(Rev. v. 6, 8, 9-12.)
Behold the glories of the Lamb,
Amidst His Father’s throne:
Prepare new honours for His Name,
And songs before unknown.
Let elders worship at His feet,
The Church adore around,
With vials full of odours sweet,
And harps of sweeter sound.
Those are the prayers of the saints,
And these the hymns they raise:
Jesus is kind to our complaints,
He loves to hear our praise.
Eternal Father, who shall look
Into Thy secret will?
Who but the Son shall take that book
And open every seal?
He shall fulfil Thy great decrees,
The Son deserves it well;
Lo, in His hand the sovereign keys
Of heaven, and death, and hell.
Now to the Lamb that once was slain,
Be endless blessings paid;
Salvation, glory, joy remain
For ever on Thy head.
This is far from being one of Watts’s best hymns, but it is vastly
better than Barton’s best.
It is characteristic of Dr. Watts that in the preface to his _Psalms_
he speaks courteously of his predecessors in the attempt to adapt the
Psalms to modern use. He praises Sir John Denham, Luke Milbourne, Tate
and Brady, and, most of all, Dr. Patrick, whose ‘chief excellency,’ he
thought, was that ‘he departed further from the inspired words of
Scripture’ than others had done. Watts’s hymns were published ten or
twelve years before the _Psalms_, and in his preface he delivers a
vigorous apology for what he felt to be a bold venture, but pays no
compliment to predecessors. He could not say, like John Wesley, that
but a small part were of his own composing, yet even his extreme
modesty does not prevent his showing a quiet and most just confidence
in his work as compared with what had been hitherto available. His
picture of the public worship of his day may comfort us in regard to
the attractiveness of modern services. He says—
While we sing the praises of our God in His Church, we are employed
in that part of worship which of all others is the nearest akin to
heaven, and it is pity that this, of all others, should be performed
the worst upon earth. The gospel brings us nearer to the heavenly
state than all the former dispensations of God amongst men. And in
these last days of the gospel we are brought almost within sight of
the kingdom of our Lord; yet we are very much unacquainted with the
songs of the New Jerusalem, and unpractised in the work of praise.
To see the dull indifference, the negligent and the thoughtless air,
that sits upon the faces of a whole assembly, while the psalm is on
their lips, might tempt even a charitable observer to suspect the
fervency of inward religion; and it is much to be feared that the
minds of most of the worshippers are absent or unconcerned. Perhaps
the modes of preaching, in the best churches, still want some
degrees of reformation; nor are the methods of prayer so perfect as
to stand in need of no correction or improvement. But of all our
religious solemnities, psalmody is the most unhappily managed. That
very action which should elevate us to the most delightful and
divine sensations, doth not only flatten our devotion, but too often
awakes our regret, and touches all the springs of uneasiness within
us.
He goes on to protest that it was ‘far from’ his ‘thoughts to lay
aside the book of Psalms in public worship,’ which ‘is the most noble,
most devotional and divine collection of poesy.’ At the same time he
says—
It must be acknowledged still that there are a thousand lines in it
which were not made for a Church in our days to assume as its own.
There are also many deficiencies of light and glory which our Lord
Jesus and His apostles have supplied in the writings of the New
Testament. And with this advantage I have composed these spiritual
songs, which are now presented to the world. Nor is the attempt
vain-glorious or presuming, for, in respect of clear evangelical
knowledge, _The least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than all
the Jewish prophets_.
Such a defence of Christian hymns is superfluous to-day, but it took
many long years to convince the Churches that ‘When I survey the
wondrous Cross’ was more suitable for use in Christian worship than
Ps. cix.
