The following is a continuation of John Brown's commentary on Hebrews. This is called Cautionary Digression, starting in chapter 5, verse 11, about him. That is, Melchizedek, we have many words to say and hard to interpret, saying you have become dull of hearing. For although by this time you should be teachers, you again need to have someone teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the revelations of God. You have come to need milk and not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is not experienced in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for those who are fully grown, who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil. I'm quoting this passage. That train of thought so admirably fitted for showing the superiority of Jesus Christ to the Levitical high priests, which he follows out in the seventh chapter, seems to have opened on the Apostle's mind. But he is checked by the fear that, owing to their deficiency in habits of attention and indistinct knowledge of Christian truth, he would find it difficult, if not impossible, to make his readers apprehend the force of his arguments. and the oppositeness of his illustrations, and therefore he goes into a digression in which he reproves them for their ignorance and slothfulness, with the intention of stirring them up to a more diligent attention to what he had to bring forward on this interesting subject. Verse 11. Of whom, or which, i.e. of Melchizedek, or of his priesthood, we have many things to say and hard to be uttered, or rather, of difficult explanation, seeing you are dull of hearing. The connecting phrase may be rendered ether, concerning whom, i.e. Melchizedek, or concerning which, be the priesthood of Christ according to the order of Melchizedek. It does not matter in which of these ways it is rendered. Of Melchizedek, the apostle had many things to say. He perceived that this ancient oracle might be turned to great account in a variety of ways and illustrated in the preeminent glory of Christ's high priesthood. But he, as it were, hesitates as to entering on the subject, for it was hard to be uttered. or rather it was of difficult explanation. A subject may be difficult of explanation from a variety of causes. It may be so in consequence of the nature of the subject, the eternity of God, His unbeginning. Unsuccessive existence and the existence of unity and plurality in its nature are difficult of explanation from this cause. It may be so from the limited extent of the revelation. The way of salvation through the Messiah was difficult of explanation in this way till the mystery, which was kept secret from former ages, was made manifest. It may be so from the ignorance or unskillfulness of him who attempts to explain it. An ignorant man would find the motions of the heavenly bodies difficult of explanation. It may be so from the want of the necessary information or the want of the necessary capacity on the part of the persons to whom the explanation is to be made. It is impossible to explain the principles of the higher astronomy to a man ignorant of mathematics. It is impossible to explain anything that requires close, connected thought to a person whose mind has never been at all disciplined to thinking. It is not difficult to determine in what sense the doctrine of the resemblance of our Lord's high priesthood to that of Melchizedek is here represented is hard of explanation. The statement that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, is a high priest after the order of Melchizedek is a plain proposition, easily enough understood in itself and very distinctly stated in the Old Testament Scriptures, and there is nothing peculiarly difficult in the subject itself. The apostle was fully enlightened in this particular department of Christian doctrine as in all other. and was completely qualified for stating the truth on the subject in the way best fitted for the edification of the Church. The difficulty of interpretation here referred to arose entirely out of the state of the minds of the persons to whom the explanation was to be given. They were both deficient, both in the habit of attention and in the degree of information which were requisite to the ready and distinct apprehension of the truth on the subject. when stated to them. The truth about Christ being a priest after the order of Melchizedek and the evidence it involves of the dignity and excellency of his priesthood were difficult of explanation to the Hebrew Christians because they were, or rather had become, dull of hearing. I need scarcely say that to be slow or dull of hearing is not here descriptive of that defect in the external organ of hearing. which is termed deafness, but is expressive of a mental deficiency which bears some analogy to it. It is common in all languages thus to describe mental habits in terms of properly expressive of the exercise of the external senses. Thus we call a man of distinct perceptions clear-sighted, a man of uncommon sagacity and acuteness, farsighted, a man of confused and limited thought, short or dim-sighted. To be dull of hearing is descriptive of that state of mind in which statements may be made without producing any adequate corresponding impression, without being attended to, without being understood, without being felt. In one word, it is descriptive of mental listlessness. To a person in this state, it is very difficult to explain anything for nothing, however simple in itself can be understood if it is not attended to. Such was the state of mind in which many of the Hebrew Christians were, and what made it the more melancholy they had once discovered a better state of mind. The words ye