volume as vehemently as that of Earl Grey's; but with less reason. The author is a sincere friend of the natives, and he should not have forgotten that his main argument in their favour, received more support from that Company, than from any other source whatever. By the New Zealand Association Bill, of 1838, the consent of the natives to the acquisition of their land by the English, was their first and peremptory condition of the foundation of the colony; and the Company substantially adopted the principles of that Association. A severer condemnation of the proceedings of the Colonial Office, for half a century, could not be found than that bill. Probably to its liberality, is to be traced the hostility of that office to the enter prise! The true offender in this case, is that same office; and the true measure of the penetration of those who would save the Aborigines from wrong, will be found to be the steadiness with which they bring their charges home to it, of neglect of wholesome principles, and of humane measures in the behalf of the savage whom we are now destroying.

ART. VI.-The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul: with Dissertations on the Sources of the Writings of St. Luke, and the Ships and Navigation of the Ancients. By James Smith, Esq., F.R.S., etc. 8vo. pp. 307. London: Longman and Co.

SINCE the appearance of Dr. Paley's 'Hora Paulinæ,' various authors have followed in his steps, though rarely with equal success. It was scarcely to be expected that he could have many followers in the same line, since he had reaped the largest portion of the field, and left only patches and gleanings for his successors. The comparison of the history of Paul with his letters, brings out nearly all the coincidences which could subserve the evidence of authenticity and undesignedness; and, though various others have been since added, after Paley's manner, yet they are only addenda and confirmations. Among these, Tate's Continuous History of St. Paul' holds a high place. But Mr. James Smith has followed Paley's suggestions into a new track, and constructed a new argument for the authenticity of the Acts,' by testing Luke's account of the voyage and shipwreck, just as he would that of Baffin or Mid

6

dleton. He assumes nothing but that, in the book of the Acts, we have a very detailed and interesting account of a certain voyage. If it is a fabrication, it is highly probable that the writer will have left some indubitable traces of artifice and imposture; and this supposition is greatly strengthened by the very minuteness, technicality, and graphic form in which he has presented his narrative, as well as by the number and variety of the circumstances mentioned, and the places named, described, and visited, in the course of the voyage. It is not a mere general statement of a voyage from one port to another, more or less remote. Neither is it a simple narrative of a shipwreck, where the leading facts might be taken from any other specimen of such an event, and which, being affirmed by the alleged witness, could neither be verified, nor disproved, at any great distance of time. But it is a voyage somewhat complicated, indirect, and detailed circumstantially; and it is a shipwreck narrated more in the manner of a log-book, than of a common historian or landsman. We have particulars of winds, bearings, soundings, devices of nautical skill under peculiar exigencies, and specifications of progress and proceedings from the commencement to the issue of the whole affair, which render it possible to bring a great variety of information from other sources to bear upon the credibility of the entire narrative. The argument of Mr. Smith, therefore, is in brief this-the writer has given us such a statement of this voyage, has so described places and events, and so employed terms of art, etc., as to put it in the power of a minute and comprehensive criticism to say, whether the whole is a mere invention, or a real history, which no one could have given who had not experienced the events, witnessed the scenes, and passed over the localities at the time and under the circumstances described. A searching comparison of the narrative with the localities where the events so circumstantially related are said to have taken place, with the aids geography and the navigation of the eastern parts of the Mediterranean supply, accounts for every transaction, clears up every difficulty, and exhibits an agreement so perfect in all its parts, as to admit but one explanation, namely, that it is a narrative of real events, written by one personally engaged in them, and that the tradition respecting the locality is true.'

A long and learned controversy has been maintained concerning the island where the shipwreck took place, whether it was Malta, or Meleda, in the Adriatic. But no other author has gone minutely and fully into the primary question of the voyage itself. Did it ever take place, and is it possible to ascertain from the narrative itself, whether it is supposititious, or susceptible of all the tests which could in any case be fairly applied to any

narrative of an ancient voyage which must have been prosecuted, if real, under circumstances very different from a similar voyage in modern times. These are the questions which Mr. Smith has undertaken to examine, and the result of which we have now to lay before our readers.

It is well known that tradition has pointed out a certain bay in the Island of Malta, as the scene of this shipwreck. It is called 'Cala di S. Paolo,' or St. Paul's Bay. It has never borne any other name. The name, however, is no guarantee for the authenticity of the narrative. Yet if the narrative can be proved true and accurate from other sources, the attachment of the name to the place was to be rationally expected, both from the nature of the event itself, and the interest which would attach to the locality in after times, and when the cause in which the apostle was a sufferer had obtained notoriety. Supposing him to have been at that island under the remarkable circumstances stated, and that the religion he taught, shortly after spread triumphantly around all the shores, and through all the islands of the Mediterranean, then it was natural enough that Christians should regard the locality of the shipwreck with great interest, and that both residents and visitors should connect the name of the apostle with the bay.

The tradition is a very strong and clear one. The place very probably had some other name prior to, and at the time of, the wreck; but this has been utterly lost, and geographers have never known the place by any other name but St. Paul's Bay. Yet the tradition is of no value till we have previously and sepa rately ascertained the trustworthiness of the narrative. It then comes in as a concurrent or crowning coincidence, showing just such a result as must have been arrived at, if the circumstances were as alleged in the narrative. The presence of the tradition could not authenticate the history, but its absence would be unnatural and suspicious.

