« PreviousContinue »
In this passage
in an ecstasy, that is, not from the imaginings of his own mind, if any interpreter of the tongue be present. the last clause is evidently from 1 Cor. xiv. 26: “When ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine,
a , hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation *;” not giving it word for word, but the import of the whole passage with a little variation. For, on comparing the passages, we find “the psalm ” in both; the vision, in opposition to the “revelation” (arrokalvtis); the “utterance in the Spirit,"oratio spiritalis, to the "doctrine." The rest must be referred to the "tongue,' unless“ utterance in the Spirit" be referred thereto, as Tertullian commonly uses the word “ oratio” to express prayer; and the rest be to be referred to the “interpretation.” However, we may remark by the way, First, that the passage is a sufficient refutation of Markland's conjecture (ad Lysiam, p. 574), who supposes that yrwolv, and not yaworav, is the correct reading ; for which correction there is not the slightest ground : and it is quite opposed to the general sense of the passage, since it is followed by the word epunvela, “interpretation" which would have no meaning except in reference to yawora,“the tongue;" and indeed the allusion is to verse 13t. Secondly, the passage is proof that Tertullian considered prayer in a tongue to be by the power of the Holy Ghost; and that those who thus prayed were in an ecstasy, the which is exactly consistent with what we have said.
But having established our position, let us see what further light may be thrown on it by the 14th, 15th, 16th, and 19th verses of this chapter, wherein Paul tells us, that the words uttered in prayer in an unknown tongue are spoken "in the Spirit;" with which, in ver. 19, he interchanges the expression “words in an unknown tongue," and places in opposition thereto “ words which are spoken with the understanding,” δια το νους or νοι. For if in every exercise of that gift there is an extraordinary impulse of the Holy Spirit (as in revelation, apokalvys) and ecstasy, eksaois, as Tertullian would call it; (and persons in an ecstasy are said, Rev. i. 10, to be in the Spirit, for that in
• It did not come within the author's scope to produce the concluding passage from Tertullian; but as it gives evidence that the exercise of prophetic gifts were not in his time uncommon, and as it tends to set the whole matter in a clearer light, it is well to add it. Tertullian proceeds : Probet etiam mihi mulierem apud se prophetasse......Si hæc omnia a me proferuntur et ubique conspirantia regulis et dispositionibus et disciplinis Creatoris şine dubio mei erit Christus et Spiritus et Apostolus. “Let him (Marcion) also prove to me that any woman with him hath prophesied ...... If all those things are produced by me, and every where breathing the same spirit with the rules and dispositions and discipline of the Creator, without doubt mine will be Christ and the Spirit and the Apostle."
+ " Wherefore let him that speaketh in an (unknown] tongue, pray that he may interpret.” VOL. IV.-NO, I.
no respect differs from any other form of being in an ecstasy, as it is expressed in Acts xi. 5)-if, I say, it be as we suppose, then, in the case of a person in the church uttering prayers in a tongue, his soul will be in a passive state, receiving the impulse divinely impressed, the intimate perception whereof may aptly influence the mind to pious dispositions. But that sensation produces no greater outward effect than the “ groanings which cannot be uttered," sevaypoi alantoi, mentioned in Rom. viii. 26; and to this extent is of service to him that prays, and not to him that hears. But it is far otherwise when any in prayer makes use of his own powers of thought, and seeks appropriate sentiments, and places them in order, and expresses them in words of his own, but which at the same time are adapted to and understood by all who hear him: for in this action, which in the Greek idiom is properly termed the act of persons (vertwv, quvvosvrwv) employing their own understandings, and so called * an act (to voos) of the understanding, not only is the soul of the person thus thinking excited to pious emotions, but those also who hear are capable of being affected with similar impressions.
