Dr. Guy Richard,
If you wouldn’t mind answering a quick question for me I would appreciate it. It might not be simple or be easy to answer shortly nor quickly.
I moderate the Puritanboard.com. One of the Administrators on the Puritanboard Chris Coldwell and I were discussing Samuel Rutherford and Natural Law. We were looking at some of his thoughts on Natural Law in Lex Rex when and I found a quote from his Disputation Against Pretended Liberty that I considered to be his more definitive thought on the subject.
As I worked my way through examining Lex Rex he doesn’t ever seem to specifically define Natural Law but he does reference it and prove it is a Law in man by reason for preservation as I sum it up. In his book Disputations he writes what I would consider a more precise definition.
CHAP. I.
Of Conscience and its nature.
“Of this intellectual Treasure-house, we are to know these. 1. That in the inner Cabinet, the natural habit of Moral principles lodgeth, the Register of the common notions left in us by nature, the Ancient Records and Chronicles which were in Adam’s time, the Law of Nature of two volumes, one of the first Table, that there is a God, that he createth and governeth all things, that there is but one God, infinitely good, more just rewarding the Evil and the good; and of the second Table, as to love our Parents, obey Superiors, to hurt no man, the acts of humanity; All these are written in the soul, in deep letters, yet the Ink is dim and old, and therefore this light is like the Moon swimming through watery clouds, often under a shadow, and yet still in the firmament. Caligula, and others, under a cloud, denied there was any God, yet when the cloud was over, the light broke out of prison, and granted, a God there must be; strong winds do blow out a Torch in the night, and will blow in the same light again; and that there be other seeds, though come from a far land, and not growing out of the ground, as the former, is clear, for Christ scattereth some Gospel-truths in this Chalmer; as John 7.28. Then cried Jesus in the Temple; as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and whence I am. John 15.24. But now they have both seen, and hated both me and my Father.”
Now I don’t think his work in Lex Rex is in any way in conflict with his later work but it does seem he puts a more precise definition of what Natural Law is in Disputation. He also seems to indicate that Natural Law emanates from the moral law that was originally written on man’s heart and it consists of two tables. That would seem to indicate to me that he directly would logically link the Decalogue and this Law of Nature together.
We are discussing this in relation to Coffey’s book (which I have never read and don’t have) that Chris is quoting for me and how Rutherford might have seen a difference of application concerning the 1st Table from Natural Law for heathen kings vs. Christian kings (or whatever various form of Government he might be addressing).
I guess my question would be threefold. Is Rutherford’s definition more precise in Disputations than Lex Rex because he is addressing a different group or persons? Or am I reading too much into the definition of Disputation? Does he consider Natural Law to be fully revealing of the Decalogue? I understand you are the expert.
Thanks for your consideration,
Dr. Richard’s Reply
Randy,
Sorry for the delay in responding to your email. But thank you for contacting me. I always enjoy talking about Rutherford. I feel like he is my mentor and close personal friend in many ways, as much time as we have spent together!
Regarding your questions, let me first say that the passage you found in Pretended Liberty is a very good representation of what Rutherford believed regarding natural law. He clearly believed that the whole of the ten commandments were written upon the hearts of all men “in deep letters.” But, apart from Christ and apart from God’s Word and the Holy Spirit, “the ink is dim and old, and therefore this light is like the Moon swimming through watery clouds, often under a shadow, and yet still in the firmament.” Natural law is real. There is no such thing as an atheist, no one who ought to be able to plead ”not guilty” to breaking any of the 10 commandments. It is ”still in the firmament.” But it is oftentimes ”under a shadow.”
How this applies in the case of a person living within England or Scotland (or any other “Christian” nation) will be different many times than in the case of a “heathen” who does not have the same “Christian influences” around him/her. The one who lives within a Christian nation will have certain Christian influences (i.e., God’s Word, Christians themselves, the church, civil laws derived from the Christian ethic, etc). These things would serve to reinforce natural law in the case of the one living in a “Christian nation.” But the heathen would not have these influences. All he/she would have is natural law, which is the ten commandments written upon his/her heart “in deep letters” but with “ink [that] is dim and old” and “often under a shadow.”
I’m not sure whether or not that answers your questions. Feel free to email back if you’d like further clarification on anything.
Thanks again for contacting me. Blessings on your continued study!
Guy
Dr. Guy M. Richard
First Presbyterian Church
Dr. Guy Richard’s publications. http://www.fpcgulfport.org/dr-guy-richard-s-publications
Just a quick question Dr. Richard,
Would it be okay to quote your response to my questions? I will not use private messages without permission of the author in any way unless I am given permission. It is matter of ethics and loyalty. If not that is just fine. I totally understand.
Randy,
I’d prefer that you not publish them in print form. But if you would like to use them on line or something like that, that would be fine with me.
G
Puritan Covenanter 
I am unaware of Coffey or his work. Can you elaborate?
Thanks
So if the Natural Law is written on our hearts and written in the Decalogue, then Rutherford believes in a republication of the CoW?
I believe we need to define what we mean when we speak of republication. There were various views on the topic. There is a lot to be gained and understood as Beeke and Jones put this subject matter in it’s historical context from chapters 16 -18 in their Book ‘A Puritan Theology’. When some people are using this terminology they are blurring the distinctiveness of how this terminology was used. You can read Rutherford’s thoughts on the topic at the link below.
https://sites.google.com/site/themosaiccovenant/samuel-rutherford/the-covenant-of-life-opened
“But the truth is, the Law as pressed upon Israel was not a Covenant of Works.” SR
Rutherford did not hold to a Minority view concerning the Mosaic Covenant. There were various minority views that were rejected by the Majority of Divine’s at the Westminster Assembly. The Majority’s consensus was that the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant were essentially the same in substance. Some views of republication do not hold that to be true. Some views do depending on what is meant by republication. What is republished? To what extent? It is a Covenant of Works in any way? But I am actually assuming you understand this.