2

first word uɛtavolav, is expressed the effect of godly sorrow, which is reformation, a duty required by our religion as necessary to salvation. In the other auɛтaμɛλntov, there is no allusion to a further reformation, but to a further change, it being only meant to say, that the reformation effected is such as shall never be regretted, never repented of. As into the import of this word there enters no consideration of goodness or badness, but barely of change, from whatever motive or cause; the word auɛtauɛλntos comes to signify steady, immutable, irrevocable. This is evidently the meaning of it in that expression, Αμεταμελητα τα χαρισματα και η xλnois T8 Oɛ8 136, which our translators render, the gifts and calling of God are without repentance; more appositely and perspicuously, are irrevocable. For this reason the word uɛtauɛλquai is used when the sentence relates to the constancy or immutability of God. Thus Ωμοσε Κύριος και ου μεταμεληθησεTai 137: The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, that is, alter his purpose.

The word austavontov, on the contrary, including somewhat of the sense of its primitive, expresses not, as the other, unchanged or unchangeable, but unreformed, unreformable, impenitent. The Apostle says, addressing himself to the obstinate infidel, κατα την σκληρότητα σε και αμετανοητον καρδιαν 38. After thy hardness and impenitent, or irreclaimable heart. The word aueravontos, in the New Testa

136 Rom. xi. 29.

137 Heb. vii. 21.

138 Rom. ii. 5.

ment style, ought analogically to express a wretched state, as it signifies the want of that uetavola, which the Gospel every where represents as the indispensable duty of the lapsed, and therefore as essential to their becoming Christians: but the term ausraμɛAntov is no-way fitted to this end, as it expresses only the absence of that μeraμɛλea, which is no-where represented as a virtue, or required as a duty, and which may be good, bad, or indifferent, according to its object. Thus I have shown, that on every pertinent occasion, the distinction is sacredly observed by the penmen of the New Testament, and that the very few instances in which it may appear otherwise at first glance, are found to be no exceptions when attentively examined.

it

10. HAVING now ascertained the distinction, may be asked, How the words ought to be discriminated in a translation? In my opinion, ustavoew, in most cases, particularly where it is expressed as a command, or mentioned as a duty, should be rendered by the English verb reform, μɛtavola, by reformation; and that μeraueλoμaι ought to be translated repent. Mɛτaμɛɛa is defined by Phavorinus δυσαρεςησις επι πεπραγμενοις, dissatisfaction with one's self, for what one has done, which exactly hits the meaning of the word repentance; whereas μετάνοια is defined γνησια απο πταισματων επι το εναντιον αγαθον επιςροφή, and η προς το κρειττον εл5ρоon, a genuine correction of faults, and a change from worse to better. We cannot more exactly de

fine the word reformation. It may be said that, in using the terms repent and repentance, as our translators have done, for both the original terms, there is no risk of any dangerous error; because, in the theological definitions of repentance, given by almost all parties, such a reformation of the disposition is included, as will infallibly produce a reformation of conduct. This, however, does not satisfy. Our Lord and his Apostles accomodated themselves in their style to the people whom they addressed, by employing words according to the received and vulgar idiom, and not according to the technical use of any learned doctors. It was not to such that this doctrine was revealed, but to those who, in respect of acquired knowledge, were babes 139. The learned use is known, comparatively, but to a few: and it is certain that with us, according to the common acceptation of the words, a man may be said just as properly to repent of a good, as of a bad, action. A covetous man will repent of the alms which a sud. den fit of pity may have induced him to bestow. Besides, it is but too evident, that a man may often justly be said to repent, who never reforms. In neither of these ways do I find the word ueravoɛw ever used.

I have another objection to the word repent. It unavoidably appears to lay the principal stress on the sorrow or remorse which it implies for former misconduct. Now this appears a secondary matter, at

the most, and not to be the idea suggested by the Greek verb. The primary object is a real change of conduct. The Apostle expressly distinguishes it from sorrow, in a passage lately quoted, representing it as what the sorrow, if of a godly sort, terminates in, or produces. Ἡ κατα Θεον λυπη μετανοιαν κατεργα Zeta, rendered in the common version, Godly sorrow worketh repentance. Now, if he did not mean to say that the thing was caused by itself, or that repentance worketh, repentance (and who will charge him with this absurdity ?) ἡ κατα Θεον λυπη is one thing, and μetavola is another. But it is certain that our word repentance' implies no more in common use, even in its best sense, than xaτα Oɛov λván, and often not so much. It is consequently not a just interpretation of the Greek word μetavola, which is not ἡ κατα Θεον λυπη, but its certain consequence. Grief or remorse, compared with this, is but an accidental circumstance. Who had more grief than Judas, whom it drove to despondency and self-destruction? To him the Evangelist applies very properly the term μεταμεληθεις, which we as properly translate repented. He was in the highest degree dissatisfied with himself. But, to show that a great deal more is necessary in the Christian, neither our Lord himself, as we have seen, nor his forerunner John, nor his Apostles and ministers who followed, ever expressed themselves in this manner, when recommending to their hearers the great duties of Christianity. They never called out to the people, uɛтaμɛɛodɛ, but always μετανοείτε. If they were so attentive to this

distinction, in order to prevent men, in so important an article, from placing their duty in a barren remorse, however violent; we ought not surely to express this capital precept of our religion, by a term that is just as well adapted to the case of Judas, as to that of Peter. For the Greek word ueraueλquaι, though carefully avoided by the inspired writers, in expressing our duty, is fully equivalent to the English word repent.

§ 11. I SHALL now, ere I conclude this subject, consider briefly in what manner some of the principal translators have rendered the words in question into other languages. I shall begin with the Syriac, being the most respectable, on the score of antiquity, of all we are acquainted with. In this venerable version, which has served as a model to interpreters in the East, in like manner as the Vulgate has served. to those in the West, the distinction is uniformly preserved. Metavov is rendered thub, to reform, to return to God, to amend one's life; μetavola thebutha, reformation; uɛτaμɛɛodai is rendered N thua, to repent, to be sorry for what one has done. Nor are these Syriac words ever confounded as synonymous, except in the Apocalypse, which, though now added in the printed editions, is no part of that ancient translation, but was made many centuries after.

The second place in point of antiquity is, no doubt, due to the Vulgate, where, I acknowledge, there is no distinction made. The usual term for μɛtavola