by the soul, remains extinguished between death and the resurrection, they remind us of the difference there is between absolute or real, and relative or apparent time. They admit, that if the apostle be understood as speaking of real time, what is said flatly contradicts their system; but, say they, his words must be interpreted as spoken only of apparent time. He talks, indeed, of entering on a state of enjoyment immediately after death, though there may be many thousands of years between the one and the other; for he means only, that when that state shall commence, however distant in reality, the time may be, the person entering on it will not be sensible of that distance, and consequently there will be to him an apparent coincidence with the moment of his death. But does the apostle anywhere hint that this is his meaning? or is it what any man would naturally discover from his words? That it is exceedingly remote from the common use of language, I believe hardly any of those who favour this scheme will be partial enough to deny. Did the sacred penmen then mean to put a cheat upon the world, and, by the help of an equivocal expression, to flatter men with the hope of entering, the instant they expire, on a state of felicity, when in fact they knew that it would be many ages before it would take place? But were the hypothesis about the extinction of the mind between death and the resurrection well founded, the apparent coincidence they speak of is not so clear as they seem to think it. For my part, I cannot regard it as an axiom, and I never heard of any who attempted to demonstrate it. To me it appears merely a corollary from Mr. Locke's doctrine, which derives our conceptions of time from the succession of our ideas, which, whether true or false, is a doctrine to be found only among certain philosophers, and which, we may reasonably believe, never came into the heads of those to whom the gospel in the apostolic age was announced.

I remark, thirdly, that even the curious equivocation (or, perhaps more properly, mental reservation) that has been devised for them, will not, in every case, save the credit of apostolical veracity. The words of Paul to the Corinthians are "Knowing, that whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord;" again, "We are willing rather to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord." Could such expressions have been used by him, if he had held it impossible to be with the Lord, or indeed anywhere, without the body; and that, whatever the change was which was made by death, he could not be in the presence of the Lord till he returned to the body? Absence from the body, and presence with the Lord were never, therefore, more unfortunately combined than in this illustration. Things are combined here as coincident, which, on the hypothesis of those gentlemen, are incompatible. If recourse be had to the original, the expressions in the Greek are, if pos

sible, still stronger. They are of evenμovvtes ev T owμari, those dwell in the body, who are εκδημουντες απο του Κυριου, at a distance from the Lord; as, on the contrary, they are, oi EkonμovvTES EK TOV σWμATOs, those who have travelled out of the body, who are οἱ ενδημούντες προς τον Κυριον, those who reside or are present with the Lord. In the passage to the Philippians also, the commencement of his presence with the Lord is represented as coincident, not with his return to the body, but with his leaving it; with the dissolution, not with the restoration, of the union.

The fourth and only other remark I shall make on this subject is, that, from the tenor of the New Testament, the sacred writers appear to proceed on the supposition, that the soul and the body are naturally distinct and separable, and that the soul is susceptible of pain or pleasure in a state of separation. It were endless to enumerate all the places which evince this. The story of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke xvi. 22, 23; the last words of our Lord upon the cross, ch. xxiii. 46, and of Stephen when dying; Paul's doubts whether he was in the body or out of the body, when he was translated to the third heaven and paradise, 2 Cor. xii. 2-4; our Lord's words to Thomas, to satisfy him that he was not a spirit, Luke xxiv. 39; and, to conclude, the express mention of the denial of spirits, as one of the errors of the Sadducees, Acts xxiii. 8, "For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit," μηδε αγγελον, μηδε πνευua: all these are irrefragable evidences of the general opinion on this subject of both Jews and Christians. By spirit, as distinguished from angel, is evidently meant the departed spirit of a human being; for that man is here, before his natural death, possessed of a vital and intelligent principle, which is commonly called his soul or spirit, it was never pretended that the Sadducees denied. It has been said, that this manner of expressing themselves has been adopted by the apostles and evangelists, merely in conformity to vulgar notions. To me it appears a conformity, which (if the sacred writers entertained the sentiments of our antagonists on this article) is hardly reconcilable to the known simplicity and integrity of their character. It savours much more of the pious frauds which became common afterwards, to which I own myself unwilling to ascribe so ancient and so respectable an origin. See Part I. of this Dissertation, sect. 10.

24. I shall subjoin a few words on the manner wherein the distinction has been preserved between hades and gehenna by the translators of the New Testament; for, as I observed before, gehenna, as a name for the place of future punishment, does not occur in the Old. All the Latin translations I have seen observe the distinction: all without exception adopt the word gehenna, though they do not all uniformly translate hades. Both the Geneva French and Diodati have followed the same method. Luther, on the contrary, in his German version, has uniformly

γεννα

confounded them, rendering both by the word holle. The English translators have taken the same method, and rendered both the Greek names by the name hell, except in one single place, (1 Cor. xv. 55,) where gone is translated grave. Most foreign versions observe the difference. So do some of the late English translators, but not all. The common method of distinguishing hitherto observed has been to retain the word gehenna, and translate hades either hell or grave, as appeared most to suit the context. I have chosen in this version to reverse that method, to render yɛɛvva always hell, and to retain the word hades. My reasons are, first, though English ears are not entirely familiarized to either terms, they are much more so to the latter than to the former, in consequence of the greater use made of the latter in theological writings. Secondly, the import of the English word hell, when we speak as Christians, answers exactly to Yɛɛvva not to adns; whereas, to this last word we have no term in the language corresponding. Accordingly, though in my judgment it is not one of those terms which admit different meanings, there has been very little uniformity preserved by translators in rendering it.

μαι,

PART III.

Μετανοεω AND Μεταμελομαι.

