THE SPIRIT OF GOD.

The teaching of the Nicene Creed concerning the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Godhead is found in the words:

' I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-Giver, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified.'

It is believed that this statement is the explicit expression of what is found implicitly in Scripture. Two questions arise: the Personality and the Deity of the Holy Spirit.

The use of the term ' Person ' in relation to the Godhead calls for special attention. Its theological history is somewhat involved, but on the whole it has been helpfully summarised by various writers.

' The word persona, of which Person is the translation, properly signifies a dramatic part, or character; and was adopted, as Augustine tells us, by the Latins on account of the poverty of their language, which has no word exactly corresponding to the ὐπόστασις of the Greeks, the term employed by the latter to denote each of the three Subjects of the Holy Trinity. The meaning of persona, then, must be determined by that of hypostasis. Now this term, as distinguished from essence (οὐσία), signifies the Divine Being when viewed in connection with a particular " Personal property " (Proprietas personalis), that is, the property which compels us to make a distinction between the Persons; which in the First Person is paternity, in the Second filiation, and in the Third procession; so that the Father means God considered as begetting, the Son, God considered as begotten, and the Holy Ghost, God considered as proceeding (essentia divina cum proprietatibus personalibus).'1

Personality with us to-day expresses the fact of a separate individual human being who is rationally self-conscious and distinct from all others. But Personality in God is intended to convey the idea of an inner distinction which exists within the unity of the Divine nature.

' Our popular modern notion of " person " — as signifying a separate individual (human) being — is totally different from what " person " meant or really means when applied theologically to distinctions within the Divine Being.'2

' The personal distinction in Godhead is a distinction within, and of, unity: not a distinction which qualifies unity, or usurps the place of it, or destroys it.'3

' It is only an extension of principles already implicit in our social existence as human beings when we speak of a true solidarity of life, a spiritual coalescence, between Christ and His people. And if, as Lotze has argued so impressively, personality in us is incomplete, and exists perfectly in God only, we may well conclude that this self-communicating power which we possess only in part will have its perfection and fulness in Him, and therefore also in Christ, Who is God apprehensible by us.'4

The facts of Scripture demand from us the acknowledgment of the unity of the Godhead, and also of those interior distinctions between Father, Son, and Spirit which we can only express by our word ' Person.'

' We use the word " Person " from simple poverty of language: to indicate our belief, that is, in the reality of Divine distinctions, not to affirm separate conscious beings, possessed of separate " essences." If it be said that this description of such interior distinctions is negative merely, the comment, however just, is by no means fatal to its validity. Most Christian thinkers are agreed that God is causa sui, and that He is omnipresent; yet when we look into our own minds, are not these phrases, however necessary, laden with a sense predominantly negative? When we use them, we are affirming that God owes reality to Himself alone, and that He is nowise limited by space. The conceptions, in other words, can never be positively defined, yet we are obliged to grant their truth.'5

Beyschlag is of opinion that the idea of the Holy Spirit as a third Divine Person is ' one of the most disastrous importations into Holy Scripture.'6 And the Dean of St. Paul's, Dr. Inge, in a sermon preached at St. Paul's Cathedral, on Whitsunday, June 4, 1911, said that

' The Holy Spirit in the Bible was not a " person " in the modern sense; the Greek language had no word for " person " or " personality." '7

It is, of course, perfectly true that the term ' person ' is used to-day in connection with human life in a way that is quite different from its use in connection with the Godhead. But it is also true that no other term has yet been found adequate to express the essential distinctions in the Godhead.

' The word " Person " has a fulness and totality of meaning of its own, and certainly nothing short of the inclusive completeness of personal being can be predicated, at any moment, of God — whether Father, Son, or Holy Ghost.'8

The Holy Spirit is a Person, because He works by personal activities on persons, and with proper safeguards the use of the term is abundantly warranted as that which alone expresses the idea required. This justification is twofold. The facts of Scripture demand it, for, while it is true that many passages suggest the impersonality of the Spirit,9 there are others that cannot possibly be interpreted in this way. The teaching of Christ about the Paraclete, and the personal references to the Holy Spirit in the Acts and the Epistles necessitate the predication of Personality.

