I beg to differ on both accounts. St. Paul speaks of the Spirit of God and not of a separate Trinitarian Hypostasis, i.e. God (or Lord, vasileos) the Holy Spirit. In St. Paul's case, the Spirit is subordained to God (the Father), not co-substantial with Him. St. Paul's concept of the Holy Spirit is perfectly Judaic, being God's energy rather than a Divine Hypostasis.
Christians eventually developed the concept of grace that represents God uncreated enegries, as the understanding of the Trinitarian formula evolved and the Holy Spirit was recognized as a Divine Hypostasis and God Himself that estows grace.
The Greek terms for "self" is autos. Depending on the Greek gender of the word (which the English language doesn't have), the appropriate pronoun will be he/she/it. Some English-bible translations use "it" others "he" (i.e. NIV) when referring to the Holy Spirit, which is grammatically correct.
There is nothing in St. Paul's writing to indicate that he speaks of the Holy Spirit as a "he" because the Greek word pneuma (spirit) is of neutral gender (neither masculine nor feminine), so the appropriate pronoun is it.
The fact that it appears as a "he" in some English translations shows that some have taken it upon themselves to "correct" the infallible word of God so as to make it fit out theology.
Believe what you want.
In that case we have an actual Apostle of the Apostolic Church who taught actual error, in scripture no less. Since it took a later consensus of uninspired men to correct his errors, we can conclude that these men were more authoritative than Paul himself, and therefore scripture. You ask us to believe in Apostolic succession, yet you have the students being greater than the master. You ask us to believe that teachings are preserved from teacher to student, yet Christ PERSONALLY taught Paul and you say Paul was wrong and those who followed him knew better. Given your words, how can we possibly have any confidence in Apostolic succession at all?
You CANNOT tell me that future generations kept getting wiser and wiser since you say that you practice the same faith with the same dogma as 2,000 years ago. Your position, therefore, is that at least one Apostle got it wrong, then some very smart men came along and got it right, then no one has improved upon them ever since. To me, that sounds like a Church Father-based faith. The Fathers you agree with were right, and (contradictory) scripture was wrong.