[The author was tutor at Hartley College, Manchester, during John Watson's term as President, 1893--97.]

[This appreciation exists only in typed form -- no manuscript.]

It is with pleasure that I comply with the request of my old friend, Mrs. Cowie, to contribute a chapter to the biography of her father. I do not remember definitely when I first met him but I think it may have been before the College Committee in May 1892 when the new arrangements which would follow on my appointment as tutor at the Primitive Methodist College were under discussion. At the following Conference held at Norwich, the election of the successor to Dr. Wood, the Principal of the College was made, and Mr. Watson, as he was at the time, was appointed. It is the custom of the Primitive Methodist Church, when a minister enters upon a connexional office, for his successor to be designated and to enter on office in five years' time. As the Rev. John Hallam, who had been designated to the position when Dr. Wood took office, had withdrawn, and Dr. Wood had announced his intention of resigning the Principalship in 1893, Mr Watson had only one year in which to prepare for his new duties. The Conference of 1892 appointed me as tutor and the fact that Mr. Watson was to be my colleague not only gave me great pleasure but naturally brought us together. He was living in Chester at the time and he used to come over to Manchester for Meetings of the College Committee and for Examiners' Meetings; he also stayed at my house on one occasion when he was preaching special sermons. It was accordingly possible for us to discuss College affairs in preparation for his coming, especially so far as the planning of his course of teaching and his study of the subjects allocated to him were concerned.

But we were also in correspondence about these and other matters. The first letter I had from him was, I believe, sent on October 22nd. 1892. The Rev. H. B. Kendall was at that time the denominational editor, and he had written to me with reference to a series of articles on continental scholars which he wished to be undertaken by Mr. Watson and myself. I had supplied him with a list of names which I thought should be included and from this Mr. Watson chose Bengel, Schleiermacher, Neander and Meyer. The articles appeared in what is now known as the Aldersgate Magazine. He had been for a number of years keenly interested in German theology. In a letter of November 15th. of the same year, acknowledging a list of Biblical and theological works which I had sent him, he told me that before he left England in 1879 he had translated several articles for what is now the Holborn Review from the Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie. Among the rest he mentions "one on 'The Prophet Isaiah' and another on 'Hebrew Historiography', which contained some ideas so far in advance of what were accepted by the most of our people, that I felt it necessary to write an explanatory foot note." He possessed Herzog's Realencyclopaedie für Protestantische Theologie, a work which ran to more than twenty volumes, and used it for assistance in articles. He referred gratefully to Dorner's History of Protestant Theology which he found very helpful, but he adds in words which will be echoed by many hard-working ministers, "It is difficult to keep up close reading and study amid the interruptions of circuit and connexional work."

Mr. and Mrs. Watson came to the Primitive Methodist College, Manchester, on July 4th 1893. On July 15th. he wrote me a letter largely concerned with the question of his own lectures and telling me how he and Mrs. Watson were settling down to the new life and its duties. "Mrs Watson takes well to her position, and will have no difficulty in getting on with her duties. As to mine I trust to master them as they arise." The College session opened a few days later, we met the students together to discuss their work with them, and so we entered upon a happy life of co-operation and comradeship which lasted without the slightest shadow of disagreement through the whole of his five years' term. Dr. Wood had been extremely kind to me and we had worked together without any friction. But he was an old-fashioned Methodist, very rigid in his theological views. Our talks accordingly went very little, if at all, towards questions of doctrine or Biblical scholarship. He must have been rather uneasy about my teaching, but while we were colleagues he never made reference to it in our conversations.

