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."

To this letter Bradbury sent a rejoinder, dated CharterHouse, Dec. 23, 1725: "I was in great hopes to have prevented both you and myself the trouble we may find in an answer to your letter, by conveying my thoughts in a free discourse with your brother [Richard Watts, M.D.], which yesterday I had an opportunity of doing. I read him part of your letter, and assured him as I went along that I was far from deserving the hard opinion you had conceived of me. But he was pleased, in a language which I thought it below both him to give and me to take, to convince me, that he was no proper messenger of my vindication to you." He goes on reiterating his charge of heresy: "I heard and saw the holy Sir John Hartopp, with tears running down his cheeks, lament your opposition to Dr. Owen, which he imputed to an instability in your temper, and a fondness for your own inventions." The heavy accusation implied in this passage was keenly felt by Watts; hence, he observes, in a letter dated Lime-Street, March 15, 1726, "as for my attempts to maintain the new and essential deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, I have often examined my own heart, and am not conscious to myself, that the pride and fondness of novelty has led me into any particular train of thoughts; and I beg earnestly that he that knows all things would search and try me in this respect. My only aim has been to guard this doctrine against the objections and cavils of men, and to set it in the most defensible light; and if I can see that done in any other form, I shall rejoice to bury all my papers in oblivion, or, if you please, to burn them all. My weaknesses of nature are so many, and perpetually recurring, that I am often called to look into the other world, and would not dare to write any thing that might derogate from the divine

CC

ideas which scripture ascribes to God, my Saviour and my Sanctifier." The following passage in a postscript will be read with interest :-"You tell me that the plain drift of this whole imagination, viz. of resembling the being of God by the soul of man, is to destroy a Trinity of Persons.' Now I have often freely declared, and still declare, that I allow the greatest distinction possible between the sacred Three in the divine nature, which does not arise to three distinct conscious minds or spirits. Make it as great as you will short of this, and I acquiesce in it. But, then, since three distinct conscious minds is the true idea of three proper literal persons, whatsoever falls short of this can be but an analogical personality; yet if any man will call this a proper divine personality, though it is but similar to human personality, I will not contend about words and names. And whereas I have sometimes called the Word and Spirit, in the divine nature, two distinct powers or principles of operation in the godhead, yet I have in many places told what I mean, viz. that the idea of distinct powers or principles of operation, being the greatest distinction that we can conceive in one spirit, it is the nearest analogical idea of the sacred Three that I can arrive at, always supposing there may be some unknown distinctions in the divine nature greater than the ideas we have of the powers or faculties in the soul of man. If I have either given you or any one else occasion to understand me in a different sense from what I now declare, I should be glad to retrieve any such mistake of my meaning."

Another ground of difference between these two eminent men, was the publication of the Psalms and Hymns. It appears that Watts had mentioned originally his design to Bradbury, of composing a version of the Psalms, and was encouraged in his intention by him; but upon its publication, after their misunderstanding had probably commenced, he severely attacked the production in conversation and from the pulpit. Not only did he continue to use Dr. Patrick's version in his own congregation;

but, in deference to his prejudices, the compositions of Watts were not introduced at Pinner's Hall, where he lectured, until after his death. It is said, that an unlucky clerk, on one occasion, having stumbled upon one of Watts's stanzas, Bradbury got up and reproved him with, "Let us have none of Mr. Watts's whims." In objecting to allow the metrical version of Watts to be sung in his congregation, he was by no means alone, though none of his brethren imitated him in his rude and unmanly attacks. He appears to have regarded it as a presumptuous meddling with the sacred text, a supplanting of the word of God with the words of man, to alter and accommodate the language of David to the clearer light of the gospel dispensation. Hence, he speaks of the Imitations as "mangling," "garbling," and "transforming" the songs of Sion; as an attempt to “rival" it with the psalmist, as to which is to be considered henceforth the "sweet singer of Israel;" a design of which Watts will at once be acquitted by every candid mind. The charge was, however, preferred against him by more than one of his brethren, and he thus replies to it in a letter to Bradbury, January 14, 1726: "You tell me that I rival it with David, whether he or I be the sweet psalmist of Israel: I abhor the thought; while yet, at the same time, I am fully persuaded, that the Jewish psalm-book was never designed to be the only psalter for the Christian church. We may borrow many parts of the prayers of Ezra, Job, and Daniel, as well as of David, yet if we take them entire as they stand, and join nothing of the gospel with them, I think few of them will be found proper prayers for a Christian church; and yet I think it would be very unjust to say, 'we rival it with Ezra, Job,' &c. Surely their prayers are not best for us, since we are commanded to ask every thing in the name of Christ. Now I know no reason why the glorious discoveries of the New Testament should not be mingled with our songs and praises as well as with our prayers. I give solemn thanks to my Saviour with all my soul, that he hath honoured me so far as to bring his name

