case being in the same book. The professional manner in which he describes Captain Cook's remains would have been proof sufficient to me that he was one. I prefer this as a case in point, because we have it as it was written on the spot, without being pruned or worked up for effect, and because we can compare it with published accounts of the same events, written by professional seamen. It exhibits all the peculiarities which I have alluded to as characterizing the style of St. Luke. The author relates the events as they fell under his knowledge, in correct nautical language, but he offers no explanations as to the causes. Take the following examples :

24 Feb., 779.-In the evening hauled our wind, and stood out clear of the islands.'-Journal, p. 46.

'Compare this with Captain King's account :

'At sun-set, observing a shoal which appeared to stretch a considerable distance to the west of Mowee, towards the middle of the passage, and the weather being unsettled, we tacked, and stood to the south.'King's Voyage, p. 84.

28. Feb.-Hauled our wind, and are to stand off and on for the night.'-Journal, p. 46.

It being too late to run for the road on the south-west side of the island, where we had been last year, we passed the night in standing on and off.'-King's Voyage, p. 88

Here it will be observed, that the nautical language is quite as correct in the one case as in the other; the only difference being, that the seaman relates the cause of their proceedings, while the medical author of the journal omits them.

When St. Luke mentions the incident of hoisting the boat on board, he informs us that it was a work of difficulty (μodis, xxvii. 16;) but he does not tell us wherein the difficulty consisted. In like manner, when the author of the journal notices the incident of getting the Resolution's foremast into its place, he merely says, 'The mast, after much trouble and many risks, was got in;' but is silent as to the causes of the risks and trouble. Compare this with the accounts given by seamen of the same circumstances, where we are not left in doubt as to the causes. Captain King, says:—

Early on the morning of the 20th, we had the satisfaction of getting the foremast shipped; it was an operation attended with great difficulty and some danger, our ropes being so exceedingly rotten, that the purchase gave way several times.'-King's Voyage, p 79.

In a journal of the same voyage, by an officer of the Discovery, 8°. London, 1785, it is thus recorded:

:

Early on the morning of the 20th, we had the satisfaction of getting the foremast of the Resolution shipped, a work of great labour and some difficulty, as the ropes were now become rotten, and unable to sustain the purchase.'

"This mode of writing, accounts for the omission, in the narrative of St. Luke, of circumstances which, nautically speaking, were of much importance, and the insertion of others which were quite unimportant—a style which, had it been his object to have described a sea-voyage, would have been liable to serious objections; but it was no part of his

purpose to do so, farther than as his narrative illustrated passages in the life of St. Paul. And were it not that in cases where he was actually present, he is more than usually circumstantial, we should probably have learnt no more than that the apostle was shipwrecked on his voyage to Italy. His notices of events, when he writes as a witness, are altogether accidental and fragmentary. He records them simply because he observes them, and not because they are intrinsically important. They drop unintentionally from his pen, and are never thrown in for the purpose of heightening the effect; witness the account of the visit to Philippi; for it is scarcely possible to write circumstantially without at the same time writing graphically. Still less are circumstances thrown in for the purpose of lending probability to his narration. On the contrary, they often detract from it. 'Le vrai n'est pas toujours le vraisemblable.' The most important circumstances, probably, did not fall under his notice; and he never stops to offer explanations. St. Luke, however, possesses two qualifications as a writer, which, in a great degree, compensate for his omissions, and which enable us to supply many of them with the grea.est certainty. The first is, his perfect knowledge of his subject, and the next his accuracy. No man, who was not gifted in a super-eminent degree with this quality, could have given a narrative capable of being tested as his has been in the following examination: he must not only have been an accurate observer, but his memory must have been accurate, and his habits of thought and reasoning not less so; hence his facts afford the firmest grounds for resting conclusions upon, and these in their turn furnish data for mathematical reasoning. The reader may give an incredulous smile at the idea of working the dead reckoning of a ship from such disjointed and apparently vague notices, yet I have done so, and the result is nearer than I could have expected beforehand, had it been the journal of a modern ship, and I had had her log-book lying before me. I admit that a coincidence so extraordinary, is to a certain extent accidental; but it is an accident which could not have happened had there been any inaccuracy on the part of the narrator: had he made an error of a single day, it would have been difficult to have reconciled his statements; and had it been any other island than Malta upon which the ship was wrecked, it would have been impossible. I refer the reader to the account of the voyage, for the calculations and authorities upon which they are founded.'—p. 7—14.

