.ix: But, will not the original word itself throw some light upon this important question? The repenta~ce which is enjoined as a duty-the repentance which is unto salvation-the repentance which sinners un~ dergo when they pass to a state of acceptance with · God from a state of enmity against him-these are all one and the same thing, and are expressed by one and t,he same word in the original language of the New Testament. It is different from the word which expresses the repentance of sorrow; and if translated according to the parts of which it is corn~ posed, it signifies neither more nor less than a change o.frnind. This of itself is sufficient to prove the inadequacy of the term reformation-a term which is often applied to a man upon the mere change of his conduct, without ever adverting to the state of his mind, or 'to the kind of change in motive and in principle which it has undergone. It;_-Is true, that there can be no change in the conduct without some change in the inward principle. A reformed drunkard, before careless about health or fortune, may be so far changed as to become impressed with these considerations; but this change is evidently short of that which the Bible calls repentance to~ ward God. It is a change that may, and has taken place in many a minu, when there was no effectual sense of the God who is above us, and of the eter~ nity which is before us. It is a change; brought about by the prospect and the calculation of worldly advantages; and, in the enjoyment of these advan~ tages, it hath its sole rem.trd. But it is not done unto God, and God will not accept of it as done unto him. Reformation may signify nothing more than the mere surface-dressing of those decencies, and prop!ieties, .and acc?mplishments, and civil and pru~ dential duties, wh1ch, however fitted to secure a man's acceptance in society, may, one and all of the!?, consist with a heart ahenated from God, and havmg every principle and affection of the inner man away from him. True it is, such a chan~
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=