* The Apostle, in 2 Cor. xiv., opposes speaking in a tongue to the gift of prophecy, in this respect, that the latter is exercised tw you, " with the understanding” (ver.15); 814 78 yoos pe, or, according to another reading, tw you jus,“ with my understanding” (ver.19). But if our author be correct in his view of the way in which St. Paul here uses this word, namely, that in speaking with the understanding, a person “ makes use of his own powers of thought, and seeks appropriate sentiments, and places them in order, and expresses them in words of his own,” then is prophecy not exercised TW vot,“ with the understanding" of the prophetic person ; for prophecy is a gift of the Spirit, in the exercise whereof a man does not speak from his own mind, but utters that which is given him from the Spirit of God. (See the xiith. and xivth, chaps. passim, and the other passages in Scripture where prophecy is referred to, particularly Jer. xxiii.) The use of the word yes, in this xivth chapter, is evidently to express whether, in the utterance of words from the Spirit, the gifted person understands or not the words he speaks-whether he utters the mind of the Spirit in a language which he understands, or in one not understood by him—whether he is speaking with his understanding, or not with his understanding. And therefore the Apostle expressly says, in ver. 19, “In the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. “With my understanding,” not“ unto the understanding of others;" although the motive for desiring to speak with my understanding ” is “that I may teach others ;" which indeed I should be able to do, in case I understand the language which I utter, or receive the gift of interpretation ; but as I do not understand the words which I speak in the tongue, I cannot, unless I have received and exercise the gift of interpretation, teach others: for, though edified myself, by the intimate communion of my spirit with God by the exercise of this gift of the Spirit, yet, nevertheless, I do not“ speak with my understanding," and therefore cannot deliver to others, in our common language, what I have been saying. Therefore I will reserve the exercise of this gift, unaccompanied with interpretation, for periods of solitary communion with God; and desire rather, in the church, to exercise either this gift with interpretation, or else the gift of prophecy, or other spiritual gifts, wherein I may utter the mind of the Spirit in words commonly understood.
And this is confirmed by the 4th verse, where he says, “ He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself” (which is again set forth in the 14th verse, " My spirit prayeth "), not
” others, not the church : wherefore it is added, in the 14th verse, " but my understanding is unfruitful;” it brings no edification to the present and listening church, which yet ought to be the case in all things done in the church. In one place (ver. 2), to “ speak in the Spirit," avevuarı lalelv, is used in a different sense, and is spoken of, not as a means to an end, but as the end whereto should tend the action of the person speaking in a tongue; and it is no unusual practice with Paul to use the rhetorical figure #lokn, employing the same word in different senses. He says, avevari dalel uusnpia *, " in his spirit” (i. e. to himself, as he says in ver.28) " he speaketh mysteries,” orhidden things; not
* The author, had he applied the same reasoning and construction to this passage as in the previous part, would not have found it necessary to yield to the inconsistencies into which he has here been betrayed. He admits that at, least some of those gifted with tongues did not understand what they themselves said in the tongues; he demonstrates that the gift of interpretation was not the knowledge of the tongue, but the utterance, by the power of the Spirit, in the common language, the substance of what had before been said in the tongue : and the slightest inspection of this xiv th chapter of Corinthians would have shewn that it was altogether addressed to persons who did not understand what they said in the tongues : for they are forbidden to speak in the tongue unless an interpreter be present; whereas the only caution necessary, on the supposition that they knew what they were speaking, would have been, “ Take care not to speak in tongues, without proceeding to interpret what you shall say.” But the Apostle tells them, “Let him that speaketh in a tongue, pray that he may
interpret;" and, “ If there be no interpreter present, let him keep silence.”
The only passage which presents any difficulty in this chapter, is in the third verse, “ he that speaketh in a tongue editieth himself;" and had it not been for this passage, we cannot help thinking the author would never have thought of explaining away the passage, my understanding is unfruitful,” as he has done; for if indeed the person speaking was edified by means of his understanding, it is quite clear that his understanding would not be unfruitful. And as to the passage, “In the Spirit he speaketh mysteries,” though we should admit the author to be correct in his construction, that the words in the Spirit' signify the spirit of him who speaks, it would merely tend to prove that the things spoken were not mysteries, or hidden things; for, being revealed to him, he could at once declare them to the church.' And the text is not, he speaketh mysteries, for no man understandeth him, but, ‘no man understandeth him, howbeit in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries. But with respect to the expression in the third verse, “ he that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself,” , we have only to apply thereto the author's words contained a few lines above: The soul, or rather spirit, 'is in a passive state, receiving the impulse divinely impressed, the intimate perception whereof may aptly influence the mind to pious dispositions.'
Surely the spiritual part of a man not only may be, but continually is, edified without any corresponding improvement in the intellect. And to any one who will consider what must be the effect of the inhabitation of a man by the Spirit of God, it will appear clear, that, although the intellect cannot take in all the infinity of knowledge which is in the mind of God, and though it should not take in any one new idea, still the whole spirit of the man must be elevated; he must
things hidden, or mysteries, to hiniself—for then he could not profit himself, which nevertheless is the case, for “ he that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself” (ver. 3)—but mysteries to the hearers," for no man understandeth” what he would say: and hence the Greek and Latin phrase, almost proverbial," these things are mysteries to me,” when we would express that we do not understand what we are saying.
