For the gift, in this case, had a twofold respect, And must needs be in both, to produce its effect; To account for the fact, which the comments forgot, [not. Why the pious could hear what the mockers could

It is no where affirm'd, that th' apostles acquir'd Any tongue but their own, tho' divinely inspir'd: St. Peter, St. John are soon mention'd again, And describ'd as unlearned, and ignorant men: -But enough-or too much-for the shortness of time [rhyme; Gives a hint to set bounds to the extension of Our friend will acknowledge, tho' hasty the letter, This question's solution-or give us a better.

MANY thanks have been order'd, this day, to attend

The receipt of your letter, dear vicar, and friend; Which, at first, being left to your leisure to frame, Was sure to be welcome, whenever it came:

The point, which the Muse had a mind to propose In her free spoken rhymes, you have handled in prose;

All fair on both sides, because say it, or sing,
Truth alone, in the case, is the principal thing.

But I cannot but marvel, that much better sight
Than my own, should not see so meridian a light,
As that of the speaking, at Pentecost time,
By the Spirit of God, to the good of each clime,
In one single tongue, by that Spirit inspir'd,
Whose assistance did all, that could then be re-
quir'd;
[known,
Whose power, it is certain, could make itself
By a number of tongues, or by one tongue alone.

So needless the many, so simple the one, That I wonder what judgment can hesitate on, Or a learned inquiry, that finds, if it seek, That the tongue might be one, in construction of

Greek:

Which as comma takes place (as old Gregory said,
Nazianzen I think) either way may be read;
They speak in our tongues-or, as crystalline clear,
The fact is, to my understanding-we hear.

I sent you some reasons, from Baguley, why The tongue was but one, which you choose to pass by; [way, And to comment St. Luke in a many-tongu'd That darkens the light, which I took to be day:

When you ask "Pray, what reason can else be assign'd

[wind?" For tongues?" I ask you" Pray, what reason for Not to shun a fair question; but tongue being [aim:

flame

May have answer'd, already, your questioning I think that an air, that a flame from above, Both is, and betokens, the life, and the love, Which if Christians were blest with, one language would do; [be two. And their whole body fill'd with, there could not

But let them be symbols, the tongues, if you will, Of the grace which the Spirit was pleas'd to instil; His gift is as good, if, in speaking their own, Men made the same truth, in all languages, known: This effect, you will grant, the good gift to intend; Now, supposing two ways of attaining one end, Is that explication less likely, or just, Which takes the more simple, more plainly august?

Your account is quite new, in one thing that I meet,

That is "That the speakers went into the [street;

Or went out of the house to the multitude met?”—
For of this going out I have never read yet;
Or, if ever I did, have forgotten the book, [Luke,
And can find nothing said in th' account of St.

"The cloven tongues like fire, which sat upon each of the persons mentioned (Acts i. 15.), were a plain symbolical notice, that by the Holy Ghost, with which they were then baptized, they should be endowed, for the propagation of the gospel in all nations, with divers languages. If this is not the case, pray what reason can be assigned why there should be an appearance of fiery tongues divided, and sitting upon each of the apostles and disciples?"---Mr. Lancaster's Letter to Dr. Byrom.

2 The apostles and disciples, upon the rumour of what had happened being spread abroad by those of the house in which they were assembled, went out to the multitude, whom such a report had brought together; and then, in order, first one of them in one language, and then another of them in another, and so on, till all the languages of the nations specified were used, addressed the multitude; who hearing illiterate Galileans speaking after such a manner, to cach different class amongst them, in their own proper language, in which they were born, were amazed and confounded."- Mr. L.'s Letter.

But what should imply both profane, and devout Coming into the house; and not them to go out.

May one ask what authority, then, you have got
For the scene, and succession, which here you allot
To the speaking disciples, in number fifteen,
By an order well fancied, but, not to be seen
In the Acts, or elsewhere, the New Testament
through,

Nor what I shall just give a hint of to you-
Will you find an apostle, not even a Paul,
In a tongue, not his own, ever preaching at all.
I agree that "the mockers, who mock'd with
the throng,

Knew only their vulgar, Jerusalem tongue 3" —
But when you say, farther, what cannot but strike,
"That the nations, too, all understood it alike"-
Your order'd confusion of speaking a store
To a crowd, out of doors-is more puzzling, and
[light,
In the midst of such darkness, if you can sce
You need not complain of the want of eye-sight 4.

more!

