that Peter in his apologetic discourse did not appeal to the undeniably miraculous nature of an event by which the objections of men unsusceptible of what was divine might most easily be refuted? Why did he satisfy himself with referring to the prophetic declarations respecting an extraordinary revival, and an effusion of the Spirit, which was to take place in the times of the Messiah, without even adverting to this peculiar manifestation? In the construction of the whole narrative, we find nothing that obliges us to adopt the notion of a supernatural gift of tongues in the usual sense. The flames that settled on their heads appear as the natural symbols of the new tongues, or new language of that holy fire which was kindled in the hearts of the disciples, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and accordingly it is said, "They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues' as the Spirit gave them utterance;" therefore the tongues of the Spirit were the new form for the new spirit which animated them.

It appears, indeed, to militate against this interpretation, and to establish the common one, that the spectators are described as expressing their astonishment at hearing, each one in his own tongue, these Galileans who knew no foreign language, speaking the wonderful works of God (Acts ii. 8); and more than this, we have the various nations distinctly named in whose languages the apostles spoke. But we cannot possibly think that all these nations spoke different languages, for it is certain that, in the cities of Cappadocia, Pontus, Lesser Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Cyrene, and in the parts of Libya and Egypt inhabited by Grecian and Jewish Colonies, the Greek would at that time be in general better understood than the ancient language of the country, and as this must have been known to the writer of the Acts, he could not have intended to specify so many different languages. There will remain out of the whole catalogue of languages, only the Persian, Syriac, Arabic, Greek, and Latin.

since he refers to the hour of the day, in order to refute the charge of intoxication, should not also refer to that other fact (supposing it to exist), which would have completed his proof.

1 The word yλwooa, like the German Zunge [and the English tongue], is used both for the bodily organ of speech, and for a language or dialect.

It also deserves notice, that the inhabitants of Judea are mentioned, who spoke the same language as the Galileans, only with a slight difference of pronunciation. Since, then, to retain the ancient view of the gift of tongues creates difficulties in this passage, which is the only one that can serve to support it; while several parts of the narrative oppose it, and every thing that is said elsewhere of this gift (xápioμa) leads to a very different interpretation, the more ancient view becomes very uncertain, though we cannot arrive at a perfectly clear and certain conclusion respecting the facts which form the groundwork of the narrative. Perhaps the difficulty in the passage may be obviated in this way. It was not unusual to designate all the disciples of the Lord, Galileans, and it might be inferred from this common appellation that they were all Galileans by birth; but it by no means follows that this was actually the case. Among the so-called Galileans, some might be found whose mother-tongue was not the Galilean dialect, and who now felt themselves impelled to express the fulness of their hearts in their own provincial dialect, which through Christianity had become a sacred language to them, though hitherto they had been accustomed to consider the Hebrew only in that light;1 and it might also happen that some who lived on the confines of Galilee, had learned the language of the adjacent tribes, which they now made use of, in order to be better understood by foreigners. Thus the speaking in foreign languages would be only something accidental, and not the essential of the new language of the Spir This new language of the Spirit is that which Christ promised to his disciples as one of the essential marks of the operation of the Holy Spirit on their hearts. Indeed, the promise that they should speak with new tongues3 appears only in the critically suspected addition

1 See Acts xxii. 2. Wetstein on Acts vi. 1. On this point the views of the Palestinian theologians would differ, according as their general mode of thinking was more or less contracted.

2 Whatever interpretation be adopted of this passage, it will be no more than a conjecture for the solution of that difficulty, nor can any be given with the degree of certainty equal to what may be attained respecting the gift of tongues in a general point of view.

This evidently denoted such tongues or languages as were not yet in the world. Had the person who committed this tradition to writing intended foreign languages not acquired by study, he would certainly have made use of a different expression.

to the Gospel of Mark, but it does not follow that a true tradition does not lie at the basis of it; and if Christ in the other Gospels has not literally made use of this expression, still we find what is allied to it in meaning, where he speaks of the new powers of utterance which would be imparted by the Holy Spirit to the disciples, "I will give you a mouth and wisdom," Luke xxi. 15. Thus this expression, "to speak with new tongues," would mean, to speak with such 'ongues as the Spirit gave them; other tongues than those hitherto used, originally intended to mark the great revolution effected by Christianity in the dispositions of men wherever it found entrance, among the rude as well as the civilized.' Yet we do

not venture to assume that the meaning of the expression remained invariably the same, for this would be inconsistent with its use in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, of which we shall speak hereafter. As the original form of the expression in the Christian phraseology gradually was shortened in many ways, so likewise there was a gradual alteration in the

1 Gregory the Great beautifully remarks, in his Homil. in Evang. 1. ii. H. 29: "Fideles quique, qui jam vitæ veteris secularia verba derelinquunt, sancta autem mysteria insonant, conditoris sui laudes et potentiam quantum prævalent, narrant, quid aliud faciunt, nisi novis linguis loquuntur?" The view I have here taken is nearly the same as that of Herder in his Treatise on the Pentecostal Gift of Tongues,—of Hase, and particularly of Bauer, in his valuable essay on the subject in the Tubinger Zeitschrift für Theologie, 1830, part ii., to which I am indebted for some modifications of my own view. My honoured friend Steudel, in the same periodical, adopts a view essentially the same. It has also found an advocate in Dr. Schulz. With Bleek (see his learned and acute Dissertations in the Studien und Kritiken) I agree in the general view of the subject, but not in the explanation of the word yawooa. Other grounds apart, adduced by Bauer, it appears to me far more natural to deduce the designation for the new form of Christian inspiration, in reference to the Hebrew ? as well as the Greek yλwooa, from the language of common life, rather than from the schools of grammarians. But the question, whether, in this connexion, the word must originally be understood of the organ of language (according to Bauer), or of the kind of language, does not appear to me to be so very important, for in this instance both meanings of the word are closely allied.