With Mr. Watson it was different. He was, to quote his own words, "a Methodist theologian by his deepest convictions." But he was very open to new light, especially to that which was streaming forth in our time with such radiance upon Scripture. He was in full sympathy with the critical view of the Old Testament, and with the whole trend of my Biblical teaching. When I first came to Manchester the examinations were entirely conducted by external examiners. As I did not use text books, it was suggested that I should send a number of questions to the examiners covering the ground of my lectures from which they might make a selection. Mr. Watson was at that time an examiner and acknowledging my set of questions he said, "Training in the line of such questions must be of immense service to our young men in their future ministry". This is all the more noteworthy that thirty years' ago critical views were not common in our ministry and he was already elderly. I was six and twenty when I came to Manchester in 1892 and he was sixty when he joined me the following year. Though there was this great disparity of age, yet because he had such elasticity of spirit and width of outlook he became a most congenial companion. He was deeply rooted in the past, loyal to the traditions of his Church, yet keen and eager, his mind ever open to receive new light from any quarter. We saw each other constantly, even the brief interval between lectures we generally spent together. And our conversation was generally on the topics which were nearest our hearts. He had for many years been deeply interested in philosophy and theology, and now the newer light on the Bible engaged much of his thought and attention. At an age when most men have closed their minds and settled down within a rigid circle of convictions, he remained alert to realise and willing to examine new presentations of truth. He extended and revised the curriculum in his own department, substituted newer text books and worked at his subjects with unflagging interest. When we succeeded for the first time in keeping two of our students for a third year he wrote lengthy letters to me discussing the curriculum.

I do not know when he was designated to succeed the Rev. Campbell Colin McKechnie as Editor of the Primitive Methodist Quarterly Review, but my impression is that he was from the time of his appointment as Vice-editor actively associated with his chief and not simply designated as his successor when he retired. At least they must have collaborated in the working over of articles, for I remember a remark the Principal made to me to the effect that it was very instructive to follow Mr. McKechnie's corrections and observe the vigilance with which he examined and the skill with which he amended the style of some contributors. A year after he came to the College he wrote to explain that as Mr. McKechnie found himself unable to undertake the whole work of the Review for 1895 it fell upon him to make arrangements for the programme. He asked me to think the matter over and give him any suggestions that might be helpful to him. He said, "I am, of course, relying upon you for the Literary Review department. Can you inform me what you can do beside this for the January number ? I would like to have a strong number if possible for the first issue." As he was taking charge I naturally felt it right to explain to him that I desired him to deal with the Current Literature section just as he wished. I have always held the theory that an Editor, however benevolent and sympathetic, must be an autocrat. If he is wise, he will be hospitable to any suggestions as to the general conduct of the journal, as to subjects and as to contributors. But the responsibility must rest on the shoulders of the Editor and he must accordingly keep the final decision in his own hands. No one else is in a position to say in many instances what policy should be adopted, because the Editor alone has all the material for a judgment before him. He has to think about balance of subjects, even-handed dealing with his contributors, the relevance and timeliness of particular topics, the wisdom or otherwise of including discussions or excluding them under the circumstances of the moment. Every Editor has probably to suffer from the unwelcome attentions of writers with an almost incredible pushfulness and pertinacity, who have taken the importunate widow for their model; and my colleague was not without experience of this kind. Holding so strongly this feeling that everything must be in the Editor's hands, I felt that I ought not to take his kind words about the Current Literature department as warranting me in continuing the task which, on Mr. McKechnie's invitation, I had originally undertaken. I wrote to him accordingly, explaining my general view to him and saying that I wished him to feel entirely free to make whatever arrangement he pleased for this department since, whatever it was, it would be perfectly agreeable to me. To this he replied "I am glad you are prepared to go on as usual with the Current Literature. I should never dream of making a change. Your work in this department is invaluable." Of course, I complied with his wishes and frequently I wrote an article as well. This was in the days when the Review was larger than it is at present possible for it to be. We constantly talked about it when we met, and sometimes corresponded when we could not meet.

It was while he was Principal of the College that Victoria University of Toronto offered him the degree of Doctor of Divinity, which sat worthily and gracefully upon him. At the Edinburgh Conference he was elected President. He was nominated in an admirable speech by Mr. William Windsor and I had the privilege of seconding the resolution. It was a rather interesting occasion since Dr. Watson and I had been on one side and Mr. Windsor on the other side of a controversy which at the time excited great interest in the denomination and generated not a little heat. This was occasioned by a sermon preached in Adelaide by the Rev. John Day Thompson on "The Simple Gospel". A newspaper correspondence was initiated by an Ex-Principal of the College. The case is now simply of historic interest and I have no desire to fight old battles over again; I mention the matter simply because it was a pleasing feature in the Edinburgh Conference that the mover of the resolution which took Dr. Watson to the Chair had been vehemently opposed in the heresy controversy to his nominee and the seconder had been opposed to the proposer.

