alone, that the man did not here labor with self-possession; what was imparted to him, by the Spirit, he only passively received; he did not work it up, turning it to a practical account, as was the case in relation to prophecy. Respecting the nature of what was uttered, definite information indeed fails us; thus much, however, we learn from Ch. 14: 5,1 that only when it was not understood by the hearer, was it inferior to that which was uttered by the prophet; thus even the one as well as the other could be made the means of edification. We see, however, from verses 14-17, that it must have been chiefly the form of a prayer, of a song of praise, or of thanksgiving; so likewise from verses 2, 28, that the gift of tongues was directed mainly to spiritual intercourse with God. Thus from all these marks, we may perhaps rightly conclude that the gift was particularly employed in publishing the mighty works of God for the redemption of mankind; but it differed from prophecy in this, that while the latter communicated definite instruction to the hearers in respect to salvation, verse 19, the gift of tongues, without any special reference to the needs of the hearer, poured itself out in loud praise of the works which had been accomplished. And inasmuch as such an out-pouring could not find a place-or at least should not-without an inward feeling and apprehension in the heart, of the wonderful grace of God, Paul might well desire that all believers should speak with tongues, verse 4, and that the unlimited edification of the one who spoke should be seen as the fruits of his words, verse 5.

Up to this point everything appears tolerably clear and simple; we recognize in the speaking with tongues the out flowings of a heart influenced by the Spirit of God, and so also thoroughly pervaded by a feeling arising from the wonderful works of God in the redemption of mankind. We may very readily conceive, that such experience would not be wanting in the emotion which sprung up in consequence of the blessing just received. We may also suppose that these feelings were very strong. That the tranquil operation of the understanding was for a short time suspended and obscured, is not strange to us, when we consider the character of the oriental world, and the many phenomena existing in the church, at a later time, when, almost at once, Christianity brought a strong excitement

1 Ch. 14: 5, "I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied," etc.

upon the feelings, so that a great excess and a spiritual extravagance need not create astonishment. We often observe similar things in history. We must believe that up to this point, we have rightly apprehended the thing, because we have advanced no conclusion, for which we have not found arguments either in the words themselves, or in what we know of the religious views of the apostle from his own writings.

Now, however, we come to the knot of the riddle. This consists in part in the unusual name which is given to the mode of speaking in question,1 and partly in the various explanations of the apostle. He represents it as useless to the church because it could be understood by no one without an interpreter,-thus appearing like madness to those unacquainted with the phenomenon. We must subjoin that if the common mode of explanation of verse 133 be correct, then the one who spoke could not give, in every case, the interpretation of what he had said; and if he could do it, this even was to be regarded as a gift of God just as much as the original endow. ment. The inability to understand a discourse audibly uttered may have had its origin, either in the contents of the discourse or in its form. That it does not lie in the contents is sufficiently proved, as I think, in my Commentary. On such a supposition, moreover, there would be no significance in the name. This inability is therefore to be sought externally, in the form. Here I recognize three possible reasons why it could not be understood.

These are the unintelligible enunciation-the obscurity of the style-or the foreign language unknown to the hearer. This last might have originated in various ways. The unintelligible utterance would not fall in with Eichhorn's hypothesis of stammering, for in this case, there were actual words; but furthermore it could never have been regarded as a gift. Besides, it would have been very easy for the one who spoke to have uttered his sentences clearly. This supposition has absolutely nothing in its favor. Before we investigate the other two, we will turn our attention to that which the Acts of the Apostles presents us.

1 γλώσσαις οι γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν.

21 Cor. 14: 2, 6, 9, 16, 17, 23.

3 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.'

NOTICES IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

We find in Ch. 19: 6, the mention of twelve disciples of John who received the Holy Spirit by the ministration of the apostle, and immediately spoke with tongues as well as prophesied. This pas sage, however, serves us merely as a certain proof that Paul could impart from his own inward power the gift to others, as well as that he possessed it himself. It also shows us that these two gifts, differing from each other, were received at the same time with the communication of the Holy Spirit, and indeed, as it appears suddenly; it shows nothing respecting their nature. A second passage,2 likewise, teaches us the contemporaneousness of the reception of the influence of the Spirit and the entrance of the gift of tongues, and strengthens us in our conception of the meaning of what was uttered by the words μεγαλυνόντων τὸν θεὸν. In regard to what belongs to the form of its manifestation, the words of Peter,3 and so likewise the reference of the same apostle to this event, merely teach us, that it had presented itself to him, an eyewitness, altogether in the same manner as the first exhibition of this gift on the day of Pentecost; and since there is no other passage yet extant which shows us anything respecting it,5 we see ourselves driven back entirely to Acts ii. as the main text. When, however, we consider this narrative with an entirely unprejudiced eye, we cannot resist the conclusion, that Luke has narrated the circumstances in the following manner: The persons there assembled, on the moment, when, (with the rushing of the wind and the appearance of flames of fire on their heads), the Holy Spirit had fallen upon them, did actually speak in the languages of the strangers mentioned in verses 9 and 10. The most astonishing feature in the entire event was this, the men who unexpectedly possessed and exercised this power were Galileans,

