the "Faery Queen," of the "Paradise Lost" and "Paradise Regained," of
the "Night-Thoughts," of "Smart's David," all poetry, let it be
observed, not defending religion merely, or confining itself to the
praise of God's lower works, but entering into the depths of divine
contemplation, into the very adyta of the heavenly temple. And it is no
less interesting to recollect that in spite of Dr. Johnson's sage
diction, sacred poetry of a very high order has, since his day,
abounded. Cowper has extracted it from "the intercourse between God and
the human soul;" Montgomery has made now "the supplication," and now the
"thanksgiving," of the poor negro ring in every ear, and vibrate through
every heart; Coleridge has expressed, in his sounding and splendid
measures, at one time his "faith," and at another his "repentance;"
Pollok has with true, although unequal steps, followed Milton and Dante,
both into the heaven of heavens, and into the gloom of Gehenna; and
Wordsworth, Southey, Croly, Milman, Trench, Keble, and a host more have,
by their noble religious hymns, shamed the wisdom of the Sadducee, and
darkened the glory of the song of the sceptic. Why argue about
principles while we can appeal to facts? Why shew either the
probabilities against, or the probabilities for, good sacred poetry,
while we see it before us, gushing from a thousand springs, and
gladdening every corner of the church and of the world?

Dr. Johnson says, "Whatever is great, desirable, or tremendous, is
comprised in the name of the Supreme Being. Omnipotence cannot be
exalted. Infinity cannot be amplified. Perfection cannot be improved."
All this is as true as it is pointedly expressed; but though true, it is
nothing to the purpose--nay, bears as much against prayer as against
poetry. What meant the Psalmist when he said, "My soul doth magnify the
Lord?" Did he aspire to exalt Omnipotence or to amplify perfection? No;
but only first to shew his own feeling of their magnitude; and, again,