And here I observe, first, that where this change of mind is inculcated as a duty, or the necessity of it mentioned as a doctrine of Christianity, the terms are invariably μετανοεω and μετανοια. Thus, John the Baptist and our Lord both began their preaching, with this injunction, μɛravoɛlte, Matt. iii. 2, iv. 17. The disciples that were sent out to warn and prepare men for the manifestation of the Messiah, are said to have gone and preached iva μeravonowo, Mark vi. 12. The call which the apostles gave to all hearers was, μετανοήσατε, και επιστρέψατε, και βαπτισθητω ÉKασToç vμæv, reform your lives, return to God, and be baptized; Acts ii. 38, iii. 19. Peter's command to Simon Magus, on disco vering the corruption of his heart, is μετανόησον απο της κακιας Taurns, chap. viii. 22. When it is mentioned as an order from God, παραγγελλει τοις ανθρωποις πασι πανταχου μετανοειν, chap. xvii. 30. The duty to which Paul every-where exhorted was, μετανοειν και επιστρέφειν επι τον Θεον, chap. xxvi. 20. The charge to reformation given to the Asiatic churches in the Apoca lypse, is always expressed by the word_ueravonσov, and their failure in this particular by ou μerevonσe, Rev. ii. and iii. passim. The necessity of this change for preventing final ruin, is thus repeatedly expressed by our Lord, Eαν μη μετανοήτε, παντες απο Aloe, Luke xiii. 3, 5. And, in regard to the noun, wherever mention is made of this change as a duty, it is μɛravota, not μɛтаμελεια. It was εις μετανοιαν that our Lord came to call sinners, Matt. ix. 13; the baptism which John preached was Barrioμa μɛravotaç, Mark i. 4. The fruits of a good life, which he enjoined them to produce, were agious μeTavolas, Matt. iii. 8. What the apostles preached to all nations, in their Master's name, as inseparably connected, were μετανοιαν και αφεσιν ἁμαρτιων, Luke xxiv. 47. Again, it is given as the sum of their teaching, rny Ele τον Θεον μετανοιαν, και πιστιν εις τον Κυριον ήμων Ιησουν ΧριςTOV, Acts xx. 21. The same word is employed when the offer of such terms is exhibited as the result of divine grace; chap. xi. 18. Now, in a question of criticism, it is hardly possible to find stronger evidence of the distinction than that which has now been produced. 8. There is a great difference between the mention of any thing as a duty, especially of that consequence that the promises or threat of religion depend on the performance or neglect of it, and the bare recording of an event as fact. In the former, the words ought to be as special as possible, that there may be no mistake in the application of the promise, no pretence for saying that more is exacted than was expressed in the condition. But, in relating facts, it is often a matter of indifference whether the terms be general or special. Provided nothing false be added, it is not expected that every thing true should be included. This is the less necessary when, in the sequel of a story, circumstances are mentioned which supply any defect arising from the generality of the terms. Under this description may be included both the passage formerly considered, ύστερον μεταμεληθεις απηλθε; and that other connected with it, in the reproach pronounced against the Pharisees for their impenitence and incredulity under the Baptist's ministry, ου μετεμελήθητε ύστερον, του πίστευσαι αυτῳ, Matt. xxi. 32. The last clause in each perfectly ascertains the import of the sentence, and supplies every defect. 9. Let it further be observed, that when such a sorrow is alluded to, as either was not productive of reformation, or, in the nature of the thing, does not imply it, the words μɛTavola and μετάνοια μɛravoε are never used. Thus the repentance of Judas, which drove him to despair, is expressed by μeraμeλndes, Matt. xxvii. 3. When Paul, writing to the Corinthians, mentions the sorrow his former letter had given them, he says, that, considering the good effects of that sorrow, he does not repent that he had written it, though he had formerly repented. Here no more can be understood by his own repentance spoken of, but that uneasiness which a good man feels, not from the consciousness of having done wrong, but from a tenderness for others, and a fear lest that which, prompted by duty, he had said, should have too strong an effect upon them. This might have been the case without any fault in him, as the consequence of a reproof depends much on the temper with which it is received. His words are, Ει ελυπησα ύμας εν τη επιστολή ου μεταμελομαι, ει και μετεμελομην, 2 Cor. vii. 8. As it would have made nonsense of the passage to have rendered the verb in English reformed instead of repented, the verb ueravoεw instead of μeraueλouaι would have been improper in Greek. μετανύξω There is one passage in which this apostle has in effect employed both words, and in such a manner as clearly shows the difference. Η κατα Θεον λυπη μετανοιαν εις σωτηρίαν αμεταμεANTOV KATEρYALεral, 2 Cor. vii. 10; in the common version, "Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of." There is a paronomasia here, or play upon the word repent, which is not in the original. As both words, μεтavoεw and μεтαμɛλoua, are uniformly translated by the same English word, this figure of speech could hardly have been avoided in the common version. Now, had the two words been also synonymous in Greek, (as that trope when it comes in the way is often adopted by the sacred writers,) it had been more natural to say uɛraVOLAV AμɛTAVORτον. Whereas the change of the word plainly shows, that, in the apostle's judgment, there would have been something incongruous in that expression. In the first word, μɛravolav, is expressed the effect of godly sorrow, which is reformation, a duty required by our religion as necessary to salvation. In the other, auɛraμeλntov, 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 aμeraueλnroç comes to signify steady, immutable, irrevocable. This is evidently the meaning of it in that expression, Αμεταμελητα τα χαρισματα και ἡ κλησις του Θεου, Rom. xi. 29, which our translators render, "the gifts and callings of God are without repentance;" more appositely and perspicuously, are irrevocable. For this reason the word μɛraueλoμat is used when the sentence relates to the constancy or immutability of God. Thus, Ωμοσε Κύριος και ου μεταμεληθησεται, Heb. vii. 21, “The Lord hath sworn and will not repent," that is, alter his purpose. 