CONCLUSION.

As we recall the steps we have taken in the consideration of the Biblical teaching, the history of past days, the doctrinal formulation, and the application to modern needs, we cannot fail to see the imperative necessity of the Church and the individual emphasising the all-embracing importance of the Holy Spirit and His work. There are indications of this in the realm of religious thought, for it is being felt that the Holy Spirit has not received due notice and proper place in comparison with other aspects of Christian truth and life.

' The question is whether the full significance of our Lord's words concerning the Spirit has ever been adequately apprehended by His Church; whether in this, as well as in other directions, there be not more light ready to break forth from God's Holy Word, when it is diligently and prayerfully pondered.'1

It has recently been said2 that the doctrine of the Spirit is the hardest to reformulate to-day, that probably the time has not yet arrived for its full restatement; and that Eucken and Bergson are preparing for it, by giving it a larger interpretation than the Church of Christ has yet generally conceived. There may be truth in this, because, as Dr. Swete has said:

' The same Holy Spirit Who taught the great writers of the ancient Church to conceive of Him in terms which served their generation, may be leading us by other paths which He knows to be more suited to our feet.'3

But if it be true that in the New Testament ' the conception of the Spirit reaches its perfect end,'4 it may be questioned whether we need wait for any further and fuller reformulation, or for any ' larger interpretation.' The writings of Eucken and Bergson are valuable as against the materialism of an earlier generation, but it remains to be seen, and, indeed, it may fairly be questioned, whether they have anything distinctive to teach us about a doctrine which is essentially one of the New Testament, and is only efficacious when kept in close relation to Jesus Christ. When Eucken rejects the idea of a Mediator, and insists upon our going direct to God, it would seem as though the criticism is correct that describes his Christianity as ' a Christianity without Christ,' especially as one of his admirers writes that he implies that Jesus was ' the unfortunate occasion and starting-point for a departure from pure monotheism and truly spiritual religion.'5 If, therefore, it be accurate to describe Eucken's philosophy as simply a spiritual view of life without any relation to historic Christianity, it will not carry us very far, and we shall agree with Dr. Denney when he says that

' evidently Christianity will need the courage of its own experiences and conviction against Eucken, as against other philosophers who will not take Jesus at His own estimation.'6

The ' Spirit ' in the title of Eucken's book. The Life of the Spirit, is not to be confused with the ' Spirit ' of the New Testament; it is concerned with spirit, not with The Spirit.

A little time ago Dr. Caldecott read a paper on ' The Religious Significance of Bergson's Philosophy,'7 and after speaking in appreciative terms of Bergson's philosophy as a ' philosophy of spirit,' he admitted that we do not yet know what his ethics will be beyond the fact that they will be ' ethics of freedom.' Further, that at present we cannot say that the idea of God is in sight, though Dr. Caldecott sees no peril ahead at this point. He holds that Christian believers are not warranted in asking whether Bergson's philosophy establishes revelation and redemption as we understand them, but ' whether it makes room for them.' Dr. Caldecott's conclusion is that whilst he may be overestimating it, he finds very much even in its unfinished state which ' seems to him congenial with what Christian religion shows to us in its doctrine of the Holy Spirit and its doctrine of the spiritual life in man.' We are profoundly thankful for this assurance from so capable a thinker, but it may still be permitted to remind ourselves that, in Dr. Denney's words,

'The only Spirit which generates Christian experience is One which takes the things of Jesus and shows them to the soul. It is only by a ceaseless dialectical jugglery that we keep up the illusion that a historical religion can be independent of its origin and history.'8

The state of the Church to-day is another indication of the need of a re-emphasis on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. There does not seem much doubt of the fact that the Church of God is not making proper progress. This is the conviction of thoughtful men in almost every part of the Christian world. The unconverted are not being won, the young people are not being kept, and even the children are not being gathered in. The Churches of all denominations are bewailing loss in the decrease of membership and the decline of conversions. Not long ago the Editor of the Westminster Gazette said: ' No one who attempts to look into the future can regard the present state of religion and religious bodies as either final or satisfactory. When we seek to discover the cause of this trouble, we cannot help feeling that beneath everything else the vital question concerns the spiritual life of those who ' profess and call themselves Christians.' Forsyth has rightly said that

'the arrest of the Church's extensive effect is due to the decay of its intensive faith, while a mere piety muffles the loss.'9

It is widely believed that religion is losing its hold on numbers of people in various ranks of society where its power was formerly recognised. It is also urged that there is very little sense of sin because there is so little conception of God and eternal judgment. Is it not time, therefore, to face this problem, and endeavour to arrest the backward movement and turn it into a spiritual progress? It is unutterably sad to realise how little influence Churches have on the neighbourhoods in which they are situated, and to see the large numbers of people who never darken the doors of a place of worship, and are apparently, if not really, indifferent to the call and claim of Christ.