' Spirit means life and power, the saving energy of God within human life; and it is the uniform teaching of the New Testament that Christ, Who possessed this Spirit in its fulness, has mediated it to all believers. Hence to call the Spirit impersonal must ultimately be meaningless for a religion to which the gracious power of God can never be a mere " thing." Could the love of God be shed abroad in our hearts by the non-personal? Could a natural force enable men to confess Jesus as Lord? True, a monotheistic New Testament has nowhere described the Spirit as a " separate personality "; it is indeed more than questionable whether such a general abstract idea as " personality " had then attained general currency. Yet in the last resort the Spirit of God must be as personal as God Himself. So true is this, that it is only by interior union with the personal Spirit that our proper personality is consummated. To have within us, as the soul's life, the very Spirit that made the inmost being of Jesus, is bestowed by Jesus, and commends Jesus to the heart — this is to be perfected in personal being. By unity with such Spirit man first is fully man.'10

The consciousness of the Church bears witness in the same direction. Sabellianism both ancient and modern has always proved impossible in the long run. Modalism even without Successionalism is wholly inadequate to the Scripture testimony.11 There is scarcely anything more significant in the history of the Church than the recurrence and also the rejection of Sabellianism, for it is at once apparently easy, and soon seen to be utterly impossible to consider the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as mere aspects or manifestations of one God.

' There is one crucial defect about it, a defect which, for us, condemns the language as impossible. For it degrades the Persons of Deity into aspects. Now there can be no mutual relation between aspects. The heat and the light of flame cannot severally contemplate, and be in love with, one another. Whereas real mutuality, — mutuality which involves on both sides personal capacities, — is the one thing which we most unflinchingly assert.'12

Personal working needs continuity of action, and it has been the experience of the individual Christian and of the Church in all ages that the spiritual renewal needed by the believer and the community requires constant and continuous action, and not a permanent endowment. And so we hold that

' a clear conception of the personality of the Holy Spirit is necessary if His living relation to the individual human spirit and to the Spirit-bearing community is to be adequately realised.'13

The Deity of the Spirit is a necessary consequence of His Personality, for that which is attributed to His Personality involves His Deity. This belief is based on the facts of Scripture, especially on the revelation of Christ. The allusions to the Holy Spirit are such as cannot possibly be predicated of anyone else than God Himself.

' No one now denies the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. It could be only a freak to interpret the Bible as meaning that the Spirit of God is a creature. And the offices which the Spirit has to fulfil are so clearly personal that His Personality always presses itself into the Christian's conception. There is one God, and yet Father, Son, and Spirit are alike Divine and personal.'14

Yet this view is always found in close connection with the unity of the Godhead, and is never associated in the slightest degree with anything polytheistic. None can question the fact that New Testament Theism is inextricably bound up with the Old Testament doctrine of the unity of God. This is fundamental throughout.15

The bearing of this on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is clear and important. It is impossible to question the fact that the New Testament affords clear proofs of distinctions within the Unity.

' The New Testament hardly invites to any discussion of the metaphysics of the Spirit. Of course, it is the Spirit of God, and Divine. It is part of the one Divine causality which — as Father, Son, and Spirit — confronts the sinful world, and works in unison for its redemption. It belongs unmistakably to the sphere of the Divine, not of the human.... The New Testament and Christian experience are at one in teaching that the Christian conception of God includes all that is meant by Father, Son, and Spirit; and as the omission of what is meant by any of these terms leaves the Christian conception unsatisfied, it may fairly be said that the doctrine of the Trinity is the fundamental doctrine of our faith. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit in their unity constitute the God Whom we know as the God of our salvation.'16

