer know how to frame: what is a lower civil authority supposed to do when a higher authority becomes lawless, tyrannical, or morally corrupt? 

The best-known historical statement of the doctrine came in the Magdeburg Confession of 1550. ...

Dr. Berry isn't discussing the American founding here; rather he's discussing how Christians like himself should view these issues and the Tennessee Constitution. Though, these issues HAVE been discussed in the context of how they relate to the American founding. He has noted he plans on writing more about these issues and the American founding in the future. We look forward to it and perhaps having him join us in the discussion. 

"Accidental" Influences on the American Founding

Over the years I've noticed claims of "accidental" influences on the American founding. What does that mean? Influences that they rarely if ever cited, but who somehow deserve credit for their ideas, nonetheless. Here are a few examples:

1. Thomas Hobbes. America's founders almost never positively cited him, and often negatively did. John Locke was no "accidental" influence, but to the contrary. He was arguably the most cited philosopher. The argument is that Hobbes gets smuggled in through Locke and the "state of nature/social contract and rights" teachings. The followers of Leo Strauss (or at least a number of them) teach this. 

2. Thomism. There was some kind of meaningful anti-Roman Catholic bias in the zeitgeist of the American Founding such that Catholic figures like Thomas Aquinas were rarely if ever cited. The Anglican Thomist Richard Hooker is nominally, positively cited by Locke. Some of America's actual founders like James Wilson cited Hooker, but they were much more imbibed in Locke and others.

3. Roman Catholic canon law. Late Catholic scholars Brian Tierney and Charles Rice make the case that such anticipated and incorporated the concept of "rights" as was understood by America's founders and the Declaration of Independence and later documents and writings. 

4. Calvinist resisters. The work of Mark David Hall and others. Someone like Samuel Rutherford whom the founders rarely if ever cited. John Adams cited Stephanus Junius Brutus’ Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos and the work of a few other notable figures in one place. If Algernon Sidney counts in this tradition, Thomas Jefferson cited him as one of four chief ideological sources behind the Declaration of Independence. There are attempts to credit "Calvinism/the resisters" for all sorts of things where they weren't explicitly cited (like Madison's quotation in The Federalist Papers about "depravity"). This might be more "half accidental." 

5. The Bible. The much discussed study of Lutz et al. Few understand the nuanced dynamic around it. The study shows that prior to the writing and ratification of the US Constitution, the Bible was cited quite a bit in places like revolutionary era sermons. Those sermons, interestingly, also cite John Locke and his concept of "state of nature/contract and rights" which Leo Strauss has termed "wholly alien to the Bible." Many of the notable ministers were heterodox and arguably count as more "Enlightenment" types as opposed to traditional orthodox Christians. And the Declaration of Independence itself doesn't authoritatively cite the Bible/Jesus/Jehovah/Christianity. 

However, the Lutz study stresses that the Bible was NOT cited for the US Constitution and credits "Enlightenment rationalism" for such. Many "Christian America" apologists mistakenly cite the Lutz study as standing for the proposition that the US Constitution explicitly sourced the Bible. One could still make an argument that the Bible's influence on the principles in the US Constitution was "accidental." They would note that there are principles of "republicanism" found in the Old Testament that "match up" with what's written in the US Constitution. 

6. Roger Williams. A figure America's founders rarely if ever cited. It's ironic in that he was the founder of an American colony. His idea of religious liberty which he innovated, they later championed. He also coined the term "separation of church and state." James Burgh likely was familiar with Williams and got the phrase "separation" from him. And Jefferson in turn likely got it from Burgh. 

7. Spinoza. I think Matthew Stewart argues this. I haven't read Stewart's book, but rather critical reviews of it. From James H. Hutson:

Stewart contends that the founders wanted to “bestow upon America the blessings of popular deism,” “the radical and essentially atheistic philosophy on which the modern liberal state rests.” 

The subtext of Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" makes a point similar to Stewart's; though Hobbes and Locke are the "atheists" whose esoteric philosophy gets embedded into the American Founding. The enterprise of arguing on behalf of "esoteric" and "accidental" influences will always be contentious. I know that scholars might rightly object to imputing Hobbesianism to Locke and consequently to America's founders. 

But as I read the record, they may be objecting for the wrong reasons. The subtext seems Hobbes was irreligious in a way that Locke wasn't. America's founders rejected Hobbes because he argued on behalf of a big beastly government, which they militantly opposed. Yes, people accused Hobbes of being an "atheist" back then, as today. They also accused Rousseau and yes, Locke of esoteric atheism, deism, among other things.

All three of them dressed up their teachings under the auspices of "Christianity." In fact, Hobbes' "Christianity" seemed to be extremely similar to Locke's and perhaps Rousseau's. Hobbes believed that God was the first cause of the world and reduced essential Christian dogma to one, simple claim: "Jesus is the Christ." Locke believed this. And both stressed materialism. 

