H. J. PATTERSON. After securing the College of the Bible Diploma in 1917, H. J. Patterson proceeded to the Melbourne University where he graduated M.A., after gaining Final Honours in the B.A. degree. He subsequently served the churches at Ascot Vale, Gardiner, Balwyn, and is now at Hartwell, Vic. For seven years he was lecturer and Principal in succession to A. R, Main at Woolwich Bible College. During that time he also served the church at Lane Cove, N.S.W. as minister. For over a year he lectured in New Testament at the College of the Bible, Glen Iris, and for well over a decade he contributed a Prayer Topic column for the "Australian Christian."

      This is a vexed question which has troubled not a few earnest Christians who have been told that speaking with tongues is an indication of the Holy Spirit within them, and in some cases they have been told that unless they have this gift they have not the Holy Spirit as a possession within them at all.

      That there was such a manifestation in the life of the early church is clear for there are references to it in the New Testament, but of the exact nature of it there is some considerable argument.

      Orthodox Christian churches hold that it should not be sought today and the phenomenon or a simulation of it is to be found only in modern cults and religions some of which cannot properly be termed Christian. It follows that unless the Holy Spirit speaks with different voices then at least some of these, if not all, are simulations or counterfeits or are due to some common psychological cause.

      The subject is a large one and if followed through in all its ramifications would take much more space than is afforded us here.

      This is usually a beginning text for most who believe in the continuation of this phenomenon beyond the early days. Here "Tongues" is associated with the casting out of devils, the handling of venomous reptiles, the drinking of poisons and the healing through the laying on of hands.

      The unfortunate thing about this text for those who quote it is that it is seriously questioned by all revisers of the text and on rather good grounds. These we state here briefly as follows: The Scofield Reference Bible in a footnote says, "The passage from, verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and the Vatican, and others have it with partial omissions and variations." It is also written in a different style from that of the rest of the gospel. Hastings Dictionary of the Bible has, "The probability, therefore, is that these last twelve verses did not belong to the original form of the gospel." It would seem that one would not be on solid ground in basing an argument upon such uncertain evidence. Yet this text is quoted again and again by those who claim this "gift of tongues." Do they also drink poisons and handle venomous snakes without danger?

      On that day the apostles and possibly others were baptised with the Holy Spirit. "And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them tongues as of fire, distributing and resting on each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Acts 2:2-4) What were these other tongues?

      If we take the narrative of Acts alone and if we had no more than this we would say conclusively that they were other languages which were heard and recognised by those who were assembled. "They were bewildered because each one heard them speaking in his own language." (verse 6). "And how is it that we hear each of us in his own native language" (verse 8).

      The only thing that would support

the contention that it was akin to what happened at Corinth later is that some person making a jest of the whole thing said, "They are filled with new wine" (verse 13). But surely Luke did not misunderstand the nature of the event. If, as we know, he is always so right and exact in his statements, we must admit that this Pentecostal miracle was of a higher order and of a more extraordinary character than the later, "Speaking with Tongues" as at Corinth. These in Acts are described as languages whereas the utterances at Corinth are "tongues." For the most part a different word is used. It is true that the word "tongue" is used in Acts 2:4 but as the subsequent narrative shows it was a tongue or language that could be understood by the hearer and .this was totally unlike the phenomenon at Corinth.

      Prof. Edwin Lewis in the Abingdon Commentary writes of this event at Pentecost: "Certainly what happened was not the 'gift of tongues' of which we read elsewhere in the New Testament, for 'tongues' required an interpreter which was one reason for Paul's low estimate of the gift (1 Cor. 14:1-19) whereas those who heard the apostles at Pentecost understood what was said. In any event, it remains that the significant aspect of the experience was the empowerment of the apostles (Acts 1:8). This was the promise of the Father. This empowerment made them into flaming evangels. This was what added the final touch to their conviction, first engendered by the Resurrection, that "This Jesus whom ye crucified, God hath made both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36). And this is the sign which may be duplicated in every age and by which men may be made to hear and understand the wonderful works of God."