are dull of hearing properly signify you are become dull of hearing, and that this is their meaning is plain from the language of the following verse. Ye have need that one teach you again, which be the first principles of the oracles of God. Ye are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. When the gospel was first preached to them, it aroused their attention. It exercised their thoughts, but now with many of them it had become a common thing. They flattered themselves that they knew all about it. It had become to them like a sound to which the ear had long been accustomed. The person is not conscious of it, pays no attention to it. I'm afraid this is a very common habit among hearers of the gospel in the present age. They have been accustomed to hear the gospel from their infancy. They fancy they know and understand it perfectly. And under this impression, if they continue to read the scriptures or hear the gospel, it is almost entirely without anything that can be called intellectual effort. They indolently ascend to what their teacher states, but do so in a way which makes it plain they do not understand it. They are not interested in it. The necessary consequence of the prevalence of this habit is strikingly described by the Apostle in the following verse. Verse 12. For when the time you ought to be teachers, you have need that one teach you again. which be the first principles of the oracles of God, and are become such as of need of milk, and not of strong need. The habit of spiritual dullness of hearing not only prevents progress, but it absolutely produces retrogression. The man not only does not improve, but he loses the things which had been already wrought in him. Instead of the obscure becoming clear, the clear becomes obscure. As the apostle Peter, 2 Peter 1 verse 9 says, they became blind and cannot see afar off, either backward or forward or upward. The Hebrews had been for a long time favored with the gospel. To them it was first published and some were the first Christian churches formed. They had, some of them, heard Christ himself preach the gospel. They had enjoyed the ministry of the apostles. Their previous knowledge of the Old Testament revelation afforded them great facilities for obtaining accurate and extended views of Christian truth. I do not know but the expression for the time may refer not only to the length of the period and enjoyed these privileges, but also to the peculiar character of that period. It was a time of a very remarkable character on earth, distress of nations with perplexity, wars, rumors of wars, men's hearts failing them for fear and for looking for the things which were coming upon the earth. It was a season peculiarly fitted for raising to serious thought and for inducing those who had embraced the Gospel to give themselves up to a devout study of its principles and a diligent practice of its duties. Looking altogether at their privileges, the Apostle states that they ought to have been teachers of others, and they availed themselves of the advantages they possessed they might have been capable of instructing others in Christianity. and acting on the principle that we are to do good to all as we have opportunity. They ought to have been engaged in communicating this most precious benefit to their ignorant brethren. But instead of this, they had need that someone teach them what were the first principles of the oracles of God. The oracle of God is a phrase here plainly descriptive of the same thing as the doctrine of Christ. it refers to the inspired scriptures of which Christ is at once a great author and subject. The word oracle in the singular signifies the place where God revealed his will in a supernatural way to the high priest when he consulted him by the Urim and Thummim. 1 Kings 6 verse 19, Psalm 28 verse 2. In the plural, it signifies a revelation supernaturally made, whether in that or in any other way, and recorded in the Holy Scriptures, Acts 7, verse 38, Romans 3, verse 2. The first principles of these oracles, literally the elements of the beginnings of the oracles of God, or what may be called the rudiments of Christianity. Such principles, without the knowledge and belief of which a man cannot be a Christian. The word translated principles is descriptive of elementary rudiments. The alphabet, for example, contains the principles of rending. The principles referred to by the apostle bear the same relation to a full knowledge of Christian truth as the alphabet does to a complete acquaintance with the art of reading. He refers plainly to such principles as the spirituality of the religion of Christ, the guilt and depravity of man, pardon through the atonement, sanctification by the Spirit, or, to use his own selection, repentance from dead works, faith. towards God, the resurrection of the dead, eternal judgment. So listless had they become that their apprehension even of such truths as these had become dim, and their faith wavering. They needed to be sent back to the first form in the school of Christ, like children who once had made some progress towards learning to read, but through thoughtlessness have almost forgotten their alphabet. To explain to such persons some of the higher principles of Christianity, to make them acquainted not merely with the facts, but with the connections and dependencies of these facts, to unfold to them the philosophy of Christianity, if I may use the expression, to point out to them its harmony and grandeur as one great connected system, is nearly as impracticable as to instruct in the abstrusest principles of abstract science those who have never studied its elements. The Apostle further describes