and gospel in a more evident and express manner into Christian psalmody."

A third ground of difference was Watts's friendship with Lord Barrington, and his interference in behalf of his lordship's election as member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. That town contained a considerable number of dissenters, and the influence of a few of the metropolitan ministers was employed to promote the return of such a firm friend to the cause of nonconformity. This was for the second parliament in the reign of George I.; and Messrs. Neal, Nesbit, and Clark, with Watts, wrote strongly recommending Lord Barrington to the electors. This nobleman had been an intimate friend of Bradbury's, and a member of his congregation; but owing to his violence at Salter's Hall, and a difference of opinion in that controversy, he connected himself with Dr. Hunt at Pinner's Hall, whose ministry he afterwards attended. The encomiums passed upon him might be galling to Mr. Bradbury, but they were such as the services he had rendered to the state demanded; and Watts was perfectly justified in recommending to the dissenting interest at Berwick an individual of whom the body had reason to be proud. "When I knew," says Bradbury in a letter, dated Charter-Square, March 7, 1726, "that Messrs. Nesbit, Clark, Neal, and Raper, had writ to Berwick in recommendation of Lord Barrington and Mr. Neville, my correspondent told me that Mr. Watts had sent them a letter of the most extravagant encomiums that ever were heard; and that you represented Lord Barrington as something more than a man." To this Watts replied, Lime-Street, March 15, "I am well assured that as in those days I spent almost all my time at Theobalds, under much weakness, so I wrote nothing but what with uprightness and honesty of heart I designed for the service of the dissenting interest; and declared at the same time, that I was no partisan of my Lord Barrington's in that subscribing contest (at Salter's Hall); however in my judgment I thought

him a very fit representative for a town which had many dissenters in it."

It is obvious that long before the parties came to an open rupture, the harmony that once subsisted between them had ceased; the bitter altercations upon the Arian heresy widened the breach; and a few years afterwards Watts took up the pen to expostulate. A lengthened correspondence ensued, but no satisfactory result was obtained, and in the course of a few months the subject appears to have dropped by mutual consent. A smart repartee is, however, upon record with reference to this controversy. At the Red-Cross-Street Library, when a number of ministers were met together, Mr. Watts having something to propose rose up to speak, but owing to the feebleness of his voice it was with difficulty that he could make himself heard. Upon this Mr. Bradbury called out to him-"Brother Watts, shall I speak for you?" to which he significantly replied, "Brother Bradbury, you have often spoken against me." If in reviewing now this painful dispute, an impartial observer has occasion to blame the one party, for the absence of that charity that "hopeth all things;" he will also remember, that there was cause for animadversion, with reference to the other, in a partial deviation from the orthodox doctrine, and a proneness to torture the mystery of godliness into a congruity with new schemes and explications. The spirit which Watts manifested during this unfortunate altercation, will be best seen from the following extracts:-"It has always been a painful and grievous thing to me, to hold a contest with any person living, much more with one for whom I have had so sincere an esteem, more especially since my constitution and my spirits are much broken by long illness. If, therefore, the temper of your mind continues the same as runs through a good part of your two letters to the board and me, I can neither desire nor expect a return to this paper; nor am I willing by any means to carry on such an epistolary contention. If you think fit to talk with me on any of these heads, in a spirit of