urge the declarations of our Lord as leaving no room for any other meaning but theirs; but not as they now stand.

In agreement with this which has been said, in EXKúe is much more predominantly the sense of a drawing to a certain point, in σúpe merely of dragging after one; thus Lucian (De Merc. Cond. 3), likening a man to a fish already hooked and dragged through the water, describes him as σvpóμevov kaì πρὸς ἀνάγκην ἀγόμενον. Not seldom there will lie in σúpe the notion of this dragging being upon the ground, inasmuch as that will trail upon the ground (cf. σύρμα, σύρδην) which is forcibly dragged along with no will of its own; as for example, a dead body (Philo, In Flac. 21). A comparison of the uses of the two words at John xxi. 6, 8, 11, will be found entirely to bear out the distinction which has been here traced. In the first and last of these verses éλkúe is used; for in both a drawing of the net to a certain point is expressed; by the disciples to themselves in the

here quoted (In Ev. Joh. Tract. xxvi. 4): 'Nemo venit ad me, nisi quem Pater adtraxerit. Noli te cogitare invitum trahi; trahitur animus et amore. Nec timere debemus ne ab hominibus qui verba perpendunt, et a rebus maxime divinis intelligendis longe remoti sunt, in hoc Scripturarum sanctarun evangelico verbo forsitan reprehendamur, et dicatur nobis, Quomodo voluntate credo, si trahor? Ego dico: Parum est voluntate, etiam voluptate traheris. Porro si poetæ dicere licuit, Trahit sua quemque voluptas; non necessitas, sed voluptas; non obligatio, sed delectatio; quanto fortius nos dicere debemus, trahi hominem ad Christum, qui delectatur veritate, delectatur beatitudine, delectatur justitiâ, delectatur sempiternâ vitâ, quod totum Christus est ?'

ship, by Peter to himself upon the shore. But at ver. 8 ἑλκύειν is exchanged for σύρειν : for nothing is there intended but the dragging of the net which had been fastened to the ship, after it through the water. Our Version, it will be seen, has maintained the distinction; so too the German of De Wette, by aid of ' ziehen' (= éλÚew), and 'nachschleppen' ( σúpev), but neither the Vulgate, nor Beza, which both have forms of traho' throughout.

=

§ xxii.—ὁλόκληρος, τέλειος.

66

THESE words occur together, though their order is reversed, at Jam. i. 4,—“ perfect and entire;" óλókλnpos only once besides (1 Thess. v. 23); ¿λokληpía also, used however not in an ethical but a physical sense, once (Acts iii. 16; cf. Isa. i, 6). “Oλókλnpos signifies first, as is implied in the words which compose it, that which retains all allotted to it at the first, being thus whole and entire in all its parts, with nothing wanting that was necessary for its completeness. Thus unhewn stones, inasmuch as they have lost nothing in the process of shaping and polishing, are óλóλŋpor (Deut. xxvii. 6; 1 Macc. iv. 47); so too perfect weeks are ἑβδομάδες ὁλόκληροι (Deut. xvi. 9); and a man ἐν ὁλοκλήρῳ δέρματι, is ‘in a whole skin' (Lucian, Philops. 8). At the next step in the word's use we find it employed to express that integrity of body, with nothing redundant, nothing

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. Of. 1: ὁλόκληρον καὶ παντελῶς μώμων ȧμéтоxov: 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 oλóλŋpos in the Septuagint is Wisd. xν. 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. 'Oxókλnpos, 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 Téλeɩɩ, 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 νήπιοι ἐν Χριστῷ (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 waτépes of 1 John ii, 13, 14, as distinct from the veavíσKOL 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 TéλELOL 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 Téλetot of heathen initiation

had their name in like manner,

because those mys

teries 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 (Téλeios), 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

1 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.