a state of inaptitude for receiving instruction on the higher principles of Christianity, into which the Christian Hebrews had brought themselves by their indolence, by comparing them to children who require milk for their food, and contrasting them with full-grown men who can digest a more substantial kind of nourishment. This he does in the close of verse 12, in the two following verses. You are become such as of need of milk and not of strong meat. Verse 13. For everyone that uses milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. Verse 14. For strong meat belongs to them that are of full age, even those by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. It seems common in all languages to compare instruction to nourishment. Truth is to the mind what food is to the body. And as the body in different states requires different kinds of nourishment, so the mind, according to its capacities and attainments, requires different modes of instruction. This is a principle which lies at the foundation of the figurative illustration contained in these words. Malk is the appropriate foot of babes, and sickly persons is the fit emblem of elementary instruction suited to imbecile minds and limited acquirements. Malk here means the same thing as first principles of the oracles of God. the principles of Christ. Strong meat, the food of fully grown and healthy men, is a fit emblem of a higher kind of instruction suited to persons of well-informed and well-disciplined minds. Milk and meat are used in the same sense as in the passage before us when the apostle says to the Corinthian believers, And I, brethren, cannot speak unto you as spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk and not with meat, for hitherto you were not able to bear it. Neither yet now are you able. In another place, milk is used to signify Christian truth generally as the appropriate food of the newborn soul. Therefore, laying aside all malice and all gallant hypocrisies and envies and all evil speakings, his newborn babes desire the sincere milk of the word that you may grow thereby. When the apostle says you have need of milk, and not of strong meat, He does not mean to deny that it was a matter of great importance that they should be instructed in the higher principles of Christianity, but merely to state that an elementary course of instruction is better suited to their present state of spiritual imbecility. Every Christian has need both of malcancer on meat in order to his coming to the measure of the stature of a perfect man. but some have more need of the one and others more need of the other. It deserves special notice that the apostle does not say, you have need, but you are become such as have need. They were once in more favorable circumstances for spiritual instruction. They had, by their indolent neglect of the proper nourishment of the mind, spoiled their spiritual appetite and power of digestion, bringing themselves back, as it were, to a state of second childhood. They had forgotten what they had learned. They had lost in a good measure the habits they had acquired. The words which follow in the tenth and fourteenth verses seem to me to be just as it were two explanatory notes, the one referring to the phrase milk, and the other to strong meat. Four. It's plainly merely connective. It is just as if he had said, by a person who uses or who stands in need of milk. I mean a person who is unskillful in the word of righteousness, for such a one is indeed spiritually a child. He that uses milk does not describe the person who relishes the elementary principles of Christianity, but the person who can relish and digest nothing else. A healthy man may be fond of milk, but he will require something besides. It were a sign in ordinary circumstances of something wrong about his constitution. If he could relish and digest nothing else, He who uses milk is just equivalent to he who lives on milk, who confines his attention to elements and seems incapable of comprehending anything but elements. That person is one unskillful in the word of righteousness. In interpreting scripture, it is of much importance to distinguish between the meaning of a word or phrase and its reference. For example, the appellations Messiah, Son of God, Savior of the World, Brightness of the Father's Glory have all the same reference, but they have by no means all the same meaning. In the same way, in the passage before us, the Oracles of God, the Doctrine of Christ, and the Word of Righteousness have all the same reference. They all refer to the revealed will of God about man's salvation through Christ Jesus. But they have, all of them, different meanings. They hold up the same thing, each of them in a different aspect. They communicate, each of them, different information on the same subject. In many cases, the reference is plain where the meaning is obscure, and sometimes the reverse holds. In the first chapter of John, for example, the meaning of the appellation, the word, is somewhat obscure, but its reference is quite plain. Whatever that term means, it is an appellation of Jesus Christ. In such cases, the general meaning of a passage may be understood satisfactorily, while the particular import of a word or phrase is doubtful, or even altogether unknown. In the case before us, a reference of the phrase the Word of Righteousness is perfectly evident, but its precise meaning is somewhat obscure. To the question, what does the phrase refer to, we can answer readily to the revelation of the divine will respecting man's salvation through Christ. But it is not quite so easy to reply to the question, why is this revelation termed the Word of Righteousness? What