TO one familiar with the traditional consensus, the question raised here may imply a tinge of impertinence. himself, were he alive, would doubtless so consider it. For, although not agreeing with everything called transcendental, he explicitly associated himself with transcendentalism as he understood it. For example, his important essay entitled Transcendentalism, which he probably wrote around 1850, is distinctly Confessio Fidei.1 Added to his personal testimony is the fact that other transcendentalists, without exception, regarded him not as a loyal member of their group, but esteemed him as one of their most influential leaders. Owing to his bold and unrelenting defense of transcendentalism, he was variously called its Luther, its Paul, its Savonarola. But despite the ring of authenticity in Parker's own personal testimony and in that of his intimate contemporaries, there is today a question in some quarters as to whether tradition has been really correct in identifying him with transcendentalism. For example, Professor Herbert W. Schneider tells us, in his admirable history of American philosophy, that was a transcendentalist only to a very limited degree.2 More recently Dr. John Edwards Dirks concluded a critical survey of Parker's religious thought with the even more extreme claim that Parker stood near, but not within, New England transcendentalism.''3 While both of these students recognize that there are some transcendental elements in Parker's system of theological thought, they nevertheless identify him essentially with the rational Enlightenment. Schneider states that kept