Handbook of Christian doctrine

Front matter

Class

Book

Copyright^

Part I Theology, Or The Doctrine Of God Propositions Concerning The New Testa- Ment Scriptures 20-32

PROPOSITIONS CONCERNING THE OLD TESTA- MENT 32-35

INSPIRATION AND REVELATION 36-44

THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD .... 44-48

THE PURPOSE OF GOD 48-51

PRESERVATION THROUGH THE SON AND PROVI- DENCE OF GOD 51-54

PART II the nature of man 55-61

The moral Constitution of Man as Related to the Moral law 61-64

ix x Contents

The Character of Man, the nature and Extent of Sin 64-67

Man's accountability for moral life and Conduct 67-69

Man Guilty and condemned, theories Examined 69-73

Conditional Immortality, annihilation of the wicked, and the larger hope . . . 73-76

Angelology, or the Doctrine of Angels . 76-82

PART III christology, or the doctrine OF JESUS

CHRIST, GOD-MAN

The nature of Jesus Christ 83-91

His Divinity and humanity as affected by the incarnation 91-96

the work of Jesus Christ 96-101

theories of the atonement 101-109

concluding propositions, estimate of

christ's atoning work i09-iii

PART IV

SOTERIOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION

RELATION OF CHRIST AND OF THE FATHER

TO SALVATION. II2-ll6

pneumatology, or the doctrine of the

Holy spirit 116-118

Contents xi

WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN REGENERATION. 1 18-125

RELATION OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY

SPIRIT TO SANCTIFICATION 125-131

RELATION OF TRUTH AND CHRISTIAN ACTION

TO SANCTIFICATION I3I-I33

PART V

SOCIAL WORSHIP AND POSITIVE INSTITUTIONS. 134-140

CHRISTIAN ORDINANCES 141-148

EFFECT OF CHURCH LIFE 148-153

PART VI

ESCHATOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF FINAL ISSUES

THE FUTURE STATE AND DESTINY OF BE- LIEVERS 154-161

THE DESTINY OF UNBELIEVERS, CONCLUSION. 161-163

4* *¥ * *

I. DEFINITIONS AND DIVISIONS OF THE SUBJECT

i. Christian doctrine treats of the Christian religion. It considers God in his relations to the universe and mankind.' Its text-book is the Bible.

2. The Christian religion comprises the facts, principles and modes of action revealed by Christ, and apparent in a life of hearty service to God. It is both personal and institutional, a new life and a social unifying power. The term religion, according to Doctor Strong, is derived from relegere " to go over again, carefully to ponder," and, therefore, with " reverent observance." The Christian religion is a life in God, and involves the exercise of the intellect, sensibilities, and will, or all the powers of the soul. Its first principle is holy affection toward God. This is the condition of knowing and serving him. Man is a religious being ; but he is truly religious only when he enters into living relation to God. Other religions may have portions of truth in them, but they are vitiated by fables and falsities.

3. Christian doctrine, then, must be an exposition of the principles of the Christian religion. It must show what these principles are, how they are related to one another, and why they ought to be believed.

4. To show what these principles are, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament must be rightly interpreted. The Old Testament interpreted by the New Testament will disclose their true relation the one to the other. Perfect success in exhibiting the agreement and interdependence of all Christian facts and principles is impossible. There are, doubtless, in some instances but partial revelations, and in all cases there is imperfect knowledge. The last appeal must always be to the word of God.

5. The study of Christian doctrine is closely related to kindred studies. It depends for its facts and data upon biblical interpretation, the revelation of God in nature, history, psychology, and metaphysics. Its material thus derived avails in apologetics, polemics, and the study of the religious systems with which it is compared.

6. In this study some things are of necessity to be assumed. (1) The normal action of the mind is trustworthy. A denial of this, as some think, is logically absurd. The validity of the denial must depend on the trustworthiness of mental action. But it must not be assumed that normal action is infallible. (2) The value of evidence is measured by its power to originate knowledge or belief. This is its only measure. The agreement of many minds emphasizes the certainty of this value.

Definitions and Divisions i£

Remark i. Evidence may be divided into three kinds : a. What is furnished by direct cognition, as of spirit, power, and substance ; intuition, as of identity and difference of the whole and its parts ; belief, as that of space, time, the infinite ; b. what is furnished by perception or recollection, in either case the evidence being indubitable ; c. what is furnished by testimony or analogy; this kind of evidence is variable in force, and often simply probable.

