promises, that, if he could see a man walking about with "a certificate from the surgeons of any hospital" declaring that he had been dead, then he too would believe. Here our scepticism comes in, and we do not believe that the Reviewer would believe; and for this plain reason-namely, that we hold mankind to be the same in all ages; and that when a man was raised from the dead, and who was proved to have been dead, not indeed from the testimony of surgeons, but from the testimony of men's noses-" Lord, he stinketh "-so far were the learned from believing the fact, that their rage against the person alleged to have raised him was doubled, and also against him who had been miraculously recovered: so that it was a serious matter to be cured in those days.

The Reviewer complains that we apply the term infidel to all who do not believe in miraculous cures. We have two reasons for doing this: first, because the only contrary to the term believer, is unbeliever, or infidel; and, considering the fact for which we are contending to be a truth of God, infidel is the proper term for one who does not believe in that truth: secondly, because we would warn many in the Evangelical world, who have been long playing fast-and-loose with God's word, siding with Apocryphists and Socinians in adulterating the word of God, through gross ignorance of the question of Inspiration; and who are now perverting the plain language of the Bible, as Mr. Platt has shewn in his Letter to Mr. Daniel Wilson, in the same way that the Neologists of Germany are doing; that all these evil courses are of a piece with blaspheming against the Holy Ghost; and that, notwithstanding their fancied soundness on the question of justification, through which they look down upon the High-church party, and coalesce with all descriptions of heretical Dissenters, they hold more infidel than orthodox principles amidst their bundle of theological dogmas.

With respect to the gift of speaking in unknown tongues, the Reviewer seems to admit, that, if Dr. Wilkins or Professor Lee would give a certificate under hand and seal that one of the persons so speaking spoke a living language, in that case he would be staggered, if not convinced. Here, again, he has had the weakness to rest his case upon a fact, so that our sceptic is a bad hand at his trade. We object, however, to this test, because we contend that it is not to the point. He assumes, and the passages from all the writers that he has adduced assume, that the tongues which the members of the primitive church spake were necessarily living languages. That they were so at Pentecost we admit; that they were so often is probable; but that they were so always, and invariably, we deny. Yet great part of the article in the Review is occupied in labouring to shew, that this power of miraculously speaking

unknown living languages was necessary for the purpose of preaching the Gospel to heathen nations; that it was so possessed for that purpose; that no modern missionaries, not even such as Xavier, have possessed it, and therefore it has been useless for them to try and convert the heathen, as the event has proved. Now, if Paul had to preach the Gospel in India, or Britain, and it was necessary for this purpose that he should be able to speak the then languages of those countries, it will not be denied that his being so endowed to utter a few phrases, but not to speak at all times, and whenever he pleased, would not have answered the purpose: he might, for the end of converting and instructing, and teaching to the natives all that the Bible contains, as well have not spoken at all, as only to have spoken a few intermitting sentences. If he had come to Caractacus, and spoken half a sentence in ancient British, and then proceeded in Hebrew, that royal personage would not have been much the wiser for such instruction. Moreover, he would have good ground to believe the Apostle a rank impostor, in speaking some words in pure British and suddenly appearing to require an interpreter for the remainder of his discourse: the king would have infallibly suspected some trick. Yet this is the dilemma to which the argument of the Reviewer leads; and such is usually the case of those who depart from the plain truth of Scripture in order to solve an apparent difficulty. The power, therefore, in order to be adapted for the supposed end, must have been permanent. All the best writers, however, are agreed that this gift was not permanent; and we will appeal to Dr. Middleton, because he is a great authority with the Reviewer in this matter, and to Jerome, because he is above all suspicion. "The gift of tongues," says the former, in his Essay on that subject, p. 89, "was not of a stable or permanent nature, but adapted to peculiar occasions, and then withdrawn again as soon as it had served the particular purpose for which it was bestowed. And hence we see the vanity of that notion, which is generally entertained about it, that from the first communication of it to the Apostles it adhered to them constantly as long as they lived, so as to enable them to preach the Gospel to every nation through which they travelled, in its own proper tongue a notion for which I cannot find the least ground in any part of Sacred Writ, but many solid reasons to evince the contrary." In a previous passage, p. 87, after having quoted many authors to shew that the real purport of the gift was not for the converting of heathen nations, but merely as a sign, he adds, "It is evident, then, that the chief, or rather sole, end of this gift of tongues, was to serve as a sensible sign that those to whom it was vouchsafed were under a Divine influence, and acting by a Divine commission."-Jerome declares, that, be

Cum

cause Paul could not speak Greek, he was obliged to have Titus as an interpreter; and that Peter was obliged to have Mark for the same reason, and for the same purpose. que Paulus haberet scientiam sanctarum Scripturarum....divinorum sensuum majestatem digno non poterat Græci eloquii explicare sermone. Habebat ergo Titum interpretem, sicut et beatus Petrus Marcum" (Heb. Quæst. xi.)-Salmanus, as quoted by Middleton, says, "We are not to infer that the Apostles, by receiving the gift of tongues, received a faculty of speaking all the several languages which are commonly used in the world. For it is not probable that the effect of it continued beyond that very day, or any longer than the cloven tongues appeared to sit upon their heads: when those vanished the miracle ceased, and left them destitute of every other language but that of their native country. For he thinks it certain that they were not acquainted with any other, except what they might afterwards imperfectly acquire by natural means."-The witnesses which the Reviewer himself has brought forward, testify that the gift of tongues was not given for the conversion of heathen nations; and also that the real purpose of the gift was that of a sign: the passages which he has quoted from Grotius, Tillotson, and Barrow, all agree that the power of working miracles would be bestowed now, upon those who had the same pious zeal for God's honour, and the same charitable earnestness for men's good," which distinguished the primitive Christians: which is precisely the point we have maintained against the Christian Observer, and which we have the witnesses brought forward by the Edinburgh Review to confirm. These writers unequivocally assert that miracles are to be expected in the present day as much as at the commencement of this dispensation.

