{380}
of the Corinthians, probably no one understood, instead of simply "magnifying G.o.d" in their own tongue, which everyone understood, is almost ludicrous, if without offence we may venture to say so. The same remarks apply to xix. 6. We must again allow an eminent apologist, who will not be accused of irreverence, to characterise such a representation. "Now in such positions and such company, speech in foreign tongues would be something altogether without object and without meaning. Where the consciousness of the grace of salvation, and of a heavenly life springing from it, is first aroused in man, his own mother tongue verily, not a foreign language, will be the natural expression of his feelings. Or we must imagine a magical power which, taking possession of men, like instruments without volition, forces them to utter strange tones--a thing contradicting all a.n.a.logy in the operations of Christianity."(1) The good sense of the critic revolts against the natural submission of the apologist.
We have diverged so far in order prominently to bring before the reader the nature and source of the hypothesis that the gift of "tongues"
signifies instantaneous power to speak unlearnt foreign languages. Such an interpretation is derived almost entirely from the mythical narrative in the Acts of the Apostles. We shall now proceed to consider the statements of the Apostle Paul, and endeavour to ascertain what the supposed miraculous Charisma really is. That it is something very different from what the unknown writer represents it in the episode of Pentecost cannot be doubted. "Whoever has, even once, read with attention what Paul writes of the speaking with tongues in the Corinthian community," writes Thiersch, "knows that the difference between that gift of tongues
{381}
and this (of Acts ii.) could scarcely be greater. There, a speech which no mortal can understand without interpretation, and also no philologist, but the Holy Spirit alone can interpret; here, a speech which requires no interpretation. That gift serves only for the edification of the speaker, this clearly also for that of the hearer.
The one is of no avail for the instruction of the ignorant; the other, clearly, is imparted wholly for that purpose."(1)
It may be well that we should state a few reasons which show that Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, does not intend, in speaking of [------], to represent speech in foreign languages. In the very outset of his dissertation on the subject (xiv. 2), Paul very distinctly declares as the princ.i.p.al reason for preferring prophecy to the gift of tongues: "For he that speaketh with a tongue [------] speaketh not unto men but unto G.o.d: for no one understandeth(2) [------]." How could this be said if [------] meant merely speaking a foreign language? The presence of a single person versed in the language spoken would in such a case vitiate the whole of Paul"s argument. The statement made is general, it will be observed, and not limited, to one community, but applied to a place like Corinth, one of the greatest commercial cities, in which merchants, seamen, and visitors of all countries were to be found, it would have been unreasonable to have characterized a foreign tongue as absolutely unintelligible. In xiv. 9, Paul says: "So likewise ye, unless ye utter by the tongue [------] words
{382}
easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be speaking into air." How could Paul use the expression "by the tongue"
if he meant a foreign language in v. 2 and elsewhere? He is comparing [------] in the preceding verses with the sounds of musical instruments, and the point reached in v. 9 clearly brings home the application of his argument: the [------] is unintelligible, like the pipe or harp, and unless the tongue utter words which have an understood meaning, it is mere speaking into air. Is it possible that Paul would call speech in a language, foreign to him, perhaps, but which nevertheless was the mother tongue of some nation, "speaking into air"? In such a case, he must have qualified his statement by obvious explanations, of which not a word appears throughout his remarks. That he does not speak of foreign languages is made still more clear by the next two verses, v. 10: in which, continuing his argument from a.n.a.logy, he actually compares [------] with speech in foreign languages, and ends, v. 11: "If, therefore, I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian (foreigner) and he that speaketh a barbarian (foreigner) in my judgment."" Paul"s logic is certainly not always beyond reproach, but he cannot be accused of perpetrating such an ant.i.thesis as contrasting a thing with itself. He, therefore, explicitly distinguishes (v. 10) [------] "kinds of languages"(2) from (xii. 10, 28, &c.) [------] "kinds of tongues." In xiv. 6, Paul says: "If I come unto you speaking with tongues [------] what shall I profit you, unless I shall
{383}
speak to you either in revelation, or in knowledge, or in prophecy, or in teaching?" [------]; and then he goes on to compare such unintelligible speech with musical instruments. Now it is obvious that revelation, knowledge, prophecy and teaching might equally be expressed in foreign languages, and, therefore, in "speaking with tongues" it is no mere difficulty of expression which makes it unprofitable, but that general unintelligibility which is the ground of the whole of Paul"s objections. Paul exclaims (v. 18): "I thank G.o.d I speak with a tongue [------](1) more than ye all, (19) but in a church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue [------]."(2) We have already pointed out that there is no evidence whatever that Paul could speak many languages.
