gle place 112 where adns 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 term, 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 γεεννα, not to αδης ; 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.

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

112 1 Cor. xv. 55.

appears, notwithstanding, to be a real difference in signification. The words are μετανοεw and μεταμελο uai, 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 as I have not found them satisfactory, I shall assign my reasons for thinking differently. Let it, in the first place, be observ.. ed, that the import of μeraueλouau, in the explanation given, being more extensive or generical, than that of μɛtavoɛw, it may, in many cases, be used, without μετανοεω, impropriety, for μeτavoεw; 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, ύςερον δε μεταμεληθεις απηλθε, afterwards he repented and went 113, the word μeravonoas would have been apposite, because the change spoken of is to the better, and had an effect on his conduct; still the word μɛrauɛλoua 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 μeraueλoμαi is more proper than μɛtavoɛw, 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.

§ 4. In regard to the other passage quoted by Grotius, to show that uɛTavola also is used where, according to the doctrine above explained, it ought to be μɛτaμɛɛa, I think he has not been more fortunate than in the former. The passage is, where it is said of Esau 114, Ye know that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected. For he found no place of repentance, μετανοιας τοπον

113 Matth. xxi. 29.

114 Heb. xii. 17.

ovx Eupe, though he sought it carefully with tears. Grotius, in his comment on the place, acknowledges that the word uɛtavola is not used here literally, but by a metonymy of the effect for the cause. 'He '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, su'persede 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 μετανοια, nor μεταμελεια, 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 115, 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 μετανοια or μεταμέ 2ɛa. That it was not literally the regret or grief λεια. implied in μɛtauɛλea 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

115 Gen. xxvii. 30, &c.

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 116, that Isaac trembled very exceedingly. Now, as μɛTavola implies a change of conduct, as well as sorrow for what is past, it comes nearer the scope of the sacred writer than ueraueλea. If, therefore, there is some deviation from strict propriety, in the word μɛTavola here used, it is unquestionable that, to substitute in its place μerauɛɛia, 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.