each other. Thus Chap. xiv. often, it is true, uses the singular number, but never with the article. Had the gift of tongues been a mode of speaking which, in all the various forms of it-occasioned by the ideas, by the individuality of the speaker or by other causesyet ever retained one and the same essential character, for example, abruptness or high elevation, or certain favorite forms, then the language would indicate this. It would have been named 'the tongue,' or 'speaking by a tongue,' not the tongues,' or the kind of tongues."3 Since then the last named forms actually appear, we must suppose that the single gift appeared in its manifestations so essentially diverse that it was possible to distinguish several kinds. The power to speak in this way was a gift of the Divine Spirit, like all the other qualifications of Christians which were peculiar to them as such.4 Thus it was also a gift of God,5 which the Spirit in his free, good pleasure had communicated, and which therefore all did not possess. Accordingly, it was not anything that was learned or acquired. Man, according to his own inclination, could not impart it. Since the Spirit communicated his gifts only to believers, they alone, therefore, possessed this power; and it was not communicated to them till they had received the Spirit. This gift, moreover, was not bestowed from the mere fact of their being Christians. That it was something miraculous however, in the doctrinal sense, does not of course follow, for the language of the New Testament not only does not, in general, recognize this distinction between the natural and supernatural, but there are found to be enumerated several gifts,9 which can in no manner be considered as imparted supernaturally.

6

This is said in so many words 1 Cor. 12: 28, diversities of tongues.'

* Verse 9 does not belong here, ' To another faith by the same Spirit,' etc.

3 τήν γλώσσαν, οι γλωσσολογίαν, not τὰς γλώσσας, or γένεσιν γλωσσῶν. 41 Cor. 12: 7-12.

5 See verse 28 in the same chapter.

6. But all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit,' etc.

7 Comp. verse 30, 'Do all speak with tongues,' etc., with 1 Cor. 14: 5, 'I would that ye all spake with tongues,' etc.

* This may well be received as the predominant view in the New Testament.

91 Cor. 12: 8-10, 28, gifts of healing, helps, governments, etc. [The author is probably incorrect in this remark; it seems to be the general doctrine of the New Testament that most, if not all the gifts in question were miraculous.-TR.]

Even from Ch. 14: 221 this cannot follow with perfect certainty, inasmuch as it is conceivable, that it served somewhat as a sign, is onusion to another person, that is, as a mark of admonition, without being absolutely in consequence a supernatural event in our sense. At what time or manner an individual came into the possession of it, whether he continued in the enjoyment of it, or whether it was only for a limited time and under given circumstances—respecting these and other related questions, Paul gives us no answer. This only we learn, that it was possible not to make use of the gift; that he who could speak with tongues had it in his power to do it or not to do it according to circumstances and opinions of propriety. It hence follows that Paul did not recognize him who spoke with tongues as one who was in an unconscious condition, not having command over himself-a passive instrument of a higher power that ruled over him; for, from such persons he could not have expected the reflection and deliberation which are there mentioned. In that case, he would by no means have commanded the employment or the non-employment of the gift. The same thing may also be inferred from the fact of his saying that the one who spoke with tongues edifies himself, while we cannot believe, that the intelligent and discreet Paul expected a salutary spiritual and moral influence from words which the speaker poured out unconsciously, and which consequently could be neither understood, nor made use of. When therefore he says, 'he that speaketh with tongues, speaketh in spirit or in the spirit, his spirit speaketh, while his mind is unfruitful,' verse 14,—we cannot in this find any proof of an unconscious state; but we are rather to recollect, that even the prophet uttered words by the spirit,' and therefore we are certainly to look for an elevated condition in the one who spoke with tongues-a condition in which, according to the views of the apostle, that intelligence and inward energy which rested in the man, appears to have been a predominant spiritual power that dwelt in him, but not of such a nature, that he knew not what he uttered, or what befel him. The unfruitfulness of the mind, however, he placed in this

Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not,' etc.

21 Cor. 14, 27, 28, 39. "If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three," etc.; and forbid not to speak with tongues."

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 endowment. 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 passage, 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 Θεόν. 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. 5 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.