      J. W. McGarvey, one of the best known and loved teachers in the old College of the Bible at Bethany, Kentucky, argued that this occurrence was an identical one with that of the Day of Pentecost on these grounds: (1) Peter describing what happened said, "As I began to speak the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning." The Holy Spirit was poured out directly from God and without the imposition of hand. (2) The only two instances mentioned of a baptism of the Holy Spirit are in Acts 1:5 with reference to Pentecost and here at Caesarea as in Acts 11:16. This was the final evidence afforded Peter that the Gentiles were to be received into the Church. The fact that Peter links the two together--both are described as baptisms--would lead us to agree with him in this contention. Not all do agree, however, with Prof. McGarvey. It still remains true that if they were merely ecstatic utterances as later occurred at Corinth then it was not an exact statement of Peter or of Luke to record it that it was "as on us at the beginning,"

      This we think is different from the case of Cornelius and of Pentecost for the Spirit came on them after Paul had laid his hands upon them. These men had never before heard of the Holy Spirit; Paul discovered that they had been baptised "into John's baptism" and were unaware of the new teaching concerning the Holy Spirit or of the gifts of the Spirit. Probably their baptism took place after John's baptism ceased to be administered by divine authority. Some think that the thing that happened here was akin to that of Cornelius and to the Day of Pentecost. If so, languages were spoken which could be understood.

      If "tongues" as at Corinth then it was an unintelligible utterance. Actually, we cannot be sure and it doesn't very much matter.

      If the Acts statement concerning the Day of Pentecost, the house of Cornelius, and the Twelve men at Ephesus refer to the same like occurrence then this Scripture in these three chapters in 1 Cor. are the only clear references to the phenomenon which is included under the general heading of spiritual gifts and which is said to be by certain supporters of the "tongues movement" so necessary for us today. However, as we shall see, what Paul had to say about it was disparaging rather than otherwise. We shall now proceed to an examination of these chapters.

      1. It appears that it was only one of many gifts. There are two lists of these in 1 Cor. 12 and in both cases the gift of tongues and their interpretation appear last in the lists. Besides the lists there is a lengthy discussion of what should be the attitude of the Corinthians to what obviously they thought to be the thing most desired viz. "the gift of tongues." A. Robertson in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible says, "In ch. 13 the tongues which St. Paul has put last in the order of precedence, comes first in the order of depreciation . . . Apart from charity, not only tongues (however wonderful) but even prophecy, even works of charity, are worthless. Compared with it, prophecy, tongues, knowledge itself all belong to our childhood, to our ignorance, to the sphere of things temporal." "Love never ends; as for prophecy, it will pass away; as for tongues they will cease; as for knowledge it will pass away." (1 Cor. 13:8).

      2. It is also clear from a reading of these chapters that the Corinthians were very desirous of the showy gifts like "speaking with tongues."

      3. What was Paul's attitude and teaching? It is true that Paul assumes that the gift of tongues is an energy of the Holy Spirit. It is also true that he depreciates the strong desire of the Corinthians for it. The following is the substance of his argument.

      (i) It is a silly thing to say that because you do not have the gift of tongues that you have not the Spirit or that you do not belong to the body of Christ. There are many different gifts of the Spirit. "To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are inspired by the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills." (1 Cor. 12:7-11). In this it is abundantly clear that not all possessed all of the miraculous gifts, not even the gift of tongues, for if all had it they would not have been desirous of obtaining it.

      (ii) In chapter 13 he emphasise the surpassing excellence of love without which tongues or any other Christian gifts are valueless. Indeed, these miraculous gifts of the Spirit like tongues and knowledge and prophecy will cease. They belong to the realm of the incomplete. The full-grown man in Christ does not desire these things. (1 Cor. 13:11). Later we shall discuss this further under the heading' of whether these gifts are to be regarded as permanent in the Church.

      (iii) In Paul's mind "Tongues" are not the greatest gift. This is the reverse of the thinking of most Pentecostalists and such as claim the gift today. In Ch. 14 he proceeds as follows:--He contrasts prophesying or teaching or preaching with the exercise of the gift of tongues. The man who speaks in a tongue addresses not men but God for no one understands him. The man who preaches builds up the whole Church and so is greater than the man who speaks with a tongue. Such cannot edify the Church. (14:1-5). A musical instrument must give distinct notes to be of any value. "If the bugle give an indistinct sound who will get ready for the battle? So with yourselves, if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air." (1 Cor. 14:8, 9). Instead of being eager for these manifestations "strive to excel in building up the Church." (1 Cor. 14:12). Paul tells us he spoke in tongues; but in the Church, "I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." (1 Cor. 14:19).

