IOW, you agree with me.
IF one accepts the opinions of the Enlightenment thinkers you mention, then one can reason to a conclusion as to who is NBC.
But the opinions of those thinkers as to what constitutes Natural Law are exactly that, their opinions. They are not facts. Other thinkers, with other basic assumptions, could come to different opinions on what Natural Law is. And those opinions, in and of themselves, would be neither more nor less valid.
What is fact is that our Founders based their opinions, and therefore their efforts on behalf of our laws, upon those opinions of the Natural law thinkers. (John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property.)
Not the British Version. (Natural law = Permanent Allegiance to the King who rules by divine right.)