Thus, my dear old acquaintance, I run thro' your And defend my conviction, as well as I can, [plan, As to what a Bengelius, or Wesley 5, may raise From twelve hundred and sixty prophetical days; As the book is not here, if it otherwise could, My skill in the German can do you no good; But the part, that you mention, my author foretells Will be put in our tongue, by a doctor at Wells.

So writes younger Wesley, who call'd here, and din'd,

And to him I subscrib'd for it; tho' in my mind,
What prophets have written, it's learning in vain,
Without some prophetical gift, to explain;
Nay, in points that are clear, beyond any fair doubt,
It is fifteen to one-that the learned are out.
This ratio, I find, in one instance is true;
Excuse the presumption-dear vicar, adieu.
November 30, 1756.

EPISTLE III.

I HOPE that the vicar will pardon the haste With which an occasion, once more, is embrac'd Of getting some knowledge, in points that I seek, From one so well vers'd both in Hebrew and Greek;

3 "The mockers appear to be such as understood the Jewish language. St. Peter's speech (beginning Acts ii. 14.) is addressed to all the multitude; and as being so, is spoke in the Jewish language, which all of them, tho' of different nations, understood."Mr. L.'s Letter.

4"A much greater complaint than this I have to make, and that is want of eye-sight-for what appears to you as clear as the Sun, does not appear to me clear at all."- -Mr. L.'s Letter.

5 "The rev. Mr. John Wesley in his Explanation of the New Testament, this year published, says that the 1260 prophetical days in the Revelations are not, as some have supposed 1260, but 777 common years; and that Bengelius in his German Introduction has shown this at large. You understand the German language. and therefore, if Bengelius be in your library, I desire in a few lines you will let me know how he makes this out." Mr. L.'s Letter.

In a question of fact, where a friendly pursuit
Has the truth for its object, and not the dispute:
Which, tho' haste should encroach upon metrical
leisure,

Will be sure, if it rise, to be kept within measure.

It would save much voluminous labour, some

times,

If disputes were ty'd down to dispassionate rhymes,
As well as to reasons-but, not to digress-
Having weigh'd his responses both larger, and less;
I resume the same subject, same freedom of pen,
To entreat for some small satisfaction again,
In relation to points, which, appearing absurd,
Have extorted poetical favour the third.

Three things are laid down in prose favour the last, [them past; And regard to his thoughts would have none of To his first it was paid, to his future shall be; But let veritas magis amica be free; First," manage the comma," says he, "how you will, [it still," Speak, or hear the same sense will result from Yes; the sense of the context-λYTWV AUTWYWhile they speak in their tongue, we all hear in

our own.

"The Hebrew word, or tongue," says he next,

"Whene'er it is us'd, by itself, in a text,
Never signifies fire, never signifies flame"-
And believing it true, I say also the same;
But in joint wx T, tongue of fire, or a blaze,
Foreign languages claim no symbolical phrase;
Tho' tongue may occasion mistake to befall,
It has here no relation to language at all.

Short issue, he thinks, the dispute will admit, And desires me to answer this query, to-wit, "Were the tongues, the new tongues, which a [play'd,

promise was made

That disciples should speak, as St. Mark has dis-
New languages? (such as have never been got
By learning, before-hand, to speak them) or not?"
To which, for the present, till somebody show
That it must have this meaning, my auswer is—
No.

Now this, if he can, I could wish he would do, And prove the construction-new languages-true In the sense that he means; for, when all understood

One person who spake, it was really as good
As if numbers had spoken, or promised grace
Were interpreted languages here in this place;
The effect was the same, and may answer the
pith

Of all that his second has favour'd me with:

"You send me to Hebrew and Greek, and the result of my inquiry is, however the comma be managed in the verse you mean, (Acts ii. 11.) the sense is the same; and that, when used by itself, never signifies fire or flame. And therefore, to bring the dispute to a short issue, I desire your answer to the following query.

"Were the new tongues, which our Saviour (St. Mark xvi. 17.) promised his disciples should speak with, new languages, i. e. such as they had never learned-or not?"- Mr. L.'s Letter,

Still difficult then, if we carefully sift, Is the vulgar account of the Pentecost gift; Which the learned advance, and establish thereon What the vicar has built his ideas upon, With additions thereto, which, as far as I see, Not one of the learned has added, but he; For example-if some, very few 1 presume, Have describ'd the disciples as quitting the room.