The point is that Hobbes is exoterically as much of a "Christian" as Locke was, with similar minimalistic, materialistic theologies and philosophies. Objecting to attempts to paint Locke as some kind of esoteric atheistic hedonist is fine. We can object to those esoteric readings of Hobbes as well, as theologically they seemed to be on a similar if not the same page. 

.

Asking the Right Questions

On America's Declaration of Independence and In General. 

I noted when discussing the sentiments of Leo Strauss' followers that I didn't think America's Declaration of Independence was a "Christian" document but rather, it's a "theistic" document. My reasons for this is the document doesn't invoke the Trinity, Jesus Christ or even Jehovah, but rather speaks of a God of some sort (in four places) in more generic terms. Further, it doesn't quote verses and chapter of scripture authoritatively. I got pushback from a friend. And I understand the reasons why; some of them apt. I would concede, for instance, that some/many of the important ideas contained in the DOI were earlier posited by serious Christian thinkers. 

In my post on the Straussians, I noted that "[t]hey ask the right questions" even if one doesn't always agree with their conclusions, hence they are worth seriously engaging. One obvious point for the "pro-Christian America" side is that America's DOI emerges out "Christendom." Renowned evangelical/reformed scholars Drs. Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden in their book "The Search For Christian America" raise the bar beyond watered down, "generic Christendom" in their analysis of the "Christian America/Nation" question. In doing so, they didn't find the American founding to be very "Christian." 

But here is an example of the kind of pertinent questions that they, and the Straussians (I don't think the three scholars are Straussians, but their methodology and conclusions are similar and they also at times have cited one another) ask:

"Is the authoritative invocation of Aristotle and Cicero authentically 'Christian'?" 

I write this because, on the subject of America's DOI, Thomas Jefferson in his 1825 letter to Richard Henry Lee tells us of its sources:

All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c. …

Aristotle and Cicero were neither Jews nor Christians. Whether authoritatively citing them is "Christian" is debatable. Francis Schaeffer, the very influential reformed philosopher and theologian to whom Noll, Hatch and Marsden were responding in their aforementioned book, did not think that authoritatively citing Aristotle was authentically "Christian." Schaeffer didn't appreciate the theology of Thomas Aquinas that incorporated Aristotle into Christendom. Yet, America's founders authoritatively cited Aristotle, and even more so, the later "Romans" like Cicero. 

One problem with Schaeffer is that he tried to claim the American founding on behalf of his kind of reformed theology that looked to the four corners of the Bible and excluded sources like Aristotle et al. that other Christian traditions incorporate. This is a key criticisms that Noll, Hatch and Marsden make against Schaeffer. 

There was such a Calvinistic "reformed" influence on the American founding. Schaeffer was partial to Samuel Rutherford of "Lex Rex" fame. This tradition still arguably doesn't "own" the founding, certainly not Schaeffer's understanding of it. For one, as J Daryl Charles has noted, many of these reformers didn't eschew authoritative invocations of Aristotle; they incorporated the natural law and didn't break from Aquinas. 

Jefferson had strong disdain for Calvin and probably had some kind of bias against Calvinists (though he was friendly with Calvinists of his day who had similar political beliefs). We might understand why he would be hesitant to credit that tradition for ideas which he supported and successfully implemented. Out of the four sources for America's DOI that he named, Algernon Sidney arguably was the authoritative representative for "reformed resistance." 

And then there's John Locke who is the most influential of the four sources that Jefferson named. How "Christian" were he and his ideas? Schaeffer wanted to credit Rutherford et al. for his ideas. But for reasons I need not go into here, that's problematic. Locke did nominally cite the Anglican Thomist Richard Hooker, but then proceeded to articulate ideas that seem unrelated to Hooker but looked more like a modified version of Hobbes, whose name Locke "justly decried." 

America's founders also negatively cited Hobbes, but it wasn't because of his "state of nature/social contract and rights" dynamic -- ideas Leo Strauss aptly termed "wholly alien to the Bible." Rather, it was because Hobbes' version of the ideal state was a big beast -- a Leviathan. 

There's also the question of whether Hobbes and Locke were themselves "Christians." Both identified as such. Both were suspected back then as of today as of atheism, deism, or otherwise esoterically holding unconventional religious beliefs. At minimum, both held esoteric unconventional religious beliefs in an era where one couldn't legally publicly proclaim such. 

Locke authoritatively cited the Bible when making his novel propositions. I don't know enough about Hobbes to comment on whether he did. Rousseau likewise dressed his philosophy up in "Christian" clothes. 

This is my understanding. I will let others make of all this as they will. It's more important, as I see it, to ask the right questions and clarify one's understanding of the dynamics and let others do the same and decide for themselves. 