Another Presidency which he filled was that of the National Christian Endeavour Convention. He had been actively engaged in the Endeavour Movement for some years and established it in his own circuit in Chester. It was really little more than a name to me till, during my first year at Manchester when he was my guest, he explained it to me with eager enthusiasm. It was only fitting that he should become its President, the first Primitive Methodist, I believe, to hold that position. This, however, was after he ceased to be Principal. I believe the Conference at which he delivered his Hartley Lecture fell during his Presidency. This was the only book he published and it was characteristic of him that he selected for his subject, "The Fatherhood of God." He had a great regard for Dr. Fairbairn and his Christ in Modern Theology had recently brought the subject into new prominence. In the Divine Fatherhood Dr. Watson had a congenial theme and I was much in sympathy with his treatment of it.

At the Conference of 1898 at which I believe the lecture was delivered, his term as Principal came to an end. He had won the esteem and gratitude of his students who were even more impressed by the radiant goodness of his character than by the range of his knowledge. During his term of office the first enlargement of the College took place, and it was inevitably a very exacting time both for himself and his wife. The celebrations which marked the opening in 1897 will be fresh in the minds of some of my readers.

When he retired from the Principalship he did not sever his connection with the College. At that time the conditions were scarcely ripe in the judgment of many for the appointment of a second tutor. Dr. Watson became superintendent of a circuit in Manchester and continued teaching work at the College. An assistant was given to him with the hope that his circuit work would not involve much more than the Sunday services and general supervision. But the circuit duties proved very exacting. When he had been there only a few months he wrote me a letter in which he gave me an account of what a week's work had involved so far as circuit duties were concerned. And the list was very disheartening to anyone who knew how important it was for a tutor to be free from such distractions. He said in this letter, "I shall be glad when my double set of duties shall come to an end and I shall either be tutor only or circuit minister only."

The beginning of the end, so far as his active life of service was concerned, came with the death of Mrs. Watson in April 1901. I did not know Mrs. Watson till she came to the College in 1893; but I formed the highest estimate of her. She was one of those in whom the religious and the ethical are perfectly balanced and blend in a higher unity. A woman of great force of character, sweetness of disposition and self-forgetful activity, she had proved for many years a worthy comrade to her husband. She had thrown herself with entire devotion into the work of the Church and her combination of strength and gentleness, of efficient energy with rare and fragrant piety deeply impressed all who came in contact with her. It was beautiful to see the perfect unity of spirit which existed between them, their deep devotion to each other, their common concentration on the best and highest things. Her work at the College had been very exacting, especially during the difficult time when the great extension of the building was proceeding. Grave medical warning had been given at the time, but she had gone through the whole of her term. Then the cumulative effect of strain began to tell and after a prolonged and trying illness she died in less than three years after she left the College. It was my sad privilege to conduct the memorial service for her.

Her husband had leaned greatly upon her and her loss, increasingly felt as the days went by, must have told heavily upon him. He still continued his double service of teaching and ministry. But in the late summer of the same year the crash came. A breakdown of the gravest and most critical character gave reason for the fear that the year which had robbed us of his wife would take him also from us. His career as teacher and as minister was abruptly closed. At the request of the family I saw the October number of the Review through the press. He rallied, however, and began to hope that he might still be permitted to do some work. His first letter was written to me from Lymm where he had gone to live with his daughter and son-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Eccles. He said in this letter (December 19th 1901) "This is my first attempt to write a letter since my breakdown ... Will you kindly give me your help another quarter ? I find I can do the work again as far as my mind is concerned, but the strain of writing is too much for my nervous system. By March I shall say definitely what I shall be able to do. I have improved very decidedly during the last two or three weeks. I do not think I shall ever preach again. The doctors I have had, say I may live many years if I live quietly, but possibly I shall be able to manage the Review and be the better for the work.'