Remark 2. But judgment and conduct must follow the strongest evidence. Probability is the guide of life ; the strongest minds best perceive the force of probable evidence.

7. Men have, or may have, some knowledge of God. They may know him in part, as they know many things in part. They may have, if not full knowledge, yet true knowledge. Agnosticism denies this (1) because our senses do not reveal God. But much knowledge, as of mental action, and causal energy, is not furnished by the senses ; (2) because the mind of man cannot grasp the infinite. But it cannot grasp the earth, the sun, the stars, yet it has some knowledge of these objects. Agnosticism is not the highest achievement of man.

II. SUGGESTIONS TO STUDENTS

i. Against rashness in reasoning from the infinite to the finite. Infinite intelligence is imperfectly known. Hence one cannot infer that the works of the perfect God will be absolutely and unchangeably perfect ; that because God's love is perfect there can be no sin nor suffering in the world ; that man is not a free moral agent because God is sovereign.

2. Against yielding to selfishness. Self-willed and disobedient men often blame God for their self-will and disobedience.

3. Against yielding to pride of opinion. To confess error clears the way to know the truth.

4. Against too high an estimate of philosophical speculation or scientific opinions. One is in danger who trusts reason rather than the word of God. Reason cannot dictate what is true ; its highest exercise is to afTirm what God has revealed.

5. The qualifications for study are mental, moral, religious or spiritual, and educational. There is need of a sound mind, candor, and reverence for the truth, the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and an increasing knowledge of the Bible, psychology, physical science, the history of religious thought, and the experience of the Holy Spirit's action in the soul.

III. DIVISIONS OF THE SUBJECT

Technically they are Theology, or the Doctrine of God ; Anthropology, or the Doctrine of Man ; Christology, or the Doctrine of Jesus Christ ; Soteriology, or the Doctrine of Salvation ; Pneumatology, or the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit; Ecclesiology, or the Doctrine of the Christian Church ; Eschatology, or the Doctrine of the Last Things. This scheme may be called synthetic. It takes the facts, puts them in logical order, so that their relations ar^ readily seen. It is theocentric ; it starts from God and returns to God.

PART I THEOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF GOD

GOD is the infinite and absolutely perfect Being, source, preserver, and end of all beings and events. The knowledge of God's existence has been called a rational intuition ; it has been classed among the first truths, as space, time, right, final cause. Doctor Strong defines it thus: "The mind directly cognizes the existence of an infinite and absolute authority, perfection, personality, upon whom we are dependent and to whom we are responsible. " The theistic hypothesis is reasonable and affords sufficient ground for belief in God. Dr. Samuel Harris declares that "the knowledge of God originates in spontaneous belief in God, Creator and Lord of all." 1 But discussion of the contents of this intuition, or of the corroborative arguments for belief in God, as the cosmological, teleological, anthropological, ontological, belong rather to the philosophy of theism than to biblical theology, or God as the subject of Christian doctrine.

i. Revealed in Scripture. The Bible as distinguished from nature is the source of theistic revelation. Our belief is that the sacred Scriptures are records of the views of chosen men, who were enlightened and guided in a supernatural way by the Spirit of God in doing their work as religious teachers. What they taught was a revelation from God. God is revealed in the writings of the Old and New Testaments. In these Scriptures we are brought face to face with a method of revelation which transcends the ordinary course of God in nature. It is objected (i) That in such a revelation God is a " respecter of persons." He thus gives to some men better knowledge of himself than he gives to others, whereas he should reveal himself in the same way to every human being. But this objection may be urged against the natural method of God's working, and it assumes that God is obliged to give the same, or equal, capacities to all moral beings, an assumption which contradicts the history of mankind. This objection also undervalues the importance of moral responsibility in the formation of moral character. God must hold men to the duties which spring out of their connections with one another, as parents and children, teachers and pupils, ministers and the recipients of ministries. This method proves to be good, and to honor the moral nature of man. It is objected (2) That in making such a revelation God must act in a supernatural manner, and such action is incredible. Order is supreme in God's action, and any account of his deviating from his usual method may be rejected as false. The answer to this is, a. That the action of God must be more like that of the human spirit than like that of physical force, Man can act upon the energies of nature and produce unusual or unexpected results. God can surely do the same, and to a greater extent, b. That supernatural must be distinguished from unnatural, or contra-natural action. Revelation is not opposed to order in nature. The ratification of the teaching of Christ and his apostles is d£> scribed in such terms as " wonders, signs, powers, works that none but God can do," or " events that none but God can foreknow." They had no tendency to diminish confidence in the uniformity of natural law.

