Faith is not repentance;

Godly sorrow produces repentance;

Meta in composition means change, and

Metanoeo does not in the New Testament signify to think with.

With respect to his first point, the proposition that "Faith is not repentance" is so self-evident, as to leave no room for dispute. I never said it was, nor affirmed anything like it; so that the Doctor need not have multiplied words in denying it. He very erroneously, however, imagines that I have said something tantamount to it in saying, that "if God present a proposition to the intellect, metanoia is to think with that proposition, and to approve as true what God affirms is true." But in these words, I was speaking of an affection, state or condition of mind—that kind of mentality that must exist in addition to the mere intellectual assent to the truth of the things proposed. The following illustration will perhaps express my meaning more clearly to the apprehension of the reader. A child who venerates its parents by whom it has never been deceived, is so mentally disposed that whatever they affirm it acquiesces in upon the authority of their assertion. However startling or improbable the assertion, the child will maintain against all denial that it must and can only be true, "because father and mother declared it." It thinks with its parents, no matter what they say; it believes they cannot lie, and is therefore prepared for the examination of whatever testimony and reasoning they may submit to it for its approval. If they present a proposition to it, though it may not understand it, it thinks with that proposition, not against it, and approves it as true because they affirm that it is true. It is not fully persuaded in its own mind as the result of an independent examination of testimony. This would be pistis, or faith; but it is humble, teachable, confiding—prepared for believing with intelligence.

Now this childlike disposition is metanoia or that condition of the mind, understanding, intellect, or "heart," which constitutes the moral foundation for a scriptural or justifying faith; so that the operations of the intellect and sentiments—the noi—are on the same side with God and his truth, and not against them. No person is the subject of gospel metanoia who does not think with, towards, after God, and therefore against his former self in his ignorance. As I have said before, the thinking of a sinner and the thinking of God are essentially and totally different kinds of thinking. It is evident, therefore, that when a sinner comes to think with God, he must think against his former mode of thinking, which implies that he has turned from that condition of mind to God. If an idolater or image-worshipper, he may have renounced the adoration of idols as the result of God’s teaching, showing its absurdity, and vindicating his own claim to the exclusive veneration of his creatures: still, though "turned from dumb idols to serve the living and true God," such a person might yet be ignorant of the gospel of the kingdom. He would be the subject of ten eis ton Theon metanoian; the metanoia towards God but not of pistin ten eis ton Kyrion lesoun Christon, "the pistin or faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ." In apostolic times men were brought to think with God before the name of the Lord Jesus was preached to them for faith. "Except ye be changed and become as the children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens." This was metanoia, which preceded faith in Jesus, but not faith in God; and as necessary to justification as belief of the truth. In the doctor’s third paragraph he says that "faith always relates to a proposition to be approved as true;" by which I understand him to say that Faith is the belief of a proposition. This may be the "faith" of his "brotherhood;" but it is not the sort of faith the apostles preached. With them faith was the belief of the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ with metanoia of heart—a full persuasion of the exceeding great and precious promises of God only very partially fulfilled as yet in Jesus Christ—the hypostasis, or assured expectation of things hoped for, a certain persuasion of things not seen.

He thinks that the proposition to be believed in the exhortation, "Repent and believe in the gospel," was that "The kingdom of God is at hand." But in this he is manifestly mistaken. The kingdom of God being at hand was the reason given why they should believe in the gospel of that kingdom. Mark says, "Repent ye, and believe in the gospel;" to which Matthew adds, "for the kingdom of the heavens has approached." The gospel is one thing, and the basileia, or kingly power of the heavens, another. The Jews were exhorted to think with God and believe in his gospel; because His incarnate power was to be the future king of the heavens of Daniel’s beasts was in the midst of them.