' The principle of life and power known as " Holy Spirit " is no one casual factor in perfect religion by the side of others; it is that to which everything else converges, and apart from which nothing else^ — not even the revelation of Jesus — could take effect. So the Father disclosed in the Son is imparted in the Spirit. The presence of the Spirit comes but as a higher mode of Christ's transcendent influence, the climax of His work. " Through Him we have access by one Spirit unto the Father " is a great comprehensive Pauline word; and in such a verse the experience out of which flowed the New Testament faith in a Triune God grows transparent. It is the experience of a differentiated yet single Divine causality in redemption. If then the Spirit belongs to the sphere of the Divine, not of the human even as redeemed, room must be made for it also within the believing thought of God. Its omission leaves that thought incomplete. We speak in the sense of the New Testament, therefore, when we say that " the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in their unity constitute the God Whom we know as the God of our salvation." '17

Yet there is an entire absence of any consciousness of a new revelation, or of any surprise or opposition from the Jews. There is no embarrassment, no difficulty, no hesitation.18 The New Testament was written by Monotheists who were evidently unconscious of any incongruity or contradiction between their cherished view of the unity of the Godhead and the distinctions which they were teaching and recording. This fact remains one of the most striking problems of New Testament Theism.

The Trinity in the New Testament is primarily revealed in connection with the historic manifestation of Christ.19 It arises out of the Incarnation: ' if the Incarnation be real the Trinity is true.' Redemption comes from the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit. It is only thus that the facts are explicable. There is no speculation, no argument, only a statement of what is inextricably bound up in Christian experience. Christ is the Divine Saviour, the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, and so we have a number of passages expressive of the new life of believers (Matt, xxviii. 19; Rom. viii. 9-1 1; 1 Cor. ii. 1-5; xii. 4-6; 2 Cor. xiii. 14; Eph. ii. 18). In this association we have the spiritual and experimental foundations of the Trinity, A recent writer has said that ' if Christ did not use the Trinitarian formula, yet the revelation is already present in His teaching.'20 In support of this, Matthew xi. 25-27 and Luke x. 21, 22 are adduced, which are said to reveal the self-consciousness of Christ, and thus ' demand for its explication the later doctrine.' Further, the ministry of our Lord and the Fourth Gospel are added in support of His doctrine of the Spirit, and in regard to the latter point, the writer remarks: ' I find it impossible to believe that we have here only reflexions of the evangelist, without any basis whatever in his reminiscences of Jesus' teaching.'21 And thus we come again to the conclusion that ' the doctrine of the Trinity as it is presented in the New Testament is rooted in Christian experience.'22

' The whole theological basis of the New Testament is Trinitarian. The following facts appear on almost every page: God is one; the Father is God, yet distinguishable from the Son and the Spirit; the Son is God, both in His pre-existent and incarnate states, yet distinguishable from the Father and the Spirit; the H0I3' Ghost is God, yet distinguishable from the Father and the Son. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all described as personal. We find these facts not only expressed in the direct statements of the sacred writers, but implied in all their teachings, appearing wherever we can perceive the drift and tendency of their theological thought. The redemptive grace of God is ascribed to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost alike. They all appear in the Divine activities by which the work of God's kingdom is carried forward. The Divine attributes are freely attributed to all. In a word, the threefold cord of this great doctrine is everywhere inwoven in the texture of the New Testament.'23

This doctrine of a Trinity of manifestation in Christ is necessarily based on the doctrine of a Trinity of essence. It is impossible to account otherwise for the facts of revelation, and equally impossible with these facts to stop short of contemplating the relation of this revelation to the essential nature of God.

' No one to-day will dream of constructing a Trinitarian doctrine a priori; the sufficiency of the syllogism in such a realm has ceased to be obvious: but the clear duty of the Christian thinker— as will be acknowledged once more when the present disparagement of reason has passed by — is to relate Jesus Christ intelligibly to the inmost and eternal life of God. He has no option but to do this; his instinctive impulse is to do it; and the impulse is restrained only in obedience to a particular theory of knowledge. Why the effort to translate the initial certitude of faith — which no subsequent speculative procedure can impair — into a luminous conviction of the mind should be flouted as superfluous, or even as an attempt upon the Christian religion, it is not easy to see; and reason is sure to avenge itself by the gibe that faith, in submission to the unintelligible, is simply indifferent to the truth. There is room in theology for a knowledge that is not so much disinterested as interested purely in its object, and cares enough about God to know Him in His own nature.'24

