cation." There is, of course, no question that the apostle views the way of salvation mainly in a forensic manner in Rom. i.-v., and that he develops the ethical aspects of his doctrine in chapters vi.-viii. But this fact in no way favors the idea that for Paul the objective and the subjective were "two revelations," or separate forms of doctrine, one of which followed the other chronologically. The ideas which Paul expresses in Rom. vi.-viii., were certainly in his mind when he began to write. The manner in which his thoughts are unfolded was determined by the purpose of his argument. In the early chapters he is concerned to prove the true method of justification, as against the false method. His point is: All men being sinful, we must hold that God accepts them, not on the basis of their good deeds, but on condition of a self-surrender. It is only [after this point is fully established that the apostle has occasion to develop his thought of the inner nature of the Christian life. Quite inconsistent with the theory of two doctrines, chronologically separate, is the fact that in Galatians (written before Romans), as well as elsewhere (e.g. Phil. iii. 9-11), the different forms of expression are used interchangeably.

I therefore hold that, in justice to Paul's thought, we should refuse, on the one hand, to minimize the juridical form of his doctrine in the supposed interest of an ethical idea of justification, and, on the other, should decline to rest in the forensic analogies alone as if they were precise, scientific definitions of the spiritual realities. We should rather hold that for Paul the juridical and the ethical coincide. His doctrine does not in the least fall short in point of ethical reality. In whatever various terms it is presented, it is ethical to the core. Modern religious thought lays great stress upon the importance of reading all Chrisitian doctrines in ethical terms, and rightly; but this requires no break with Paul. His conception of salvation is ethical through and through, because it is intensely real and personal. Faith is imputed for righteousness because it sets a man in the way of righteousness; it is the soul's entrance

1 Op. cit., p. 159.

upon right relations to God as revealed in Christ.1 A legal analogy is in no way inconsistent with ethical and spiritual reality when, as in this case, the lawgiver is the God of all grace, the law itself holy love, and the condition of acquittal before God union with Christ.

1 That the old theological formula, "the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer," does not correctly render Paul's thought of justification is now so generally recognized by exegetes that I have not thought it necessary to refer to it in the text. See my Pauline Theology, p. 263.

CHAPTER IX

THE HOLY SPIRIT

IN the Old Testament the Spirit is hardly more than a name for the power or presence of God. His Spirit broods over creation, educing order out of chaos (Gen. i. 2). He sends forth his Spirit, and men are created (Ps. civ. 30). By his Spirit God bestows strength upon heroes (Judg. xiv. 6), skill upon artificers (Ex. xxxi. 3, 4), inspiration upon poets (2 Sam. xxii. 2), and the knowledge of his will upon prophets (1 Sam. x. 10, etc.). The Spirit is mainly correlated with extraordinary gifts and endowments, although its relation to the ethical and religious life is not unrecognized (Ps. li. 11; Is. lxiii. 10). In the later Jewish period the Spirit was more distinctly correlated with the life of man. It was not, however, in his moral and spiritual life that the Spirit was supposed to be operative so much as in unusual states and experiences, such as prophecy, ecstasies, and visions. God was in the thunder and the whirlwind of man's life rather than in the stillness of his daily growth and common experience. The extraordinary and the marvellous were the marks of the Spirit's presence and power. The Spirit is regarded as an adequate cause for phenomena which are deemed supernatural and inexplicable. Not practical religious value, relation to holiness in thought and life, but the mysterious and miraculous is the test and proof of the Spirit's operation. Hence the prophet with the ecstatic inspiration which was commonly attributed to him was the typical example of a Spirit-filled man.1 Such were

1 The popular Jewish ideas of the workings of the Spirit of God are very fully illustrated and discussed by Gunkel in Part I. of his very instructive work, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes nach der popu

some of the current ideas concerning the working of the Spirit in the time of Paul. It is interesting to observe how far he accorded with them and how he modified them.1

In the New Testament we meet with clear traces of this popular view of the Spirit's activity. In the early chapters of Acts the work of the Spirit is mainly seen in the miraculous and the marvellous. The speaking with tongues at Pentecost (contemplated in Acts ii. as a miraculous endowment with the ability to speak foreign languages) is regarded as a signal exhibition of the Spirit's power (vv. 4, 17). Here it is the marvellous which is magnified and regarded as the supreme proof of the Spirit's operation. The Spirit of the Lord catches away Philip and transports him from the place where he baptized the eunuch to Azotus (Acts viii. 39, 40). The miracles of the apostles are especially regarded as works of the Spirit. It was the "signs" which Philip did which excited the desire of Simon Magus to possess, for his own use, the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts viii. 18). For the Christians, indeed, the possession of the Spirit involved that the heart should be "right before God" (v. 21), but it was the Spirit of power, rather than that of holiness upon which primary stress was laid.2 The same association of the Spirit with the unusual in the religious life is reflected in the circumlären Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit und nach der Lehre des Apostels Paulus.

1 Respecting the origin and motive of Paul's doctrine of the Spirit wide differences of opinion exist. Sanday says: "The doctrine of the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit is taken over (by Paul) from the O. T." Comm. on Romans, p. 199. With this view agree, substantially, Wendt, Fleisch u. Geist, p. 152 sq. and Gloël, Der Heilige Geist, p. 238 sq. Gunkel, on the contrary, op. cit., pp. 83-90 thinks that Paul's doctrine has very little connection with the O. T., and explains it from his experience and his originality. Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, p. 206 sq.; Cone, The Gospel and its Earliest Interpretations, p. 167; and Holtzmann, Neutest. Theol. II. 145, think it stands connected with Hellenistic thought, especially with the Book of Wisdom. Per contra, see Gunkel, pp. 86, 87. I hold that the historic root of Paul's doctrine is in the O. T., but that Gunkel correctly emphasizes the great importance of his personal experience and originality in determining its development.

2 Cf. Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, p. 245.

stance that the Spirit was regarded as a special gift which did not always accompany baptism and faith. The Sa maritans are not regarded as having "received the Holy Ghost" when they "received the word of God." They had believed and had been baptized, but it was only when Peter and John went down and prayed for them and laid their hands on them that the gift of the Spirit was bestowed (Acts viii. 14-17). Evidently some special endowment or experience is here in view. The same conception emerges even more clearly in the narrative concerning the disciples of John whom Paul found at Ephesus (Acts xix. 1-7). Not only did they not "receive the Holy Ghost" when they believed, but after they had been baptized into the name of Christ, it was only when Paul had laid his hands on them "that the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied" (v. 6). Here it is obvious that the gift of the Spirit is regarded as synonymous with the ecstatic charismata of speaking with tongues and prophesying. Such circumstances can only be rightly understood and estimated in the light of the popular conceptions of the Spirit's agency.

What attitude did Paul assume towards this idea of the work of the Spirit? We shall find, I think, that he shares it in part, but that he has modified it in important respects and has given to it quite a new form and proportion. What he says that bears upon our present inquiry is mainly found in his discussion of the gifts of tongues and of prophecy in 1 Cor. xii.-xiv.

The apostle so far shares the current views as to think of miracles, visions, and charisms as special products of the Spirit's action. A mysterious sacredness attaches to these phenomena. Paul is reluctant to speak freely about them. Only when compelled to do so by the aspersions of his enemies, does he refer to his "visions and revelations of the Lord" (2 Cor. xii. 1). The words which he heard in the ecstatic experience which he proceeds to describe were "unspeakable words which it is not lawful for man to utter" (v. 4). Paul feels himself to be a πνευματικός