# The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 4, 2008)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/thornwell-online-24122/

Following up on the above-reference thread, _The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell_ are available online as follows:

Vol. 1 (Theological)
Vol. 2 (Theological and Ethical)
Vol. 3 (Theological and Controversial)
Vol. 4 (Ecclesiastical)


----------



## py3ak (Oct 5, 2008)

This, from volume 1, was an interesting quote.



> Theology has again been distinguished with reference to the order and arrangement of its contents, and the general style of discussion, into Scholastic and Positive. "The positive," says Marck, " is not rigidly restricted to logical rules. The scholastic proceeds in a method more truly disciplinary, a most useful and ancient institution." " Positive and scholastic are not to be distinguished from each other," says De Moor, "as if the one were conversant about the exposition of Scripture, and the other a treatise of doctrines and commonplaces. For doctrines are obviously to be treated in the exposition of Scripture, and commonplaces and doctrines must depend upon the genuine sense and authority of Scripture. The true distinction is that Positive Theology is not strictly confined to logical rules ; it gives itself more oratorical freedom of style. Scholastic Theology proceeds in a method more disciplinary [more strictly adapted to teaching] and reduces Divine truths to certain heads according to the rules of logic for the use of Christian schools."
> 
> It must be remembered that Marck and De Moor were both advocates of the Scholastic Theology, and have consequently failed to point out its most objectionable feature.
> 
> ...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 5, 2008)

On this point,



> There arose in the same school in the time of Voetius another class of divines who, from their method of treating the truths of religion, were distinguished as Federalists.
> 
> The celebrated Cocceius was the founder of this class. Among his disciples are ranked Burmann, Braun and Witsius. The regulative principle of their method was the doctrine of the Covenants. They consequently treated religion according to the historical development of the covenants, and infused into their works a decidedly subjective, experimental spirit.



I would clarify this further by Geerhardus Vos, _The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology_:



> At present there is general agreement that the doctrine of the covenants is a peculiarly Reformed doctrine. It emerged in Reformed theology where it was assured of a permanent place and in a way that has also remained confined within these bounds. It is true that towards the end of the seventeenth century this doctrine was taken over by several Lutheran theologians,2 but this apparently took place by way of imitation, the doctrine being unknown within the genuine Lutheran framework. With the Reformed theologians, on the other hand, its emergence occurs in the period of richest development. With full force it lays hold of theological thinking, which in many cases it bends in a distinctive direction.
> 
> The last-mentioned phenomenon has caused some to be of the opinion that the doctrine of the covenant was something new which did indeed grow up in Reformed soil, but which nevertheless first came to light in Cocceius and his school. Cocceianism and covenant theology would then amount to the same thing. If that is taken to mean that Cocceius was the first to make the covenant idea the dominant concept of his system, then there is some truth to this opinion. Yet even then it cannot be fully agreed with. Cloppenburg and Gellius Snecanus3 had already come up with a covenant theology in the Netherlands, and the same can be said of Olevianus in Germany. What was new in Cocceius was not his covenant theology as such, but rather the historical conclusions for the economy of redemption which he drew from the covenant concept. When these conclusions became apparent, the struggle against Cocceianism was on.
> 
> ...


----------



## py3ak (Oct 5, 2008)

Yes, it would seem that there are certain inaccuracies which obtained a very wide currency within the later Reformed world. Consider these remarks from Berkhof's _Introduction to Systematic Theology_, some of which would also serve to correct Thornwell.

p.80


> D. The Period of Protestant Scholasticism.
> It is not surprising that the theology of the seventeenth century is on the whole, strongly polemical. The Reformation had to break with the immediate past with an appeal to the remoter past. It had to show that the hierarchical Church of the Middle Ages had wandered far from the path indicated by the the theology of early Church. Moreover, with its defense of the right of private judgment it had disturbed traditional foundations. As a result divergent opinions soon made their appearance in the Churches of the Reformation and were embodied in separate Confessions. There was a great deal of hair-splitting discussion, and in course of time a spirit of formalism and intellectualism gained the upper hand with chilling effect, and led to the introduction of the scholastic method in the study of theology.



pp.81,82 (of _The Federal Modification of Reformed Doctrine_)


> With Coccejus a reaction set in against the speculative and scholastic method of some of the thorough-going Calvinists. He substituted a purely Biblical method, distributing his material according to the scheme of the covenants. However, his position represented not only a formal divergence, but also a material departure, from traditional Reformed theology, and entered ever increasingly into league with Cartesianism. Its really new thing was not the covenant doctrine, for this is already found in the works of Zwingli, Bullenger, Olevianus, Snecanus, Gomarus, Trelcatius, and Cloppenburg, but its federalistic method. It virtually changed Dogmatics into Biblical Theology, thus making it a historical discipline. Its method was anthropological rather than theological. Two of the best representatives of this school, are Burmannus and Witsius. The Synopsis Theologiae of the former is by far the best of the two, and is free from that forced exegesis which so often characterizes the work of the Cocceian school. The work of the latter, _Over de Verbonden_ (Eng. tr. On the Covenants), is inferior to it, but is better known in this country. It represents a laudible [sic] but futile attempt to reconcile the more scholastic and the federal trend in theology.


----------

