GHC to Carl Henry, March 19, 1957 (contra natural law)

March 19 1957
Dear Carl,
First Marcellus sends me a book to review; then you send me Carnell’s galleys, and then you send me 50 pages on natural law with a request to write an editorial on the subject. Well, I’ll try.
You do not state how you want me to use the paper you sent, or whether it should be referred to in the article you ask me to write. I suppose no reference is needed. The paper is rather superficial with some historical mistakes, e.g. the writer implies that Cicero was a Stoic, and he states that Aristotle put slaves beyond the pale of natural law. He also intimates on page one that natural law can be known by revelation; his wording is not so clear as this; it cannot be called an outright mistake, but it seems to me misleading. At any rate, natural law is never supposed to be a matter of special revelation. And the writer depends too much on a collection of quotations from a number of other authors.
As you may guess, if I write on natural law it will be to condemn the idea. I shall follow the arguments *of the chapters on Politics and Ethics in Men and Things, as well as the last chapter in Thales to Dewey, to show the futility of reason apart from revelation. If you want to run this for July 4, when must you have the MS? Give me as much time as possible, for I am pressed these days. And when do you want back this MS you sent me?
Also is the review of Thales to Dewey going to appear soon? Last Saturday it was reviewed in the Indpls Times.
*This is part of an argument against Romanism. Natural Law plays into Romish hands, & contrary to what Dr. Bell said to you, we hear a good deal about it these days.