Having thus recited the facts in this case, we inquire. What view are we to take of a phenomenon so marvel- lous and exceptional ? Let us first consider what views men have actually taken.
(I.) The prevalent belief of the Church has been that in the Pentecostal gift the disciples received a supernat- ural knowledge of all such languages as they needed for their work as evangelists. The knowledge was per- manent, and could be used at their own will, as if it had been acquired in the common order of things. With this they went forth to preach to the nations. Differ- ences of opinion are found as to special points. Augus- tine thought that each disciple spoke in all languages (De Verb. Apost. clxxv, 3) ; Chrysostom that each had a special language assigned to him, and that this was the indication of the country which he was called to evangelize {Horn, in Act. ii). Some thought that the number of languages spoken was seventy or seven-
TONGUES, GIFT OF
481
TONGUES, GIFT OF
ty-five, after the number of the sons of Noah (Gen. x) or the sons of Jacob (eh. xlvi), or one hundred and twenty, after that of the disciijles (comp. Baronius, An- niil. i, 197). Most were agreed in seeing in the Pente- costal gift the antithesis to the confusion of tongues at Babel, the witness of a restored unity. " Pojua lin- guarura dispersit homines, donum linguarum dispersos in unum populum coUegit" ((irotius, (/(/ loc).
We notice incidentally that parallels have been sought in Israelitish history. For example, there had been, it was said, tongues of fire on the original Pente- cost (Schneckenburger, Reitrdge, p. 8, referring to Bux- torf, De Symifj., and Philo, De Decal.). The later rab- bins were not without their legends of a like ''baptism of fire." Nicodemus ben-Gorion and Jochanan ben- Zachai, men of great holiness and wisdom, went into an upper chamber to expound the law, and the house be- gan to be full of fire (L.ightfoot, [larm. iii, 14; Schott- gen, Hor. Ueh. in A ct. ii). Again, with regard to the more important phenomenon, it deserves notice that there are analogies in Jewish belief. Every word that went forth from tlie mouth of (iod on Sinai was said to liave been divided into the seventy languages of the sons of men (Wettstein, On Acts it); and the bath-hd, the echo of the voice of God, was heard by every man in his own tongue (Schneckenburger, Beitrdge). So, as regards the power of speaking, there was a tradition that the great rabbins of the Sanhedrim could speak all the seventy languages of the world.
The following are some of the direct arguments urged in fav^or of a literal view of the Pentecostal endowment : " («) The power in question was virtually promised to the apostles by the very duty assigned them. Tliey were enjoined to 'go and leach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' They were to be witnesses for Christ 'in Jerusalem, and in all Judaja, and in Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth.' But how could they instruct remote tribes whose phraseology was a Babel to them, unless they were divinely qualified for the work? (6) This power was in kee|)ing with the occasion. The old economy was characteristically rit- ualistic. It addressed the eye, and made an impression by its superb ceremonial. The Christian dispensation was to be simple, and its strength woidd lie in the ])reaching of the word. To s])eak with other tongues was indeed a new thing on the earth, but so was the exigency which rendered it appropriate. Jiulaism was local — made purposely restrictive to preclude amalga- mation with the heathen. Now there was to be cath- olicity, and what could better symbolize it in Christian agency than a competence to instruct the whole world, to be mouth and wisdom to all its inhabitants? (e) We never read of foreign tongues creating any impedi- ment to the spread of tlie (iospel, or requiring laborious application for the actpiisition of them. If we look into modern missionary reports, we meet with a great deal about learning the languages of natives. Why is there nothing of the kind in the New Test., unless because they were acquired supernaturally ? (</) The account in Acts ii is explicit, and allows of no inicer- tainty or evasion. The speakers were Galilaeans, capa- ble at most of expressing themselves in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew ; and a multitude of foreigners from a great many regions heard themselves accosted as in the land of their birth. If the apostles spoke just as they might have been expected to speak, and with no more com- pass of expression than suited their condition and his- tory, why should any astonishment have been produced by their attainments? But tlie multitude were con- founded, and they were all amazed and marvelled, not merely at the doctrines propounded, but, specificalh', because every man heard them speak in his own lan- guage. How came Galileans, they asked, to be such linguists ? to be so familiar with languages alien to their annals? There is here an obviousness of meaning which no subtletv or sophistry can ever explain away." X.— H H