This subject is not only most suitable to the season we are now celebrating, but at any time is a matter of no small importance, whether and in what way we understand what is contained in Scripture concerning the gifts of the Spirit: for it is most proper that we should possess an accurate knowledge of all God's works, and especially such as serve to illustrate and set forth the Son of God, and the nature of his kingdom; and false notions on this subject, as we have seen, will only make room for doubts and dangerous opinions, which we should exclude by the acquisition of accurate knowledge, and against which all those who either hold or aspire to the office of defending the doctrines of Christianity are bound to raise their voice : yet not to make a boast or vain shew of knowledge (as the Corinthians with their gifts), either in this or any other branch of Divine truth, however accurate or copious that knowledge may be; nor to restrain its advantages merely to ourselves; but to hold it for God, for the church, for the disciples.
Yet for ourselves thus far that knowledge may be so applied, as to inflame an ardent coveting for further degrees of piety and virtue, in which we should abound the more in proportion as we receive instruction in Divine truth. For it is right that this knowledge should be acquired ; and it is given to us of God that by means thereof we may receive the gifts of the Holy Ghost which pertain unto salvation, and may make increase of faith and holiness; the which possess more real greatness, and confer ampler benefits on those who receive and exercise them, than the gifts in earlier times bestowed for the purpose of laying the foundation of the church of Christ. Meditation on these things will be profitable and opportune, since to-morrow, in St. Paul's church, at the celebration of the holy Eucharist, a sermon will be preached by the learned M. Dan. Gotthold Joseph Hobler of Friburg, wherein, after a comparison of the condition of the early church and of ours, he will prove that ours is by no means less favoured because destitute of those gifts of the Holy Ghost conceded to the early church, but should be content with those which pertain to faith and holiness.
be brought into a nearness of communion with God, and his soul be filled with an holy awe, which may well be described as edifying himself.'
We can only add, that those who have lately received the gift declare that such is the case in their instance. Translator.
THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE EVIL OF SIN.
Hoev to kakov, the Origin of Evil, is not a new subject of dispute,
, and is be found on the intellectual arena of every age, from the time of the Grecian sages down to Mr. Sadler and his critic in the Edinburgh Review. It was impossible that the Heathen should be able to solve the question, because no unaided powers of reason could avail for a full knowledge of the true God, and they had no direct light from heaven revealing him to them; and because the nature of evil is only to be apprehended from a knowledge of God, consequently only in proportion as that knowledge is extensive and accurate. Thus, no being can appreciate so fully the nature of evil as God himself; and no inhabitant of this earth could so sensibly feel its horrors as the holy and spotless Jesus. The more spiritually enlightened any Christian is, and the more his powers are devoted to acquiring a knowledge of God, the more knowledge also will he acquire of sin. And when we speak here of powers, we do not mean pure intellect, but intellect and affection combined-all the moral faculties of man, in short, let that moral and intelligent capacity be expressed how it may. Thus, since it is only on the posthumous writings of Paley that any well-grounded hope of his being conversant in the mere elements of vital Christianity can be founded, it follows, that when his former works were composed, upon which his reputation for worldly wisdom is built, he was not in a condition to solve the question, more than any other mere intellectual person, be it Aristotle, Plato, or any
, other; and the same remarks apply to Dr. Johnson, Mr. Sadler, and his critic in the Edinburgh Review: they all want that depth of spiritual apprehension of the revealed character of God without which their reasoning is but as the sounding of brass and the tinkling of a cymbal. We grant their powers of mind, but we deny the subject to be within the province of mere intellect.
Several writers, within the last few years, have set forth this matter with various degrees of perspicuity. Milton was too great a poet to be an accurate reasoner; and Locke has satisfied none, while he has instructed all. President Edwards saw the idea beaming in the distance, but did not bring it out with any definiteness. Williams argued the case well; but there is un
. fortunately a fallacy, that runs parallel throughout the work with the truth, which causes the mind to feel unsatisfied, even when the reason of that want of conviction is undiscovered. The late Mr. Vaughan embraced the subject in all its depth and largeness; while his language, from excess of accuracy in some places, and from quaintness in others, notwithstanding its occa