66

Premising, again, that the language being living or dead, spoken on earth or not, has nothing to do with the matter, we do however give the Reviewer to wit, since he is so weak as to rest his case on a fact, that one of the persons in question did in our hearing clearly speak these words in Hebrew, which

יהוה דברת פוחי יהוה דברת :others can also bear witness to

"O Jehovah, thou hast spoken by my utterance*; O Jehovah, thou hast spoken." Two words more in the unknown tongue followed, but we could not catch them. We say unknown tongue, for the Hebrew was not pronounced after the Jewish or any modern manner, but according to what we believe to be the primitive pronunciation, and therefore difficult to follow. On another occasion these words were uttered in distinctly intelligible Hebrew: "the dwelling of the glorious

*The Hebrew word means more than utterance; it denotes a divine inspiration or afflatus; appearing to be compounded of mouth, and spirit.

Jah," followed by English words expressive of the glory of the Lord. On another occasion, the words "how dreadful,"

were uttered twice, and a denunciation of the terrible judgments about to come on the earth followed. On another occasion,

66

"na

עָרְמָה ,the glorious estate." On another * הָכוּן גֶאֲדָרָה

TT::

kedness," or "spoliation;" and the English which followed was in accordance with the utterance.

From all that we have heard and observed, we are persuaded that the English which follows any utterance in the unknown tongue, is its interpretation, not its translation. And we are further persuaded, that, on interpretation, it will be found to be simple exhortation, or warning. No new revelation may be expected; nothing to break up the oneness of faith in the church from the beginning; no addition to and no diminution of the faith once delivered to the saints. Christ brought life and immortality to light by the Gospel: it remains unchangeable till He himself shall come again, to conclude the present and begin the Millennial dispensation.

The Reviewer quotes three extracts from the Morning Watch, in which it was asserted, that hundreds and thousands of believers have received answers to their prayers; or, in other words, that events have taken place in consequence of the prayers of believers, which would not have taken place if those prayers had not been offered. Upon this the Reviewer observes, "A statement of this description cannot be made so much in utter ignorance, as in complete defiance, of every thing which pious, yet reasonable, men (Christian, and even heathen), have ever thought or written upon that most difficult subject, Prayer. It is false philosophically, if we consider the duty of prayer on principles of reason and natural religion. It must be false as a matter of Scriptural interpretation, if we find the whole evidence of history, and of our own experience, in contradiction with the meaning which these declarations affix to particular passages in the Bible. It must be false also morally, from the mischievousness which such language often has produced, and must produce again, by misleading honest, but dreaming and fuming spirits." -The denial of our position by the Reviewer must be made in utter defiance of the testimony of almost the whole circle of religious biography. There is not a point of experience on which spiritually-minded Christians are more agreed, than that of the positive interference of God on their behalf in answer to their prayers; and this testimony the Reviewer calls upon us to set aside, in deference to the opinions of "reasonable Christian, and even heathen men," who have had no such experience, and whose testimony upon what has taken place with others would not be received by any one who was capable of discerning the

a

validity of any evidence adduced. Upon the principles of mere reason and natural religion, it is philosophically false to pray (that is, to ask) for that which we do not expect to be granted; the grounds for that expectation, and the lawfulness of the subject-matter prayed for, being totally different questions: and it is likewise contrary to natural reason to ask for that which we expect will take place equally whether we ask or not. It is, indeed, very obvious that the Reviewer has no idea of any thing being granted solely in consequence of prayer, and therefore it is not to be wondered at that he finds it ""most difficult subject." We are inclined to go much further, and say, that with his view it is a most absurd one, inasmuch as it seems to be of no use whatever. The Reviewer's denial is false as a matter of Scriptural interpretation; because, without insisting upon the negative evidence, that no limitation is ever placed upon the objects to be prayed for (we need hardly except the purposes of lust, James iv. 3), nor the extent of the demand, we have the positive example of Elias offered to our imitation, upon the express ground of his being exactly such a man as ourselves, who prayed for rain, and for dearth, and obtained both in answer to those prayers. Yet, with this passage, as well as with the whole eleventh chapter of the Hebrews, standing unrepealed, the Reviewer has the effrontery to assert, that "any general proposition, which assigns to human prayers an acknowledged and visible controul over the laws of nature, appears to be encompassed with irreconcileable objections." The denial is also false morally, inasmuch as, for one instance of abuse of this most precious truth, one hundred instances might be brought forward of the most beneficial effects having flowed from it.

From the passage which follows in the Review, it appears that the writer entirely confounds an abstracted meditation on the being, omniscience, and beneficence of God, with prayer in the strict sense of the term—that is, asking in order to receive;

so that the Reviewer is utterly ignorant of that about which he affects to write philosophically, scripturally, and morally. He has not yet drawn the first breath of the Christian life: his knowledge of Christianity is like that of any other moral science, a mere exercise of the intellect; and his judgment on prayer a speculation, which has no influence on his spiritual, though it may have some on his moral, being.

The truth with respect to prayer is the direct opposite of that which the Reviewer bas stated, and if he had been even superficially read in the Bible he could not have ventured upon his assertion. There is not an instance of an extraordinary thing being done but we are sure to be instructed that it occurred in consequence of the prayer of some individual. "An acknowledged and visible controul over the laws of nature" took place