When Watts’s victory was achieved it was only too complete. In the
congregations of his own denomination it was counted almost an impiety
to sing anything but his psalms and hymns. This extravagant and narrow
loyalty to Watts naturally placed the Dissenting congregations at a
great disadvantage—far greater than that which the Methodist societies
suffered through the too exclusive use of Wesley’s hymns. The idea
that one man can write the hymns of any Church or congregation is long
since exploded; indeed, we go further, claiming that a good hymn
belongs to Christendom. We do not ask what a man’s ‘denomination’ is
before giving him a place in our hymn-books. Only the Romanists, and
some of them faint-heartedly, now demand that the writer and the
singer must belong to the same communion.
Watts has been at once unduly lauded and unduly depreciated. Keble
spoke of him as ‘no poet,’ and this may be true of his ‘poems,’ but
his greater hymns could only have been written by a poet of no mean
order. Montgomery puts the case more justly when he calls Watts ‘one
of the least of the poets of his country,’ but ‘the greatest name
among hymn-writers.’[94] Professor Palgrave does Watts full justice—
His views as an Independent were modified and enlarged by his sweet,
devout temper—may we not add, by his gift in poetry? And ‘every
Christian Church,’ as Dr. Johnson finely remarked, ‘would rejoice to
have adopted’ one so fervently devout, so faithful to his duty—we
may add, so much more truly gifted by nature as a poet than common
Fame has recognized. As with C. Wesley and other good men, fluency,
want of taste and finish, the sacrifice, in a word, of art to direct
usefulness, have probably lost them those honours in literature to
which they were born. But they have their reward.[95]
The sacrifice of art to usefulness was much more deliberate in the
case of Watts than of Wesley. Charles Wesley often wrote in haste,
with the rush and glow of a present inspiration, with thoughts that
must find expression, and which it was easier to utter in poetry than
in prose. Watts designed his hymns for the service of the house of
God, and had ever before him the dull man in the pew and the tiresome
man in the singing gallery. ‘I have seldom,’ he explained, ‘permitted
a stop in the middle of a line, and seldom left the end of a line
without one; to comport with the unhappy mixture of reading and
singing, which cannot presently be reformed.’ ‘The metaphors,’ he
continues, ‘are generally sunk to the level of vulgar capacities. If
the verse appears so gentle and flowing as to incur the censure of
feebleness, I may honestly affirm that sometimes it cost me labour to
make it so. Some of the beauties of poesy are neglected, and some
wilfully defaced.’ Finally, he describes his work as ‘an attempt for
the reformation of psalmody amongst the Churches.’ In estimating
Watts’s contribution to the hymn-book of the modern Church, this
service must be gratefully recognized. It may seem to us that he
stooped too much ‘to the level of vulgar capacities,’ but in this he
had to consider what men were able to bear; and we must remember that
even those of his hymns which were to perish in the using had their
share in preparing the way for the ‘nobler, sweeter song’ in which the
Church praises her Lord to-day.
When the Independent Churches began to seek a wider range of choice
than Watts could afford, they proceeded by way of supplement, as the
Methodists did until 1903. Dr. Thomas Gibbons, Watts’s affectionate
but ponderous biographer,[96] issued one in 1769, and others followed
in fairly rapid succession, amongst their editors being George Burder,
Dr. Bengo Collyer, and finally Josiah Conder, whose book was prepared
in 1833 under the direction of the Congregational Union.[97] When at
length the Congregationalists began to compile completely new books,
Watts naturally still exercised a preponderating influence—as in the
excellent _Leeds Hymn-book_ of 1853. But each successive official or
unofficial publication emanating from the Congregational Churches has
been marked by a great reduction in the number of Watts’s hymns, so
that the present _Congregational Church Hymnal_ contains fewer hymns
by Watts than were included by Dr. Martineau in his _Hymns for the
Church and Home_. If we turn to the hymn-books of other Churches, the
reduction in the number of hymns by Dr. Watts is even more striking;
e.g. the _Church Hymnary_ (Presbyterian) gives only nine, and _Church
Hymns_ only fourteen.