These observations upon the general style of Luke are followed up by a careful examination of the various terms employed to describe the progress of the ship, under all the different circumstances in which it was placed during the entire voyage, and these terms the author determines to be the accurate nautical terms, that would have been employed by a professional seaman at that period. It is a test that no fabrication would bear, and it cannot fail eminently to subserve the cause of the Christian evidence.

After this Mr. Smith proceeds to trace the voyage, devoting

a chapter to each of its portions. We have, first, the course from Cæsarea to Myra; secondly, from Myra to Fair Havens; thirdly, from Crete to Melita-the gale; fourthly, the shipwreck; and fifthly, Melita to Italy. In tracing the first portion of the voyage, Mr. Smith brings to bear upon his subject several narratives of voyages in the same seas, and at the same season of the year, a matter of great importance in determining the course of the ship, on account of the periodicity of the winds. He has occasion to correct the opinion of many eminent commentators as to the ship's course being to the south of Cyprus. He appears to us, clearly to make it out that they went to the north, for this is the only supposition agreeable with the statement made in the fifth verse, that they sailed through the sea of Cilicia, (daλevσavтes) not over, as in the authorized version, but as this sea lies altogether to the north of Cyprus, they could not have sailed through it without leaving the island on their left.' Mr. Smith's conclusion is, that in taking this course, 'they acted precisely as the most accomplished seaman in the present day would have done under similar circumstances.' He then quotes from several voyagers, evidence very remarkable and satisfactory in confirmation of his opinion.

The course from Myra to Fair Havens is traced with great ability, and admirable critical acumen. Several mistakes are corrected and doubtful points settled with consummate judgment. The determination of the places, and of the ship's course, was a matter of great difficulty, because no earlier writer has mentioned either the Fair Havens, or the City of Lasea. Yet, to say the least, Mr. Smith has made it tolerably certain, both what was the course pursued, and from what points the wind was blowing at the time the consultation was held, when Paul wished them to winter at the Fair Havens, and not to run the risk that they afterwards encountered, through the opinion of the officers, that it would be desirable to seek a better harbour to winter in. It is, however, fully admitted by Mr. Smith, that an harbour lying open to nearly half the compass, could not have been a good winter harbour. The opinion of the officers was unanimous, we may suppose, in favour of changing their quarters; and in this the centurion very properly acquiesced, though the event justified Paul's advice. The question is then discussed, as to the position of Phenice (ver. 12). This is supposed to be a harbour, on the same side of Crete, about forty miles to the westward. The generally received version of κατα Λίβα και κατα Χωρον, lieth towards the southwest and north-west,' has opposed a formidable difficulty to the identification of the harbour they wished to gain. Mr. Smith is of opinion, that this harbour has lost the name of Phenice,

