was in the first instance, as recorded in Acts, and may have been afterwards. 6. Paul, in 1 Cor. 14, 14-19, does not place speaking with tongues and speaking in one's own language in opposition ; but speaking with the understanding and speak- ing with the sjDirit ; and therefore to speak with tongues, is to speak without understanding, or in a state of ecstasy. This is a possible interpretation of this one passage considered in itseltj but it is in direct contradiction to all those passages which prove that speaking with tongues was not an involun- tary, incoherent, ecstatic mode of speaking. The passage re- ferred to, therefore, must be understood in consistency with the other passages referring to the same subject. Though there are difficulties attending any view of the gift in question, arising from our ignorance, those connected with the common interpretation are incomparably less than those which beset any of the modern conjectures.
To another^ the interpretation of tongues. The nature of this gift depends on the view taken of the preceding. Com- monly, at least, the man using a foreign language was able to understand it, see 14, 2. 4. 16, and may have had the gift of interpretation in connection with the gift of tongues. It is possible, however, that in some cases he did not himself un- derstand the language which he spoke, and then of course he would need an interpreter. But even when he did understand the language which he used, he needed a distinct gift to make him the organ of the Spirit in its interpretation. If speaking with tongues was speaking incoherently in ecstasy, it is hard to see how what was said could admit of interpretation. Un- less coherent it was irrational, and if irrational, it could not be translated.
11. But all these worketh that one and the self- same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
But all these^ &c., i. e. notwithstanding the diversity of these gifts they have a common origin. They are wrought by the same Spirit. What therefore in v. 6 is referred to the efficiency of God, is here referred to the efficiency of the Spirit. This is in accordance with constant scriptural usage. The same effect is sometimes attributed to one, and sometimes to another of the persons of the Holy Trinity. This supposes that, being the same in substance (or essence) in which divine power inheres, they cooperate in the production of these ef-