So far as we have any information, he only made use of Greek and Aramaic, and never even preached where those languages were not current.
He always employed the former in his Epistles, whether addressed to Corinth, Galatia, or Rome, and his knowledge even of that language was certainly not perfect. Speaking "with a tongue" cannot, for reasons previously given, mean a foreign language; and this is still more obvious from what he says in v. 19, just quoted, in which he distinguishes speaking with a tongue from speaking with his understanding. Five words so spoken are better than ten thousand in a tongue, because he speaks
{384}
with the understanding in the one case and without it in the second.
It is clear that a man speaks with his understanding as much in one language as another, but it is the main characteristic of the speech we are discussing that it is throughout opposed to understanding: cf. vv.
14, 15. It would be inconceivable that, if this gift really signified power to speak foreign languages, Paul could on the one hand use the expressions in this letter with regard to it, and on the other that he could have failed to add remarks consistent with such an interpretation.
For instance is it possible that the Apostle in repressing the exercise of the Charisma, as he does, could have neglected to point out some other use for it than mere personal edification? Could he have omitted to tell some of these speakers with tongues that, instead of wasting their languages in a church where no one understood them, it would be well for them to employ them in the instruction of the nations whose tongues had been supernaturally imparted to them? As it is, Paul checks the use of a gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit, and reduces its operation to the smallest limits, without once indicating so obvious a sphere of usefulness for the miraculous power. We need not, however, proceed to further arguments upon this branch of the subject; although, in treating other points, additional evidence will constantly present itself. For the reasons we have stated, and many others, the great majority of critics are agreed that the gift of tongues, according to Paul, was not the power of speaking foreign languages previously unknown.(1) But for the narrative in Acts ii. no one would ever have thought of such an interpretation.
{385}
Coming now to consider the two Charismata, "kinds of tongues" and "the interpretation of tongues," more immediately in connection with our inquiry, as so-called miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, we shall first endeavour to ascertain some of their princ.i.p.al characteristics.
The theory of foreign languages supernaturally imparted without previous study may be definitively laid aside. The interpretation of tongues may go with it, but requires a few observations. It is clear from Paul"s words throughout this dissertation that the interpretation of tongues not only was not invariably attached to the gift of tongues(1) (1 Cor.
xiv. 13, 27, 28), but was at least often a separate gift possessed without the kinds of tongues (cf. xii. 10, 28, xiv. 26, 28). Nothing can be more specific than xii. 10"... to another kinds of tongues; and to another interpretation of tongues;" and again, v. 30: "do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" This is indeed presaged by the "diversities of gifts," &c, of xii. 4 ff. Upon the hypothesis of foreign languages, this would presuppose that some spoke languages which they could not interpret, and consequently could not understand, and that others understood languages which they could not speak. The latter point is common enough in ordinary life; but, in this instance, the miracle of supernaturally receiving a perfect knowledge of
{386}
languages, instantaneously and without previous study, is as great as to receive the power to speak them. The anomaly in the miracle, merely to point out a suggestive discrepancy where all is anomalous, is that the gift of tongues should ever have been separated from the gift of interpretation. If a man understand the foreign language he speaks he can interpret it; if he cannot interpret it, he cannot understand it; and if he cannot understand it, can he possibly speak it? Certainly not, without his having been made a perfectly mechanical instrument through which, apart from the understanding and the will, sounds are involuntarily produced, which is not to be entertained. Still pursuing the same hypothesis,--the one gift is to speak languages which no one understands, the other to understand languages which no one speaks.
