The vulgar objection, which commenting strain
Has made to a thing so exceedingly plain,
Is the miracle then would not be in the speaker,
It would be in the hearers-now what can be
weaker?

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,

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-
tend

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:

would do;

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 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
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
more!
[light,
In the midst of such darkness, if you can see
You need not complain of the want of eye-sight 4.

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;

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-λTWY AUTWI
While they speak in their tongue, we all hear in

our own.

"The Hebrew word T, 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 x, 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
promise was made
[play'd,
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 answer 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

3 "The mockers appear to be such as understood
the Jewish language. St. Peter's speech (begin-
ning Acts ii. 14.) is addressed to all the multitude; One person who spake, it was really as good
and as being so, is spoke in the Jewish language, As if numbers had spoken, or promised grace
which all of them, tho' of different nations, under-Were interpreted languages here in this place;
stood."Mr. L.'s Letter.
The effect was the same, and may answer the
pith

4"A much greater complaint than this I have to
make, and that is want of eye-sight-for what Of all that his second has favour'd me with.
appears to you as clear as the Sun, does not ap-
pear 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 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.

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,
Had been yes, in my last (and it would have been
If the facts had requir'd it) what could it have
shown,

Tho' the text had this meaning, if not this alone?
For how do all languages, spoken in one,
Disagree with the promise insisted upon?
I allow it fulfill'd; let the vicar allow
The fulfilling, itself, to determine the how.

God's wonderful works, when disciples display'd,
And spake by the Spirit's omnipotent aid,
Ev'ry one understood, in a language his own,
Loquentibus illis
at [good sense,
While they spake at the first; for good Greek, and
Forbid us to form an unwritten pretence
For dividing of tongues; when the Spirit's descent
Gave at once both to speak, and to know what

was meant.

But thus to interpret3; it seems you forbid,
By placing the stop as old Gregory did;
Who thought as you think; tho' you bring, I
At least a more plausible reason than he; [agree,
From a passage that suits with your meaning alone,
Acts the 10th-for they heard-xx yap auтwY
Ar-them speaking (&) yawosas-in tongues,
Where, indeed, to that Greek that construction
belongs.

By transposing two words the grammatical lot
Shows when they are absolute; when they are not;
But be it-" them speaking" as you would collect,
"In our languages"-still, it will never affect

A reply to your hints on the sense that I choose?
In the mean time I thank you for favours in hand;
And speaking or silent-am

Yours to command.

AN EPISTLE TO J. BL-K-N. ES2.
OCCASIONED BY A DISPUTE CONCERNING THE
FOOD OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST.

THE point, Mr. El-k-n, disputed upon, [John,
Whether insects or herbs were the food of St.
Is a singular proof how a learned pretence
Can prevail with some folks over natural sense,
So consistent with herbs, as you know was allow'd;
But the dust that is rais'd by a critical crowd
Has so blinded their eyes, that plain simple truth
Is obscur'd by a posse of classics forsooth!

Diodorus and Strabo, Solinus and Ælian,

And authorities down from the Aristotelian,
Have mention'd whole clans that were wont to
subsist,

In the East, upon locusts as big as your fist:
Ergo, so did the Baptist-now were it all true
That reporters affirm, but not one of them knew;
What follows, but hearsay how savages eat?
And how locusts sometimes are necessity's meat?
If, amongst their old tales, they had chanc'd to
determine

[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
brought,

Cross examined, will certainly favour this thought;
For Cornelius converted, and company too,
Without intervention of languages new,
How can any one think, but from prejudice bred.
Tho' honest, from what he has often heard said,
That then they were all on a sudden inspir'd
To speak with strange tongues, when no reason
requir'd?

But now being got to the end of a tether,
Prescrib'd to your trouble-I leave to you, whether
Tongues, any where else, in the sense you assert,
Were spoken to purpose, that is to convert?

"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
And their native descriptions are constantly found
To relate in some shape to the fruits of the
ground;

If exception occurs, one may venture to say,
That the locust conceit never came in their way;
Or let its defender declare if he knows
Any one single instance in verse or in prose.

But the word which the text has made use of
'tis said,

Means the animal locust, wherever 't is read,
Of a species which Jews were permitted to eat;
There is therefore no need of a plantal conceit,
Of tops, summits, or buds, pods, or berries of
trees,

For to this, the sole proof is, no classic agrees;
And the Latin locustæ came, only from want
Of attention, to signify tops of a plant,

It would take up a volume to clear the mistakes,
Which, in this single case, classic prejudice makes,
Thro' attachment to writers, who pass a relation,
Which others had sign'd without examination;
As the authors have done, who have read and
have writ,

That locusts are food, which the law did permit;