The Doctor’s second point is, that "Godly sorrow produces repentance." He says, he never should have regarded this as the fact if Paul had not said so. But the Doctor has misunderstood Paul. The apostle did not say that godly sorrow produced repentance in an unjustified, or unbelieving sinner. He refers to the effect of sorrow according to God on the minds of saints in Corinth, who, before they had obeyed the gospel of the kingdom, had been subjects of that condition of mind called metanoia. It was not "sorrow" of any sort that produced this prebaptismal metanoia; but speech and preaching in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, producing faith unfeigned and obedience, by which they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. The question before us is not the working of metanoia in those already saints; but the producing of it in ignorant sinners. In sinners it results from the opening of their eyes after the apostolic method so amply illustrated in Acts. The sorrow of sinners is not godly sorrow, but the sorrow of the world which works death. This was not the sorrow of the members of the Corinthian church. An incestuous brother appeared among them. His iniquity was reported to Paul; and that while it existed among them, instead of mourning on account of it, some were glorying in Paul, others in Apollos, others in Peter, others in Christ; others because of certain gifts; thus they were puffed up for one against another. This both grieved and angered the apostle, and caused him to write his first letter to them, rebuking them sharply, that they might return to their former condition before God. The letter produced the effect he desired. He had shown them the mind of God with respect to them, which when they understood caused great sorrow. The apostle did not rejoice at this, but that they sorrowed into thinking with God upon the case of their incestuous brother, so as to approve themselves to be clear in the matter. Thus "sorrow in accordance with God worketh a thinking with (him) into a salvation not to be regretted."

This passage, then not being appropriate to the case before us, the Doctor is certainly mistaken in making metanoia the son of "godly sorrow," or rather of "sorrow in accordance with God" in regard to the unenlightened and therefore unjustified sinner. In the case of the saints in Corinth, the sonship of metanoia may be granted; but we are not treating of the metanoia of saints, but of the prebaptismal mentality of sinners, with respect to whom I repeat with Paul that it is "the goodness of God" apprehended, and not sorrow of any sort, that "leadeth to metanoia." But as the Doctor so gracefully begs to be excused for the mistake Paul has so unwittingly led him into, I must not press him too hard upon this point. He will no doubt revise his "metaphysical consanguinities," and put "godly sorrow" in his right place at a more convenient season.

His third point is, that meta in composition means change. He has quoted twelve words from Greenfield’s Polymicrian to prove it. I do not see any use in his having taken so much trouble to prove what has not been denied. My words were before him, saying, "When a sinner is exhorted to metanoia, a change of mind is implied; because the thoughts of a sinner and the thoughts of God are essentially antagonistic: but I do not find in the etymological analysis the radical idea of change;" that is, the idea of change in either of the root-words of the compound. Nor has my friend in his long array of Greek words been able to prove it. Some of the compounds he quotes mean change of some sort by implication, while neither of the words signify it in themselves absolutely. Meta as a preposition does not signify change; but with, together with, on the same side or party with, in aid of, by means of, against, among, to, towards, after, behind, over, beyond. Seeing then that the idea of change is not in the preposition, nor in the verbs and nouns joined to it in composition, how comes it that its compounds sometimes signify change of some sort? The answer is, that change is implied. Thus, metaballo is compounded of ballo, to cast, and meta, towards. It occurs in Acts 28: 6, and is rendered, "they changed their minds." When the viper bit Paul, they said, "No doubt this man is a murderer." This was the sentence they cast against him. But when they saw him unharmed, they reversed the judgment, and cast towards him, saying that he is a god. Cast towards is the literal signification of the word; to change their minds, the meaning by implication.

All the Doctor’s words, which I have arranged lexicographically, may be treated in the same way with the same result. The process, however, would occupy too much time and space. As to his, synnoeo, there is no such word in the New Testament; we may therefore be content with metanoeo as expressing all that synnoeo could convey, and more.