At present it would seem as though Dr. Watts were more honoured in the
Methodist Churches than among his own people, the Methodist and the
Primitive Methodist each giving a larger number of his pieces than
either the Congregational or Baptist hymn-books. Probably the number
of Watts’s hymns in common use will be further reduced. Some inferior
compositions still hold their place. They are survivals of a time when
the Church’s hymn-book was vastly poorer than it is to-day. But when
the lowest point is touched, there must ever remain a number of
imperishable hymns which will be sung in the Church of Christ as long
as it is militant here on earth.
Watts’s hymns were greatly helped in public favour by the publication
of his _Psalms_ in 1719. The Dissenting Churches, for the most part,
soon agreed with his own judgement that the two books were ‘such a
sufficient provision for psalmody as to answer most occasions of the
Christian’s life.’ Long use had made psalm-singing as a distinct part
of the service essential, and it was many years before the Dissenting
Churches cared for a hymn-book which did not make the distinction
between psalms and hymns. The place of honour, or at least of
precedence, was given to the Psalms, and as far as possible every
psalm was paraphrased.
Watts’s preface to _The Psalms of David Imitated in the Language of
the New Testament and Applied to the Christian State and Worship_ is a
vigorous manifesto, and it may well have seemed to some men as
audacious as many readers find Wesley’s famous preface. His chief
contention was that Jewish psalms must be translated, paraphrased, or,
to use his own word, ‘imitated’ in Christian language before they are
fit for use in Christian worship. He specially emphasizes the small
number of psalms sung at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and,
gaining courage as he writes, adds, ‘Though, to speak my own sense
freely, I do not think David ever wrote a psalm of sufficient glory
and sweetness to represent the blessings of this holy institution.’
Acting upon this conviction Watts boldly departed from the ideal of
most of those who have paraphrased the Psalter.
In all places I have kept my grand design in view, and that is, to
teach my author to speak like a Christian.... I have chosen rather
to imitate than translate, and thus to compose a psalm-book for
Christians, after the manner of the Jewish Psalter.... I have not
been so curious and exact in striving everywhere to express the
ancient sense and meaning of David, but have rather expressed myself
as I may suppose David would have done, had he lived in the days of
Christianity.[98]
Not only does common sense confirm Watts’s general principle; his own
success, partial though it was, justified the new departure, and from
his day to ours the most useful and the most poetic versions of Psalms
are those which ‘teach the author to speak like a Christian.’ Yet, if
a psalm could be dealt with from the Old Testament standpoint without
inappropriateness to Christian worship, Watts preferred to retain the
original idea. Thus in all his versions of the 23rd Psalm he makes no
reference to the Good Shepherd of the New Testament. His best
version—and it is very good—is as suitable for the synagogue as the
meeting-house.
My Shepherd will supply my need;
Jehovah is His Name;
In pastures fresh He makes me feed,
Beside the living stream.
The _Methodist Hymn-book_ omits the last verse, which is given in most
other collections—
There would I find a settled rest,
While others go and come;
No more a stranger or a guest,
But like a child at home.
It is a beautiful paraphrase of ‘Thy house for ever.’ He felt,
however, that his experiment was so novel and so likely to provoke
adverse criticism, that he continually explained or defended his
versions in notes appended to the psalms, which form a sort of running
commentary.
Watts’s _Psalms_ mark the passage from psalm-singing to hymn-singing.
Slowly but surely the distinction disappears from modern hymn-books,
and psalm-versions take their place amongst ‘hymns.’ This was not
Watts’s design, but it is a part of the success of his enterprise. If
to-day we had to make choice of any one metrical version of the
Psalter for use in Christian worship, it would be impossible to find
anything better than Watts’s. Indeed, if feeble ‘aliters’ (to use
Barton’s phrase) and poor verses were omitted, the result would show
how near he came to achieving success.
