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 radically 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.

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" was 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 of the term (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.