2. Such Revelation Rational. There are good reasons for belief that such a revelation of God and his will as the Bible purports to furnish, is not impossible, nor incredible, nor improbable. It is not impossible, for the existence of a personal God above nature and able to direct its forces into new channels is possible. It is not incredible , for wise and sane men believe that it has been made. It is not improbable, for the existence of a personal God, willing to furnish men with more knowledge of himself than they obtain from nature is probable. If there is a God it is not improbable that he is merciful, and that he would make a special revelation of his mercy to those whose minds are darkened by sin. If there is a holy God his revelation might be given in such a form as to test and improve men's moral character. The Bible fulfills these conditions. We are, therefore, to investigate the claim of the

Bible to be a revelation of God, feeling that there is no presumption against the truthfulness of that claim. A supernatural revelation is not to be considered, before investigation, improbable.

Our first proposition is : The New Testament Scriptures are trustworthy as historical records. The trustworthiness of primary historical records depends upon the opportunities of the writers to learn the truth ; on their powers of observation, memory, and expression ; on their desire to learn and report the truth ; on their number and essential agreement ; on the consistency of their testimony with experience in similar circumstances. Applying these tests to the writers of the New Testament we find that their opportunities to learn the facts which they relate were complete. For (i) Christianity, as a historical religion, took its rise with the public ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, in Palestine, near the end of the third decade of our era ; (2) the several books of the New Testament were written by disciples of Jesus, or by some of their associates, before the close of the first century of our era. Proof: there are no traces of the existence of this religion before the date mentioned (A. D. 28-30). One hundred years later (A. D. 130) it had spread over large provinces of the Roman Empire. 1

1 See Pliny the Younger, " Epist." X., 97, q8; Tacitus, "Annals." XV., 44; Suetonius, "Vita Neronis,' \ 16, and " Vita ClauJii," § 25; Juvenal, "Sat.," 1, 155, 157; Eusebius, " E. H.," IX., 9; Josephus, "Ant.," XVIII., 3:3; E. C. Mitchell's "Critical Handbook of the Greek New Testament," 2d ed., p. 20 f. ; Gieseler's "Ecc'l History," Vol. I., p. 66; Rawlinson's " Historical Evidences," Lecture VII.

All early Christian writers who refer to the matter, agree in stating that Jesus Christ was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea from A. D. 26 to 36. The appearance of Christianity as a historical religion is, therefore, assigned to the thirtieth year of our era, and the public ministry of Jesus to the three, or three and a half years preceding that date.

Authorship and date of the New Testament writings. If the books of the New Testament were written by immediate disciples of Jesus, or by their associates, before the close of the first century, these writers had good opportunities to know the truth of what they wrote. The Apostle Paul was converted within a few years, four or five, after Jesus' death, and was acquainted with some of his disciples. Educated in Jerusalem, intelligent and conscientious, he must have known the essential facts concerning Jesus ; the most important of these he claims were revealed to him. There is no reason to suppose that he was misinformed as to Christ and his ministry. Thirteen Epistles were attributed to Paul. They were undisputed in the time of Eusebius (A. D. 300). They appeared in the earliest versions of the New Testament. 1 and 2 Thessalonians were probably written in A. D. 52 or 53. 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans, in A. D. 57 or 58. Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Philemon, in A. D. 61 or 62. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus about A. D. 66 or 67. The second group (1 and 2 Corinthians,

Galatians, and Romans) has been received by leaders of destructive criticism as genuine. In these letters Paul's testimony concerning Jesus Christ is of his pre-existence (i Cor. 10 : 4) ; of his incarnation (Gal. 4:4); of his being born of the seed of David, according to the flesh, but declared Son of God in power, by resurrection from the dead (Rom. 1 : 4); of his being without sin (2 Cor. 5 : 21) ; yet made sin, made a curse, by suffering death in behalf of sinners (2 Cor. 5 : 14, 21 ; Gal. 3 : 13) ; of his instituting the holy Supper as a memorial of his death (1 Cor. 11 : 23-26) ; of his resurrection (1 Cor. 15 : 3-1 1) ; of his being now the head of the body of which believers in him are members (1 Cor. 12 : 12, 27).