and is now called Lutro. The chief difficulty in the way of this opinion is, that Lutro, as a harbour, looks the reverse way to that stated in the narrative. This harbour was never reached by the ship, and it might, therefore, be deemed a matter of no importance to ascertain it. But Mr. Smith has in view the determination, not only of the accurate course pursued by the ship, but the minute and technical accuracy of St. Luke, in describing it, and he therefore evinces no little skill and learning in reconciling the language to the facts. The agreement he brings out is as striking as it is satisfactory. Everything, he first shows, depends upon the sense of the Greek preposition 'xara,' and taking its meaning to be in the same direction as,' he concludes, that it does not mean open to the wind blowing from the point indicated by the wind, but to the point towards which it blows-that is, it is not open to the south-west, but to the north-east. Of course, in such a case, everything depends upon the use of the preposition, in reference to the winds. Here he quotes an instance from Herodotus, and another from Arrian, which clearly show that xara did not mark the point towards which a wind blew, but that from which it blew; so that when a cloud was driven xaτa supov,' it was not going towards the east, but was driven by the east wind towards the west. When St. Luke, therefore, describes the harbour of Phenice, as looking κατα Διβα και κατα Χωρον, I understand that it looks to the north-east, which is the point towards which Libs blows; and to the south-east, that to which Cauras blows. Now this is exactly the description of Lutro, which looks, or is open to the east, but, having an island in front, which shelters it; it has two entrances, one looking to the north-east, which is κατα Διβα; and the other, to the south-east, κατα Χωρον.

Chapter iii. traces the voyage as it was continued from Crete, in search of a better harbour. The anchor was weighed, with a favourable breeze from the south. Mr. Smith observes, that a ship which could not lie nearer to the wind than seven points, would but just weather Cape Matala, close to the land. Hence the propriety of the expression, ασσον παρελεγοντο την κρητην, they sailed close by Crete. The distance they had now to make, was about thirty-four miles, and as the bearing was west-northwest, the south wind was highly favourable. They had not proceeded far on their course, when a sudden change took place. The ship was caught in a typhon, and yielding to it, we were borne along (EIDOVTES εpepoμela). With great ingenuity, he then determines the direction of this wind; and shows, that it must have changed from a southerly to a violent northerly; for there was a fear, when under Clauda, of being driven towards the Syrtis (ver. 17). This, he shows, from other sources, is a com

i

mon occurrence in these seas. He adds, also, descriptions of the typhon. Thus, he brings out both the nature of the gale, and the direction it took.

The narrative states nothing more than that it defeated their object of gaining Phenice, and compelled them to run under the lee of Clauda (vropaμovтes). It will, however, be found, that the ship must have strained and suffered severely in her hull, and that the leaks she then sprung were gradually gaining upon the crew; and that if she had not providentially made the land, and been thereby enabled to save their lives by running the ship on shore, she must have foundered at sea, and all on board perished.' The inspired writer details the circumstances that followed, with remarkable precision; over the whole of which Mr. Smith passes, illustrating every point from the recorded conduct of other mariners in similar circumstances; and showing, with the skill of a practised seaman, what the exigencies of the case required, and what must have been their course. In criticising the translation of some of the nautical expressions, he shows that they have been, in some respects, misunderstood. Thus, striking sail, when they feared the Syrtis or quicksand, he shows, would have deprived them of the only means they possessed of avoiding that destruction. But the ship was not allowed to scud. It was hove-to upon the starboard tack, having been made snug by 'undergirding,' an expedient that is fully described and verified. Everything, indeed, appears to have been done which skilful and experienced seamanship could suggest, and everything is described in the most orderly and technical terms by the narrator; only some of these, as terms of art, have been misunderstood both by translators and commentators. Thus, at the end of the first day, they prepared themselves, as well as they could, to withstand the effects of the gale. A dreary interval,' as it is styled by Mr. Smith, of eleven days, succeeds; in which, without compass, without sight of sun or stars, they are exceedingly tossed with the tempest, and all hope of being saved was taken away.' The hopelessness of their condition arose from the state of the ship, and not so much from the violence of the gale. The leak could not be resisted. It gained upon them after the utmost exertion, and they had no prospect but of foundering at sea, unless they should be driven into safety, or discover some land where they might run the ship aground. At length, on the fourteenth night of their being driven through (diapegoμevwv) the sea of Adria, towards midnight, the seamen suspected (Evooυv) that land was near.' The reason for this suspicion, Mr. Smith endeavours to ascertain, and has rendered highly probable. A very interesting case of the Lively frigate, in the year 1810, off