truth about this revelation is intended to be conveyed to our minds by this appellation? Had I met with the phrase in the epistle to the Romans or to the Galatians, I should have scarcely hesitated to have said. That is, the word righteousness in both these epistles is used with an almost universal reference to justification. The meaning of the phrase was a word or doctrine of justification. that it is an expression of the same kind as the word of faith in the 10th chapter of Romans, verse 8, and that the divine revelation receives this appellation because of righteousness of God. The divine method of justification is manifested in the gospel and witnessed by the law and the prophets. The great subject of divine revelation is the divine method of justifying sinners. At the same time, as the doctrine of justification is not directly discussed in this epistle, and as I am not aware that the term occurs anywhere in its course in the sense just noticed, I am rather inclined to think that the phrase, Word of Righteousness, is a description of the Gospel, to be interpreted on the same principle as that nearly synonymous appellation, the Word of Truth. the gospel of our salvation, i.e. the true word by Hebraism. In Hebrew, truth and righteousness are words often employed as synonymous. The word of righteousness is in here we apprehend equivalent to the righteous, the true word. The epithet is intended to express the excellence of the gospel revelation as the very truth, most sure. He then, who cannot be made to attend to anything but elementary principles, is a person unskilled in his truth and righteous word. He is unpracticed in his study, and therefore very imperfectly acquainted with its meaning. For he is a babe. To be a babe is sometimes expressive of simplicity, freedom from guile, teachableness, as when our Lord says, except ye become as little children, ye can in no wise enter into the kingdom of God. And when the apostle Peter says, as newborn babes desire the sincere milk of the word, ye may grow thereby. and the Apostle Paul in Malice Be You Children. Here, plainly, it is equivalent to weak and ignorant. The 14th verse contains the Apostle's explication of what he means by strong meat and those who are capable of using it. Strong meat, as opposed to milk, is the proper food of men, as opposed to children. The phrase translated, them that are of full age, is literally the perfect. I notice this, because without noticing it, the connection with what follows cannot be so distinctly perceived. Let us go on to perfection. The perfect is plainly the mature, the man in age and in strength. Strong meat is the appropriate food of men. The adage is true literally and figuratively. Strongmead is descriptive of those illustrations and arguments which refer to the connections and dependencies of the various parts of the grand scheme of restoration, such as those that follow respect in the superiority of our Lord's high priesthood to that of the family of Aaron. To enter into such discussions requires an extent of information and a discipline of mind which can be obtained only by a diligent study of divine truth, and which mark maturity of spiritual understanding. The spiritually mature man who is fit for strong meat is a man who by reason of use has his senses exercised to discern between good and evil. A child is easily imposed on as to food. Its nurse may easily induce it to swallow even palatable poison. But a man by reason of use has learned so to employ his senses as to distinguish between what is deleterious and what is nourishing. The spiritually mature man is a person who, by the use of his faculties, under the influence of the Divine Spirit and the study of Divine Truth, can examine doctrines. make a distinction between the things that differ, refuse evil and choose the good, and from this habit thus acquired he is qualified for entering with pleasure and advantage to himself on the study of every part of the Christian economy. A careless reader of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as it stands in our version, would be very apt to conclude that one of the leading divisions of the Epistle commences here, that the former part of the Epistle to the Hebrews has been devoted to the first principles of Christianity, and that the Apostle is now proceeding to the more recondite and complicated doctrines of that religion. No conclusion could be more wide of the truth. These words do not commence a new section. They occur in the midst of a digression into which the inspired writer was naturally led. When entering on the discussion of this principle, Jesus Christ is superior to the ironical high priesthood. In proving the reality of the priesthood of Jesus Christ, he quotes a passage from the 110th Psalm, a psalm admitted by the Hebrews to be prophetic of the Messiah, in which Jehovah is represented as addressing the Messiah in these words, sanctioned by the solemnity of a divine oath, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. The heaven-enlightened mind of the inspired writer clearly perceived that this passage not merely proved that Jesus Christ was a high priest, but a great high priest, that it afforded evidence not merely of the reality but of the preeminence of his high priesthood. But he is checked in his course. He is prevented from immediately following the impulse of his mind to enter on this wide and fair field of argument and illustration which opened before him by the recollection that many of those to whom he was writing were, from their very limited knowledge and from their habits of inattention, were ill-qualified for accompanying him. There are many things, he