127 wherever mention is made of this change as a duty, it is μετανοια, not μεταμέλεια. It was εις μετανοιαν that our Lord came to call sinners 126; the baptism which John preached was βαπτισμα μετανοίας The fruits of a good life, which he enjoined them to produce, were αξίας μετάνοιας 128. What the Apostles preached to all nations, in their Master's name, as inseparably connected, were μετανοιαν και αφεσιν αμαρτιων 120. Again it is given as the sum of their teaching, την εις τον Θεον μετανοιαν, και πίςιν εις τον Κυριον ημων Ιησουν Χριςον 130. The same word is employed when the offer of such terms is exhibited as the result of divine grace 131. 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 threats 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, 126 Matth. ix. 13. 130 Acts, xx. 21. 127 Mark, i. 4. 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, ύςερον 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, 8 μετεμελήθητε ἱςερον T8 Augɛvodi avto 132. 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 eTavola and μɛravoɛw are never used. Thus the repentance of Judas, which drove him to despair, is expressed by μeraueλn0S 133. 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 ten 132 Matth. xxi. 32. 133 Matth. xxvii. 3. derness 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 ὑμας εν τη επιςολή ου μεταμέλομαι ει και μετεμελόμην 134 As it would have made nonsense of the passage to have rendered the verb in English, reformed instead of repented, the verb μετανοεω instead of μεταμέλομαι, would have been improper in Greek. There is one passage in which this Apostle has, in effect, employed both words, and in such a man. ner, as clearly shows the difference. 'H xata Oɛov λυπη μετάνοιαν εις σωτηρίαν αμεταμέλητον κατεργαζεται yaseta 135 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 μετανοεω and μεταμέλομαι 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 μετανοιαν αμετανοητον. 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 134 2 Cor. vii. 8. Verse 10. first word μɛtavolav, is expressed the effect of godly sorrow, which is reformation, a duty required by our religion as necessary to salvation. In the other auɛtaμɛλntov, 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 austaμɛλntos comes to signify steady, immutable, irrevocable. This is evidently the meaning of it in that expression, Αμεταμελητα τα χαρισματα και η KANOIS TO Oε8 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 uɛrauɛλoμat 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. ται The word austavontov, on the contrary, including somewhat of the sense of its primitive, expresses not, as the other, unchanged or unchangeable, but unreformed, unreformab.e, 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 ausravintos, 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 μetavola, which the Gospel every where represents as the indispensable duty of the lapsed, and therefore as essential to their becoming Christians: but the term austauɛAntov is no-way fitted to this end, as it expresses only the absence of that μeraueλea, 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, μɛtavoɛw, in most cases, particularly where it is expressed as a command, or mentioned as a duty, should be rendered by the English verb reform, usτavoia, by refor mation; and that μeraμɛλoμa ought to be tran slated repent. Meτauɛɛa 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 εναντίον αγαθόν επιςροφη, and η προς το κρειττον εлspoon, a genuine correction of faults, and a change from worse to better. We cannot more exactly de |