insect, or a famishing drought, often takes away more at a blow, than would be demanded for sacred uses in twenty years. Come, then, brethren, and let us join our tribute to the temple of God. Follow up with your public spirit the token for good, which we already see. Gladden the hearts of those noble youth who are very jealous for the Lord God of hosts; and who look to you as patrons and benefactors. As the Lord hath prospered you, is the rule. Let the rich man rise up with his gold; and let not the widow blush for her mite. The Lord will see, and will graciously reward for "he loveth a cheerful giver." It is, moreover, a statute of his kingdom, that "he

which soweth sparingly, shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully, shall reap also bountifully." Do you believe his truth? Let the proof appear in your next, and the suc ceeding, annual returns. Not one of you will repent as having done too much, when he comes to the bed of death, and contrasts things carnal and temporal, with things spiritual and eternal. Refresh our bowels, brethren. And may the Lord himself "open the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing till there be not room to receive it!"

By order of the General Synod,
J. M. MASON,
A. PROUDFIT.

New-York, 1805.

American Annals; or a chronological history of America from its discovery in 1492 to 1806. In two volumes. By ABIEL HOLMES, D.D. A.A.S. S. H.S. Minister of the first church in Cambridge. Vol. I. Comprising a period of two hundred years. Cambridge. W. Hilliard. 1805.

THIS work had been for some time expected by the American public, with a solicitude, which every proposal for elucidating the history of our native country must naturally excite. The first volume, now published, has not failed to be read with interest by the lovers of their country, and its true interests; and we believe the expectations of the Vol. I. No. 8. Y Y

public will be, in no respect, disappointed, in regard to the merit of the performance. We think the author has availed himself of the best materials, and has selected and arranged the facts with judgment. An adherence to strict chronological order, often interrupts a narrative, which would be more agreeable to a reader, as well as more perspicuous, in a connected form; but with this disadvantage, which every annalist must encounter, Dr. H. has rendered his work very interesting, by selecting the most important facts for narration, and presenting them to his readers, in a lucid order, and a neat, perspicuous style. The marginal notes and references

will be found useful to those who are fond of antiquarian researches, and who are pleased to see, not merely the outlines, but the minute traits of character, which distinguished the first adventurers to America.

So far as we are able to judge from comparing the facts related in this work, with authorities, the work is executed with great regard to correctness. This circumstance, with the conciseness of the work, and the numerous references to authorities, will, in our opinion, recommend it to general notice. Indeed we see no reason why it ought not to be put into the hands of students in our universities and colleges, as a classical book. We know of no work upon this subject, which appears so suitable for the initiation of our young men in American history.

Having expressed this general opinion of the work, the author will excuse us for calling his attention to one point, which perhaps is as interesting, as any in the history of this country, and the more worthy of remark, as it appears to be unsettled This is the time of Cabot's first and second voyages to America.

Dr. H. p. 15, has arranged the date of the commission to John Cabot and sons, under the year 1495; with a note, in which he says, "It is dated March 5, in the eleventh year of Henry VII. Henry was crowned Oct. 30, 1485. If that year be reckoned the first of his reign, this commission is rightly placed by Hackluyt, Robertson and others in 1495; but if the first year of his reign be reckoned from 1486, the commission must be placed, where Rymer and some others have placed it,

in 1496." Here the author evidently mistakes the mode of reckoning the years of a king's reign, which is not according to our calendar, from January to January, but from the day of the king's accession to regal power: And this is not from the coronation, but from the day when the throne becomes vacant by the death of the predecessor. See Blackstone and other law writers. Henry VII. began his reign on the 22d of August; the day of the battle of Bosworth, when Richard was killed. See Stowe, p. 470, and other historians. The year of his reign then began August 22, 1485; ten years complete must end August 22, 1495; and on that day began the eleventh year of Henry VII. Of course this eleventh year extended to Aug. 22, 1496. Now the grant to Cabot is dated March 5, in this year, 1496, in which Rymer and Chalmers have correctly placed it.

But there is a mistake on this subject, which is found in most writers, and evidently from their not closely examining the words of this commission to Cabot; for they suppose Cabot's first voyage was made under the authority of this commission, still extant; and this being dated in 1496, they usually place his first voyage in the year 1497. But nothing can be farther from the truth. In this commission or grant, the king gives Cabot and his sons a license to set up his banners and ensigns "in quacunque villa, oppido, castro, insula seu terra firma, e se noviter inventis," in any place by them lately discovered; & similar expressions are employed in two subsequent passages.

