the first and the chief standard bearer among those, who, after the Reformation, denied that Christ was to be worshipped, and yet " had the effrontery to claim to be Christians." In the view of Boston Unitarians, he must have been a most enlightened Christian, liberal and rational beyond his age, throwing all other of his contemporary reformers into the shade. Would not the name Paleologians be at once appropriate, definite, and distinctive for American Unitarians ? But we have no dispute about names. We are quite willing to be called Calvinists, (claiming the liberty of defining what we mean by the term,) than which, Unitarians being judges, no name can be less desirable or less honorable. Will Boston Humanitarians be afraid of the name of their " standard-bearer"? Will Unitarians longer "have the effrontery" not only "to call themselves Christians," but to insist upon the Orthodox calling and considering them such? At all events, the Orthodox cannot be thought bigoted for agreeing with the Polish Socinians, that those who refuse to call upon the name of Christ, do not deserve to be called by his name.

NOTE K.

It has been seen from the preceding Letters and Notes, that American Unitarians have at length reached the point where the canon is openly, and the inspiration and authority of the sacred volume are really, to be called in question. I do not believe that all, who bear the Unitarian name, or are claimed as of that sect, are willing to expunge the Epistle to the Hebrews from the sacred volume, or to adopt the sweeping process of reasoning by which the writer in the Christian Examiner would undermine its authority. Still the leaders of the party are committed to reject that Epistle, and we have already seen that the principle of reasoning by which it is rejected, goes to an entire subversion of the whole sacred volume. What ground the Unitarian critics will now take, and how far the party will follow the leaders, remains to be seen. To all who reflect and understand the subject, it is apparent that the same questions are soon to be debated here, that have long been discussed between the Supernaturalists and Rationalists of Europe. Professor Stuart, ten years ago, predicted this result. By his Commentary on

the Epistle to the Hebrews, he has compelled the Unitarians to show their colours. They must either acknowledge Orthodoxy to be the doctrine of inspiration, or reject the Epistle to the Hebrews, (which all well-read critics must allow to be Orthodox,) as part of the inspired volume. They have chosen the latter alternative. What ground will be taken by the Christian Examiner when the Epistle to the Romans shall be given to the public by the Professor, though matter of conjecture, is hardly a matter of rational doubt.

As this work may fall into the hands of some young or inquisitive minds, who have not yet examined the great subjects of revelation and inspiration, it may aid them in their investigations on these all-important topics to have a few of the best authors pointed out. The following list may all be studied to great advantage and, perhaps, in the order in which they here stand as well as in any other. Dr. Channing's Dudleian Lecture. This is a beautiful specimen of composition, having the writer's usual elegance, and an unusual share of logic. Leslie's Short and Easy Method with Deists; an incontrovertible argument as Middleton, with his infidel prejudices, candidly acknowledged. Erskine's Internal Evidence; a scholar-like, philosophical and truly rational work, in which vital religion is divested of technicality, and presented in its own lineaments, colours and proportions. The last edition is the best. Paley's Horæ Paulinæ ; the most original and masterly production of its author; containing, not only an able defence of Christianity, but the most satisfactory proof of the genuineness of the documents of Christianity to be found in the English language. Bishop Marsh's Lectures contain the most scientific view of the evidences of Christianity accessible to the English scholar; though designed as a directory for theological students, they will richly reward the study of intelligent laymen. If but one book could be read, Paley's Evidences should probably be selected. In addition to the preceding list, Bogue's Essay on the New Testament, and Littleton's Conversion of St. Paul, might be studied with great profit. To remove difficulties and silence objections, Butler's Analogy is unequalled. It were easy to swell this list, but these works are among the best, and deserve to be first studied; and he, who has mastered these, will be master of the subject. In regard to the canon, inspiration and authority of the scriptures, Storr unquestionably holds the first place. Jahn's Introduction to the Old Testament has recently been given to the public, for which the translators deserve many thanks; this, together with Hug's Introduction to the Writings of the New Covenant, which has recently been translated and published in England, supply a de

sideratum long felt in our Biblical apparatus.

Horne's Introduction is worth having. As an Introduction to a particular book, Professor Stuart's Introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews is a work, that will be more highly appreciated the more it is known, and will be most highly valued by those best able to estimate its worth. The Rationalists may despair of success, when they see every attack anticipated, every argument sifted, every fallacy exposed, every absurdity portrayed, before hand.