Paul never even a.s.sumes the probability that the "tongue" spoken is understood by any one except the interpreter. The interpretation of such obscure tongues must have been a gift very little used,--never, indeed, except as the complement to the gift of tongues. The natural and useful facility in languages is apparently divided into two supernatural and useless halves. The idea is irresistibly suggested, as apparently it was to the Apostle himself, whether it would not have been more for the good of mankind and for the honour of Christianity, if, instead of these two miraculously incomplete gifts, a little natural good sense, five words even, to be spoken in the vernacular tongue and requiring no interpretation had been imparted. If, instead of foreign languages, we subst.i.tute the utterance of ecstatic religious excitement, the anomaly of speaking a language without understanding it or being understood becomes intelligible; and equally so the interpretation,
{387}
unaccompanied by the power of speaking. It is obvious in both cases that, as no one understands the tongue, no one can determine whether the interpretation of it be accurate or not. But it is easily conceivable that a sympathetic nervous listener might suppose that he understood the broken and incoherent speech of ecstasy and might interpret it according to his own stimulated imagination. The mysterious and unknown are suggestive texts, and there is nothing more infectious than religious excitement. In all this, however, is there anything miraculous?
We need not further demonstrate that the chief and general characteristic of "kinds of tongues" was that they were unintelligible (cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 2, 6-11, 13-19). Speaking with the spirit [------] is opposed to speaking with the understanding [------] (cf. vv. 14-16, &c).
They were not only unintelligible to others, but the speaker himself did not understand what he uttered: v. 14. "For if I pray with a tongue [------] my spirit [------] prayeth, but my understanding [------] is unfruitful" (cf. 15 f. 19). We have already pointed out that Paul speaks of these Charismata in general, and not as affecting the Corinthians only; and we must now add that he obviously does not even insinuate that the "kinds of tongues" possessed by that community was a spurious Charisma, or that any attempt had been made to simulate the gift; for nothing could have been more simple than for the Apostle to denounce such phenomena as false, and to distinguish the genuine from the imitated speech with tongues. The most convincing proof that his remarks refer to the genuine Charisma is that the Apostle applies to himself the very same restrictions in the use of "tongues" as he enforces upon the Corinthians
{388}
(vv. 18-19, 6, &c), and characterises his own gift precisely as he does theirs (vv. 6, 11, 14, 15, 19).
Now what was the actual operation of this singular miraculous gift, and its utility whether as regards the community or the gifted individual?
Paul restricts the speaking of "tongues" in church because, being unintelligible, it is not for edification (xiv. 2 ff. 18 f. 23, 27, 28).
He himself does not make use of his gift for the a.s.semblies of believers (vv. 6, 18). Another ground upon which he objects to the use of "kinds of tongues" in public is that all the gifted apparently speak at once (vv. 23, 27 f. 33). It will be remembered that all the Charismata and their operations are described as due to the direct agency of the Holy Spirit (xii. 4 ff.); and immediately following their enumeration, ending with "kinds of tongues" and "interpretation of tongues," the Apostle resumes: v. 11. "but all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each severally as he wills;" and in Acts ii. 4 the brethren are represented as speaking with tongues "as the Spirit gave them utterance." Now the first thought which presents itself is: How can a gift which is due to the direct working of the Holy Spirit possibly be abused? We must remember clearly that the speech is not expressive of the understanding of the speaker. The [------] spoke under the inspiration of the supernatural Agent, what neither they nor others understood. Is it permissible to suppose that the Holy Spirit could inspire speech with tongues at an unfitting time? Can we imagine that this Spirit can actually have prompted many people to speak at one and the same time to the utter disturbance of order? Is not such a gift of tongues more like the confusion of tongues in Babel(1)
{389}
than a christian Charisma? "And the Lord said:...Go to, let us go down and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another"s speech."(1) In spite of his abstract belief in the divine origin of the Charisma, Paul"s language unconsciously betrays practical doubt as to its character. Does not such sarcasm as the following seem extremely indecorous when criticising a result produced directly by the Holy Spirit? (xiv. 23) "If, therefore, the whole church be come into one place and all speak with tongues, and there come in unlearned and unbelieving persons will they not say that ye are mad?" At Pentecost such an a.s.sembly was supposed to be drunken.(2) The whole of the counsel of the Apostle upon this occasion really amounts to an injunction to quench the Spirit. It is quite what might be expected in the case of the excitement of ecstatic religion, that the strong emotion should princ.i.p.ally find vent in the form of prayer and praise (vv. 15 ff.), equally so that it should be unintelligible and that no one should know when to say "Amen" (v. 16), and that all should speak at once, and still more so that the practical result should be tumult (vv. 23, 33). All this, it might appear, could be produced without the intervention of the Holy Spirit. So far, is there and utility in the miracle?
