word is sometimes in Scripture, as at Eph. v. 3 (where see the commentary of Jerome), continually by the Greek Fathers (see Suicer, Thes. s. v.), employed to designate these sins themselves; even as the root out of which they alike grow, namely, the fierce and ever fiercer longing of the creature which has turned from God, to fill itself with the inferior objects of sense, is one and the same. The monsters of lust among the Roman emperors were monsters of covetousness as well (Suetonius, Calig. 38-41). Contemplated under this aspect, Tλeoveĝia has a much wider and deeper sense than φιλαργυρία. Take the sublime commentary on the word which Plato (Gorg. 493) supplies, where he likens the desire of man to the sieve or pierced vessel of the Danaids, which they were ever filling, but might never fill; and it is not too much to say, that the whole longing of the creature, as it has itself abandoned God, and by a just retribution is abandoned by Him, to stay its hunger with the swines' husks, instead of the children's bread which it has left, is contained in this word.

1

§ χχν.-βόσκω, ποιμαίνω.

WHILE both these words are often employed in a figurative and spiritual sense in the Old Testa'It is evident that the same comparison had occurred to Shakspeare:

"The cloyed will,

That satiate yet unsatisfied desire,
That tub both fill'd and running."

Cymbeline, Act i. Sc. 7.

ment, as at 1

Ps. lxxvii. 72;

Chron. xii. 16; Ezek. xxxiv. 3; Jer. xxiii. 2; and Toμaivew often in the New; the only occasions in the latter, where Bóoke is so used, are John xxi. 15, 17. There our Lord, giving to St. Peter that thrice-repeated commission to feed his "lambs" (ver. 15), his "sheep" (ver. 16), and again his "sheep" (ver. 17), uses, on the first occasion, Bóσke, on the second, ποίμαινε, and returns again to βόσκε on the third. This return, on the third and last repetition of the charge, to the word employed on the first, has been a strong argument with some for the entire indifference of the words. They have urged, and with a certain show of reason, that Christ could not have had progressive aspects of the pastoral work in his intention, nor have purposed to indicate them here, else He would not have come back in the end to Bóoke, the same word with which He began. Yet I cannot believe the variation of the words to have been without a motive, any more than the changes, in the same verses, from ἀγαπᾶν το φιλεῖν, from ἀρνία to πρόβατα. It is true that our Version, rendering Bóoke and Toμaive alike by "Feed," has not attempted to reproduce the variation, any more than the Vulgate, which, on each occasion, has 'Pasce;' nor do I perceive any resources of language by which either the Latin Version or our own could have helped themselves here. It might be more possible in German, by aid of 'weiden' (= ẞóσxew), and βόσκειν), 'hüten' (= Toμaívei); De Wette, however, has 'weiden' throughout.

The distinction, although thus not capable of being easily reproduced in all languages, is very far from fanciful, is indeed a most real one. Вóσkw, the same word as the Latin 'pasco,' is simply to feed;' but Toμaivo involves much more; the whole office of the shepherd, the entire leading, guiding, guarding, folding of the flock, as well as the finding of nourishment for it. Thus Lampe: Hoc symbolum totum regimen ecclesiasticum comprehendit;' and Bengel: 'Bóσkel est pars τοῦ ποιμαίνειν. Out of a sense continually felt, of a shadowing forth in the shepherd's work of the highest ministries of men for the weal of their fellows, and of the peculiar fitness which it has for setting forth the same, it has been often transferred to their office, who are, or should be, the faithful guides and guardians of the people committed to their charge. Kings, in Homer, are Toiμéves λaŵv: cf. 2 Sam. v. 2; vii. 7, Nay more, in Scripture God Himself is a Shepherd (Isa. xl. 11); and David can use no words which shall so well express his sense of the Divine protection as these: Kúpios Toiμaívei μe (Ps. xxiii. 1); nor does the Lord take anywhere a higher title than ỏ TOLμὴν ὁ καλός (John x. 11; cf. 1 Pet. v. 4, ὁ ἀρχι ποιμήν: Heb. xiii. 20, ὁ μέγας ποιμὴν τῶν πρоßáτwν); nor give a higher than that implied in this word to his ministers. Compare the sublime passage in Philo, De Agricul. 12, beginning: οὕτω μέντοι τὸ ποιμαίνειν ἐστὶν ἀγαθὸν, ὥστε οὐ βασιλεῦσι μόνον καὶ σοφοῖς ἀνδράσι, καὶ ψυχαῖς τέλεια κεκαθαρμέναις, ἀλλὰ καὶ Θεῷ τῷ πανη

H

γεμόνι δικαίως ἀνατίθεται: with the three sections preceding.

Still, it may be asked, if Touaíve be thus the ποιμαίνειν higher word, and if Toiμaive was therefore superadded upon Bóoke, because it was so, and because it implied so many further ministries of care and tendance, why does it not appear in the last, which must be also the most solemn, commission given by the Lord to Peter? how are we to account, if this be true, for his returning to ẞóσke again? I cannot doubt that in Stanley's Sermons and Essays on the Apostolical Age, p. 138, the right answer is given. The lesson, in fact, which we learn from this his coming back to the Bóoke with which He had begun, is a most important one, and one which the Church, and all that bear rule in the Church, have need diligently to lay to heart; this namely, that whatever else of discipline and rule may be superadded thereto, still, the feeding of the flock, the finding for them of spiritual nourishment, is the first and last; nothing else will supply the room of this, nor may be allowed to put this out of its foremost and most important place. How often, in a false ecclesiastical system, the preaching of the word loses its preeminence; the Bookev falls into the background, is swallowed up in the Toiμaíveiv, which presently becomes no true ποιμαίνειν, because it is not a βόσκειν as well, but such a 'shepherding' rather as God's Word, by the prophet Ezekiel, has denounced (xxxiv. 2, 3, 8, 10; cf. Zech. xiii. 15—17; Matt. xxiii.).

§ xxvi.—ζῆλος, φθόνος.

THESE words are often joined together; they are so by St. Paul, Gal. v. 20, 21; by Clemens Romanus, 1 Ep. ad Cor. 3, 4, 5; and by classical writers as well; as, for instance, by Plato, Phil. 47 e; Legg. iii. 679 c; Menex. 242 a. Still, there are differences between them; and this first, that ζῆλος is a μέσον, being used sometimes in a good (as John ii. 17; Rom. x. 2; 2 Cor. ix. 2), sometimes, and in Scripture oftener, in an evil sense (as Acts v. 17; Rom. xiii. 13; Gal. v. 20; Jam. iii. 14); while 40óvos is not capable of a good, but is used always and only in an evil, signification. When λos is taken in good part, it signifies the honorable emulation, with the consequent imitation, of that which presents itself to the mind as excellent (Lucian, Adv. Indoct. 17, λos TŴV ἀρίστων: Herodian, ii. 4, ζῆλος καὶ μίμησις: vi. 8, YNλWτÈS KaÌ μIμnτns). It is the Latin ‘æmulatio,' in which nothing of envy is of necessity included, however it is possible that such in it, as in our ' emulation,' may find place; the German Nacheiferung,' as distinguished from 'Eifersucht.' The verb æmulor,' as is well known, finely expresses the difference between worthy and unworthy emulation, governing an accusative in cases where the first, a dative where the second, is intended.

6

6

6

By Aristotle os is employed exclusively in this nobler sense (Rhet. ii. 11), to signify the active emulation which grieves, not that another has the