2 Winer justly remarks, in the last edition of his Grammar, p. 534, (Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, 4th Ed., Leipzig, 1836), that, in the phrase yλwoσais λaλeîv, a word like Kawais cannot legitimately be supplied; but it may be assumed that, from the original complete phrase, after it had once acquired a fixed meaning, a shorter elliptical phrase was formed, as there was occasion to employ it frequently.

meaning; that alteration, namely, of which many examples are elsewhere found in the history of language, that a word which at first was altogether the general sign of a certain idea, became in later times, as various shades of meaning were attached to this idea, limited to one particular application of it. Thus it came to pass, that an expression which originally denoted the new language of Christians under the influence of the Spirit generally, afterwards, when various modifications of such language had been formed, became limited to that kind in which the immediate influences of the Spirit predominated, and presented itself in the higher self-consciousness as the specially ecstatic form,' while the discursive activity of the

1 This continued to be the general use of the term for the first two centuries, until, the historical connexion with the youthful age of the church being broken, the notion of a supernatural gift of tongues was formed. On this point it is worth while to compare some passages of Irenæus and Tertullian. Irenæus (lib. v. c. 9) cites what Paul says of the wisdom of the perfect, and then adds, Paul calls those perfect, "Qui perceperunt Spiritum Dei, et omnibus linguis loquuntur per Spiritum Dei, quemadmodum et ipse loquebatur, καθὼς καὶ πολλῶν ἀκούομεν ἀδελφῶν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ προφητικά χαρίσματα ἐχόντων καὶ παντοδαπαῖς λαλούντων διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος γλώσσαις καὶ τὰ κρύφια τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἰς φανερὸν ἀγόντων ἐπὶ τῷ συμφέροντι καὶ τὰ μυστήρια τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκδιηγουMévwv, quos et spiritales apostolus vocat." Though some persons think the term TavTodaπaîs undoubtedly refers to the languages of various nations, I do not see how that can be, according to its use at that time, though the original meaning of the word might be so understood. It is particularly worthy of notice, that Irenæus represents this gift as one of the essential marks of Christian perfection, as a characteristic of the spiritales. We cannot well comprehend how he could suppose any thing so detached and accidental as speaking in many foreign languages, to stand in so close and necessary a connexion with the essence of Christian inspiration. Besides, he speaks of it as one of those gifts of the Spirit, which continued to exist in the church even in his own times. He evidently considers the γλῶσσαις λαλεῖν as something allied to πроONTEÚε. To the latter, he attributes the faculty of bringing to light the hidden thoughts of men, and to the former that of publishing divine mysteries. He sees nothing but this in the gift of tongues at the effusion of the Holy Spirit, and, in reference to that event, places together prophetari et loqui linguis," 1. iii. c. 12. Tertullian demands of Marcion to point out among his followers proofs of ecstatic inspiration: "Edat aliquem psalmum, aliquam visionem, aliquam orationem duntaxat spiritualem in ecstasi, i. e. amentia, si qua linguæ interpretatio accesserit." Evidently in this connexion, the term lingua, expressing speaking in an ecstasy, which, since what is spoken in this state cannot be generally intelligible, an interpretation must accompany. Tertullian also, in the same passage (adv. Marcion,

understanding with the lower self-consciousness for the time lay dormant.

After having attempted to clear up these different points, we shall be better able to give a sketch of the whole scene on that memorable day.

The shock of the earthquake occasions the concourse of many persons in the streets from various quarters, as the festival had brought Jews and proselytes from all parts of the world to Jerusalem. The assembling of the disciples attracts their notice; by degrees a crowd of curious inquirers is collected, many of whom probably enter the assembly in order to inform themselves accurately of the affair. The disciples now turn to these strangers, and, constrained by the impulse of the Spirit, announce to them what filled their hearts. The impression made by their words varies with the dispositions of their hearers. Some feel themselves affected by the energy of inspiration with which the disciples spoke, but can give no clear account of the impressions made by the whole affair. Instead of asking themselves, "Whence proceeds that power with which we hear these men speak who were not educated in the schools of the scribes?" their wonder is directed only to what was most external. How comes it to pass that these Galileans speak in foreign tongues? Others, who have been impressed

1. v. c. 8), applying the words in Isaiah xi. 2 to the Christian church, joins prophetari with linguis loqui, and attributes both to the Spiritus agnitionis, the veûμа yvwσews. It further appears from what has been said, that the gift of tongues was considered as still existing in the church; and it is strange that the Fathers never refer to it apologetically, as an undeniable evidence to the heathen of the divine power operating among Christians, in the same manner as they appeal to the gift of healing the sick, or of casting out demons, although the ability to speak in a variety of languages which could not be acquired in a natural way, must have been very astonishing to the heathen. In Origen, in whose times the Charismata of the apostolic church began to be considered as something belonging to the past, we find the first trace of the opinion that has since been prevalent, yet even in him the two views are mingled, as might be done by the distinction of the twofold mode of interpretation, the literal and the spiritual. Compare Ep. ad Roman. ed. De la Rue, t. iv. f. 470. 1. vii. f. 602, de Oratione, § 2, tom. i. f. 199. The opposition to Montanism, which had subjected the yλwooais laλeiv to abuse, as in the Corinthian Church, might contribute to sink into oblivion the more ancient interpretation. The ξενοφωνεῖν, the λαλεῖν ἐκφρόνως καὶ ἀλλοτριοτρόπως came to be considere as a mark of the spurious Montanist Inspiration, Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. ľ ́ VOL. I.