great crowd of persons, curious to know what was going on, would collect around the house. The question may be asked, By what was the astonishment of the bystanders especially excited? At first sight, the words in Acts ii. 7-11 appear susceptible of but one interpretation, that the passers-by were astonished at hearing Galileans who knew no language but their own, speak in a number of foreign languages, which they could not have learnt in a natural way—that, therefore, we must conclude that the faculty was imparted to believers by an extraordinary operation of Divine power, of speaking in foreign languages not acquired by the use of their natural faculties. Accordingly, since the third century3 it has been

1 The question is, How are we to explain the difficult words Tĥs owns Taurns, in Acts ii. 6? The pronoun Taurns leads us to refer the words to what immediately preceded, the loud speaking of the persons assembled. But then the use of the singular is remarkable. And since verse 2 is the principal subject, we may refer the pronoun Taurns to that; the Yevouévns of verse 6 seems also to correspond to the eyévero of verse 2. Not only is it more easy to refer the pronoun Taúrns to what immediately precedes in verse 4, but also verses 3 and 4 rather than verse 2, contain the most striking facts in the narrative; it also entirely favours this construction, that own must be understood of the noise made by the disciples in giving vent to their feelings, and must be taken as a collective noun, signifying a confused din, in which the distinction of individual voices would be lost.

2 The words give us no reason to suppose that the by-standers took offence at hearing the disciples speak of divine things in a different language from the sacred one.

3 By many of the ancients it has been supposed-what a literal interpretation of the words ii. 8 will allow, and even favours-that the miracle consisted in this, that, though all spoke in one and the same language, each of the hearers believed that he heard them speak in his own, μίαν μὲν ἐξηχεῖσθαι φωνὴν, πολλὰς δὲ ἀκούεσθαι. Gregory Naz. orat. 44, f. 715, who yet does not propound this view as peculiarly his own. It has lately been brought forward in a peculiar manner by Schneckenburger, in his Beiträgen zur Einleitung in's Neue Testament (Contributions towards an Introduction to the New Testament), p. 84. The speakers, by the power of inspiration, operated so powerfully on the feelings of their susceptible hearers, that they involuntarily translated what went to their hearts into their mother-tongue, and understood it as if it had been spoken in that. By the element of inspiration, the inward communion of feeling was so strongly brought forth, that the lingual wall of separation was entirely taken away. in order to determine the correctness of this mode of explanation, it may be of use to inquire,-If the language in which the hearers were addressed was quite foreign to them, the natural medium of human intercourse would be wholly wanting, and would thus be compensated by

But

generally admitted, that a supernatural gift of tongues was imparted on this occasion, by which the more rapid promulgation of the gospel among the heathen was facilitated and promoted. It has been urged that as in the apostolic age, many things were effected immediately by the predominating creative agency of God's Spirit, which, in later times, have been effected through human means appropriated and sanctified by it; so, in this instance, immediate inspiration stood in the place of those natural lingual acquirements, which in later times have served for the propagation of the gospel.

a miracle which produced an internal understanding? Or was the Aramaic language of the speakers not altogether foreign to the hearers, only not so familiar as their mother-tongue? But it was an effect of the inward communion produced by the power of spiritual influence, that they more easily understood those who spoke in a language not familiar to them; the want of familiarity was not felt. What was addressed to them was as intelligible as if spoken in their mother-tongue. In this way, although on the supposition of a powerful spiritual influence, by which the essence of the Pentecostal miracle is not denied but presupposed, it would be an explicable psychological fact. Men speaking with the ardour of inspiration, made an impression on those who were not capable of understanding a language foreign to them, similar to what we are told of Bernard's Sermons on the Crusades in Germany: "Quod Germanicis etiam populis loquens miro audiebatur affectu; et de sermone ejus, quem intelligere, utpote alterius linguæ homines, non valebant, magis quam ex peritissimi cujuslibet post eum loquentis interpretis intellecta locutione, ædificari illorum devotio videbatur, cujus rei certa probatio tunsio pectorum erat et effusio lacrimarum." Mabillon. ed. Opp. Bernard. tom. ii. p. 1119. And this would for the most part agree with the interpretation of my honoured friend Dr. Steudel. But as to the first mode of explanation, we do not see what can allow or justify our substituting for the common interpretation of the miracle in question another, which does not come nearer the pyschological analogy, but, on the contrary, is further from it, and does not so naturally connect itself with the narrative as a whole. We cannot allow an appeal to the analogy with the phenomena of animal magnetism, although, in referring to such an analogy, we find nothing objectionable, any more than in general to the analogy between the supernatural and the natural, provided the difference of psychical circumstances, and of the causes producing them, is not lost sight of. But still, in matters of science, where every thing must be well grounded, we cannot attach a value to such a document until it is ascertained what is really trustworthy in the ac counts of such phenomena. As to the second mode of interpretation, it can only be maintained by our adopting the supposition, that we have here not a tradition from the first source, but only a representation, which ultimately depends on the report of eye-witnesses, and if we hence allow ourselves to distinguish what the author professes to say, from the facts lying at the basis of his narrative.