Had the words, a se, been omit ted, we might have a shadow of doubt, whether noviter inventis might not have referred to the discoveries of Columbus. But these words remove all doubts on the subject. It is demonstrated therefore that Cabot's first voyage was anterior to this commission and as it was after the first voyage of Columbus, it must have been in 1494 or 1495.

It is not improbable, that the first voyage might have been undertaken with some secresy, with a view to secure to the crown of England the benefit of a prior discovery of an unknown country, by anticipating the Dutch or French.

The license for Cabot to take six vessels in any port of England, is dated February 3, in the 13th of Henry; therefore was in 1498; and this is the year in which Stowe has placed Cabot's voyage, p. 480. This was his second voyage, in which he discovered the Continent on the Coast of Labrador, and as Stowe relates, on the 11th of June, which must be the 22d new style. Now Columbus, it is agreed, did not discover the main land of South America till the first of August, 1498. Sebastian Cabot, therefore (or John, his father, if with him) was the first discoverer of the American Continent. These conclusions from authentic documents seem to admit of no question.

Mavor, vol. I. p. 106, Am. ed. has mentioned the first voyage of Cabot in 1494; but errs in supposing John Cabot, the father, to be dead, and the new Commission to be granted to the sons; for the Commission in 1496 and the license in 1498, which Mavor eve

idently had not seen, are both made to John Cabot; the first to the father and his three sons, and the last to John Cabot, the father only. He errs also in placing this second voyage in 1497: misled doubtless, like other writers, by mistaking the date of the commission. Mavor however mentions, that Cabot sailed on the 4th of May; and if so, the time from May 4, to June 11, is the usual time required to perform the voyage.

Dr. H. in page 250, copies the account of Smith, who, in his history of New York, mentions the building of fort Good Hope on the Connecticut in 1623. It is true he gives other authorities, which contradict this account.' But we cannot justify the insertion of Smith's account. It is probably an error of the press, as Smith, in the next sentence, states that the land on the Connecticut was not purchased by the Dutch till 1632. But however this may be, the full and explicit account of the settlements of the Dutch and English on that river, in Winthrop's journal, leave not a particle of doubt as to the fact. Fort Good Hope was not crected till the spring of 1633, and a little before the arrival of the Plymouth traders. The Dutch purchas ed the land January 8, 1633, and proceeded to establish themselves at that place. The Plymouth people under William Holmes arrived in October, of the same year, and disregarding the menaces of the Dutch, built a trading house above, as Winthrop says, about a mile; as Stuyvesant says, a good shot distance. But tradition fixes the place near the confluence of

the Tunxis with the Connecticut, in Windsor, which is five or six miles above where Good Hope stood. This point of history can admit of no doubt; for we have the Dutch records to vouch for the fact, and these perfectly agree with Winthrop's account. See Winth. p. 55-78. Hist. Col. Vol. ii. 262.

In page 366, Dr. Holmes says, "the Swedes at the Delaware were extirpated by the Dutch." We object only to the single word extirpated. Several Swedish settlements still exist on and near the Delaware.

On the whole we have rarely found so much accuracy in a work composed of such a variety of facts, collected from numerous documents and authorities, which are often obsure and sometimes contradictory. The work is a valuable addition to the stock of American Literature, and we wait with impatience for the succeeding volume.

occasion, and the peculiar character of an auditory, are frequently overlooked, or not duly regarded. But the effect of a discourse, in no inconsiderable degree, often depends on an attention to those circumstances, and to that character. It is remarkable, that the discourses of HIM, who spake as never man spake, were admirably accommodated to the occasions, which gave rise to them, and to the persons, who heard them. The great apostle Paul, in imitation of his divine Master, became all things to all men, that he might by all means save some. A discourse, that would be intelligible and useful to a select and refined auditory, might be lost, if preached to the poor; and one that would have a melting influence at an alms-house, might produce a chilling effect at a university.

These remarks, if just, may, it is conceived, be advantageously applied to the discourses now under review. The author appears to have possessed, in no teach, and to have employed that common degree, an aptitude to talent with judgment and effect. Living in a sea-port town, he doubtless had much intercourse with seamen ; and from them he seems to have learned every thing peculiar to their character and occupation. Their technical terms (if we may call them so) are all familiar to him; and he uses their phraseology, as though the sea were his own element. In this hazardous attempt to address them in their own way, Mr. Ryther has succeeded, where, through defect of genius or judgment, thousands would have failed. We call the attempt hazardous, because there is per