Liberty of Conscience and the Persistence of Blasphemy Laws in the United States

When I first started blogging on the issue of the political-theology of the American founding many years ago, I grappled with the notion that blasphemy laws continued to exist in the United States under its constitutional order. I quoted the following from the late Straussian scholar Walter Berns in his book "Making Patriots":

Liberty of conscience was widely accepted at the time of the Founding, but this did not prevent some jurists and legislatures from insisting, at least for a while (and given our principles it could be only for a while), that Christianity was part of the law, meaning the common law. So it had been in England, and so, it was assumed by some (but not Jefferson), it would continue to be in America. But there was no disagreement about the place of the common law. Indeed one of the first things done by the states after independence was to declare (here in the words of the New Jersey constitution of 1776) that “the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practiced in this Colony, shall remain in force, until they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature; such parts only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Charter [or constitution].”  

But if the “rights and privileges” contained in the various state charters or constitutions included the right of liberty of conscience, and if, in turn, this right required, in Madison’s words, “a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters,” what did it mean to say that Christianity was part of the common law? Very little, as it turned out; and it turned out as it had to turn out. Consider, for example, the case of blasphemy in America…. pp. 32-33.

Berns then went on to note that to the extent that blasphemy prosecutions survived for a short period of time in the early American republic, it was redefined as something akin to a secular breach of the peace, with blasphemy now stripped of its religious character.

This site from the Library of Congress notes something similar:

One of the first recorded instances of someone being convicted for blasphemy in the state of New York occurred in 1811. In People v. Ruggles, the New York Supreme Court upheld the conviction, saying that the crime of blasphemy is “independent of any religious establishment,” and that it affects “the essential interests of civil society.” In 1824, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court similarly upheld a conviction for blasphemy in Updegraph v. Commonwealth. That court also concluded that blasphemy laws seek “not to force conscience by punishment, but to preserve the peace of the country….” Two more similar cases came down in the 1830s, with State v. Chandler in 1837 and Commonwealth v. Kneeland in 1838. In these cases, the Delaware Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Court both upheld blasphemy convictions on the grounds that they were meant to preserve public peace rather than punish beliefs.

Because these cases involved state law, the outcomes and rationales for them could differ. Below is a quotation from the Chandler decision that gives the secular, pluralistic rationale for blasphemy laws:

If in Delaware the people should adopt the Jewish or Mahometan religion, as they have an unquestionable right to do if they prefer it, this court is bound to notice it as their religion, and to respect it accordingly. 

 ...

It will be seen then that in our judgment by the constitution and laws of Delaware, the christian religion is a part of those laws, so far that blasphemy against it is punishable, while the people prefer it as their religion, and no longer. The moment they change it and adopt any other, as they may do, the new religion becomes in the same sense, a part of the law, for their courts are bound to yield it faith and credit, and respect it as their religion. Thus, while we punish the offence against society alone, we leave christianity to fight her own battles, ...

This is not "Christian Nationalism." Personally, I think blasphemy laws are NOT consistent with notions of "liberty of conscience" or the First Amendment. Here is an interesting letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, dated January 23rd, 1825 wherein he makes that point:

We think ourselves possessed or at least we boast that we are so of Liberty of conscience on all subjects and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment, in all crises and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact. There exists I believe throughout the whole Christian world a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or to doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the old and new Testaments from Genesis to Revelations. ... [E]ven in our Massachusett which I believe upon the whole is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States A law was made in the latter end of the last-century repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the old Testament or new Now what free inquiry when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigation into the divine authority of those books? ... I think such laws a great embarassment. great obstruction to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them; but as long as they continue in force as laws the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. ...

 

Law and Liberty Symposium on Harvey Mansfield

Check it out here. Harvey Mansfield is a Straussian. I don't consider myself a "Straussian." Though I am "Straussian influenced" and "Straussian interested." They ask the right questions and engage in intense philosophical inquiry. They also have extremely contentious understandings, many of which I can't endorse. 

I'm interested in their view on Locke. They think he was either an atheist or a "deist" as we understand the term today (cold, non-intervening distant deity). There is no question Locke was an "esoteric" something; but I doubt it was THAT as opposed to some kind of freethinker on doctrines like The Trinity. I haven't studied Hobbes as much as Locke, but I doubt he was an atheist or cold deist either.

Though Locke did seem to be influenced by Hobbes in the sense that they spoke of a "state of nature" and then of a "social contract and rights." They may have had different understandings of such; however they were still speaking on that common philosophical ground. On the religion issue, Strauss himself aptly noted that this construct was "wholly alien to the Bible." Yet, during the revolutionary era, the concept of state of nature/social contract and rights ended up being preached from the pulpit.

The Straussian discourse involves the implications of all of this.