What, then, should be done? Every revival of spiritual religion has begun with a new conception of God, a recovery of the supernatural, a fuller revelation of the Person and Work of Christ and a deeper consciousness of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately modern days are experiencing substitutes of various kinds for these eternal realities. Sometimes the priest is the substitute. In the Middle Ages when the consciousness of direct spiritual realities had become weakened the priest represented God, because God was only heard mediately by the individual soul. When the Reformation came, with its re-assertion of the introduction of the soul direct to God through faith, we know what a spiritual revival resulted, and whenever that consciousness of eternal realities has become lost, certain types of mind inevitably revert to the Church and the priesthood. But this is not the true solution of the problem; the Church and the priest are prominent when the consciousness of spiritual and eternal realities becomes weakened. The emphasis on the Holy Spirit and on His direct relationship to the soul in Christ is the supreme need rather than of any form of ecclesiastical mediation, which almost inevitably tends to set God aside.

Another substitute for spiritual realities is often found in the scholar, or philosopher, or critic, by those who are unable to accept the idea of the priestly function in the Church. A short time back a book was published. The Greek Genius and Its Meaning to Us, by an Oxford scholar, in which among other points attention is given to the contrast between the religion of the Greek and the religion of the Jew. The author points out that the Greek was enabled to exercise his religious and political liberty without being at all concerned with the idea of a Divine revelation.

' The Jew accepted the God that was revealed to Him, the Greek thought his gods out..., the Greek set himself to answer the question how, with no revelation from God to guide him, with no overbearing necessity to intimidate him, man should live.'10

An able writer, reviewing this book, remarked, ' That is the question we have to face now,' and recommended his readers to adopt this idea of life without any Divine revelation. This is typical of much to-day that is found in modern scholarship. Minds are either unable or unwilling to realise that the Gospel is a Divine revelation, a supernatural religion. They seem to think that everything in Christianity can be explained along the lines of history and evolution, and they are constantly trying to reduce the Gospel to such limits as necessarily exclude its supernatural element. Even Benjamin Kidd in his Social Evolution, while recognising the supernaturalness of Christianity, declared it to be irrational. But there are many things in life that cannot be solved by reason, or analysed by science, and the innermost secrets of this Divine supernatural Gospel are the redemptive work of Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit. The deepest needs of humanity will never be solved by philosophy, scholarship, or criticism. Nothing but spiritual and moral sterility can be found in these directions.

Once again, to those who do not feel satisfied with the priest, or the scholar, the philanthropist is sometimes recommended. Great emphasis is placed upon social effort, and it is urged that Churches should be organised to improve social conditions, and to minister to social and economic needs. No doubt this is a timely and much-needed lesson, lest in our thought of bringing men to God, we fail to realise the need of social relationships and duties. But the deepest need of all is the conviction of sin, and no emphasis upon the social aspects of life will ever bring this about. Legislation will do much for human betterment, and it is the duty of the Church to emphasise the highest social ideals and to help forward the best social improvement. But when all has been said, it is still true, as Forsyth remarks, that

' the prime object of the Church with its Gospel is neither to sweeten, spiritualise, nor rationalise civilization and religion; but it is to conquer them.'11

Social reform can only come from spiritual reform, and the most clamant call to the Church is to proclaim the relationship and responsibility of man to God and the revelation of God to man. It is only in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit that sin will be realised and spiritual transformation effected. ' When He is come He will convince the world of sin... because they believe not on Me.'

Not, therefore, in the priest, or in the scholar, or in the philanthropist will the solution of the problem of arrested progress be found. The supreme need to-day is that of the evangelist and the prophet. If the evangelistic spirit were what it ought to be in our Churches a very great change would soon be effected. The supreme purpose of discipleship in the New Testament is that of personal service for Christ, the work of winning men to Him and to His Church, and this can only be done in the power of the Holy Spirit. As we contemplate the present condition of Christendom, we cannot help asking, ' Is the Spirit of the Lord straitened? Are these His doings? ' (Micah ii. 7). And the answer is a decided negative. It is the unfaithfulness of the Church to its supreme duty that is the cause of the present trouble. It is admitted by all that we are living in difficult and solemn days. The outlook depresses the earnest soul, for wherever he turns he is conscious of elements of evil and trouble, and of strange conditions in the Church and in the world. Callousness becomes more defined; indifference more widespread; the love of many waxes cold; universal charity tends to tolerate many forms of false teaching, and as a result the clear witness of the Church to Christ is hindered. There is only one way of changing all this and of bringing back a life in harmony with New Testament principles; it is by the declaration of the 'Old, Old Story,' by hearts that know, and lives that value it. ' Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts ' (Zech. iv. 6).

