Thoughts on Thornwell?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Taylor

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Greetings, all.

I just purchased the 10-volume set of James Henley Thornwell's works on Logos. As a short first read, I read his small treatise "Antinomianism" (vol. 1, pp. 381-394) and thought it was fantastic. He is a very thoughtful theologian with an excellent ability to turn a phrase. Here is an example:

The natural vibration of the mind is from the extreme of legalism to that of licentiousness, and nothing but the grace of God can fix it in the proper medium of Divine truth. The Gospel, like its blessed Master, is always crucified between two thieves—legalists of all sorts on the one hand and Antinomians on the other; the former robbing the Saviour of the glory of his work for us, and the other robbing him of the glory of his work within us.

Thornwell also does a very good job of explaining important distinctions in a easy-to-understand manner—for example, the distinction between a "condition of connection" and a condition of causality.

I greatly enjoyed the read, and it makes me look forward to reading more from this man.

I am just curious, who else here has read Thornwell? For those of you who have, what do you think of him? What do you think he contributes to theology? What makes him special? I would love to hear some thoughts!
 
He was a southern presbyterian and reads smoothly like Dabney. He was opposed to the use of musical instruments in worship, and gave the Romanists of his day fits. The latter characteristic wins my admiration hands down.
 
What makes him special?

I think that he may be less popular than he otherwise should be do to his support of Southern slavery. Take a look at this sermon and tell me what you think.

THE RIGHTS AND THE DUTIES OF MASTERS
A
SERMON
PREACHED AT THE DEDICATION
OF
A CHURCH,
ERECTED IN CHARLESTON, S. C.,
FOR THE BENEFIT AND INSTRUCTION OF THE COLOURED POPULATION​
 
This post is 1) a recommendation for reading Thornwell. If that's all you need, skip to the next post. 2) a story about the seminary context of my introduction to Thornwell's writing.

****************************
When I was in seminary, reading theology seriously for the first time, I encountered the critics of Cornelius Van Til. I only knew CVT for his apologetic method and his early but significant positive impact on the OPC through WTS. I had a favorable if vague perception of CVT before arriving at seminary, and CVT was honored at my school.

Now, a typical criticism was that CVT was guilty of robbing Reformed theology of intellectual rigor, by him saying things like, "all theology is paradoxical." In particular, I remember a critic condemning CVT's use of a concept he called "analogical knowledge."

Analogy, to this critic, was an appeal to obscurity, to faith without reason. It was capitulation to the liberals and neo-orthodox, made worse because it was like a Trojan horse, and supported by a captain of the defense.

So of course, draw-and-quarter that captain (CVT), said the critics; according to them, genuinely Reformed people don't talk like that.

Since (I had been assured) CVT was pandering, and parroting the 20th century liberal and neo-orthodox line, imagine my surprise to find an old worthy like Thornwell in the early 19th century (well before modernist liberalism) using the word "analogy" to describe aspects of Reformed theology.

Wait... how is that possible? Didn't I just read that CVT had invented analogy for, or smuggled analogy into, Reformed theology?

Whether or not CVT wielded the term well, or applied the concept properly, is a question quite distinct from the historical question. And while I never accepted the general critique of CVT from those quarters, until I was more familiar with historical theology I simply accepted the critic's position: that the professor was taking the enemy's language and adapting it for Christian consumption.

If he was, then analyzing the mid-century dust-up between factions is ultimately about seeking motives. Were CVT's motives noble, naive, or evil?

But, if analogy has a Reformed theological pedigree, then the analysis that boils down to judging motivation is itself ignorant. CVT may in fact have been (as some accuse) a terrible communicator, or he badly needed an editor. Imagine someone saying justly famous Russian writers are terrible, because their writing tends (in an Anglo-Saxon perspective) to be tediously repetitive? The critique of CVT's style in that case becomes: "He's hard for me to understand, and therefore he's incompetent, or worse."

The reality is: CVT was not so innovative in his use of analogy, while he was adapting the historic term for use against modern and late-modern attacks on the Faith.

When I was in seminary, Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology was published for the first time in English translation. Finally, after a century of disuse, this basic Reformed theological work--in continuous use from the 17th to the 19th century in Latin--was available to the wide Reformed (English-speaking) world. This work reintroduced a new generation to one of the main sources of the theology of men like Thornwell.

And wouldn't you know, analogy is present in Turretin also. And lucid treatment of the older distinctions between archtypal and ectypal theology. The Dutch tradition, of which CVT was a product, was closer to the Genevan tradition than was the English or American variants. We forget in our days of instant worldwide communication the limits imposed by geography, speed and convenience of travel, cost of reproduction, etc. CVT (born in Holland) read his teachers in Dutch, many of whom learned in Latin, and may have taught in universities with roots in or through the Reformation.

The 20th century was a period where Reformed theology lost touch (partly) with its roots; which lately we have been recovering. Thank you, Thornwell, for an early practical lesson in the importance of historical theology.
 
Greetings, all.

I just purchased the 10-volume set of James Henley Thornwell's works on Logos. As a short first read, I read his small treatise "Antinomianism" (vol. 1, pp. 381-394) and thought it was fantastic. He is a very thoughtful theologian with an excellent ability to turn a phrase. Here is an example:



Thornwell also does a very good job of explaining important distinctions in a easy-to-understand manner—for example, the distinction between a "condition of connection" and a condition of causality.