It was impossible to avoid or prevent reflection on the facts of revelation. Theology, as arising out of the facts, was inevitable. The first distinction in the Godhead is that of the Father and of the Son, and implies duality. No one can question the clearness of this in the New Testament. Then comes the more difficult question of the uniqueness and distinctness of the Spirit, which is based on the two grounds of (a) Christ's own testimony to the Spirit; (b) the works attributed to the Spirit in the New Testament. From the one distinction in the Godhead the mind is naturally led on to the next, because Christ and the Spirit are seen to be parallel manifestations of God and closely related in redemption. And if Christ is within the Godhead, it is impossible for the Spirit to be without, for this would imply an inferiority of the Spirit which is contradicted by the facts of Scripture and experience.

' With our Lord as a second Person in the Godhead, the theological problem finds no further philosophical difficulty by making the plurality into a trinity. Indeed, for a certain type of speculative mind, the trinity actually helps us to understand the plurality. But the personality of the Holy Spirit is much more than an easy addition for the Christian man — it is almost a necessary addition.'25

It is, of course, true that we have not the same clearness and fulness of revelation in the New Testament in reference to the Deity of the Spirit. It has been suggested that gradualness was necessary, that, as Christ said. His disciples could not ' carry ' at once everything He had to say. The unity of the Godhead and the Divine redemption naturally came first; then followed the personal application of redemption and the full revelation to the individual and the community. This would take time, but whether early or late of realisation, it could not be otherwise than a Divine work, so that whatever development we find after New Testament times, is all implicit in the New Testament itself.

' It is not an instance of fundamental addition to the Word of God; but it is an instance where Christian history and Christian consciousness have rejected certain possible interpretations of biblical data and have resulted in an interpretation which is not satisfactory to any rationalistic scholar. But the rationalistic scholar himself has just as much bias as has the Christian scholar.'26

We must assuredly keep the doctrine as close as possible to the facts of religious experience. The Theism of the New Testament is in constant and inevitable connection with the need and provision of redemption. But as reason will continue to play upon experience, we must not be checked by the fear of speculation from attempting to express in thought what is implied in experience.

' We must try to discharge a twofold task, to show how necessary this doctrine is to Christian experience still, and to state the doctrine in such modern categories as will keep it near that experience. Religion cannot rest in pantheism, which removes the distinction between God and man, nor yet in deism, which disturbs the communion of God and man. Religion must have a God both above and near, or in philosophical terms transcendent and immanent. The sense of dependence and submission is as essential as the sense of communion.'27

This is the answer to those who decry and denounce all attempts, whether past or present, to express in the best available categories the doctrine of the Trinity.

' In the quiet of the study or the classroom it is easy to speak of banishing metaphysical terms from theology, but in practice it is impossible. To do this would involve not simply the rewriting of our theological systems, but of our hymns, our liturgies, even of the Bible itself. The doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness may be a product of the fourth century, but its beginnings go back to the very threshold of Christianity; and the men who laid its foundations are not Origen and Athanasius, but the Apostle Paul and the fourth evangelist. The Christ of the New Testament is not simply the man of Nazareth, but the pre-incarnate Logos, the Word that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. Either we must be prepared to break with historic Christianity altogether and banish large parts of the New Testament from their place in our public worship, or else we must be able to give some rational account of the presence of the metaphysical element in early Christian theology and of its significance for the present life of the Church."28

As we have already seen, it is not at all difficult to criticise the use of the word ' person,' but it is exceedingly difficult to suggest any better word. We are compelled to start with the thought of God as personal, for the very idea of human fellowship with God necessitates the conception of personality. When through prayer and trust we meet with God, there is true intercourse and genuine communion, and it is inconceivable that this can come from any but a Personal Being. But the difficulty arising at this point has been well stated.

