On page 160 are some farther highly interesting reminiscences of Mr. Henry. The opinion of Wirt is considered unfounded, that the great orator was a believer in Christianity without having a preference for any of the forms in which it is presented. We are glad to find that Mr. Wirt was in error. The Christian religion, it has been justly remarked, must assume _a distinct form of profession_--or it is worth little. An avowal of a merely general Christianity is little better than an avowal of none at all. Patrick Henry, according to Dr. Hawks, was of the Episcopalian faith. That at any period of his life he was an unbeliever is explicitly denied, on the authority of a MS. letter, in possession of our author, containing information of Mr. H. derived from his widow and descendants. It is with no little astonishment that we have seen Dr. Hawks accused of illiberality in his few remarks upon "that noble monument of liberty," the _Act for the Establishment of Religious Freedom_. If there is any thing beyond simple justice in his observations we, for our own parts, cannot perceive it. No respect for the civil services, or the unquestionable mental powers of Jefferson, shall blind us to his iniquities. That our readers may judge for themselves we quote in full the sentences which have been considered as objectionable. "We are informed by him (Jefferson) that an amendment was proposed to the Preamble, by the insertion of the name of our Saviour before the words 'The Holy Author of our Religion.' This could at most have had no other effect upon the enacting clause, but that of granting the utmost freedom to all denominations _professing to own and worship Christ_, without affording undue preference to any; and against this, it would be unreasonable to object. Certain it is, that more than this had never been asked by any religious denomination in Virginia, in any petition presented against the Church; the public, therefore, would have been satisfied with such an amendment. The proposed alteration, however, was rejected, and it is made the subject of triumph that the law was left, in the words of its author, 'to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.' That these various classes should have been protected both in person and property, is obviously the dictate of justice, of humanity, and of enlightened policy. But it surely was not necessary, in securing to them such protection, to degrade, not the establishment, but Christianity itself to a level with the voluptuousness of Mahomet, or the worship of Juggernaut; and if it be true that there is danger in an established alliance between Christianity and the civil power, let it be remembered that there is another alliance not less fatal to the happiness and subversive of the intellectual freedom of man--it is an alliance between the civil