It is difficult to overstate the service rendered to the worship of
the Christian Church by Dr. Watts. As Lord Selborne says, ‘He was the
first to understand the nature of the want,’ and he ‘led the way in
providing for it.’ Yet it is easy to quote poor verses, to find lines
that are intolerably flat. His rhymes are often either discordant in
the extreme or lacking altogether. Sometimes he is too colloquial, as
in
Well, the Redeemer’s gone
To appear before our God.
Perhaps no hymn-writer needs editing so much as Watts, and certainly
none has been edited more skilfully. Not a few of his hymns owe their
place in our hymnals to the judicious way in which they have been
‘improved.’ We cannot dispute Dr. Johnson’s criticism
The rhymes are not always sufficiently correspondent.... His lines
are commonly smooth and easy, and his thoughts always religiously
pure; but who is there that, to so much piety and innocence, does
not wish for a greater measure of sprightliness and vigour?[99]
Hymn-writers are in a special degree affected by their surroundings.
There is an open-air life in many of the psalms attributed to David
which is lacking in those—e.g. the cxix.—which belong to a more formal
age. Watts was a student, a scholar, a recluse, an invalid, who yet
came into frequent contact with the Church life of the Independents.
He could not be coarse or fantastic, and he both consciously and
conscientiously condescended to men of low estate. The sacrifice of
his own taste to that of the unlearned reader was part of his offering
to the Lord, and it did not cost him nothing. The pity of it is that
he misjudged and under-estimated the intelligence of those who would
use his hymns. It is but just to bear his self-imposed limitation in
mind, yet it must also be allowed that, like many a far greater
poet—Wordsworth, for example—he did not know which were the superior
and which the inferior pieces. He believed his _Lyrics_ to be his best
poetical work, and possibly this may have been the judgement of his
friendly contemporaries; but the severer taste of later times has
forgotten the _Lyrics_ while treasuring the hymns.
Watts seldom writes without a consciousness of the congregation for
whose use he intended his hymns. The story—probably true—that he
undertook to write one every week for the Independent Chapel at
Southampton explains the character of very many of them, and accounts
at once for their strength and weakness. On the one hand, he avoided
the tiresome verbosity of Tate and Brady and the halting rhythm of
Barton and, on the other, he abstained from the ‘conceits’ which are
the charm of Herbert and Vaughan, but which make many a lovely poem
impossible as a hymn. The ease and simplicity of his best hymns, which
no hymn-writer surpasses and few have attained, endeared them to ‘men
of heart sincere,’ alike among the unlearned and ignorant and among
men of culture. He has that sweet, plaintive undertone of perplexity
concerning the mysteries of life and death which touches all
thoughtful souls, and is so true to the inner life of one whose many
infirmities made him die daily. He had in large measure the rich
indwelling of the word of God without which a man may write hymns, but
can never be one of God’s great singers. His hymns are full of
scriptural phrases, though less so than those of Charles Wesley, and
he has many happy and instructive applications of passages both from
the Old and New Testament. Take, for instance, one of his sacramental
hymns, in which he uses the parable of the Great Supper as a type of
the Supper of the Lord—an application singularly appropriate, though
not often made.[100]
How rich are Thy provisions, Lord,
Thy table furnished from above;
The fruits of life o’erspread the board,
The cup o’erflows with heavenly love.
We are the poor, the blind, the lame,
And help was far and death was nigh;
But at the gospel-call we came,
And every want received supply.
From the highway that leads to hell,
From paths of darkness and despair,
Lord, we are come with Thee to dwell,
Glad to enjoy Thy presence here.
It cost Him death to save our lives,
To buy our souls it cost His own,
And all the unknown joys He gives,
Were bought with agonies unknown.[101]
The ‘sacramentarian’ element is naturally absent from Watts’s
twenty-five hymns ‘prepared for the holy ordinance of the Lord’s
Supper,’ which are, with a few exceptions, much less solemn and
impressive than those of Wesley. Two have, however, a permanent place
among our Communion hymns. The seventh of the series, ‘Crucifixion to
the World by the Cross of Christ’—