Repentance Watson versus Boston

[Stephen L Smith]

There are two classic Puritan books on Biblical repentance: "Repentance: Turning from Sin to God" by Thomas Boston and "The Doctrine of Repentance" by Thomas Watson. Just curious - do you find one in particular more spiritually helpful?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Both are good; in my opinion, Watson is an easier read due to his writing style.

 

[Von]

Both are good; in my opinion, Watson is an easier read due to his writing style.

I agree with that...
I once worked through the Watson book together with some friends. Loved it, but....
A note of caution:
Watson gives a list of aspects of true repentance that he then deals with separately. This can easily end up as a checklist for someone (read: me) and lead to endless pouring over one's repentance because one or two of the boxes are not checked adequately.
He addresses this later in his book:

A Necessary Caution
For those who have solemnly repented of their sins, let me speak to them by way of caution. Though repentance is so necessary and excellent, as you have heard, take heed that you do not ascribe too much to repentance. The papists are guilty of a double error:

1. They make repentance a sacrament.
   Christ never made it so. And who may institute sacraments but the who can give virtue to them? Repentance cannot be a sacrament because it lacks an outward sign. And a sacrament cannot properly be sacrament without a sign.
   
   
2. The papists make repentance meritorious.
   They say it merits pardon ex congruo (altogether fittingly). This is a gross error. Indeed repentance prepares us for mercy. Just as the plow, when it breaks up the ground, prepares it for the seed, so when the heart is broken up by repentance, it is prepared for remission – but it does not merit it. God will not save us without repentance, nor will he save us for repentance. It is a qualification, not a cause. I grant that repenting tears are precious. They are, as Gregory said, “the fat of the sacrifice;” as Basil said, “the medicine of the soul;” and as Bernard said, “the wine of angels.” Yet, tears are not satisfactory for sin. We drop sin with our tears; therefore they cannot satisfy. Augustine said it well: “I have read of Peter’s tears, but no man ever read of Peter’s satisfaction.” Only Christ’s blood can merit pardon. We please God by repentance, but we do not satisfy him by it. To trust in our repentance is to make it a Savior. Though repentance helps to purge the filth of sin, it is Christ’s blood that washes away the guilt of sin. Therefore, do not idolize repentance. Do not rest on this: that your heart has been wounded for your sin. Rather, rest on the fact that your Savior has been wounded for your sin. When you have wept, say with Peter: “Lord Jesus, wash my tears in your blood.”

It would've saved me a lot of trouble had I read this in the beginning.

 

[Jack K]

Watson, for sure. I will go so far as to guess that, per column inch, Watson's little book is the one Puritan work (excluding confessions) I most frequently consult.

Also, Von is right when he says it is good to heed Watson's own caution.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Watson, for sure

Just to clarify - have you compared it to Boston?

I noticed Boston's work is double the size so assumed it would have fuller coverage.

 

[Jack K]

Just to clarify - have you compared it to Boston?

I noticed Boston's work is double the size so assumed it would have fuller coverage.

Yes. I'm glad to say that for once in the history of the Puritan Board, I've actually read both books being discussed. Or at least, I've tried to. I'm not certain I finished Boston's treatment. I'm pretty sure I skimmed parts.

Boston probably is more thorough. But obviously, I found Watson more memorable.

 

[Von]

Just for interest sake: Boston was involved with the Marrow Controversy, which, amongst other things, dealt with the issue of "preparationism". He might be the 'healthiest' in his view of repentance.