I have held intercourse, ask him who knew me, Mus. What, Achmet's? Cal. Sol. What, Lord Achmet's? I will hear no more from him, take him from me. O, what a hopeless wish kill'd me. [Guards bearing him off. You'll sigh forth that you'ad heard me, ere you Why, Caled, fare thee well; I had a father. Think of me when I'm gone, I know thou wilt, What, dost thou weep, old soldier? Sol. [He is led off on one side; RUSTAN and Oh, my heart! My bursting heart!-break, break; what is't to me, Mus. (behind) Dear Caled--but one word- Ach. Enter ACHMET, rushing in, on the other side. Where is he? where's Mustapha ? Rus. (behind.) Dispatch, make haste, have done, He's innocent.' pp. 94-98. Our readers are now fully able to appreciate the merits of this performance for themselves. Had the writer consulted the taste of the day, he would probably have cast his materials into octo-syllabic lines, and announced a Turkish tale. But what he may lose in present popularity, he will gain, no doubt, in permanent fame. Above all, in a mode of composition which has so often been perverted to pernicious uses, we are gratified to observe the affluence of poetical genius, ennobled by scrupulous delicacy of sentiment, and sound morality of principle. Art. VII.-A Dissertation on the Magi, who came to adore the newborn Jesus, and the Star which directed their Way. Published in compliance with the will of the Rev. John Hulse, as having gained the Annual Prize instituted by him in the University of Cambridge. By James Clarke Franks, of Trinity College. Svo. pp. 106. Price 3s. 1814. Longman and Co. THE visit of the oriental philosophers to do homage to the infant Saviour, as recorded by St. Matthew, is a very interesting fact, but is connected with several questions and difficulties which have often exercised the thoughts and pens of learned men. The Prize Essay before us is elaborate and rather tedious. The author explains and connects the concise narrative of the Evangelist; and the different opinions, which have been advanced by men of great and of little name, on the questions which arise, he rehearses in a manner approaching to the heavy prolixity of a German Dissertatio PhilologicoTheologico-Historica. In detailing these diversities, the essayist generally indicates the opinion which he approves; but his reasons of preference are too often obscurely given, or feebly urged. Some of the difficulties he satisfactorily removes; but others, we are apprehensive, he does not treat so as either to establish a candid believer, or to satisfy the demands of a sceptic. If the Hulsean Prize last year excited much competition, we are compelled to have rather an unfavourable opinion of the talents of the competitors, or of the equity of the adjudication. On opening a discussion of this subject, we naturally expect that the CAPITAL question should be first determined,the authenticity of the narrative. The high tone assumed by the Unitarians in their rejection of the whole, renders this question more pressing, and more necessary to be placed in a satisfactory light, than any of the subordinate points. But Mr. Franks bestows only a short note upon it; asserting that the 'systematic attack on this portion of scripture must be considered as fallacious and inconclusive;' (p. 13.) and referring, without citation, to Bishop Chandler, Marsh, Lawrence, and Nares, and the Quarterly Review. We åre fully satisfied, that this is the conclusion which ought to be drawn, because there is a body of positive evidence resting on the foundations of fair and impartial criticism, for its support: but we can hardly conceive a more ready method to injure the credibility of such a position, than this of telling the world, upon the word of an undergraduate, that it must be considered' as true. The insidious blasphemy of Voltaire desired only this style of arguing for his Abbé Bazin: "Nous l'avons dejà dit, et nous redisons encore, que nous croyons ces prodiges et tous les autres, sans aucun examen."-Let us not be mistaken. We are farvery far-from attributing to Mr. F. a voluntary countenancing of this dangerous substitute for reasoning; but we wish to caution him, as a young man, and we hope hereafter a valuable advocate of the faith, to avoid the very appearance of this evil. The author takes great pains to determine the sense of the word Mayos, and yet he dismisses all attempts to assign its etymological origin, as a 'point of uncertain speculation." p. 3. According to our conceptions, light and brevity would have been gained to the inquiry, if he had stated that the Persian Mogh, denoted a priest or minister of religion; and that in Jeremiah ix. 3, 13, Rab-Mag, is not so probably a proper name, as a name of office, for the Antistes vatum, or President of the MAGI. This information, with many corrohorating proofs, is found in Hyde's valuable Historia Beligionis Feterum Persarum, &c. Oxon. 1700, p. 364, 372— 374; a work of which Mr. F. has made much use, and to which he has suitably acknowledged his obligations. We will not take upon us to say that our author was willing to pass this by, because he has chosen the bypothesis that the Magi who performed this transaction in the sacred history, were not Persians, but Arabs. His reasons for this preference are,— that, in the language of scripture, " by the general expression the East, the particular country of Arabia was frequently specified;'-that the presents which they brought, were the peculiar produce of Arabia;-that, since Magi were in Arabia, a country adjoining to Judæa, God would scarcely have called those of the sect who lived in a more remote country, to come to Jerusalem;'-that, from this vicinity to Judea, we can also suppose them better acquainted with its affairs, and more interested in them, than people more distant would be;'— and that, as their visit was, by very probable arguments, within six weeks after our Lord's birth, it is necessary to fix upon a country nearly adjoining to Judæa,' and not oue so remote as Persia. These reasons appear to us too slender to support the conclusion, especially when there is no contemptible evidence on the other side. To the first argument, it may be replied, that, admitting that the Hebrews often applied the terms Kedem, Kadim, Mızruh, the East, to the tract which lay between them and the Euphrates, it by no means follows that the term was restricted to that sense. Without dwelling on other passages, it is sufficient to mention Isaiah xli. 2, and xlvi. 11, in both which places Persia is designated by the East. Besides, the next argument, Art. VII.