Again, he says: “I must lead thee by the hand, not by the nose, Thomas—others have done thee that office already—that thou mayst be convinced, yea, even confounded, for those whom thou hast, with so great confidence, taken on thee to recommend as good men, and men fearing God. I do thee justice, Thomas, and therefore observe in thy behalf that thy modesty would not permit thee to say, ‘They were men hating covetousness.’”[31]
Bradbury was one of those men who, pursuing politics in the pulpit with vehement and intolerant pertinacity, degrade the standard of the minister of the Gospel; he was even charged with desiring the blood of the ministers of Queen Anne in the pamphlets of the day, especially in “Burnet and Bradbury; or, the Confederacy of the Press and the Pulpit for the Blood of the last Ministry.”[32]
A life of Watts would be quite incomplete which did not give some account of his very eminent but now almost forgotten assailant and enemy, Thomas Bradbury. Born at Wakefield, in Yorkshire, he had all the characteristics of a typical Yorkshireman; he was a bold and hearty, and possibly, whatever that may be worth, well-meaning man; he possessed a considerable amount of natural genius, especially for doubtful drollery and expletive. It is a wonder that his name has not found a record in such histories as Macaulay’s and Stanhope’s, for it has a semi-historical interest. He was probably the most representative political Nonconformist among the ministers in the City of London of his day, and a well-known anecdote tells that he was the first to proclaim, as he did from his pulpit, the accession of George I. to the throne. It is said that he was walking through Smithfield in a very pensive and thoughtful mood on Sunday, August 1st, 1714, when the great “Schism Bill” was about to take effect, when Bishop Burnet happened to pass in his carriage; the Bishop called to his friend, and inquired into the cause of his great thoughtfulness. “I am thinking,” replied Bradbury, “whether I shall have the constancy and courage of the noble army of martyrs whose ashes are deposited in this place, for I most assuredly expect to see similar times of violence and persecution, and that I shall be caused to suffer in a like cause.”
The Bishop was himself equally zealous with Bradbury for the cause of Protestantism; he told him that the Queen was very ill, that she was given over by her physicians, who expected every hour to be her last; and he further said, that he was even then on his way to the Palace to inquire the particulars, and that he would despatch a messenger to Mr. Bradbury with the earliest intelligence of the Queen’s death, and that if he should be in the pulpit when the messenger arrived, he should drop a handkerchief from the gallery as a token of that event. The messenger employed was Mr. John Bradbury, a brother of the preacher, and one in the medical profession. The Queen died while Bradbury was preaching, and the intelligence was conveyed to him by the signal agreed upon; perhaps the preacher may be forgiven if his heart was filled with joy; he indeed suppressed his feelings during the sermon, but in his prayer gave thanks to God who had again delivered the nation from the power of evil counsels, and implored a Divine blessing upon his majesty King George and the House of Hanover. He always gloried in being the first who proclaimed King George the First.
This anecdote gives a fair idea of the character of the man; one more utterly unlike Isaac Watts it is impossible to conceive; he was a man whose learning was limited, he had neither taste nor capacity for those refined subtleties either of argument or imagination into which Watts was forced by the necessities of controversy in his times; also, Bradbury was a rugged, rough-and-ready speaker and thinker, possessed of a dangerous prompt wit, not always free from a coarse disregard of the feelings of others; nor can we fail to see that there mingled, perhaps unconsciously to himself, a considerable amount of jealousy of his more eminent and illustrious brother. Before Watts had received his invitation to become the co-pastor or successor of Dr. Chauncy, the congregation had heard Mr. Bradbury; it is easily understood that the courtly, polished, and perhaps fastidious people would scarcely appreciate an eloquence like that of “bold Bradbury”—a term by which Queen Anne designated him. Then, at the first signal of his hostility to Watts, one of his own most distinguished people, Watts’ friend, Lord Barrington, forsook him; it was perhaps not likely to improve his temper, and Watts, although exceedingly firm in his own convictions, as he had not the strength so neither had he the disposition for any vehement political action, and if he stepped aside slightly to use his influence in political partisanship, it was unfortunately not to aid the particular persons espoused by Bradbury. And so it was that in the sermons of this free-spoken man there are handed down to us perhaps the most harsh and unjust words which ever assailed the ministry of Isaac Watts. It was at a later period of life, when Watts was very infirm, that, at a meeting of the ministers in the Redcross Street Library, he rose to propose some resolution, and, with his weakly constitution and feeble voice, he found considerable difficulty in making himself heard, when Bradbury called out to him in the meeting, “Brother Watts, shall I speak for you?” The quiet little Doctor turned to him and said, “Why, Brother Bradbury, you have often spoken against me.” At first he had encouraged the idea of Watts’ publication of his Paraphrase of the Psalms and of his Hymns, but when they came forth, although they proved so acceptable to congregations in general, he continued to use the dull version of Dr. Patrick until his dying day in his own place, New-court Chapel, and prevented their introduction into the service at Pinners’ Hall. There, however, on one occasion the clerk happened unluckily to give out one of Watts’ pieces; up rose Bradbury immediately, exclaiming, “Let us have none of Watts’ (w)hims.”
