66

"of their natural functions. Indeed to "have lost the gift of tongues after the "temporary use of it, would imply another "miracle; for it must have been by actual deprivation, unless we suppose the apo"stles mere irrational organs, through which "divine sounds were conveyed. In a word, "it was as much in the course of nature, "for an apostle, whom the Holy Spirit on "the day of Pentecost had enabled, to speak "a strange language, as it was for the crip

66

ple whom Jesus had restored to the use of "his limbs on the Sabbath day, to walk, run, and perform all the functions of a man perfectly sound and whole"."

66.

66

As regards the second objection, from the remarkable expression of St. Paul, I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, evidently, it is not the gift itself, but the gift, diverted from its real purpose of Christian edification, which is depreciated. The apostle does not mean that it is a less valuable or extraordi

n Warburton, Doctrine of Grace.

o 1 Cor. xiv. 5.

nary, but under the present circumstances a less useful gift than others which he names. He was addressing professed believers; but tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not; but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them that believe P. The manner in which the gift was abused is confessedly obscure; perhaps Lightfoot's conjecture is the most probable, that some of the Jewish converts made a display of their knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures, all which was unintelligible to the generality of their hearers. I may suggest however, that though at first sight we might conclude Corinth to be the centre of pure and unmingled Greek, it is probable that the inhabitants were equally divided between Greek and Latin. It was a Roman colony' of

p 1 Cor. xiv. 22.

9 Lightfoot in loco, with whom lord Barrington (Miscellanea Sacra) coincides.

r

Κόρινθον δὲ οἰκοῦσι Κορινθίων μὲν οὐδεὶς ἔτι τῶν ἀρχαίων, ἔποικοι δὲ ἀποσταλέντες ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων. Pausanias II. 1. Compare Diod. Sic. Fragment lib. XXXII. Strabo lib. VIII. p. 585. Dio Cassius XLIII. 50. My attention was directed to this fact by the Palæoromaica, one of those paradoxes, which ingenious men begin to support as an exercise of the

very recent date, and peopled directly from Italy. Now though of course it would be rapidly increased by the confluence of settlers from the neighbourhood, yet the Latin language was probably spoken by a large proportion of the inhabitants. But where the diversity of language permitted the use, it would also give occasion for the idle display of the gift of tongues.

It will have been observed, that the argument in this Lecture is directed against two distinct classes of opponents: 1st, those who, while they acknowledge the authority of the Scripture, reject the common opinion concerning the miracle of the gift of tongues. To these I urge its universal acceptance in its literal sense by the Christian church, the incredibility that it should have been invented, the still greater incredibility that it should have been fabricated by the ignorance of the early expositors of Scripture, out of proverbial expressions bearing no reasoning powers, and end in almost persuading themselves that they are in earnest.

It may be worth remarking that the Latin names of Justus and Crispus appear among the Corinthian brethren, Acts xviii. 6. perhaps also Fortunatus, 1 Cor. xvi. 17.

such meaning; the obvious imitation of it by the biographers of false teachers, and its inestimable value to the apostles, as a means of disseminating the religion of Christ. To those, 2dly, whom I suppose either willingly, or compelled by force of reasoning, to admit the general truth of the leading facts in the apostolic history, I dwell only on the scene in Jerusalem upon the day of Pentecost. I strongly assert the impossibility, that without this gift the apostles could have made the impression which they did on the assembled multitude; that speaking in their native dialect they would have been unintelligible to the vast majority, and, instead of enforcing awe and amazement, would either have been entirely disregarded, or incurred contempt and ridicule.

I do not adduce as an argument, I remark only as a singular coincidence, the agreement of this miracle with the course of divine Providence as recorded in the Old Testament. The curse pronounced at Babel separated the human race into distinct nations; when mankind was to be invited to form one family in Christ, how admirably

adapted for the purpose the temporary suspension of this malediction"! The temporary suspension, because when the religion was established, resident teachers appointed, the Scriptures compiled and translated into various tongues, the progress of the religion demanded no further miraculous interference. But remarkable as the analogy is, the writers of the New Testament appear unconscious of it; whence it is evident that the later miracle is not an invention suggested by the former.

If tongues then were the credentials of the ambassadors of God; if from the reception of the apostles in this character we may infer the necessary production and verification of their powers, let us listen with humble gratitude to the terms of peace and reconciliation with God, offered on their authority, and may that peace be ours, both

now and evermore t!

S

Compare lord Barrington's Miscellanea Sacra, and Benson, Hist. of the planting of Christianity.

t It is remarkable that the Roman Catholic church has rarely laid claim to this miracle; the reason is obvious, the impossibility of imposture.

After Irenæus, there is hardly any mention made of