Widely diffused as this view of the Pentecostal gift has been, it has been thought by some, in some jioints at least, that it goes beyond the data with which the New Test, supplies us. Each instance of the gift re- corded in tlie Acts connects it, not so much with the work of teaching as with that of praise and adoration ; not with the normal order of men's lives, but with ex- ceptional epochs in them. (In the first instance, how- ever, the gift certainly was largely instrumental in the conversion of hearers; and even among the Corinthians [1 Cor. xiv, IG, 17] the utterance, when properly inter- preted, was a means of general edification.) It came and went as the Spirit gave men the power of utterance — in this respect analogous to the other gift of proph- ecy with which it was so often associated (Acts ii, 16, 17; xix, 6) — and was not possessed by them as a thing to be used tliis way or that, according as they chose. (It appears, however, that even the prophetic afflatus was amenable to the subject's will [1 Cor. xiv, 3-2], and the gift in question was to be voluntarily exercised or forborne [ ver. 28-30 ].) The speech of Peter which follows, like most other speeches addressed to a Jerusa- lem audience, was spoken apparently in Aramaic. (But this does not prove that Peter always spoke in that language.) When Paul, who "spake with tongues more tlian all," was at Lystra, there is no mention made of his using the language of Lycaonia. It is im- plied, however, that either he or Luke understood it (Acts xiv, 11). It is rarely implied in the discussion of spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. xii-xiv that the gift was of this nature, or given for this purpose. The objection that if it had been, the apostle would surely have told those who possessed it to go and preach to the outlying nations of the heathen world, instead of disturbing the Church by what, on this hypothesis, would have been a needless and offensive ostentation (comp. Stanley, Co- rinlhiam [2d ed.], p. 261), may readily be met by the consideration that Corinth, as a seaport, was almost as much a polyglot community as Jerusalem. Without laving much stress on the tradition that Peter was fol- lowed in his work by Mark as an interpreter {tpjxi]riv- ti'jq) (Papias, in Eusebius, N. E. iii, 30), that even Paul was accompanied by Titus in the same character — "Quianon potuit divinorum sensuum majestatem digno (iriBci eloquii sermone explicare" (Jerome, quoted by Estius on 2 Corinthians ii) — they must at least be re- ceived as testimonies that the age which was nearest to the phenomena did not take the same view of them as those have done who lived at a greater distance. The testimonj' of Irenieus (Adv. I/cer. vi, 6), sometimes urged in support of the common view, in reality decides nothing, an<l, so far as it goes, tends against it {infra). It is also affirmed that within the limits assigned by the providence of God to the working of the apostolic Church such a gift was unnecessary. Aramaic, Greek, Latin, the three languages of the inscription on the cross, were media of intercourse throughout the empire. Greek alone sufficed, as the New Test, shows us, for the churches of the West, for Macedonia and Achaia, for Pontus, Asia, Phrygia. The con(iuests of Alexander and of Rome had made men dif/lottic to an extent which has no parallel in history. But it is one thing to speak in a language imperfectly acquired by speaker and hear- er, yet foreign to them both, and a very different thing — and one, we may add, highly important for the per- sonal influence requisite to Gospel conviction — to be able to converse fluently in the native tongue of the congregation. The objection that we have no evidence of any actual use of the voluntary power of foreign languages bj' the apostles in propagating the Gospel is merely negative, and cannot stand in the light of the facts recorded in the case under consideration. Equal- ly inconclusive is the objection against the psi/cfiologi- ca^ character of the miracle of a sudden importation of a language not learned; for it lies with quite as much force against the communication of the knowledge of a future event, and indeed it would forbid not only all
TOXGUES, GIFT OF
482
TONGUES, GIFT OF
prophecy, but all inspiration itself. It is a suspicious circumstance connected witli all this class of objections that their esseni'e seems to lie in a crvpto-rationalistic spirit, which really opposes the miraculous altoj^ether, anil seeks on every occasion to explain Scripture prod- igies by natural causes. See Miuacle.
(2.) Accordinjilx', some interpreters have advanced an- other solution of the difficulty by changing the charac- ter of tlie miracle. It lay not in any new power be- stowed on the speakers, but in the impression produced on the hearers. Words which the Galiiiean disciples uttered in their own tongue were heard by those who listened as in their native speech. This view we find adopted by Gregory of Nyssa {De Spir. Sancf), i\\s- cussed, but not accepted, by Gregory of Nazianzum {Onit. c. xliv), and reproiluced by Erasmus (iid loc). A modilication of tlie same theory is presented by SchnecUenburger { Beitrdfje), and in part adopted by Olshausen ( loc. cit. ) and Neander ( P/laiiz. u. Leit. i, l.i). The phenomena of somnambulism, of the so- called mesmeric state, are referred to as analogous. The speaker was en nipport with his hearers; the lat- ter shared the thoughts of the former, and so heard them, or seemed to hear them, in their own tongues.