If memory serves, De regno Christi among many places. It was a commonplace in the Reformation.
I disagree with P. D. L. Avis on Bucer's view of NL. He thinks Bucer's a Thomist. This is parallel to the argument about Calvin -- some see him as a Thomist too because of his NL rhetoric. The case for Bucer's Thomism is perhaps stronger, but the crucial difference, as I see it, between Thomas and the Reformers is that Thomas was willing to identify NL with a universal rational principle to which both God and humans are obligated. That's partly why he made NL broader than the decalogue.
I'm not saying that Bucer never spoke in any other way about NL but only that Bucer identified the NL with the decalogue. There are other expressions of the same basic law principle in Scripture that could be called NL that aren't the decalogue, but the main point still holds -- that NL isn't some ethereal amorphous subjective entity but a fixed, objective, revealed law expressed in nature and in special revelation.
rsc
[quote=timmopussycat;372332]
Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark  ....
5. Not all versions of "natural law" are the same. There are distinct differences between the version of natural law taught by Calvin, Reformed orthodoxy, and CVT, and the version taught by Thomas and Rome. The Protestants (Luther, Bucer, Melanchthon, and Calvin) all identified the decalogue with "natural law" and that was at the foundation of their doctrine of the covenant of works or the "covenant of nature." |