Second, that the interchange of the expressions, new tongues, other tongues, and tongues^ in reference to the same event, shows that the last mentioned (to speak with tongues) must have the same sense with the two former expressions, which can only mean to speak in new languages. A third argument is, that the common interpretation satisfies all the facts of the case. Those facts are, 1. That what was spoken with tongues was intelligible to those who understood foreign languages, as appears from Acts 2, 11. Therefore the speaking was not an incoherent, unintelligible rhapsody. 2. What was uttered were articulate sounds, the vehicle of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, 1 Cor. 14, 14-17. 3. They Avere edifying, and therefore intelligible to him who uttered them, 1 Cor. 14, 4. 16. 4. They admitted of being interpreted, which supposes them to be intelligible. 5. Though intelligible in themselves, and to the speaker, they were unintelligible to others, that is, to those not acquainted with the language used ; and conse- quently unsuited for an ordinary Christian assembly. The folly which Paul rebuked was, speaking in Arabic to men who understood only Greek. The speaker might understand what he said, but others were not profited, 1 Cor. 14, 2. 19. 6. The illustration employed in 1 Cor. 14, 7. 11, from musical instruments, and from the case of foreigners, requires the common interpretation. Paul admits that the sounds uttered were "not without signification," v. 10. His complaint is, that a man who speaks in an unkno^^Ti tongue is to him a for- eigner, V. 11. This illustration supposes the sounds uttered to be mtelligible in themselves, but not understood by those to whom they were addressed. 7. The common interpretation is suited even to those passages which present the only real difiiculty in the case ; viz., those in which the apostle speaks of the understanding as being unfruitful in the exercise of the gift of tongues, and those in which he contrasts praying with the spirit and praying with the understanding, 14, 14. 15. Although these passages, taken by themselves, might seem to indicate that the speaker himself did not understand what he said, and even that his intellect was in abeyance, yet they may naturally mean only that the understanding of the speaker was unprofitable to others ; and speaking with the understand- ing may mean speaking intelHgibly. It is not necessary, there- fore, to infer from these passages, that to speak with tongues was to speak in a state of ecstasy, in a manner unintelligible to any human being. 8. The common interpretation is also con-
11*