There are two words used by the New Testament writers which are both rendered by the same English word in the common version—metanoeo, and metamelomai. In the Doctor’s Polymicrian quotation he has omitted all notice of the latter. If he turn to his lexicon he will find this definition: "To repent, i.e. to change one’s mind from a painful motive; feel penitence, sorrow, or remorse." Metameletheis, is affirmed of Judas when he saw the condemnation of Jesus. If the Doctor compare his dictionary definitions of the two words, he will perceive but little difference between them: there both signify repent, to change opinion, to feel sorrow or remorse. Yet there is such an important difference between metanoeo and metamelomai, that while men are exhorted to metanoeize, they are never exhorted to metamelomize. The reason is found in the root-elements of the words: metanoeo signifies to think in harmony with, or on the same side with, which of course leads to harmony of action; while metamelomai, to be concerned in aid or behalf of, from meta, in aid of, and melei, it concerns Judas was concerned in aid or behalf of Jesus. He returned the money and declared him innocent, thinking thereby to aid him; but his murderers said, "What is that to us?"—as much as to say, "We don’t care for his innocence; we have procured his condemnation which we required, and shall take care that his execution follow." All Judas’ concern in behalf of Jesus—all his penitence, sorrow, or remorse, could benefit neither Jesus nor himself; therefore he committed suicide, and Jesus was put to death.

Our word repent, derived from the French repentir, ought never to be used for metanoeo, because it always implies sorrow; and the gospel metanoia enjoined upon sinners has nothing to do with sorrow, being a joyous condition of the mind. This metanoia is produced by the announcement of glad tidings, which in the nature of things cannot bring sorrow to the believer. When the 3000 and the jailer anxiously inquired what they should do, they were concerned in behalf of themselves; and if there had been no help for them, they would have been in the predicament of Judas, being hopelessly metamelomized; but they were exhorted to become the subjects of metanoia "in the name of Jesus Christ." Into this they were led by the "many other words" of testimony and exhortation delivered to them by the Spirit of God through Peter. His testifying worked in them a mode of thinking in harmony with the truth concerning Jesus, which was metanoia out of his name, because, however Abrahamically dispositioned, they had not yet put it on. But when, believing the things of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus as the Christ, they were immersed into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, their previous metanoia became metanoia in the name; in other words, a renewal of the inner man made complete in Jesus. Mere belief of a proposition will not produce this "new creature" which is "a partaker of the Divine Nature." Paul says, "We are renewed by knowledge after the image of him that hath created us;" which knowledge Peter styles, "the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord . . . by whom, di hon, are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that through these (that is, by faith in them) ye might be partakers of the Divine Nature." The "faith" of the Doctor’s sect is "belief of a proposition;" so that it has no idea of the gospel metanoia. All it can conceive concerning it is what is expressed in the Polymicrian definitions and references. Being ignorant of the "exceeding great and precious promises," it cannot divine the state of mind, the metanoia, produced by the belief of them. The Divine Nature in a believing human heart is equally foreign to its conceptions. This being the effect of a full persuasion of the covenanted promises, his "Brotherhood" is an alien in respect to it, because it makes them void by its traditions. This mere belief of a proposition is the real cause of all the iciness, worldliness, mental poverty, blindness, and nakedness, of his sect. Assent to a proposition and immersion are the height and depth, length and breadth, of its divinity. Beyond this all is a blank; and metanoia is "change of mind," resulting in good-fellowship as a citizen of the church and world as indicated by the word "reform!"

My friend’s sect has doubtless metanoeized in the sense of changing its mind; for it is no longer in these days of the same mind as in the days of its beginning. It has changed its mind for the worse. In its beginning it courted inquiry into its doctrines; refused in theory or practice to call any man Rabbi: proclaimed its readiness to prove all things and to hold fast that which is good; announced its readiness to open its meeting-houses "to the Devil himself," whom it was not afraid to hear, so confident it was of its ability successfully to resist him; repudiated the "one-man-system;" denounced the hireling in a storm of indignation; proscribed schools and colleges as the parents of pride, conceit and spiritual death; and satirised without mercy the "benevolent institutions" of sectarianism as mere clerical devices for the advantage of the craft! But Campbellism has changed its mind, and desires to become oblivious of these peculiarities. It has practically abandoned all these things, and is as desirous to stave off inquiry as it was formerly zealous to promote it! If its mind be the mind of Christ now, it was not the mind of Christ in the beginning; if it were in the beginning, then it is not so now: but it is more than probable that neither now nor in the beginning had the mind of Christ any thing to do with the enterprise. Its change of mind has been but from one fleshly mode of thinking to another: but what is worse than all is, that it seems determined not to think with God, but against him, being seized of a spirit which prevents the exceeding great and precious promises obtaining access to their minds.