' If the unity be personal, are the differences within God personal in such sense as the use of the term three persons suggests? '29

Dr. Garvie admits that he has felt the difficulty so acutely, that until quite recently he preferred to use the terms ' mode ' and ' principle ' instead of ' person,' though he makes the significant admission that in using this language he has always insisted that ' the mode of perfect personality cannot be described as impersonal, but must be conceived as personal.'30 This is the latest, and in some respects the frankest, admission of the impossibility of finding any better term than ' Person.' The difficulty is, of course, in conceiving of personality as infinite, since our human conception of a person is of someone always finite. But modern thought has been tending more and more towards the view that, while personality is finite in man, this is no necessary proof of finiteness of personality in God. In other words, that personality in the human sense is not the highest of all conceivable realities. Garvie uses the illustration of the modern conception of society as organic for the purpose of modifying the conception of personality, and urges us to think of personality ' in the measure of its perfection as transcending individuality in the sense of exclusiveness.'31 He argues that human personality is only real as it is social, and that the more advanced a society, the more distinct is its corporate consciousness.

' A man is more fully man as he is husband, father, citizen. The intension of personality grows with its extension; the wider the relations, the fuller the individuality.'32

All this tends to show that finiteness is not only not essential to personality, but is rather a limitation or imperfection, since human beings only really become conscious of their own personality through contact with others. Dr. Garvie thereupon draws the obvious conclusion:

' If human persons may transcend their exclusive individuality in such a social unity, real in, and revealing God as love, may we not conceive God Himself as organic social personality? May not the one life of the personal God be expressed in the manifold personal life of the Father, Son, and Spirit and the different personal life of Father, or Son, or Spirit be realised in the common life of the personal God? As individuals in society form an organic unity, so may we conceive Father, Son, and Spirit each as personal, yet one in the personal God.'33

To the same effect is the able discussion of the Bishop of Down:

' Personality may be, for human thought, the highest of all categories; but the existence of certain fundamental antinomies and oppositions, speculative and practical, proves clearly that it is not the ultimate form of being. There is a degree of Reality, a final Unity, higher, more concrete, than Personality. There must be, because a person is, after all, essentially one among many. A person is what he is, not merely because he is inclusive as regards his own experience, but because he is exclusive as regards his neighbours' experience. Personality cannot therefore be a full definition of the Divine nature. God is personal and something more. In His final Unity He is superpersonal, and this superpersonal unity is the ultimate Reality, concrete and universal. Here is exactly the condition demanded by the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The most complete monotheism is compatible with the recognition of a personal multiplicity in the Godhead.'34

We return, therefore, to the view that in some way or other we are compelled to contemplate God as a Person, and that in spite of all the difficulties this conception is much nearer the truth than anything else. Such ideas as the love of God, and the Fatherhood of God can only be conceived of in terms of Personality, and we may even go as far as to suggest with Garvie that perhaps this ideal of society as organic, this conception of personality as requiring other personalities for their full revelation and realisation, ' is the earthly shadow of the heavenly substance of the triune God.'35 it is therefore impossible to avoid coming to the conclusion of a modern theologian, that

' the personality of the Holy Spirit is not a mere question of technical theology, but an article of vital faith for the Christian, and one on which momentous issues depend. The Father is God over us, the Son is God for us, the Holy Spirit is God in us. If He to Whom the administration of redemption is entrusted be not a Person, the very meaning of the phrase is gone. The Unitarian declares that the Trinitarian formula of baptism implies faith in God, a man, and an abstraction. If for the Third Person in the Trinity we substitute, even unconsciously, an abstraction, the living God present in our midst has vanished, we are " orphans " indeed.... To ignore the personality of the Holy Spirit is to miss a great theological truth and to fail in apprehending a source of great spiritual power.'36

