sistent with the fact that the gift of interpretation was distinct from that of speaking with tongues. If a man could speak a foreign language, why could he not interpret it? Simply, because it was not his gift. What he said in that foreign lan- guage, he said under the guidance of the Spirit ; had he at- tempted to interpret it without the gift of interpretation, he would be speaking of himself, and not " as the Spirit gave him utterance." In the one case he was the organ of the Holy Ghost, in the other he was not.
Fourth argument. Those who depart from the common interpretation of the gift of tongues, differ indefinitely among themselves as to its true nature. Some assume that the word tongues (yXwa-a-ai) does not here mean languages, but idioms or peculiar and unusual forms of expression. To speak with tongues, according to this view, is to speak in an exalted poetic strain, beyond the comprehension of common people. But it has been proved from the expressions new and other tongues, and from the facts recorded in Acts, that the word yXuido-ai {tongues) must here mean languages. Besides, to speak in exalted language is not to speak unintelhgibly. The Grecian people understood the loftiest strains of their orators and poets. This interpretation also gives to the word yXdcra-ai a technical sense foreign to all scriptural usage, and one which is entirely inadmissible, at least in those cases where the sin- gular is used. A man might be said to speak in " phrases," but not in " a phrase." Others say that the word means the tongue as the physical organ of utterance ; and to speak with the tongue is to speak in a state of excitement in which the understanding and will do not control the tongue, which is moved by the Spirit to utter sounds which are as unintelli- gible to the speaker as to others. But this interpretation does not suit the expressions other tongues and new tongues^ and is irreconcilable with the account in Acts. Besides it de- grades the gift into a mere frenzy. It is out of analogy with all Scriptural facts. The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. The Old Testament seers were not beside themselves, and the apostles in the use of the gift of tongues were calm and rational, speaking the wonderful works of God in a way which the foreigners gathered in Jerusalem easily understood. Others, again, admit that the word tongues means languages, but deny that they were languages foreign to the speaker. To speak with tongues, they say, was to speak in an incoherent, unintelligible manner, in a state of