For instance, here is how Mansfield understands Locke and America's Declaration of Independence:

Certainly, we live in a world influenced by the ideas of modern political philosophy—and Mansfield provides a key to this influence for the low price of his book. He introduces us to Hobbes, who provides an image of man in his natural condition, wherein he has a right to his own person, yet nothing to safeguard this right. God has no place in this state of war, where each person has the right to preserve his life in whatever way he judges necessary. What comes out of this natural state of war? The idea of the social contract—a new kind of government based upon reasonable consent. “Nature teaches men to preserve themselves,” Mansfield explains, “but … reason teaches men to seek peace by consenting to a common power over them, the sovereign.” Reason now is the foundation of government. 

Locke gives us the right to private property by expanding man’s natural right to his own body to include a right to the products of man’s labor. This has direct political implications. For when men, once again driven by reason, exit the state of nature into the social contract, they do so not only to preserve life but to protect private property. Locke domesticates Machiavelli and Hobbes, and we see his influence overtly enshrined in documents like the Declaration of Independence.

Understanding America's Declaration of Independence as "domesticating Machiavelli and Hobbes" seems a bit of a stretch to me. Though, I agree that the notion of unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness really have nothing to do with the Bible or traditional practice of Christianity and that the DOI, although a theistic document, is not a "Christian" one.

The revolutionary language of America's DOI is more of a product of Enlightenment philosophy. However, there is other language in that document that speaks more of "resistance" under the extant positive law that resonates with reformed theology/philosophy. 

Understanding What Drove Political-Theological Notions of Liberty of Conscience During The American Founding

Catholics Persecuted Protestants; Protestants Persecuted Catholics; and Protestants Persecuted One Another.

The different sects disagreed with one another. But it went beyond mere disagreement. America's founders were acutely aware of the history of religious conflict that occurred after the Protestant reformation. The "political-theological problem," recent in their historical memory, that America's founders wished to transcend. This needs to be stressed to understand how America's founders understood the notion of "liberty of conscience" which they viewed as the most "unalienable" of rights. 

Here is George Washington reflecting on this dynamic:

I was in hopes that the enlightened & liberal policy which has marked the present age would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see their religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of Society.

There is contention over whose ideology is responsible for the American founding. As I see it, the ideological origins of the American founding came from disparate streams that formed an amalgam. Christianity, or Protestant Christianity, was one of four or five chief ideological sources (see Bernard Bailyn). Though, the Protestant Christian component was extremely "pluralistic" for lack of a better term, in a sectarian sense (pluralities of sects). 

Mark David Hall and others argue that reformed/Calvinism predominated. That may be true. However, there were plenty of other sects who not only fought for their "place at the table," but did so with a strong distrust of Calvinists, especially of the Presbyterian bent. This is John Adams writing on how he regretted his recommendation for a National Fast as President because of Presbyterian distrust!

The National Fast, recommended by me turned me out of office. It was connected with the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which I had no concern in. That assembly has allarmed and alienated Quakers, Anabaptists, Mennonists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, Methodists, Catholicks, protestant Episcopalians, Arians, Socinians, Armenians, & & &, Atheists and Deists might be added. A general Suspicon prevailed that the Presbyterian Church was ambitious and aimed at an Establishment of a National Church. I was represented as a Presbyterian and at the head of this political and ecclesiastical Project. The secret whisper ran through them “Let us have Jefferson, Madison, Burr, any body, whether they be Philosophers, Deists, or even Atheists, rather than a Presbyterian President.” This principle is at the bottom of the unpopularity of national Fasts and Thanksgivings. Nothing is more dreaded than the National Government meddling with Religion.

Finally, much has been made about Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists wherein he invokes the term "separation of church and state." Much ink has been spilt on "the context" of what was meant by Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" and the implications thereof. Here is something to keep in mind: The "context" of the letter was a "complaint" about a particular religious sect who had control over Connecticut's then religious establishment -- the reformed/Calvinistic Congregational Church. Both Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists wanted to be "separate" from THEM. That's against whom their "wall" was directed.

Reformed Calvinists Deserve Credit For Political Liberty, But not Liberty of Conscience or Religious Liberty

Mark David Hall and his cohorts have shown an undeniably powerful, reformed/Calvinistic component driving the political-theological dimensions of the American founding. The "Calvinist resisters" as they have been termed, because they taught a privilege/right/duty to "resist tyranny." Here is Mark quoting John Adams on the matter:

In 1787, John Adams wrote that John Ponet’s Short Treatise on Politike Power (1556) contains “all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterwards dilated on by Sidney and Locke.”  He also noted the significance of Stephanus Junius Brutus’ Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos.  ...

Other names in this tradition might include Samuel Rutherford of "Lex Rex" fame and John Knox, who lead the reformation of the Church of Scotland. Calvin, as part of the political leadership of the City State of Geneva, saw a theological unitarian named Michael Servetus executed for heresy. To the extent that Calvin's 16th and 17th century "resisters" spoke on the matter, to a man, they supported Servetus' execution. A later generation of reformed thinkers, including America's founders John Witherspoon, Roger Sherman and others would not have supported what happened to Servetus because by that time they had accepted principles of liberty of conscience as taught by John Locke and his successors. 