      He urges them that where intellectual judgments are concerned they must not remain in a state of childhood. The relative values of the gifts are not to be reckoned according to their marvellous character. (verse 20). The effect of such unintelligible demonstrations is to make the unlearned say, "you are mad." The preacher or prophet on the other hand by his word will lead them to a conviction of the truth. If there are people who speak with tongues then let no more than three speak in a church service and then only if there is someone to interpret.

      In respect to these things women must keep absolutely silent. There must be no confusion in the Church. (vv. 26-40).

      4. Some of the main points to note.

      (i) The gift of tongues was one of a facility for ecstatic utterance which in itself conveyed no intelligible message to those who heard. Even the speaker may not understand the meaning of it. It has, therefore, no value to the Church unless it be attended by an interpreter and then must be limited to three speakers.

      (ii) Prophecy or preaching is more desirable than the gift of tongues for in that case the Church community is benefited.

      (iii) Even the unbeliever is not impressed for he is likely to say, "You are mad." And Paul's handling of Isaiah 28:1 does not reverse this judgment for there the reference was to the Assyrians who invaded the land of Israel and whose speech was unintelligible. In effect Paul is saying "remember there was a time in our history when an unintelligible speech was a sign sent from God and it proved unavailing." We cannot believe that Paul almost in the same breath is saying that tongues will lead unbelievers to Christ and that they will also cause them to say you are mad. Tongues then, in Paul's judgment, neither benefit the believing company of the Church nor the unbeliever but only the individual who uses it. This is not our argument but that of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians who desired the spectacular or showy gift.

      (iv) The Corinthians were giving plain indications that they were but children in their attitude. (1 Cor. 13:11 and 14:20).

      5. Were these miraculous gifts to be permanent?

      (i) There were many non-miraculous gifts and endowments and still are which may fittingly be called gifts of God and of His Spirit.

      May I quote from Principal A. R. Main's "First Principles." "It is evident that certain miraculous gifts were bestowed in the early church on other than apostles. We have the gift of speaking with tongues, the gift of interpreting these tongues (by another than the one speaking with the tongue), gifts of healing, gifts of prophecy, working of miracles or "powers", as exorcism (Acts 16:18; 19:11, 12). We have the intimation that such gifts were transmitted by the laying on of apostolic hands (II Tim. 1:6). Acts 8:14-19 bears this out. It seems that Philip, not an apostle, had no power to pass on the gifts; hence Peter and John laid hands on the Samaritans. Simon Magus prayed, not for the gifts, but that the apostles would grant to him their power of transmitting gifts (v. 19). These miraculous powers were peculiarly fitted to corroborate the message of the gospel in its first great conflict with the hosts of evil. Evidence is lacking that such gifts are at our disposal today." (First Principles p. 43.)

      (ii) Some interpret 1 Cor. 13 as indicative of this that when the revelation was completed, as it was in Christ and His apostles, (and we have it in our New Testament) there was no further need for such miraculous gifts. Prophecy, tongues, and knowledge of the miraculous character will pass away (1 Cor. 13:8). When? "The imperfect will pass away when the perfect comes." We believe that we have the perfect revelation and that it has been completed. If we hold that revelation may still continue and that the Holy Spirit will miraculously guide us into and show us new truth then the way is open for the dogmas of Roman Catholicism and Mormonism and Christian Science and all the other queer delusions of our modern age for all will say that it came by revelation to them. The Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion but rather gives enlightenment in relation to the truth completed and perfected in Christ and the apostles. This seems the most sensible method and attitude to adopt.

      The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible says of tongues: "They were a visible gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed in connection with the preaching of the apostles, or by the apostles through the laying on of their hands (Acts 10:44-46; 19:1-7; cf. ch. 8:14-24). They were a phenomenon of the Apostolic Age, and gradually disappeared afterward."

