Sure, of all treach'rous guides, the greatest cheat Is that of wild, unchristian self-conceit: Possess'd by this domestic, inbred pride, The wise freethinkers scorn the name of guide: Their own sufficiency, with eyes their own, Clearly beheld, they trust to that alone. Resolv'd no other maxims to imbibe, 970 Than what their reason, and their sense prescribe; 981 That of conversion from his own dark mind To what strange heights a self-taught sophist flies. May that, which teaches rightly to divide FOUR EPISTLES 990 1000 TO THE REV. MR. I, LATE VICAR OF BOWDEN, UPON THE MIRACLE AT THE FEAST OF PENTECOST. EPISTLE I. OUR folks, gone a visiting, reverend sir, The Scripture was writ, and is oft understood, Which may yet be of use, in it's own proper field; If it be but to mend its own faults in a brother; And correct, in one man, the mistakes of another; Or to combat our scruples, and fix a true thought, When the head shall confirm what the heart has been taught. One thing, I remember, that fell in our way, Was the speaking in tongues, on the Pentecost day; [light, Which our friend, the divine, had conceiv'd in a That, however so thought, does not seem to be right: All the comments, 't is true, that one ever has met, It is not my thought; for I first was appris'd If the honest old vicar, our visited friend, To St. Luke's own account will be pleas'd to attend, I cannot but think, that the current conceit For the names to that number, if rightly I count rest Must be too intermix'd to be singly addrest. "Are not these"-said the men (the devout) of each land, [stand?-" "Galileans, that speak? whom we all underAs much as to say-by what wonderful pow'rs Does the tongue Galilean become, to us, ours? While the good were so justly astonish'd, the bad, Whose hearts were unopen'd, cry'd out, they are Unaccountable charge, if we do not recall [mad: That, in one single tongue, the apostles speak all. For separate speakers, and tongues, it is clear, Good and bad, without madness, might equally hear; And surprise, in the bad, would be equally keen," How illiterate men could speak all the fifteen: But the miracle, wrought in the simplest of ways, In both good and bad, well accounts for amaze; One was sensibly touch'd with a gift so divine, One stupidly rais'd the reproach of new wine, When St. Peter stood up, and, to all the whole throng, Show'd the truth, in a sermon so good, and so long, mock-- And spake, by St. Peter, to all his whole flock. The vulgar objection, which commenting strain For the gift, in this case, had a twofold respect, It is no where affirm'd, that th' apostles acquir'd makes be assign'd flame [wind?" For tongues?" I ask you" Pray, what reason for So I shall not, here, touch upon Hebrew, and Not to shun a fair question; but tongue being Where a rabbi, so able, if minded to seek, [Greek, [aim: May observe other points, in which learning, that May have answer'd, already, your questioning [takes: I think that an air, that a flame from above, Many things clear enough, has occasion'd mis- Both is, and betokens, the life, and the love, Whether this be one instance, I only desire, Which if Christians were blest with, one language That a suitable leisure may prompt to inquire; [be two. For, to me, it appears, that the miracle done And their whole body fill'd with, there could not Was all by one language-as clear as the Sun. Baguley, August 12, 1756. EPISTLE II. MANY thanks have been order'd, this day, to at- The receipt of your letter, dear vicar, and friend; The point, which the Muse had a mind to propose All fair on both sides, because say it, or sing, But I cannot but marvel, that much better sight By the Spirit of God, to the good of each clime, So needless the many, so simple the one, Greek: Which as comma takes place (as old Gregory said, I sent you some reasons, from Baguley, why would do; But let them be symbols, the tongues, if you will, Your account is quite new, in one thing that I That is "That the speakers went into the Or went out of the house to the multitude met?"- "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 the case, pray what reason can be assigned why all nations, with divers languages. If this is not 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 Calileaus speaking after such a manner, to each 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 May one ask what authority, then, you have got Nor-what I shall just give a hint of to you- I agree that "the mockers, who mock'd with Knew only their vulgar, Jerusalem tongue 3" Thus, my dear old acquaintance, I run thro' your So writes younger Wesley, who call'd here, and And to him I subscrib'd for it; tho' in my mind, 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; If disputes were ty'd down to dispassionate rhymes, Three things are laid down in prose favour our own. "The Hebrew word T, or tongue," says he "Whene'er it is us'd, by itself, in a text, Short issue, he thinks, the dispute will admit, 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 3 "The mockers appear to be such as understood 4"A much greater complaint than this I have to 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 under stand 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, 1 "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 T, 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 I 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 hint 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 fact→→→ And 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? 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 promising 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 from 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 yλwoner is languages oft, if you seek In the Septuagint, or the New Testament Greek, Acknowledge you must."-Yes; 'tis really the case ταις ἡμετέραις γλωσσαις in this very place Must mean, in our languages; sense, you must Is the same as in- τη διαλέκτω ήμων [own, In our languages, or in our dialect';”—Yes, But how it flows hence, that in cited St. Mark 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 I 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 tongues, 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 am put upon the difficult task of showing, that two and two make four."Mr. L's Letter. and I 26 You cannot but own that the word yasa 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 TOIS Tepals yλwσcals—is evidently, in our languages, the same as is otherwise expressed in v. 6. by— de diehɛxtw, and in v. 8, by ry diedexTMw qucan.” Mr. L's. Letter. With respect to good strangers, partaking of | Or whether your patience can bear to excuse grace; For-" speak with new tongues"-with new languages place, And the promise fulfill'd we may very well call, By one spirit-form'd tongue, which instructed them all. If the bold Alexandrian stroke of a no [so, Tho' the text had this meaning, if not this alone? God's wonderful works, when disciples display'd, was meant. But thus to interpret3; it seems you forbid, By transposing two words the grammatical lot A reply to your hints on the sense that I choose? Yours to command. AN EPISTLE TO J. BL-K-N. ES2. THE point, Mr. El-k-n, disputed upon, [John, Diodorus and Strabo, Solinus and Ælian, And authorities down from the Aristotelian, In the East, upon locusts as big as your fist: [vermin, That the Jews were accustom'd to feed on these It would have been something; or did they produce Any one single hermit that stor❜d them for use, Having pick'd 'em, and dri'd 'em, and smok'd in the sun, (For this before eating they tell us was done;) The example were patter than any they bring, The force of those reasons, from which 'tis in-To support such an awkward improbable thing. ferr'd, [heard; That at once they were spoken, at once they were Nor of those, which deny that tongues, quatenus Mean always precisely what languages do. [new, That evidence, vicar, which here you have Cross examined, will certainly favour this thought; But now being got to the end of a tether, "Let me observe that the words-asYTWV (v. 11.) are not as you would have them put absolutely, but are governed of axμ; as ARANYTWY AUTWY (v. 6.) are of no and as auTWV λαλον τον γλώσσαις are of the same verb (Acts 10. v. 46.)" Mr. L's Letter. See the last reference, where the vicar points to Acts 10. v. 46. Hermitical food the poetical tribe of classics have happen'd sometimes to describe If exception occurs, one may venture to say, But the word which the text has made use of Means the animal locust, wherever 't is read, For to this, the sole proof is, no classic agrees; It would take up a volume to clear the mistakes, That locusts are food, which the law did permit; |