Locke was not necessarily the first figure to argue for the right to freely practice and publicly speak on matters that others view as heretical. But, it's important to note that they came from outside of the Calvinist/reformed tradition. The Dutch Arminians and the American Roger Williams anticipated Locke. However, America's founders, including ministers preaching from the pulpit, were much likelier to invoke Locke than Williams, or other sources who may have anticipated Locke. 

This is ironic for numerous reasons, one of which is that Roger Williams founded an American colony. And to the extent that orthodox Christians like Witherspoon might wish to invoke a traditional orthodox Christian on the behalf of the proposition of "liberty of conscience" for all, they had that in Williams but instead turned to Locke, a putative Christian, but unorthodox, and who posited a notion of "state of nature/social contract and rights" that was, as Leo Strauss put it, "wholly alien to the Bible." 

Whatever contributions the reformed Calvinist types contributed to the notions of political liberty in the American founding, it's not right to credit them for the notions of liberty of conscience/religious liberty that America's founders endorsed. For that we would have to credit other Christian traditions and the Enlightenment. 

Congrats to our friend Mark David Hall

The renowned scholar Mark David Hall (at George Fox and Regent Universities) recently was appointed to the White House's Religious Liberty Commission's Advisory Board. As such, he can present his material to the public under the auspices of "Whitehouse.gov," which is what he does here in a lecture entitled, "The Story of America: The Faith of Our Founders."

For perspective, realize that quarreling is in the spirit of this blog. The embedded video is roughly 13 minutes long and only scratches the surface of Dr. Hall's research. For a more in depth analysis with "point/counterpoint," see this post and thread where, after the release of Dr. Hall's book, Dr. Gregg Frazer, now a Dean at The Master's University, expressed his disagreement with Mark, and the late great Tom Van Dyke, of course, was there to chime in.

Great Britain v. America: "Christian Nations"?

There is a quotation from the British jurist William Blackstone oft-cited in the "Christian Nation" debates that relates to Christianity's relationship to the common law, and also a notion of "higher law." (This notion of "higher law" has been termed the "Brooding Omnipresence in the Sky" by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.) From Blackstone:

This law of nature, 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; an such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.

But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to reason: whose office it is to discover, as was before observed, what the law of nature directs in every circumstances of life; ... And if our reason were always, as in our first ancestor before his transgressions, clear and perfect, unruffled by passions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the talk would be pleasant an 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. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowlege of these truths was attainable by reason, in it's present corrupted state; since we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of the law of nature, so their intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system, which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority: but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together.

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. ...

There is a problem, though, in the use this of quotation to argue on behalf of American Christian Nationalism: Blackstone wasn't talking about America, but rather Great Britain. Blackstone was also a Tory who took the side of Great Britain against America; he defended the notion of absolute Parliamentary sovereignty in his teachings.

Indeed, one thing I'd like people to understand is that to the extent that America might have been a "Christian Nation" in a political-theological sense, Great Britain was every bit as much, if not more so. The above quotation, again, would be apt in demonstrating that Great Britain may have been some kind of "Christian Nation." 

When America successfully rebelled from Great Britain, she retained the common law, but did need to "revise" it for her newfound circumstances. So, for the "American view," you would need to turn to American commentators. While many founders expressed their views on the common law, only two of which I am aware did comprehensive restatements: James Wilson of Pennsylvania and St. George Tucker of Virginia. 

America's founders disagreed on the exact nature of Christianity and the "common law" and Law itself. Below I reproduce James Wilson's position. Wilson, unlike others (like Jefferson), did believe that "Christianity" was part of the common law. What he meant by this and Christianity's relationship to "Law" is something scholars debate to this day. I know that my interlocutors and I have spilt much ink discussing and debating the meaning of Wilson's passage produced below. But note the difference between what was reproduced above by Blackstone and Wilson's position:

[H]ow shall we, in particular instances, learn the dictates of our duty, and make, with accuracy, the proper distinction between right and wrong; in other words, how shall we, in particular cases, discover the will of God? We discover it by our conscience, by our reason, and by the Holy Scriptures. The law of nature and the law of revelation are both divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is, indeed, preposterous to separate them from each other. The object of both is ― to discover the will of God ― and both are necessary for the accomplishment of that end.

[...]

Reason, say they, is the first rule of man, the first principle of morality, and the immediate cause of all primitive obligation. But man being necessarily dependent on his Creator, who has formed him with wisdom and design, and who, in creating him, has proposed some particular ends; the will of God is another rule of human actions, another principle of morality, obligation, and duty. On this distinction, the kinds of obligation, external and internal, are founded. These two principles must be united, in order to form a complete system of morality, really founded on the nature and state of man. As a rational being, he is subject to reason: as a creature of God, to his supreme will. Thus, reason and the divine will are perfectly reconciled, are naturally connected, and are strengthened by their junction.

