Altered by Wesley. "Run up with joy the shining way, To see and praise my Lord." Watts's original. "Nations, attend before his throne, With solemn fear, with sacred joy.". "Before Jehovah's awful throne, Ye nations, bow with sacred joy." "The God that rules on high, And thunders when he please, Altered by Wesley. "The God that rules on high, That all the earth surveys, Watts's original. "He dies, the heavenly Lover dies; Altered by Wesley. "He dies, the Friend of sinners dies! Lo! Salem's daughters weep around! A sudden trembling shakes the ground," Watts's original. "Look how we grovel here below, Fond of these trifling toys; To reach eternal joys.". Altered by Wesley. "Look how we grovel here below, Mr. Milner, in an extended review of Watts's poetry, in which he endeavors to estimate the relative merit of Watts and Wesley, as poets,-the two greatest hymnists, says he, "undoubtedly that our country can boast," -endeavors, but evidently not altogether even to his own satisfaction, to make it appear, as above intimated, that Watts is the greater of the two. One of whose "principal excellences" is said to be "the variety of his powers;" but which "excellence," of course, would not be so apparent were it not brought into favorable contrast with the "little variety of manner, and less variety of matter"-principal defects!—of the "far greater mass of religious poetry" of Charles Wesley. Mr. Milner has undoubtedly ventured this judgment upon his hymns, in utter ignorance of the character of the "far greater mass " of Mr. Wesley's poetry; and he has very probably drawn his opinion fromwhich of themselves should have produced a different judgment-merely such of his hymns as are in general use among the Wesleyans. It is true, he tells us the poetical productions of Charles Wesley "are said to amount to forty-eight distinct publications," but he does not inform us that he has seen or examined any of them; or his regard for truth, we may charitably conclude, would never have suffered his partiality for his favorite so to prejudice his mind as to allow him to pen the following remarks, which certainly have not their foundation in fact. cr 'Many," says Milner, "of Charles Wesley's pieces wear the exclusive aspect of the sectarian; he casts his mite into the treasury of a party; he writes as the 'poet of Methodism,' not as the servant of the universal church. The paucity of his topics produces frequent repetition—a tiresome amplification of the same thought and theme; and though this may be regarded as an excellency or a defect, according as the religious opinions of his critic agree or differ from him, there can be no question that the amount of genius requisite for the composition of such hymns was far less than that which Watts brought and employed in his task." We again affirm, and do it without the least hesitation or reservation, that the above sentiments, as far as they refer to the "paucity of topics" exhibited in Charles Wesley's poetry, have their origin in ignorance-perhaps it ought to be said, want of information-or, in unconquerable prejudice. Has Watts paraphrased nearly the whole book of Psalms? so has Wesley. Are most of Watts's hymns founded upon portions of the sacred Scriptures? Wesley's, to use the language of Montgomery," make the whole tour of Bible literature." Hence, as they both have drawn their inspiration, subjects, and matter, from the same sacred sources, and Wesley being the more prolific writer, it is fair to conclude, even without a critical examination of their works, that an equal, if not a greater, "variety of topics" should characterize Wesley's hymns. But while Wesley, on the one hand, has devoted a whole volume to a single subject, as his "Hymns on the Trinity" and the "Lord's Supper," which certainly does not betray either a want of genius, or only a small amount of genius; so, on the other hand, some of his volumes scarcely contain two compositions upon the same subject, as his "Family Hymns," and "Hymns of Intercession for all Mankind," which unquestionably demonstrates a genius of the very highest powers, and of almost universal application. The man, perhaps, is yet unborn who is properly and fully to estimate and portray the abilities of Charles Wesley as an English poet; but there need be no fears that such a person never will be born. It is really amusing, though hardly edifying, to see with what tenacity our author pursues the "poet of a party”—as he has been pleased, rather illiberally, to designate Watts's Arminian rival-challenging and contesting his claims to all those virtues with which he would invest his favorite. Not only are Watts's excellences magnified when brought into juxtaposition with Wesley's defects, but even an excuse-satisfactory, of course for Watts's faults may be educed from a comparison of the circumstances under which the poets respectively wrote. Hear Milner: "The faulty versification and inelegant construction of some of Watts's hymns, which have been pointed out as their principal defects, would never have occurred had they been written under the same circumstances as those of his Arminian successor. The former wrote principally in his youth, the latter in the full vigor of ripened manhood; to the former hymnic composition was an occasional recreation, to the latter, at one period, it was his chief employment. It is well known that Mr. C. Wesley desisted from his itinerant ministry, and abandoned the fatiguing journeys of his brother, for an ultimate residence in London and Bristol-the consequence of indolence, say some; a just appreciation of his own powers, say others. A considerable portion of his time was now devoted to poetical enterprise, to which he sedulously directed his talents; he measured the object before him, in its height, and length, and depth, and breadth, and carefully trained and disciplined his spirit for his task: 'His soul was like a star, and dwelt apart.' "But it was otherwise with Watts: none of those who had preceded him in this species of writing had attained any excellence so as to stimulate his genius and call forth his powers; the hymns in use were so miserably defective, and the task of surpassing them so easy, that he did not generally 'gird up the loins of his mind.' This is to be lamented as the occasion of all his blemishes in composition. There is, however, far less appearance of effort in his hymns than in Wesley's; they are less strained and artificial, and bear in a higher degree the stamp of being the spontaneous effusions of devotional feeling." There is another paragraph I must introduce, wherein Watts's biographer has attempted to sketch the relative characteristics of some of the principal hymn writers, in which he has evidently taken his cue from Montgomery; and it must be admitted, that, next to the Moravian bard, no author, without the pail of Methodism, has treated Charles Wesley with more fairness than Milner. "Many laborers," says he, "have indeed since appeared in the field, some of undoubted talent, and all have trod in his [Watts's] steps; yet his sacred songs remain, as a whole, unsurpassed and unequaled, and are far more generally used in the services of the church than those of any of his successors. Charles Wesley approaches |