And the following letter is a very fair illustration of the temper and spirit of Watts’ replies to his censorious and abusive brother:
“Lime Street, Nov. 1, 1725.
“Reverend Sir,
“On Friday night last my worthy friend and neighbour, Mr. Caleb Wroe, called on me at Theobalds, and desired me to convey the enclosed paper to you, with his humble thanks for the share you have given him in the late legacy intrusted with you, and he intreats that you would please to pay the money into the hands of this messenger, that I may return it to him; and I cannot but join my unfeigned thanks with his, that you are pleased to remember so valuable and pious a man in your distributions, whose circumstances are by no means above the receipt of such charitable bequests, though his modesty is so great as to prevent him from sueing for an interest in them.
“But while I am acknowledging your unexpected goodness to my friend, permit me, sir, to inquire into the reason of your unexpected conduct towards myself in so different a manner. It is true I live much in the country, but I am not unacquainted with what passes in town. I would now look no further backward than your letter to the Board at Lime Street, about six months ago, where I was present. I cannot imagine, sir, what occasion I had given to such sort of censures as you pass upon me there among others, which you are pleased to cast upon our worthy brethren; nor can I think how a more pious and Christian return could have been made by that Board at that time than to vote a silence and burial of all past contests, and even of this last letter of yours, and to desire your company amongst us as in times past. I had designed, sir, to have never taken any further notice of this letter, if I had not been abundantly informed that your conduct since is of the same kind, and that you have persisted in your public reflections on many of my writings in such a manner as makes it sufficiently appear that you design reproach to the man, as much as to show your zeal against his supposed errors. The particular instances of this kind I need not rehearse to you; yourself are best acquainted with them. And yet, after all this, I had been silent still; but as I acknowledge God and seek Him in all my ways, so I am convinced it is my duty to give you a private admonition, and, as a brother, I intreat you to consider whether all this wrath of man can work the righteousness of God? Let me intreat you, sir, to ask yourself what degrees of passion and personal resentment may join and mingle themselves with your supposed zeal for the Gospel? Jesus, the searcher of hearts, He knows with what daily labour and study, and with what constant addresses to the throne of grace, I seek to support the doctrine of His Deity as well as you, and to defend it in the best manner I am capable of. And shall I tell you also, sir, that it was your urgent request, among many others, that engaged me so much further in this study than I at first intended. If I am fallen into mistakes, your private and friendly notice had done much more toward the correction of them than public reproaches. I am not conscious to myself that either my former or latter conduct towards you has merited such indignities as these; nor can I think that our blessed Lord, who has given you so rich a furniture of imagination, and such sprightly talents for public service, will approve such employment of them in the personal disgrace of your brethren that own the same faith, that preach the same Saviour, and attempt to spread abroad the same doctrines of salvation.
“I wish, sir, it were but possible for you to look upon your own conduct, abstracted from that fondness which we all naturally bear to self, and see whether there be no occasion for some humbling and penitent thoughts in the sight of God. It is not the design of this writing to carry on a quarrel with you. It has been my frequent prayer, and it will be my joy, to see your temper suited to your work, and to hear that you employ your studies and your style for the support of truth and godliness in the spirit of the Gospel, that is, in the spirit of meekness and love. And I conclude with a hearty request to Heaven that your wit may be all sanctified, that you may minister holy things with honour and purity and great success, and you may become as eminent and public an example of piety, meekness, heavenly-mindedness, and love to all the saints, as your own soul wishes and desires. Farewell, sir, and forgive this freedom of your humble servant and fellow labourer in the Gospel of Christ,
“I. Watts.”
It is very satisfactory, however, throughout the correspondence to feel that Watts, the only one of the two names in which we now feel much interest, preserves a spirit of quietness and candour; the correspondence was forced upon him by the noisy Bradbury, and as he commenced it so he was determined to have the last of it. Watts had quietly implored him to silence, saying: “Let us examine what is past, and take care for the time to come what we write or print with regard to our brethren be expressed in such language as may dare appear and be read by the light of the last conflagration, and the splendour of the tribunal of our returning Lord.” This produced a tempest of a letter, in which Bradbury says: “I learn no such passive obedience to an unreasonable adversary, but rather the contrary; you should have left off contention before it was meddled with, for I doubt not to open to the world your shame.”
The correspondence is very lengthy; it is not probable that it will ever be reprinted; it is not worth the patience of perusal, unless to add to the esteem of the subject of these memoirs. Bradbury’s turbulent nature in the course of it seems to be utterly ungoverned, and raves along in a manner quite fatal to any respect with which a desire to think well of the man might possess the reader’s mind. It had perhaps been better if the wave of this correspondence had, like most of Watts’ letters, been lost to the eye, but, by some fatality, it is the only complete piece of correspondence in our author’s life published. Walter Wilson remarks upon it that “the letters are of that personal nature as do but little credit to the writers.” This is very unjust; if Mr. Wilson had read, he must have known that there is not one word in the letters of Watts which does not reflect the quiet holiness of a spirit at perfect peace with itself, only desirous of healing the heart of his antagonist. Bradbury even censures him because, after his attacks on Watts in print, he did not reply in print, but referred to them in private letters to him! Watts had expressed his desire in seeking the truth, and says:
“I acknowledge with respect and thankfulness the kind opinions you have entertained of me, and I really ‘value all the care you have shown not to grieve my spirit,’ whensoever I see it practised. I easily believe, indeed, that your natural talent of wit is richly sufficient to have taken occasions from an hundred passages in my writings to have filled your pages with much severer censures. In the vivacity of wit, in the copiousness of style, in readiness of Scripture phrases, and other useful talents, I freely own you for my superior, and will never pretend to become your rival. But it is only calm and sedate argument that weighs with me in matters of controversy, nor will I be displeased with any man for showing me my mistakes by force of argument, and in a spirit of meekness; it is only in this manner truth must be searched out, and not by wit and raillery.”