[...]

Reason and conscience can do much; but still they stand in need of support and assistance. They are useful and excellent monitors; but, at some times, their admonitions are not sufficiently clear; at other times, they are not sufficiently powerful; at all times, their influence is not sufficiently extensive. Great and sublime truths, indeed, would appear to a few; but the world, at large, would be dark and ignorant. The mass of mankind would resemble a chaos, in which a few sparks, that would diffuse a glimmering light, would serve only to show, in a more striking manner, the thick darkness with which they are surrounded. Their weakness is strengthened, their darkness is illuminated, their influence is enlarged by that heaven-descended science, which has brought life and immortality to light. In compassion to the imperfection of our internal powers, our all-gracious Creator, Preserver, and Ruler has been pleased to discover and enforce his laws, by a revelation given to us immediately and directly from himself. This revelation is contained in the holy scriptures. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form a part of the law of nature, are of the same origin, and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually.

[...]

But whoever expects to find, in [Scripture], particular directions for every moral doubt which arises, expects more than he will find. They generally presuppose a knowledge of the principles of morality; and are employed not so much in teaching new rules on this subject, as in enforcing the practice of those already known, by a greater certainty, and by new sanctions. They present the warmest recommendations and the strongest inducements in favour of virtue: they exhibit the most powerful dissuasives from vice. But the origin, the nature, and the extent of the several rights and duties they do not explain; nor do they specify in what instances one right or duty is entitled to preference over another. They are addressed to rational and moral agents, capable of previously knowing the rights of men, and the tendencies of actions; of approving what is good, and of disapproving what is evil.

[...]

These considerations show, that the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supercede the operations of reason and the moral sense. The information with regard to our duties and obligations, drawn from these different sources, ought not to run in unconnected and diminished channels: it should flow in one united stream, which, by its combined force and just direction, will impel us uniformly and effectually towards our greatest good.

Again, as noted, we've spilt much ink debating what Wilson means here. Dr. Gregg Frazer notes that all of this is "reminiscent of Aquinas" but also that Wilson is privileging "reason" over "revelation" (something Aquinas never did). Others disagree. 

But note, unlike Blackstone, Wilson doesn't use verbiage like human reason is "corrupt," "blind[]," and that "the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system... denominated the natural law." Rather Wilson thought "[r]eason and conscience can do much; but still they stand in need of support and assistance," and that "the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supercede the operations of reason and the moral sense."

William Livingston on Church-State Separation

I wrote this in 2010. Here is the "quotation" from Livingston, I uncovered:

Hence the motley junction of king-craft and priest-craft (the most fatal engine ever invented by Satan for promoting human wretchedness) usually called the alliance between church and state, but in reality a most atrocious conspiracy between two public robbers, for sharing between them the plunder of nations; and for that purpose mutually supporting and supported by each other. And hence all politico-ecclesiastical establishments under pretence of promoting religion, by kings who generally have none, and church dignitaries who seldom care for any.

John Adams: Loved the Bible but thought its Extant Texts Corrupted By Institutional Authorities

John Adams' eccentric and nuanced opinions of the Bible/Christian religion are especially prone to "out of context," cherry picking for various sides in the historical political-theological culture wars, wishing to "score points." 

For instance, he once wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

I have examined all, as well as my narrow Sphere, my Streightened means and my busy Life would allow me; and the result is, that the Bible is the best book in the World.

Yet, he also believed that he was reading a canon of books whose contents had been corrupted. In Adams' world, the Roman Catholic Church was the chief "corrupter of Christianity," but that corruption also infected institutional Protestantism as well. For instance, Adams -- who considered himself a "liberal unitarian Christian" -- blamed Roman Catholicism for the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation which he bitterly rejected; he also rejected the King James Bible because it was too Catholic!

As he wrote to his son and namesake:

What do you call “The Bible”? The Translation by King James the first? More than half a Catholick.?

But it went beyond merely the KJV. In the same letter he continued:

“The Bible a Rule of Faith.”! What Bible? King James’s? The Hebrew? The Septuagint,? The Vulgate? The Bibles now translated or translating into Chinese, Indian, Negro and all the other Languages of Europe Asia and Affrica? Which of the thirty thousand Variantia are the Rule of Faith? 

But he had especial disdain for the KJV. As he also wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

We have now, it seems a National Bible Society, to propagate King James's Bible, through all Nations. Would it not be better, to apply these pious subscriptions, to purify Christendom from the corruptions of Christianity, than to propagate these corruptions in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America! 

In particular, John Adams didn't trust ANY of the texts of the Bible whose original manuscripts were written in Hebrew. He thought the original Hebrew manuscripts were ordered burnt by Pope Gregory the 9th such that essential truths contained therein were purposefully concealed. 

