deficient (Lev. xxi. 17—23), which was required of the Levitical priests as a condition of their ministering at the altar, which was needful also in the sacrifices they offered. In both these senses Josephus uses it (Antt. iii. 12. 2); as continually Philo, with whom it is the standing word for this integrity of the priests and of the sacrifice, to the necessity of which he often recurs, seeing in it, and rightly, a mystical significance, and that these are ὁλόκληροι θυσίαι ὁλοκλήρῳ Θεῷ (De Vict. 2 ; De Vict. Οf. 1: ὁλόκληρον καὶ παντελῶς μώμων ȧμéтoxov: De Agricul. 29; De Cherub. 28; cf. Plato, Legg. vi. 759 c). When we trace the history of the word, we find it following very much the same course as the 'integer' and 'integritas' of the Latins. Like these words, it was at its next step transferred from bodily to mental and moral entireness (Suetonius, Claud. 4). The only approach to this use of óórλnpos in the Septuagint is Wisd. χν. 3, ὁλόκληρος δικαιοσύνη : but in an interesting and important passage in the Phædrus of Plato (250 c; cf. the Timæus, 44 c), it is twice used to express the perfection of man before the fall; I mean, of course, the fall as Plato contemplated it when men were as yet ὁλόκληροι καὶ ἀπαθεῖς κακών, to whom, being such, ὁλόκληρα φάσματα were vouchsafed, as contrasted with those weak partial glimpses of the Eternal Beauty, which are all whereunto the greater part of men ever now attain. Oλókλnpos, then, is an epithet applied to a person or a thing that is 'omnibus numeris absolutus; and the ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι, which at

Jam. i. 4 follows it, must be taken as the epexegesis of the word.

Téλeos is a word of various applications, but all of them referable to the Téλos, which is its ground. They in a natural sense are réλetot, who are adult, having reached the full limit of stature, strength, and mental power appointed to them, who have in these respects attained their Téλos, as distinguished from the νέοι or παῖδες, young men or boys (Plato, Legg. xi. 929 c; Xenophon, Cyr. viii. 7. 6; Polybius, v. 29. 2); St. Paul, when he employs the word in an ethical sense, does it continually with this image of full completed growth, as contrasted with infancy and childhood, underlying his use, the Téλeo being by him set over against the viοi év Xρiσт (1 Cor. ii. 6; xiv. 20; Eph. iv. 13, 14; Phil. iii. 15; Heb. v. 14; cf. Philo, De Agricul. 2); being in fact the Taτépes of 1 John ii. 13, 14, as distinct from the veavíσKOι and Taidia. Nor is this application of the word to mark the religious growth and progress of men, confined to the Scripture. The Stoics distinguished the τέλειος in philosophy from the προκόπτων, with which we may compare 1 Chron. xxv. 8, where the τέλειοι are set over against the μανθάνοντες. With the heathen, those also were called Téλeio who had been initiated into the mysteries; the same thought being at work here as in the giving of the title Tò Téλelov to the Lord's Supper. This was so called, because in it was the fulness of Christian privilege, because there was nothing beyond it; and the Téλeo of heathen initiation

had their name in like manner, because those mysteries into which they were now introduced were the latest and crowning mysteries of all.

It will be seen that there is a certain ambiguity in our word 'perfect,' which, indeed, it shares with TéλELOS itself; this, namely, that they are both employed now in a relative, now in an absolute sense; for only out of this ambiguity could our Lord have said, "Be ye therefore perfect (TéλEii), as your Heavenly Father is perfect (Téλelos), Matt. v. 48; cf. xix. 21. The Christian shall be 'perfect,' yet not in the sense in which some of the sects preach the doctrine of perfection, who, so soon as their words are looked into, are found either to mean nothing which they could not have expressed by a word less liable to misunderstanding; or to mean something which no man in this life shall attain, and which he who affirms he has attained is deceiving himself, or others, or both. The faithful man shall be 'perfect,' that is, aiming by the grace of God to be fully furnished and firmly established in the knowledge and practice of the things of God (Jam. iii. 2; Col. iv. 12: τέλειος καὶ πεπληροφορημένος); not a babe in Christ to the end, "not always employed in the elements, and infant propositions and practices of religion, but doing noble actions, well skilled in the deepest mysteries of faith and holiness." In

On the sense in which perfection' is demanded of the Christian, there is a discussion at large by J. Taylor, Doctrine and Practice of Repentance, i. 3. 40-56, from which these words in inverted commas are drawn.

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 oλóλnpos is one who has preserved, or who, having lost, has regained his completeness; the réλecos 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. 'OλOTEλýs, 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,

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 distinction 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' (= ẻσTEpavouévos), 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