1847.]

Names omitted by Sabine.

135

a private lot of his own. To the same list belongs Samuel Cutler (1765), of Brookfield by origin, but early in life a trader at Edenton, N. C., though he eventually died at Bellows Falls, Vt., nearly thirty years ago. Why does Mr. Sabine pass by Nathaniel Sparhawk (a classmate of Cutler), early a merchant in Salem, who, undoubtedly, as well as his father, Colonel Sparhawk of Kittery-point, must be counted of the same party with his younger brothers, William Pepperell (who succeeded to his grandfather's baronetcy) and Samuel Hirst. That the elder brother was abroad much or most of the war is a clear matter of fact. George Eveleigh (1742), of South Carolina, comes before us once and again in Curwen's Diary; he speaks of him as a fellow-collegian, and may we not safely infer, a fellow-exile? Hon. James Sheafe (1774) of Portsmouth, N. H., then fresh from college, is said to have entered with youthful ardor into the royal cause; probably enough, through his connection by marriage with the Meserves. Whether this lasted through the war, we have no means of knowing; it continued long enough, at any rate, to become a part of his personal history, since there were those who in his subsequent political life never forgot to "keep it before the people." Mr. Sabine seldom loses sight of Episcopal ministers; yet Edward Winslow (1741), son of Joshua Winslow, a teaconsignee, was forced to leave the Quincy church (see Rev. B. C. Cutler's Historical Discourse), and died at New York before the Peace; and Joseph Domett (1762), also of Boston, for a short time over the Episcopal society at Marshfield, we believe, is supposed to have died at last in England or Ireland. Toryism seems, judging from the proscribing act, to have strangely flourished at Marshfield,

not a large place, surely; whether through the influence alone of such a man as "Nat" Ray Thomas, cannot now be decided. Levi Willard (1775), nephew of the brothers Abel and Abijah, returned from England in 1785, where he is thought to have sojourned most of the intervening time; at any rate, in Lancaster, his native place and final residence, the nature of his political attachments appears not to have been doubted. We regard as refugees, though their names are wanting here, Michael Joy (1771), of Boston, to whom, in some degree, is related the present family of that name in this city; Benjamin Loring (1772), the youngest son of the commodore; and Francis Brinley (1775), who was the nephew of Thomas Brinley of the

Of

class of 1744, and confessedly within that category. the younger person of the last name we can indeed learn nothing whatever, and for that very reason infer, that, leaving college walls, as he did, while the tocsin was sounding, he forthwith left the country too, no more to return. We count also as such, with confidence, Joseph Dowse (1766), son of the surveyor and searcher of the ports of Salem and Marblehead, and who, as stated by Winthrop, was "a surgeon in the British army in the West Indies." Is there not, it may be queried, some probable reason, likewise, for so including William Checkley (1756), son of the minister of the New South Church, and who was an officer in the custom-house at Providence? But we are most surprised by Mr. Sabine's failure to record the names of some whose bones rest under the northern sky of our continent; as John Barnard (1762), a merchant at St. John's, New Brunswick, and brother of the late Rev. Dr. Barnard of Salem; John Thomas (1765), of Plymouth, one of the seven founders of the Old Colony Club (Thacher's Plymouth), and who died at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, in 1823; Jesse Rice (1772), a native of Marlboro', and who became, it is said on some authority, a physician in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. We have ourselves very lately detected in Nathaniel Thomas (1774) a son of N. R. Thomas of Marshfield (spoken of on the last page), who followed his father to the Provinces. Mr. Sabine has made some confusion, we see, with the Isaac Winslows, of whom, we believe, he has three. The graduate of 1762 was not, as he imagines, the son of General John Winslow, and the physician who settled in Marshfield (who was not liberally educated); but a merchant in Boston, whose death was far earlier in date. Finally, we marvel that he so circumscribes the Vassal name. The elder William (1733) had a son of his own name (1771), to whom a place should have been given; while Lewis Vassal (1760), nephew and cousin respectively of the two, must have crossed the water, though no documents that illustrate the party even mention his name. His whole career is impenetrably dark, baffling, while it goads, curiosity, and we feel inclined to offer a reward to any one that can unearth him.

We had a few things more to say as to Mr. Sabine's opposite error, but are warned with every line we add how much we have trespassed already on our allowed limits. Yet we must hint that his discrimination surely failed him when he admitted into his pages some names, for whose

1847.]

Names included by Sabine.

