Watson and Boston's Bodies of Divinity

[Taylor]

I have read a little bit from the bodies of divinity of both Thomas Watson and Thomas Boston. For those that have read one or (preferably) both, how would you characterize, compare, and contrast the two? What are the benefits you see of each? I am considering reading one next year. For example, Watson is known as the aphorist, but Boston's work is substantially larger (and thus probably more thorough or in-depth).

 

[Taylor]

No thoughts, anyone?

 

[B.L.]

I'm not familiar enough to compare and contrast the two, but I have Watson's A Body of Divinity on my desk as I type this. I spent some time in it yesterday reading over his section addressing the question "what is sin?" So good.

 

[KMK]

By Boston's "Body of Divinity" do you mean Vol.s 1 and 2 of his works? If so, I highly recommend them. They are the best exposition of the WSC I have ever read.

 

[CathH]

Watson is more pithy, Boston is more comprehensive.

Also perhaps, Watson is more analytical and searching, Boston is more warm-hearted and encouraging?

 

[Pilgrim72]

Also check out Samuel Willard's Body of Divinity. I've enjoyed the parts I've read.

A compleat body of divinity in two hundred and fifty expository lectures on the assembly's shorter catechism : wherein the doctrines of the Christian religion are unfolded, their truth confirm'd, their excellence display'd, their usefulness improv'd,

Signatures: A***²B-VX²Y1 2A-3Z*3A-*3P*3Q²4A-5T

archive.org