In fact, Adams thought this included not just the Old Testament, but St. Paul's writings. Adams believed, contrary to most biblical scholars, that Paul's original writings were in Hebrew (and thus burnt as part of Pope Gregory's efforts) as opposed to Greek.

Ultimately, this quotation from Adams summarizes how he approached the extant texts of then available Bibles:

What suspicions of interpolation, and indeed fabrication, might not be confuted if we had the originals! In an age or in ages when fraud, forgery, and perjury were considered as lawful means of propagating truth by philosophers, legislators, and theologians, what may not be suspected?

Though, Adams was still a devout theist and believer in Jesus (as he Adams understood Him) and thought somewhere in there, the Bibles whose corrupted texts he was reading contained profound truths.

 

John Quincy Adams Believed All Bibles Contained Errors

When discussing the Old Testament, Adams ranks which version he prefers; though he notes he thought all translations contained errors. As he wrote to his father on July 7th, 1814:

I promised you that I would answer your questions of my opinions with regard to the Bible, and of my acquaintance with it—I have not studied the Canon of the Old Testament, because to my deep and constant regret I do not understand the languages in which it was written—I have never learnt either the Hebrew, or Chaldaic Characters, and therefore never could read a line of the Old Testament, in the Original—I have only read it in the Modern English French and German Translations for I have hitherto not even had the opportunity of going through either the Greek Septuagint or the Latin Vulgate, as I hope at some future day to do—of the translations which I have read, that in German, made by Luther, is incomparably the Best—The French one, originally made by Calvin, and revised by the Pastors of the Church at Geneva, is upon the whole not quite equal to the common English Bible published with the Dedication to James the 1st.—But in all there are a multitude of errors; and they are all so far from giving me satisfaction, that I shall never forgive myself, for neglecting to learn the Hebrew, when the opportunity for learning it was in my own hands.  

So as we see, Adams puts the KJV above Calvin's Geneva Bible, but also puts Luther's German translation at the very top. He notes that because he didn't read Hebrew that he's not competent in the original language to fully comprehend the Old Testament. 

The elder John Adams adhered to an extremely "heterodox" faith that contrasted to the orthodoxy that was more institutionally ingrained in late 18th century America. He considered himself a "liberal unitarian Christian." The scholar Dr. Joseph Waligore terms him a "Jesus-Centered-Deist." Whereas Dr. Gregg Frazer terms him a "theistic rationalist." 

These terms are used to distinguish from that more conventional orthodox Trinitarian Christianity. John Quincy Adams, during a period of time in his adult life, opted for that more traditional understanding of the faith, with a Calvinist bent. 

However, JQA seemed to vacillate, during his adult life, between the two -- the more conventional Calvinistic Christianity and his father's heterodoxy. I've gotten confused more than once when reading the younger Adams during periods of time in history when he supposedly was a traditional Calvinist, and it sounds like it's his father's heterodoxy talking. 

As the saying goes, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. 

Briefly More From St. George Tucker on Church and State

This more from St. George Tucker's commentary on William Blackstone and common law principles. Tucker worked with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in Virginia. He appeared to have the same ideology on church and state relations, which is strongly anti-establishment. When examining contemporary arguments the secular left and religious right give, we see a lot of "cherry picking" of quotations from both sides (and unfortunately, spreading "unconfirmed quotations" as well).

For instance, in his private letters, Thomas Jefferson often bitterly rails against the Trinitarian priestcraft. James Madison is more tame here. However, his Memorial and Remonstrance has some fierce quotations bitterly criticizing institutionally established religion (that document also has parts that "talk up" Christianity; hence the cherry picking).

Tucker, though, has some interesting quotations that we don't tend to see repeated nearly as much (if at all). The one on Moloch and Jehovah seems like it could have gone viral. Below I'm going to reproduce more from the Tucker on Blackstone document. Richard Price's name comes up (at times it's hard to tell where Price's words end and Tucker's begin). (Because I've edited the passages, please read the whole thing for context and make your minds up for yourselves.)

What that, here is Tucker:

1. ... The infallibility of the rulers of nations, in matters of religion, hath been a doctrine practically enforced from the earliest periods of history to the present moment among jews, pagans, mahometans, and christians, alike. The altars of Moloch and of Jehovah have been equally stained with the blood of victims, whose conscience did not receive conviction from the polluted doctrines of blood thirsty priests and tyrants. ... 

In liberty of conscience says the elegant Dr. Price, I include much more than toleration. Jesus Christ has established a perfect equality among his followers. His command is, that they shall assume no jurisdiction over one another, and acknowledge no master besides himself. It is, therefore, presumption in any of them to claim a right to any superiority or pre-eminence over their bretheren. Such a claim is implied, whenever any of them pretend to tolerate the rest. Not only all christians, but all men of all religions, ought to be considered by a state as equally entitled to it's protection, as far as they demean themselves honestly and peaceably. ...