The remaining Epistles of Paul, the first Epistle of Peter, the first Epistle of John, the four Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, were received as genuine by all the churches in the time of Eusebius. 1 The authenticity of the other books of the New Testament, the Epistle to the Hebrews, of James, the second Epistle of Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation need not be discussed here. It is enough to claim that they add to the evidence of the supernatural origin of Christianity. The trustworthiness of the Gospels is a matter of deepest interest. Their claim to our confidence as historical records is established by several considerations. (1) Early Christian literature leads to the conclusion that they were all written before the end of the first Christian century. Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, refers to the

1 See Westcott, Green, Bissell, Davidson, Mitcheil, and others.

memorabilia of the apostles, in which were " taught all things concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ." 1 "The memorabilia," he said, " were composed by the apostles and those who followed them." 2 Tertullian, A. D. 200, says of the apostles, " John and Matthew implant faith in us, Luke and Mark refresh it." Tatian, a contemporary of Justin Martyr, composed the "Diatessaron," based on the four Gospels. Irenasus argues that the perfection of the gospel record demanded four narratives of the Lord's life. 3

(2) All the early versions of the New Testament known to scholars contain the four Gospels. The earliest version was probably not later than A. D. 170. Ludovicus Antonio Muratori, director of the library at Milan, published in 1740 the "Fragment on the Canon," written about A. D. 170, and refering to the Gospel of Mark, of Luke, and to the fourth Gospel as written by John. While none of these versions belongs to the first century, they afford clear evidence of the general Christian belief from the middle of the second century onward.

(3) The historical trustworthiness of the fourth Gospel has been satisfactorily vindicated. There seem to be no valid grounds for denying that it was written in the last years of the first century. Tatian, A. D. 155-170; Basilides, A. D. 130; and Valentinus, A. D. 150, quote from it.* (4) Critical scholars do not now discredit the belief that the

3 Authors : Norton, " Genuineness of the Gospels " ; Teschendorf, " When Were the Four Gospels Written? " Westcott, " Introduction to the Study of the Four Gospels."

* See Fisher, Ezra Abbott, Hovey, Sanday, Westcott, Weiss, Luthardt.

synoptical Gospels were written in the first century. There is some difference of opinion as to their relations one to another. 1 The records are diverse, yet harmonious. They are like four portraits of the same original, taken by different artists. The Gospels prove that the evangelists were men of good judgment, upright, sincere, and earnest. They suggest no evidence that they were false witnesses. The Gospels contain abundant proof of their historical trustworthiness ; they clearly state facts ; no motive appears which would have led dishonest men to write as they wrote. The second proposition is : The New Testament Scriptures, especially the Gospels, prove that Jesus Christ was an infallible teacher. He taught truth with no mixture of error. In proof of the inerrancy of Christ's teaching it is proper to survey the claims he put forth as a teacher, (i) What did he claim to know ? He claimed to know heavenly things directly (John 3 : 11-13 ; 8 : 38) ; the divine Father directly (Matt. 11 : 27 ; John 6 : 46 ; 7 : 28, 29 ; 8 : 55 ; 10 : 15 ; 17 : 10-12) ; that his words were his Father's words (John 7 : 16 ; 8 : 28 ; 12 : 49 ; 14 : 10-24; l 7 ■ 8), and were immutably true (Mark 13:31; John 14 : 6) ; he claimed to be one with the Father (John 10 : 30-38 ; 17 : 10-22) ; to do always the will of the Father (John 8 : 29) ; to know all that the Father knows, at least in the matter of human salvation (John 5 : 20). He claimed that his teaching was his Father's teach-