But we are told that it is "for a sign." Paul argues upon this point in a highly eccentric manner. He quotes (v. 21) Isaiah xxviii. 11, 12, in a form neither agreeing with the Septuagint nor with the Hebrew, a pa.s.sage which has merely a superficial and verbal a.n.a.logy with the gift of tongues, but whose real
{390}
historical meaning has no reference to it whatever: "In the Law it is written, that with men of other tongues and with the lips of others will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that they will not hear me, saith the Lord." The Apostle continues with singular logic: "So that [------] the tongues are for a sign [------] not to those who believe but to the unbelieving; but prophecy is not for the unbelieving but for those who believe. If, therefore, the whole church be come into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in unlearned or unbelieving persons, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy and there come in an unbeliever... he is convicted by all...
and so falling on his face he will worship G.o.d, reporting that G.o.d is indeed in you." The Apostle himself shows that the tongues cannot be considered a sign by unbelievers, upon whom, apparently, they produce no other impression than that the speakers are mad or drunken. Under any circ.u.mstances, the "kinds of tongues" described by the Apostle are a very sorry specimen of the "signs and wonders and powers" of which we have heard so much. It is not surprising that the Apostle prefers exhortation in a familiar tongue. In an ecstatic state, men are incapable of edifying others: we shall presently see how far they can edify themselves. Paul utters the pith of the whole matter at the very outset of his homily, when he prefers exhortation to kinds of tongues: v. 2. "For he that speaketh with a tongue speaketh not unto men but unto G.o.d: for no one under-standeth, but in Spirit he speaketh mysteries"
[------]. It is not possible to read his words without the impression that the Apostle treats the whole subject with suppressed impatience.
His mind was too p.r.o.ne to believe in spiritual mysteries, and his nervous
{391}
nature too susceptible to religious emotion and enthusiasm to permit him clearly to recognize the true character of the gift of "tongues;" but his good sense a.s.serted itself and, after protesting that he would rather speak five words with his understanding than ten thousand words in a tongue, he breaks off with the characteristic exclamation (v. 20): "Brethren, become not children in your minds" [------]. The advice is not yet out of place.
What was the private utility or advantage of the supernatural gift?
How did he who spoke with a tongue edify himself? (v. 4.) Paul clearly states that he does not edify the church (vv. 2 ff.). In the pa.s.sage just quoted the Apostle, however, says that the speaker "with a tongue"
"speaketh to G.o.d"; and further on (vv. 18, 19) he implies that, although he himself does not use the gift in public, he does so in private.