says, to say of Melchizedek and his priesthood that illustrate the preeminent glories of the high priest of our profession, but I feel it difficult to bring them before your minds in a way which would secure your attending to them and understanding them, for you have become very inapt to receive spiritual instruction. Though enjoying advantages which, if rightly improved, have fitted you to instruct others in Christianity, you've lost in a great measure the knowledge you once possessed, and stand in need of being yourselves instructed a second time in the very elementary principles of our divine religion. He illustrates his statement by comparing them to babes who were capable of digesting nothing but milk. is contrasted with men of mature age who require for their nourishment strong meat. And he explains the force of this figurative illustration by remarking that, by the spiritual babe who can digest nothing but milk, he means a person who is but imperfectly acquainted with the word of righteousness and unfurnished with those habits of mind which are necessary for a thorough knowledge of it. while by them in a mature age who are capable of and indeed require a more nutritious diet he understands those of extensive and accurate views of divine truth. And who from these extensive and accurate views and from the habits of mind naturally formed in acquiring them are able to make a distinction between what is true and false, good and evil. The words with which the sixth chapter commences immediately follow. Verse 1. Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God. Number two of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment, and this we will do if God permit. The first point which requires our attention is the connection of this short paragraph, or in other words, the force of the particle, therefore. It has been common to consider the word as having a retrospective reference, and as intimating as this is an inference from what has been stated. But the premises stated seem to demand a different conclusion. It seems strange arguing, you have need of milk, therefore I will not give it to you. You aren't capable of digesting strong food. Therefore, I will not present you with it. You have needed someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God. Therefore, let us leave these first principles. You require elementary instruction. Therefore, let us plunge at once into the depths of the Christian mysteries. This certainly is not a connection. Apart from the influence of inspiration altogether, it is plain that the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews was utterly incapable of arguing thus. This difficulty has been perceived by interpreters, and they have adopted different methods for removing it. Some would connect this verse immediately with the 11th and the preceding chapter, thus, I have many things to say about Kizidek which are difficult of explanation. Therefore, let us, leaving the elements, proceed to the exposition of these things. Others would connect it with the 14th verse. Thus, since solid food befits grown-up men, I will feed you with this nourishing diet. Others would connect it with verse 12. Since you offered a period you have been under Christian instruction to be teachers of others, it is time that, instead of Maliki, you should have strong meat. Setting aside that mode of instruction which we employ for the novice, we'll adopt a style of teaching more befitting the adept. None of these modes of stating a connection appears satisfactory. I'm inclined to think that the true way of getting rid of the difficulty is to consider the word, therefore, as having not a retrospective but a prospective reference. The reason for the Apostles leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ and going on to perfection is to be found, I apprehend, not in the preceding, but in the following context. The improbability, the moral impossibility of reclaiming those of the Hebrews who, after having once been enlightened, had sunk into such a state of spiritual apathy, as that described in the preceding verses, is the reason why the Apostle, instead of wasting time on them, proceeds to unfold the higher principles of Christianity to those of them who were disposed and capable of entering with advantage on their study. This view of the manner not only removes the difficulty above inverted to, but also gives a satisfactory account of the introduction of the awfully impressive paragraph that follows, and of the force of the particle for. by which it is prefaced. That the word therefore is used sometimes with a reference to what follows is plain from the commencement of the second chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. Therefore, thou art an inexcusable a man whosoever thou art that judges, not for the reason just mentioned, for no reason has been mentioned, but for the reason just about to be mentioned. The next question that must be answered, and it too, is of a preliminary kind, is what is a reference of the plural pronoun we? The apostle obviously uses a figure of speech which grammarians call communicatio, but whether He identifies himself with the Hebrews and urges them in the most persuasive manner to do their duty. Or does he identify the Hebrews with himself and in the least assuming form intimate the design which he was about to prosecute? I apprehend that the latter is a true view of the expression. to lay the foundation as more properly descriptive of what is done by the teacher than the learner, as the apostle plainly enough intimates 1 Corinthians 3 verses 10-11. Besides, it would be difficult to show how the third verse could apply to the