-A Dissertation on the Magi, who came to adore the newborn Jesus, and the Star which directed their Way. Published in compliance with the will of the Rev. John Hulse, as having gained the Annual Prize instituted by him in the University of Cambridge. By James Clarke Franks, of Trinity College. Svo. pp. 106. Price 3s. 1814. Longman and Co. THE visit of the oriental philosophers to do homage to the infant Saviour, as recorded by St. Matthew, is a very interesting fact, but is connected with several questions and difficulties which have often exercised the thoughts and pens of learned men. The Prize Essay before us is elaborate and rather tedious. The author explains and connects the concise narrative of the Evangelist; and the different opinions, which have been advanced by men of great and of little name, on the questions which arise, he rehearses in a manner approaching to the heavy prolixity of a German Dissertatio PhilologicoTheologico-Historica. In detailing these diversities, the essayist generally indicates the opinion which he approves; but his reasons of preference are too often obscurely given, or feebly urged. Some of the difficulties he satisfactorily removes; but others, we are apprehensive, he does not treat so as either to establish a candid believer, or to satisfy the demands of a sceptic. If the Hulsean Prize last year excited much competition, we are compelled to have rather an unfavourable opinion of the talents of the competitors, or of the equity of the adjudication. On opening a discussion of this subject, we naturally expect that the CAPITAL question should be first determined, the authenticity of the narrative. The high tone assumed by the Unitarians in their rejection of the whole, renders this question more pressing, and more necessary to be placed in a satisfactory light, than any of the subordinate points. But Mr. Franks bestows only a short note upon it; asserting that the 'systematic attack on this portion of scripture must be considered as fallacious and inconclusive;' (p. 13.) and referring, without citation, to Bishop Chandler, Marsh, Lawrence, and Nares, and the Quarterly Review. We are fully satisfied, that this is the conclusion which ought to be drawn, because there is a body of positive evidence resting on the foundations of fair and impartial criticism, for its support: but we can hardly conceive a more ready method to injure the credibility of such a position, than this of telling the world, upon the word of an undergraduate, that it must be considered' as true. The insidious blasphemy of Voltaire desired only this style of arguing for his Abbé Bazin : « Nous l'avons dejà dit, et nous redisons encore, que nous croyons ces prodiges et tous les autres, sans aucun examen."-Let us not be mistaken. We are farvery far-from attributing to Mr. F. a voluntary countenancing of this dangerous substitute for reasoning; but we wish to caution him, as a young man, and we hope hereafter a valuable advocate of the faith, to avoid the very appearance of this evil. The author takes great pains to determine the sense of the word Mayos, and yet he dismisses all attempts to assign its etymological origin, as a point of uncertain speculation." p. 3. According to our conceptions, light and brevity would have been gained to the inquiry, if he had stated that the Persian Mogh, denoted a priest or minister of religion; and that in Jeremiah ix. 3, 13, Rab-Mag, is not so probably a proper name, as a name of office, for the Antistes vatum, or President of the MAGI. This information, with many corroborating proofs, is found in Hyde's valuable Historia Religionis Veterum Persarum, &c. Oxon. 1700, p. 364, 372374; a work of which Mr. F. has made much use, and to which he has suitably acknowledged his obligations. We will not take upon us to say that our author was willing to pass this by, because he has chosen the hypothesis that the Magi who performed this transaction in the sacred history, were not Persians, but Arabs. His reasons for this preference are,that, in the language of scripture," by the general expression the East, the particular country of Arabia was frequently specified; that the presents which they brought, were the peculiar produce of Arabia;-that, since Magi were in Arabia, a country adjoining to Judæa, God would scarcely have called those of the sect who lived in a more remote country, to come to Jerusalem;'-that, from this yicinity to Judæa, we can also suppose them better acquainted with its affairs, and more interested in them, than people more distant would be;'— and that, as their visit was, by very probable arguments, within six weeks after our Lord's birth, it is necessary to fix upon a country nearly adjoining to Judæa,' and not one so remote as Persia. These reasons appear to us too slender to support the conclusion, especially when there is no contemptible evidence on the other side. To the first argument, it may be replied, that, admitting that the Hebrews often applied the terms Kedem, Kadim, Mızrah, the East, to the tract which lay between them and the Euphrates, it by no means follows that the term was restricted to that sense. Without dwelling on other passages, it is sufficient to mention Isaiah xli. 2, and xlvi. 11, in both which places Persia is designated by the East. Besides, the next argument, |