this sense St. Paul claimed to be reλelos, even while almost in the same breath he disclaimed the being τετελειωμένος (Phil. iii. 12, 15).

The distinction then is plain; the oλókλnpos is one who has preserved, or who, having lost, has regained his completeness; the Téλelos has attained his moral end, that for which he was intended; namely, to be a man in Christ; however it may be true that, having reached this, other and higher ends will open out before him, to have Christ formed in him more and more. In the ὁλόκληρος no grace which ought to be in a Christian man is wanting; in the Téλelos no grace is merely in its weak imperfect beginnings, but all have reached a certain ripeness and maturity. 'Oλoτeλńs, which occurs once in the N. T. (1 Thess. v. 23; cf. Plutarch, De Plac. Phil. v. 21), forms a certain connecting link between the two, holding on to óλóκληρος by its first half, to τέλειος by its second.

§ xxiii. στέφανος, διάδημα.

THE fact that our English word 'crown' covers the meanings of both these words, must not lead us to confound them. I indeed very much doubt whether anywhere in classical literature σrédavos is used of the kingly, or imperial, crown. It is the crown of victory in the games, of civic worth, of military valour, of nuptial joy, of festal gladness-woven of oak, of ivy, of parsley, of myrtle, of olive, or imitating in gold these leaves or

others of flowers, as of violets or roses (see Athenæus, xv. 9—33), the wreath' in fact, or the 'garland,' the German 'Kranz' as distinguished from Krone;' but never, any more than 'corona' in Latin, the emblem and sign of royalty. The Stádnμa was this (Xenophon, Cyr. viii. 3. 13; Plutarch, De Frat. Am. 18), being properly a linen band or fillet, 'tænia' or 'fascia' (Curtius, iii. 3), encircling the brow; so that no language is more common than περιτιθέναι διάδημα to indicate the assumption of royal dignity (Polybius, v. 57. 4; Josephus, Antt. xii. 10. 1), even as in Latin in like manner the 'diadema' is alone the insigne regium' (Tacitus, Annal. xv. 29).

A passage bringing out very clearly the dis tinction between the two words occurs in Plutarch. It is the well-known occasion on which Antonius offers Cæsar the kingly crown, which is described as διάδημα στεφάνῳ δάφνης περιπεπλεγμένον (Cæs. 61). Here the σrépavos is only the garland or laureate wreath, with which the true diadem was enwoven. Indeed, according to Cicero (Phil. ii. 34), Cæsar was already coronatus' (σTE(= ẺOTEpavaμévos), this he would have been as consul, when the offer was made. Plutarch (Ib.) describes the statues of Cæsar to have been, by those who would have suggested his assumption of royalty, diadńμασιν ἀναδεδεμένοι βασιλικοῖς. And it is out of the observance of this distinction that a statement in Suetonius (Cæs. 79), containing another version of the same incident, is to be explained. One places on his statue 'coronam lauream candidâ

fasciâ præligatam;' on which the tribunes of the people command to be removed, not the 'corona,' but the 'fascia;' this being the diadem, and that in which alone the traitorous suggestion that he should be proclaimed king, was contained.

How accurately the words are discriminated in the Septuagint may be seen by comparing in the First Book of Maccabees, in which only Stádnua occurs with any frequency, the passages in which this word is employed (such as i. 9; vi. 15; viii. 14; xi. 13, 54; xii. 39; xiii. 32), and those where στépavos appears (iv. 57; x. 29; xi. 35; xiii. 39: cf. 2 Macc. xiv. 4).

In respect of the N. T. there can be, of course, no doubt that whenever St. Paul speaks of crowning, and of the crown, it is always the crown of the conqueror, and not of the king, which he has in his eye. The two passages, 1 Cor. ix. 24—26; 2 Tim. ii. 5, place this beyond question. If St. Peter's allusion (1 Ep. v. 4) is not so directly to the Greek games, yet still the contrast which he tacitly draws, is a general one between the wreaths of heaven which never fade, the ȧpapávτivos στέφανος τῆς δόξης, and the garlands of earth which lose their beauty and freshness so soon. At Jam. i. 12; Rev. ii. 10; iii. 11; iv. 4, it is more probable that a reference is not intended to these Greek games; the alienation from which as idolatrous and profane was so deep on the part of the Jews (Josephus, Antt. xv. 8. 1-4), and no doubt also of the Jewish members of the Church, that an image drawn from the rewards of these games

would have been to them rather repulsive than attractive. Yet there also the orépavos, or the σTÉpavos Tŷs (wŶs, is the emblem, not of royalty, but of highest joy and gladness, of glory and immortality. We may feel the more confident that St. John in those passages from the Apocalypse did not intend kingly crowns, from the circumstance that on three occasions, where beyond a doubt he does mean such, diádnua is the word which he employs (Rev. xii. 3; xiii. 1 [cf. xvii. 9, 10, ai éπтà кepaλai Baoiλeîs Éπτá elow]; xix. 12). In this last verse it is sublimely said of Him who is King of kings and Lord of lords, that "on his head were many crowns (διαδήματα πολλά); an expression which, with all its magnificence, we find it hard to realize, so long as we picture to our mind's eye such crowns as at the present monarchs wear, but intelligible at once, when we contemplate them as diadems, that is, narrow fillets bound about the brow, such as Siadnμara will imply. These 66 many diadems" will then be the tokens of the many royalties—of earth, of heaven, and of hell (Phil. ii. 10)—which are his; royalties once usurped or assailed by the Great Red Dragon, the usurper of Christ's dignity and honour, described therefore with his seven diadems as well (xiii. 1), but now openly and for ever assumed by Him to whom they rightfully belong; just as, to compare earthly things with heavenly, we are told that when Ptolemy, king of Egypt, entered Antioch in triumph, he set two 'crowns' (diadńμata) on his head, the

'

'crown' of Asia, and the crown' of Egypt (1 Macc. xi. 13).

The only occasion on which σrépavos might seem to be used of a kingly crown is Matt. xxvii. 29, with its parallels in the other Gospels, where the weaving of the crown of thorns (στέφανος ȧkávovos), and placing it on the Saviour's head, is evidently a part of that blasphemous caricature of royalty which the Roman soldiers would fain compel Him to enact. But woven of such materials as it was, probably of the juncus marinus, or of the lycium spinosum, it is evident that diádnμa could not be applied to it; and the word, therefore, which was fittest in respect of the material whereof it was composed, takes place of that which would have been the fittest in respect of the purpose for which it was intended.

§ xxiv.—πλεονεξία, φιλαργυρία.

6

BETWEEN these two words the same distinction exists as between our covetousness' and 'avarice,' as between the German Habsucht' and 'Geiz.' Πλεονεξία is the more active sin, φιλαργυρία the more passive: the first, the " amor sceleratus habendi,' seeks rather to grasp what it has not, and in this way to have more; the second, to retain, and, by accumulating, to multiply that which it already has. The first, in its methods of acquiring, will be often bold and aggressive; even as it may, and often will, be as free in scattering and