Hebrews, and this we will do, if God permit. The words then appeared to be an intimation of the apostles' determination not to enter into a statement of first principles for the use of those who had once known them, but had now forgotten them, and became careless of them, a statement which in their circumstances was likely to serve little purpose. But to proceed forward to the unfolding of those illustrations of the preeminence of Christ's priesthood implied in the ancient oracle already quoted, which belong to the higher principles of the Christian faith. The principles of the doctrine of Christ have been considered by some learned and ingenious interpreters as descriptive of the topical facts and institutions of the Jewish economy. These they consider as the first principles of the Oracles of God, the Mount for Babes, This mode of interpretation is not at all satisfactory. The literal meaning of the phrase, the principles of the doctrine of Christ, is a word or discourse of the beginning of Christ. In other words, the elementary principles of Christianity. This is certainly not a natural description of the typical events and institutions of the old economy. These are never represented as a foundation of Christianity. An account of these certainly was not the milk with which he fed the Corinthian believers and the specimen which he gives us of what he accounts, first principles of the doctrine of Christ, in the second verse. It is not taken from among these typical events and institutions. The first principles of the oracles of God and the principles of the doctrine of Christ are just the elementary principles of Christianity. The apostle then intimates his intention to leave these on the present occasion, not to enter on a statement of them to those to whom they have often been stated. and stated as regarded many of them to little purpose, but to go on to perfection. The word perfection here refers to the phrase men of full age in the preceding verse, literally perfect men. Perfection here describes that higher species of spiritual instruction which formed a proper nourishment of spiritual men of full stature and mature age. The apostle further explains his purpose by adding, not laying again the foundation, the word of the beginning of Christ, or the principles of the doctrine of Christ, or the foundation, those principles, the knowledge and belief of which are absolutely necessary in order to a man's being a Christian. Some interpreters consider the foundation as something totally distinct from all the principles afterwards enumerated, something on which they all rest, but it is difficult to attach a distinct idea to the foundation of the resurrection of the dead, the foundation of eternal judgment. It seems far more natural to consider the six particulars which are enumerated as specimens of these first principles, which form as it were the foundation of Christianity. and into the statement of which it was the purpose of the Apostle, not at present, to enter. The first of these fundamental principles mentioned by the Apostle is repentance from dead works. In other words, plainly the doctrine of repentance from dead works. He did not intend to enter on a statement of this doctrine. Repentance in the New Testament usually signifies a change of mind. And one of the primary doctrines of Christianity is that a change, a complete change of mind is necessary in order to a man's being a Christian. Except a man be born again, said our Lord, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. The sum of the preaching of Jesus and of both his forerunner and his apostles was repent, change your minds and believe the gospel. This change of mind is sometimes described as a change of mind towards God, repentance towards God. In other words, a change of mind leading a man who was formerly far from God and going further and further from him in the direction Godwards. And here it is described as a change of mind from dead works. The phrase dead works is a somewhat peculiar one. Some have interpreted it as equivalent to useless, unprofitable words referring to the Levitical services. They consider it is analogous to such phrases as without words, faith is dead, i.e. useless. Without laws, it is dead, i.e. powerless. Into this mode of interpretation we might have been disposed to go had it not been that the phrase occurs in another passage in this epistle, where its meaning is clearly fixed to something different from this. Dead works there, in chapter 9, can signify nothing else but sins, guilty actions, If any extrinsic evidence were necessary to confirm this assertion, a parallel passage in chapter 10 verse 22 furnishes it. An evil conscience is plainly a guilty conscience. Sins are called dead works either because they produce death or misery or because they are the works of men who in a spiritual sense are dead. The phrase seems the translation of a Hebraism for the works of death. Works worthy of death. Just as a man of death, 1 Kings 2 verse 26, is a man worthy of death. Repentance from dead works or a change of mind from sinful actions is the change of mind leading men to abandon sinful actions. This then is the first of the principles of the doctrine of Christ. Did the Apostle specifies the doctrine of the necessity of such a change of mind as will lead a man to turn from every wicked way. The doctrine of repentance is the first principle of Christianity as plain from such passages as these. From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent ye, believe the gospel. Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the times of this ignorance, God winged that banal commands all men everywhere to repent.