ike the present: yet it is on these writings that we are
disposed chiefly to rest his claims to future regard. They are not like
those of Milton, "one perfect field of cloth of gold;" nor like those of
Taylor, enlivened by figures and images that captivate the fancy and
impress the heart; but they have what to some possesses an equal charm,
in the full orbed light they cast on some of the most abstruse
doctrines, and on some of the most controverted questions of revealed
and practical religion. Excepting a few obsolete expressions here and
there, the language is perfectly clear and comprehensible after more
than two centuries; indeed, more clear and comprehensible to ordinary
readers than that which pervades a large portion of the so-called
elegant literature of the past and present age. It is the language of
Shakspeare and Bacon, without the measure of the one, or the involution
of the other--that language which has ever been the vernacular of the
people of this country, and to which our best writers are coming
back--clear, terse, good old English.

Some may take exception to the _form_ of these writings, because they
are chiefly controversial; but no objection can be more futile. England
is glorious through controversy, and nowhere has her mind put on more of
might than on the battle-field of truth. Her greatest works are in this
very form. What were left to us of the Hookers and Barrows, Taylors and
Miltons, if their controversial writings were excepted? and, indeed,
what would become of our Nonconformist literature itself, if this
objection were allowed a practical weight. Whosoever would have
knowledge respecting doctrines and principles still unsettled, in
religion or in science, must seek it in such debate or be altogether
disappointed. Nowhere will the nonconformists and dissenters find more
of truth--and in some particulars of _new_ truth--in relation to their
own principles and duties, than in these volumes. Even the independents
have still much to learn from this master in Israel. While on some
points we hold Robinson to have been altogether wrong; on others--and
these not trivial, but important points--we hold that he is nearly as
much in advance of the present age as he was of his own, because he
adheres more closely than even religious men are ordinarily wont to do,
to the spirit and genius of those older Scriptures which have yet to
liberate a world from all but invulnerable superstitions.

Besides the M