I SHALL now offer a few remarks on two words, that are uniformly rendered by the same English word in the common version, between which there appears, notwithstanding, to be a real difference in signification. The words are μετανοεw and μεταμελοuai, I repent. It has been observed by some, and I think with reason, that the former denotes properly a change to the better; the latter barely a change, whether it be to the better or to the worse that the former marks a change of mind that is durable and productive of consequences; the latter expresses only a present uneasy feeling of regret or sorrow for what is done, without regard either to duration or to effects: in fine, that the first may properly be translated into English I reform; the second, I repent, in the familiar acceptation of the word.

2. The learned Grotius, (whose judgment in critical questions is highly respectable,) is not convinced that this distinction is well founded. And I acknowledge, that he advances some plausible things in support of his opinion. But But as I have not found them satisfactory, I shall assign my reasons for thinking differently. Let it in the first place be observed, that the import of μɛraueλoμaι, in the explanation given, being more extensive or generical than that of μετανοεω, it may in many cases be used without impropriety for μeravoεw; though the latter, being more

limited and special in its acceptation, cannot so properly be employed for the former. The genus includes the species, not the

species the genus.

3. Admitting therefore, that in the expression in the parable quoted by Grotius in support of his opinion, ύστερον δε μεταμεληθείς anλ0, "afterwards he repented and went," Matt. xxi. 29, the word μeravonσas would have been apposite, because the change μετανοησας spoken of is to the better, and had an effect on his conduct; still the word μtraueλouaι is not improper, no more than the English word repented, though the change, as far as it went, was a real reformation. Every one who reforms, repents; but every one who repents, does not reform. I use the words entirely according to the popular idiom, and not according to the definitions of theologians; nay, I say further, that in this instance the Greek word μεταμέλομαι is more proper than μετανοεω, and the English repent than reform. The reason is, because the latter expression in each language is not so well adapted to a single action as to a habit of acting, whereas the former may be equally applied to either. Now it is only one action that is mentioned in the parable.

66

"He

4. In regard to the other passage quoted by Grotius, to show that μeravoia also is used where, according to the doctrine above explained, it ought to be μeraueλea, I think he has not been more fortunate than in the former. The passage is Hebrews xii. 17, where it is said of Esau, "Ye know that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected. For he found no place of repentance,” μετανοιας τοπον ουχ εύρε, “ though he sought it carefully with tears." Grotius, in his comment on the place, acknowledges that the word uɛravoia is not used here literally, but by a metonymy of the effect for the cause. found no scope for effecting a change in what had been done, a revocation of the blessing given to Jacob, with a new grant of it to himself, or at least of such a blessing as might in a great measure supersede or cancel the former." This change was what he found no possibility of effecting, however earnestly and movingly he sought it. It is plain, that neither μɛravota nor μɛTaμɛɛa in their ordinary acceptation, expresses this change. For that it was not any repentance or reformation on himself which he found no place for, is manifest both from the passage itself and from the story to which it refers. From the construction of the words we learn, that what Esau did not find, was what he sought carefully with tears. Now, what he sought carefully with tears was, as is evident from the history, (Gen. xxvii. 30, &c.) such a change in his father as I have mentioned. This was what he urged so affectingly, and this was what he, notwithstanding, found it impossible to obtain. Now I acknowledge, that it is only by a trope that this can be called either μɛravoia or μɛTaμEλɛia. That it was not literally the regret or grief implied μεταμέλεια.

VOL. I.

in ueraueλea that he sought, is as clear as day, since the manner in which he applied to his father, showed him to be already possessed of the most pungent grief for what had happened. Nay, it appears from the history, that the good old patriarch, when he discovered the deceit that had been practised on him, was very strongly affected also; for it is said, that Isaac "trembled very exceedingly," Gen. xxvii. 33. Now, as μɛravola implies a change of conduct, as well as sorrow for what is past, it comes nearer the scope of the sacred writer than μeraueλeia. If, therefore, there is some deviation from strict propriety in the word μɛravota here used, it is unquestionable, that to substitute in its place μeraμeλeia, and represent Esau as seeking, in the bitterness of grief, that he, or even his father, might be grieved, would include, not barely an impropriety, or deviation from the literal import, but an evident absurdity.

5. Passing these examples, which are all that have been produced on that side, are the words in general so promiscuously used by sacred writers, (for it is only about words which seldom occur in Scripture that we need recur to the usage of profane authors,) as that we cannot with certainty, or at least with probability mark the difference? Though I do not believe this to be the case, yet, as I do not think the matter so clear as in the supposed synonymas already discussed, I shall impartially and briefly state what appears to me of weight on both sides.

6. First, in regard to the usage of the Seventy, it cannot be denied that they employ the two words indiscriminately; and, if the present inquiry were about the use observed in their version, we could not with justice say, that they intended to mark any distinction between them. They are, besides, used indifferently in translating the same Hebrew words, so that there is every appearance that with them they were synonymous. But, though the use of the Seventy adds considerable strength to any argument drawn from the use of the New Testament writers, when the usages of both are the same, or even doubtful; yet, when they differ, the former, however clear, cannot, in a question which solely concerns the use that prevails in the New Testament, invalidate the evidence of the latter. We know, that in a much shorter period than that which intervened between the translation of the Old Testament and the composition of the New, some words may become obsolete, and others may considerably alter in signification. It is comparatively but a short time (being less than two centuries) that has intervened between the making of our own version and the present hour; and yet, in regard to the language of that version, both have already happened, as shall be shown afterward. Several of its words are antiquated, and others bear a different meaning now from what they did then.

7. Let us therefore recur to the use of the New Testament. * Diss. XI. Part ii. sect. 5, &c.