NOTICE. DR. JOHNSON, speaking of the devotional poetry of Watts, says, it is "like that of others, unsatisfactory. The paucity of its topics enforces perpetual repetition, and the sanctity of the matter rejects the ornaments of figurative diction. It is sufficient for Watts to have done better than others what no man has done well." These assertions of the great English moralist, though delivered with his usual authoritative air, appear to lie open to several grave objections. They consist of a statement of a fact, which is believed to be no fact; and of reasonings to account for it, which are of course gratuitous, and are likely to be unsolid. The fact asserted is, that the "devotional poetry of Watts is like that of others, unsatisfactory." But is this true in reference to devotional poetry in general? Is not, on the contrary, the reverse of this the fact? Does not poetry which is truly devotional "satisfy" us, by giving a fitting utterance, and thereby, as it were, a tangible form, to pious emotions which were before only vaguely felt, and wholly unexpressed? Does it not "satisfy " us by suggesting those consecrated trains of thought and feeling, which are at all times dear to the devout heart, and to which, especially, the afflicted and broken spirit instinctively clings as its best and only sufficing support? In a word, are there not vicissitudes of life, and moods of mind A Collection of Hymns, for the Christian Church and Home. Boston; James Munroe & Co., 1843. [By James Flint D. D., of Salem.] continually occurring, in which devotional poetry is the most "satisfactory" of all poetry? And further, do not the sacred lyrics of Watts himself furnish decisive illustrations of the truth of this? Do not many of his hymns embody the highest, holiest, the most sanctified aspirations of a sin-stricken, penitent, believing, devout and hopeful soul? May we not justly apply to him, with a change of terms, the words of his critic and say, "It is sufficient for Watts to have done better than others what many have done well? " And if the assertion that devotional poetry is "unsatisfactory be erroneous, we may well doubt the soundness of the reasons which are adduced in its support. These are two. One is, that the "paucity of its topics enforces perpetual repetition." The "paucity of its topics! What could have been the range of religious thought and religious emotion in the mind of the author of these words? None estimate more highly than we the real claims of this good man and great writer; but do we not perceive here, as elsewhere, traces of that bigotry which he himself defined to be an "unreasonable devotion to a party," and which led him to undervalue every thing in politics that was not marked with the current stamp of royalty, and every thing in religion that was not to be found in the "Book of Common Prayer?" Is not the assertion, moreover, be it deferentially asked, as narrow in thought as it certainly is "Johnsonese" in expression? The fact, as it seems to us, is, that no species of poetry embraces so wide a range of topics as legitimately belongs to devotional poetry. The spirit that is touched with the "true light" will "see God in every thing, and every thing in God," and will find the topics of sacred song in all the aspects of nature, in all the vicissitudes of life, in all the truths, precepts, hopes and fears of the Gospel of Reconciliation, in all the high and solemn relations which the soul bears to Christ, and especially in every pang of penitence, in every duteous vow, in every outburst of gratitude, and in all the varied, unwritten, and infinitely concerning history of the soul's religious experience. But another reason of the alleged unsatisfactoriness of devotional poetry is, that the "sanctity of the matter rejects the ornament of figurative diction." Indeed! Did Moses and Miriam find it so? Was the author of the book of Job, were David and Isaiah repelled from "figurative diction" by the "sanctity" of their |