My first premise for Watson's style is that he followed what was a very common form among Puritan preachers. This form had three parts, 1) Declaration of Truth 2) Explanation of Truth and 3) Application of Truth.
Alright, cool, now why is this important for understanding his Doctrine of Repentance? Well I suppose at first glance it gives us a template with which to read the book. Does he follow it? I would argue that he does although perhaps not in the same way that his sermons do. His sermons follow this structure very clearly. Part 1 [Declaration], Part 2 [Explanation], Part 3 [Application]. Doctrine of Repentance feels like a sermon that got turned into a book. The book is clearly influenced by the three part methodology but the parts themselves aren't quite as clear cut. They are still there, he just tends to flip between them without making as clear a division. Is this worth noting in the thesis? Not sure. Will make a note of it anyway just to be safe.
My second premise for Watson's style is that he was uncommonly brief for a Puritan writer. He cut down his words and distilled the concepts so that everything was clear and concise without sacrificing the meaning or depth of the text being explained. What some Puritans would take 700 pages to cover he might be able to cover in 70 and still maintain the force and depth of what was explained.
Aside for my own gratitude at having to read Watson, how would his brevity affect his Doctrine of Repentance? Well, I suppose that if he's taken the time to say something then it is important else he would not have said it. Even though his works are (sometimes considerably) shorter than other Puritans they should not be considered 'less than' those works.
My third premise for Watson's style is that he exhibited superior oratory and poetic skill. He was able to say things memorably, weaving Scripture, theology, philosophy, and poetry together in a way that felt natural and held the hearers' / readers' attention.
I suppose it is worth mentioning but I don't think it bares heavily (if at all) upon Watson's Doctrine of Repentance. Even though he is poetic he is also plain and the meaning of his words is always apparent. There is nowhere where the reader might be confused and ask "is he speaking metaphorically or literally?" Even if it doesn't bare upon Watson's Doctrine of Repentance you can still not talk about Watson's Style and not mention his poetic application of words.
One thing it does affect is how a modern audience can relate to Watson and his Doctrine of Repentance. His use of poetry gives his writing a 'universal' aspect wherein it still speaks clearly to us even 329 years after his death. His creative use of poetry makes him 'readable' and palatable to a modern reader. This is a novelty among Puritans since their writings were often so long. academically laden. and dry. Watson's are short, light, and 'juicy' by comparison.