      Hastings Dictionary of the Bible p. 796, Vol. 4 says, "There is no clear evidence of tongues as a religious phenomenon anterior to N.T. times, nor of their survival in the early church after the Apostolic Age. Even in heathen religions as St. Paul hints (1 Cor. 12:l ff.) there were analogous phenomena which it was necessary to remember in the attempt to "discern" the true work of the Holy Spirit, This suggests that profound religious excitement, to whatever cause it may be due, tends to find expression in abnormal utterance in the N.T. this tendency gradually gives away to more normal forms . . . Chrysostom on 1 Cor. 14 frankly declares that the gifts described by Paul were unknown in the church of his day."

      6. What then of modern cults and manifestations?

      (i) Again we turn to Hastings Dictionary in which this appears: "Of more modern examples of such utterances among the Franciscans of the 13th century, the early Quakers, Jansenists, Methodists, the French prophets of the Cevennes, and particularly the Irvingites whose tongues (1832-3) have been described by several competent observers, we will only observe that it would be harsh and unjust to

ascribe all such phenomena to the studied attempt to reproduce those of the apostolic church. In whatever way we may explain these utterances, and however good reason there may be to suspect occasional simulation, the spontaneity of the phenomena in general must be freely admitted. But for reasons suggested above, great caution is necessary in applying them to the interpretation of the N.T. data. (p. 796, Vol. 4).

      (ii) E. J. Bicknell, Prof. of N.T. Exegesis in King's College, University of London, in the New Commentary writes (p. 331), "Speaking with tongues is a psychological phenomenon, not particularly uncommon, which has been investigated and explained by modern science. In our normal waking life our speech is under the control of our conscious mind. The sounds that we utter are directed by our reason working through the higher centres of the brain, though this control may be partially disturbed by any emotion. But if the higher centres of the brain are put out of action by, say, a drug or an illness, or some overwhelming emotion the rational and critical faculty is over-powered, the control of the conscious mind is relaxed, and the individual may give vent to feelings by pouring forth a flood of meaningless syllables, which he and those who hear him may take for an unknown language. This impression is deepened if the sounds include definite words of his own or of another language. Further, in this abnormal state whole sentences of some genuine foreign language may be produced which at some time past may have been overheard. Even though they may not have understood or even consciously remembered, they have remained stored up in the unconscious mind, which misses nothing and forgets nothing. When the conscious control is removed they may well up."

      (iii) If that is so then we may treat with caution the claims to restore the miraculous gift of tongues associated with primitive christianity. Among .those who have claimed to restore the miraculous gifts of the early church are the Catholic Apostolic church, the Apostolic church (Pentecostalists), the Four-Square Gospel churches and the Mormons. The first two claim also to have restored the Apostolate. Hence we have Protestant, Mormon, and others with all their varying theological beliefs and practices claiming to have restored the gifts. May we say again that we do not believe the Holy Spirit is the author of confusion. There must be some psychological explanation of the modern tongues movement which is common to all these diverse and sometimes quite heretical groups.

      (iv) Even some Pentecostalists have bewailed the fact that those who claim the gift show a want of the true spirit of Christ. Thus F. F. Bosworth in a pamphlet "Do All Speak with Tongues?" wrote, "I have been convicted over the shallowness and instability of many of the converts who profess the baptism (of the Spirit) under the tongues evidence teaching. Every place I have gone to help Pentecostal Assemblies in revivals some have come to me and said, Brother Bosworth, pray for me, I have spoken in tongues, but I am not satisfied."

      (v) The strange thing even at Corinth was that in this church where there was

      apparently a great desire of the gift and where it appears so pronouncedly, Paul had more trouble than with any other church. In it there was division, there was immorality, which was more than serious, there was drunkenness at the Lord's Supper,

there was a serious charge that even Paul himself was not to be reckoned an apostle, plus a host of other departures from the truth. If the speaking with tongues were an indication or the only indication of the reception of the Holy Spirit it seems strange that these other things should have been found in this particular church.

      "Brethren let us not be children in mind; be babes in evil, but in thinking be mature." 1 Cor. 14:20.