He admonishes (v. 28) any one gifted with tongues, if there be no interpreter present, to "keep silence in a church, but let him speak to himself and to G.o.d." But in what does the personal edification of the individual consist? In employing language, which he does not comprehend, in private prayer and praise? In addressing G.o.d in some unintelligible jargon, in the utterance of which his understanding has no part? Many strange purposes and proceedings have been attributed to the Supreme Being, but probably none has been imagined more incongruous than a gift of tongues unsuitable for the edification of others, and not intelligible to the recipient, but considered an edifying subst.i.tute in private devotion for his own language. This was certainly not the form of prayer which Jesus taught his disciples.(1) And this gift was valued
{392}
more highly in the Corinthian Church than all the rest! Do we not get an instructive insight into the nature of the other Charismata from this suggestive fact? The reality of miracles does not seem to be demonstrated by these chapters.(1)
We have already stated that the vast majority of critics explain [------] as speech in an ecstatic condition;(2) and all the phenomena described by Paul closely correspond with the utterance of persons in a state of extreme religious enthusiasm, and excitement, of which many ill.u.s.trations might be given from other religions before and since the commencement of our era, as well as in the history of Christianity in early and recent times. Every one knows of the proceedings of the heathen oracles, the wild writhings and cries of the Pythoness and the mystic utterances of the Sibyl. In the Old Testament there is allusion to the ecstatic emotion of the prophets in the account of Saul, 1 Sara.
xix. 24; cf. Isaiah viii. 19, xxix. 4. The Montanists exhibited similar phenomena, and Tertullian has recorded several instances of such religious excitement, to which we have elsewhere referred. Chrysostora had to repress paroxysms of pious excitement closely resembling these in the fourth century;(3) and even down to our own times instances have never been wanting of this form of hysterical religion. Into none of this can we enter here. Enough, we trust, has been said to show the true character of the supposed supernatural Charismata of Paul from his own account of them, and the information contained in his epistles.
{393}
Although we have been forced to examine in considerable detail the pa.s.sages in the writings of Paul cited by apologists in support of miracles, the study is one of great value to our inquiry. These are the only pa.s.sages which we possess in which a contemporary and eye-witness describes what he considers supernatural phenomena, and conveys to us his impression of miraculous agency. Instead of traditional reports of miracles narrated by writers who are unknown, and who did not witness the occurrences in question, we have here a trustworthy witness dealing with matters in which he was personally interested, and writing a didactic homily upon the nature and operation of Charismata, which he believed to be miraculous and conferred upon the Church by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit. The nineteenth century here comes into direct contact with the age of miracles, but at the touch the miracles vanish, and that which, seen through the golden mist of pious tradition, seems to possess unearthly power and beauty, on closer examination dwindles into the prose of every day life. The more minutely reported miracles are scanned, the more unreal they are recognized to be. The point to which we now desire to call attention, however, is the belief and the mental const.i.tution of Paul. We have seen something of the nature and operation of the gift of tongues. That the phenomena described proceeded from an ecstatic state, into which persons of highly excitable nervous organization are very liable to fall under the operation of strong religious impressions, can scarcely be doubted. Eminent apologists(1) have gravely ill.u.s.trated the phenomena by the a.n.a.logy of mesmerism,
{394}
somnambulism and the effects of magnetism. Paul a.s.serts that he was subject to the influence, whatever it was, more than anyone, and there is nothing which is more credible than the statement, or more characteristic of the Apostle. We desire to speak of him with the profoundest respect and admiration. We know more, from his epistles, of the intimate life and feelings of the great Apostle of the Gentiles than of any other man of the apostolic age, and it is impossible not to feel warm sympathy with his n.o.ble and generous character. The history of Christianity, after the death of its Founder, would sink almost into common-place if the grand figure of Paul were blotted from its pages.
But it is no detraction to recognize that his nervous temperament rendered him peculiarly susceptible of those religious impressions which result in conditions of ecstatic trance, to which, as we actually learn from himself, he was exceptionally subject. The effects of this temperament probably first made him a Christian; and to his enthusiastic imagination we owe most of the supernatural dogmas of the religion which he adopted and transformed.
One of these trances the Apostle himself recounts,(1) always with the cautious reserve: "whether in the body or out of the body I know not, G.o.d knoweth," how he was caught up to the third heaven, and in Paradise heard unutterable words which it is not lawful for a man to speak; in immediate connection with which he continues: "And lest I should be exalted above measure by the excess of the revelations, there was given to me a stake [------] in the flesh, an angel of Satan to buffet me"(2) This was one of
{305}