According to Dr. Joel Beeke and Randall J. Pederson:
“Thomas Watson was probably born in Yorkshire. He studied at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1639 and a Master of Arts degree in 1642… During the Civil War, Watson began expressing his strong Presbyterian views. He had sympathy for the king, however. He was one of the Presbyterian ministers who went to Oliver Cromwell to protest the execution of Charles I. Along with Christopher Love, William Jenkyn, and others, he was imprisoned in 1651 for his part in a plot to restore the monarchy. Although Love was beheaded, Watson and the others were released after petitioning for mercy. Watson was formally reinstated to his pastorate in Walbrook in 1652.
When the Act of Uniformity passed in 1662, Watson was ejected from his pastorate. He continued to preach in private—in barns, homes, and woods—whenever he had the opportunity. In 1666, after the Great Fire of London, Watson prepared a large room for public worship, welcoming anyone who wished to attend. After the Declaration of Indulgence took effect in 1672, Watson obtained a license for Crosby Hall, Bishopsgate, which belonged to Sir John Langham, a patron of nonconformists. Watson preached there for three years before Stephen Charnock joined him. They ministered together until Charnock’s death in 1680. Watson kept working until his health failed. He then retired to Barnston, in Essex, where he died suddenly in 1686 while engaged in private prayer. He is buried in the same grave as his father-in-law who served as a minister at Barnston.
Watson’s depth of doctrine, clarity of expression, warmth of spirituality, love of application, and gift of illustration enhanced his reputation as a preacher and writer. His books are still widely read today” (Meet The Puritans).
I am quite familiar with Thomas Watson. I enjoy some of his flowery metaphorical language ONLY WHEN it is actually being used to illustrate orthodox (Biblical) truths. BUT Watson speaks with a forked-tongue throughout his writings, using that same flowery language to illustrate insidious evil. Thomas Brooks and some of the other “Puritans” use this kind of flowery language as well (of course, John Owen is an obvious exception to the Puritan poetry rule).
C.H. Spurgeon is the promiscuous and whorish mother to many tolerant Calvinist harlots. Spurgeon, who enjoyed Watson and Brooks both, also wrote in a fairly eloquent manner (though I must say that I find his style much less “enjoyable” than Watson’s). To adapt the comments of universal atonement heretic Martin Luther to Erasmus:
“My heart goes out to Thomas Watson for having defiled his eloquent flow of language with such vile heresy. For it is outrageous to convey material of such two-faced and forked-tongue quality in the trappings of such rare eloquence; it is like using gold or silver dishes to carry rubbish or dung.”
Anyways, here are a few more Watson quotes that further illustrate what damnable dung served up on a silver platter looks like:
“The efficacy of Christ’s prayer reaches no further than the efficacy of his blood; but his blood was only shed for the elect, therefore his prayers reach them only” (Thomas Watson, Body of Divinity, p. 178).
This quote above by Watson sounds fine so far as it stands. This quote taken in isolation would not be considered dung at all. But wait for it. “It”? What is “it”? Why, the other fork of the tongue, of course. What is customary among MANY heretics, dung is not the only thing on the platter — for these many heretics like to mix surface-level orthodoxy in with their damnable dung or poison.
“Beloved, Christ came not to redeem all, for that would overthrow the decrees of God. Redemption is not as large as creation. I grant that there is a sufficiency of merit in Christ’s blood to save all; but there is a difference between sufficiency and efficiency. Christ’s blood is a sufficient price for all, but it is effectual only to them that believe. A plaster may have a sovereign virtue in it to heal any wound, but it does not heal unless applied to the wound. And if it be so, that all have not the benefit of Christ’s redemption, but some only, then it is a necessary question to ask our own souls, Are we in the number of those that are redeemed by Christ or not?
How shall we know that?
(I.) Such as are redeemed are reconciled to God. The enmity is taken away. Their judgments approve, their wills incline ad bonum.[Colossians 1:21] Are they redeemed that are unreconciled to God, who hate God and his people (as the vine and laurel have an antipathy), who do all they can to disparage holiness? Are they redeemed who are unreconciled? Christ has purchased a reprieve for these; but a sinner may have a reprieve, and yet go to hell. John V 6″(Body of Divinity, pp. 212-213).
A “sufficient price for all,” says Watson. He further states that part of this “sufficiency” is the purchase of a reprieve. Watson’s doctrinal statement is that Christ purchased a reprieve for those who go to hell. What more needs to be said? Watson is a damnable heretic who did NOT abide in the doctrine of Christ:
“Everyone transgressing and not abiding in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ, this one has the Father and the Son” (2 John 1:9).