I greatly enjoyed the read, and it makes me look forward to reading more from this man.

I am just curious, who else here has read Thornwell? For those of you who have, what do you think of him? What do you think he contributes to theology? What makes him special? I would love to hear some thoughts!
I read some of his ecclesiological writings when I was studying polity a few years ago. I benefited from them a great deal.
 
Am I not spotting a link? Or are you directing the original poster to a selection in the set that he purchased?

I did not look to see if it was online. Taylor has the sermon in his Logos set.
So in case, there is any interest I uploaded a PDF of the sermon. Whatever your view of slavery this is a very interesting and well thought-out sermon.
 

Attachments

  • Thornwell-The Rights and the Duties of Masters.pdf
    1.7 MB · Views: 6
I haven't heard that name in years! Seems like these southern pastors were invoked in the 1980s when people were trying to push aside the general conservatism that attracted older churches to the PCA rather than a distinct presbyterianism? Sadly, the association with slavery killed most of their witness in the modern world.
 
This was re-titled "The Christian Doctrine of Slavery" in the Collected Writings (1875; vol. 4, p.398). It also lacks the preface of the 1850 printing or any reference to that version. Banner retained the sermon in their 1974 reprint. Banner did not retain some of Dabney's material on the same subject in their version of Dabney's Discussions.
I did not look to see if it was online. Taylor has the sermon in his Logos set.
So in case, there is any interest I uploaded a PDF of the sermon. Whatever your view of slavery this is a very interesting and well thought-out sermon.
 
I will be a negative voice, but only about one aspect of Thornwell's theology. He was a very able theologian, but I have often found his ecclesiology to be suspect, and I'm not entirely sure the reason for that (I need to do more reading here). His ecclesiological contributions to "Southern Presbyterian" were often somewhat opposed to more traditional Scottish Presbyterian. For example: 1) his view of the invalidity of Roman Catholic baptism; 2) his view of the status of baptized children of believers in the church (particularly with regard to church discipline; 3) his two-office view of church officers. One writer (John Fesko, I think) suggests that Thornwell may have been more deeply influenced by the revivialism of his day (even though on paper he was very much opposed to it). If so, this would explain much, but it makes me very cautious when it comes to Thornwell and his views on the church.
 
I will be a negative voice, but only about one aspect of Thornwell's theology. He was a very able theologian, but I have often found his ecclesiology to be suspect, and I'm not entirely sure the reason for that (I need to do more reading here). His ecclesiological contributions to "Southern Presbyterian" were often somewhat opposed to more traditional Scottish Presbyterian. For example: 1) his view of the invalidity of Roman Catholic baptism; 2) his view of the status of baptized children of believers in the church (particularly with regard to church discipline; 3) his two-office view of church officers. One writer (John Fesko, I think) suggests that Thornwell may have been more deeply influenced by the revivialism of his day (even though on paper he was very much opposed to it). If so, this would explain much, but it makes me very cautious when it comes to Thornwell and his views on the church.
I agree with you, except in the area of church office. His view can justly be called a three-office position. His major difference with the Princetonians was whether ruling elders are Biblical Presbyters. He maintained that they are, and that the offices of minister and ruling elder both fall under the order of Presbyter. That's Sherman Isbell's understanding of Thornwell, too, in his review of Order in the Offices, ed. Mark Brown:
In some essays, the term [three office] means that the ruling elder is not a biblical presbyter, but in others the expression is used of the view that minister and ruling elder have distinguishable roles and offices, though both belong to the order of presbyter. In this latter sense, Thornwell is said to hold to three offices...
The fact is that Dabney and Thornwell are faithful to the original Presbyterian model when they teach that both the gospel minister and the ruling elder are the biblical presbyter, and that these are distinguishable offices within one order. This was the position held by Calvin, Bullinger, Beza, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Zanchi, and Cartwright, in the sixteenth century, and was adopted in the Second Book of Discipline (1578). It was the standard view in the Scotland of the seventeenth-century Second Reformation, as indicated by the writings of Calderwood and Dickson, and in the books of the four Scottish ministers who were commissioners to the Westminster Assembly. It was taught by John Owen.
 
Last edited:
One of the great intellects of his day, though I disagree with him to some extent on ecclesiology. His views on American slavery were a regretful blot on his career, yet he was much less extreme than some of his contemporaries. But, then again, David's outlook on polygamy was not his best moment either.
 
Tyler, I was basing that upon something I came across a couple of weeks ago, in Guy Waters' book How Jesus Runs the Church. He specifically mentions (in a footnote on p. 87) that Thornwell was a proponent of the two-office view (citing articles from Thornwell's 4 vol. collected works to support this). I agree, of course, that the three-office view is the correct one.
 
Tyler, I was basing that upon something I came across a couple of weeks ago, in Guy Waters' book How Jesus Runs the Church. He specifically mentions (in a footnote on p. 87) that Thornwell was a proponent of the two-office view (citing articles from Thornwell's 4 vol. collected works to support this). I agree, of course, that the three-office view is the correct one.
Right. The trouble with using terms like two-office and three-office is that they are rarely defined with any precision. As I'm sure you know, there are many nuanced differences between folks who would avow a two-office view, or a three office view, etc. I really don't find the labels to be particularly helpful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top