Since, therefore, the explanation of all the foregoing in individual Christian lives has been given our duty is obvious. The supreme need is for clear thinking, definite teaching, holy living, faithful witness, earnest service, strenuous effort in the power of the Spirit of God. We must make the Holy Spirit dominant in our life.12 Doctrine is powerless without experience. We must first receive the Spirit and then obey Him if we would understand fully and live adequately.13

The New Testament picture is that of a Spirit-filled Church, a community of Christians ' full ' of the Spirit of God, and herein consists the essential difference between life before and life after Pentecost.14 Whatever had been the case previous to that time, it was nothing compared with the life of the Church then and afterwards. But the trouble is that so many Christians to-day possess an experience which is only on a level with the earlier dispensations of the Old Testament and the Gospels. Although the dispensations of the Father and the Son are historically past, they are still experimentally present in many lives. It is not that, like the disciples of the Baptist, people have not heard whether the Holy Ghost has been given, but that they have never realised and entered fully into their inheritance. In the Old Testament dispensation from Abel to John the Baptist, there was of course a real life lived in the fear of God, with a genuine sense of sin, a strong belief in the coming Messiah, and a definite consciousness of immortality. Further, in the dispensation of the Son during our Lord's earthly ministry, there was a distinct advance on the previous period, for the disciples felt the power of the Divine Word in their Master's teaching, and enjoyed not a little fellowship with Him. But the dispensation of the Holy Spirit ushered in at Pentecost was marked beyond all else in a threefold way. It was characterised by (a) a rich personal experience: men were full of faith (Acts vi. 5); wisdom (Acts vi. 3); joy (Acts xiii. 52); and hope (Acts vii. 55). Then it was noteworthy for its (b) great personal courage, both of speech (Acts iv. 31), and of action (Acts xiii. 9). And as the outcome there was (c) splendid personal service in preaching (Acts ii. 4), and living (Acts ix. 31). There is scarcely anything more outstanding or more striking in the story of the primitive Church recorded in the Acts than the association of the Holy Spirit with every part of the life of the disciple and the community. Not only are men like Peter, Stephen, and Paul filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts iv. 8; vii. 55; ix. 17), but ordinary disciples have exactly the same experience (Acts iv. 31; xiii. 52), and almost every Christian grace is associated with the Holy Spirit, including wisdom (Acts vi. 5), comfort (Acts ix. 31), power (Acts x. 38), faith (Acts xi. 24), and joy (Acts xiii. 52).

This is God's purpose for all and at all times, and it is a disastrous error to regard it as a luxury for the few, or for spiritual occasions alone. When we read of Stephen being permanently full of the Holy Spirit (ύπάρχων; Acts vii. 55), we may surely believe that such an experience is possible for all. Some time ago, the Bishop of Durham gave a simple yet striking testimony in regard to his own spiritual experience:

' Never shall I forget the gain to conscious faith and peace which came to my own soul not long after I had appropriated the crucified Lord as the sinner's Sacrifice from a more intelligent and conscious hold, from the living personality of that Holy Spirit through whose mercy I had obtained that blessed view. It was a new development of insight into the love of God, a new discovery into divine resources.'

This represents the essential truth of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Christian life. When we receive Him by faith, we make ' a new discovery in Divine resources,' and we find that our lives enter upon a higher plane of restful satisfaction, of calm confidence, of frictionless service, of deepening influence, and of ever-extending blessing. If only our faith will accept the Spirit we shall receive and experience His power. And then if only in faithfulness we obey the Spirit we shall maintain our position, and by never grieving (Eph. iv. 30), never resisting (Acts vii. 51), never quenching (1 Thess. v. 19), we shall repeat in all our experiences and emergencies the New Testament life of privilege, power, and blessing. We shall rejoice in God's rich provision of grace, fulfil His great purposes of grace, and glorify Him as the God of all grace in a life ' full of the Holy Ghost.'

1 Davison, ' The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit,' London Quarterly Review, p. 204 (April, 1905).

2 Canon Masterman, Lectures at Liverpool on ' The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,' 1912.

3 Swete, The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church, p. 409.

4 Wood, The Spirit of God in Biblical Literature, p. 269.

5 Hermann, Eucken and Bergson.

6 Denney, Review of Hermann's Eucken and Bergson in the British Weekly.

7 Record, March 7, 1913.

8 Denney, ut supra.

9 Forsyth, The Principle of Authority, p. 313.

10 R. W. Livingstone, The Greek Genius and Its Meaning to Us.

11 Forsyth, op. cit. p. 313.

12 Denio, The Supreme Leader, ch. xiii. p. 226.

13 Humphries, The Holy Spirit in Faith and Experience, pp. 360-363.

14 See note O, p. 281.