become their objects; and begin, at once, to lay the cheap, firm, and fast foundation of their own independence! And this we have good hope of seeing.

We will subjoin but two remarks more. The first is, that the last Act for the protection and encouragement of Friendly Societies, (59 Geo. III.) fully realizes its title under the shelter of its fostering wing; with good rules, and sound calculations, they can scarcely fail of more than ever prospering. The last, that the strength of Associations for mutual Assurance, lies, mainly, in their being composed of many subscribers; their motto being, in truth, that which we have ventured to prefix to the brief observations we have now brought to their conclusion

An annual contribution of £1 per share, from the time of entry, will entitle the shareholder to the sum noted under any ONE of the four following objects of provision, opposite the age of entry.

It is obvious, that if the Shareholder subscribes to all the objects specified in the above Table, he must pay £4 annually for one share in all, and so in proportion, according to the number of objects selected, and of shares taken.

ΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΗΣΑΙ. Matt. ii. 2.

MR. EDITOR,-An investigation of the meaning of this and similar passages cannot but be interesting to biblical students; and your

correspondent B. Clericus's paper, in the Christian Remembrancer for March, may, I hope, lead to a useful discussion of the subject. I have lately been engaged upon it, and now beg to offer the result of my inquiries.

Your correspondent appears to me to assume too much from his authorities in favour of the interpretation which he wishes to maintain, Upon the strength of the Syriac, Coptic, and Arabic versions, he assumes, that the most ancient Christians interpreted and understood the word here used, ρоokuvñσαι, as an act of religious adoration paid by the Magi to the infant Jesus.' But this conclusion is more than his premises warrant. The Syriac is the earliest of these versions; and Dr. Marsh, in his Notes on Michaelis' "Introduction to the New Tes tament," has shewn that there is not any historical evidence of the existence of a Syriac version before the 4th century. Now surely a version of whose existence before the 4th century there is no sufficient evidence, is not to be taken as conclusive authority for the sentiments of the most ancient Christians upon any particular passage. B. Clericus would, I think, have done better in referring to some of the early Fathers in support of his opinion, inasmuch as their writings approach nearer to the times of the most ancient Christians than either the Coptic, Arabic, or Syriac versions, and in them he might have found authorities for the interpretation he adopts. But indeed no references of the kind, either to the early Fathers or to versions, can be considered as conclusive as to the right interpretation of any particular passage, unless we allow infallibility to their interpretations. But confessedly all of them have erred, and I do not apprehend that your correspondent would be willing to admit the Fathers, or the Syriac, or any other version, as the Christian's rule of faith.

I am not acquainted in the least with Syriac, Coptic, or Arabic, and therefore can form no judgment upon the words by which they have rendered роoкvνñoα in this place. I cannot help entertaining some doubt of the correctness of what B. Clericus states respecting the Hebrew word TD sagad, that it is used in the Old Testament only for the falling down to God or an idol in a religious manner, or for the sake of worshipping; but having lent my Hebrew lexicon and Bible to a friend at some distance from me, I cannot now investigate this point. B. Clericus's translation of prona adoratio,' in Reland, by a profound adoration,' is not a correct rendering. Reland notices the various postures used by the Mahomedans in their prayers, and them that which he translates by πроσкúνησι, prona adoratio,' among the meaning of which he explains in a note as follows:-" Tрookývnois est quum septem membra corporis humum tangunt, pes uterque, manus utraque, utrumque genu, et frons." So that' prona adoratio' should be rendered, adoration by prostration, rather than profound adoration. It is but justice, however, to notice what Reland states in a prior note: "Nota ad quatuor referri solere dispositiones varias corporis in precibus observandas, et his nominibus Arabicis distinctas;1. ..., statio. 2. incurvatio. 3. ..., adoratio. 4. ..., sessio. Ad hunc numerum ipsi has redigunt quando Deum rogare solent.... 'Acceptum tibi sit, & Domine noster, nostrum stare, incurvare, adorare et sedere.' Adoratio, actio una ex his, sed omnium maxime sancta,

meruit sola nomen dare templis, quæ inde.... nuncupantur, eadem voce qua et septem membra hominis in adorationis actu terram tangentia appellantur.

