3. It is difficult to set forth St. Paul's theory of guilt without entering upon the wliole question of his view of sin. But a few considerations will make it clear that he looks at sin, in the first instance, as inciirring guilt. It is represented as an act committed against God (Ro 1-'). All its essential features are recapitulated in each indi- vidual sin or transgression. It is only through the Law that it can appear as what it is (3"" 7'). It can only be separated from its actual raanifesta
on the part of Adam (5''). Death is not so much its consequence as its punishment or wages (513 6^), not following automatically, but in- flicted by the sentence of an ofl'ended God (1'*', Eph 5°, Col 3*). It involves responsibility (Ro 1^°), desert (P-), condemnation (5"'-'*). The work of Christ is primarily an act of righteous obedience (518. 19^ pii 08), undoing the act of disobedience in which all sin is included ; an offering for sin con- demning sin in the flesh (Bo 8'), and wiping off the score of trespasses (Col 2"). Its eft'ect in the broadest view is a reversal of the sentence of con- demnation (Ro 8') and reconciliation with God (5'°, 2 Co 5'*"-"). St. Paul's view of the function of law must liere be remembered. The analogy of a therapeutic drug, administered in order that the disease may declare itself, is apt to mislead. This is not in the Apostle's thought. For trespasses or transgressions are themselves sin, not merely its symptoms (Eph 2'- »). It is the removal of these, not of a cause distinguishable from them, which is the piirpose of the Cross (Ro 4-^ ; cf. 5' 8'-). Death, which passed upon all men in consequence
of transgression (5'-), reigned from Adam to Moses (5"). The figure is that of a ruler to whose sway all men have as a penalty been judicially consigned, and from whose custody the free favour of God in Christ releases them. 'All have sinned' (5'-), whether with or without an explicit publication of law. St. Paul would not have allowed that tlirough an involuntary taint of heredity men had at any time suffered without personal guilt. The Gentiles have the Law, being enlightened by conscience (2"'- '= ; cf . Mt 25"-'"'). Though the Law is not explicitly revealed, they are in effect trans- gressors. If in Ro 4'5 St. Paul declares that ' the law worketh wrath,' because 'where there is no law, neither is tliere transgression,' in Gal 3" he says rather that the Law was added {wptxreT^eri), came in between the promise and its fulfilment, because of transgressions ; i.e. to bring home un- mistakably to those who were already guilty the conviction of their offences.
So we are brought to the evidence of the doctrine of justification. Without pressing the forensic metaphor to a point inconsistent with St. Paul's thought, which would relegate the whole theology of guilt to a region of formal conceptions un- checked by experience, we are bound to remember that the Apostle is concerned with the probation of guilt assumed to exist, which is necessary before the sinner can throw himself upon the offer of free salvation secured to him through the gospel. Justification is not in itself a change of character, a transformation of life, but an alteration of status (Ro 5'-, Eph 2''), a reversal of relations whereby the ' servants of sin ' (Ro 6"), ' the chil- dren of wrath' (Eph 2') become 'children of grace,' ' sons of God ' ((ial 3="). It is the antithesis of trespasses (Ro 4'-^), no more to be confused with sanctifieation, -nliich is its fruit (6-), than is trans- gression with uncleanness, whicli is its issue (1-''). To be justified from sin is to have escaped— either by paying the penalty of death (6') or by belie\'ing in Christ Jesus {Z^*- -=)— from what in a figure is regarded as its claim or dominion over the life (6'*""). involving an obedience or yielding of the members. This is entirely in harmony with the conception of sin, from which St. Paul starts, as a voluntary withdrawal of allegiance admitting of no excuse.
We shall be saved from confusion with regard to the Pauline view of guilt, and the necessity of conforming the whole doctrine of sin to this primarj' idea, by considering what he means by 'adoption ' and ' grace.' There is no clear instance in any Epistle of the use of the word x''f< in its later ecclesiastical sense of an infusion of spiritual strength (see Sanday-Headlani, limnans, note on 15 x^P'^). In some passages, apart from other considerations, the term admits of this Interpretation (e.g. Eph 4'). But the root idea is the free favour of God through Christ (Ro i* 6>»). It is not, therefore, an imparted gift, but an attitude of the Divine Mind. Again, the conception of son- ship, as applied to the relation of the believer to God, while not excluding comnmnitv of nature, gives prominence rather to the elective purpose of the Father (Eph 15). It is not reached as a deduction from membership in Christ, as though the highest action of Divine grace were nothing more than the operation of a natural law. Modern theology, with its leading idea of solidarity, has tended to obscure the personal action of the Father in admitting mankind to fellowship. St. Paul's thought, on the other hand, is guided by the Hebraic concep- tion of the son and heir, with its notion of privilege rather than primogeniture (Ex 4'2=, .Jer 31», Ps 8927, Col 116, He 1223 ; cf. Job 1813, la 1430). Thus the Christian attains his rank in the family of God by 'adojition' (Gal 45, Eph 1= ; cf. Gal 326, where sonship is presented as a privilege granted S.a t-.;; TitrTiat;)- The Spirit which makes him a member of Christ is the 'Spirit of adoption ' (Ro 815), freelv given bv God to those whom He takes for His children (Gal 4«, Ro 55 89-ii, 1 Co 1213). Membership in Christ is thus rather the result than the cause of the filial rela- tion. The Christian life depends, not upon the eradication of evil, but upon the forgiveness of sins (Eph 1'), the clearing of the guilty on the part of a personal God in consequence of the personal 'satisfaction offered by Christ (Ro 321-28 58, cf. Ex 346- 0- This view of sonship, as involving God's elective purpose and man s free response, frequently underlies St. Paul s argument. Isaac is the child of promise (Gal 3I8 4'23. =9, Ro 420 98. 9), Abra- ham the father of the faithful (Gal 37, Ro 41'.!). The redemption of the body is itself an 'adoption ' (Ro S'^i).