In all this, and in other such instances, a faithful biographer must see the traces of a good deal of mere jealousy. It is quite an exceptional instance in the life of Watts, and it must seem singular that so sweet and gentle a nature should have suffered from the misrepresentations of any, and Bradbury has perhaps, even in his grave, been the most abiding enemy to Watts’ reputation. It seems scarcely probable that the Unitarians could have so audaciously claimed our writer as their own, had not Bradbury set them a wicked example in his sermons. One of the most affecting and earnest passages in the correspondence of Watts is his remonstrance with his unjust brother against unseemly attacks upon him, and misrepresentations of his opinions. Watts, so far as we can see, was never either discourteous or unjust; but he bitterly felt it that while, by his hymns and his treatises, he was attempting to shake the ground of the Arian heresy, his name was, from the pulpit and the pen, covered with obloquy as injuring and shaking the foundations of the most exalted faith in Christ. Bradbury was not concerned to reply to arguments, but in a right-down vehement manner to denounce those from whom he differed. He was no metaphysician. Turning over the many volumes of his sermons, we find them all characterized by strong evangelical statement, a very happy arrangement of thoughts, and great lucidity and apt readiness of expression. He never passed beyond the sense or culture of an ordinary audience; it must also be said that he never put the bridle on his wit. He was a man who could never find himself in the wrong, and who must always have the last word, and that word a disagreeable one. In a most extraordinary manner he could write and say the most abusive and bitter things, and seem quite surprised that the person to whom they were addressed did not take them as expressions of kindness. He tells Watts that he is “profane, conceited, impudent, and pragmatical;” he says: “You are mistaken if you think I ever knew, and much less admired, your mangling, garbling, transforming, etc., so many of your Songs of Zion; your notions about psalmody, and your satirical flourishes in which you express them, are fitter for one who pays no regard to inspiration, than for a Gospel minister, as I may hereafter show in a more public way.” And when Watts mildly demurred to this as a personal reflection, he says, in reply: “Should any one take the liberty of burlesquing your poetry, as you have done that of the Most High God, you might call it personal reflection indeed; when I consider that most of those expressions are adopted either by the New Testament or the evangelical prophets, I tremble at your mowing them together, as you were resolved to make the Songs of Zion ridiculous.” Again he says: “Do you think that the ministers of London are to stand still while you tear in pieces eight great Articles of their faith? And must every one who answers your arguments be accused of personal reflections?” Such is the vein in which this noisy man writes. Watts replies in a spirit of singular meekness; Bradbury, while indulging in the coarsest invective, professes a large amount of respect and honour, and Watts says: “I am always ready to acknowledge whatsoever personal respect Mr. Bradbury has conceived for one of so little merit as I can pretend to; but I know not how to reconcile the profession of so much respect with so many and so severe censures, and with such angry modes of expression, as you have been pleased to use both in print and in writing.” Vindicating himself for attempting to set the Psalms of David to the service of song, he says:
“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; and though 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 there are 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, etc.’ Surely their prayers are not best for us, since we are commanded to ask everything 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.
“And since I find you have been pleased to make my hymns and imitations of the Psalms, together with their prefaces, the object of your frequent and harsh censures, give me leave to ask you whether I did not consult with you while I was translating the Psalms in this manner, fourteen or fifteen years ago? Whether I was not encouraged by you in this work, even when you fully knew my design, by what I had printed, as well as by conversation? Did you not send me a note, under your own hand, by my brother, with a request that I would form the fiftieth and the hundred and twenty-second Psalms into their proper old metre? And in that note you told me too that one was six lines of heroic verse, or ten syllables, and the other six lines of shorter metre; by following those directions precisely, I confess I committed a mistake in both of them, or at least in the last; nor had I ever thought of putting in those metres, nor considered the number of the lines, nor the measure of them, but by your direction, and at your request. I allow, sir, with great freedom, that you may have changed your opinion since, and you have a right to do it without the least blame from me; but I do declare it, that at that time you were one of my encouragers, and therefore your present censures should be lighter and softer.
“You desire me at the end ‘to remember former friendships,’ but you will give me leave to ask which of us has forgot them most; and I am well assured that I have more effectually proved myself all that which you are pleased to subscribe, viz., your steady, hearty, and real friend, your obedient and devoted servant,
“I. Watts.”