137

company high-souled and chivalrous spirits (such as were so many of those whom he has enrolled) will hardly feel obliged to him. Surely Benedict Arnold, Benjamin Church, and Silas Deane have no business here. That Deane's diplomatic life went down in a cloud, we indeed supposed; but, though we have never had a very exact idea of his case, have nowhere seen it branded in the manner the author would convey. As to the other two, we should never think of deeming Loyalist and traitor as interchangeable terms. Then, again, why does the author press into his service several names of such as ceased to have part or lot in what is done under the sun, years before it was enforced upon one to make the final decision. There may have been, indeed, a fair presumption what their course would have been, had opportunity been given. But this might have been affirmed of Colonel William Bourne of Marblehead, the two sons of Judge Oliver (Daniel and Andrew), who died "before their day," Henry Vassal, perhaps Judge Foxcroft of Cambridge, equally as of the younger Atkinson of Portsmouth, Rev. Dr. Miller of Quincy, Major Samuel Waldo of Portland, Hon. Chambers Russell, and Dr Barclay of Trinity Church, New York. Mr. Sabine introduces these last, as he does, too, Jeremy Gridley, at one period attorney-general. Why not, also, then, Benjamin Pratt, first of Boston, and finally chiefjustice of New York, and whose condemnation it was to be the son-in-law of Robert Auchmuty? But when we think. how numerous is the class whose names he records, scattered, too, over the length and breadth of the land, in too many cases brought into day from nooks and corners, it is, perhaps, more to his praise that he has kept his exact limits so well, no oftener unjust to those without or within the circle. We respond, too, to his spirit, vindicating (as is, we believe, his desire) honored names from pitiable epithets and vulgar opprobrium; and are well pleased, at the lapse of two thirds of a century from the Revolution, to have so full and, generally, so faithful a dictionary of those whose impress upon it must be obvious to all.

But we must shake off the sway of a too attractive subject, and forbear. Had not Mr. Sabine, with another opportunity, better give to his long historical essay what it so much needs- either a table of contents, a running-title, or a final index ?

J. P. D.

NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS.

Cambridge: J. Owen.

The Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels. By ANDREWS NORTON. Vol. I. Second Edition. 1846. 8vo. pp. 261 and cclxxvii. Additions made in the Second Edition of the First Volume of Norton's Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels. Cambridge J. Owen. 1846. 8vo. pp. 52.

THAT a second edition of Mr. Norton's first volume on the "Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels" has become necessary, within a period of ten years from the date of the origi nal publication, affords gratifying proof, that, amid the general neglect into which critical theology has fallen, or is falling, among us, there is yet felt some lingering respect for works of thorough erudition and ripe scholarship. For the convenience of those who possess the first edition, all the important additions made in the second are here given in a pamphlet, in type corresponding to that of the volume, and with a notice of the places to which they belong. The additions are not all of equal importance; but no one who has the first edition would like to be without them, or would willingly spare the least fragment of what Mr. Norton may write on the subjects to which they relate. We would have his latest thoughts upon them. In the " Note on Eichhorn and other German Theologians," statements which stood apart in the original edition are brought together, and connected with some additional remarks. Some brief criticisms are offered on De Wette and Strauss. The weak parts in the argument of the latter are referred to, though no minute and elaborate refutation is attempted. This Mr. Norton does not consider necessary. His estimate of both Strauss and De Wette, together with Eichhorn, may be learned from the following assertion:-"The books I have quoted will not be read after the present generation has passed away; and the opinions I have observed upon will soon cease to attract notice, except from the student of the history of theology." Besides the note already mentioned, and some others, one on "Epiphanius's Account of the Gospel used by the Ebionites," and three on particular passages in the New Testament, - an additional chapter is given, containing "Concluding Remarks on the Direct Historical Evidence of the Genuineness of the Gospels." The historical argument is here clearly and succinctly stated, after which some modern objections are noticed, particularly those of Strauss already referred to. The denial of the possibility of miracles, with which Strauss starts, Mr. Norton ar

1847.]

Notices of Recent Publications.

139

gues is equivalent to the denial of a Deity, that is, in any proper sense of the term, and therefore amounts to atheism, and thus involves the destruction of all religion. "But the fact has been overlooked," he says, "that, supposing the proposition to be admitted, that a miraculous intervention of the Deity is impossible, it would have no bearing on our present subject. No inference could be drawn from it to show that the Gospels were not written by those to whom they are ascribed." This is an acute and discriminating remark, for the illustration of which we must refer the reader to the work itself.

A new edition of the second and third volumes is in press. We learn from the author that the additions made in it will probably not exceed ten or twelve pages in the two volumes, and will be printed separately, for the use of the owners of the first edition. He has not found it necessary to make any other alterations of any considerable importance. We do not see, therefore, that the value of the copies of the first edition will suffer any essential depreciation. As to the first volume, we are inclined to think that its bibliographical value will be enhanced, since it contains some fifty pages of matter which has not been, and probably will not be, reprinted, and all the important additions are given, as we have said, and may be procured separately. The publication of such a work, in this country, can, of course, be attended with no pecuniary benefit to the author. Its sale, however, should, in all reason, secure him against loss. We conclude with expressing our deep sense of the value of Mr. Norton's historical and critical labors, and the hope that health and strength may be granted him to complete the remaining works on which he has bestowed so much thought, and which no one is so well qualified to execute, works impatiently expected from his pen.

L.

Defence of the Hebrew Grammar of Gesenius against Professor Stuart's Translation. By the ORIGINAL TRANSLATOR. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1847. 8vo. pp. 54.

IN a notice of Professor Stuart's Translation of Gesenius's Grammar, in our number for January last, we mentioned that we had detected in it mistakes, and evidence of great haste and carelessness. We had not a copy of the original German before us. But in this pamphlet by Professor Conant, the first translator of Gesenius's Grammar, instances of mistranslation on the part of Professor Stuart, by which the sense of the original is perverted or obscured, are adduced in such number and variety as to convince every scholar who will attend to the subject, that singular