1 Doctor Strong, "Systematic Theology, "p. 74.

ing, and therefore free from error. (2) How did he teach ? a. He spoke in the first person singular, and in language of divine authority. There are but seven exceptions to the former statement on record (John 3:11; 4 : 22 ; 9 : 4 ; 14 : 20 ; 17 : 11, 21, 22). In four of these Jesus associates himself with the Father ; the other three are to be explained without assuming that he ranked any human teacher his peer, or that his words needed confirmation by man. b. He spake as if he were the final and perfect teacher (Matt. 5:17; 19 : 8, 9 ; Mark 13:31; Luke 21 : 33). The apparent exception (John 16 : 13-15), means that the Paraclete was to take of the things of Christ and show them to the disciples, as they were prepared to receive them. He represented the salvation of men as depending on their treatment of his words (Mark 8 : 38 ; Luke 9 : 26 ; John 12 : 48 ; 14 : 23 ; 15:7). He spoke as the perfect master of the situation, the occasion, the theme, never confessing error or doubt. But he declared himself meek and lowly in heart, willing to do the humblest service for mankind, ever obedient to his Father's will, an example of moral perfection in a sinful world, teaching men duty by his own acts as well as words. He showed no trace of pride, fanaticism, or self-seeking in his ministry. The highest importance therefore is to be attached to what he said of his teaching and conduct (Matt. 11 : 29 ; John 13 : 4— 13 ; 5 : 30; 6 : 38; 7 : 18; 4 : 34). 1

1 Authors: Ullmann, Bushnell, Dorner, Hovey, Schaff, Young, Seeley, Parker, C. A. Row, W. L. Alexander,

His claims are confirmed by the following facts : (i) His disciples were convinced of their rightfulness, a. They ascribe to him perfect knowledge (Matt. 9:4; Mark 2:8; John 2 : 24, 25 ; Acts

1 : 24 ; Rev. 2 : 23 ; John 16 : 30 ; 21 : 17 ; 6 : 64 ; 18 : 4. b. They declare him to be full of truth and the source of truth (John 1 : 14, 16). c. They preach his doctrine as pre-eminently the truth (2 Cor. 4 : 2f. ; Gal. 2:5; Eph. 4 : 21 ;

2 Tim. 2:15). (2) Readers of the Gospels have been convinced of their truthfulness. The total impression made by testimony of the Gospels has generally had this effect ; the value of such testimony cannot be easily overrated. It depends on the prominent features of the narratives, and can readily be appreciated. Indeed, the evangelists do not seem to attempt to prove the moral perfection of Jesus. (See Matt. 19 : 17 ; 8 : 25- 34; Mark n : 12-14; Luke 24 : 28). (3) His doctrines agree with his claims. This appears from their simplicity, self-consistency, moral purity, comprehensiveness, practicalness, and good influence. (4) Many predictions made by him have been fulfilled. Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection (Matt. 12 : 40 ; 16 : 21-23 ; 17 : 22, 23 ; 20 : 17-19, 22, 23 ; 26 : 2 ; Mark 10 : 36-39 ; Luke 9 : 44 ; 12 : 50 ; 13 : 33 ; 17 : 22, 25 ; John 2 : 19-22 ; John 12 : 7, 23, 32-34). He predicted his desertion by his disciples, his betrayal, his denial (Mark 14:18-21, 72; Matt. 26:31-34; John 13 : 11, 18-26), and other facts concerning his disciples (Matt. 20 : 23 ; 10 : 17-22 ; John 21 : 18 ; Mark 14 : 13-16). He foretold the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. 24 : 2, 4, 5, 23-26 ; Mark 13 : 14; Luke 21 : 12, 16, 20 f.). The fulfillment of these predictions is good reason for believing that all his teaching was true. 1 (5) Many miracles were wrought by him. Miracles as noted in the New Testament are changes in nature which must be ascribed to divine agency ; they are events in the world of sense, which should be ascribed to extraordinary action on the part of God. 2 The miracles of Christ reveal his character and spirit, and are thus a part of his teaching ; they attest the truth of his claims ; they ratify his authority (Matt. 11:21; Mark 2 : 10, 1 1 ; John 2:23; 3:2; 5 : 36, 37); and are for a religious purpose. Miracles are called in the New Testament, works, powers, wonders, signs.

Objections against the credibility of miracles : (1) Man's predisposition to believe in them. But the reply is that every normal bias of the mind points toward the truth, and wisely followed leads to the truth. 3 (2) The observed uniformity of nature. But the reply is that the order of nature is as truly modified by the free act of man as by a miracle. God, the Supreme mind, may control, supplement, overpower, or supersede the forces of nature for his own purpose, especially to restore the moral order, which man has subverted.