The other argument which B. Clericus adduces in favour of his interpretation is this, that the translators of the received version have rendered роσкνvñσαι in the passage in question by the words 'to worship.' Excellent as our received translation is, I am not aware that we who receive it are bound conclusively to adopt its interpretation in every particular; but when it is recollected that our English word 'worship,' like the Greek word πроσкννñoαι, is used to express civil homage and respect as well as divine adoration, and that the translators have used the word worship in passages where decidedly divine adoration is not intended (as in Luke xiv. 10, and Matt. xviii. 26), it is manifest that nothing whatever can be concluded from this argument in favour of either interpretation.

In Dan. ii. 46, the word worship is used in the same sense: Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him." Upon which passage is the following note in D'Oyly and Mant's Bible:"The king highly reverenced Daniel, and paid him such tokens of respect as were consonant to oriental manners.Wintle." In our marriage service, also, we find the word worship used without denoting divine adoration.

Whilst observing on the word worship, I cannot help noticing that our received translation appears to me to have a decided superiority over the Unitarian version, in this very particular of worship being used generally as the translation of πроσкνvñσαι; for as, like the Greek word, it means civil homage and reverence as well as divine adoration, the mere English reader is left to his own judgment, as the Greek reader is, in regard to the sense in which any particular passage is to be understood: whereas, in the Unitarian version, the word "pooкvvñσαι being rendered sometimes by worship and sometimes by doing obeisance, according as the translators understand it to refer to civil homage, or to divine adoration, the judgment of the mere English reader is fettered to their interpretation, and not left at liberty, as in the received translation, to determine by the context the meaning of the original.

I must now notice the references to the notes in Elsley on the word πроσкννñoαι, to Beyer's Additamenta, and to c. 3. of Selden's Syntagmata; and I will copy them, that your readers may judge for themselves, how far they favour the interpretation which B. Clericus seems desirous of upholding.

In page 45 of Beyer, referred to by B. Clericus, is the following remark: "Ita Magi venerunt ad Christum πроσкʊvñoai čvɛka, ut eum tanquam regem, i. e. more illo, quo reges suos solebant Persæ, adorarent. Matt. ii. 2. Vid. Psal. Ixxii. 9. & Gen. xli. 40, quo ad os Josephi osculari, i. e. mandatis ejus honorem ut proregis exhibere jubetur; unde hanc civilem adorationem regibus et superioribus præstitam, in religionem abiisse videtur." I have read all that goes before, and much that follows this reference, but I am not satisfied in what sense Beyer understood #poσkvñoa in this place. I rather think he agrees with B. Clericus.

The following are the only notes I find in Elsley on προσκυνήσαι. "Matt. ii. 2, 'to worship him'] роσкvνñσαι. The same posture was used in the East in paying divine worship, and in prostrating themselves before their kings, 1 Chron. xxix. 20. This term expresses either; and is sometimes used by one Evangelist, where another makes use of рoσTELY, to fall down before. Compare Matt. viii. 2, with Luke v. 12; Matt. ix. 18, and Mark v. 22, with Luke viii. 41, and Matt. xviii. 26, 29. Le Clerc.

"The Eastern custom of prostration is well known; so Josephus of David before Saul, πрoσкvνεiтα, &c.; Livy of the Carthaginian Ambassadors, more adorantium procubuerunt; Euripides Phoeniss. Corn. Nepos in Vita Coronis. Eschylus Persis. Grotius.

"The word pooкvvεiv is no proof at all that Christ was adored; but it is remarkable what early instances appear of the belief of the Church in this point; the ancients holding from the beginning that the frankincense, whatever the wise men themselves might have thought of him, was fitly offered to him as God. Thus vero, quoniam Deus.' Iren. lib. iii. c. 10; Justin. Mart. Dia. cum Tryph.; Tertull. adv. Marcion, lib. iii. c. 12, adv. Jud. c. 9. p. 196; Origen contr. Celsum, p. 45. Whitby.