66 The word auɛravonrov, 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, kata τŋv σκληρότητα σου και αμετανοητον καρδιαν, " After thy hardness and impenitent," or irreclaimable, "heart," Rom. ii. 5. The word auɛravonros, in the New Testament style, ought analogically to express a wretched state, as it signifies the want of that uɛravola, which the gospel every-where represents as the indispensable duty of the lapsed, and therefore as essential to their becoming Christians; but the term aueraueλnTov is nowise fitted to this end, as it expresses only the absence of that ueraueλeta, which is nowhere 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. 10. Having now ascertained the distinction, it may be asked, how the words ought to be discriminated in a translation? In my opinion, μɛravoEw, in most cases, particularly where it is expressed as a command or mentioned as a duty, should be rendered by the English verb reform; μeтavoia, by reformation; and that μεταμέλομαι ought to be translated repent. Μεταμελεια is defined by Phavorinus δυσαρεστησις επι πεπραγμενοις, dissatisfaction with one's self for what one has done, which exactly hits the meaning of the word repentance; whereas μɛTavola is defined yvnoιa año πταισματων επι το εναντιον αγαθόν επιστροφη, and ἡ προς το κρειτTOV EжLOTOOÓN, a genuine correction of faults, and a change from worse to better. We cannot more exactly define 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 accommodated 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 tech nical 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, Matt. xi. 25. The learned use is known, comparatively, but to 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 sudden 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 μɛravoεw 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: 'Η κατα Θεον λυπη μετάνοιαν κατεργάζεται, 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 μέτανοια is another. But it is certain that our word repentance implies no more in common use, even in its best sense, than ǹ kaта ĐƐоν λνπη, and often not so much. It is consequently not a just interpretation of the Greek word μετανοια, which is not ἡ κατα Θεον λύπη, 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 μɛrauens, 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 μεταμελεσθε, 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 μeraμeλoμau, 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. Mɛravov is rendered a thub, to reform, to return to God, to amend one's life; μeravoia, nan thebutha, reformation; μɛraμeλeodaι is rendered on 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 μετανοια is penitentia, for μετανοεw and μεταμελομai, indiscriminately, pœnitentiam ago, pœnitentiam habeo, pœniteo, or me pœnitet. These can hardly be said to express more than the English words repentance and repent. MeTavolav auεтαμεANTOV is not improperly rendered pænitentiam stabilem, agreeably to an acceptation of the term above taken notice of. Beza, one of the most noted, and by Protestants most imitated of all the Latin translators since the Reformation, has carefully observed the distinction wherever it was of consequence; for, as I remarked, there are a few cases in which either term might have been used in the original, and concerning which a translator must be directed by the idiom of the tongue in which he writes. The same distinction had been made before, though not with perfect uniformity, by the translators of Zuric. Beza's word for μεTavoεw is resipisco, and for ueTavola, resipiscentia. To this last term he was led both by analogy and (if not by classical authority) by the authority of early ecclesiastical writers, which in the translation of holy writ is authority sufficient. These words have this advantage of poenitere and pœnitentia, that they always denote a change of some continuance, and a change to the better. For μεταμελομαι his word is panitere. Thus μεταμεληθεις, spoken of Judas, is poenitens: MeTavolav аμɛтаμɛλптov, resipiscentiam cujus nunquam pœniteat, in which the force of both words is very well expressed. So is also ausravonтоv Kaрdiav, cor quod resipiscere nescit. Erasmus, one of the earliest translators on the Romish side, uses both resipisco and pœnitentiam ago, but with no discrimination. They are not only both employed in rendering the same word μeravoεw, but even when the scope is the same. Thus μετ μετανοεω, TAVOETE, in the imperative, is at one time resipiscite, at another pænitentiam agite: so that his only view seems to have been to diversify his style. Castalio, one of the most eminent Latin Protestant translators, has been sensible of the distinction, and careful to preserve it in his version. But as his great aim was to give a classical air to the books of Scripture, in order to engage readers of taste who |