1 See Eusebius, Robinson, and Broadus, on Matt. 24 : 16.

2 See Doctor Strong, "Systematic The< The Miracles of Christ," etc.

3 See Butler, "Analogy," B. XI., Chap. 7.

2 See Doctor Strong, "Systematic Theology," p. 61; Doctor Hovey, " The Miracles of Christ," etc.

(3) The certainty that God's works are perfect. But the reply may be that it is not self-evident that the world, complete in itself, needs no care or help. Moral beings, trained by moral influences, may need divine interposition ; natural forces made to bend to the exigencies of moral order, do not of necessity indicate imperfection in God's method. A created universe can be no barrier to God. 1 (4) The fact that God is only a blind force immanent in all things. But we reply, this is a statement against theism, rather than against miracles. Pantheism as well as atheism is rejection of the Christian religion. Pantheism we believe to be false, and its inferences worthless. All objections to miracles are without force, when placed beside the facts pertaining to Jesus Christ. The New Testament and Christianity are unaccountable apart from the actual life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

As to the proof of his miracles or wonderful works, it may be said, the number of witnesses is sufficient, their integrity above suspicion, their powers of observation and memory excellent, their testimony positive, independent, harmonious, and their references to attendant circumstances numerous and natural. The phenomena which they attest are sensible, the aim of Christ's ministry was divine, and often his teaching is represented as growing out of his miracles. No one who was present is known to have denied the events recorded by the evangelists. In view, then, of the

claims of Jesus, and the facts which support his claims, the conclusion is that Jesus Christ is the Leader and Perfecter of the Christian faith, the Light of the world, and an infallible Teacher. All his words are to be believed to be true according to the sense and purpose with which he used them. The interpretation of his word and work may be a difficult task, but the resulting truth is pure and sanctifying. What then he taught, concerning the message his disciples were to tell the world, is to be learned by study of his words, and explained by the conduct of those who published them.

Third proposition : The New Testament Scriptures, especially the Gospels, prove that Jesus Christ promised the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to his apostles, by whom, with some of their associates, the New Testament was written. The word inspiration is here used to signify a work of the Holy Spirit upon the mind and heart, the intellect and the affections. It affects the whole spiritual being, the understanding, the memory, the feelings, the will. It imparts moral sensitiveness, courage, fairness, purpose, energy. It empowers the inner man to do rightly a difficult and sacred work. It assists the mind in recalling and comprehending religious truth, and in presenting it effectively to man. The promise of inspiration made to the apostles is found in Matt. 10 : 19, 20; Mark 13 : 11; Luke 12:11, 12; John 14: 15-17, 26 ; 15 : 26, 27 ; 16 : 7-15 ; Acts 1 : 5, 8. The Spirit was given to assist the apostles in makjo Christian Doctrine

ing apology before rulers, in defense of themselves and Christianity.

The Spirit was further given to assist in all the ministry and teaching of Christian truth (John 14 : 26; 15 :26; 16:7, 13-17). These passages prove (1) That the Holy Spirit would be the advocate of the Father and the Son in and with the apostles. (2) That the Spirit would bring to their remembrance all that Jesus had said to them (John 14 : 26 ; 16 : 14, 15). (3) That the Spirit would show them "the things to come," thus assuring them of prophetic inspiration, of light through the Spirit as to future events in the reign of Christ. (4) That the Spirit "would teach them all things," "guide them into all the truth " concerning Christ and his redemptive work, or all the truth which belongs to revealed religion. These promises appear to be meant for apostles only, since they were addressed to them only, and assured them of endowment for their special work, and since history forbids us to suppose them meant for all Christians. Yet it is doubtless true that some expressions in the promises of Jesus to the apostles have been fulfilled to other Christians. (See John 14:16; 16:8-11.) It is also clear from John 7 : 38, 39, and Acts 2 : 17-21, that the work of the Holy Spirit was to be widely extended and powerful among believers in Christ after his ascension. But Paul's discussion of spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. 12, 13, 14 teaches that the spiritual or inspirational endowments of the apostles were superior to those of all other teachers, so that the apostles were especially qualified to declare with authority the essential truths concerning Jesus Christ, his work, and his kingdom (John 20 : 22, 23 ; Eph. 2 : 20; Rev. 21 : 14 ; Matt. 16 : 17).