"Luke xxiv. 52, And they worshipped him'] by prostration, which in the days rns σaρкos avrov, as Heb. v. 7, they had not done. They now acknowledged his superior majesty, 2 Cor. v. 16. Grotius. See Matt. xxviii. 17."

To these references I will add some extracts from Bishop Porteus' Lecture on the Visit of the Magi. The inclination of the Bishop's mind appears to me in favour of interpreting the passage in question so as not to import divine adoration. "When the wise men came into the house and saw the child, they fell down and worshipped him; that is, bowed and prostrated themselves before him in the Eastern manner of doing obeisance to kings. Whether they designed also paying him religious adoration, or how distinct a knowledge had been given them of the nature and rank of the Saviour of the world, we cannot say ; but may be sure that what they believed and what they did was at that time sufficient to procure their acceptance with God. Indeed, according to the opinion of some ancient Fathers concerning their presents, their faith must have been very great. For they represent the incense as offered to our Saviour as God; the gold to have been paid him as tribute to a king; and the myrrh (a principal ingredient used in embalming) brought as an acknowledgment that he was to die for men. But others interpret the same gifts very differently, and take them to signify the three spiritual offerings which we must all present to heaven through Jesus Christ: the incense, to denote piety towards God; the gold, charity towards our fellow-creatures; and the myrrh, purity of soul and body, it being highly efficacious in preserving them from corruption. But though either or both these notions may be innocently and piously entertained, yet all we know with certainty is, that in those parts of the world, no one did then, or does now, appear before a prince without a suitable present, usually of the most valuable commodities of his country; and that three of the principal productions of the East, particularly of Arabia, were gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

"The manner in which these wise men approached our Lord is precisely that in which the people always addressed themselves to men of high rank and dignity. They worshipped' him, that is, they prostrated themselves to the ground before him, which we know was then and still is the custom of those countries. They offered presents to him; and it is well known that without a present no great man was at that time, or is now, approached. These presents were gold, frankincense, and myrrh; and these, as we have before observed, were the natural productions of that country whence the wise men are supposed to have come, namely Arabia, or Sabæa.”

This last extract forms a note in D'Oyly and Mant's Bible on the passage in question.

Schleusner, in his Greek lexicon, refers to the passage in question as an example of πρоσкνvñσαι in the sense of civil homage.

The above notes from Elsley, and especially the extracts from Bishop Porteus, will, I hope, teach B. Clericus, however he may interpret the sentiments of the Bishop and the other authors, that a man may differ from him in respect of the interpretation of the passage in question, and yet be a rational being,' and a ' Christian.'

·

My own opinion is, that pookunoa in the passage in question, is not to be understood in the sense of paying divine worship. The only circumstance mentioned to guide us into the meaning of the Magi is their inquiry, "Where is he that is born King of the Jews?" And this does not, I think, authorise us to infer that they intended to pay to the infant Jesus other honour than the homage and presents they esteemed due to him as King of the Jews. Neither is any thing mentioned which can lead us to suppose they were understood by Herod and the people as meaning to pay to the infant Jesus divine worship; nor can we suppose, when Herod told them to return to him when they had found the child, that he might go and worship him also, that he was understood, or intended to be understood, as purposing to pay religious worship to him.

It cannot be proved, I think, from the New Testament, that the Jews thought their Messiah was to be honoured by divine worship. And I am inclined to believe that in none of the cases where it is said of individuals that they worshipped him, is divine adoration intended by the Evangelists.

It does not appear to me to have been the will of our Lord that divine worship should be paid to him during his abode on earth. When his disciples requested him to teach them how to pray, he taught them to address their prayers to the Father: and when one came to him and said, "Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" he seems to reject divine adoration to himself, when he answered, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God." Matt. xix. 16, 17. Further, he prayed with his disciples, and he prayed earnestly by himself, to the Father; and it seems hardly consistent to suppose, without the clearest evidence to the contrary, that He, "who in the days of his flesh offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears," (Heb. v. 7) should propose himself as an object of divine worship whilst in this state of humiliation, or be willing to receive it.