1 1 Cor. 14: 18,' I thank my God I speak with tongues more than ye all.' 2 Acts 10: 44-47. 3 Acts 10: 47. 4 Acts 11: 15, 17, 15: 8, 9. The power indeed which Simon Magus, Acts 8: 18, 19, desired to purchase of Peter might be only that which the gift of tongues would enable him to effect; we, however, learn nothing of that in which it consisted,-at most we ascertain the single circumstance, that it was something very striking which Simon believed that he could not himself effect, but by which, if he could procure it, he expected that he should gain much with the astonished multitude.

of whom nothing like this could have been anticipated. This view of it was everywhere the predominant one, until a genuine spirit of investigation had undermined it in various ways.1

VARIOUS HYPOTHESES.

Here is not the place to repeat the many explanations of the phenomenon which are collected, perhaps in the fullest manner, in Kuinoel's Commentary on the Acts. Of these it is necessary to name only what the more recent investigations on the gift of tongues have advanced for and against this interpretation. Here, first, Bleek? meets us in the history of the Pentecost, with the following difficulties. 1. The speaking of the disciples with tongues occurred before the multitude of foreign Jews had come together, which must have appeared wholly without an object, since words in foreign tongues could not have served as the natural expression of religious feelings. 2. That if each one spoke a particular language, and if he was understood by those to whom this was vernacular, no reproach of drunkenness could have fallen on those who spoke. 3. Peter in the subsequent discourses makes no mention whatever of foreign languages. Bleek remarks subsequently, that, if the narrative can be understood only of foreign tongues, then he must conclude that this circumstance was owing to an incorrect understanding of it by the reporter, [on whom Luke depended.] This he would do, rather than recognize the actual speaking in foreign languages.3 Baur goes a step further still, when he allows, that such could not have been the words in the account of the Pentecost, but that they belong to a traditional transformation of them, which transformation the original fact had already here received. The character of this transformation he seeks to point out from the poetico-rhetorical bearing of verses 6-12, from the obscurity in respect to the word ' others' in verse 13,6 and from the failure of all traces of the event. Neander regards the narration simply as obscure, and hence would explain it from the remaining portions. Since these contain nothing

1 Perhaps a dread of anything miraculous was the original occasion of this change. ['Genuine' in many respects, but misdirected here.—TR.] 21. 17, 18. 4 P. 105, 106 note.

· ἔτεροι.

3 II, 62, 63.

Acts 2: 13," Others mocking, said these men are full of new wine."

about foreign tongues, and since, moreover, there could be no use for such an endowment, then he can admit nothing like this. That of a positive nature, however, which these learned men present for the tongues in question, is various. Bleek explains the word ylaσoa thus, ' an antiquated, provincial, altogether uncommon mode of speech, and without a particular explanation, unintelligible; hence it could have been of use to those only, who, as orators and poets, spoke in a lofty tone of feeling.' This explanation, which others also had contemplated before him, he seeks to establish philologically by a very learned examination of the usage of ylσσa in Greek; he then turns to the existing forms of the expression in the New Testament and endeavors to exhibit the occurrences mentioned in the Acts and in the epistle to the Corinthians as words in a lofty poetical dialect, with a mingling of such glosses. They were consequently unintelligible to the majority of the hearers, while the inability of the speaker to explain his own words was owing to the failure of his recollection.2 That such words might seem to be the operation of the Holy Spirit is owing in part to this reason—a language so elevated could not have been adapted to men with such little cultivation as the disciples of Jesus, and in part to the contents of what was uttered, a lofty commendation of the works of God. Olshausen3 assumes several stages in the gift, according to the degree of one's moral powers, and of the participation in other gifts. Thus the speaking with tongues was always an ecstasy; but like somnambulism it passed over to the utterance of a foreign language, only when persons were present who were skilled in the language; at the Pentecost such was actually the fact, even to the highest degree. To the gift of tongues there was also added the interpretation of them and prophecy. On the contrary, in respect to Corinth he inclines strongly to the side of Eichhorn's hypothesis of an inarticulate sound. Billroth seeks to avoid the difficulties which rise against the various modes of interpretation by 'going a step beyond Olshausen.' He explains it as "a speaking in a language which, in a certain degree, comprehended the elements of the various actually historical tongues." On the contrary, Baur, Steudel and

1 This besides could have been no abiding possession.

2 Herein resembling the Greek μάντις.

3 Olshausen I. 545, 546, 11. 568 seq.

4 II. 575,

5 Billroth's Comm. on Corinth. pp. 177, 178.

576.