It would have been a joy to us all if he could have resumed the editorship. But in little more than a month it was quite clear to himself that all hope of it had to be renounced. In a letter of January 18th. 1902 he said, "I am still slowly improving and will be glad to help if I can be of any use." But on the 21st he wrote a letter to me followed by a postcard. The effort finally convinced him that his work in this respect was done. He said in the letter, "I am much obliged for your kind letter and for the service you have rendered me. As I still find writing very difficult my words must be few but I am deeply grateful. I fully agree with what you have done and had intended to do much that you have done ... I quite agree with your other arrangements. But find I cannot say as much as I intended ..... I am afraid the Review unless I improve very much more will task me too much. My daughters want me to give it up. I think I can do something in writing until I try. I wanted to write a few words to you with my own hand. I should be glad to keep it on but I cannot do the work yet. Still the power to write may come back. My thinking powers are quite clear but I cannot sustain myself." The effort to write this letter made him ill; but he was able during the day to write a brief postcard in which he recognised the inevitable. "Thanks for your letter and for what you are doing for me. I cannot express my gratitude. I fully endorse all you have done. I wrote a letter to you to-day, but my attempt convinces me that I must give up the Review. I have been thinking of doing my best to get ready for work but I am fully persuaded that if I am to recover I must cease writing. Will you kindly take the Review."

He had been very happy in his work as Editor; he was keenly interested in planning the programme and allocating the articles to contributors. He gave much time and thought to it as I had good reason to know from our frequent consultations about it. It was with great reluctance that when opportunities for preaching and teaching were denied to him, he contemplated resigning the editorship. This was a field of quiet service full of interest to him, in which he hoped that he might still be permitted to labour for his Church. He shrank greatly from any action being taken which might render this more difficult and was accordingly specially anxious that I should take charge of it until he could resume his work. It was my delight to be of service to a friend and colleague whom I loved and honoured so much, so I took complete responsibility for the January, April and July numbers in 1902. Then the Rev. H. B. Kendall, who had all along in my own mind been designated as Dr. Watson's successor, was appointed editor, and it was with relief that I handed over to him what had proved to be a heavy task. Dr. Watson had finely maintained the quality of the Review, and on his editorship one is entitled to look back with pleasure and pride.

In the years that followed we rarely met. Indeed after he went South we did not meet at all. The last letter I received from him, I believe, was written on December 20th 1902. I had recently had an operation and this was an affectionate letter of sympathy and goodwill. Then after a long retirement, which had been quiet though not unfruitful, he passed away on February 23rd 1913. He was buried in Manchester, the funeral service taking place at Great Western Street Church, of which he had been a member during his Principalship. It was my privilege to deliver the memorial address and express the reverence and affection which we felt for him.

I an sorry that it was not my good fortune to know Dr. Watson at the zenith of his powers. When I first met him the sun had travelled no little way down the long slope which led to its setting. But though I knew him only in the last period of his activity, I am glad that during that period my friendship with him was so intimate. It might have been feared that the difference in age would have forbidden an intimacy which went below the surface. But a closer and deeper fellowship was rendered possible by the flexibility of his mind and his hospitality to new truth. One of the most marked features in his character was his intellectual eagerness. His enthusiasm in the pursuit of truth did not die down with the passing of the years. The subjects of study, which had laid their spell upon him so early, retained it to the end. It was the more speculative aspects of enquiry which most appealed to him. His chief intellectual interest was in philosophy and theology. But always a lover and close student of the Bible he had studied it afresh in the light of new critical suggestions. He had a keen appreciation of good literature and was well read in modern English fiction.

But his chief attraction lay in his personality rather than in his attainments. He had a singularly sweet and beautiful disposition, a gentleness and graciousness which endeared him to all his friends. His character was firmly built on a foundation of flawless integrity, but it grew into a thing of beauty as it moved upward towards the sky. The strength and nobility of his moral nature were redeemed from austerity by the profound and penetrating influence of religion. He was one of the few to whom the too recklessly used word "saint" could be justly applied. His was truly a dedicated life, dedicated in every part and at every hour. He was happily without the narrowness, the intolerance, the censoriousness which have marred the character and largely negatived the title of many who have been called saints. If he was rarely ruffled, it was not, I think, because he held himself so sternly in check but because of the deep central peace in which he rested. It is well to have known such a man, but a precious privilege to have been his colleague, to have laboured with him, to have understood in a measure the forces which made him the man he was.