But let them be many-what reason, what trace, Do we find of their leaving the sanctify'd place? Of a wind from above did they fear at the shake? And the house, thro, a doubt of its falling, forsake? Or did they go forth to the gathering quire, [fire? Lest the many bright flames should have set it on If a thought could have enter'd of going away, What circumstance was not strong motive to stay?

Then again-that the foreigners, all of them, The language then us'd at Jerusalem too- [knew For the miracle's sake one would here have demurr'd,

Which is render'd so needless, improper, absurd, That Jerusalem mockers would really have had A pretence, to allege-that the pious were mad; For of speaking strange tongues what accountable aim, [same? Or of hearing fifteen-when they all knew the Add to this the disciples, the hundred and twenty, [like plenty; Spake, amongst one another, strange tongues, in "One by one," says the vicar, who very well saw What confusion would rise without some such a law, [gan As the text has no bint of; which says-they beTo speak by the Spirit-not-man after man: Could time have suffic'd for so doing, yet why Speak the tongues of such men-as were none of them by?

The vicar saw too, that this could not attract Any multitude thither supposing it factAnd so he conceiv'd that a rumour was spread By the men of the house, of whom nothing is said. Now when men of his learning are forc'd to find Such unchronicl'd salvos to dissipate doubt, [out One is apt to infer a well grounded suspense; And the more to look out for more natural sense.

I wish my old friend would consider the case, And how ill it consists with effusion of grace To speak Parthian, and Median, and so of the rest, To none but themselves being present address'd. Unless he can grant, on revolving the point, That indeed there is something not rightly in joint,

Or solve one's objections, or show one the way How to clear up the matter-what can a man say?

EPISTLE IV.

I HAVE with attention, dear vicar, repass'd Your obliging reply to the lines in my last; Am sorry 'tis final; yet cannot but say [way, That your patience to hear me has gone a great And extinguish'd all right to require any more, If I put you to prove two and two to make four1;

"Your answer to the query-Were the tongues which our Saviour (St. Mark 16. 17.) promised his

Very difficult task, as one cannot deny, [it by. When there's nothing more plain to demonstrate

But if" two and two, four,”—I am thinking

has claim

To self-evident truth, has this comment the same? "The new tongues, which are mention'd in pro

mising page

Are the old ones, subsisting for many an age:”— Is it really as plain, as that four is twice two, That in no other sense they could ever be new, But as new to the speaker, John, Peter, or Paul; While the tongues in themselves had no newness at all?

Were this a true thesis, and right to maintain, Yet-two halves are one whole-is however more plain; [pear Till the proof, which is wanted, shall make it apHow the two propositions are equally clear: This proof may be had froin the chapter, you say, Which relates what was done on the Pentecost day

The best of all proofs-but, to do the fair thing, Give me leave to examine what reasons you bring.

"That yawa is languages oft, if you seek In the Septuagint, or the New Testament Greek, Acknowledge you must."-Yes; 'tis really the

In our languages, or in our dialect';"-Yes, Two and two making four is not plainer than this.

But how it flows hence, that in cited St. Mark It has no other meaning, I'm quite in the dark: Few words of a language are always confin'd To a meaning precisely of just the same kind: For the roots of the Hebrew, in Hutchinson's school,

I remember they had such a kind of a rule; But the reach of its proof has been out of my pow'r, hour. Tho' I've talk'd with their master full many an

1 believe, that by grace, which the Spirit instill'd, [actly fulfill'd "They shall speak with new tongues" was exIn our Saviour's disciples; that, grace being got, They did so speak in toagues, as before they could

not.

they then knew not? is, No. This is doing things disciples they should speak with, such languages as to the purpose-a bold Alexandrine stroke and I am put upon the difficult task of showing, that two and two make four."- -Mr. L's Letter.

"You cannot but own that the word yw in several places of the Old Testament, according to the seventy, and in many places of the New Testament, signifies languages. And that it does so in the above cited (St. Mark 16. 17.) may be fully proved from the very chapter (Acts 2) in which, what was done on the day of pentecost is related. In v. 11. the signification of Tait Яuitipais ydwσoas-is evidently, in our languages, the same as is otherwise expressed in v. 6. byTidig diadɛxtw, and in v. 8. by ry diadexow juwi.” Mr. L's. Letter.