Mr. Smith enjoyed a winter's residence at Malta, under circumstances highly favourable to a minute examination of the locality. In his Introduction he takes a survey of the geogra phers, maps, charts, etc,, and gives us the result in a condensed form. Most of the ancient authorities are worthless, and all the ancient maps are erroneous. Had the geographers of for mer days been contented, without filling up, conjecturally, the spaces in their maps, about which they were ignorant, or only given us elephants instead of towns,' we should have had but little reason to complain; but they more frequently did the reverse, and gave us towns instead of elephants." Several of these egregious errors Mr. Smith points out, and then proceeds:

6

'Recent surveys have, however, corrected these errors, and furnished us with a correct outline of the coasts of Crete. The soundings are not yet filled in; but this is immaterial in the earlier proceedings of St. Paul and his companions. At Malta, where we require to know not only the outline and peculiar features of the coast, but the soundings and nature of the bottom, we have Captain Smyth's chart of the island, and, above all, his plan of St. Paul's Bay, to a scale of 8-6 inches to the mile, which leave nothing to be desired with regard to the hydrography of this part of the voyage.'

In a note the author adds—

I question if modern science has ever done more to confirm an ancient author, than Captain Smyth's survey of St. Paul's Bay has done in the present case. The soundings alone would have furnished a conclusive test of the truth of the narrative. To the common reader, the mention of twenty fathoms and fifteen fathoms, indicates nothing more than the decreasing depth which every ship experiences in approaching the land; but when we come to consider the number of conditions which must be fulfilled in both instances when the depth is mentioned, in order to make the chart and narrative agree, we must admit that a perfect agreement cannot be accidental. I refer the reader for the details of the coincidences to the narrative of the voyage; and take this opportunity of acknowledging the kindness with which Captain Smyth allows me to copy his chart, and at the same time of stating his approbation of the manner in which I have reduced it, to illustrate this work.' -Introduction, p. viii. ix.

Mr. Smith first offers 'Notices of the Life and Writings of St. Luke,' in which he adopts the opinion of Jerome, that he was a physician of Antioch, and supplies substantial reasons for his decision. Nothing, however, is known of Luke's history, till he is found in company with Paul, nor have we any information of the circumstances which first brought them together. It is certain, however, that he accompanied the apostle in several of his voyages and journeys, that he united with him in preaching the gospel, that he had sometimes been left by the apostle to continue his labours in certain places alone, and finally, that he joined him at Cæsarea and embarked with him on his voyage to Italy. The following remarks upon the peculiarities of Luke's style are interesting and instructive :

There are certain peculiarities in the style of St. Luke, as a narrator of nautical events, which it is of the utmost importance to attend to, because a knowledge of them throws light, not only upon the voyages he has recorded in the Acts, but upon several passages in his gospel, and even upon the sources of the gospel itself.'

The difference in the manner of describing such events by seamen and by landsmen, is too obvious to require remark; but there is a third class of authors, who are, properly speaking, neither seamen nor landsmen-I mean men who, for some cause or other, have been much at

sea, who understand what they are describing, and who, from their living and being in constant intercourse with the officers of the ship, necessarily acquire the use of the technical language of seamen. An attentive examination of St. Luke's writings shows us, that it is to this class of authors that he belongs. How he acquired that correct know. ledge of his subject, and that command of its language which he uniformly displays, we have no means of knowing; but I cannot help thinking that he must, at some period of his life, have exercised his profession at sea. From the great numbers of people which we often hear of in ancient ships, we must suppose they carried surgeons: whether St. Luke ever served in that capacity or not, is, of course, mere matter of conjecture. One thing is certain, no one unaccustomed to a sea life could have described the events connected with it with such accuracy as he has done.'

'But, although his descriptions are accurate, both as to manner and language, they are unprofessional. The seamen in charge of the ship, has his attention perpetually on the stretch, watching every change or indication of change, of wind and weather. He is obliged to decide upon the instant what measures are to be taken to avail himself of favourable changes, or to obviate the consequences of unfavourable. Hence, in describing them, he naturally dwells upon cause and effect. He tells us not only what was done, but why it was done. The im pression produced by incidents at sea upon the mind of the mere spectator, is altogether different, and of course his mode of describing is equally so. He tells us what has happened, but rarely tells us either how or why the measures connected with it were taken. In doing so, he often mentions circumstances which a seaman would not think of noticing from their familiarity, or from their being matters of course, and is frequently silent as to those that are of the greatest importance, and which no seaman would pass over.

'Now these are exactly the peculiarities which characterize the style of St. Luke as a voyage writer; for instance, when the ship was run ashore, he tells us that they loosed the bands of the rudders; a seaman would have told us, in the previous stage of the narrative, how they were secured a matter of necessity in an ancient ship anchored by the stern; and when we remember that it was on the face of a lee shore, in a gale of wind, it must have been one of difficulty, whereas loosing them was a mere matter of course. Thus, also, when they became aware of the proximity of land, a seaman would hardly have omitted telling what were the indications which led the shipmen to deem that they drew near to some country.' (xxvii. 27.)

It would be easy to multiply instances from the narrative, and to cite analogous ones from the published works of medical men who have written narratives of their voyages; for those who are led by the love of science or adventure to make long voyages, frequently become their historians. I prefer, however, making the comparison with a fragment of a journal of an officer in Captain Cook's ship, from the United Ser vice Magazine,' (May, 1812, p. 46.) There can be no doubt that in this case the author was a medical man. The correspondent who com municates it, infers that he is so, from the circumstance of a medical