Before entering on the consideration of these views, it may be well to state accurately the various peculiari- ties of this gift. These may be gathered from the state- ments of the apostle. From these we learn that it was a gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. xii, 11, 28, .30); that it be- longed only to some in the Church (ver. 11, 30); that it stood in some relation to the gift of prophesying — ■was inferior to it in point of utility, but afforded greater scope for display (xiv, b, 6, 18, 19) ; that it was exer- cised in acts of prayer and praise (ver. 2, 14, 15, 16, 17) ; that it was not exercised through the medium of the intelligence (voff), and so was unintelligible without an interpretation, which the party exercising it might not be capable of supplying, as it was the result of a distinct gift, which might or might not accompany the other (ver. 5, 6, 13, 16, 23) ; that it might appear to one unaccustomed to it a frenzy (ver. 23) ; that it had the effect of an instrument giving an uncertain sound, or was no better than the speaking of a barbarian or the clang of a cymbal when not interpreted (ver. 7-9; xiii, 1); and that its use was to serve as a sign (or evi- dence of God's presence) to those who did not believe (xiv, 22).
Let us now turn to the former of the two opinions aVjove noticed: those who hold this to be yXwcna in the sense oi language support their o|)inion by an ap- peal to our Lord's promise to his disciples that, as a sign of his presence with them, they should speak ■with new tongues (Kaivait; yXioarrair, Mark xvi, 17), and to the occurrences of the day of Pentecost when the apostles spake with other tongues ( trepaig yX., Acts ii, 4 sq.). It seems altogether probable that the event of the day of Pentecost was a fulfilment of tiie promise of Christ to his disciples, and if we assume (as the narrative seems to intimate) that on that occasion the apostles did receive the faculty of speaking foreign tongues through the agency of the Spirit, there is great plausibility in the conclusion that the gift of tongues bestowed on the primitive Church consisted in the pos- session of this faculty. It is frivolous to object to this, as De Wette and Meyer do, that the speaking of a lan- guage one has never learned is psychologically impossi- ble, for, if divine interposition be admitted, it is idle to set limits to its operation. "With God all things are possible," and he who caused " the dumb ass to speak
with man's voice" could surely employ the organs of a man to utter a foreign tongue of which he was ignorant. In the way of the conclusion, however, ai)ove stated, that the gift of which the ajiostle treats in writing to the Corinthians is the same as that promised by our Lord, and received by the apostles on the ilay of Pentecost, there are some serious difficulties. If the apostles pos- sessed the power of speaking foreign tongues miraculous- ly, they appear to have made very little use of it for the purposes of their mission, for, with the exception of the instance of the day of Pentecost, we do not read of their ever using this gift for the purpose of addressing for- eigners. There seems to be an a priori iniproliability that such a faculty would be miraculously conferred when it was one for which no special need existed, the Greek tongue being so widely diffused that the first preachers of Christianity were not likely to go where it was not known. But it is probable, although not re- corded, that they eventually used this faculty in preacli- ing to heathens. As to the day of Pentecost, thougli the gift of tongues came upon the disciples when they were alone, yet it was immediately availaljle to foreign- ers. It is an unwarranted assumption that these per- sons all understood a common language, or that to all of them at once Peter spoke on the same day without an interpreter. The most serious objections, however, to the opinion that the Glossolalia of the Corinthians was a speaking in foreign tongues are derived from what the apostle says about it in writing to them. (1.) The phrase yXioaatj XaXtir does not necessarily mean "to speak a foreign language;" but it is evidently tanta- mount (comp. Acts x, 46; xix, 6 with Acts ii, 4), 1'he statements in Acts ii are conclusive that these tongues in that case were vernacular with the polyglot audience. (2.) The Glossolalia was unintelligible to ererg one till in- terpreted (1 Cor. xiv, 2). But this may only refer to the absence of any one with whom it was vernacular. (3.) It is thought that this gift was used in individual prayer to God, and Paul, who possessed this gift above others, used it chiefly in secret: can we understand this of a speaking to (jod in foreign tongues ? But of this assumption there is little evidence. (4.) The apostle places the (ilossolalia in opposition, not to speaking in the vernacular tongue, but to speaking in- telligibly, or 41' cnroKaXiixj^ti i] ti' yvwati, f; tv Trpo(f)i]- Tti(^t, 7] iv SiCt'ixy (xiv, 6). He likewise compares the glossal with foreign tongues, which assumes tliat they were not the same (ver. 10 sq.). But foreign lan- guages surely, are unintelligible, and in ver. 10 the wider term (piorai is used. (5.) Had the apostle had the speaking of foreign tongues in view, he would have made the exercise of them dependent on the |ires- ence of those by whom they were understood, not on their bearnig on the edification of the Church. But the latter could only have been effected through the former. The other olyections raised by Dr. Poor in the American edition of Lange's (^minienturi/ (ad loc.) are as little to the point. (0.) So far as these phenomena bore on uidjelievers, they were a sign of reprobation (ver. 11). But that was true only when no one was present to in- ter])ret, (7.) Its special use was for the possessor's own benefit in prayer and praise. Such, certaiidy, was not the case on the day of Pentecost. (8.) Any foreigner present who understood the language could have acted as interpreter without a special gilt ; but he wouhl hard- h' have been accepted as an authoritative exponent in the Christian sense. (9.) Corinth, being the resort of foreigners, had need of tins gift less than other locali- ties. On the contrary, this was the very reason why a polyglot was reipiired. (10.) Paul desired that all might have this gift. This he might natinally wish, whatever were its nature. (11.) The phrase "r/ tongue" seems to imply some individual peculiarity rather than an external demand. Bather it shows that the tongues were varied in different cases. (12.) It is nugatory to ask such questions as, How was this speaking in different foreign tongues conducted ? Did the gifted persons all