But, indeed, the utility of sucn a gift of tongues for the spread of divine truth in the apostolic times, will appear not so great, if we consider that the gospel had its first and chief sphere of action among the nations belonging to the Roman Empire, where the knowledge of the Greek and Latin languages sufficed for this purpose, and that the one or the other of these languages, as it was employed in the intercourse of daily life, could not be altogether strange to the Jews. As to the Greek language, the mode in which the apostles expressed themselves in it, the traces of their mother-tongue which appear in their use of it, prove that they had obtained a knowledge of it, according to the natural laws of lingual acquirement. In the history of the first propagation of Christianity, traces are never to be found of a supernatural gift of tongues for this object. Ancient tradition, which names certain persons as interpreters of the apostles, implies the contrary. Also, Acts xiv. 11 shows that Paul possessed no supernatural gift of tongues. Yet all this does not authorize us to deny the reference to such an endowment in the former passage of the Acts, if the explanation of the whole passage, both in single words and in its connexion, is most favourable to this interpretation. Nor do we venture to decide what operations not to be calculated according to natural laws could be effected by the power with which the new divine life moved the very depths of human nature; what especially could be effected

1

1 Thus Mark is called the ἑρμηνεύς, or ἑρμηνευτής of Peter, (see Papias of Hierapolis in Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. iii. 39, compared with Irenæus, iii. 1). The Basilidians say the same of one Glaucias, Clement's Stromata, vii. 765. On comparing every thing, I must decide against the possible interpretation of those words favoured by several eminent modern critics -that they mean simply an expositor, one who repeated the instructions of Peter in his Gospel, with explanatory remarks;-for this distinction of Mark is always prefixed to accounts of his Gospel, and at the same time from the fact of his acting in this capacity with Peter, his capability is inferred to note down the report made by him of the Evangelical history. Thus certainly the passage in Papias must be understood ; Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτής Πέτρου γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν akpißws expayer. The second fact is founded on the first, that he accompanied Peter as an interpreter. Some truth may lie at the basis of this tradition; it might be, that although Peter was not ignorant of the Greek language, and could express himself in it, he yet took with him a disciple who was thoroughly master of it, that he might be assisted by him in publishing the Gospel among those who spoke that language.

through the connexion between the internal life of the Spirit (on which the new creation operated with a power before unknown) and the faculty of speech. A phenomenon of this kind might have taken place once, with a symbolic prophetic meaning, indicating that the new divine life would reveal itself in all the languages of mankind, as Christianity is destined to bring under its sway all the various national peculiarities! A worthy symbol of this great event!

But we meet in the New Testament with other intimations of such a gift of the Spirit, which are very similar to the passage in the Acts; and the explanation of these passages is attended with fewer difficulties than that of the latter. If, therefore, we do not, contrary to the natural laws of exegesis, attempt to explain the clearer passages by the more obscure, we cannot fail to perceive that, in the section on spiritual gifts in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, something altogether different from such a supernatural gift of tongues is spoken of. Evidently, the apostle is there treating of such discourse as would not be generally intelligible, proceeding from an ecstatic state of mind which rose to an elevation far above the language of ordinary communication. We may here adduce two passages in the Acts, which cannot possibly be understood of speaking in a foreign language; x. 46, and xix. 6. How can we imagine that men, in the first glow of conversion, when first seized by the inspiring influence of Christian faith, instead of pouring forth the feelings of which their hearts were full, through a medium so dear and easy to them as their mother-tongue, could find pleasure in what at such a time would be a mere epideiktic miracle, unless the effect of being filled with the Spirit was to hurry them along, as blind instruments of a magical power, against their wills, and to constrain them to make use of a different language from that which at such a time must have been best fitted for the expression of their feelings?1

1 I cannot comprehend what Professor Bäumlein maintains in his Essay on this subject, in the Studien der evangelischen Geistlichkeit Würtembergs (Studies of the Evangelical Clergy of Würtemberg), vi. 2. p. 119, "that in certain religious mental states, the speaking in foreign languages is by no means unnatural." It is plain that a man may easily feel himself impelled, when actuated by new feelings and ideas, to form new words; as from a new spiritual life, a new religious dialect forms itself. But how, under such circumstances, it can be

Both these suppositions are at variance with the spirit of the gospel, nor does any thing similar appear in the first history of Christianity. Such exhibitions would be peculiarly suited to draw away the mind from that which is the essence of conversion, and only to furnish aliment for an unchristian vanity. On the other hand, there seems a propriety in referring these passages to the utterance of the new things with which the mind would be filled, in the new language of a heart glowing with Christian sentiment.' Thus it may be explained how, in the first passage (Acts x. 46), the yλwooais λadeiv is connected with "praising God," "praising God with the whole heart," when conscious of having through his grace received salvation; and in the second passage, Acts xix. 6, with rрopηrεvεv. But as, in both these passages, it is plainly shown that the communication of the Divine Spirit was indicated by characteristics similar to those of its original effusion at Pentecost, we are furnished with a valuable clue to the right understanding of that event.

If, then, we examine more closely the description of what transpired on the day of Pentecost, we shall find several things which favour a different interpretation from the ancient one. How could a number of carnally-minded men be led to explain the speaking of the disciples in foreign languages, as the effect of intoxication? Acts ii. 13.2 How did it happen,

natural to speak a language altogether foreign, I cannot perceive, nor can I find any analogy for it in other psychical phenomena. Still less can I admit the comparison with the manifestations among the followers of Mr. Irving in London, since, as far as my knowledge extends, I can see nothing in these manifestations but the workings of an enthusiastic spirit, which sought to copy the apostolic gift of tongues according to the common interpretation, and therefore assumed the reality of that gift.

1 See the Dissertation of Dr. David Schulz on the Spiritual Gifts of the first Christians. Breslau, 1836.

2 Although this may not be considered as absolutely necessary, for it would certainly be possible, that frivolous, carnally-minded men who were disposed to ridicule what they did not understand, might not observe the phenomenon (not explicable from common causes) of speaking in a foreign language; it is possible that Peter, after he had shown the contrariety of the inspiration of the apostles to a state of intoxication, which could hardly have taken place at that hour of the day, instead of adducing other marks which testified against it, passed on to compare the phenomena with the prophetic promise which was here fulfilled. Yet it is not at all probable that Peter,