We are thus led still more definitely than ever to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity as that which expresses what God is in Himself quite apart from creation. It means that God is not a solitary individual, abstract and detached from all society. He is rich and full in His nature, manifold in His essential Being, and, as such, the Pattern and Archetype of all society. This is the profound truth that underlies the error of Polytheism, which was the crude and impossible demand of man for society in the Deity. On the other hand, Deism with its solitary God represents another essential requirement of the human mind, and the question that faces all Christian theists is whether the essential truth of Polytheism, society in God, and the essential truth of Deism, unity in God, can be reconciled. If, with a modern writer, we may conceive of God as a ' social whole,' we may perhaps regard the word ' social ' as expressive of the essential truth of polytheism, and the word ' whole ' as the essential truth of deism. The threefold distinction in God, which is expressed by the word ' Trinity,' is the attempt of man to conceive and express the meaning of the Infinite God in the terms of Jesus Christ, and we believe that the use of the phrase, ' The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,' is the very best rendering of the mystery that can be given.

' The doctrine of the Trinity stands in truth midway between Agnosticism and Deism. With the former it recognises the impossibility of presenting to our minds the inmost nature of the Supreme One, with the latter it insists upon the absolute necessity of thinking of the Deity in terms of personality. But it keeps closer than either to the facts of the religious consciousness and the needs of humanity, because it builds upon actual experience, the experience which stands central in the history of the race, and it interprets this experience by means of the only perfect Personality known to man.'37

The true meaning of Trinitarian doctrine, therefore, is not separate spheres of Divine operation in connection with each Person, but the united and inclusive operations of three Persons in one God. While each Person is (as the pronouns would suggest) self-conscious and self-determining, yet they themselves are never separated from one another. There are three centres of self-consciousness in the one self-consciousness of God.38 The full statement of truth is, ' From and unto the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit. The transcendence in the Deity is expressed by the Father; the expression of the Deity is represented by the Son; while the truth of the immanence of the Deity for man's moral and spiritual life is that for which the Holy Spirit stands. And thus the Holy Spirit is at once the personal, energetic life of God and the ' Executive of the Godhead ' in relation to man. The most serious danger to-day lies in the prevalence of what may be called a practical ' Binitarianism ' by the omission of the Holy Spirit from thought and life. But however difficult may be the conception of the Holy Spirit as within the Godhead, it can never be disregarded without spiritual loss. At all costs we must be true to the full New Testament idea of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

In view, therefore, of all the facts of the case, we are compelled to face the alternatives: the Deity of the Holy Spirit or its denial, for no other standing-ground is possible.39 But this is in no sense prejudicial to the supreme and final thought of the Divine unity; rather is it the necessary consequence and expression of the unity. We are compelled by the very nature of the case to insist upon those distinctions in the Godhead which are represented by the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, for they are the application of the essential nature of man as social in his comprehension of the Being of God as social. This conception is our highest and best idea, and receives its supreme expression in the words, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

' We cannot but think of Him as eternally being as He expresses and communicates Himself to us.... The transcendent God is ours in the Father, Whose very Name gives promise of the immanence objective in the Son as incarnate in Jesus Christ to save man, the consummation of a process of divine revelation which is also redemptive, and the immanence subjective in the Holy Spirit, the renewer and perfecter of the soul of man.'40

And so, while we emphasise and maintain this distinctness, we also emphasise and maintain the oneness as the fundamental and vital conception of Deity.

' Yet it is in the unity of God as known in Christ that our minds come finally to rest. The triune life is apprehended by us for the sake of its redemptive expression, not for the internal analysis of its content. The problem can never be one of ontology mixed with arithmetic. Throughout, our aim is bent on history and its meaning, as we strive to apprehend the one God in His saving manifestation. To this point of view faith is constant. From this point the doctrine must set out only to circle round at last to its fruitful origin. God as Holy Love we name the Father; this same eternal God, as making the sacrifice of love and appearing in one finite spirit for our redemption, we name the Son; God filling as new life the hearts to which His Son has become a revelation, we name the Spirit. In this confession we resume the best it has been given us to know of the eternal God our Saviour.'41