America's Founders, Christianity and the Common Law

The English jurist William Blackstone is properly regarded as the preeminent authority behind English common law. After successfully separating from Great Britain, America retained the common law. There was one problem however: it needed revision to suit America's newfound circumstances. The main problem with Blackstone was that he was a Tory who supported Great Britain over America in the conflict; to the extent that those sentiments existed in the common law, they had to be scrubbed.

But who would do it? Well, a number of founding era figures participated in the project; and ultimately American courts would wade their way through the waters on a case-by-case basis. There were two Founders in particular of whom I am aware who did comprehensive restatements, with proper revisions, of the English common law: James Wilson of Pennsylvania, and St. George Tucker of Virginia.

On the matter of Christianity and its status in "the common law," Blackstone did indeed claim that Christianity was part of the common law. Thomas Jefferson denied this was true and thought Blackstone was in error. The point of this post is not to settle who was right, but rather note some complex dynamics relating to how the common law functioned in America, specifically as it pertains to this particular issue.

Also, the point of this post is not to "deconstruct" the common law; it did and to some extent still does exist in America today at a coherent level. Blackstone, Wilson and Tucker were by in large agreed on the matter. Still, there were complex issues on the margins where they disagreed and over time disagreements in American courts over the content of the common law led to the Supreme Court of the United States to declare that the substance of the common law is simply a matter of state law and they are free to disagree with one another here.

The status of Christianity and its relationship to the common law is one of those "issues," as we have seen above, that engenders disagreement. As noted above, Jefferson disagreed with Blackstone's notion that Christianity was part of the common law. James Wilson stated that Christianity was part of the common law -- though what kind of Christianity Wilson was referring to isn't settled. 

The American founding took place in the backdrop of extreme sectarian squabbles among the different sects. Indeed, such was the driver behind America's concepts of religious liberty, disestablishment and some kind of "separation of church and state." Removing Christianity's status from the civil law -- what Jefferson and James Madison desired -- was one solution to the problem. Though America's founders themselves disagreed on where the lines properly draw here. 

Here is where Tucker's understanding might be of interest. Politically, he seemed more aligned with Jefferson and Madison, so one might expect that Tucker would reject the notion that Christianity is part of the common law and otherwise support principles that separate Christianity's status from civil government. Perhaps he did. But I did uncover him seeming to support integrating a type of "Christianity" into American law. 

It was Richard Price's Enlightenment theology. Tucker quoted from Price verbatim in his notes on Blackstone and the common law. Price's "Christianity" was Arian in its Christology. I put "Christianity" in quotes, by the way, simply to illustrate the fact that certain institutional forces in the 18th Century -- and indeed, long before that, and to some extent today -- don't consider Arianism to be part of "Christianity." 

Here is a taste of Tucker quoting Price in his commentaries on Blackstone and the common law:

It is indeed only a rational and liberal religion; a religion founded on just notions of the Deity, as a Being who regards equally every sincere worshipper, and by whom all are alike favoured as far as they act up to the light they enjoy: a religion which consists in the imitation of the moral perfections of an Almighty but Benevolent Governor of Nature, who directs for the best, all events, in confidence in the care of his providence, in resignation to his will, and in the faithful discharge of every duty of piety and morality from a regard to his authority, and the apprehension of a future righteous retribution. ... This is the religion that every enlightened friend to mankind will be zealous to support. But it is a religion that the powers of the world know little of, and which will always be best promoted by being left free and open.

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.  

Does this Quotation Reveal John Adams as a "Conspiracy Theorist"?

I will let the readers decide. It's also not the only one Adams has given like this (he actually has many). But this one well captures his sentiment. To Thomas Jefferson, July 9th 1813:

... No sooner has one Party discovered or invented an Amelioration of the Condition of Man or the order of Society, than the opposite Party, belies it, misconstrues it, misrepresents it, ridicules it, insults it, and persecutes it. Records are destroyed. Histories are annihilated or interpolated, or prohibited Sometimes by Popes, Sometimes by Emperors, Sometimes by Aristocratical and Sometimes by democratical Assemblies and Sometimes by Mobs.

Aristotle wrote the History and description of Eighteen hundred Republicks, which existed before his time. Cicero wrote two Volumes of discoures on Government, which perhaps were worth all the rest of his Works. The Works of Livy and Tacitus & that are lost, would be more interesting than all that remain. Fifty Gospells have been destroyed, and where are St. Lukes World of Books that had been written? If you ask my Opinion, who has committed all the havoc? I will answer you candidly; Ecclesiastical and Imperial Despotism has done it, to conceal their Frauds.

Why are the Histories of all Nations, more ancient than the Chrtian Æra, lost? Who destroyed the Alexandrian Library? I believe that Christian Priests, Jewish Rabbis Grecian Sages and Roman Emperors had as great a hand in it as Turks and Mahomitans.