It is sometimes said that as religion consists in communion with God, God and man are therefore akin, and that human nature is a reflection of the Divine. So that as humanity has three phases: Fatherhood, Motherhood, and Brotherhood, these must have their counterparts in the Godhead. Two are clear: Fatherhood in connection with the Father, and Brotherhood in connection with the Son; and the attempt is consequently made to associate the Holy Spirit with the remaining one. Motherhood. It is argued that this tendency of all religions would not be lacking in Christianity, and in support of it reference is made to the ' brooding ' of the Spirit in Gen. i. 2; the ' birth ' of the Spirit in John iii., and the wording of the original in James i. 18. It may be questioned, however, whether this is a satisfactory basis on which to rest such a conception of the Spirit of God. Nowhere in Scripture is any teaching found which associates the Holy Spirit with Motherhood, and the idea of Motherhood in the Deity (if regarded as necessary to theological thought) can be conceived of and realised without any such definite distinctions as are necessitated by this theory.

Literature. — Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament, p. 283; Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, p. 95; Moberly, Atonement and Personality, chs. viii., ix.; Denio, The Supreme Leader, p. 196; Walker, The Holy Spirit, ch. iii.; Garvie, The Christian Certainty Amid the Modern Perplexity, ch. x.; Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, Sections 52-58, 181-184; Parker, The Paraclete, ch. i.; Moule, Veni Creator, p. 5; Downer, The Mission and Ministration of the Holy Spirit, ch. i.; Masterman, ' I believe in the Holy Ghost,' ch. vi.; Elder Gumming, After the Spirit, ch. i.; Bushnell, The Vicarious Sacrifice, p. 38; J. M. Campbell, After Pentecost, What? ch. iii.

1 Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, p. 125. See also Bethune-Baker, An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine, p. 233.

2 Winstanley, Spirit in the New Testament, p. 160.

3 Moberly, Atonement and Personality, p. 155.

4 Mackintosh, The Person of Jesus Christ, p. 339.

5 Mackintosh, op. cit. p. 524.

6 New Testament Theology, Eng. Trans., ii. p. 279.

7 The Times, June 5, 191 1. So to the same effect, Garvie, Expositor, VIII. 5, p. 46 (January, 1913).

8 Moberly, op. cit. p. 160.

9 Moberly, op. cit. p. 180.

10 Mackintosh, op. cit. p. 510.

11 E. H. Johnson, The Holy Spirit, p. 86 if, criticising W. L. Walker.

12 Moberly, op. cit. p. 165.

13 Davison, ' The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit,' London Quarterly Review, April, 1905, p. 208.

14 Johnson, The Holy Spirit, p. 43.

15 Moberly, op. cit. p. 154.

16 Denney, Article, ' Holy Spirit,' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, p. 744.

17 Mackintosh, op. cit. pp. 508, 509.

18 Moberly, op. cit. p. 155.

19 Moberly, op. cit. pp. 181-185.

20 Garvie, Expositor, ut supra, p. 37.

21 Garvie, Expositor, ut supra, p. 38.

22 Garvie, Expositor, ut supra, p. 43.

23 Stearns, Present Day Theology, p. 191.

24 Mackintosh, op. cit. p. 522; see also p. 513; Moberly, op. cit. p. 185; Denio, The Supreme Leader, p. 196.

25 Curtis, The Christian Faith, p. 337.

26 Curtis, op. cii. p. 339.

27 Carvie, Expositor, ut supra, p. 48.

28 W. Adams Brown, Christian Theology in Outline, p. 158.

29 Garvie, Expositor, ut supra, p. 50.

30 Garvie, Expositor, ut supra, p. 51.

31 Garvie, Expositor, ut supra, p. 51.

32 Garvie, Expositor, ut supra, p. 51.

33 Garvie, Expositor, ut supra, pp. 51, 52.

34 D'Arcy, Article ' Trinity,' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels p. 766.

35 Garvie, Expositor, ut supra, p. 52. See also Moberly op cit p. 161.

36 Davison, ut supra, pp. 209, 210.

37 D'Arcy, ut supra, p. 765.

38 Moberly, op. cit. pp. 157-169.

39 Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, p. xi.

40 Garvie, Expositor, ut supra, pp. 49, 50.

41 Mackintosh, op. cit. p. 526.